While I appreciate the post itself, I find myself ticked off at the comments section and how quickly it spiraled downhill, with the exception of Cail, Cataline, and Corvinus who at least addressed the kino/physical part I was curious about.I think the "Mate-Guarding Hand" should never be brought out in a defensive capacity when the threat posed is one presented by another male. I think I can say honestly that I've never used it beyond some immature public "see, I have a girlfriend and she's real" posturing with my first two girlfriends.
Since Doom basically hijacked it and made it about himself, I figured I might as well re-ask the question that got ignored:
I do remember reading something a long while ago about alternating Alpha/Beta (Beta in the sense of how the rest of the manosphere uses it) depending on how the LTR is. If DHV is needed, then Alpha, but if reassurance is needed and it's not a shit test, then Beta. So if I'm remembering that right, should Mate-guarding hand ever come out and used as a tool of reassurance?
At least with you, you can give a personal example of "I've never needed to do that at all" or "I've used it sometimes".
That tends to point towards part of the problem with the Mate-Guarding Hand; if it makes you look like a junior high boy who is primarily concerned with demonstrating that he is too good enough to get a girl, it's not a good move for a grown man. If you feel the need to send a message, a simple swat on the ass will convey ownership in a much more dominant way.
But you should feel any such need. Public attention from another man when you are there is a straightforward loyalty test. You should welcome the information it provides, because she isn't likely to behave any better when you're not around. If she shows insufficient loyalty, next her without hesitation or explanation. Don't try to "guard her" against her own inclinations, because that's her responsibility, not yours, just as your behavior is your own responsibility.
The only time I can remember someone trying to move in on SB in front of me was when the bassist from a popular local band literally tried to position himself in between the two of us in order to block me out of the conversation. I didn't mate-guard her, I simply tapped him on the shoulder and made a "step aside" gesture with my hand. He looked at me, at which point SB introduced me as her fiance and he promptly backed away.
Give your girl the chance to prove her loyalty, don't take it away from her. This doesn't mean you can't ever put your arm around her in public, or physically reassure her if she's feeling threatened by female interest in you, but then, such actions are not mate-guarding by definition. The question isn't really her reassurance is needed, then obviously it isn't mate-guarding. The problem is when you are trying to reassure yourself through your own actions.
34 comments:
VD said, "Public attention from another man when you are there is a straightforward loyalty test. You should welcome the information it provides, because she isn't likely to behave any better when you're not around. If she shows insufficient loyalty, next her without hesitation or explanation."
Good advice for a girlfriend. Would you change it at all for a fiance or a wife?
Also, BT, as a general rule I've found that many manosphere bloggers are worth listening to, and few of the commenters. You just have to learn to ignore the riff raff and don't let it bother you.
Good advice for a girlfriend. Would you change it at all for a fiance or a wife?
Not for a fiance. That's a massive red flag. I would never even consider marrying a woman who showed that level of disrespect to her husband-to-be in public. It's not as if things are going to improve from that point on. If it's a wife, you let her know that it is time to leave and you have it out with her about her inappropriate behavior in the car.
And if she insists on staying without you, well, that probably means the marriage was already over, you just didn't realize it. Never be married to a woman you don't trust. I'm not talking about the occasional insecurity or flicker of doubt, I'm talking about a fundamental lack of faith in her loyalty and commitment.
'Don't try to "guard her" against her own inclinations, because that's her responsibility, not yours, just as your behavior is your own responsibility.'
The more men get that women do have free will, the more they will see this is actually good information to witness as opposed to forcing their will into the matter.
VD, I agree, although I might give the fiance one warning.
The alpha/beta thing you read almost surely came from Athol Kay's blog. By putting it in those terms I do think that he confuses the issue. What he's actually talking about is a pretty old game concept, that at the very least was in the mystery method, and probably was on some of the forums that predated even that.
The dynamic is originally term attraction/comfort. Attraction is what Athol would call alpha, and refers to things that will make women notice you (clever one liners, a bold approach, smirking, etc). Comfort is what Athol refers to as beta, which is not what other game blogs mean when they say beta. It includes things like getting gifts or doing chores.
In the mystery method and normal game theory, the idea is that attraction has to come first. Doing the opposite, which is attempting comfort behavior without establishing attraction first, will result in women feeling uncomfortable. And worse still is using comfort behavior to try accomplish what attraction behavior does (if I help her move, then she'll HAVE to like me!), and it causes contempt.
If you think about it the same dynamic is also present between men. If you've ever had a guy, who was perhaps of lower intelligence than you, or not that funny but found even your bad jokes hilarious, you should be able to understand. When they try and make you be their friend by doing stuff for you, or even buying things for you, it is very hard to remain a good christian.
You know what ticks me off? Autistics and spergs constantly begging for advice about the most basic aspects of human behaviour. Give it a rest. It's too much. I do admire the proprietor's patience with these people though.
That said, I just saw the "Mate-Guarding Hand" at work. As I mentioned several weeks ago, recently I rode the elevator with a very attractive young woman. When we reached the lobby the door opened, she stepped out in front of me, and standing there was a short, slim man--apparently her boyfriend--who glared at me and looked me up-and-down and immediately put his arm around her and hurried her off. It was so obvious, so cartoonish, that it stuck in my memory.
In other news, my experiments in deploying Acute Aloofness Game with the young hotties at work are starting to yield results. There's a fine line between indifference and menace.
The problem is when you are trying to reassure yourself through your own actions.
Exactly. It sounds like BT is hoping to find a context where a woman might be reassured by mate-guarding, as in, "I'm sure glad he loves me enough to keep me from talking to that stud over there." She won't. Not one woman, not even the sweetest, most loyal, Christian virgin will think that way. (I'll qualify that a little: if a girl is completely smitten with a guy she thinks is out of her league, she might enjoy even that in the early stages, but in that case the guy can do no wrong and won't be worried about mate-guarding anyway.) Just the opposite is true: mate-guarding signals that you think the other guy might have higher value, so maybe she should slip away and chat him up.
Also, to make one thing clear: what Vox says about dealing with a disloyal wife or an interloper isn't mate guarding. If a man is misbehaving toward your woman, and she's doing nothing to encourage it, then deal with him directly. If she's the one making eyes, you don't try to "reassure" her by lightly rubbing her back. You (loudly) declare, "It's time to go," and head for the door. Again, the opposite of guarding -- you're leaving her out in the open to make her choice, removing any pretense about what she was doing.
The bottom line: what we call mate-guarding really isn't guarding at all, since it's an attempt to control her behavior, not to guard her from some external threat. We should probably call it mate-hobbling, or something more accurate like that.
You know what ticks me off? Autistics and spergs constantly begging for advice about the most basic aspects of human behaviour. Give it a rest. It's too much. I do admire the proprietor's patience with these people though.
That said, I just saw the "Mate-Guarding Hand" at work. As I mentioned several weeks ago, recently I rode the elevator with a very attractive young woman. When we reached the lobby the door opened, she stepped out in front of me, and standing there was a short, slim man--apparently her boyfriend--who glared at me and looked me up-and-down and immediately put his arm around her and hurried her off. It was so obvious, so cartoonish, that it stuck in my memory.
In other news, my experiments in deploying Acute Aloofness Game with the young hotties at work are starting to yield results. There's a fine line between indifference and menace.
Public attention from another man when you are there is a straightforward loyalty test.
It is one thing if, for example, he doesn't know she is with someone (you). It's another thing if he does know and persistently approaches her anyway. At some point this rises to the level of disrespect to you; it is not merely a loyalty test for her.
Back when I was in college, I was with a girl at a club and this guy kept asking her to dance and buying her drinks, even though he knew she was with me. I told her we were leaving, and the guy even followed us out into the parking lot, still trying to talk to her. I thought about hitting him, but since he was a foot shorter than me and much lighter, it didn't seem right. And in any event, since I was going back to her place, not him, I didn't feel like any further proof of my superiority was needed.
Later when the incident was described, one of her friends said to me, "I'm surprised you didn't flatten the guy." I just shrugged and said, "didn't need to".
But you should feel any such need. Public attention from another man when you are there is a straightforward loyalty test. You should welcome the information it provides, because she isn't likely to behave any better when you're not around. If she shows insufficient loyalty, next her without hesitation or explanation. Don't try to "guard her" against her own inclinations, because that's her responsibility, not yours, just as your behavior is your own responsibility.
Yes. IOW, BT, I would only put my hand on her either if we're dancing, or another woman has been flirting with me and she seems a bit upset. Otherwise, it's unnecessary.
The AFC inclination seems to be the default among most men. Once recently, I went to talk to a girl that I knew from a class we both took. She seems attracted, but she's in a relationship, so I simply treat her as a friend. Her boyfriend was with her, and he looked at me intensely, literally almost sticking his nose in my face, as I talked to her. It was hilarious. I imagine that if he was a dog (and if he was, he'd be a pointer), he'd be growling in the back of his throat. She put her feet up on his stool to reassure him.
Did his mate-guarding "work"? No, not really. I wouldn't get a girl's number in front of her boyfriend anyway, simply because a lot of men are hotheads, especially if they've had drinks. But doing something like that simply makes me "smell blood" and think that perhaps I could get her number later, when he's not around. If he hadn't mate-guarded, and instead acted affable and relaxed, I'd let him have her because then I'd at least respect him.
"I'm sure glad he loves me enough to keep me from talking to that stud over there." She won't. Not one woman, not even the sweetest, most loyal, Christian virgin will think that way.
No what she will sense is that your are a dictator or a tyrant who doesn't trust her enough that she can easily say the words...'no thanks I have a boyfriend'. And if she shows you that you can't trust her right to your face or is disloyal...it's 'next' time.
LBF,
It isn't your blog. It also isn't all about you.
You trying to trigger me, brah?
:::wowjustwowface:::
LBF, isn't helping the guys that don't understand the basics of interaction kind of the raison d'etre for most of the Game/Manosphere blogs? Obviously there are some niches, some more advanced series, and some related tangents (esp. about feminism, modernism), but... I thought there was something commendable in AFC, blue-pill, socially-graceless spergs and such wanting to better themselves and trying to understand.
The physician doesn't come for the healthy, but for the sick. You may have moved beyond the milk and be ready for meatier teachings, but other people are still struggling with the basics. I understand frustration with going over and rehashing what seems like simple things for you, but why not then push your brother forward instead of tearing him down?
I don't know, maybe I'm being too womanly and romanticizing the notion of the community too much. I know male encouragement looks a lot rougher than female encouragement (at least, to women), so perhaps I'm misreading - my sincerest apologies if that is so. I just don't understand what the point of the 'sphere is if not to help guys learn how to better interact with others, especially with women, especially in the most basic interactions. If it's not helping each other to learn, what is it but a bitch fest about how things were better before, and it's all ruined because of feminism/cultural marxism/weak-willed, overly accommodating men/etc?
The problem is when you are trying to reassure yourself through your own actions.
You want to evaluate yourself based on other people's reactions to your actions, not on your actions themselves. It's easy to delude yourself about what you did if you don't factor in how people responded. This is the Gamma disease, building an internal world that ignores reality in order to reassure the Gamma's amygdala. Resist that urge. Spend less time internally evaluating what you are doing and learn to evaluate how others are responding. If you put your hand on your girl and she moves subtly away from you, that was a mistake. If she moves into you, then you did the right thing. You'll make mistakes, don't worry about it, just learn from them. Maybe even try some deliberate A/B testing. I know that's not as simple as a list of do's and don'ts, but ultimately it's where you need to get.
(I cracks me up that Cail and I both picked up on this as an important line. We're on the same wavelength brother!)
The physician doesn't come for the healthy, but for the sick.
This is correct.
This is the Gamma disease, building an internal world that ignores reality in order to reassure the Gamma's amygdala. Resist that urge.
This is also correct.
'Spend less time internally evaluating what you are doing and learn to evaluate how others are responding.'
In other words, be less narcissistic.
Good advice for a girlfriend. Would you change it at all for a fiance or a wife?
A fiancée and a girlfriend are the same thing. If your wife thinks that divorcing if she's "unhappy" and remarrying someone else is OK, then your wife is the same thing as a girlfriend.
Act accordingly.
@Crowhill: VD, I agree, although I might give the fiance one warning.
Why are men so willing to overlook female misbehaviour that is an obvious sign that a woman is not a good candidate for marriage?
"'Spend less time internally evaluating what you are doing and learn to evaluate how others are responding.'
In other words, be less narcissistic."
I am not sure I agree. Depending on where a (young) man is coming from (extreme shyness, social anxiety) having less regard, giving less weight to what others might think is key to being less self-conscious. The way people were reacting was the cause of my mental self-evaluation. I really had to drill into my head that I shouldn't care about what everyone might be thinking about me before I could start realizing that nobody was really giving a sh!t and being succesful at picking up behavioral reactions.
So for me it has been quite the contrary. Being more "narcissistic", less self-conscious, has made me more confident and better at interacting with women and society at large.
@ Bogey
You know what ticks me off? Autistics and spergs constantly flooding the comment section and posting the same damned stories. Just kidding man. I am coming to California (Manhattan Beach, LA) in the next couple of months. Interested in meeting up?
For sure, dude. Belmont Shore bar.
I get that all the time.
@VD
Thanks, this clears up a lot of misconceptions I was having.
I think as part of being a Delta/Gamma, I have a hard time instantly picking up on physical cues and body language, particularly because I didn't use it that much, instead creating a model of behavior and going from there, so when I saw people point out "Mate-Guarding Hand" in a picture, I think I was missing the other body language happening, so I was just equating "touching during picture = sign of low value".
@Crowhill
You just have to learn to ignore the riff raff and don't let it bother you.
I think I was more ticked at the lost potential more than anything. I mean, this is a (at least to me) potentially very interesting topic, but it got kicked aside really quickly.
That said, I recognize that there's as much, if not more, "bro science" in the manosphere than in the gym.
@Booch Paradise
Now that you mention Athol Kay, I think you're right on the money. Thanks.
@Cail Corishev
Exactly. It sounds like BT is hoping to find a context where a woman might be reassured by mate-guarding, as in, "I'm sure glad he loves me enough to keep me from talking to that stud over there."
If I am hoping to find that context, it is in some subconscious part of me and I don't realize it. Who knows the hearts of men? I certainly don't know all of it.
We should probably call it mate-hobbling, or something more accurate like that.
Aye, but white knights "guard" the 'innocent lady' as well.
@Jack Amok
Resist that urge. Spend less time internally evaluating what you are doing and learn to evaluate how others are responding.
Unfortunately, while true I'm not sure the solution is quite that simple. I'm presently running a theory that Gamma ability to read body language, and hence evaluate others, is severely hobbled if the male grew up Gamma. And while I'm not sure how true that is for everyone else, I know that's currently true for me, in that it's hard to read body language, especially in unfamiliar situations.
@Rek.
Narcissism may work in the short term as a shortcut, but in the long term genuine self-confidence is needed instead of narcissism. Narcissism doesn't function that well under pressure.
giving less weight to what others might think is key to being less self-conscious
I understand it can be a fine distinction and easy to misinterpret, but I didn't say pay attention to what others are thinking about you. I said pay attention to how they are reacting. You don't know what they are thinking anyway, you're just imaging that. But even so, it doesn't matter, what matters is how they react.
The way people were reacting was the cause of my mental self-evaluation. I really had to drill into my head that I shouldn't care about what everyone might be thinking about me before I could start realizing that nobody was really giving a sh!t and being succesful at picking up behavioral reaction
Reread your last sentence, I think that nails it - they didn't give a shit, you just imagined they did. You weren't reacting to what they actually did, you were reacting to what you imagined they were thinking about you. You were essentially blocking the real feedback loop in favor of an imaginary one.
And it's fine to ignore other people's reactions if you're just out trying to enjoy yourself. You certainly don't need to justify yourself to random folks. But if you're trying to entice someone into a relationship (a woman into a romantic one, a man into a business one, etc.) then you do need to pay attention to their reactions.
If I am hoping to find that context, it is in some subconscious part of me and I don't realize it.
should be:
If I am hoping to find that context, the part of me that is hoping is subconscious and I don't realize it.
TL;DR
You know what ticks me off? Autistics and spergs constantly begging for advice about the most basic aspects of human behaviour. Give it a rest. It's too much.
Here's the thing... Vox could write a multi-volume epic fantasy series explaining body language and it still wouldn't cover every possible situation. I think they need some more generic advice. Like, "Make the little voice in your head shut up. Don't think about what your next witty comment is going to be, or how you can fit the point you want to make into the conversation. Just listen and watch to see what everyone else is thinking."
I mean some people may have a limited ability to read body language or tone of voice, but I have to believe the majority are just not paying attention as well as they could be.
My husband has never done this, even though he's not an alpha/beta/etc. Men just melt into the woodwork if he comes by and we're in a mixed-sex setting. Other men find my petite and frail nature appealing, but they never try to throw down in front of my man, not least because I never show interest in them.
Of course, I'm only posting because your anecdote reminded me of the last time any guy did what happened to SB. My husband just sort of materialized and the other guy melted away. The funny part is that it was a purely social conversation on my end, about categories of wine.
Some of us simply didn't get to learn to be social in our forming years. For me it was because we were poor and lived on a farm, so making friends was difficult and finding opportunities to spend time with the friends I DID have was even more difficult. I didn't learn how to "just be myself" until I was 22. And by then, it's not something that comes naturally. I can fake it pretty well, but it's still fake. I'm not socially autistic either. I can pick up on social cues just fine. It's just that I don't know what to do about them. This is the first blog (or anything else really) that I've found that can put shit like "just be yourself man" into words that actually make sense.
'....a simple swat on the ass...."
Every now and then I'll do this to my wife in public. Not to mate-guard, but simply because it often makes her hop and blush, and always makes her smile.
"The only time I can remember someone trying to move in on SB in front of me was when the bassist from a popular local band....."
Of course. It's always the bass player.
There is a time and place to step in. When some freak omega or gamma is creeping your girl out... extricating her from that situation isn't a bad thing.
There is a time and place to step in. When some freak omega or gamma is creeping your girl out... extricating her from that situation isn't a bad thing.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.