@BeExcellent -- I think both you and
@LiveYourDream offer insight and value to this forum and have no doubt that you both add value to the lives of the men in your lives. I'd totally be homies with y'all in real life lol. But I've lived rather abundantly--and while my experience only represents the smallest iota of the totality of human experience, I've been out there with my boots on the ground with both eyes open. Women, probably slightly moreso than
the majority of men, are a product of their circumstance and a reflection of their external environment. That's just the nature of the feminine--and it's not coming from a place of misogyny or belittlement or anything else. And while those circumstances could all be stacked up to be as favorable as possible for a woman to live her whole life without succumbing to the darker effects of insecurity and a vacuum of male guidance on the female psyche, if those circumstances were to change drastically women would no doubt adapt. And they would adapt in the most biologically useful way possible--a way no doubt distasteful to men who maintain a far more static view of the world, and possibly even detrimental to their own personal happiness.
This is all right and well. The human race would've expired long ago if it weren't for women's marvelous ability to abandon and adapt and to be as flexible in their views of 'propriety' as possible.
And that's not to say that women don't develop 'character.' They certainly do and my life has been filled with admirable 'women.' BUT the female biological prime--peak fertility--occurs between the ages of 16-21ish BEFORE the full development of the pre-frontal cortex, you know, the part of the brain responsible for judgment, long term planning, moderating social behavior. Think about that for a moment. Human sexuality exists on a plane that is literally pre-language, pre-cognition, pre-self-awareness.
And then female fertility PEAKS BEFORE THE ABILITY IS IN PLACE FOR THEM TO BEST NAVIGATE THOSE INSTINCTUAL URGES TO PROCURE THE 'BEST" GENETIC MATERIAL. Is that coincident? It used to be well known fact that when young men isolated young women, SEX WOULD HAPPEN. In every 'civilized' 'society' that's ever existed female sexuality HAD to be controlled, PARTICULARLY up until a woman had already fulfilled her biological imperative. Parents arranged marriages, because women going into their best chances of conception weren't capable of picking a mate that would best provide and take care of her progeny. There used to be chaperones, severe social consequences, the constant division of the sexes and
even then with the male 'patriarchy' taking the best possible mutual assurances for paternity and paternal investment, mistakes were made. Human literature is filled with them. Even when circumstances were most favorable for the existence of 'quality females' (from a totally male-based perspective), women were still women.
That's not to say there isn't
any distinction between 'good women' and 'bad women,' just that women respond to the same stimuli and act on the same stimuli, in accordance to surveillance and consequence.
It's 2016. I 'date' girls in the 18-21 y/o range. In 2010, 2011, 2012, and half of 2013 I was 'dating' girls in the 18-21 y/o range--and during my 2 year spell with my BPDex I was interacting constantly (and observing) girls in the 18-21 y/o range. Even in those 6 years, the context has changed and, once again, women have adapted. At the age when women hit peak fertility instead of doubling down on family-based guidance we give them cars, internet access to covert liaisons with any millions of men, and then SHIP them off to universities with men who are at the peak of their testosterone production--and then provide media narratives to not only allow, but
reward promiscuous behavior.
I know you're well-intentioned, but your giving young men false hope for what they might find on the Western SMP. Even older posters, who still are ego-invested in the idea of 'quality women' and had greater experience with women who displayed 'quality behavior' (due to more favorable familial circumstance), have YET to bring one to the surface. I know plenty of men's unicorns lol--quite well--the same girl whose reserved, polite, kind, 'isn't like that' is the same girl who, in a split second when her friend aren't paying attention slip me their number because 'I seem mysterious.' The same girl whose happily engaged to a solid guy and is beloved and respected by her family and community is the same girl who confides to me in a coffee shop after 30 minutes of stonewalling me that she's bored and wishes her fiance would 'fvck her like an animal.' I tell women I'm a deadbeat fastfood worker and act like way more of a douchebag womanizer than my natural inclinations lean toward, because even with girls from solid familial backgrounds, they respond better to the idea of a guy from the dregs of society who poses no risk to infilitrating the social circles they move in and who (since they're on birth control) poses no real risk to filling their lives with any meaningful consequence. And even for women like you and
@BeExcellent, who are no doubt quality companions who are sure of themselves and have cultivated their personalities and who probably grew up in more 'favorable' circumstances to exhibit 'quality' behavior, when you were 18 or 19, say I met you when you were out running errands or out with your girlfriends, would've responded predictably to the same stimuli--might require some more legwork and tempering certain edges and possibly revealing more of my 'quality' than I do in the current market, but no drastic changes.
Does that make anyone a slvt? No, just human. All of the above would've been something very depressing and embittering to me 3 or 4 years ago--I actually used to 'hope' girls would turn me down and that I could just treat them well and they'd admire the qualities I most admire about myself but the only girl who fit that bill had BPD and was a marvelous actress and I'm sure I could meet a girl who, at 24, exhibited all sorts of wonderful qualities and self-restraint and would be more than happy with the amount of income I'm making and the amount of self-improvement I partake in--and I could label her a unicorn and post on SoSuave about how wonderful she is--and we might go an entire
lifetime under the happy delusion that there wasn't the
same potential 'negative' behaviors that men 'bemoan' in her 'lesser' female counterparts. But I've been 100% happier and, for the first time in my life, have been able to enjoy and respect women for who they are instead of for their ability to play some socially-conditioned fantasy role.
And for all the guys longing for a Pollyana past or future, look up the rates of single-motherhood and children out of wedlock from the 20's, 40's, 50's--take your pick from any of the era of unicorns. Read Irwin Shaw, Eugene O'Neill, The Bible, Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Joseph Conrad, Charles ****ens (and prod beneath the sugarcoating and idealizations), Bernard Shaw, the Greek classics, Anatole France, Anton Chekhov, Turgenev, Emily Bronte, J.D. Salinger, by God read Chaucer lol; read, Alain-Fournier, Lord Byron, read the Gothic novels (which were inspired by anxiety about the increasing amount of female isolation and the 'evil' effects of female sexuality; read Harold Frederic, Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris (by God, read Frank Norris). And then get back to me about how female nature, across any number of cultures, continents, and millennia, has changed to any drastic extent. But, of course, those guys must've all only met 'low quality women;' of course, they were just bitter about that