What do you think about this story?

[scottfall]

Are you saying that you are not ?

I have expectations for myself that dont fly out the window depending on how Im feeling in a given moment.

 

[slaog]

The lesson to be learned is that the duality of a woman's biological imperative is alive and well.

And this dude WAS higher value. Higher value for his SEED. Sean was valuable for his beta provider role. Note the way she dotes over her baby's exotic features and Sean's undying devotion. Alpha seed, beta farmer. Best of both worlds.

How often does this play out where the dad is none the wiser, raising another guys kid? How often does the cheating happen without the pregnancy?

Anyone who doubts the prevalence of this type of thing should read more of Roissy's stuff. Quite an eye opener, if you have the balls to stomach the truth.

I dunno if it was because of the seed. She didn't find the mexican attractive and Sean was a blue eyed blond which is rearer so probably more highly valued. She said she loved the look of her child but every mother says that. Even Sean tried to convince himself that the child was his. She's just a wh*re. Remember that she said she liked to be independant and have a good time before she met Sean.


Wh*res only look for short term thrills. Women who seek long term partners are more concerned about seed then that wh*re. Thats why she ended up with that seed.

 

[jophil28]

The ramifications would be the same. Any man who would control his destiny wouldn't succumb to the desire he has at any particular moment in time.

What you want and what is in your best interest are very often two different things. A statement I've seen here perfectly reflects that wisdom....."anything you can't say no to is your master".

Use this knowledge to make yourself masterless. Use the same knowledge to identify the upper tier of acceptable women, those who can say NO despite whatever desire is passing through their mind at the moment.

Fine words.

 

[SXS]

I have expectations for myself that dont fly out the window depending on how Im feeling in a given moment.

I was talking about more in the sense that you are the master of your life, so you will do whatever you want with whomever you want, because in the end, the consequences are for yourself as well.
And about your comment, it worth for yourself, not all men, cause, as I said before, men do cheat as often and probably more than women, and just because guys here downplay the value of men cheating, doesnt change the fact that men do.
Which in the case, is kinda funny, cause, when pointed that men cheat more than women, ar at least, the same, they say its not important.
They talk and talk about the fact that women will not be honest about their sexual past... yet they advice you to never tell how many women did you sleep with.
They say that women will lie to get rid of cheating, that they are fake and actresses, and do anything to not be judged negatively... and yet, what was that the president of the USA said about ten years ago ? Oh, yeah, it was something like "I did not had sex with that women"...

Considering that I do not believe in the alpha/beta that is in 90% of the topics here, things are the way they are for a reason, and people here would be facing this story in a very different way if it were a man doing something alike.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

But wouldn't you say there's something off about a woman who puts genetics above the provisioning ability ("shallow"). Or a woman who puts provisioning above genetic quality ("gold digger"), or worse a woman who tries to acquire each from 2 men simultaneously instead of finding a balance in one man?

What you're describing is a form of genetic opportunism that both sexes employ to some degree. Terms of convenience like 'shallow' or 'gold digger' work for men because it allows us to categorize varying extremes of women's behaviors when we're even slightly aware of them in order to protect our egos or justify a rejection. Women benefit by these terms because they're useful tools in disqualifying their genetic rivals. Remember, on a base level they're competing for the best seed and provisioning, and if they can disqualify an obviously superior female by encouraging the perception that she's a "slut", "shallow" or a "gold digger" so much the better.

Now, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the SS moralists, bear in mind, behavior is not an excuse unto itself. We can wag our finger at her for being the self-absorbed sexual opportunist, and we can equally roll our eyes at her cuckold husband, but the mechanics of her behavior are rooted in this opportunism. I'm not excusing the behavior, but it is in every Man's interest to know the motivators for it, and plan accordingly.

 

[ketostix]

What you're describing is a form of genetic opportunism that both sexes employ to some degree. Terms of convenience like 'shallow' or 'gold digger' work for men because it allows us to categorize varying extremes of women's behaviors when we're even slightly aware of them in order to protect our egos or justify a rejection. Women benefit by these terms because they're useful tools in disqualifying their genetic rivals. Remember, on a base level they're competing for the best seed and provisioning, and if they can disqualify an obviously superior female by encouraging the perception that she's a "slut", "shallow" or a "gold digger" so much the better.

Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?

Now, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the SS moralists, bear in mind, behavior is not an excuse unto itself. We can wag our finger at her for being the self-absorbed sexual opportunist, and we can equally roll our eyes at her cuckold husband, but the mechanics of her behavior are rooted in this opportunism. I'm not excusing the behavior, but it is in every Man's interest to know the motivators for it, and plan accordingly.

I think what I'd say is it's not so important whether her behavior is rooted in opportunistic drives by nature, enviroment or a combination of the two. I'd say things like morals come from the same place as any other drive. I don't see why people would make a big distinction between "man made" and nature. It was nature that gave the ability to reason and make decisions and a native sense of fairness in the first place. So I consider a "moralistic" drive to be of equal stature to an opportunistic drive. What I would say is people vary significantly in their personality and traits they express.

 

[jophil28]

Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?

.

The objective of the application of those (perjorative) words is not to protect our egos at all... the objective is hopefully disqualify those women from the marriage pool.
I realize that the the more liberal among us find value judgements abhorrent( " just not nice ") but those words were created by men for a purpose - self protection.

 

[ketostix]

The objective of the application of those (perjorative) words is not to protect our egos at all... the objective is hopefully disqualify those women from the marriage pool.
I realize that the the more liberal among us find value judgements abhorrent( " just not nice ") but those words were created by men for a purpose - self protection.

Yeah I was thinking of that but didn't mention it. Instead of saying one's protecting their ego, you could replace that with protecting your sanity and wallet. When RT uses the term protecting ego I'm not totally sure what he means but I understand it as your mental health. It may be necessary and proper to protect one's ego. A man can't and shouldn't just accept and absorb any assualt against his psyche.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?

Absolutely. I'll even go so far as to agree with JOPHIL; yes, by their original intent they are most definitely terms used to define a person's character. That's why the term 'slut' is such a wonderful tool for women. Women compete for attention from men. They use attention (both in their own circle and from men) as a currency for establishing their social status and affirming (though mostly subconsciously) their self-worth. When a woman calls another a 'slut' she's essentially saying "that woman sleeps around so much that she'll never make a good long term mate" or "guys shouldn't mate with her because she can't be trusted to be loyal." It's an attack meant not only to ostracize the 'slut' from the collective, but also to disqualify her from the attentions of any desirable male they happen to be competing for.

This is analogous to a guy calling another obviously attractive guy a "fag." He's essentially saying that this guy should be disqualified from a woman's consideration because he's simply not interested in the opposite sex. And naturally the more physically attractive a guy is the more apt we are to doubt his sexual prefernce. Placing doubt on someone's sexuality to the point where it disqualifies them from competition is a fantastic weapon.

I realize how comforting it would be to live in a world of reliable absolutes where a slut is a slut and gold digger is a gold digger, but we don't. It becomes a judgement call in a world where we're encouraged not to judge someone unfairly, in spite of them being deserving. Then combine this with a man's want of sexual intimacy to the point where he's willfully ignorant of what's right in front of him, and he'll tolerate damn near anything if it's a means to that end. I'm sure the woman in this article didn't have a scarlet letter stitched to her making her an easily identifiable "slut", but most likely the cuckold created his own rationalization for why she was worth being cuckolded for. To him, she was a "Quality Woman" if a bit confused.

We could point a finger and say "what an idiot, chump" the guy is from our objective view, but to his manufactured reality she's worth it. One of the reasons I loathe hearing men tell me about concepts of Chivalry is that this is so often the first thing I get from desperate AFCs rationalizing as to why they're going to marry a single mommy with 3 kids from 2 fathers. Is he Cap'n-Save-A-Ho with no other options or a handsome prince riding in to rescue his "Quality Woman" by saving her from her conditions, "Manning up" and taking on the parental investment responsibilities that her former partners would not? How would the cuckold in this article define that? I have no doubt he'd see himself as being honorable, moral and resolute in accepting and forgiving her infidelity. I can't think of a more efficient psychological tool / social convention that would facilitate, once again, securing the best genetic potential and the best provisioning potential for a woman in one life span.

 

[Andy_Dufresne]

I read through this thread and it reminds me of one (of many) of my favorite Seinfeld lines.

Elaine (to Seinfeld): So...Jerry, if you were a woman, what would you do?

Seinfeld (to Elaine): If I were a woman I would be down at the docks waiting for the ships to sail in.....

 

[ketostix]

The way I see it is like you said Rollo people are judgemental and prone to labeling others for based on faulty reasoning or for ulterior motives. A man who a woman finds attractive magically in her mind becomes a "great guy" and a man she's not attracted to is a "creeper". A desirable woman that a man can't get becomes a "slut" or "gold digger". An author of one book I read called this phenomena the "personality ethic". And he said he did a lot of research and prior to about 1920 character was the focus and he called that the "character ethic". What this demonstrates is that nature or evolution didn't change people that fast but what did it was a changing enviroment and changing socilization.

What I would say is there's a difference between labeling or judging someone based on their observed actions, conduct and behavior and judging someone based on appearance, their popularity or lack of, or on any other grounds outside of their actual conduct and behavior.

For example I set the criteria on behavior and I could label all American women sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees. How does that put me in more hazard of being duped by a woman than someone who says it's all gray and indeterminate if a woman is a slut or gold digger?

 

[jophil28]

For example I set the criteria on behavior and I could label all American women sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees. How does that put me in more hazard of being duped by a woman than someone who says it's all gray and indeterminate if a woman is a slut or gold digger?

Firstly, there is no evidence that ALL American women ( or Australian or British) are " all sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees" ....Sure, most women prefer that "their man" has the material resouces or the ability to acquire resouces to provide for her needs, (and perhaps the needs of her future children) . That does not make her a gold digger. That describes a woman who has a well developed sense of self protection and survival.
What makes her a gold digger (and ultimately unsuitable for an LTR ) is her compulsive need to mate with a wealthy man who will provide for her personal whims and her superficial wants. His ability to provide her with "a magic carpet ride" is her primary criterion for selection.

All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.

 

[SXS]

All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

 

[ketostix]

Firstly, there is no evidence that ALL American women ( or Australian or British) are " all sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees" ....Sure, most women prefer that "their man" has the material resouces or the ability to acquire resouces to provide for her needs, (and perhaps the needs of her future children) . That does not make her a gold digger. That describes a woman who has a well developed sense of self protection and survival.
What makes her a gold digger (and ultimately unsuitable for an LTR ) is her compulsive need to mate with a wealthy man who will provide for her personal whims and her superficial wants. His ability to provide her with "a magic carpet ride" is her primary criterion for selection.

All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.

When I said I could label all American women xyz, I was meaning hypothetically I could do that and it wouldn't change reality of whether it was true or not. Only standards for behavior and the person's actions make it reality or not. I was responding to RT's point that people label or judge as a means to protect their ego, but my point was it's what a woman actually does that matters. I wasn't saying I actually believed that all women were sluts or gold diggers. I do believe a large percentage of them cross that line though. I've said before that some percentage of women do not cheat or run off the minute financial hardship sets in.

 

[jophil28]

. I was responding to RT's point that people label or judge as a means to protect their ego, but my point was it's what a woman actually does that matters.
.

There is no argument that some people judge others to protect their ego. IT is also true that many of us judge and condemn some people because their behavior warrants it. Their actions are destuctive,or threaten our wellbeing.
The next step in wisdom is to ignore, avoid or remove these people from our life because it is in our best interests to do so.

 

[STR8UP]

I realize that the the more liberal among us find value judgements abhorrent( " just not nice ") but those words were created by men for a purpose - self protection.

All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.

The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you. You honestly believe that you are THAT good? So good that you can unequivocally state that you know of "many" women who have never cheated on you or your friends and NEVER would?

I respect a lot of your opinions, but statements like that make me wonder where you have been in your 52 years on the planet.

I learned by my early-mid 30's that positive value judgments like that are foolish and often dangerous. If your negative value judgments serve as "self protection", how do your positive value judgments benefit you? It would seem to me that the consequences of being wrong on the positive end would be even more detrimental to your welfare than ignoring the negative.

And if there were a way to prove myself I would bet you any amount of money that you don't know these women nearly as well as you think you do.

I realize how comforting it would be to live in a world of reliable absolutes where a slut is a slut and gold digger is a gold digger, but we don't............I'm sure the woman in this article didn't have a scarlet letter stitched to her making her an easily identifiable "slut", but most likely the cuckold created his own rationalization for why she was worth being cuckolded for. To him, she was a "Quality Woman" if a bit confused.

We could point a finger and say "what an idiot, chump" the guy is from our objective view, but to his manufactured reality she's worth it.

That's the whole issue with the quality woman debate. For too many men, it's nothing more than an illusion, a "manufactured reality" that allows him to believe that his particular woman (or the one he dreams of one day meeting) is utterly incapable of falling victim to whim or emotion. That she cannot possibly have any skeletons in her closet and is and always will remain strong enough to stand firmly behind her moral convictions in the face of all adversity.

For example I set the criteria on behavior and I could label all American women sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees. How does that put me in more hazard of being duped by a woman than someone who says it's all gray and indeterminate if a woman is a slut or gold digger?

When I read that I see six of one half dozen of another.

 

[SXS]

The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you. You honestly believe that you are THAT good? So good that you can unequivocally state that you know of "many" women who have never cheated on you or your friends and NEVER would?

I can state that I have many friends, males and females, who have never cheated on their partners. And it has little to do with how good I may think I am...

 

[jophil28]

The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you.
.

NO, it means that I mostly chose quality woman because I instinctively knew what 'style' is, and what qualities to look for in a prospect.. The majority of women whom I have dated have been good women. I filtered a lot along the way after the first date.
From reading your unsuccessful war stories with women, it seems that you lack that particular skill.
Perhaps you need to reset your standards and expectations upwards.

 

[jophil28]

That's the whole issue with the quality woman debate. For too many men, it's nothing more than an illusion, a "manufactured reality" that allows him to believe..

More confused words. Lets call it by it correct name.
The phrase " manufactured reality " is a nonsense. Reality exists outside of ourselves and will remain after our death. Reality is NOT perception. or 'personal reality' or 'parrallel truths' or any other such drivel from post moderism.

What that guy created was self delusion or, as you correctly said, "illusion" .

 

[Tazman]

I don't understand the logic in claiming to "know" what the people around you do or will "ever" do.

Believing is one thing, but claiming to know absolutely what another person will do is impossible (unless you're physically joined at the hip).

I've met some damn good liars in my time, hell my own sisters are a great example of that. There are certain things I would expect them not to do, but to claim I "know" they wouldn't is a fallacy.

It seems like some sort of defense mechanism to those who don't believe that all people are capable of causing others harm at any time.

I wonder if "religion" has anything to do with some of these beliefs. That may be where the foundation of some of these arguments come from.