A dose of manosphere wisdom
This is a post cliped from Dalrock's, along with comments that were really good from the huge comment thread. It's basically about how the serial monogamy that constitutes modern dating is a mating strategy that benefits women. Men do not benefit from it. This is in particular because it enables women to lock down a guy, but when a better option comes by, dump him and trade up (this is hypergamy).
Men benefit from spinning plates, and women will shame men for spinning plates to help enforce their preferred mating strategy.
The comment thread gets into a discussion about the nature of women's desire for commitment, and beats into my head that they really just want to fuck hot guys.
This post ended up being really fuck long. It's for my own personal notes as much as anything.
The ubiquitous frame of hypergamy.
Posted on June 3, 2012 by Dalrock
In his latest post The Abdication Imperative Rollo explains how the subconscious programming of women defines our post feminist culture. In direct contrast to conventional wisdom (but in perfect alignment with our lying eyes), Rollo describes the cultural mechanisms put in place by women in an attempt to deal with their profound fear of commitment:
In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime.
The degree of denial here is so great that outside of the manosphere few would be able to accept that it is in fact women who naturally are terrified of (true) commitment. Part of this is projection by women onto men, and part of it is the deceptive nature of women’s sexuality. The feral woman’s preferred sexual experience is to be seduced by a series of men who prove their alphaness to her. Essential in this process is that her risk in being seduced is rewarded by the man’s commitment/investment in her. Women are driven to secure commitment from the men they mate with in order to secure the protection, resources, and parenting assistance she will require for the resulting children. This push to secure maximum commitment from men has been widely misinterpreted as women naturally wanting to commit in marriage. Our friend Glenn T. Stanton expressed the conventional wisdom in his Christian parenting book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.
Actually he is technically correct. Women do want to marry. What they don’t (innately) want is to stay married. More accurately, they want the exclusive option to unilaterally end the marriage should they feel that they have better options. Women’s natural desire for marriage needs to be understood in the frame of the feral woman’s script. The flawed assumption is that a woman marrying naturally represents a woman who has found her rock and intends to stay there.
The way women experience this isn’t via a conscious desire to hop from man to man. A former commenter Paige shared her own insight into how a young woman experiences this:
Relating Pump-n-Dumping to Serial Monogamy assumes more self-awareness in the woman than she actually has. At the beginning the woman is convinced she will be in-love forever…if the romantic feelings decline she believes the relationship is no longer worthwhile for either partner. But she doesn’t just assume at the beginning that this will happen.
In fact, the woman’s preference would be to have the man she has sex with and obtains commitment from continue to prove to be the best man available to her. In this way she validates her past choice and provides stability for her existing children while experiencing the pleasure of being seduced/courted over and over again.
This tendency to rework morality to suit the female imperative has saturated our entire view of sexual morality, both inside and outside of marriage. In a recent post on Hooking Up Smart (HUS), Susan Walsh demonstrates the subconscious assumption that promiscuous sex is immoral if it isn’t conducted according to women’s preferred script. In her post Studies Reveal Players Like Their Women Dumb, Drunk and Easy, she describes men who fail to cater to the feminine imperative as predatory and exploitive:
An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable. Cooperative mating strategies are exemplified by mutual interest and consent. There are two primary reasons why males might employ exploitation tactics:
1. The female does not want to have sex, while the man does.
2. The female wants a relationship, while the man wants casual sex.
Keep in mind she is talking about men interacting with young women engaged in the hookup culture. These aren’t women who are taking great pains to find a husband; they are interested in casual sex. Such women are in fact the target audience of Susan’s site, which explains the very title of the blog. If her target audience was women looking to save their chastity for marriage, her site might instead be titled Marrying Right and Smart (MRS). But it is not MRS, it is HUS, and the preferred female form of promiscuity rules the day for the HUSies. They are looking to be seduced by a mysterious stranger, and then convert a no strings attached sexual experience into ongoing investment and commitment from the man. Should this mysterious stranger continue to win the HUSy’s favor, she will then demand he offer a greater level of (unilateral) commitment in the form of a marriage vow.
But as Susan points out there are men who refuse to play by this script. They maddeningly take the “no strings” part of the hookup bargain as seriously as the HUSies do, and don’t fool themselves into thinking random hookup partners are owed any more commitment/investment than they choose to freely offer. Such men must be shamed. Susan finds them guilty of being exploitive, and defines four different exploitive tactics employed by men in the hookup market with the help of a UT Austin academic paper. The first is seduction, which the UT Austin researcher defines as:
Sexual seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may include long-term commitment and investment as goals.
Implicit in the definition is the belief that women have the right to have men standing by at the ready to offer commitment following no strings attached sex. The pure insanity of this idea is only eclipsed by the fact that such thinking has made its way into academic research.
The second category of sexual exploitation is what Susan calls “verbal or nonverbal pressure”, which the UT Austin paper defines as:
Pressure involves relentless persistence, threats, or coercion to induce an individual into having sex.
Notice how salesmanship is subtly compared with rape. Men pursuing their own desires in the SMP is deemed unacceptable. Only women can morally do so. Men who are moral are expected to understand this and only hookup based on the motivations of the HUSies.
June 3, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Let’s try a little experiment to show the falsity and bad faith involved. Sexual exploitation?
Could there be such a thing as commitment exploitation?
The paper says this: “Sexual seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may include long-term commitment and investment as goals.”
What if it said this:
“Commitment seduction is the act of cajoling or convincing a man into providing investment in and commitment to a woman. Seduction differs from good faith courtship, which may include marriage as a goal.”
June 3, 2012 at 4:27 pm
@deti: very good analogy between sex and investment. I’ll push it a little further:
“An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
Should be rephrased as: “An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex and/or resources when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
We need to accept “mating strategy” includes the idea of finding a long-term mate, otherwise we preclude women from being possible exploitative. So what’s going on in the dating scene? Women flock to clubs, often with no cover charge for them, and expect guys to buy them drinks. They are supposed to be taken to restaurants, given presents for valentine’s day, and offered emotional support, all of which classify as resources. There is a understanding that it is normal for a guy to offer his girl these things if she is having sex with him. I know a girl who replied to the question “what did you give your boyfriend for valentine’s day?” with “a blowjob”. The sex for investment is deeply rooted and well understood it seems. The problem is that the other way around is supposedly marking the men a rapist: “it’s not because you bought me dinner that I will have sex with you!”
But isn’t that behavior falling under the new “exploitative mating strategy” definition above? Of course, women shouldn’t have sex with the first sign of investment from a man, they can’t be expected to do that. But this also means the reverse expectation cannot be maintained either, that is: it’s not because a girl has sex with a guy that he should buy her dinner, or for that matter, give any sort of investment whatsoever. When this situation happens, it’s not men being exploitive, but rather women failing to understand that “no strings attached” sex works both ways. If HUS is supposed to help women navigate the hookup culture, the first thing it needs to do is clear up this huge misunderstanding.
June 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm
This is why men are doing two things: (1) limiting investment and commitment to the absolute bare minimum; and (2) pushing hard for sex as early as possible and as much as possible. This is to men’s advantage because it measures the woman’s interest level. If she is sexually attracted to him, she’ll respond to his advances. If she rebuffs him, he will know she is not interested and he will be able to direct his efforts elsewhere. His time and money are limited, and he needs to conserve them, preserve them, and direct them to where they will be most effective and advantageous to him.
The searching costs are being pushed onto women. This means the SMP will become far more unpleasant for women.
June 3, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Good stuff, D.
Both sexes have their ideal mating strategy, SW just feels the need to demonize the preferred male strategy.
“How dare he gets what he wants without giving the girl what she wants first, he is obviously lying/exploiting/sleazy”
Deep down all women are afraid of a man who knows his value and worth and can get what he wants without conforming to the feminine imperative. Usually unaware in the forebrain, it manifests in garbage like this. But make no mistake, the message is loud and clear once you decipher out.
June 4, 2012 at 1:40 am
Note the title of this post: the Ubiquitous Frame of Hypergamy.
I’ve made this point at HUS before, to Susan’s occasional disagreement.
I don’t agree that hypergamy only operates in young single women, and thus is fortuitously sated when she finds a man willing to marry her. To the contrary, hypergamy operates in all women, all the time, everywhere.
Hypergamy is an ever present, always running subroutine in every woman’s brain. It starts running when she reaches around age 11 or 12, and does not stop until she is dead. When it’s satisfied, it runs at a low hum. But if it is not, it shouts louder and louder. This subroutine actually serves a good purpose when controlled. It helps her select the best man she can get for reproduction and provisioning.
All women are hypergamous, all the time. Single women, engaged women, widows. Women who have been married for decades. Every woman wants to know she is with the best man she can get. If things get bad enough in a marriage, her hypergamous subroutine runs louder and faster. Her subroutine is kicking into high gear to search for a replacement husband. She can’t control this, but she can control her response to it. What controls it are her internal morals and external, family and social pressures (if any).
If it were true that married women aren’t hypergamous, we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate. We wouldn’t have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. We wouldn’t have sexless marriages. What we’re seeing is the hypergamy subroutine kicking in, and prodding the woman to trade up.
June 4, 2012 at 9:25 am
Aunt Susan’s mental gymnastics are a sight to behold: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/03/relationshipstrategies/how-wome...
They usually call this moving the goalposts, but there must be another word for this painful abuse of the english language.
It’s just the wrong conclusion, really, the same one that the underlying article made.
While it appears to be true that human sexual dimporhism reduced, and that this *may* suggest reduced sexual competition among men due to greater monogamy in human mating (there are skeptics about that, but it seems a reasonable, if as yet unproven, hypothesis), to construe this as resulting from “female choice” is nothing but ahistorical anachronistic feminist-influenced non-analysis. In that timeframe (hundreds of millions of years ago) human females had *no* real choice when it comes to mating, certainly nothing that could be construed as a “choice” today. The use of male physical power was not restricted as it is today, and so, frankly, it ruled the day. Women were relatively powerless (you have to regulate and outlaw most exercise of male physical power in order to set the groundwork for women to be empowered, because there is no “level playing field” when it comes to physical power — you have to take it off the table in order to level the playing field).
This is no less the case in sexual areas, because of the competition among men for mates. If anything, this change is far more likely to have been due to a modus vivendi having been reached among the males than it is to any aspect of female “mate choice”, because females were not empowered to choose in any meaningful sense. If anything, it seems far more likely that this arrangement — which was more male egalitarian than a more “winners take all” arrangement of polygyny — was instituted by some groups of humans who then proceeded to outcompete the other groups precisely due to the increased level of male cooperation in the group, which freed up energies to better the group and to focus on conquering other groups who were more divided due to polygyny and the greater in-group competition involved with that. The idea that “women just started choosing beta males” is an anachronistic projection of modern feminism backwards in time — human females almost certainly had no real choice in the matter at all at the time, in terms of “official bonds” — the cheating, of course, which is certainly as old as the switch to monogamy, would have involved female choice — and that makes sense, as it is a way to “cheat” the more male-egalitarian model of universal monogamy in favor of the female-preferred model of serial monogamy and provisioning from the best males available for mating, whether “married” to other females or not.
June 4, 2012 at 10:52 am
If “women’s choice” was a factor in this, then the sexual response of women would be different than it is; “50 shades of grey” would not be a best seller, for example. This should be obvious to any half-way serious observer of human sexual response..
Right. The proof is in the pudding. Lifetime monogamy certainly doesn’t serve “feral” female interests any more than it serves “feral” male interests (assuming powerful males), but it does serve the interests of relatively less powerful males by preventing the most powerful males from monopolizing the women. Hence it is also no surprise that the contemporary manifestation of feminism was also a collaboration of the alpha males in power and the females over and against the interests of the rank and file males — this is the very recent yet extremely disruptive upending of a human social ordering that took place long ago and worked in favor of most men at the expense, in sexual/mating terms, of the most powerful men and of most women as well (in terms of their “feral” interests).
Rollo Tomassi says:
June 4, 2012 at 1:48 pm
It’s just like Aunt Giggles to quote the research of Ogas and then completely twist it into her feminine primary narrative,..
Study after study has demonstrated the erotic appeal of male dominance. Women prefer the voices of dominant men, the scent of dominant men, the movement and gait of dominant men, and the facial features of dominant men…Scientists believe that the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex may be responsible for processing cues indicating social status or dominance, and it appears that almost all female brains are susceptible to dominance cues.
So essentially hypergamy is an evolutionarily selected-for survival instinct. An inborn sensitivity and physical arousal to audible cues, pheromonal cues, visual cues, all viscerally evolved into the very neurology of a female brain implies the critical importance of breeding with the most dominant male. So important in fact that hypergamy needed to be hard-coded into women’s firmware, yet Susan eels her way into redefining dominance in a social context as proof that women selected for the ‘good behaving men’. The manifestation of dominant men, as provided by her quoted reference, are all physical, not social. The olfactory receptors in a woman’s nose can’t tell if he’s a CEO or a drug dealing gang leader, but they do know if he smells like someone they need to bang. That sensitivity didn’t evolve because dominant men played well with others.
June 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm
As for alpha males, I’m not sure what your point is. If you start with the assumption that women have the right to choose who they have sex with by consent, then you will see that they are choosing who they want to have sex with and under what terms. They want alphas, so that is what they get. The women also aren’t demanding commitment prior to sex. This vestige of civilization is restraining and ruins their feral fun. They want to be seduced by a mysterious stranger; marrying him first ruins the effect. Plus they would have to promise commitment as well, something they aren’t looking to do. The best way to understand this is they want a realistic roller coaster. They want the excitement of feeling like they are out of control while knowing grownups are keeping them safe. This is why the mixed messages. The seduction must be from a mysterious stranger, a verifiable bad boy. But they want to assuage their fear given the great risk involved with submitting to such men. So they demand that society make it safe for them to be seduced by bad men. I introduce Mrs. Susan Walsh, of HUS, here to make sure bad men are cowed into offering commitment following no strings sex.
June 4, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Thanks for saying something that gets me thinking. I think you are right. So let’s reformulate: Alphas expect sex and women hope for commitment.
This is where you are going wrong. The woman pushes for commitment/investment from the man she wants to have sex with. She isn’t looking for a comitted relationship, misguidedly offering sex in hope that an altruistic badboy will do the right thing. She wants sex from alphas. Full Stop. She also wants resources/investment from men, ideally the same man she gets sex from (but that isn’t a dealbreaker). What she doesn’t want, what she is terrified of (much more than men), is truly committing to one man.
June 4, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Finally, in general, what the girls who hook up desire – a committed relationship – is infinitely better for society (the children) than what the players, in general, desire. What they want is “better” from a practical point of view – not to mention “right” from a moral point of view.
No, because generally what women “want” is serial monogamy, not a real commitment from *themselves*. Sure, they want the man to commit, but they never really want to commit themselves, so that they can keep their options open, even when married, if/when an “appropriate upgrade” becomes available. The desire for serial monogamy — which manifests in the short term as a desire for commitment on the part of a male partner — is no more moral than the desire men may have for promiscuity opportunities — in fact, it is simply the preferred female form of promiscuity, just on a more delayed timeline. Contemporary society (perhaps you as well) has internalized this female prerogative as being the “good” way to “do relationships” , even though it results in massive levels of divorce and fatherlessness due to the fundamentally mercurial nature of female hypergamy, which is more or less completely enabled by endorsing this perspective as “better” and “moral”. This is a sickness in our society, and a profound moral shortcoming of almost all so-called “Christian” churches today.
This is one of the key messages of this blog, to be honest, and Dalrock has made the case well in many other posts, in my opinion.
Anonymous Reader says:
June 5, 2012 at 9:12 am
AnonymousGuy, your snarky reply did not answer any point I made. I read carefully. Probably more carefully than you wrote., in fact.
You still clearly assume that women want to be monogamous to one man. If that were true, then divorce would be rare, and the majority of them filed by men. However, divorce is common (40% or more of marriages in the first 10 years) and the majority are filed by women (60% and up). Therefore, your premise is not true. It is not true, because reality contradicts it.
As I said before, women want fried ice. You even admit this: women want an Alpha, a womanizing man who can have any woman he wants, but who will be true only to her. That is the nature of hypergamy. And as with so many female-centric posters, you are oh so concerned with women, while clearly regarding men as mere tools, animals, vending machines. You fail to realize that your position truly does boil down to this: giving every woman every thing that she wants, when she wants it.
In her 20′s, she wants an Alpha who will commit to her. You want her to have that. Later on, she will want a beta to provide resources to support the baby/babies she made with her Alpha. You want her to have that, too. Then when she gets bored with her beta man, restless, and wanting more Alpha sex, you want her to have that, too. Women are serial monogamists – they wish to use and discard men in a sequential fashion. You obviously do not have a problem with that – if women want it, it must be good. Reading your text, it is clearly your gynocentric perspective at work leading you to this position.
Look around you. 40% of babies are bastards. Women want it this way, because 5 minutes of Alpha is preferable to 5 years of Beta. That is the nature of uncontrolled hypergamy.
You do not understand women. Your romantic, idealized vision of women is not born out by reality. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Therefore, the current Sexual Market Place is what many, if not most, women want. And yes, All Women Are Like That (AWALT), but they can be trained to control their hypergamous nature. If they are not trained to control themselves, then various forms of serial monogamy are the most natural outcome. You say, “Shame the sluts, but shame the players, too”, a line that we have seen a few times. Here is the problem you have:
All women have the potential to be sluts. AWALT.
Serial, slutty, “monogamy” is the natural preference of women. They have to be trained to avoid or reject that. You obviously do not understand this, and so your premise is false. Therefore, none of your reasoning based on that premise has any meaning.
June 5, 2012 at 9:16 am
“The fact is that the woman does want a commitment from the alpha guy they seek – *and* they want to commit to him as well – they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period. Just because later on, they give into their primal nature does not negate this important truth.”
This is horseshit, plain and simple. Men reading this blog, please don’t accept anything Anonguy says. This is exactly the kind of thinking that pedestalizes women and causes untold pain for young men everywhere. It is the kind of thinking that causes men to mindlessly offer commitment on a silver platter to sluts, thus penalizing the man’s good faith conduct and rewarding the slut’s bad faith conduct.
Let’s review some basic history.
Up until about 60 years ago, we lived in an assortative mating society, marriage 1.0. It was a world of slut shaming and where hypergamy was tightly controlled. Oh, we still had sluts, and we still had alphas who sexed the sluts (and occasionally a “good girl”). Sometimes greater and classic betas blasted once or twice in a slut before they settled down for marriage. There were outlier sluts, outlier confirmed bachelors, but most married within a point or two of their own SMV.
In the name of fairness and justice, and “women’s liberation”, our society enacted sweeping legal, social and cultural reforms. These are driving up the divorce rates, age of men and women at first marriage, rate of birth of bastard children. They are driving down the rates of childbirth. Women drove this so they can have whatever they want. Increasingly, women en masse are showing over and over again that what they want in the sexual realm is this:
(1) hot sex with alpha men
(2) commitment from a series of men able to provide (for as long as the woman finds that commitment useful or advantageous to her)
What we now have is an SMP in which women have been given, and feel entitled to, whatever they want. They want sex, or commitment, or both, whenever they want, for as long as they want, with whomever they want, in any forms and combinations they want. They expect men to provide what they want, when they want.
Women do not “hope for commitment” from men they sex up in the hookup scene or on the carousel. Women get on the carousel because they want sex from dominant alpha men. They don’t hope for commitment. They want the sex.
I’m going to go out on a limb here: Women en masse want to ride the carousel. They want hot sex from alpha men, as much as they can get, for as long as they can get it. One of three things gets her off the carousel: (1) she is kicked off because she can’t pull the hot men anymore; (2) she steps off because she tires of it and can’t do it anymore; (3) baby rabies and desperate searches for marriage to the first available man. But make no mistake about it — she does not want off the carousel.
Those who don’t get to ride the carousel are carousel watchers. These women don’t slut it up like the full fledged sluts. They stand around, watching the alphas and the sluts. Occasionally, carousel watchers hook up with a greater beta or classic beta, and then shut him down when he offers commitment. The watcher doesn’t want commitment — she wants sex from a hot alpha. And occasionally, when business on the carousel is slow, an alpha horse invites a watcher to ride, and she gets a few rides. Sometimes she becomes a rider; most times she steps off or is kicked off.
What women really want is to ride the carousel for as long as she wants, then step off when she wants into the arms of an alpha offering commitment for as long as she wants.
June 5, 2012 at 10:22 am
The fact is that the woman does want a commitment from the alpha guy they seek – *and* they want to commit to him as well – they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period. Just because later on, they give into their primal nature does not negate this important truth.
No, this is not correct.
Women who are in the hookup scene are seeking sex. These women like sex with alphas on its own merits — at least many/most of the women who are dishing out said uncommitted, no-strings sex to alphas in the context of the carousel certainly do. Sure, most of them would like him to be their “personal alpha male” for a time (the iconic female fantasy is “flipping the cad” to be their own personal, *loyal* cad, because he is so head over heels for them that he gives up his womanizing ways — it’s a kind of narcissistic fantasy which is the female equivalent of porn’s male narcissism, really), but if not, they will take the sex from the alpha anyway. The very nature of hooking up is that there is no commitment involved, and the women are offering up sex on a silver platter with that understanding — that’s because they actually are *hot* for the alpha and want to have sex with him, whether he commits to her later or not. The notion that the women in the hookup carousel market are all seeking committed relationships is well beyond absurd. They are seeking sex. They would probably take commitment from one of these hot guys if it happens, of course, and many of them would welcome that — but if it doesn’t, they’ll still take the sex. The women in the carousel market are there for the sex as much as the men are — it’s just that when they are in the market for “just sex”, they are much pickier than the men are about whom they will sex that way, and it is generally limited to the alphas. Claiming that this behavior is fundamentally commitment-seeking behavior is fundamentally wrong. Exhibit A (among many, but one which comes to mind to me just now): Karen Owens (the Duke Sex List girl).
Also, again the self-serving goal the woman has is a greater good for society than the self-serving goal the man has. How can this be denied?
In no way is serial monogamy superior to promiscuity. It is simply serial sexual encounters on a woman’s timetable, rather than on a man’s timetable. Neither is a good basis for ordering society sexually. Serial monogamy is what we have now, and it generally involves rampant divorce, high rates of fatherlessness and bastardy, and all the social ills that come from following the preferred female model. It is *not* a greater good for society. And it matters not one whit whether the woman/women enter into relationships with a serial monogamist mindset — the reality is that they demand institutions, laws, attitudes and acceptances that all support the exercise of serial monogamy by reserving her right to pull the trigger on an exit from a relationship on terms favorable to her at any time. That is the essence of serial monogamy after all — “…I commit to be with you for as long as … well, until I don’t want to be with you any more, which may never happen, but which may very well happen..” That kind of “commitment” isn’t a real one — it is one that lasts as long as one wants it to last, and that is the core nature of serial monogamy. Most marriage today is likewise simply licensed serial monogamy. This is in no way superior morally or socially to the male preferred model of promiscuity, because the end results are mostly the same: fatherlessness, bastardy, social dysfunction.The only difference is the question of timing/speed — it’s otherwise basically the same thing.
Anonymous Reader says:
June 5, 2012 at 10:34 am
AnonymousGuy (or perhaps Gal)
if anyone thinks that what I’ve written here is somewhat sensible, why not start a blog called “The AntiRoissy” – “because we don’t need satisfied dicks who don’t see beyond their satisfied
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you do not understand that the current SMP is not driven by men “thinking with their dick”, it is driven by women who think with their clit. They have a short-term outlook that boils down to this: “My vagina tingles do the thinking for me”.
You clearly do not understand basic human sexual response. I suggest you jettison all that Victorian “women are pure creatures of inherent goodness” garbage, and start learning something about the reality of women, and their natural mating strategies.
June 6, 2012 at 8:41 am
Your latest comment again posits that women seek alpha men for sex and commitment. You asked for evidence that women riding the carousel are in it for the sex, as most of the commenters argue.
I don’t have scientific studies. I suspect that the reasons women engage in sex are difficult to measure empirically or scientifically. The only way to assess it would be to ask women why they engage in casual sex. But women’s statements and self-assessments of why they do what they do are notoriously unreliable. We in the manosphere often say “Don’t listen to what she says. Watch what she does.”
First, simply observing the carousel and women in the hookup culture leads to a conclusion that sex, and sex with dominant, hot alpha men, is the motivation. Many women flit from partner to partner seeking only sex. If these wanted sex *and* commitment, they would gravitate to the men most willing and able to provide both of those things simultaneously: stable, gainfully employed beta men. What women are repeatedly demonstrating that they want are sex from hot alpha men until they can’t get that anymore. Many want no-commitment sex so their options are open and can accept better offers if and when they come along. After that, she wants a golden parachute in the form of marriage to a beta whom she can later divorce for cash and prizes.
And in addition, what many women is for men to commit to them without the women providing reciprocal commitment. She wants his commitment, but she does not want to be obligated to anything in return for it. She wants the escape hatch, the loophole, the way out, just in case things don’t work out the way she thought they would. The evidence for this is all around us:
1. women engaging in hot sex with alphas with no strings. At the same time such women demand that betas provide and pay for expensive dates, meals, drinks and entertainment. Women demand courtship and conventional “dating” from betas, while holding out the “carrot” of possible future sex. At the same time, women demand nothing but sex from the alpha.
2. Liberalization of divorce laws. No fault divorce. The woman’s ability to secure confiscatory alimony and child support, enriching her and impoverishing him. She is released from her commitment to provide sex and companionship. His commitment for provisioning continues ad infinitum. She is rewarded for breaking her commitment. He is penalized for honoring his commitment.
June 6, 2012 at 9:50 am
There are some women who want “commitment” from the man, so they can put a respectable veneer and a moral sheen over the top of the steaming turd that is their hookup.
Commitment, even if it flows one way, makes her hookup more “moral”. Thus some modicum of “commitment” makes her feel better about it, helps her rationalize it, and most importantly, makes her look better to her friends and other men she might want later. After all, she’s not one of those skanky bar sluts. No, not her. She only sleeps with guys she “dates” for a month or two.
But I think Brendan had it yesterday: women want the sex from the hot alpha men. If she can get some commitment, she’ll take it, but if she can’t, she’ll still take the sex.
June 6, 2012 at 10:24 am
Commitment, even if it flows one way, makes her hookup more “moral”.
Based on all we have seen, I strongly suspect that the implausible nature of the hookup resulting in alpha commitment is part of the fundamental appeal. Securing commitment from the alpha first and then having sex is so pedestrian. You could never write a romance novel about that. Where is the drama, the excitement?
The experience the HUSy wants is to walk through a casino and randomly pull the handle of the one slot machine she finds most shiny and appealing. For reasons she doesn’t understand, she is drawn to this one machine and feels irresistibly compelled to pull the handle. By some stroke of luck, someone already placed their coins in this (and only this) machine and forgot to pull the handle. Then by some even greater stroke of luck, it pays off, complete with ringing bells and much celebration! Suddenly she is under the spotlight, looking ravishing in her pure white wedding dress while the entire casino cheers her on and throws rice at her congratulating her on winning the undying love of her very own Mr. Big! All of her female relatives and girlfriends weep with envy, and her male relatives and friends are struck with approval and admiration for her man.
Isn’t it romantic!
June 6, 2012 at 10:50 am
It is really difficult to read things like this, grapple with concepts like this that directly contravene everything men have been taught for the last 40 years.
Women want sex from men who dominate them. That contradicts the lie that women ride the carousel because they’re looking for love. They’re not looking for love. They’re looking to get jackhammered and raw-dogged by the hottest guys they can find. Then to assuage their guilt, they try to extract some small measure of commitment — a night out, a meal at a nice place where he spent some money; a daytrip; he takes her to meet his friends. Maybe if she’s lucky, he likes her enough to continue sexing her and then spend a little money and time on her when he feels like it.
I’m increasingly realizing that what I just described is how it really works. And if this is how it really works, why should any man offer investment or commitment? Why should any man do anything other than what PUAs do?
June 6, 2012 at 10:57 am
Deti, that’s how it works. However add a bunch of emotion into it. It’s not the cock carousel, but the emotional cock carousel. Also. A lot of that is painful and a lot of that damages them, but, women do NOT SHY away from negative emotions. They go to emotive movies to cry, remember? and they watch that same movie once and again and keep crying. Yes, there’s pain in life, and for women, it means they also want to experience it. Women are hungry for emotions and drama, and the lust, chasing and getting fucked and fucking and breaking and splitting and oh no my friend got him Im gonna get him back is PERFECT.
This thing was rigged so women LOVE the the drama of chasing the top guy. And guys detach their emotions easier so they can bang a ton of different women. Great for evolution.
PUA is crap because it’s fake though.
What I kept telling to Susan (and wouldnt listen). Yes, girls go fuck and they want relationships. However “relationship” doesnt mean lifelong commitment and monogamy. Relationship doesnt even mean love. Relationship only means theres enough time and space to vert a lot of emotions into it, from the shiny ones to the darker ones, whatever applies. Pure sex is insipid. Emotional (drama) sex is yummy. Put dramatic sex on hands of a vigorous confident man who can take her to dramatic places and she’s on fire. No drama, no vigorous sex? she’s outta here towards brighter or darker places.
June 6, 2012 at 11:25 am
You’re right – the women on the emotional cock carousel want the sex, and the emotions. They want enough “relationship” so they can feel their emotions. They want the alpha men to supply and feed whatever emotions they feel. If she’s empty, aimless and directionless, she wants the feeling of connection to a man that fills the emptiness (so to speak). Some girls are bored and want adventure and intrigue. Some are caretakers and want to fix up the brooding, emotionally distant and injured, misunderstood man, make him into just the man she wants him to be. Some girls want mystery, a puzzle to be solved and to figure out. Then when they are done feeling those emotions and there is nothing left to do or feel, she wants to either (1) move on; or (2) take it “to the next level”, whatever that is.
June 6, 2012 at 11:35 am
That’s what the “girls go into casual sex looking for relationships” means. Relationship = drama. Relationship != lifelong commitment monogamy. And “good for society” is not even in the spectrum. It’s a self serving game, just like male’s diversity sex drive is a self serving game. Which is good.
But yes this has been discussed ad nauseum. The current mating strategy only benefits women and they do their utmost to shame men into adopting strategies that do them no good. Lol
Okay- so I never quite understood this... why does it benefit a man to fuck multiple women, as opposed to just one?
Sure- in the old days, we wanted to have the best chance of having a fuckton of kids... but like is that what you really want? It's not what I want... I want to have like 1 or 2 kids with one woman.
If I have like 8 or 9 kids with 8 or 9 different women, I'm gonna have to pay out the ass and probably not be able to see a couple of them... how does that benefit me, again?
It seems that it's less of a man vs. woman kind of thing and more of a "people who want to be with one person" vs. "People who want to be with multiple people"... with the "People who want to be with one person" group, having the upper hand in society... whether or not that benefits you, is simply a matter of which group, you personally fall under.
I mean, the current system seems to do the most "harm" to women who want to fuck multiple dudes, because beyond just the standard shaming that a man would have to go through, they are also labeled a certain way and shunned by their own group (females)... whereas, at least a man can find solace amongst his fellow men...
genetic determination not reasoned decision. it's all prehistoric brain shit
i.e genetic determination makes you need to eat sugar whenever you are presented with it. reasoned decision tells you there's plenty around (there didn't used to be) and it rots your teeth.
same with wanting (NEEDING) to spread your DNA far and wide vs money/responsibility
i like this article (i didn't read all the comments). i like loads of these blogs but i would argue it's the other way round.
read these, open your eyes then come to this forum/rsd and learn how to apply it.
these blogs generally don't give much advice beyond "put your shoulders back" "don't supplicate" and "use negs" and "learn game"
if you have really learned and internalised what manwhore et al are teaching. the deep core stuff, then these manosphere blogs seem more and more like men whining and complaining about sexual politics and slipping into tit for tat attacks on women.
rather than accepting and dealing with it.
the joke is this ain't new. this is not "the modern world". men and women have always been this way.
read the libretto from the mozart opera cosi fan tutte (1790)
- don't go to the opera it is dull as fuck.
Yes it's easy to complain and not take action. That's 85% of the guys on those forums/blogs, etc.
Like I've always said, nothing has really changed. Women are women, men are men. But women are finally at a place where they have come into their own, they are simply saying, "Ok look if you want to be a man then do it, but don't count on us being subservient anymore to the lowest common denominator of a man." It is time to step up.
I think its good to go through these manosphere blogs occasionally because it is true that there are a lot of anti-male laws and biases. For example, things like False rape accusations can be avoided with some precautions(always keep record of texts, etc.). Additionally getting married is a huge fucking risk, and I would have never known that without reading some of the manosphere blogs.
Yes absolutely there's a lot of value there. That's another reason why I did the podcast with the trial defense lawyer.
This is sort of a weird post to go through, because I ended up training this guy's older brother, then him a couple years later. Dude had no game, had weird haughty type nerd behaviors that repulsed women, lol. So we train, he kicks ass, gets better results even than his brother, then he just ghosts. I know he's not a "bad" guy, but it's dudes like this that give me pause. Here he is touting manosphere "wisdom", calling my forum low-grade "game" tactics (haha), I turn his ass out, he doesn't even write a review. I imagine he's still out there hating on women in some capacity. :\
This stuff is useless to talk about in my opinion. Go hunt some ass, make the kill and enjoy life.
This stuff is useless to talk about in my opinion. Go hunt some ass, make the kill and enjoy life.
Absolutely, good point. Nigga's waxing philosophical but blows at actually engaging with women. Lol
Yeah I agree. This manosphere stuff makes guys bitter and fearful of women when its like “Uh dude. Just get good with women”
All those guys on there are afraid of getting hurt again or cheated on when they should be focusing on being so gawddamn awesome that their girlfriend, fuck buddy, wife and plenty of other girls they meet or whatever chooses them again and again and again.
All in all niggas are mad insecure about women’s sexuality because women would fuck anyone. This truth hurts when they aren’t fucking YOU.