Question for BeExcellent and Catsmeow

[Murk]

Lol that's funny. I'm familiar with @sazc but wasn't with @AJ84 so just did a search.

I'm flattered by the comparison, @AJ84 especially as the posts I read were insightful and pretty hilarious (in a good way).

Sounded like she had/has a great sense of humor and able to poke fun at herself which is definitely me as well!!

Thanks!

She was great, all the women get run off the forum eventually, I hope you stick around and ignore the attacks.

 

[Barrister]

@BadBoy89 — There isn’t a lot of value you’ll get from this question to the 2 respondents.

With only a sample size of 2, these 2 women aren’t representative of women as a whole. It’s valid to do non-representative research if you understand that’s what it is. This is often called focus group research. You have selected @BeExcellent & @catsmeow as a focus group.

When you do focus group research, it is best if the focus group resembles the intended target market. @BeExcellent is in almost no one’s target market on here. I think she adds something overall to the forum in general but wouldn’t qualify for a focus group. She’s 53 years old & only the forum’s age 50+ members would potentially be interested. Also, she still has a child under 18 living at home, which some men consider a dealbreaker. Plenty of men don’t consider that a dealbreaker, but those types of men typically aren’t on SoSuave. @catsmeow appears to be childless so that would be more applicable to a lot of men, especially 35+ men. Even @catsmeow’s insight is only applicable to a smaller subset of men who participate on here.

@BadBoy89 — You’d get more meaningful insight with different respondents to your question. If you found different respondents then posted some of the key responses from the focus group here, the discussion would be different & likely more insightful.

The mere fact they are on SS in the first place means they are not representative of women on a whole. Most women would find this to be a disgusting place because of all of the "toxic masculinity" going around. No woman can ever be red-pilled IMO, but I do think BeExcellent and Catsmeow are red-pill aware and therefore aren't going to give answers that are representative of most women on many topics - but especially on those dealing with relationships with men.

 

[SW15]

The mere fact they are on SS in the first place means they are not representative of women on a whole. Most women would find this to be a disgusting place because of all of the "toxic masculinity" going around. No woman can ever be red-pilled IMO, but I do think BeExcellent and Catsmeow are red-pill aware and therefore aren't going to give answers that are representative of most women on many topics - but especially on those dealing with relationships with men.

All true. I do find both their contributions meaningful even when I don’t agree with them. I agree that women can be red-pill aware but not fully red pill.

This is not a bastion of “toxic masculinity”. This is mostly traditional masculinity of hundreds of centuries.

The argument could be made that even a childless 27 year old woman who rates in “Hot” category wouldn’t be a representative sample either. I’d be more interested in the insight of a hot, childless 18-27 year old. That female isn’t present on SoSuave.

 

[EyeBRollin]

All true. I do find both their contributions meaningful even when I don’t agree with them. I agree that women can be red-pill aware but not fully red pill.

This is not a bastion of “toxic masculinity”. This is mostly traditional masculinity of hundreds of centuries.

Red pill aware women still push the female mating imperative. Example being @catsmeow hypocrisy when it comes to accepting that men are not sexually monogamous.

 

[Barrister]

All true. I do find both their contributions meaningful even when I don’t agree with them. I agree that women can be red-pill aware but not fully red pill.

This is not a bastion of “toxic masculinity”. This is mostly traditional masculinity of hundreds of centuries.

The argument could be made that even a childless 27 year old woman who rates in “Hot” category wouldn’t be a representative sample either. I’d be more interested in the insight of a hot, childless 18-27 year old. That female isn’t present on SoSuave.

I don't think "toxic masculinity" exists at all. I think it is a woke buzz phrase that feminist society/media push to emasculate men from their more primal instincts (especially when it comes to leadership within a male-female relationship) -- hence my comment most women would feel it exists here. I agree it doesn't exist here - or anywhere for that matter.

 

[Bigpapa]

No. The point is that if she divorces her husband, she will not be able to find better. She has to settle for less or die alone.

so basically women are not always on the lookout for something better

yeah , all my exes dated guys inferior to me after me . They still hate me haha

 

[Bokanovsky]

The mere fact they are on SS in the first place means they are not representative of women on a whole. Most women would find this to be a disgusting place because of all of the "toxic masculinity" going around. No woman can ever be red-pilled IMO, but I do think BeExcellent and Catsmeow are red-pill aware and therefore aren't going to give answers that are representative of most women on many topics - but especially on those dealing with relationships with men.

You are right in that women who hang out on SS are not representative of a "typical" woman (if there is such a thing these days). However, even if they were representative, their answers would not be reliable. Women have a hard time admitting personally flaws, even in an anonymous setting. Take BeExcellent, for example. She is something of a cross between Mother Teresa, Elizabeth Taylor and Princess Diana. Glamorous, generous, sophisticated, elite, independent and, well, excellent in every way (in her no doubt unbiased and objective self-assessment anyway.)

 

[Bokanovsky]

No disrespect to her, I think she's brilliant, but sometimes when reading her posts, they sound like something a male poster would write.

She's not "brilliant". She just makes stuff up. Her SS "persona" is 100% fake (as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ of above 70). I am actually amazed that so many people take her posts seriously. On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't be amazed.

 

[Bigpapa]

She's not "brilliant". She just makes stuff up. Her SS "persona" is 100% fake (as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ of above 70). I am actually amazed that so many people take her posts seriously. On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't be amazed.

that is the thing with most people on public forums , most of them are full of sh1t or just trolls

 

[BeExcellent]

Honestly why would I make stuff up? And how would my “persona” be utterly consistent for 7 years? Because it’s not a persona, it’s real.

I mean there are successful men around here…doctors, lawyers, financial professionals, business men. Why is it any surprise that I’m a successful person?

Any poster who has been here awhile has a content trail you guys can read. The way you evaluate someone’s reality is through content consistency. My content is consistent. Again because it’s real. Now. Not everyone is a fan of mine, as evidenced in this thread and plenty of other places on SS. That’s fine. I’m not here to make friends, although I have made friends along the way. I’m here to offer a perspective. My son is 20 and dating, my fiancé is 45, and I have many male friends of various ages who are actively dating. I had good male role models in my life. I am pleased with life, I like myself and I am happy.

Are we representative of “women” at large? I’d say in some ways yes and in some ways no. Any woman who posts here must expect to be unwelcome to some degree and let it ride. There are men from all over the world here from various cultures & backgrounds. The consistency of human nature across those variables is pretty instructive actually.

The thing I enjoy is a freedom to choose a man without worrying about his resources to take care of me. If anything I have to be mindful that a man has his own resources and source of income rather than having a sense of entitlement towards my resources.

While there are men here that would fall into my dating range, I’m obviously not interested in the 20s & 30s aged men at all.

I do agree with @EyeBRollin that options and choices have everything to do with relative SMV between partners and many factors affect that. But I retain high enough value that I will not tolerate infidelity. And I’m not worried about dying alone. I’ll probably outlive my fiancé at any rate…as many wives do. So he will not die alone, I’ll likely outlive him & I’ll die alone. And that doesn’t bother me at all. It’s pretty typical actually.

 

[Zimbabwe]

I'm really starting to think that women should be permanently banned from this forum, they do not add anything to a men's self improvement forum.

 

[Bigpapa]

And you're certainly entitled to think whatever you like.

I've actually attempted to leave several after which I'm hit with private messages asking me to stay, that my perspective is valued, including from two moderators.

@BeExcellent made a great point about when my opinions are not valued and used against me, to let it ride. Some will value some won't.

You don't and that's fine. That's what the ignore feature is for.

guys do not like you because you just show them that they are the biggest problem , not the women

coming from another guy is not as powerful as coming from a girl

 

[BillyPilgrim]

I don't believe men are the problem @Bigpapa , in many cases I believe women are the problem and have said so.

I've taken men's sides on many occasions adding I'm ashamed of my own gender sometimes.

Either way, I always try to be respectful.

I have my own opinion as to why a few men here dislike me and don't want me here, and it has very little to do with me or my perspective.

It's your communication style. Less solipsism and more succinctness would go a long way. It might be helpful to ask yourself "how does what I'm about to write relate to the forum and the topic at hand?" more often, and "how does this topic relate to me?" less often. In the past, it has seemed like you're thinking aloud *as* you post, rather than *before* you post.

I will say the style displayed in the quoted post (one line per sentence) does make for more easily digestible posts.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

So what you're saying is that I come across as me, me, me?

Yes.

can you give me an example when I've been solipsistic so I have a frame of reference?

It would be helpful. Thanks.

This ^ is an example. How is it helpful to the forum to request a member to go dig through your posts?

The post I made (that you quoted) should work as a guideline. Shifting your post mindset from internal to external is the main idea.

Now, it's perhaps important to note that if I were to dig through your posts and come up with examples, I would make a point to contact you privately through a PM. Not for any privacy related concerns, but to avoid any further thread derailment.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

If people on here actually take this seriously I don't know what to say lol.

Oh that's real in her own head alright. I like the line "many have a sense of entitlement to do as they please". Higher perceived SMV perhaps? It's good any resultant stinging from that doesn't resonate in every post this person makes.

 

[SW15]

No. I've been asked out by extremely wealthy men. I've dated extremely wealthy men too. Many feel a sense of entitlement to do as they please, including cheat. Nope. Pass.

I drive a very expensive car, collect art, buy whatever jewelry I happen to like, ditto shoes, bags, clothes etc., I eat at high end restaurants and own income real estate. I am financially independent.
I value character, loyalty, and compatibility. What you suggest is not something that interests me. There are many women who do look the other way if they are "kept" women. And most often they are deeply unhappy. No thanks. Life is too short for being unhappy. My self worth and self esteem is too valuable to sacrifice. I enjoy having a partner in life, in adventure, in mischief at times, and I value intimacy and depth.

So a man like you propose holds zero value for me. I have all the "stuff" I need. I'd rather have a loyal companion. Oh yeah. I do

Cheers

If people on here actually take this seriously I don't know what to say lol.

Men are extremely thirsty, even a good portion of wealthy men. There are plenty of higher income/higher net worth men who lead their interactions with money. I can imagine some of those more affluent men expressing interest in a woman such as @BeExcellent if her looks are on the level she claims. They might even be thinking with their penises and ignore the fact that she still has 2 children living at home and at one time had 3 children living at home. One would think that an affluent man would only seek childless women because that's what he can get with his money. I could see a 55+ affluent man going for a woman whose kids were all over age 18. However, dating women with adult children is often a pain too but not as annoying as the woman whose children are still minors.

If a woman has her own means, she's not going to be that impressed with your money, unless if it is substantially higher than hers. If a woman has a net worth of $1-2 million (might life a similar lifestyle to the one @BeExcellent describes), this $1-2 million net worth woman isn't going to be impressed by a man with a net worth slightly higher than hers. It might take a $15-25 million net worth to impress this woman with the $1-2 million net worth she has. A $15-$25 million net worth can get a woman some things and experiences that she can't get at the $1-2 million level, even though the $1-2 million net worth woman is in a way better position in life than the government assistance parasite single moms.

More affluent women aren't that impressed by women, unless it is such an outlier. She usually has enough money. It's more difficult to "buy" the traits these types of women desire.

A wealthier man could get a woman like @BeExcellent if he wanted, but he'd have to have the right persona. He can't base his game around money but he'd have to base it more around persona.

Game is some combination of looks, money, status, and persona. @BeExcellent has money already, so she doesn't need a guy who centers his game around money. Looks and persona would be more valuable to her and to other women in a similar spot in life to hers.

 

[Stoic]

Top tier, higher value, higher status men have a greater chance of getting away with cheating, openly seeing other women than lower tier ones. A certain percentage of women won't tolerate any of this of course.

I will say this. Men with lots of options are very hesitant to get burdened with just one woman. That's how I feel now. Any woman I am seeing needs to be top, top tier in looks and compatibility for me to be burdened with a monogamous relationship.

 

[Barrister]

I'm really starting to think that women should be permanently banned from this forum, they do not add anything to a men's self improvement forum.

If we ban women, are we also going to ban all of the black pillers who are here who also do not add anything? The problem is that is a very subjective view. You start banning people (categorically) and you are on a very slipper slope.

 

[Barrister]

Men are extremely thirsty, even a good portion of wealthy men. There are plenty of higher income/higher net worth men who lead their interactions with money. I can imagine some of those more affluent men expressing interest in a woman such as @BeExcellent if her looks are on the level she claims. They might even be thinking with their penises and ignore the fact that she still has 2 children living at home and at one time had 3 children living at home. One would think that an affluent man would only seek childless women because that's what he can get with his money. I could see a 55+ affluent man going for a woman whose kids were all over age 18. However, dating women with adult children is often a pain too but not as annoying as the woman whose children are still minors.

If a woman has her own means, she's not going to be that impressed with your money, unless if it is substantially higher than hers. If a woman has a net worth of $1-2 million (might life a similar lifestyle to the one @BeExcellent describes), this $1-2 million net worth woman isn't going to be impressed by a man with a net worth slightly higher than hers. It might take a $15-25 million net worth to impress this woman with the $1-2 million net worth she has. A $15-$25 million net worth can get a woman some things and experiences that she can't get at the $1-2 million level, even though the $1-2 million net worth woman is in a way better position in life than the government assistance parasite single moms.

More affluent women aren't that impressed by women, unless it is such an outlier. She usually has enough money. It's more difficult to "buy" the traits these types of women desire.

A wealthier man could get a woman like @BeExcellent if he wanted, but he'd have to have the right persona. He can't base his game around money but he'd have to base it more around persona.

Game is some combination of looks, money, status, and persona. @BeExcellent has money already, so she doesn't need a guy who centers his game around money. Looks and persona would be more valuable to her and to other women in a similar spot in life to hers.

It also depends if we are talking just sleeping with a woman vs. a LTR. Many men are automatically going to rule out an LTR with a woman who is older than them just out of principle. However, most men, if they think they can smash, will still make a play and pursue a woman who is slightly older than them if the older woman is still good looking.

When it comes to banging women, men are simple. If she is hot, we will smash, regardless of age and regardless if she has another man's kids running around. We just want the sex at first. It takes more than that for an LTR though.

 

[SW15]

Top tier, higher value, higher status men have a greater chance of getting away with cheating, openly seeing other women than lower tier ones. A certain percentage of women won't tolerate any of this of course.

I will say this. Men with lots of options are very hesitant to get burdened with just one woman. That's how I feel now. Any woman I am seeing needs to be top, top tier in looks and compatibility for me to be burdened with a monogamous relationship.

All true. If you're top tier enough, you might even be able to openly set up a harem where you are fuccking other women and your 2-3 women are exclusive with you. Most men do open relationships the wrong way though so I don't recommend that path. Most men who do open relationships end up getting less extra-relational sex than the woman.

If you're top tier enough, I believe the better play than the open relationship is the occasional Male-Female-Female threesome. If you can have a primary relationship where your girlfriend/wife is open to partaking in threesomes with other women, that is good.

I feel similarly to you about monogamous relationships. She needs to be above average looking and childless for me. There are some other nice to have's in there as well.

It also depends if we are talking just sleeping with a woman vs. a LTR. Many men are automatically going to rule out an LTR with a woman who is older than them just out of principle. However, most men, if they think they can smash, will still make a play and pursue a woman who is slightly older than them if the older woman is still good looking.

When it comes to banging women, men are simple. If she is hot, we will smash, regardless of age and regardless if she has another man's kids running around. We just want the sex at first. It takes more than that for an LTR though.

I am one of those men who rules out an LTR with a woman who is older just out of principle. I also have a "no single moms, no exceptions" policy for LTRs as well.

When it comes to banging women/casual sex, your assessment is mostly correctly. For me, if she's hot AND she makes it easy enough to smash her, I will smash. I'm 39. The typical attractive 42 year old with 2 children between 5-15 isn't going to make it easy enough to smash. I'm introverted. Socialization takes some energy and effort for me. That's why I've focused on childless women and extended, more sustainable interactions when I approach and socialize. If I'm going to make the effort to approach, go on dates and seduce, I want an extended interaction for all the trouble.

I think childless men who have extended, committed relationships with single mothers are are quasi cucks. Even if they end up having their own kids with that single mom, that's still being a quasi cuck. I can understand a single dad ending up with a single mom. While he is also a quasi cuck as well for in part raising another man's child, he has less leverage since he is also a single parent. Blended families are just a shiit situation in general.

A lot of older men (50+) skirt this situation by committing to an extended relationship with a woman whose kids are 18+ and that woman is typical 45+. It's debatable if a woman with children 18+ still counts as a single mom. I think it's somewhat dependent upon how independent the 18+ children are. A lot of 18-26 year olds still live at home. If they don't live at home with mom, they still might be semi financially dependent upon mom or the bio dad she divorced.

Most men 50+ dating women with children 18+ have kids of their own from previous relationships too. Like what I said above, blending families is still a shiit situation, even when the two parents are 50+ and all the kids are 18+.