Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
A while ago I started a thread that outlined a series of what I defined as feminine Operative Social Conventions. Since then I've gradually become aware of another set of social conventions - those which are commonly practiced and self-reinfoced by AFCs. I realize that more than a few of these conventions are going to get under the skin of, and challenge the ego-invested convictions of, even many regular DJ posters in this forum. As you read this, do try to do so objectively. I'm writing this as an observation; it not intended to be a personal affront to anyone.
You could simply call AFC Social Conventions AFC 'rationalizations', but I think this ignores the socially reinforcing element of these conventions. When I wrote Qualities of the AFC I outlined the characteristic traits, behaviors and core mental schemas of what are commonly believed to be AFC qualities. This was a breif list to sum up a few root elements in identifying and dealing with an AFC mindset and aid in unplugging an AFC from the Matrix. Social conventions are different in that they are socially reinforced (by both genders) rationalizations for behavior. Technically some of the AFC qualities I've outlined previously could be considered social conventions as well, but I was attempting to address the symptoms rather than the disease.
I'm going to define a few more examples of what I'm most commonly noticing as AFC mental schemas that are reinforced socially. A strong part of the internalization process of these conventions is that the reason they are socially reinforcible is because they incontradictable (or at the very least foolish to do so). In other words the common response to them would be to reinforce them, rather than challenge them, and this then becomes an integral part of the internalization process.
The Myth of the "Quality" Woman
It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a "Quality Woman." There's threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a "Quality" woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps - Quality women and Horz, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they're perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best - on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.
I think the term 'Quality' woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they'd like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they'd really had no chance with in the first place, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn't to say that there aren't women who will behvaes maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it's very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than "Quality" when you're unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.
The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then self-limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they'll end up with a "Quality" woman by default because she's the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they'll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.
So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say "Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women." Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.
Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.
The Myth of the Dodged Bullet
In my lifetime I've had sex with over 40 women and I never once caught a venerial disease, nor did I get anyone pregnant. I can also point to men I know who contracted Herpes from the only women they'd ever had sex with. The fact of the matter is that you can equally be a rock star and tap hundreds of women without any consequence and you can be a virginic saint and contract a disease on your wedding night. The myth of the dodged bullet is a social convention that's rooted in the rationalization that monogamy serves the purpose for controlling sexually transmitted diseases and thus fewer partners are more desirable than many. From a statistical standpoint this may seem logical on the surface. Fewer opportunities for sexual intercourse would indeed decrease the risk from a single individual, but unfortunately this isn't a practical estimate. You'll also have to base the numbers not only on how many sex partners you and your monogamous partner have had, but also how many prior partners they've had and how many those partners had as well and so on exponentially. Yet inspite of all this, the odds that you'll die from a form of cancer, heart disease, smoking or obesety related diseases or even an alcohol related traffic fatality far outweigh any risk of dying from a venerial disease in western society. The mortality rate for for contracting gonnerhea, syphilis, clymidia, herpes and even HIV pale in comparison to many - in some cases more easily preventable - diseases.
Of course, since this is a social convention, I would be grossly negligent and severely lambasted by the public at large for even implying that I'm condoning, much less advocating, that a man explore his options and open his experience up to having sex with multiple partners. Again, this social convention is unassailable. But it sounds like it makes good sense, "boy, am I sure glad I got married/shacked up and didn't catch a disease, pffew!" It sounds like conviction, when in fact it's a rationalization for a lack of other realistic options with women or an innability to deal with a fear of rejection from multiple sources.
Location, Location, Location
This is really more of an addendum to the Myth of the Quality Woman, but another common contrivance is the presumption that less than desirable women will necessarily be found in bars & clubs (or other places of "ill repute"). Thus the chump will only too eagerly avoid these places. This is, yet again, another example of the binary logic of an AFC and completely ignores that A.) women with whom they might make a successful connection with do in fact frequent clubs and B.) less than desirable women can also be met in "alternative" meeting places too (coffee house, university campus, library, bible study or any number of other "safe places"). However, making approaches in a club are difficult for the inexperienced DJ and the AFC alike. There's a lot of competition and a LOT of potential for rejection for the unprepared. By masking this deficit in game with condemning such places, the AFC thinks he's killing 2 birds with one stone - he's protecting his ego from very real rejection and he's lauded by "proper" society (see people who go to clubs anyway) for being an upstanding individual for avoid those "dens of iniquity."
The Myth of 'Other Guys'
This is perhaps the most dangerous AFC social convention.
We'd all like to think we're unique and special individuals. It's a comforting thought, but our uniqueness means nothing if it isn't appreciated. We'd all like to be beautiful, talented, intelligent and extrordinary in some way to some degree and have others notice these qualities unequivocally. This is the root for the Not Like Other Guys convention. The idea is that the AFC can and will be appreciated in a greater degree for his personal convictions and/or his greater ability to identify with women's stated prerequisites of a man by comparing himself to the nebulous Other Guys who are perceived not to. The intent is to, in essesence, self-generate social proof for attraction while substituting a real social element with perceived or reported social evidence. The fallacy in this schema is that it's always better to demonstrate social proof than to explicate it, but this is lost on the AFC adherent of this convention. This only becomes more compounded by the reinforcement he receives from other AFCs (and really society at large) sharing his desire to outshine the phantom Other Guys. He's patted on the back and praised by men and women alike for voluntarily molding his personality to better fit a woman's perceived ideal and told in so many words "oh AFC,..I'm so glad you're not like Other Guys."You can't fault the guy. He genuinely believes his Nice Guy personal conviction and everyone applauds him for it.
You could simply call AFC Social Conventions AFC 'rationalizations', but I think this ignores the socially reinforcing element of these conventions. When I wrote Qualities of the AFC I outlined the characteristic traits, behaviors and core mental schemas of what are commonly believed to be AFC qualities. This was a breif list to sum up a few root elements in identifying and dealing with an AFC mindset and aid in unplugging an AFC from the Matrix. Social conventions are different in that they are socially reinforced (by both genders) rationalizations for behavior. Technically some of the AFC qualities I've outlined previously could be considered social conventions as well, but I was attempting to address the symptoms rather than the disease.
I'm going to define a few more examples of what I'm most commonly noticing as AFC mental schemas that are reinforced socially. A strong part of the internalization process of these conventions is that the reason they are socially reinforcible is because they incontradictable (or at the very least foolish to do so). In other words the common response to them would be to reinforce them, rather than challenge them, and this then becomes an integral part of the internalization process.
The Myth of the "Quality" Woman
It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a "Quality Woman." There's threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a "Quality" woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps - Quality women and Horz, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they're perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best - on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.
I think the term 'Quality' woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they'd like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they'd really had no chance with in the first place, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn't to say that there aren't women who will behvaes maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it's very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than "Quality" when you're unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.
The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then self-limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they'll end up with a "Quality" woman by default because she's the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they'll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.
So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say "Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women." Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.
Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.
The Myth of the Dodged Bullet
In my lifetime I've had sex with over 40 women and I never once caught a venerial disease, nor did I get anyone pregnant. I can also point to men I know who contracted Herpes from the only women they'd ever had sex with. The fact of the matter is that you can equally be a rock star and tap hundreds of women without any consequence and you can be a virginic saint and contract a disease on your wedding night. The myth of the dodged bullet is a social convention that's rooted in the rationalization that monogamy serves the purpose for controlling sexually transmitted diseases and thus fewer partners are more desirable than many. From a statistical standpoint this may seem logical on the surface. Fewer opportunities for sexual intercourse would indeed decrease the risk from a single individual, but unfortunately this isn't a practical estimate. You'll also have to base the numbers not only on how many sex partners you and your monogamous partner have had, but also how many prior partners they've had and how many those partners had as well and so on exponentially. Yet inspite of all this, the odds that you'll die from a form of cancer, heart disease, smoking or obesety related diseases or even an alcohol related traffic fatality far outweigh any risk of dying from a venerial disease in western society. The mortality rate for for contracting gonnerhea, syphilis, clymidia, herpes and even HIV pale in comparison to many - in some cases more easily preventable - diseases.
Of course, since this is a social convention, I would be grossly negligent and severely lambasted by the public at large for even implying that I'm condoning, much less advocating, that a man explore his options and open his experience up to having sex with multiple partners. Again, this social convention is unassailable. But it sounds like it makes good sense, "boy, am I sure glad I got married/shacked up and didn't catch a disease, pffew!" It sounds like conviction, when in fact it's a rationalization for a lack of other realistic options with women or an innability to deal with a fear of rejection from multiple sources.
Location, Location, Location
This is really more of an addendum to the Myth of the Quality Woman, but another common contrivance is the presumption that less than desirable women will necessarily be found in bars & clubs (or other places of "ill repute"). Thus the chump will only too eagerly avoid these places. This is, yet again, another example of the binary logic of an AFC and completely ignores that A.) women with whom they might make a successful connection with do in fact frequent clubs and B.) less than desirable women can also be met in "alternative" meeting places too (coffee house, university campus, library, bible study or any number of other "safe places"). However, making approaches in a club are difficult for the inexperienced DJ and the AFC alike. There's a lot of competition and a LOT of potential for rejection for the unprepared. By masking this deficit in game with condemning such places, the AFC thinks he's killing 2 birds with one stone - he's protecting his ego from very real rejection and he's lauded by "proper" society (see people who go to clubs anyway) for being an upstanding individual for avoid those "dens of iniquity."
The Myth of 'Other Guys'
This is perhaps the most dangerous AFC social convention.
We'd all like to think we're unique and special individuals. It's a comforting thought, but our uniqueness means nothing if it isn't appreciated. We'd all like to be beautiful, talented, intelligent and extrordinary in some way to some degree and have others notice these qualities unequivocally. This is the root for the Not Like Other Guys convention. The idea is that the AFC can and will be appreciated in a greater degree for his personal convictions and/or his greater ability to identify with women's stated prerequisites of a man by comparing himself to the nebulous Other Guys who are perceived not to. The intent is to, in essesence, self-generate social proof for attraction while substituting a real social element with perceived or reported social evidence. The fallacy in this schema is that it's always better to demonstrate social proof than to explicate it, but this is lost on the AFC adherent of this convention. This only becomes more compounded by the reinforcement he receives from other AFCs (and really society at large) sharing his desire to outshine the phantom Other Guys. He's patted on the back and praised by men and women alike for voluntarily molding his personality to better fit a woman's perceived ideal and told in so many words "oh AFC,..I'm so glad you're not like Other Guys."You can't fault the guy. He genuinely believes his Nice Guy personal conviction and everyone applauds him for it.
