In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don't find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It's very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.
On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.
In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.
The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.
Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable....researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.
Don't be nice to women you meet. No matter what your Mommy tells you, they don't find it attractive. They are attracted to men who blow them off, who demonstrate contempt for them, who regard them as being unworthy of attention. You don't have to be cruel or rude, except to the most attractive women, simply refusing to kowtow to them and looking around the room when they are talking to you is sufficient in most cases.
Civil disinterest is the best uniform approach. Treat an attractive woman exactly the same way you would instinctively treat a fat or ugly woman, and you'll significantly increase the likelihood that she'll be attracted to you. Men don't make the rules of female attraction, we are merely subject to their consequences. So learn how to play by the rules.
Why doesn't being nice repulse men? Because men are not hypergamous and therefore are not repulsed by DLV.
97 comments:
I am having trouble with that last statement in the post. It would seem better to say that being nice is a female DHV. (though it is more nuanced than that as it can also be merely and IOI).
I am having trouble with that last statement in the post.
Why? It's an observable fact. Men also like tattoos because they are DLV. Men are attracted to DLV because they make physically attractive women seem more accessible. It's both ridiculous and convoluted to say "being nice is a female DHV". It's nothing of the sort; you're literally trying to apply the female perspective to men.
On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.
I love the way this paragraph is carefully constructed to sneak up on the scary gist slowly. It's like writing, "On the other hand, women did not perceive the man as tall. What's more, they perceived him as short."
I wonder if researchers are really scratching their heads wondering how this could possibly be, like it says in the last paragraph, or if they're just pretending out of political correctness. You wouldn't think you could actually study this stuff without encountering some basic red-pill ideas about it. On the other hand, I'm picturing some aspie nerds in white coats looking at the results and saying "Unpossible!"
A question that is suggested by the above is when to use the principles of game? For instance, in my professional life there are many women and, while they are "below" me in rank, they hold significant power over me concerning my quality of life. Do I regress to a more feminine attitude (being more courteous, remembering names, asking about families, complimenting hair, etc) or do I over-emphasize the masculine, or somewhere in between. I can see advantages of both.
eidolon hope, are you trying to pick up the women in your office or work with them?
VD: It's both ridiculous and convoluted to say "being nice is a female DHV". It's nothing of the sort; you're literally trying to apply the female perspective to men
It sounds rather the reverse; you are applying the female perspective (of being non-attracted to nice men) to women. I think both theories are plausible, yours, that men find niceness attractive because it signifies a woman trying to attract a man and thus more attainable, vs that niceness is an inherently feminine trait, and thus will sexually attract straight men, and repel straight women.
I think the second is more supported, though; men often complain that women dig jerks; how often do women complain that men only dig bitches? More likely they complain that men like doormats, or are telling them not to be 'bossy', etc.
It sounds rather the reverse; you are applying the female perspective (of being non-attracted to nice men) to women.
No, you simply don't understand what DLV and DHV mean. They're not synonymous with unattractive and attractive. They are simply behaviors that can be either depending upon the observer.
To say: "I don't think I'm pretty" is a DLV. Do men dislike women who say that or does it attract them. To say "I'm smarter than you are" is a DHV. Do men dislike women who say that or does it attract them?
Solely work.
Vox,
It seems to me that DLV and DHV are descriptions of social standing or power differentials between men and women.
If the woman is of lower value than the man, he can engage her. If the woman is higher value than the man, she could be unapproachable.
Tattoos on a female = DLV - agreed
DLV by a female do not repel men with same force that such corresponding traits do when the actors are reversed due to female hypergamy - agreed
That said, there are still a base set of traits that men value in women: submissiveness (often demonstrated by 'niceness'), beauty, grace, etc. Subsequently, as you have expressed many times in the past, the adjective modifies the noun (in this case DHV), so I was quite aware that it was a female perspective, at least what the females need to be thinking about it......Girl Game != Game.
Banal, I know, but it was early and I shouldn't be comment posting before breakfast......
"it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame"
Exactly. Chicks dig jerks and adore assholes.
That sound you hear is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of millions of 'nice guys.'
@eidolon hope
In my experience, the dynamic of "how to connect with people" has four axis, not the two you label as masculine and feminine.
http://davidvs.net/hobbies/masculinity-connection.shtml
Men at work probably don't want to be attractive to women in any case to avoid sexual harrassment. Be nice, avoid a lawsuit.
Civil disintest is fine, but I guess she will keep thinking you're invisible. Maybe engage, then ignore. Or pursue unaggressively.
Last Friday, I think I finally “broke through” with a friend of mine. I’m pretty much a MGTOW type, after frivorce and a couple years of dating what seemed like the same woman in different bodies.
A group of us were out for happy hour. A 30 year old recently married woman was with us. My friend, Carlos, talked about his e-Harmony experience. He said it was a long process (went into detail, it is a long process to get the actual number). He gave up trying to meet women in social settings, saying he had no luck.
I have tried telling him about the principles of game and attraction. The 30YO chimed in about not listening to me, because I’m divorced and bitter and blah, blah, blah. Regardless, he still listens because my observations and prediction of how events will unfold have more credibility.
Conversation turns to their workplace (I don’t work with them). In comes a decent looking brunette who sits a couple seats away from me. I chat her up causally, waiting for my friends’ conversation to turn back to something I care about. Soon, it does. I turn attention away and join a conversation about, of all things, the Punic Wars.
In the next hour, the brunette meets up with her friends and moves to a table. Eventual, my group decides to leave and I’m the DD for Carlos and the 30YO.
I walk to her table, say it was great getting to know her, and hand her my phone with the keypad displayed. “Put your number in and I’ll call you sometime.” She complies.
On the way out, Carlos brought up the brunette and how hard it is to meet people. I told him I got her number by telling her to put it in my phone. He’s both blown away and impressed, because he was raised to be very supplicating and “nice.” He was especially impressed when I said the phone # was not a request, but an instruction. There was a video (heartiste?) in the last year or so that drove it home for me and I’ve found it very effective.
Again, the 30YO tells him not to listen to me. He turns and says that I just did what he wants to do and he did what he normally does in bars. I have a date and he’s going home without a prospect.
It’s hard to argue past that point.
tl;dr
Nothing proves the DHV principle as much as demonstrating its effectiveness.
I didn’t fawn over the brunette because I only needed her as a temporary distraction and I had other things I’d prefer to do.
I shot a couple brief texts, setting up a thing with her later this week. Short, to the point, texts vs. her "LOL" and "You know I love my wine" responses.
Language is so inadequate, Vox. You are forever writing that men should act a bit like sociopaths, be jerks, don't be nice. The thing is, that's not quite accurate and it presents a very negative portrayal of men in the midst of game. Women don't perceive an attractive man as a jerk, a psychopath, unkind, they perceive him as confident, self assured, not needy. He simply knows who he is, where he ends and she begins. That self assurance is very attractive, but it is not cruel, it is not unkind, and it certainly isn't disrespectful as if you must constantly imply she is worth nothing and beneath you. In fact, men that have to do that come across as very insecure, toxically prideful, excessively arrogant, a bit repulsive really. The only women who go for that are broken women and men have enough issues of their own without taking that on.
There is concern here about the way you portray men as needing to become rather loathsome creatures in order to attract women, which lends itself to suggesting that the very nature of men is somewhat loathsome, and that's simply not true. Women are quite lovely when they're submissive and men are quite lovely when they're not, but that genuine strength that draws us to men is not jerkiness or unkindness at all.
Language is so inadequate, Vox.
Then shut the fuck up, old woman. Stop bleating already.
Gentlemen, look at what she's doing here. She's immediately leaping in to defend Team Woman from men learning how to make women respond positively to them. Women always try to run the "confidence" switcheroo; see, it's not the ASSHOLES that they find attractive, but the STRONG men....
Which is actually an open confession that they can't tell the difference. They just like it.
"She's immediately leaping in to defend Team Woman from men learning how to make women respond positively to them..."
You really are like being trapped in a hall of mirrors, Vox. I am doing nothing of the sort. If you would look above the bridge of your nose, you would see that I am actually trying to defend team man, a group I rather enjoy. You seem bound and determined to imply that men are loathsome, jerks, unkind, sociopaths, or must learn how to fake such things, if they ever wish to have relationships. That's an appalling and demeaning portrayal of MEN.
Why in the world would I want to stop men from learning how to make women respond positively to them? That's not even a rational suggestion.
GG,
YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE!
YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE!
What's a bit disturbing Conscientia, is that you would even imagine I pose a threat in the first place.
GG, stop flapping your rancid vagina already. I don't give a damn what you think. No one else gives a damn what you think.
YOU ARE NOT THE TOPIC. NOR AM I.
Now: shut the fuck up. Or I'll do it for you.
GG says to be confident, but remain a "good guy" to get a woman to gush.
50 SOG sales tell a different story. The reader is more likely to be female, live in the NE, and have a significantly higher household income. 9 out of 10 purchases were for "pleasure/relaxation." Meaning, not "broken" women.
Source: Bowker Market Research Books & Consumer monthly tracking survey.
per the article:
In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.” A limitation of this definition, the authors state, is that the concept of “responsiveness” is ultimately elusive—it can mean different things to different people.
Perhaps there is a disagreement behind what constitutes responsiveness.
What's a bit disturbing Conscientia, is that you would even imagine I pose a threat in the first place.
Conscientia is mocking you by using a TLotR quote, you ditz.Now, if you can't stay on-topic then shut up.
GG reminds me of Miss Lippy in Billy Madison. She is the teacher Adam Sandler catches dancing to crazy music with prayer beads on while she smears paste on her face.
"GG, stop flapping your rancid vagina already. I don't give a damn what you think. No one else gives a damn what you think"
Is that supposed to be the response of a happily married CHRISTIAN man who knows his worth, you flipping fraud??
Somebody does care, you old fool. I care and God cares. ABOUT YOU and what YOU are misrepresenting.
Nobody cares, GG.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares...
That study is perfect for a bunch of people who view themselves and their relationships through a consumer lens. Men act the same way when they're shopping for a new car--a rude salesman will make them feel small, powerless, and make them wonder if they even "belong" at the Jaguar dealership in the first place. A too-friendly salesman will make them feel like they're at the used Geo lot, and they're more likely to walk during pricing talks.
That kind of ridiculous pursuit of brand/status isn't fundamental to men, anymore than the female behavior in the study above is fundamental or natural. It is fundamental to men who have first been conditioned by bad parenting and a soulless State education system to distinguish castes and caste indicators--so they will take crap from a waiter at a fine restaurant in Paris that would make them storm out of a Chili's back home. "The food" is not really what they're after; they're in pursuit of validation for their own inchoate perceptions of value, so they'll pursue negative treatment as an indicator of value.
...all of which tells us that this has nothing to do with fundamental male/female differences. It's just another aspect of our deranged culture. In a decent culture, kindness would be valued. The question here is, do you manly men want to (1) have more non-marital sex, or (2) try to make the world a better place?
So much of this game stuff seems to be about how to be the most successful citizen of Sodom. Good luck with that.
When women say that they want a man with confidence, they are proving that women don't really know what they want.
What they want is the "calm, assertive, dominant energy" of a natural Alpha male.
Confidence is just a byproduct.
Once detected, the Fitness Tests will begin.
"So for now, the question “what do women want?” will remain unanswered." That's...circumspect. I thought the study at least attempted to answer the question.
May I suggest putting together a list of GG's numerous "debates" in the AG comment threads, sorting them into a series of posts illustrating solipsism and the relevant maxims, and banning GG?
I suggest this because whatever "educational" value Vox has determined she provides is rapidly being outweighed by discussions that devolve into some variation of shut the fuck up. And while I appreciate the library of direct and indirect ways to instruct someone to shut the fuck up as much as the next guy, I'm afraid one can only rearrange the same song so many times before it gets old.
We get it. She can't be reasoned with. Enough.
What women want is ..more.
"it's not the ASSHOLES that they find attractive, but the STRONG men....
Which is actually an open confession that they can't tell the difference. They just like it."
Well there is some truth to it. If assholes were truly what attracts women rather than strength, PZ Myers would be a decent womanizer.
I think a strong guy who is very kind is way more likely to succeed than and asshole who is a sniveling wimp. IOW, strength or confidence is the staple food, asshole is merely the preferred seasoning. An absolute alpha who for some reason is also very agreeable (think Jesus, or, as a fictional example, Ned Stark) is higher up the foodchain than a dickhead like Myers (or to use a fictional example Viserys/Joffrey).
To use my ASOIAF comparisons, a guy like Jaime or Drogo is probably a combination of both and also superior to both in appeal to women, even excluding looks and status as khal.
Is that supposed to be the response of a happily married CHRISTIAN man who knows his worth, you flipping fraud??
What part of "stop flapping your rancid vagina" did you fail to understand? GG, none of your ridiculous antics work here. They never will. I've made it very, very clear that your comments are not welcome here, and yet you continue to stalk this blog and infest it with your blathering.
But now that you've gone and broken one of the rules posted at VP, I'm quite content to grant numerous readers wishes and ban you from AG as well as VP. Go away. Don't come back. If you insist on trolling here, your comments will be deleted and you'll be doxed just like other trolls have been.
Hee, that reminds me of when the last feminist blog banned me for "mansplaining." Cowardice is a dish that tastes the same in every culture.
Well, that's that.
Men act the same way when they're shopping for a new car--a rude salesman will make them feel small, powerless, and make them wonder if they even "belong" at the Jaguar dealership in the first place
This is likely projection, like you, I am not a man, but this sounds about how a woman might feel in this situation. Have you heard men express these feelings?
so they will take crap from a waiter at a fine restaurant in Paris that would make them storm out of a Chili's back home.
Again I'm curious, who are these men who have told you this? "storm out"? More of a woman thing to do, don't you think?
"The food" is not really what they're after; they're in pursuit of validation for their own inchoate perceptions of value, so they'll pursue negative treatment as an indicator of value.
Men?
This is not what I have witnessed of men at all.
And the rest of your comment makes it clear a new blathering idiot is in town.
I'm glad it's over, but GG provided another object lesson: the more Vox and others ridiculed her, the more she obviously got off on it and came back for more. You could tell she loved the attention as long as it was masculine, no matter the content.
Not all girls desire that much denigration, but.... Most guys err much too far in the direction of niceness than toward being blunt and rude.
Cail's right. GG couldn't get enough of our insults, proving us right. Looks like High Arka is on deck now that GG has struck out.
"The food" is not really what they're after; they're in pursuit of validation for their own inchoate perceptions of value, so they'll pursue negative treatment as an indicator of value.
Men?
This is not what I have witnessed of men at all.
I took my first girlfriend out on a date, and she and her friend ate maybe half of their food. I asked them why they didn't finish their plates, they told me the women come to restaurants for the experience, not for the food. That was incomprehensible to me.
That GG and High Arka actually exist is proof that we don't need to make them up.
> they told me the women come to restaurants for the experience, not for the food.
Silly me, I thought the food was the experience.
I'm coming to understand this DLV/DHV thing. A DLV (I think) that my oldest daughter demonstrates is to laugh at herself. She is only 14 but has, thankfully, done away with that defensiveness/excuse making that is typical for teenage girls (that my youngest has not abandoned yet). She's not a good cook and laughs all the time at the challenges she has. "Oh my gosh, Mom, I was trying to boil water for those noodles and smoke started rising from the burner, I was literally burning water, Mom, what is wrong with me (laughing)?" - things like that. My son, on the other hand would see smoke rise from the burner and say, "Mom, there's something wrong with your stove." Which would make me laugh. Does it make sense that what my daughter said is a DLV that makes me find her demeanor much more pleasant than if she'd say what my son said? The same way I'd laugh at what my son would say but would wonder if he's gay if he said what my daughter did?
A DLV (I think) that my oldest daughter demonstrates is to laugh at herself.
In that particular manner, yes. A man who laughs at himself can be a DHV if he does it in a situation where another man would get embarrassed or angry. Depending on how he does it.
It's not just the laughing that is the DLV, but the breathless explaining. Anytime you feel the need to explain when someone hasn't asked for it, that's a DLV seeking to express itself. I've been trying to train my kids to never do the "well, see, I thought" thing after someone corrects them.
"Did I ask what you thought? No. Then don't tell me."
Men respond a little differently to aloof and/or forceful sales pitches, but the difference is in style, not degree. From the lowest levels--to 18 year olds getting their masculinity questioned and talked into buying an expensive used truck from some crappy non-brand dealership near the airport--to the highest levels--corporate buyouts based on boardroom posturing and the assumed influence of partners, rather than actual numbers--men act substantively like women in the marketplace.
If you don't believe it, great. That just makes you an easier mark. Now go back to watching the Superbowl commercials, where all the beer and pickup ads are mere coincidence.
Women don't perceive an attractive man as a jerk, a psychopath, unkind, they perceive him as confident, self assured, not needy.
True, the man could be covered in blood and stringing ears into a necklace, but if he's attractive, teh hamsta would not perceive the psychopath, instead, it would be "He can be so nice at times" or something similar.
men act substantively like women in the marketplace.
Ok...
...all of which tells us that this has nothing to do with fundamental male/female differences. It's just another aspect of our deranged culture. In a decent culture, kindness would be valued. The question here is, do you manly men want to (1) have more non-marital sex, or (2) try to make the world a better place?
Are you saying that women's lack of attraction to responsive men (those who display DLV) is not inherent in women and is a result of a deranged culture - that women as a whole have changed and hypergamy is a new thing?
In a decent culture, kindness would be valued, you're right. Go back to Genesis and read when that decent culture changed.
What??? Grandma Moses lives!!!!
From VP:
11. If you have made several comments that lead me to observe you have nothing interesting to contribute to an ongoing discussion, I reserve the right to tell you to stop commenting on that post. A refusal to abide by my decision will lead to banning. This is at my sole discretion.
He told you to drop it several comments ago. Yet, here you are.
GG,
You can't get enough of us jerks here! We insult you, tell you to shut up, tell you to go away, but you don't listen, you just keep coming back for more heaping helpings of our hospitality.
GG DIGS JERKS.
Simon Cowell = DHV
Paula Abdul = DLV
Paula was nicer and seemingly easier to please, which helped ease the performers' nerves, and made being rejected sting a little less. The studio audience could be pretty gracious too (at least in the 6-10 episodes I probably saw). But what every performer really wanted was to impress Simon, and if they pulled that off then they invariably impressed the audience even more.
There were always some rejects who afterwards spouted some variation of "I don't care what Simon thinks, because he's not nice, and I know I'm a special snowflake." But if he'd given those same people a positive rating, they'd still be bragging about it today.
Gentlemen, look at what she's doing here. She's immediately leaping in to defend Team Woman from men learning how to make women respond positively to them. Women always try to run the "confidence" switcheroo; see, it's not the ASSHOLES that they find attractive, but the STRONG men....
Which is actually an open confession that they can't tell the difference. They just like it.
Seems to me that, yet again, a woman views things through her hamster, and things get lost in translation. What would seem as "rather loathsome" to us men, as well as to women if done by a Gamma or Omega, is perceived as "attractive" if done by an Alpha, Beta, or Sigma.
Exactly the same as why certain acts are seen as "creepy" by women if done by a low-value man, but not if done by a high-value man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbeEuYAZFL4
GG said...
"But now that you've gone and broken one of the rules posted at VP, I'm quite content to grant numerous readers wishes and ban you from AG as well as VP. Go away. Don't come back. If you insist on trolling here, your comments will be deleted and you'll be doxed just like other trolls have been."
I haven't broken any rules Vox, except the rule of never exposing your lack of integrity.
As for doxing me, I've doxed myself here four times already, so have at it. I learned long ago not to fear that particular stupidity.
Odd... I read here more than most, I'd wager. And I don't recall your ever doing so.
But, being a woman of the highest integrity, I'm sure someone could link to four threads where you've done so.
*Guy is nice*
It's not as effective...
*Guy is an asshole*
It's super effective!!
SarahsDaughter, do you feel that we should act in such a way as to display traits that belong in an indecent culture? Being the most successful person in Sodom is probably not the best long-term plan.
Did GG sense she was about to get banned and name a successor beforehand?
High Arka (is that your goth name?) there is already no shortage of feminists, blue pill men, and Churchians shaming and medicating boys and young men to be "nice," and trying to raise caring, sensitive men who pedestalize women. So wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to go to female-centric blogs and instruct young women that they need to repress their hypergamy and only award their affections to these nice guys? Surely they would listen and your words would make a difference, right?
The other day I flipped across a contemporary Christian music station, and realized that I've heard plenty of female Christian artists singing about the importance of love, healing, dealing with hardship, or even how "broken" they feel at times, but I couldn't recall a single song where they directly reference their own sinful nature. I can perhaps recall two such tracks now, although one has lyrics mostly taken from one of the Psalms. It seems though that even in music, admission of sin and failing is mostly left up to Christian men.
Do any of you guys think it's ironic that your manly little "pill" terms come from a fat bald homosexual hipster and his brother/transitioning-sister with the pink hair and the affected mannerisms? And that Neo was a complete needy gamma nerd who hung on Trinity's every word? And that Trinity was an amazingly skilled software engineer who also beat the hell out of a lot of men?
You should have ripped off a different set of terms to describe your new age tribe. Try some old John Wayne movies, maybe?
Speaking of irony:
SarahsDaughter, do you feel that we should act in such a way as to display traits that belong in an indecent culture?
Said by a woman who came in, took a look around, lifted her skirt and shit on the floor.
High Arka,
I'm sure you think you're making a clever point, but you're not.
The concept is as old as the shadows on a cave wall.
Referencing a modern re-telling is a vehicle to help others understand.
"I've heard plenty of female Christian artists singing about the importance of love, healing, dealing with hardship, or even how "broken" they feel at times, but I couldn't recall a single song where they directly reference their own sinful nature."
That's because it's hard to get a word in edgewise what with all the references to whores, sluts, and rancid vaginas, oh Great and Mighty Myopic Doorstop. You guys practice such an ancient sin, one that began in the garden. I shouldn't have to deal with my own issues God, look at this woman you gave me....
"Said by a woman who came in, took a look around, lifted her skirt and shit on the floor."
There is only one thing more pathetic than a man who doesn't know his own worth Sarah, and that's a woman like you who is driven by sexual competitiveness to try and curry favor with such men, by validating their own dysfunctional perception of women. That's not sacrificial love Sarah, it's a selfish perversion of what Christ taught us.
That's because it's hard to get a word in edgewise what with all the references to whores, sluts, and rancid vaginas, oh Great and Mighty Myopic Doorstop. You guys practice such an ancient sin, one that began in the garden. I shouldn't have to deal with my own issues God, look at this woman you gave me....
You didn't address the issue raised. You deflected.
Getting females is a concept older than the shadows on a cave wall. You wusses and your little therapy meetings have so many self-supporting terms for stuff that real men have been doing without support groups for thousands of years. Oh, boogy-boo, here come the feminists, I'm quivering!
It's only because of feminism that you think "safe space" internet discussion zones for men have value. Look at you all, baring your breasts and exposing your emotions and trying so hard to figure out how to give women the casual, childless sex that feminism taught them they wanted! You're just a more advanced form of female tool, operating under their heirarchy and trying to be more appealing and more of service.
...which is why it's perfectly fitting that all of your emo-support terms are misappropriated from the Wachowski crossdresser's neo-feminist movie, and from black people who complained about the lack of meaning in your white feminist culture.
You got nothing. You think you invented sex. A millennia ago, men were siring and raising well five to ten children, working all day, and not stopping to whine about how it was all women's fault. You testosterone-popping little eunuchs are so proud of yourselves for occasionally rubbing your condoms around inside some jezebel's loose nethers, in-between your impotent little cubicle jobs and your six-hour Call of Duty marathons. The only one impressed with your masculinity is you.
Oh, and SarahsDaughter: presuming I did shit on the floor, I still made a point about Sodom. Do you want to address it, or was it too big and scary? The question was:
"[D]o you feel that we should act in such a way as to display traits that belong in an indecent culture?"
That thing, that thing that you're feeling right now--it's what these guys here call "cogdis" when feminists do it. You realize that the answer to that question does not match up to your beliefs, and that you've internalized three contradictory beliefs in an attempt to be popular:
(1) The belief that culture became bad after Genesis;
(2) The belief that you are a good Christian who tries to be good;
(3) The belief that it is right to be a more capable participant in the post-Genesis culture, e.g., to be more effective at being "bad," as you call it.
"The belief that culture became bad after Genesis....The belief that it is right to be a more capable participant in the post-Genesis culture, e.g., to be more effective at being "bad," as you call it."
Great, we've got another non-Christian trying to measure a Christian by what her depraved mind imagines is the Christian's own yardstick. She might as well be arguing that police officers, judges, jailers, soldiers, heart surgeons, and morticians are evil because they're capable of filling roles and doing work that wouldn't be necessary if it hadn't been for the Fall.
For those to who are new to this site and the arguments, and are interested in the religious bent this thread has taken- nowhere in the Scripture does it say that men are to submit meekly to women, much less to women they are courting, engaged to, or are married to. Scripture does say that Eve's desire would be for her husband, that her husband would rule over her, that wives should submit to their husbands, and that wives are the "weaker vessel." This study that Vox posted jibes with these "sexist" scriptures must more than it does with the feminist dogma that women desire to be "equal" to men and are simply repressed by the patriarchy. It also jibes with what countless men have observed with their own eyes. The (conscious or unconscious) pagan goddess-worshipers can't have that though, can they? Queue GG and High Arka, concern-trolling (with a liberal amount of ridiculous shaming language) that Vox is a false teacher instructing men not to behave in accordance with God's will. Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify...
See, my friend, what you are missing about cognitive dissonance is that, no matter what untrue or hurtful things you say about me (that's the "ad hominem" attack-response, to avoid addressing the issues), the dissonance does not go away.
What you're saying is, "Eve and Adam ate the apple, therefore, I should be as tough as is necessary to succeed in this world." The Bible teaches us the opposite--that we're supposed to be begging forgiveness for our sins, rather than accumulating as many sexual conquests and bank accounts as we can. Your sins are your own, and you cannot blame Adam or Eve for what you have done. Nor could the inhabitants of Sodom.
Say it's fifty years from now, and physical homosexual education is mandatory for job placement. Would you lay with a man as with a woman, because it's necessary to do work that way because of the Fall?
Or, is it okay to be gluttonous now, because everybody's doing it? How about killing?
Your arguments are Satan's--you would have us believe that because we need to "fill roles and do work" that exists because of Adam and Eve eating the apple, it's okay to ignore the commandments given to prophets who came much after Adam and Eve.
Getting females is a concept older than the shadows on a cave wall.
High Arka,
You illiterate dope.
"Allegory of the Cave."
It has nothing to do with women. The Matrix comparison is used to illustrate a fundamental re-focusing of the individual mind to understand a broader reality most cannot see, understand, and most often fear.
Crack a fucking book.
*sigh* I've known that for decades, but even if I hadn't understood you, that's still another reference from a wealthy dude with a likely fondness for young Greek boys. Can you come up with any metaphors of your own, or is it some kind of requirement that you borrow ones postulated by popular altsexual entertainers?
Even presuming that I'm lying to "save face" (because, I guess, I'm embarrassed by the thought that I haven't been forced to read Plato another dozen times, or somethiing), you've dodged the point again with an ad hominen attack. Male humans "getting" female humans occurred not only before Plato, but before any humans cast any shadows on cave walls at all. So, all of my original questions are still there.
Why are you afraid to answer them? Here, I'll misspell a word, so that if you can't answer the questions in my July 29, 2014, 10:51 PM post, you can instead insult me for misspelling: "xanthelasma palpebrarume."
(Hint: it's a vowel.)
im convinced women are satans tool.eve was deceived,adam was not.he at willingly because he loved eve more than god(first beta)he falled because he was suppoused to sacrifice hisself 4 her(as Christ would do later 4 us all)not follow her lead.women are to submit,obey,and respect men,period.when they don't u get feminism,homos,&rapid decline.....
& to high arka,how dare u call men wussies,because they want to know the truth(u cunts HATE NICE non CONTROLLING men).& because we men r civillised and don't enslave,rape,and really"oppress"u?(as r eastern brothers will always do)that's wat happened"thousands'' of yrs ago cunt,no womens rights,defaintly no women callin men wussies without swift punishment.women,by nature&by not accepting their own nature&role,are surely retarted....
&again dumb hole,men got women by force b4 plato.should we go back 2 such?with all the dikes&weirdos running around,im sure we should....
This is what women have become. Women with great intellectual capability have always existed, gone from most, however, is sophistication and wisdom.
High Arka, I have no interest in discussing the is/ought issue you raise. It's not the topic of this post. You have also demonstrated yourself to be a highly repulsive fool. I imagine my husband having to work with women like you and it's no wonder why he can't wait to get home away from the women of the world.
"Do any of you guys think it's ironic that your manly little "pill" terms come from a fat bald homosexual hipster and his brother/transitioning-sister with the pink hair and the affected mannerisms?"
"You wusses and your little therapy meetings have so many self-supporting terms for stuff that real men have been doing without support groups for thousands of years."
"You testosterone-popping little eunuchs are so proud of yourselves for occasionally rubbing your condoms around inside some jezebel's loose nethers, in-between your impotent little cubicle jobs and your six-hour Call of Duty marathons. The only one impressed with your masculinity is you."
"...that's still another reference from a wealthy dude with a likely fondness for young Greek boys. Can you come up with any metaphors of your own, or is it some kind of requirement that you borrow ones postulated by popular altsexual entertainers? "
"that's the "ad hominem" attack-response, to avoid addressing the issues"
Pro-tip: This is called arguing in bad faith.
"Your arguments are Satan's--you would have us believe that because we need to "fill roles and do work" that exists because of Adam and Eve eating the apple, it's okay to ignore the commandments given to prophets who came much after Adam and Eve."
High Arka, provide chapter and verse from scripture of any "commandment given to the prophets" indicating that a man is supposed to behave like the stereotypical meek "nice guy" towards a prospective wife, or even treat her as his "equal." Otherwise shut up and slither back to where you came from.
Luke 6:29
If you find avaricious western women to be hypergamous, is the right thing to do:
(1) Become cunning and manipulative to extract non-marital sex from them, or
(2) Be nice, do the best you can, and put faith, rather than judgment, in each new person you encounter.
...? You know the answer, but it's unpleasant, which is why you don't want to answer that question anymore than you do the ones above, which you are still ignoring. No matter how many bad anecdotes you all have about naughty women, and how justified you feel in your cherished anger, it is wrong to behave selfishly and vindictively toward other people.
You can't reconcile Christianity with selfishness. If you guys were normal atheistic/agnostics talking about how to trick your way into someone's pants, it would still be pitiful, but at least it wouldn't be hypocritical.
What you guys are is Satanists. You can even read that in LaVey's fantasy book. Like that Aurini ass, he was a bald cherubic hipster who wrote bad spiritual fiction:
"If a man smite thee on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!"
That's what you guys are doing. You think your treatment of women is okay because "they" wronged you. But the same force drives feminists--they think being discriminatory assholes toward men is okay, because of some story they once heard about a rapist getting released without penalty, or because their uncle beat them, or whatever. It's not okay.
Getting revenge is not turning the other cheek and handing over your shirt also. It perpetuates a cycle of hurtful behavior where each new perpetrator feels morally justified because of his own suffering, and so causes the suffering of people who will become the next confident perpetrators, who will feel justified in causing the suffering of people who will become the next confident perpetrators, and so on. Your way is the endless cycle of selfish vengeance, which delights Satan and saddens Christ.
High Arka,
I didn't use ad hominem. I insulted you. There's a difference.
For example,if I declared a point or argument invalid because of who made the argument, that's an ad hominem. It is attacking the traits of the person making the argument. So...
wealthy dude with a likely fondness for young Greek boys
attacks a trait of Plato in an attempt to undermine the point he was making.
Your original issue with The Matrix also rested on homosexuality of the film makers. Again, a logical fallacy called...
ad hominem
Do I think you never read Plato? You bet your ass. Do I think you likely still don't understand "ad hominem?" You betcha.
One last time:
Insult: You're a fucking idiot who needs to keep the swimmies on and stay in the shallow end.
ad hominem: Because you're a fucking idiot who needs to keep the swimmies on and stay in the shallow end, your argument is invalid
(1) Become cunning and manipulative to extract non-marital sex from them, or
(2) Be nice, do the best you can, and put faith, rather than judgment, in each new person you encounter.
False choice; there are options besides amoral manipulator or naive doormat. But you knew that, troll.
Sorry counselor, but by substituting insults for responses to pertinent questions, the insults become your response, and a dismissal of the issues--ergo ad hominen. If you had insulted me and then responded to the issues (as I did for you), you would be just as rude as me, but you would have at least kept the discussion going.
Mind addressing the issues, again? You can slip in another few insults if you like, but the original questions that you keep dodging remain where they were first asked, in the response from July 29, 2014 at 10:51 PM.
Really, talking about our personalities or who does her makeup better is more of a female debate tactic, isn't it? Why don't we just stick to more abstract questions about the issues involved?
"Luke 6:29"
I'd say "try again" but you've got nothing, High Arka. To apply that scripture to this discussion is the same as arguing that a Christian business owner should let his employee physically assault and steal from him, or a Christian mother should let her young son slap her and take money from her purse.
Teaching men to behave in a dominant masculine manner that's attractive to women is no more about being "manipulative" than teaching new supervisors how to manage employees, or new parents how to properly raise children. Those roles don't come naturally to everyone, but failure to carry them out properly can result in dysfunction, and ultimately in destruction of the relationship.
Ahh, I understand. So, here's what Luke 6:29 says:
If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
But you feel this is wrong. You feel that what Jesus meant was:
If someone slaps you on one cheek, respond in a dominant masculine manner. If someone takes your coat, respond in a dominant masculine manner.
Why, I wonder, did God not have it written that way? The whole crucifixion scene must've been reported wrong, too. Obviously, Jesus should've gotten His Alpha self off the cross and demonstrated command presence to those damned Romans, right?
Maybe Ephesians has something you'd like better:
Carefully contemplate all your bitterness, rage and anger, along with every form of malice, and let it instruct you in how to be dominant around women. Be confident and masculine with them, never forgetting the conclusions you have drawn about their behavior, and surely God will still forgive you.
But no, that's not what He said, is it?
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. -Eph. 4:31-32
This is what it feels like to disobey, and to eat that sweet, sweet fruit--it feels righteous and good. It feels so good that you can ignore direct, literal commands for kindness and forgiveness, and somehow mangle them into no-see-ums, or justifications for doing the selfish things you wanted to do anyway to get non-marital pussy. Like Adam, you have not learned your lesson. You still think that blaming your behavior on "women" (even more culpable women, if such a grading system is relevant) will get you a free pass.
"Oh, yeah God, I'm sorry I didn't be kind or forgive, but, see, hypergamy! See? She did hypergamy, so it was okay for me to ignore all that, like, Bible stuff!"
High Arka,
Is your fundamental objection that you think Vox & Ilk are advocating unbiblical behavior to have sex with women?
No, High Arka, I responded to the issue I raised and continued to clarify for yo dum azz.
I am not participating in other conversations or points.
Again, think before posting.
Iowahine,
She is very confused. She interchanges the word "nice" with the word "kind" and believes they have the same meaning, she is under the impression that hypergamy is something women do not what they are (hypergamous) and always have been. She confuses discernment for judgement and condemnation. She misinterprets any man's desire to attract a woman as his desire to have unwed sex with her. She's clueless that the very traits that attract a woman to a man are the same things that keep a wife from getting unhappy in marriage. She makes grand assumptions about the motives and beliefs of the numerous people reading this blog and she is very skilled at building straw men and tearing them down. Look at this:
If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
But you feel this is wrong. You feel that what Jesus meant was:
If someone slaps you on one cheek, respond in a dominant masculine manner. If someone takes your coat, respond in a dominant masculine manner.
She believes that turning the other cheek is not the same as responding in a dominant masculine manner. Though countless men have demonstrated their following of this very command in not responding to her numerous insults thrown about in her comments. One commenter took issue with her calling men "wussies" out of hundreds that read it. She knows what she deserves. If this was an in-person exchange, everyone knows what she deserves, yet most men will indeed turn the other cheek. They'll let her continue flinging her poo until she wears herself out. Some will be confused as to why she is so belligerent, some will understand this is what women have become, but there will be a few who will not turn the other cheek and will give her exactly what she knows she deserves for her behavior. And she will suffer her own cog dis when she's turned on by the man who puts her in her place.
And that is exactly why GG came fluttering back here like a moth to a flame, over and over again, ad nauseam.
LOL. Holy crap. These femgals are pretty entertaining. I mean, seriously, I'm laughing.
They are entertaining. I like to sit back and watch their thrashings about, their oh so cleverly constructed lines of attack, and just laugh and laugh and laugh. High Arka's thrashings about are fun to watch.
Well Iowahine, it's clear that the prophets were able to sleep with prostitutes out of lust without it being a big deal to Yahweh, and yet, lust is supposed to be a sin. We have to assume that we're always going to feel lust, and maybe act on it, but that in submission to Christ, we would gain forgiveness for having, and acting upon, that lust.
Can a murderer be forgiven? Of course. Christ has said it would be. However, there has to be some point at which behavior becomes so casual, so flippant, about sin, that it is apparent the sinner is no longer seeking forgiveness. In the case of this website, everyone is plotting about their own purse. Their own self-interest. Righteously judging and condemning the unworthy for not using their lust enough, insulting those who don't agree with them, and plotting about how to manipulate others into giving them what they want. There is no forgiveness here; only harsh judgment, from people who feel that their understanding of earthly social rituals makes them, rather than Jesus, the Alpha.
It's certainly possible that Jesus will, or already has, forgiven them for this terrible behavior, but--as in the case of the adulteress--we can still identify it as terrible behavior. They don't really understand how cruel their callous remarks are, and I hope that they will not only be forgiven, but find such peace that they no longer need to insult perceived outsiders, or put notches in their sexual conquest belt, to be content with themselves and the Lord.
There is no forgiveness here; only harsh judgment.
What must one do first in order to forgive someone something?
Let's not even talk about the offender asking for forgiveness. There is no possible way to forgive someone something without first judging the offending action/behavior.
So, High Arka does recognize that a woman's hypergamy and the scientific (heh) discovery that they are not attracted to responsive men is a behavior that would need to be forgiven. Does she spend her time here speaking of how a woman can combat this behavior (to not have one's attraction to their spouse be reliant on him, rather on the Source)? Does she spend her time instructing single women what to look for and how to deny her covetous need for more and even uncivilized and audacious displays of protection/provision ability? No. Of course not. She feels no burden to seek to do what the Bible instructs of her. She'd rather instruct and criticize men - a lane in which she does not belong.
She really does not seek forgiveness out of the men here for the Team. She seeks for there to be no judgement. She'd much rather men not talk of these things amongst themselves (revealing the pretty little lies). Teaching each other how to identify fallen natures of women that have been covered and lied about and effective ways in which to deal with them (for the benefit of both the man and the woman - after all, women do actually like it when they are attracted to a man, and it helps the men Paul spoke of - those who burn - do what he instructed). She moans there is no forgiveness from the men here, what she means is there is no supplicating niceness and acceptance of all behavior of woman and blind subordination to the female imperative.
I'd like to award a double measure of applause to SarahsDaughter for her discerning and well-stated observations about the unseemly behaviors and likely motivations AG's latest troll. The troll is so inept and duplicitous though, that I'm just waiting for her to Google "women should be silent", copy-and-paste 1st Timothy 2:12 into her next comment, and proceed to argue that SarahsDaughter is sinning by not being silent ;-)
HIgh Arka: They don't really understand how cruel their callous remarks are . . .
Thank you for taking the time to explain. Perhaps those words express the crux of your comments. I've been there. I started reading VP at WorldNetDaily and was excited to read of topics in a way I found no where else (i.e., VD's discussion of science was consistent with some of my observations), but came to the blog because I really couldn't understand why VD kept making "nasty" and "snarky" comments about women. Certainly, I wasn't really understanding - and no, I really wasn't.
So I began to read and a few times comment. A few times, especially when I didn't discern the difference between PUA, MGTOW, and Game, I exploded in a string of frustrated comments about the ugly things said - or, well, no . . . actually I tried to tell men what they should do. Then, I continued reading and eventually, it became clear. I didn't/don't have the frame of reference men do - never can/never will - so if I piped down, quelled my emotional reaction, and tried to learn, I might.
As a result, I've gained useful insight and as my beliefs/perceptions changed, so did my behavior and that has greatly benefitted my 25-year rarely smooth and easy marriage. As a woman, and one well past my prime years, it isn't easy to accept some of the truths spoken here, but truths simply are. Beating one's head against them or trying to convince others that true is false does not change true and false, and it especially does nothing to assist the person struggling because of his/her false beliefs.
I would encourage you to keep reading, thinking, and being open to the realization that none of know as much as we think we do, and there's nothing as empowering as humility, a humble heart, and the willingness to learn.
There's a danger here, in using sinful mortal men as barometers for our own behavior. We're supposed to look up to, and be led by, men; yet, we cannot do that without a standard. Were we in England, should we be led by effete metrosexuals who put on touches of makeup and occasionally give other blokes handjobs without thinking much about it? Should we have chanced to be born in Japan, should we be unspeaking shinto wives who never have sex and speak to our husbands only over dinners? Should we be adopted in infancy by a male-male married couple in the new America, would it be right to live our lives according to their dictates?
We have to be able to assess--"judge," in the non-pejorative sense--the rightness of what people are doing, for we have free will and are being tested just as they.
A lot of what they're saying about feminism and about American women is correct. That doesn't alter the observable truths that (1) they're not answering questions I posed, but rather, insulting me personally, and (2) the powerful undercurrent of lust for childless, responsibility-free, non-marital sex lives that they're mostly pursuing.
These are not patriarchs or leaders. These are people looking to have more weekend fun with socio-economic prostitutes. Maybe that's acceptable or necessary, but it's not admirable.
That doesn't alter the observable truths that (1) they're not answering questions I posed, but rather, insulting me personally, and (2) the powerful undercurrent of lust for childless, responsibility-free, non-marital sex lives that they're mostly pursuing.
You've got no fucking clue what we're after, because all you are looking through is the haze of your agenda glasses. We are after more sex with our wives, but just as importantly, a more masculine and dominant frame, which contributes directly to a better society for your ungrateful ass to live in. You'll never be able to understand that because of your sex. This is a page for us to learn, men. Not you. You barge in here and demand we kowtow to you, answer your questions, toe your line? Not on God's green earth. Your very existence here is an exercise of our grace to you. Don't wear it out.
For now I recommend you take Iowahine's advice. Shut your damn mouth, read and think.
High Arka,
You perceive a "powerful undercurrent of lust for childless, responsibility-free, non-marital sex lives they they're mostly pursuing" - by which I guess you mean the men who comment here, including VD. Game is advocated here, not PickUpArtistry. I read observations, reactions, and experiences of secular living/society, including Churchianity, but over time, I've really only taken away a true interest in using the observations of Game in such a way as to enhance and secure stable relationships in marriage, family, and hence - society.
Some commentors have had negative interactions with women which have led to bitterness as reflected in their comments. Regardless, this blog serves a relevant function for the men who read and comment here, and as mentioned, it has served me well too, but it took time for me to examine my feelings and try to understand why I disagreed or was offended.
My apologies--if these men are all here just talking about ways to improve their marriage, I was completely off base. I got the impression that most of the people here were not discussing how to make happy marriages, but instead cackling over how stupid feminists are, and conniving about how to trick women into sex, because the only safe option for living is to have a series of short term monogamous relationships where you can dump someone as soon as they stop putting out, and find a new slut.
High Arka,
I've got a wife and two little boys. I'm not here to pick up tricks for laying chicks down at the club on Friday night. I already know how to do that. I need to Game my wife more than I do some random chick at a bar to get any kind of action. Picking up women in a club is easy. Getting your typical, lazy American wife to do her job is the real challenge.
Yeah, laughing at feminists is fun, partly because it is so easy, and partly because they need to be laughed at so they get over themselves. You also have to know what they are doing because of the influence they wield in modern society. Exposing their lunacy and knowing how to ruthlessly annihilate them in a debate is important. Women respect force and dominance. Nothing else. If we men are to be respected we need to show the women who is in charge. If you are afraid of a saying something to a woman, you shouldn't be leading anything or anyone, let alone other men.
I took my first girlfriend out on a date, and she and her friend ate maybe half of their food. I asked them why they didn't finish their plates, they told me the women come to restaurants for the experience, not for the food. That was incomprehensible to me.
That would explain how a lot of lousy restaurants and coffeehouses stay in business...
That would explain how a lot of lousy restaurants and coffeehouses stay in business...
Yeah. You don't have to have good food, just figure out how to decorate it so women come in and eat. Just have really good chocolate. Women like that.
High Arka,
You're clearly good at expressing yourself in typed words and have a bent for hyperbole. I doubt your apologies are sincere, as your reply implies you find my assessment naive. I read what you read, I get what you get, but made a decision to either not read here or try to understand my negative emotional responses. I'm still here, reading - 5 or more years at VP; AG as long as it has been. I don't understand or agree with everything, but why would I? I am, however, learning and gaining insight.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.