Sunday, August 10, 2014

No, your mere company isn't enough

Yesterday, Eliza expressed some distinct surprise at the idea that men might not be interested in her company outside of sex. I suspect this is a not uncommon view among women, who fail to understand how very little interest the average man has in the company of women outside of the potential sexual aspects of the interaction.

Let me see if I can put it in terms women might understand. Do you know how little interest boys have in girls before they hit puberty? That is about how much non-sexual interest most men have in women. Not because women have cooties, not because men are misogynistic, but because men have absolutely no interest in the subjects that fascinate most women and tend to find the female forms of conversation circuitous and tedious.

Consider how much interest you would have in listening to me, or any man, discussing a 500-page rulebook that delves into great detail concerning the armor and light machine gun armaments of WWII-era Polish tanks. Or analyzing the ideal killing zones in the Call of Duty airport map. Or defending the case that Fran Tarkenton, and not Ken Stabler, was the best quarterback in the league in 1976.

(Don't pretend any of these things actually interest you. It may surprise you, but men see through your attempts to stake out a claim to be "gamer girl" or a "real NFL fan" or a "serious muscle car buff", most simply pretend otherwise out of either an acknowledgement for the gesture you're making or sexual interest. As it is said by a certain pop band, "boys will laugh at girls when they're not funny". Guess why?)

For most men, spending time in the company of women means sitting there in silence, with a tight, polite smile on your face, occasionally exchanging "kill me now" glances with the other men in the vicinity. Don't take my word for it, test it out for yourself. The next time you're in mixed company, try to count the rough amount of time that the women spend talking versus the amount that the men talk. In most cases, the ratio is 80-20, and not infrequently, higher.

This isn't always the case, of course, I am familiar with a few exceptions myself, but it is the general rule I have observed over the course of three decades. For some reason, it has been deemed the social norm for women to dominate the mixed discourse with the topics of interest to them, but rude for men to speak about their interests in mixed company. And yet, observe a group of men and you will see that they are perfectly capable of engaging in lively, dynamic conversations... just not about subjects of zero interest to them.

It's not a question of intellect or education either. In my experience, highly educated women are the worst, as they tend to have less interest in discussing any specific issue per se than proving to everyone that they are at least familiar with even the most esoteric subjects. If you find yourself in conversation with a highly educated woman, entertain yourself by making up something ridiculous, like the Nemean Dialogues of Socrates, the Decepticon of Ovid, or Lord Byron's epic poem, The Walrus and the Butterfly. More often than not, a highly educated woman will not only claim to be familiar with these nonexistent works, but will actually claim to have read them in college for one class or another.

(NB: Some men will do it too, usually Alphas or Gammas. The hardest part will be keeping a straight face, especially if you ask them to clarify a point or two for you that you've found difficult to understand. What did Byron really signify by the Walrus? I mean, the reference to England's sea power is obvious, but since the Butterfly represents the female spirit, what is the deeper meaning?)

Anyhow, the point is that outside of sex, women aren't very interested in men and their interests and men have even less interest in women and theirs. It is a simple and straightforward observation, there is nothing wrong with this perfectly normal state of affairs, and the better you understand it, the more easily you will get along with the opposite sex.

119 comments:

d7f250b8-f236-11e3-8c69-eb77e48f84a1 said...

I can't be the only man that hates when women are really into sports. My wife'll watch a match with me and likes my favorite team, but I'd be slightly turned off if she started trying to talk tactics or was sporting a jersey one day. I label these sorts of women has having some sort of calibration problem, possibly bipolar.

But VD, traps like Byron's Walrus and Butterfly really isn't a good example. A woman can claim she was merely confused because Byron wrote near the same time as Carroll, and well she forgot the exact title of his poem, why are you such a nit-picker? Better an example so stupid it boggles the mind. I've done books by any random sounding name and title. The Journey Into Duodenum by Hugh Jass, classic travel narrative about people leaving their homeland.

Vox said...

A woman can claim she was merely confused because Byron wrote near the same time as Carroll, and well she forgot the exact title of his poem, why are you such a nit-picker?

She can't do anything of the kind because I never correct anyone about such things. You don't seem to understand that the purpose is not to play "gotcha", but rather to confirm my suspicions concerning the individual's character.

The Journey Into Duodenum by Hugh Jass

That will not work if you are in the IQ circles in which I travel. Anyone would immediately recognize you're talking nonsense. That's worthy of Beavis and Butthead. "Hugh Jass, heh heh heh."

Vogon X said...

My friends and acquaintances are about 50-50 male/female, so this post seems too absolutist, but maybe I'm a special snowflake. I had some gamma tendencies when I was younger which I think I've mostly excised from my personality, but it's possible that having female friends is an aspect of gammahood that remains.

I don't discuss history, philosophy, science, tech etc as deeply with women as with men, but there are plenty of unisex subjects such as film, music, travel and work.

Some of the top guys in the PUA community talk about having female friends, so I'm not too worried about this inhibiting my learning of game. Should I be?

Bard said...

Not as long as you plan to have sex with them.

GF Dad said...

I guess because I have little to discuss with the typical male sports fan, I find women who are rabid sports fan equally inane with nothing else of meaning to offer. I think most women sports fan are that way mainly for social reasons - tailgating and tribal identity.
However, Jesus' interaction with Samaritan woman at the well shows us the importance of engaging with women we have little in common with for purposes other than sex.

Vogon X said...

I don't, as I'm aiming higher than that. While I wouldn't kick them out of bed, I'm not strongly attracted to them. I don't make friends with women who I'm too attracted to, as that's a recipe for all the problems that have just been discussed. But I may spend time with them for reasons not directly related to bedding them - opportunities to practise game, social proof, access to their hot friends, etc.

Crusader Corim said...

I would say that Alphas also love having a lot of female friends and dominating the conversation while they are around. The "proof in the pudding" that you've got an Alpha is when he has a pack of women over and has them all asking for his opinion on football, WoW, or some other guy interest.

Iowahine said...

Eliza -

If you're still reading - there is a vital difference between understanding and accepting. Sometimes - oftentimes - when someone says they "just want to understand," that person is really looking for a "hook" into which they can sink his/her teeth and shake sense into the others they are "trying to understand." If a gamma male, they are looking for a way to get the goodies without being challenged or threatened. In essence, they are looking for an opening to impose their will upon - or "enlighten" - the other/s.

Start with trying to accept what you are reading here, rather than trying to understand.

MidKnight said...

Vogon - even to the extent of movies.... Once you start delving into the themes you saw - or " why did they leave this scene in - it doesn't fit in the story line " or any substantial criticism - "another cliched'd bad guy" etc. , the conversation often shuts down.

It's like wanting to be able to say you saw the movie and enjoyed it, but not being allowed to acknowledge anything that may make it other than 100% "great"


Houston said...

"For some reason, it has been deemed the social norm for women to dominate the mixed discourse with the topics of interest to them, but rude for men to speak about their interests in mixed company."

It seems to me the most likely reason is the small percentage of alphas in the male population. Lower ranking men nearly always permit women to police the conversation.

GF Dad said...

Houston, when women try to police the conversation, I think in some cases it's a form of fitness test - are you confident enough in what you're talking about in spite of the protestations of the yapping little girl? It's also a good way for them to filter clueless manchildren from someone who is speaking with authority.

Corvinus . said...

It seems to me the most likely reason is the small percentage of alphas in the male population. Lower ranking men nearly always permit women to police the conversation.

It may also depend upon if a man really likes to talk, or prefers to remain silent. I'm an introvert, so I won't want to dominate the conversation in any case, unless maybe I've had a couple of beers, and even then, it's rare.

Houston said...

"Houston, when women try to police the conversation, I think in some cases it's a form of fitness test - are you confident enough in what you're talking about in spite of the protestations of the yapping little girl? It's also a good way for them to filter clueless manchildren from someone who is speaking with authority."

That happens nearly every week in the house church we attend. Keeps us menfolk sharp. We're a game-aware fellowship.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

I strictly define friend as somebody that I would confide in, that I have no interest in sleeping with and am not related to by blood. To which, I have no female friends. This isn't to say I am not polite and engaging to women, it just means I am not going to go out with one, grab a beer, and talk about something real.

This definition actually served to be amazingly useful in terms of demonstrating my high status to my wife, because she for whatever reason decided to make it known to a bunch of women in one of our circles that I didn't consider any of them or any women friends. The result, at the next gathering I got publicly confronted by some of them, the goal of which was to get themselves reclassified as my friend.

insanitybytes22 said...

I don't want to risk your wrath again Vox, nor am I necessarily disagreeing with what you've said, but I assure you there are many men who want much more from women then sex. Intimacy, friendship, companionship, conversation, a different perspective on the world. Come on Vox, if nothing else, there is the amusement factor.

You are correct, many conversations are dominated by women and trapped in that situation, death starts to feel appealing. Many women in the world of women feel the same way about that inane and shallow superficiality of female dominated conversations.

"....the point is that outside of sex, women aren't very interested in men..."

Au contraire, Vox. Many of us find you absolutely fascinating. How you perceive the world, what you think about, why you sometimes think about nothing at all. It's why many of us probe the manosphere. In real life, men tend to be protective, respectful of our feelings, to tell us what we want to hear. It's much more difficult to get to know the nature of men IRL, because you tend to hide yourselves for our sake.

Kid Jupiter said...

"...but I assure you there are many men who want much more from women then sex. Intimacy, friendship, companionship, conversation, a different perspective on the world."

She assures us. It's now true.

Corvinus . said...

Come on Vox, if nothing else, there is the amusement factor.

You sure got that right.

Iowahine said...

I would venture if women are really interested in anything other than sex from men, it is children, provision, and protection, which we attempt to get in trade for sex. We only have the luxury of finding men, in general, "absolutely fascinating" when another man is already providing and protecting us. Our "absolute fascination" with other men is hypergamy.

Trust said...

If you think it is rough getting attention from a man only to find he primarily wants sex from you, try being a man and marrying a woman only to find her proclamations of undying love and devotion were primarily to extract resources from you.

Women get so hung up on their real or perceive problems that they fail see notice they screw over men in similar, and often worse, ways.

Puzzle Privateer said...

"...but I assure you there are many men who want much more from women then sex. Intimacy, friendship, companionship, conversation, a different perspective on the world."

Since most women can't provide those things... what's the point?

Ghost said...

Vogon,
The fact that you wouldn't kick them out of bed, I think, is vox's point. You may not be planning to have sex with them, but do you have female friends you would 100% deny the D? Of course not, because that would be dumb. What you may not realize is that the friendship you feel for these girls would disappear in a heartbeat if she straight up said, "you and me? Never gonna happen."

Rek. said...

Vox, do you have any real or virtual alpha/sigma examples that I could look at (videos, tv shows, movies)? Alpha/sigma role-models so to speak? I only know of two friends who are real alphas and as such are very busy. Sigma examples would be great since they are less common? Now that I think about it my friends (2 brothers) could very well be sigmas.

Do you know of any in the PUA community? Would you consider Julien, Owen and Jeffy for RSD as alphas/sigmas? What about the guys from Simple Pickup or a guy like Honest Signalz? Sigmas/alphas or simply try hard betas?

Harvey Spector from Suits (TV show) is clearly an alpha. Mike, a greater beta?

Ghost said...

Insanity said, "but I assure you there are many men who want much more from women then sex."
But, there aren't many men who don't want sex from their girly friends at all. And those guys like cock, so...

If you're a girl (it's hard to tell on anonymous blogs), go to every single one of your male friends that you think values your friendship more than trying to get in your pants and tell him, "I can't stop thinking about you, and the thought of you ravaging me has me so wet," and see how many turn you down. Or, tell them unequivocally that you would rather fuck your own father than to even kiss him, and let us know how many are still your friends.

You're right that some men want *more* than sex. But if they don't at least want sex, they won't be your friend.

Trust said...

@: " If you're a girl (it's hard to tell on anonymous blogs),"

Im quite sure she really is a she. Condescending language? Check
Shaming? Check?
Offended at different opinions? Check
inability to acknowledge a perspective other than hers? Check.

Solipsisms evident. Look no further than the perspective that men should tend to her whims without reciprocation. Probably a woman.

Eliza said...

Iowahine -

I am still reading. I read the last thread, too, although I stopped responding, because I felt it was not going anywhere. Because I'm not an irrational woman who can't control my emotions. I can take what is being said, hear it, and let the clearly hurtful and silly things slide off my back, without taking the bait and making a fool of myself.

As for your comment - I value understanding things, rather than just blindly accepting. I wouldn't expect you to read any forum and just accept it without consideration. I don't have an ulterior motive, here. I'm not trying to catch anyone in a "gotcha" moment, or "prove" anything. I'm genuinely interested in trying to see where the perspectives of this community can dovetail with my worldview, or, if not, why and how you believe what you believe.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Eliza,

Eliza,

We don't think you are trying to catch us in anything. Who cares if you are? What is happening is your reality is being threatened and you are acting accordingly.

tilikum said...

InsanityBytes is absolutely a girl, and a pretty boring and predictable one at that.

Her written speech patterns seem to indicate she falls on the masculine/logical side of the continuum. Usually these girls are the "advice" girls in their circle and it rots their brains. Having a limited but markedly better capacity to engage logic for a female, they are superwomen to their friends. They never know why but they get drunk on the idea of their own ability to engage men in logical spaces like this one but refuse to acknowledge the selection bias they are bathing in.

My sister is like this.

In the end, they have a "supply problem" with men who are sufficiently Alpha to tolerate their bullshit or whip em into shape (often physically), that they come here looking for their "fix". Oh wait, she finds us "fascinating".....I forgot. LOL. Wanna know why? Cause deep down she is terrified that her objective reality is true and that women are basic hormonal creatures and male/female relationships are mere husbandry.

Can you imagine how sad and broken women like this are? Pity her, but feel free to disregard her words as the teeth gnashing of a repeat loser in this life.

tilikum said...

Eliza,

Your ego is fighting the ineffable reality you are being presented with.

Stay the course and just maybe you can win in this life, not become a genetic dead end, not end up miserable like almost every other woman you know.

Churchill said "the best way over something is through it"

buzzardist said...

Men will talk plenty in mixed company on the topics women choose. When one is, just be sure to scan around the group to see which woman or women he's seeing as potential sexual partners. He's almost certain never to get any of those women because he's going about it all the wrong way. And if he's already with one of the women in the group, the other women may backhandedly compliment her about what a sensitive man she's found.

That said, I encountered plenty of situations growing up where my dad would utterly dominate conversation in mixed company. If the women talked, it would be because they all slipped off into a side conversation. It was no 80-20 split in favor of women. It was 90-10 in favor of my dad, with the 10 being all the other people in the room, men and women included. Topics ranged from army stories and other personal anecdotes to the mysteries of the pyramids. My dad just never got the memo that women are supposed to set the topic of conversation in mixed company, or that anybody else should be able to set the topic. He's definitely the exception in my experience, not the rule, but it is interesting to see how women shrink and become even more withdrawn than men usually are in such contexts when it's a man and not women setting the conversation. When a man asserts himself, otherwise gossipy women retreat into wallflowers.

Eliza said...

Tilikum - I am currently trying to understand what the ineffable reality you guys are presenting is. Thanks for the encouragement, and I'd appreciate any insight you have onto the reality you see.

cailcorishev said...

When we say that a man doesn't "hang out" with a woman unless he wants sex with her, women and manginas hear, "Men only want women for sex," which does not mean the same thing. We want all the other stuff too -- the companionship and chatting and .... whatever else they offer (if we didn't, more of us would frequent prostitutes) -- but we want all that in addition to sex. As someone pointed out on the last thread, when a man gets all the other stuff from a woman but doesn't get sex, that just makes it worse, because the more cool and interesting and fun she is, the more he wants to have sex with her. If there's no sex, the rest is just torture.

A "platonic friendship" with an attractive woman is like an ice cream sundae without the ice cream. You just have a bowl full of syrup, nuts, and a cherry. All of which are okay by themselves, but mostly they make you really, really wish you had the ice cream.

Iowahine said...

Eliza: I value understanding things, rather than just blindly accepting.

Glad you're still here. Who said anything about "blindly" accepting? One can not comprehend, not understand, not empathize, and still accept. You don't have male hormones, male POV, or male experiences, hence, you might never understand, but accepting that there are immutable, significant, and relevant differences between males and females might facilitate your understanding.

Vox said...

It was 90-10 in favor of my dad, with the 10 being all the other people in the room, men and women included.

Your dad was an Alpha. Which demonstrates very nicely why Alphas are so freaking tedious. Frankly, I'd rather tune out to the chatter of women than sit there rolling my eyes while an Alpha pounds his chest and monologues.

buzzardist said...

Au contraire, Vox. Many of us find you absolutely fascinating. How you perceive the world, what you think about, why you sometimes think about nothing at all. It's why many of us probe the manosphere. In real life, men tend to be protective, respectful of our feelings, to tell us what we want to hear. It's much more difficult to get to know the nature of men IRL, because you tend to hide yourselves for our sake.

Ummm...really? Is this what you think? Sorry, but let me be blunt. Men don't do that for you. Men do have a protective instinct, but it's not about protecting your feelings. The only reason a man cares about a woman's feelings is because he's in a relationship with her and has to live with those feelings. Even then, it's often more about minimizing his own pain, suffering, and annoyance than it is about her feelings. If men are withdrawn, it's because they are this way by nature. We aren't given to gossip. We don't talk about feelings.

I've spent whole weekends with friends. I come home, and my wife asks me how one of those friends is. "Fine, I guess." "You didn't ask?" "No." "Well, is he still working in the same job?" "Maybe. Which job is that? I don't recall talking with him about his job before." My wife looks at me in disbelief. These are close friends whom I've known for a decade. I can tell you exactly what each of those guys rolled on his fright check in the RPG we were playing. I can tell you what their drinking preferences are. I can tell you what their views on politics are. But their feelings? Why is that a topic that would remotely matter to any of us?

Plenty of men will tell women what they want to hear (or what they errantly think women want to hear), but that's not out of protection. That's because they want to get in those women's pants. When a man is not saying anything at all or is talking about esoteric topics distantly removed from himself, he's being himself, and he's not doing it for the sake of any woman. He's just being himself.

I once had a girlfriend who did that annoying thing of asking me what I was thinking at moments when I was thinking nothing. I was always tempted to make insane stuff up to tell her, but instead I was always honest--"Nothing." She never believed me. She'd try to squeeze a "real" answer out of me. I'd say it was annoying, except that it actually became kind of amusing watching her disbelief and disgust at my honest "nothing" answers.

Women often make this terrible mistake of assuming that there is something deep and complex going on behind a man's curtain. There isn't. What's going on outside is usually what's going on inside. When women probe for men's feelings, what they are invariably looking for is a mirror. They want to see themselves; they want to find themselves.

And woe to the man who spends his time trying to give a woman that emotional mirror.

liberranter said...

If you think it is rough getting attention from a man only to find he primarily wants sex from you, try being a man and marrying a woman only to find her proclamations of undying love and devotion were primarily to extract resources from you.

Yup.


 Women get so hung up on their real or perceive problems that they fail see notice they screw over men in similar, and often worse, ways.

And they would care about that why?

Eliza said...

@Iowahine -

That's totally fair. I don't have any understanding or knowledge of the male perspective, which is why I came here to observe and learn. I actually am totally willing to accept the idea that there are plenty of differences between men and women, although we may cite different ones. I'm actually taking a lot of leaps of faith in order to try understand things. Understanding isn't the same as agreeing. I'm just trying to see a viewpoint other than my own.

tilikum said...

Vox

[b]Frankly, I'd rather tune out to the chatter of women than sit there rolling my eyes while an Alpha pounds his chest and monologues.[b/]

indeed

Retrenched said...

Women can never fully understand the male experience – not without somehow being pumped with 12 times their natural testosterone levels, so they can experience what sexual hunger and deprivation feels like to men.

Similarly, there are few men who will go through life continually receiving hundreds of offers for dates and sex from people they don't find bangably attractive.

Neither gender fully understands the problems the other has to deal with, really.

Retrenched said...

It's just the way markets work. If the market is good for corn farmers, it's bad for people who want to buy corn from them. If the market is good for oil companies, it's bad for people who want to buy gasoline. If it's good for women seeking casual sex, it's bad for men seeking that sex from them. And so on.

One's disadvantage creates the other's advantage. The poverty of one creates the plenty of the other.

Women can only have an abundance of sexual options when men have the vast majority of their desires frustrated. Women are able to get laid anytime they feel like it, only because there are so many men who are desperate enough to take whatever they can get.

Again, there's no way women can truly understand this, because to them sex is abundant, sex is everywhere, sex is theirs for the taking. They do not understand that life is not like this at all for most men. Even “successful” PUAs have a low conversion rate, after all.

So when a woman says “I have no idea why sex is so important to you men,” she's speaking the absolute truth.

insanitybytes22 said...

"Cause deep down she is terrified that her objective reality is true and that women are basic hormonal creatures and male/female relationships are mere husbandry. Can you imagine how sad and broken women like this are? Pity her, but feel free to disregard her words as the teeth gnashing of a repeat loser in this life."

Not at all. I am infinitely blessed, married to the most wonderful man ever, and life is good. What's painful is knowing it's not like that for everyone else. What grieves me is that there are some men in the world who perceive this most delightful dance between men and women, as nothing but mere animal husbandry.

liberranter said...

I once had a girlfriend who did that annoying thing of asking me what I was thinking at moments when I was thinking nothing. I was always tempted to make insane stuff up to tell her, but instead I was always honest--"Nothing." She never believed me. She'd try to squeeze a "real" answer out of me. I'd say it was annoying, except that it actually became kind of amusing watching her disbelief and disgust at my honest "nothing" answers.

Women often make this terrible mistake of assuming that there is something deep and complex going on behind a man's curtain. There isn't. What's going on outside is usually what's going on inside. When women probe for men's feelings, what they are invariably looking for is a mirror. They want to see themselves; they want to find themselves.


Ladies, listen up. On those occasions when a man IS deep in thought, DO NOT, for your own sake and well-being, nag him about what's he's thinking. While I strongly suspect that some of you viscerally realize that you don't want your question answered, others of you believe that you do. Believe me when I say that you absolutely DO NOT.

When a man is deep in thought and he is not communicating those thoughts to you, there is usually a reason for that.

It is NOT because he is ignoring you.

It is NOT because what he is thinking is not, to him or to you, important.

He is not sharing his thoughts with you because he knows that they are the stuff of your worst nightmares, things that will do real damage to both of you if he shares them with you. The thoughts he is thinking, deep in silence as if he is in another solar system at the opposite end of the galaxy, are thoughts containing his anger, his resentment, his grief, his depression, his fears, his uncertainty, his moments when his confidence in himself is at rock bottom, the feelings that the weight of his responsibilities are the world on Atlas's shoulders. To any man who has swallowed the red pill, he knows that to share these thoughts with you is akin to launching a nuclear missile at your relationship, to removing the armor to reveal the soft underbelly inside of it, to destroying any kind of illusion you might have of him as protector, provider, or the strength of your relationship. In short, sharing such thoughts with you is foolhardiness on an unforgivable scale, the consequences of which he knows he will fully deserve if he succumbs to its urge.

You really don't want to know the specifics of his thoughts any more than you want to know the details of how a third trimester abortion is performed, what decomposing human flesh smells like, or what happens to human waste after you dispose of it. If he says "nothing" to you in response to your question of what he is thinking, accept it. Just leave it at that and leave him alone until he's ready to connect with you again.

You couldn't do anything with an honest answer to your question even if you wanted it and wanted to (and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit, after hearing an honest answer from him in response to your question of what he is thinking, that you won't want to be on the same continent with him, let alone in a relationship with him). Whatever it is that's bothering him, he'll sort it out himself eventually, or, if he's at desperate wit's end, will seek the counsel and confidence of another man whom he trusts (and God help any man who doesn't have at least one of those in his life). If he doesn't get it all sorted out, then there's nothing you can do about it.

And woe to the man who spends his time trying to give a woman that emotional mirror.

Yes. A man does this just once, and only once before he learns a nasty lesson that he won't ever forget.

tacticaltoolbox said...

"Hon, what are you thinking?"

"Oh, I am analyzing the tactical and strategic holes in our house perimeter defenses. And I am realizing there is always some situation in which bad, bad men can enter our property and house, torture and kill me and then have their way with you and the children. I am also thinking of alternative situations in which the children can be killed or injured by fire which passes through walls, the injuries which can be sustained and how I could treat them -- also which types would be fatal. How about you? What are you thinking about?"

***crickets***

Scott6584 said...

Eliza,

I made a couple of comments at the end of the last thread that you should read, IMAO.

Michael said...

@insanitybytes22 "Not at all. I am infinitely blessed, married to the most wonderful man ever, and life is good. What's painful is knowing it's not like that for everyone else. What grieves me is that there are some men in the world who perceive this most delightful dance between men and women, as nothing but mere animal husbandry."

You misunderstand. I too have a top-notch marriage, but yet I agree with most everything written here (even if some of it is delivered a bit excessively harsh). Perhaps I can illustrate by a couple of lines from an *actual* conversation between me and my wife:

Her: Sex is the most important thing to you!!!!

Me: No, sex is just the *first* thing to me. There are other more important things in life, but they count for nothing if you don't take care of the first thing first.

Said differently ... take away the "animal husbandry dance" and a relationship will hold together about as long as a V8 with no main bearings.

Uh ... sorry ... that last analogy won't make much sense to a girl ... it's like baking a cake mix but forgetting the eggs. Or something.

Iowahine said...

Scott - excellent comments at last post.

re: "criticism"

I've been in the set of non-christians having uncommitted sex outside marriage and the subset of married, christian, having sex inside marriage. From my point of view, It's not criticism if it is an observation of reality that is intended to give you information that can be useful ("charity" according to Cail). Again, I would ask as I did in the previous post - why do you want to understand?

Eliza said...

@Iowahine -

I will repeat my response to Cali here.

Thank you, but I am perfectly happy with my choices. Choosing to have sex with people I am not married to is neither wrong nor hurtful, so long as it is consensual. People have had sex outside of marriage forever, except women were told that they were disgusting and shamed for doing so.

I could certainly criticize the emphasis on abstinence and virginity in Christianity as harmful, inane, and even abusive. But I am not making those comments to you. So please leave out the judgments on my sex life.

I could give you several observations of reality that I think would improve your life. But I am not going to do so, because you make the choices you make. I am glad that your reality feels like the best choice for you. Mine feels like the best choice for me. I make the choices I make. And I am very happy with my life. We may have different goals and values in life, but I can respect that, and I would appreciate it if you could, too.

And then -

I would like to try to understand a perspective different from mine. That doesn't mean I intend to adopt it. But I am interested by it. For example, reading about slavery can be a fascinating and educational experience. Often, we feel reflections from something horrifying in ourselves or in our culture at large. I wanted to see if this culture, that varied strongly from the worldview I hold, dovetailed in any way with my own ideas/beliefs. People told me, "These people are all misogynists." I wanted to see what the community itself had to say.

Iowahine said...

PS. I'm saying what Scott said . . . that unless you're willing to accept certain realities, you are likely to put yourself at risk of being "forced" into sex again. One of these guys may not be charitable and just "force" you into sex.

Eliza said...

Why is "force" in quotes?

Eliza said...

And what are those realities? That if a woman has sex outside of marriage, she is "asking" to be raped? That's not a reality that I buy into. I don't think that the responsibility lies with the woman, there. Men are people with brains and self-restraint, as well. And morality. Ideally.

Eliza said...

Anyway, I'm not looking to talk about rape or any of this. I'm interested in learning about Game, and how it has to do with my world.

Scott6584 said...

"Scott - excellent comments at last post."

Iowahine,

In my first comment, I was addressing the angry, frustrated men, and trying to give them a better way to avoid dealing with the frustration. It has worked for me, and I've always had high value women available to me as a result. I didn't learn any of this in the manosphere, and do not pretend to be a PUA. But I kissed my first girlfriend in 1st grade, and have always found that being explicit upfront to be more productive than trying to "sneak" into a woman's affections.

The second comment was directed toward Eliza, and she is too entrenched in the lie she grew up in to accept it...yet. But at least she's trying to make moves toward understanding, so I'm not quite as willing to so harshly judge her as a person as so many angry, frustrated men are. Of course, instead of hearing what I was trying to tell her...that defrauding a man is very hurtful..., she latched on to the one thing that justified her rejecting the entire argument in total - a very, very female thing to do. LOL.

I wasn't saying that the physical assault of rape is not abhorrent - which is what she heard. What I was saying was that the psychological damage of feeling used and discarded is similar - which she completely missed.

Oh well. If she's truly seeking understanding, she'll come around. If she's only faking interest, but really seeking validation for the lie, then she'll likely find herself in the position once again of leading the wrong man on. Not all of us have the self-control to walk away, even if most of us do.

It's her choice. We can only try to help. But she has to make the choice to change her mind. I've tried and failed. I'm surprisingly ok with that. LOL

Eliza said...

Nope. I didn't miss the part that said that being let down is similar to rape. I read it, and disagreed. A man being disappointed in his sexual conquests is not at all similar to the violation of rape. But I'd like to move beyond that.

There must be more to understanding this community than "rejection = rape (which never happens, anyway)."

Ghost said...

No, Eliza, the reality is that if you invite a man to your apartment for alcohol after he has expressed his desire to be inside you, you are putting yourself in danger.

But of course, you've been raped, so you should already know that.

Ghost said...

*that was in response to your previous comment, lest there more confusion.

Markku said...

The wording was that they "agreed" to, so "invite" isn't necessarily a fair characterization. I think one important, missing piece of information is how that "agreement" actually happened. Which of them brought it up, and which of them agreed.

Eliza said...

Ghost -

Luckily for me, this situation wasn't dangerous. You are right that it could be dangerous. I was lucky, here, that I didn't get hurt. Sometimes my judgment is not always the best, and I have always acknowledged that to myself. Here, however, that wasn't the issue.

At the same time, I tend to respect my male friends enough to trust that they have enough self-restraint and respect for me to not fuck me if I tell them I don't want to.

I know that, here, it is deemed unusual for men and women to be alone together and not have sex, but I actually have invited people over for drinks many times, both male and female. I have many male friends I have not slept with and do not intend to sleep with.

Markku said...

If she brought it up, and the man paid for the bottle, then that's the worst-case.

evilwhitemalempire said...

"If you find yourself in conversation with a highly educated woman, entertain yourself by making up something ridiculous, like the Nemean Dialogues of Socrates, the Decepticon of Ovid, or Lord Byron's epic poem, The Walrus and the Butterfly. More often than not, a highly educated woman will not only claim to be familiar with these nonexistent works, but will actually claim to have read them in college for one class or another."
--------------------------------------------------

Hey, that would be a great thing to record and post.

Several examples too.

Open each vid with a brief explanation saying "What you're about to hear coming from the mouth of this man is utter rubbish. Now let's see what this college grad female says."

Or better still a compilation vid of several different occurrences.

Would be the biggest YouTube burn against feminists since that whole "sign petition to end women's suffrage" thing a few years back.

NOTE: sorry if this is double post in advance

Ghost said...

Unusual? No. That doesn't make it a wise decision at any time. You were shocked at his temper tantrum, yet you expected to know his intentions well enough to be absolutely certain that he wouldn't become violent?

You could be forgiven for the way you lead him on if he hadn't already made his feelings known. But he had. The only answer left is that you used those feelings for your own selfish ends. Which makes you deserving of every ounce of criticism you get.

Doorstop said...

"Anyway, I'm not looking to talk about rape or any of this. I'm interested in learning about Game, and how it has to do with my world.."

It's your world, toots. /s Thanks for providing yet another example of female solipsism.

And it's moderately amusing how you pulled out the rape card, didn't get the response you hoped for, and now want to put it back in the deck. It is all about you, after all.

Markku said...

Ok, NOW this is getting just absolutely ridiculous. Do you also take the expression "welcome to my world" literally, as if the speaker actually owns the world, Doorstop?

Doorstop said...

"Do you also take the expression "welcome to my world" literally, as if the speaker actually owns the world, Doorstop?"

Of course not. But when someone says "welcome to my world," they're talking about me gaining insight into their life, not looking to gain insight into mine. Eliza is supposedly here to gain insight into the 'sphere, but mostly I'm hearing her talk a lot about her world, trying to instruct us, and throwing down a challenge to prove that we're not evil, rape-obsessed misogynists. That said, I respect you and your opinion Markku, and will consider this my notice to reign in my criticism.

Markku said...

No, it clearly meant "I want to know about them to the extent that they are relevant to my life". "My world" is used in the same sense as in that expression.

1sexistpig2another said...

but I assure you there are many men who want much more from women then sex. Intimacy, friendship, companionship, conversation, a different perspective on the world.

It is pointless to want from a woman what she cannot give.

Markku said...

A person only has a limited supply of fucks to give. Those things for which he gives a fuck, are part of his world. Where no fuck is given, resides the "not my world".

Let's say, for me, ebola in Africa versus ebola in Europe.

insanitybytes22 said...

"Luckily for me, this situation wasn't dangerous. You are right that it could be dangerous. I was lucky, here, that I didn't get hurt."

It's wasn't luck, Eliza, it was a man's honor that protected you. That can be a scary reality to face because you have to confront your own powerlessness, your complete vulnerability. You are totally dependent on another's good intentions.

You reveal yourself in your words about how you were trying to "manage expectations." Manage means to control, be in charge, administer. You were playing a game all of your own, that apparently you don't recognize, but it's a control issue, a toying with danger. You were testing the waters, seeing how far you could push the envelope. Many women do that, it's rather common, but what's surprising is that women these days don't seem to be aware of it.

D. Lane said...

I could give you several observations of reality that I think would improve your life. But I am not going to do so, because you make the choices you make. I am glad that your reality feels like the best choice for you. Mine feels like the best choice for me. I make the choices I make. And I am very happy with my life. We may have different goals and values in life, but I can respect that, and I would appreciate it if you could, too.

If you are sincerely trying to understand the philosophy of men on this blog, you need to first understand the differences between male and female thinking. Based on this paragraph, it is clear to me that you don’t.

Nobody on this board cares about what you feel. This is because men traditionally function on principle, not emotion. The majority of things we do, say, and believe are grounded in defined, explicable principles that form the basis of a coherent structure. It is no coincidence that Game has specific terminology, theories, and methods that are demonstrated with actual data while most of its opponents are armed with little more than emotional appeals.

What you say makes sense emotionally. Thus, the following two comments are no problem for you:

And what are those realities? That if a woman has sex outside of marriage, she is "asking" to be raped? That's not a reality that I buy into. I don't think that the responsibility lies with the woman, there. Men are people with brains and self-restraint, as well. And morality. Ideally.

This is all emotionally valid. But to any reasoned man it is utterly incoherent. You stated earlier that it is great that we all make the choices that are “best for us.” Did it ever occur to you that what’s best for me isn’t necessary best for you, or anyone else? That under such a ridiculous philosophy morality is entirely relative? For example, if a man rapes a woman, is that really so bad for him? Clearly he’s made the right choice if he 1) gets off, and 2) doesn’t buy in to her not totally digging it. I mean, c’mon. She was practically asking for it with that outfit! If she really didn’t like it, well, to each their own.

This is the absurd reality that spawns from emotional thinking. If you ever want to understand Game, you will have to put your beliefs and feelings aside and learn the theories of game and the principles they are based upon.

You also have to quit making it about you:

Anyway, I'm not looking to talk about rape or any of this. I'm interested in learning about Game, and how it has to do with my world.

If you are here to learn what Game has to do with “your” world, you’ll be better off labeling the lot of us misogynist assholes and calling for our imprisonment for crimes of badthink on social media. Game theory isn’t about you, me, or anyone on this blog. It is about a specific area of human psychology. Game has about as much to do with your individual bubble as the social conventions of big cats.

Duke of Earl said...

No Nonsense Self-Defence on rape

Moving on.

Generally I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in the original post. I have met very few women who have anything particularly interesting to say. Spending time talking with them would be roughly akin to pulling teeth without anaesthetic.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Look, you don't own me. I decide, okay? I say who; I say when; I-- I say who--" ~ Vivian Ward

And morality. Ideally

If it weren't so sad I'd laugh, who am I kidding, I laughed.

High Arka said...

Markku, this is a bit off subject, but are you aware that Spain and Morocco are quite close together? Here's a map of the area in question.

It may also prove interesting to you that "Spain" and "Morocco" occupy the same planet, which is an integrated biosphere.

As you go forward in lives, you may come to sense that these connections are not coincidental, and that, in fact, things which you think are very different, worthless, or dismissible, may be very important to you. Ultimately important, even.

Markku said...

That is just the concept of "widening your horizons", which means having the extent of your give-a-fuck deliveries change. At this moment, that's where the border goes. That's just a simple fact.

As to the idea that as a European I might not be aware of what Gibraltar is, I'll just politely ignore it.

SarahsDaughter said...

@Cail when a man gets all the other stuff from a woman but doesn't get sex, that just makes it worse, because the more cool and interesting and fun she is, the more he wants to have sex with her. If there's no sex, the rest is just torture.

That's what makes this all just so ridiculous. This question of "why can't a man just be satisfied with conversation and companionship?" Especially if she's already physically attractive to him. Well duh, if you're physically attractive and someone he enjoys (or can just tolerate) talking to and hanging out with, why wouldn't he want more? Why would he, who is obviously searching for a relationship/wife/whatever, waste his time with someone that he'll get nowhere with.

Maybe women don't understand this because of how they'll waste their time. They'll shop with or talk for hours with a friend and then spend the rest of her evening gossiping and complaining about the same friend to her husband (not that I've ever done that). When her (ahem RLB) says, "If you don't like this person, why on earth would you spend time with her?"

Uh, logic-ed!

1sexistpig2another said...

We don't think you are trying to catch us in anything. Who cares if you are? What is happening is your reality is being threatened and you are acting accordingly.

This could be a good thing if she is willing to dump all the feminist none sense that has been pounded into her head.

1sexistpig2another said...

A "platonic friendship" with an attractive woman is like an ice cream sundae without the ice cream

Sometimes it's like a cardboard cut out of an ice cream sundae.

1sexistpig2another said...

That if a woman has sex outside of marriage, she is "asking" to be raped? That's not a reality that I buy into. I don't think that the responsibility lies with the woman, there. Men are people with brains and self-restraint, as well. And morality. Ideally

Where does morality fit in with "sex outside of marriage"? I mean if we're talking about morality, why is it wrong to rape, but not wrong to fornicate?

Iowahine said...

Eliza: And what are those realities? That if a woman has sex outside of marriage, she is "asking" to be raped? That's not a reality that I buy into. I don't think that the responsibility lies with the woman, there. Men are people with brains and self-restraint, as well. And morality. Ideally.

The realities to which I refer are the physical differences between men and women.

What morality do you suggest men ideally hold? How do they find out it? What gives it authority? Perhaps by morality you simply mean that a man stop penetrating you when you tell him to stop . . .

I used quotation marks around force because without particulars, I don't assume someone who claims to have been raped was, but I'll take your word for it. Men on this site have explained very well why your actions put you at risk. When I had sex before marriage, I too put myself at risk and wasn't willing to acknowledge it because that would have caused me to change my behavior and I didn't want to. Like you, I thought things were going pretty well and liked to think it was because I had good judgment. However, after certain experiences, I gained appreciation for my luck and that it was a man deciding to restrain himself that caused my good fortune.

Bottom line, you can't control anyone else's behavior; the best you can do is manage your risk. So, here's the reality to which I referred before: most men are almost always able to overpower almost any woman and what drives and motivates men sexually is far different than what motivates and drives women sexually (that might be the biggest lie told to men and women - that we are the same sexually). Unless you are able to ensure that a man with whom you are alone will respect your "no" and "stop," you put yourself at risk of being raped and/or murdered.

I apologize if I missed it, but why is it you want to understand how the views of the Manosphere intersect with your worldview? (My paraphrase.)

buzzardist said...

Choosing to have sex with people I am not married to is neither wrong nor hurtful, so long as it is consensual. People have had sex outside of marriage forever, except women were told that they were disgusting and shamed for doing so.

Here, Eliza, is where you are demonstrably wrong. People who have sex outside of marriage (before marriage and during marriage) report being less happy. People who have sex outside of marriage--completely unsurprisingly--have higher rates of STDs. People who have sex outside of marriage (even if the sex was only before marriage) have higher divorce rates. The commonality and acceptance of sex outside of marriage correlates with declining birth rates and with various civilizational breakdowns.

You cannot claim that nobody gets hurt in all of this. Children of broken marriages have their lives shattered. Society as a whole suffers. Your argument that this is just about you and that nobody else is hurt is utter nonsense. It's a weak attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to deny consequences for one's actions. But those consequences are still very real, whether you own up to them or not. The harm does extend to other people, whether you admit it or not.

Saying that people have had sex outside of marriage "forever" is factually true, but it offers absolutely no support for your claim that such activity should be permissible or encouraged. The rate of sexual licentiousness in a society does change over time, and the attitude of a society toward such behavior can also change. Just because some people have broken social expectations in the past is no rational reason why we should do away with those social expectations.

And spare me the nonsense about unfair standards being placed on women and not on men. Yes, society does hold different standards for men and women with regards to sex. A woman knows a child is hers because it comes out of her body. A man knows a child is his only insofar as he trusts the sexual fidelity of a woman. The sexual standards to which women are held is not a function of patriarchy or any male-driven or female-driven plot to control women. It's a function of biology.

And it's a lie that men aren't held to any standards. A loose man gains a dishonorable reputation. Many women will flock to the rakish man, but many other people will ban him from polite society. And in today's society, what with paternity tests, the risk for a man that he'll bring himself into disrepute and have to pay expensive child support is considerable. Women have been able to win such double standards in courts in no small part by playing upon the very sexual double standard that you complain about.

Vox said...

I observe that we're getting an live illustration of why men have so little interest in whatever it is that women want to babble about. It also is a good demonstration of the way in which logic remains beyond the overly emotional.

I suppose watching these rationalization hamsters spinning like mad might be amusing to some who aren't familiar with it, but it's certainly not the sort of thing I bother responding to anymore.

Also (and I know this will totally shock every regular here), it appears Eliza isn't telling the truth about the situation, she's portraying a very skewed version of it.

Tell us more about this temper tantrum, Eliza. Did he shout at you? Did he strike you? As a former rape victim, did you fear for your life?

Tobias Templo said...

What I want to know is whether Eliza ever experienced being turned down by any guy she wanted to fuck and how did she feel about the rejection.

Vox said...

Go away, "High Arka". Your rhetorical trolling and idiot hypotheticals are of zero interest here.

Duke of Earl said...

Notice the attempts to reframe "responsibility for one's personal safety" as "fault for someone harming you".

Firstly of course, most homosexual men know that the majority of men aren't sexually interested in them. Most women should know exactly the opposite. Being a man, the homosexual also knows the male capacity, even appetite, for violence. Sure he might be able to overpower his "friend" but the risk of serious, even lethal, harm should be a caution. Also, as noted by the people at No Nonsense Self Defence, a majority of rapes are the result of a man perceiving an intimacy that the woman didn't intend. Take Eliza's story of inviting a man into her room with a bottle of wine, behaviours that would be very easy to read as a desire to form an intimate relationship, her words being belied by her actions. Two guys watching sport on television are just two guys watching sport on television. Even gays would require greater expressions of interest than that.

Sure, even the best laid safety plans won't always succeed, but better to have a plan, even if it doesn't work every time, than to simply hope no one will hurt you. The person whose plans fail is a victim, the one who makes no plan is a fool.

Oh and the gay web sites Arka peruses. The actors generally consider themselves straight, at least off camera, and are working for a pay cheque. The movies are no more relevant to the actual behaviours of gay men, than the big boobed blonde who suddenly jumps the bones of any random guy in straight porn demonstrates the real interaction of the sexes.

Duke of Earl said...

Sorry about that.

Tobias Templo said...

Haha! High Arka posts "/giggle" followed by "pussy". Oh the irony! Ahahaha!

Iowahine said...

Eliza: Often, we feel reflections from something horrifying in ourselves or in our culture at large. I wanted to see if this culture, that varied strongly from the worldview I hold, dovetailed in any way with my own ideas/beliefs. People told me, "These people are all misogynists." I wanted to see what the community itself had to say.

I see your explanation now. 1) How do you "feel a reflection" from something horrifying in yourself - or our culture? 2) What is a reflection of something horrifying? 3) How can you know what this culture is (Alpha Game) to know that it varies strongly from your worldview, esp. if you already determined that this culture varies strongly from your world view? 4) Why would you want to see how your world view might dovetail with this?

While you provided an explanation, you haven't explained anything.

cailcorishev said...

Eliza's presenting such a classic case of the abuse victim who turns to "casual" sex to numb the pain and give her a feeling of control over others, that I don't know whether to feel bad for her and hope she gets help, or be insulted that she didn't alter the textbook case at all before trying it out on us.

Nataliya Kochergova said...

No problem with that. Sports are boring as sh*t.
It's pretty funny how men and women can overcome barriers of different interests to closely connect. At the same time, it's not all black&white - you still have to talk to your spouse those times when you are not having sex, and then some common interests would be nice to have.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vox,

Take it easy on High Arka. She's merely picking up where GG can't seem to let off.

de ti said...

@ Eliza:

“I'm genuinely interested in trying to see where the perspectives of this community can dovetail with my worldview, or, if not, why and how you believe what you believe.”

You should be far more interested in whether your worldview dovetails with observable reality.

de ti said...

Liberranter, Aug 10, 1:46 pm:

“He is not sharing his thoughts with you because he knows that they are the stuff of your worst nightmares, things that will do real damage to both of you if he shares them with you.”

Word.

Women simply cannot handle seeing a man at his lowest. They can’t handle it. They will leave a man in that state at the drop of a hat.

de ti said...

@ Eliza:

“At the same time, I tend to respect my male friends enough to trust that they have enough self-restraint and respect for me to not fuck me if I tell them I don't want to”

That might be. But if you have any “male friends” coming to your place alone for a bottle of wine late at night, that “male friend” is there for one reason and one reason only. That reason is not to talk or share feelings, or commiserate, or tell jokes. He is there because he is hoping he will get to fuck you.

de ti said...

Every woman I've ever met, ever, with an N equal to or greater than 5 has claimed at least one of those encounters was rape, or was nonconsensual in some way.

insanitybytes22 said...

"Women simply cannot handle seeing a man at his lowest. They can’t handle it. They will leave a man in that state at the drop of a hat."

That's true and likely related to biology, much like we have trouble deeply empathizing with men who are sick or injured. We care a great deal, but there is always this urge to tell men to snap out of it, get over it, stop complaining. That's not actually a lack of empathy, it's simply an awareness of our own biological dependence. Men freaking out, really freak us out, because where they go, so go we.

liberranter said...

de ti to Eliza:

You should be far more interested in whether your worldview dovetails with observable reality. 

And her comments throughout this thread are evidence that she isn't the least bit interested in that, which is why I'm done with her.

liberranter said...

insanitybytes22 said:

We care a great deal,

No you don't, because ...

there is always this urge to tell men to snap out of it, get over it, stop complaining.

Which, when properly hamsterlated, means "oh my God, my meal ticket is malfunctioning, meaning I might have to face a little bit of adversity and take on a little bit of responsibility. Hell, I might even have to THINK RATIONALLY. Oh, the horror! I need to go find another rock to cling to!"

That's not actually a lack of empathy,

Um, yes, that's EXACTLY what is. "Empathy" is defined (in the real world, not in the female Hamsterization Glossary) as the ability to comprehend, understand, and FEEL (are their any experts better at this than women?) a situation from someone else's perspective. Reflexively telling someone in the throes of panic, depression, or pain to "man up," "suck it up," "or get over it" isn't empathy; it's an overt demonstration of selfish imperative.

simply an awareness of our own biological dependence.

Which has no room whatsoever for a concept like empathy.

Men freaking out, really freak us out, because where they go, so go we.

Huh? Seriously? StrongIndependentWomen[TM] "freaking out" just because a man does? I'd take care to not let that admission ciculate too widely. That could result in some serious credibility and image problems.

But again, this is why when a man does "melt down," he will keep the woman in his life as far away from himself as possible, often with words or actions of violent intensity. It's a form of male survival hardwiring. We insinctively know that exposing our weaknesses to a woman is even more dangerous in the long term than exposing them to a predatory animal or predatory male human.

de ti said...

insanity: "Men freaking out, really freak us out, because where they go, so go we."

liber: "Huh? Seriously? StrongIndependentWomen[TM] "freaking out" just because a man does? I'd take care to not let that admission ciculate too widely. That could result in some serious credibility and image problems."

Exactly. that's why I laugh about the alleged "street harassment" hand wringing going on in certain quarters. Um, I thought women were strong and independent. I thought women could handle all this by their own bad selves. I have been listening to women scream from the rooftops about how women don't need men, don't care about men, and shouldn't be afraid of men.

Now, we have women earning six figures and striding down the street in skintight dresses and 4 inch heels shrinking like hothouse flowers and needing fainting couches because some toadie comes up to them and makes mention of their good looking bodies? Seriously?

insanitybytes22 said...

"That could result in some serious credibility and image problems."

Obviously something I have always displayed a great deal of concern about. Obviously.

Women aren't likely to admit it, but yes indeed, we are biologically programmed into a kind of dependence, so the behavior of men has the power to freak us out. That is the whole purpose behind street harassment, it sends a biological signal to women that they are vulnerable. The current videos circulating however, are simply evidence of how sexually confused and out of touch some women have become. They actually perceive something as casual as a second look or a catcall as a "threat," which I suppose it is in a way, a threat to their illusion of being in complete control of all things at all times.

Akulkis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Akulkis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Akulkis said...

Here is what usually happens when a woman I've really recently met tells me she wants to be friends:

ME: "OK, You want to be my friend. I've got a couple of questions I need to ask you first. Can you contribute significantly to discussion about science, technology, and the more intricate workings and behavior of computers?"

HER: "No"

ME: "Ok. How about history, with a strong emphasis on military history, and the biographies of significant leaders over the centuries?"

HER: "Uh.... no...why would I want to do that?"

ME: "Can you hold your own in a 2-3 hour conversation about politics and philophy with the proviso that what you advocate for extends beyond what would benefit you personally by way of solving your problems. Are you willing to advocate policies which would be great for society overall, even though there would be no benefit to you, or even minor sacrifice?"

HER: "uh..........."

ME: "Can you and WILL YOU participate in various athletic competitions, as the opportunity arises, regardless of whether you consider yourself 'good at it' or not?"

HER: "Um, I really don't play sports..."

ME: "How about playing any sort of board game in which the rules are longer than using both sides of a standard letter-sized piece of paper"

HER: "I don't kow....That sounds really complicated..."

ME: "Can you come over and help me when I want to paint a room, and need to move furniture around" or stand out in the sun and hold the ladder if I'm painting the outside?"

HER: "Uh no, I'm usually pretty busy."

ME: "Can you make a meal for me on an occasional basis? And no, I don't mean hamburger helper. I mean demonstrating some culinary expertise."

HER: "I'm not really a good cook...."

ME: "Can you hang out at my house while I'm gone at work during the day, doing WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO DO, and when you hear my car pull up, take a break from what you're doing, and greet me at the door?"

HER: "What are you, some kind of weirdo?"

"Not at all... Now I'm just trying to find out if you can even handle doing what it takes to be as good of a friend as my dog. And to answer your original question... no, you can't be my friend."


Why? Because she doesn't want a friend... what SHE wants is an ORBITER to drop everything at a moment's notice to come over move the furniture around HER apartment, to come over and tune up the engine on HER car, to console her after yet another one of her long string of DangerAsshole losers fucks her over and dumps her dumb ass, etc. Screw that noise.

Akulkis said...

"....the point is that outside of sex, women aren't very interested in men..."

Au contraire, Vox. Many of us find you absolutely fascinating. How you perceive the world, what you think about, why you sometimes think about nothing at all. It's why many of us probe the manosphere. In real life, men tend to be protective, respectful of our feelings, to tell us what we want to hear. It's much more difficult to get to know the nature of men IRL, because you tend to hide yourselves for our sake.


If that is the case, then why is that whenever a woman asks for a man's unvarnished, honest-to-goodness, from-the-very-depths-of-his-heart opinions or observations, and gets it, she freaks out, and treats him like the devil incarnate, without even so much as asking WHY he thinks such thoughts, sees what he sees, or believes what he believes.

Akulkis said...

Unless you are able to ensure that a man with whom you are alone will respect your "no" and "stop," you put yourself at risk of being raped and/or murdered.

Especially cpmsoderomg that most men have already been conditioned by encounters with other WOMEN that "no" does NOT mean "no" .. and "stop" most certainly does NOT mean "stop"...

Why?

Because most women would rather die than communicate honestly about sex.

liberranter said...

Alkulkis asks
If that is the case, then why is that whenever a woman asks for a man's unvarnished, honest-to-goodness, from-the-very-depths-of-his-heart opinions or observations, and gets it, she freaks out, and treats him like the devil incarnate, without even so much as asking WHY he thinks such thoughts, sees what he sees, or believes what he believes.

See my post at 1:46pm on 8/10/2014.

insanitybytes22 said...

"If that is the case, then why is that whenever a woman asks for a man's unvarnished, honest-to-goodness, from-the-very-depths-of-his-heart opinions or observations, and gets it, she freaks out, and treats him like the devil incarnate, without even so much as asking WHY he thinks such thoughts, sees what he sees, or believes what he believes"

Mostly because the world tries to teach us that you're all stark raving mad, and your entire thought processes are motivated by nothing more than sexual desire and a need to control women.

Dexter said...

Do you know how little interest boys have in girls before they hit puberty? That is about how much non-sexual interest most men have in women. Not because women have cooties, not because men are misogynistic, but because men have absolutely no interest in the subjects that fascinate most women and tend to find the female forms of conversation circuitous and tedious.

Heh. My son is in second grade. He knows everything, and I mean everything about the boys in the class; what sports they are good at, what games they like, what are their favorite shows, their views on who would win a fight between superhero A and superhero B, etc.

The girls? He doesn't even know their names. Never talks about 'em.

Akulkis said...

@libberranter: I know that YOU get it.

I was asking the woman who says she cares about our feelings and opinions to explain the OBSERVABLE FACT that when women aren't ignoring our feelings and opinions, they are downright detesting them.

insanitybytes22 said...

"I was asking the woman who says she cares about our feelings and opinions to explain the OBSERVABLE FACT that when women aren't ignoring our feelings and opinions, they are downright detesting them."

Observable fact, I am right here, right now, because I am interested in men's feelings and opinions.

Akulkis said...

"I was asking the woman who says she cares about our feelings and opinions to explain the OBSERVABLE FACT that when women aren't ignoring our feelings and opinions, they are downright detesting them."

Observable fact, I am right here, right now, because I am interested in men's feelings and opinions.



And over the days that I've seen you post here, you generally express contempt for the feelings and opinions which the men write here.

Akulkis said...

The fact of the matter, Eliza, is this: you can't find any evidence of women making false rape accusation BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND EVIDENCE OF WOMEN MAKING FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS.

Frankly, I don't know a single man who doesn't personally know a man who has been falsely accused of rape.

As described in the previous day's comments, I've been raped by a woman... until a year ago, I ENVER mentioned it to anybody (this happened in 1989), because the reactions would have been one of the following:

1) OH, LUCKY YOU! WHY WOULD YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT?
or
2) Seriously? Man, it's not cool to joke about rape.


When women can expect such a response as that, then you can piss and moan about how awful your "I have indiscriminate sex, and my date wanted it more than I did" rape.

How in the hell did he get inside you, if you hadn't already GOTTEN NAKED OR SUFFICIENTLY DISROBED while alone with him to begin with? WHY DIDN"T YOU YELL LOUD ENOUGH FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO HEAR?

So sick of women and their "I was raped, too, you know" crocodile tears, like it's some sort of "sisterhood" bond.

People like you are why women who claim rape ARE so heavily scrutinized.




In my case.. I was ASLEEP? And if she had gotten pregnant, guess who would have been on the hook for 18+ years of child support and pre-natal medical bills.

Akulkis said...


According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser. {Note that this 50% figure does NOT include accusations in which the accusor did not recant, but in which the police proved that an accuser was making a false accusation--akulkis}

Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his ground breaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.
Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false. {Note that only 25% of the accusers recanted their accusation, even though investigators found that fully 60% of rape accusations in the USAF were false -- akulkis}


Note FEMALE AUTHOR citing a 50% false accusation rate:

http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-22.htm

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen."


Your mother the judge NEVER saw a false rape accusation.

Either she's lying, or you are.

Derrick Bonsell said...

As a man who received platonic attention from a girl but no chance of sexual or romantic release, I can think of few things that caused me so much stress. I made my desires clear twice over a 2 year time span, with the second time leading me down a path by which I finally quit talking to her in any fashion.

I won't try and compare that experience to rape. I never experienced anything more than what could arguably be considered sexual assault (under a relatively broad interpretation of the term at that.) So, I won't pretend that my experience with a harsh and painful rejection is comparable.

Eliza said...

@Derrick -

Would you be willing to answer a few questions I have about Game, and how it fits in with real life/my life? You seem to be reasonably measured and open to insight and dialogue.

insanitybytes22 said...

"And over the days that I've seen you post here, you generally express contempt for the feelings and opinions which the men write here."

Not at all. I have frequently expressed approval of many comments. It's a bit challenging not to appear contemptuous in the midst of so many personal attacks, however.

Eliza said...

Insanitybytes - not much you can say here without being shut down, it seems.

High Arka said...

It's all well and good to mind good men, but the Lord wouldn't command you to be led by the ones in Sodom.

Aaron Kulkis said...

Insanitybytes - not much you can say here without being shut down, it seems.

Did you come here to learn, or to lecture?

Aaron Kulkis said...

Not at all. I have frequently expressed approval of many comments. It's a bit challenging not to appear contemptuous in the midst of so many personal attacks, however.

Commenting on your behavior, or criticizing what you say is not "a personal attack."

A personal attack is name-calling. Anything else is simple commentary, and is NOT ad hominem attack.

Learn the difference. This is NOT a tea party. And no, the men here are not treating you ANY different than how we treat each other. I just LOVE how so many women say they want equality, and the moment they get a taste of true equality (NOT being treated with kid-gloves on the basis of having a vagina), they run away screaming about how badly they're being abused.

Try this, which occassionally some female journalist will do ... spend a winter weekend wearing male clothes, get your hair cut short enough that you can tuck it up under a man's style hat appropriate for the weather. Get a theater-quality fake beard. Make yourself look as masculine as possible.

Then go out in public -- say shopping or something. You'll soon discover that not only do men not help you, but most women willl treat you as if you're absolutely invisible, even when you're in need of assistance of any sort.

Aaron Kulkis said...

Oh, and go out to some bars, too.

No free drinkies! Don't even wish for it. It won't happen.

ScuzzaMan said...

shut down, eh?

Not being treated with polite deference - because vagina! - is being shut down.

Got it.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.