Prior 1970s And 4 Types Of Men (Discussion)

[Tenacity]

I wanted to start a thread to see if you guys have also notice the trend I have been noticing. Today, there's four types of men for the most part, with this market being based on the prior 1970's feminist movement and women's liberation movement. While it's difficult to put people into mass groups, I do believe that for the most part you have four different types of men in general out here today:

- The Thug

- The Simp

- The Traditionalist

- The Player

I believe that the majority of issues guys have with women today from a financial/legal side, is not truly understanding where the market is, they still believe the market as a whole is the way it was PRE-1970's feminism, when in actuality the market has changed. As a business guy, I know that you can't talk about product development or placement without first doing serious market analysis. I think I can provide some insights to the current market and you guys can decide which "product" above (which one of the four men) you want to turn yourself into.


The Thug and The Simp (The Matriarchal Men)
________________________________________

These are two sides of the same coin, a coin that was created as a result of this new marketplace of women that came after the boom of the 1970's women liberation movement. Both of these men are promoted, glorified and worshipped as the way a "real man" should be.

* The Thug is the guy that the women start off life having sex with, flirting with and being with. He's usually the guy that can barely keep a job, he's in and out of different jobs or he does something that isn't stable or does something that's illegal to bring in money. He might be in and out of jail, might be aspiring to be a rapper at age 35, or any of the combination. The bottom line, he's not career-oriented, education oriented, nor family oriented as most of the time he's not there to support the kids he creates when he knocks a woman up. I use the word "thug" but not all of these men do criminal behavior, I use that word to display their overall lack of intelligence, wisdom, career-orientation, financial knowledge and education acquisition.

* The Simp is the guy that women END UP being with in the middle of their life, or the end of it. This is the guy that is career oriented, education oriented, has his crap together in life, but he allows the woman to lead, he caters to her every needs, if she has 3 kids already and he has none, he'll accept her and the kids and setup college trust funds for them, etc. This is the man that the women want to marry and the type of man that women PROMOTE as "marriage material".

The reason these two men are two sides of the same coin, is because they are both matriarchal men that allow the women to LEAD, DOMINATE, and CONTROL the relationship. This is a result of the 1970's women liberation movement, that began to promote different "types" of men that would better suite the goals of women's liberation and that's to have the BENEFITS of a patriarchy without the COSTS of one. The Thug and the Simp will provide all or most of the benefits of the patriarchy individually without the requiring the woman to pay the costs.

The Thug will supposedly protect her, give her good dyck, and lay his life down and die for her if need be, without requiring SHYT from her in return because "just her presence" is enough. The Simp will be there to bail her out of ALL of her bad mistakes with the Thug, take care of her, her kids, pay off her liberal arts degree student loan balance, pay off her vacationing in the Bahamas credit card debt, and setup trust funds for kids that aren't even his. WITHOUT requiring shyt from her in return....other than just her presence.

Both of these situations have the men providing the benefits of a patriarchy without the costs of one. The women do not have to be loyal, they don't have to be understanding, they don't have to be nurturing, they don't have to "love them forever," they don't have to cook, clean, or do SHYT. All the woman has to do is just show up on dates, fvck him every now and then, and profess to her family and friends about "what a great guy he is!"



The Traditionalist (The Patriarchal Man)
__________________________________

This guy is mostly conservative in life, believes strongly in business and financial matters, and is pretty good at both. He believes that a man should construct a ship and bring a woman on board it, but the woman coming on board it has RULES and COSTS that she has to pay to not just get on board...but stay on board. She has to cook, clean and most of the time do "some type" of small work to contribute to the income stream even though 70% - 80% of the monies coming in is from the Traditionalist. She has to allow him to lead, see him as the man of the house, and nurture, support, and care for HIS every need. There's no backbiting, no nagging, no bytching, no getting FAT and expecting him not to see that as an issue...she remains the traditionalist woman and plays her role and pays the COSTS for the return of the patriarchal benefits of protection, financial stability, good dyck, entertainment and an overall "American Dream" type of lifestyle.

The women of today's market, do NOT want this type of man. They believe this type of man is arrogant, self-centered, an a.sshole, too demanding, and oppressive. This is the type of man, that the women's liberation movement and feminism was created to specifically destroy. This is the man that is Enemy Number One in America today and in any feminist based culture. Instead, they would prefer this man to turn himself into The Simp, and allow her to move into his castle WITHOUT contribution just as I outlined above.



The Player
__________

This is the smartest man in America when it comes to the dating market, not only does he fundamentally understand the historical, technical and foundational nature of the market, he can CLEARLY see the trends of where it's going.

Unlike the Traditionalist and the Simp, he can clearly see that any type of legal relationship with a woman today is SUICIDE based on how the laws/regulations have created this "new marketplace". So he opts out of marriage and opts out of children, as both allow the laws/regulations of this marketplace to crush you like it does the Traditionalist and the Simp when the woman DECIDES to bring down the hammer.

Unlike the Thug, he has goals for his life and doesn't want to be just "entertainment" or some loser.

The Player is the best of the Traditionalist, and the best of the Thug, with a side dose of genius. He will have his shyt together financially, he will lay down good dyck, he will know how to entertain a woman out of her panties....but he will not commit to ANYBODY. He will constantly spin plates until he can't anymore, and he will see to "find love" in other ways through his closest friends, family members and business or hobby passions. What he will not do, is seek to find love in WOMEN nor CHILDREN...both of which are controlled and dominated by this new warped marketplace.



Conclusion
__________

I used to be the Simp, then I turned into the Traditionalist, now I am landing right on the path of the Player. I have already opted out of marriage, I believe that I will finally make the decision to opt out of creating children. And for the rest of my life, I will only seek the value from women today that's actually still there....and it's just their vagina and companionship.

There's no other value to a woman today, fellas the quality women....are dead. Play the Simp if you want, play the Traditionalist if you want, all that's going to happen is that you are going to get screwed.

 

[bmp2cpm]

Everything a man or woman does is a sexual strategy. All men and women are programmed with the a complete suite of sexual strategies. We tend to employee different strategies at different stages in our life and depending on the specific circumstances we are in.

The feminist movement of the 60s was brought about by a lack of older men for younger women and so "free sex" became the norm of the 60s.

No matter what, remember that all woman generally behave the same way, it just depends on where they are in life. It's the same set of strategies that have existed for 2 million years. There never were "glory days" of men being real men and women being real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri being real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. Nope.

Remember, women are the ONLY mammals that are biologically designed from day 1 to hide when they are ovulating, so a man can never really know if a woman's child is his. Women are designed to be deceitful to get the best genes, the best resources, and to avoid a man's anger and aggressiveness. All for the survival of the species.

We didn't start the fire, it's been always burning since the world's been turning.

 

[( . )( . )]

Sounds like "the thug" "the simp" and "the player" are just symptoms of Western countries morphing from once predominantly K-selected societies into our burgeoning r-selected type matriarchal societies.

The only one who gets to continue his genetic legacy and have any say is "the traditionalist". The rest appear to be dead ends in that regard.

I also wouldn't brag about the path of "the player" (mgtow from your description). Try sustaining that lifestyle for a prolonged amount of time before you decide it's the bees knees. I'd be surprised if we are even mentally designed for it.

Also I strongly disagree with this:

The women of today's market, do NOT want this type of man. They believe this type of man is arrogant, self-centered, an a.sshole, too demanding, and oppressive.

On paper maybe. Real life tells a different story, most of those traits actually create tingles. Matter of fact I'd say all of them do.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Tenacity,
Old Will talked of the seven ages of Man,I have been most of the Personality types you mention at different stages of my life,so some of these Personas might be seen as Rites of Passage LOL.

 

[Zarky]

Right because of the 3,500,000,000 men out there, they can all be broken down into four discrete types

That's not overly simplistic at all!

 

[Tenacity]

Social Leper and Zarky,

Good points, but my post is coming from a financial/legal side, rather than an attraction side. I'm not discussing how to create attraction in this post.

I could make a totally different thread about this topic per say, but I believe a woman can be "attracted" to you and not like/love you not one bit. We have assumed, in my opinion, that just because "attraction" is there that like/love is also there, and I disagree. To me if a woman loved you she wouldn't EVER come to a point to where she is looking to destroy you financially and legally. And eventually, again, in my opinion, most if not all women come to a point where they seek to destroy you because the women of today really have no real love for men anymore.

 

[Tenacity]

(.)(.)

I also wouldn't brag about the path of "the player" (mgtow from your description). Try sustaining that lifestyle for a prolonged amount of time before you decide it's the bees knees. I'd be surprised if we are even mentally designed for it.

Yes, The Player is exactly that, a member of MGTOW. I used the Player label because technically with MGTOW you continue to build on your passions in business, finance, etc. while also maintaining a good social life, but you opt out of the legal agreements with women due to the imbalance of the laws.

I actually don't believe as humans, we are designed for marriage to be honest. It's why religion has to use scare tactics of burning in eternal hell fire to get people to come to a point where they REJECT their biological instincts. You have to make a concentrated effort to get to this point through forcing yourself out of your active sexuality rather than that coming as a natural flow of things.

 

[The Duke]

If Tenacity's post is "mental masturbation", then how is that different than every thing else that gets posted here!?!? You break a subject into groups/categories etc. to simplify analysis so its easier to understand and conclusions can be made. Is this over simplified....possibly....is it correct for some....maybe....maybe not, but there is some validity to it. Somebody complains about this being overly simplistic, then mentions how one should apply the KISS principle. lol kind of a contradiction.

How does this enhance our understanding of women???
It sheds light on the social dynamics at work between man and women amongst different personalities.

Zarky, since you don't fit any of those categories....please tell us where you fit in? I've always thought it was on a woman's forum but I'll put that belief aside for a few minutes while you explain. ;-)

I've been 3 of those in my life. All except for the thug. Funny how as we age we look at things differently as we understand more.

 

[SoSuave666]

I actually don't believe as humans, we are designed for marriage to be honest. It's why religion has to use scare tactics of burning in eternal hell fire to get people to come to a point where they REJECT their biological instincts. You have to make a concentrated effort to get to this point through forcing yourself out of your active sexuality rather than that coming as a natural flow of things.

In your theory, "traditional man" is the only one that emphasises the true gender role of a man. And for the most part, Christianity emphasises the same traits/role. It's why I limit my relationship self to Christian-conservative women. These are the ones that tend to fall in love with your "traditional man." With that said, finding a woman that is TRULY Christian and TRULY conservative is quite the tall task. Women these days tend to accept the aspects of Christianity and Convervatism that suit their agenda while rejecting the ones that promote the male role in relationships such as dominance, leader, etc. Watch out for the wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Colossus]

Saying that we as humans aren't "designed" for marriage is a tired and baseless argument perpetuated by mgtow and the player community. The player community (including sosuave) is a classic example of selection bias. We see the worst of what women have to offer, and we come from broken backgrounds of our own when it comes to women. Men in successful marriages and men who naturally have figured out how to wear the pants in relationships arent drawn to sosuave or mgtow blogs, because they dont need us.

It's ridiculous because after 15 or so years since the player community has been active, why arent we hearing of veteran players who are still "living the dream"? Where are these guys who still embrace the mgtow never-marry lifestyle to pass the torch?

Most of them have either married or moved on.

I stopped reading the manosphere and all PUA literature a while ago, mostly because it was becoming too arrogant and dogmatic. It became like a religion---anything that fell outside of the context of their pre-established framework was subject to ridicule, shame, and abject criticism. I'm sorry but "players" do not have some sort of franchise on the world's women. Most of them mistake their specialized social ability to lay women as some sort of higher wisdom about life and the future of humanity.

Dont get me wrong, the body of game knowledge has done a lot for our understanding of modern women, mating, and the sociological traps men can fall into. But I think the player gospel has run it's course. Why cant we start seeing the sky though the trees---attraction and mating are not difficult concepts to understand, and the lifestyle of a player is not sustainable. We know this because almost all of us eventually revert back to monogamous relationships. Yes, hypergamy and infidelity occur and are part of human nature----but so is monogamy. In fact, human survival has depended monogamous pair-bonding up until very recently in human history.

The whole "red pill" mystique is a farce. It's not that complicated to understand, you just need experience. Men will always be attracted to youth an beauty, and women will always be attracted to strength and stability. Yes of course there are other nuances to attraction, but these are the nuts and bolts, and they wont change.

The problem I see today is that not only has the general quality of western women declined, but men are trying to acquire high quality women with no CAPITAL. They are trying to get something rare and valuable (a well-bred, chaste, quality female) with nothing rare and valuable to offer in return. Come on guys, this is economics 101. Player types have some capital, sure, but I 100% guarantee you they will lock down that high-quality rare female when (or if) they find her, and that's why we have no geriatric players.

So while your 4 categories may have some truth to them, they aren't static and the "playr-4-lyfe" mantra is a fallacy. Three reasons:

1. The lifestyle is not sustainable (try it)
2. Even if it were, they would auto-select themselves out of human evolution
3. Women will eventually move on to more stable, traditional men to meet their own biological and emotional imperatives. This is real life.

Traditional men have been around for a long, long time for a reason. They seek their own viability and sustainability FIRST, and then select their female.

 

[dasein]

I actually don't believe as humans, we are designed for marriage to be honest. It's why religion has to use scare tactics of burning in eternal hell fire to get people to come to a point where they REJECT their biological instincts.

Agree with the first sentence as pertains to the present day. But in human history, lifetime marriage goes much deeper than mere religious factors.

Grounding factors of human life until the last half a toenail of human history: no birth control; extremely high infant and mother mortality; extremely harsh, unforgiving environmental factors including weather, predation, disease; only 15-20 year period of sexual viability before mortality; comparatively backward technology generally.

Tribe 1. Let's call them the hypergampygmies. Females breed mostly with a few high status males. The rest of the males are either in a constant state of violence against the high status males, disfavoring survival, or more likely take their unfulfilled sex drives and leave the tribe, taking their superior resource gathering capabilities with them. Either way, the grounding factors dictate this tribe has a very low chance of survival over time. The grounding factors require a growing, not shrinking number of ADULT resource gathering, environment conquering males who have a reason to stick around. If the tribe loses 70-80% of its males cyclically as they mature due to frustration of the sex drive, it will become extinct.

Tribe 2. Let's call them pair-bonders. Due to whatever factors, big brain in the chief, female camouflage, discovery of lawmaking, heightened child attachment in the male, these folks work out a system of relative reproductive equanimity based in a "family" model where males and females refrain from or limit their biological inclinations in favor of superior resources and adult manpower. They are more robust, survive better due to the increased resources and physical strength, and the pair bonding instinct intensifies over time. Due to limited lifespan, a 15-20 year commitment is nowhere near as onerous as a 40-60 year one. Unlike today, lifespan interlocks well with the sexual viability of the next generation.

To reiterate, this WAS our state of human affairs by and large until just last night in human history.

To the topic, IMO there are two types of men today. Men who allow themselves to be defined almost wholly in terms of their use and worthiness to women and women's goals, and men who are more balanced in terms of motivation and self-actualization. All of OP's categories can be compressed into those two types.

Finally, feminism is a socialist method of social control based on age-old manipulation of false "victim" groups against equally false "oppressor" groups. There was no "women's liberation movement," just socialist Mao Red Book based propaganda that was extremely successful and remains so. Had the "laborers of the world" united in the desired way, we would never have had feminism at all, it was a fallback position to counter the fact that common laborers wanted a better life for their children, not a socialist one, and so didn't fulfill the proletariat role as originally intended. Next stop for socialism, women, minorities, and anyone who can be fooled into viewing the world in terms of group membership as opposed to the actual factors at play in their individual lives.

 

[Tenacity]

SoSuave666,

Preach! Most Christian women I meet today see God more as a Genie in a lamp, where if they "rub" the lamp in the prescribed way (pay tithes, sing, dance, attend services) then the Genie will come out and grant them their heart's desires. I blame the Prosperity Gospel movement for this more than anything though, it's another reason I stopped attending "Church". I just got tired of the "everybody in here is going to be financially blessed this year" crap when the vast majority of the people in the church were broke then, broke before and will be still broke next year. Most women use "being saved" today as a dress to appear of quality, because in actuality they really aren't of quality once you take off the "church" covering.

Colossus

Saying that we as humans aren't "designed" for marriage is a tired and baseless argument perpetuated by mgtow and the player community. The player community (including sosuave) is a classic example of selection bias. We see the worst of what women have to offer, and we come from broken backgrounds of our own when it comes to women. Men in successful marriages and men who naturally have figured out how to wear the pants in relationships arent drawn to sosuave or mgtow blogs, because they dont need us.

I totally disagree Colossus, it's actually much more complicated than just "being a man" and "taking the lead" today. We have a totally upside down society in terms of male and female relations, on top of a totally bias family court system. What was traditionally "male" is shunned by society today, shaming men into becoming the Simp role, while women are becoming more of what the Patriarchal man used to be in terms of leadership, dominance and controlling the altercation.

Actually, one of the reasons why women have so much power today, is that men who have taken the Red Pill haven't formed a quality and credible movement to TAKE BACK our power. Men still dominate and hold the most of the wealth in this country, and women never TOOK over power from men, instead, men gave it to them out of guilt.

We need to come together to not just discuss the side of attraction so our dycks can get wet, but we need to discuss the side of family relations, family court and the legal system so we can restore our family structures. After proper discussion, we need to pool our money together, gain some political power, and CHANGE the laws back to a fair and balanced structure so we can restore our family and sanity.

Colossus

The problem I see today is that not only has the general quality of western women declined, but men are trying to acquire high quality women with no CAPITAL. They are trying to get something rare and valuable (a well-bred, chaste, quality female) with nothing rare and valuable to offer in return. Come on guys, this is economics 101. Player types have some capital, sure, but I 100% guarantee you they will lock down that high-quality rare female when (or if) they find her, and that's why we have no geriatric players.

I totally agree with this point though. I tell guys all the time that they need to get their shyt together FIRST before complaining that a woman is of low quality. I do believe, however, that even once they get their shyt together financially, personally, looks wise, etc....the MAX benefit that's out there for the most part is just more sex and dates. I think the love, caring, loyalty aspect is dying more and more by the moment from a holistic point of view.

Colossus

So while your 4 categories may have some truth to them, they aren't static and the "playr-4-lyfe" mantra is a fallacy. Three reasons:

1. The lifestyle is not sustainable (try it)
2. Even if it were, they would auto-select themselves out of human evolution
3. Women will eventually move on to more stable, traditional men to meet their own biological and emotional imperatives. This is real life.

Well, I disagree with this for the most part. The lifestyle IS sustainable, because, most men end up BACK in the single and spinning plates role ANYWAY after their "bride to be of 5-10 years" divorces them and takes a toil on them financially. My question is, if we are going to end up BACK where we started (single and spinning plates), why even get married in the first place? 60% of marriages fail, of the 40% remaining about 30% - 35% of those folks are just staying together just for the hell out of it....only about 5% - 10% are in what you would call "happy and fulfilling" marriages. Should we take the risk of ending up in the 90% - 95% shytty marriage pile for the chance of getting in the 5% - 10% happy marriage pile? As a business guy, I would say that investment carries to much risk. As a business guy, if I were to get married, I would EXPECT it to end in 1-10 years and properly do all of my risk management implementation to manage the decline.

For part three, it depends on who the women are and where they are in their lives. Some women are hell bent on getting married to "check off the box" on their list of TO DO THINGS in life. If they have already been there and done that, they can care less about marrying again and will have no issue with being an MGTOW's piece going forward. If the chick isn't interested in getting married at all, then again, she would have no issue with the MGTOW.

If I come off as though I hate women, it's not my intent, actually women aren't really the PROBLEM in society today....the problem is the feminist movement, the media, the government and the court system. It's those four entities that have poisoned the women at large through programming that has the women acting totally OUTSIDE of their biological natures. Lol, it's like the old zombie movies, it's starts out with a very few zombies until they end up biting the MAJORITY and turning everybody else into a zombie. The women of today have been BIT by the teeth of feminism, the media, the government and the bias court system...and now they are the living dead, seeking to bite the heads off of MEN without really comprehending "why".

 

[glass half full]

Social Leper and Zarky,

Good points, but my post is coming from a financial/legal side, rather than an attraction side. I'm not discussing how to create attraction in this post.

I could make a totally different thread about this topic per say, but I believe a woman can be "attracted" to you and not like/love you not one bit. We have assumed, in my opinion, that just because "attraction" is there that like/love is also there, and I disagree. To me if a woman loved you she wouldn't EVER come to a point to where she is looking to destroy you financially and legally. And eventually, again, in my opinion, most if not all women come to a point where they seek to destroy you because the women of today really have no real love for men anymore.

this I do believe is in effect nowadays, I know first hand. To me it's a matter of finding the lesser of many evils. It's hard to be more specific without more characterization.