Women are Devilish Wh0res

[STR8UP]

After trudging through the comments on this roissy blog post (they can get quite long)-

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/reader-mailbag-marriage-independence-day-edition/#comments

I noticed that reader and fellow blogger xsplat had responded to one of my comments regarding my views on women's propensity to lie, even on anonymous surveys, about their sexual past.

A brilliant discussion regarding the nature of women in general ensued, and here are some quotes that back up what I have been trying to explain to people on here for years-

My view is that women are biologically constrained within bounds of what they can want, and have leeway within those bounds to excercise personal choice. I voice the “women are devilish *****s” point when people over-emphasise choice, and forget the base drives that persist. I’m very in touch with my base drives, and it irks me when people are so out of touch with their own that they project this sense of heady intellectual choice onto the actions of females, willy nilly. It’s more accurate and useful to view them as devilish *****s, who can at times excercise restraint, than to view them as upstanding citizens who can at times backslide. Because the emotional desires are primary, and the intellectualizing comes next, usually as rationalization for emotions.

If you want to read all of the blog comments it's a LONG read, but it would help you grasp the context a bit better. If you would rather not bother, I will sum it up:

This was in response was to address the "high mindedness" that he perceives of people who fail (or refuse) to grasp the idea that women are STRONGLY guided by their biological imperatives.

He is essentially calling people out on the over emphasis of choice in mating dynamics. He is saying that it is more pragmatic to view women as amoral creatures who are tempered by the virtues that society attempts to bestow upon us rather than seeing them as virtuous creatures who "slip up" from time to time.

He goes on to say this about what should be done to in the Western sphere to bring balance back to men in regards to the sexual power of women:

Actually, I do have an opinion on what would help western culture. Men need to stop trusting women. They need to learn that women are two faced and calculating, and that a women never knows her own motivations. Men need to start treating women as a devilish ***** to be emotionally enslaved for his benefit. They need to learn to be always on guard, and forever seeking advantage.

When men man up and fight the war of the sexes with panache and verve, there will be a reballancing of sexual power.

As usual, people mistake pragmatism for hate. This is about understanding that an acceptance of the truth does not have to lead to misogyny-

Also, you completely misunderstand my message about loving devilish *****s. You can’t seem to grasp Jungs notion of integrating ones shadow selves into ones full personality. Men certainly can love women, in the full light of the knowledge of their darker natures.

He goes on to share this nugget of wisdom:

Madona’s don’t make better wives than women with a nasty streak. The nasty streak just has to properly channeled by her master – which any man should make himself into. Most men can master their women, given proper training. I think proper training for many of us might include spending time in SE Asia.

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to tell people. His apparent attempt to make a distinction (madonna/wh0re) make his words a bit misleading in that it seems as if he is contradicting his view that all women are devilish wh0res, but it just goes to drive home the point that there are no absolutes.

As a Man, you are solely responsible for the outcome of your relationships. Ultimately, not every situation will work out, but it is up to YOU, the MAN, to take the lead. It is up to you to "train" and guide your woman to be the woman she is capable of being, to play on her biological and social drives which benefit you, and to suppress those that might work against you. Women seek to attach themselves to a man who is worthy of deriving THEIR identity from. You should strive to become a worthy man.

And now we look a bit deeper-

You see, people who don’t own their shadow selves are self-righteous, and incapable of loving imperfection.

To properly appreciate someone, you must see their shadow side, and know that in yourself is the same capacity.

In women always lies the capacity for cold calculating duplicity, infidelity, and random lust. To be devilish means to be two faced and manipulating. In all woman lies the capacity for *****dom. It’s only a matter of price, opportunity and gina tingle. All women are devilish, and *****s. This is their nature, and to deny it is to deny oneself the full capacity to enslave a woman. You can’t puppet a puppet fully unless you can pick up all of its strings – and women have devilish and whorish strings to be grabbed.

Good people refuse to pick up all of the strings, and they deny their own shadow material. They try so hard to be something, they lose a good deal of what they are.

xsplat is fully aware and accepting of the fact that all humans are selfish at their core. It is this awareness and acceptance that allows a person not only to deal with people from a position of advantage, but to also "love" people who who they really are, which is "imperfect" when compared to the ideal that we are taught to believe exists.

With this understanding also comes the ability to "create" a woman who is ideal for you. He also goes on to elaborate on "pulling a woman's strings" by embracing her dark side, and using your non-judgmental attitude to bring out her darkest sexual desires, which allow you to bond with her on a deeper level. When you know someone's secrets, it creates a level of trust that does not exist with other people.

Obviously, calling all women "devilish wh0res" is bound to get a kneejerk reaction, especially from the majority of men who do not wish to take that view. When you do, however, accept their true nature, these words do not assume the same negative connotation. They are only used as a sharp contrast to the standard pollyannish view of women as being inherently "good" and worthy of being afforded the benefit of doubt, or being considered "innocent until proven guilty".

My only wish is that we might have a few more people here on SS who were capable of articulating this point of view in such an eloquent and thought provoking manner.

 

[Trader]

I agree with the post completely.

But where do you go from here? Given the fact that the true nature of a girl is ammorality, I believe a man must by necessity be moral. I don't want to get into what is right and what is wrong, but every man must work out his OWN morality. Otherwise you end up providing absolutely no *structure* for your girl.

Let me give you an example. If you expect girls to not cheat on their bf, then really the only thing you can do is to exhibit moral faithfulness yourself in your relationships. She is going to be looking to you and your ACTIONS to determine what she can get away with. How can you *put a girl in her place* if you yourself cannot live up to those lofty moral standards?

Guy leads, girl follows.

 

[KontrollerX]

"Obviously, calling all women "devilish wh0res" is bound to get a kneejerk reaction, especially from the majority of men who do not wish to take that view."

I can already hear the drone of "woman hater", "bitter", "misogynist" among other feminist programmed shaming terms from their positivity pimp and morality crew servants already.

Such people are not ready for that guy's blog or this new guy's posts Str8up.

It takes a truth seeker whose ready to face uncomfortable knowledge just to get the truth and someone that really wants to find the greatest degree of reality to understand that in this context the term "devilish wh0re" isn't about bitterness or hatred of women its just another way to get across exactly how selfish and to what degree MOST women are when you really think about it.

The problem is most of those guys only want to think to a point and when things get uncomfortable for them they stop thinking and let their feminist societal programming fill in the gaps for them which preserves their quality woman somewhere out there myth.

A good movie that follows in line of what that guy is saying Str8up is "Surviving Picasso" starring Anthony Hopkins.

As Picasso he basically treats the women in his life as pets and gives them just enough of what they need to keep them wanting more.

He makes them dependent on him, voluntary slaves basically and he gets the most benefit out of all the interactions.

 

[SXS]

Madona’s don’t make better wives than women with a nasty streak. The nasty streak just has to properly channeled by her master – which any man should make himself into. Most men can master their women, given proper training. I think proper training for many of us might include spending time in SE Asia.

So, basicly, you can go to a whorhouse and pick any nasty girl and "tame" her into a housewife ?
I dont think so...

 

[ketostix]

The problem is one man can't impose authority or "morality" on a woman when most men in society have given that authority away. I believe women do need to be under the guidance of men or they'll act like mischievious children. The problem is you can't apply an individual solution to a societal problem. Men are your enemy too they are all trying to wreck any relationship you have. Not because they really want the woman but because they want to take what you have away. The problem with women isn't so much women as it is society. If you grew up in an Arab society you could easily say the nature of men is XYZ. Someone posted a psychology link in the DJ forum about internal and external attribution and how people erroneously attribute the internal as being the main factor.

 

[SXS]

If you grew up in an Arab society you could easily say the nature of men is XYZ.

That's because culture is the determinant on those matters.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Straight Eight,
What a read!...I reckon if you spent as much time stoking ladies as you do reading about it,your pride and joy would need a splint on it.... When I was young and callow,I remember asking an old Outback barmaid how one should treat Women"Treat 'em rough N'Ride em hard"she responded......This charming old Girl also had a very apt response to another soul searching problem,it related to the age old problem of size...."Well" she responded,looking thoughtfully into the distance "when you want to scratch inside your ear do you use your thumb?".

 

[Tazman]

I read a little bit of the blog and I do like it.

That's why dealing with women is so much easier for me. I don't put up with certain behaviors that are directed toward me, but I "understand" them, and that knowledge, if used wisely (for your benefit) is priceless.

 

[Luthor Rex]

In the sexual marketplace where men sell themselves and women browse the bazaar for the best deals, irrational confidence beats rational doubt every time. EVERY TIME.

This is one of the most important - and frustrating - truths about women. Women are the anti-Stoics: they are seduced by impressions, they believe only what is in front of them. I don't care how educated a woman is, unless she can see through the matrix of lies society has set up around us I don't consider her "smart".

Yes I realize I could use this to my advantage -- if I want to blow my load in some woman. The only kind of relationship I can have with these kinds of women (ie most women on planet earth), is a parent-child relationship. Which, again is fine for blowing my load. But I could never see myself in a long term relationship with such a woman -- I know me, and at some point I would get sick of the games and the bull**** and just throw he out of my life.

Of course, if she's hot I'll probably keep her around longer.

 

[KontrollerX]

The guy in this article committed the greatest one man lone gunman massacre in world history even bigger than Cho's at Virginia Tech...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/28/1143441143413.html

Check out this excerpt from the article below:

"He no longer reads or watches television, has no friends, and although he is said to receive large numbers of letters, mostly from women, he never opens them."

Never doubt at all that women want the bad boy.

From outright mass murderer criminals to regular law abiding DJ's the bad boy is what gets women hot.

Women may settle down with a nice guy provider and raise a family but that nice guy provider will never be able to sexually satisfy a woman as well as a bad boy because the bad boy provides the type of danger, unpredictability and unconquerable quality that makes women ache for them. Also if a woman has a mothering fantasy which many AFC weak women do the bad boy also gets inside that particular woman's head as a misunderstood sweetheart who only her love can cure. A bad boy gets the best sexual experience possible from women because his being a bad boy first mind fvcks her which is the most important aspect of the equation and then the resulting physical fvcking takes on a greater passion on her part because she wants the badboy to dominate her.

She inherintely instinctually knows he will accept nothing less and she wants to give herself to him as fully as possible because deep down she desires to be tamed.

 

[STR8UP]

I agree with the post completely.

But where do you go from here? Given the fact that the true nature of a girl is ammorality, I believe a man must by necessity be moral. I don't want to get into what is right and what is wrong, but every man must work out his OWN morality. Otherwise you end up providing absolutely no *structure* for your girl.

It's not about imposing morality, it's about understanding the nature (or lack of) hers and using that to guide her down the path you want her to travel. Think of it as "guidance", not "control".

I haven't gotten too deep into xsplat's theories, but from what I gather some of it is based upon getting a woman to open up to you in a way she doesn't do with others.

I have made the case that a lot of men's views on women are colored by the fact that they are too judgmental. Women pick up on this and never allow their true colors to show around these men.

The best benefit to being able to understand the nature of women and more importantly ACCEPT it is that you will be blessed in the bedroom. Women are closet freaks and desire novelty the same as men, but out of repression they are afraid to express this. What I do is walk a woman down the path that allows her to open up and express her sexuality freely with me. You would be surprised what women will do (such as allowing themselves to be photographed, videotaped, and basically turned into your personal sex toy) if they trust you and are confident that you will not judge them.

Let me give you an example. If you expect girls to not cheat on their bf, then really the only thing you can do is to exhibit moral faithfulness yourself in your relationships. She is going to be looking to you and your ACTIONS to determine what she can get away with. How can you *put a girl in her place* if you yourself cannot live up to those lofty moral standards?

Doesn't quite work that way. I would even go so far as to say that cheating on a woman might LESSEN the chances that she will cheat on you, providing you maintain an alpha frame. As long as she is strongly attracted to you chances are she will let it slide and be more eager to please you because of it.

Women are the originators of the double standard. To wim in the mating game, you have to play it like a woman. Throw it right back at her. It's ok for you but not for her. You would think that women wouldn't put up with this, but if your alpha frame is strong enough, you can get away with almost anything.

A woman's attraction mechanism is COMPLETELY different than a man. With both sexes it is all about value, but the way women determine value is based in large part on how much value OTHER women place on him. Social proof, if you will.

I recently had sex with the best friend of a fukk buddy. After thinking about it, I realized that likely the ONLY reason i was able to fukk this chick that night (she has some higher than normal ASD due to religious upbringing) was due to competition anxiety. She "likes" me, and realized that she has to "stake a claim". She had to play that card or risk losing her shot with me forever. It was interesting to watch it play out, for sure.

The problem is most of those guys only want to think to a point and when things get uncomfortable for them they stop thinking and let their feminist societal programming fill in the gaps for them which preserves their quality woman somewhere out there myth.

A lot of guys in the general populace are fairly clueless and continue to bang their heads against the wall when it comes to this kind of thing. A lot of the guys here on the MM board have enough experience with women that they SHOULD have been able to reach these conclusions on their own. the problem is that even though most all of them do not agree with the soulmate myth, it's a VERY tough pill to swallow to have to acknowledge that not only is there not a magical "perfect woman" out there waiting for you, but that women in general do not live up to the romanticized ideal we are lead to believe exists. Some guys just cannot accept this.

So, basicly, you can go to a whorhouse and pick any nasty girl and "tame" her into a housewife ?
I dont think so...

As usual, it went right over your head.

The point is that there is little inherent difference between women at their core. You would like to separate women into two categories but it doesn't work that way. You have about 5% that are mostly great, 5% that are fairly rotten to their core, and the rest are on the remaining 90% in a sliding scale where they move freely based upon the situation that is in front of them.

The problem is one man can't impose authority or "morality" on a woman when most men in society have given that authority away.

I agree with this, but it is SOCIETY that imposes morality on women, not the wishes of individual men.

What we are saying is that although the system may be "flawed" or "skewed" or that women are inherently "amoral", you can use ALL OF THIS to your advantage to guide the interaction to your benefit.

I believe women do need to be under the guidance of men or they'll act like mischievious children. The problem is you can't apply an individual solution to a societal problem.

That is why you operate within the confines of what is under your control.

Men are your enemy too they are all trying to wreck any relationship you have. Not because they really want the woman but because they want to take what you have away. The problem with women isn't so much women as it is society.

When you look at it for what it is, these "problems" become less of an actual problem. No matter what happens, SOMEONE is gonna get laid. You just have to be the right guy to give women what they respond to at any given time.

And yea, everyone but your immediate family wants to take everything you have. the only things that stop them are a loose moral code and the realization that politics can result in a greater long term payoff than jacking $20 out of your wallet when you aren't looking.

Dear Straight Eight,
What a read!...I reckon if you spent as much time stoking ladies as you do reading about it,your pride and joy would need a splint on it

I was (for all intents and purposes) "out" of the game for awhile trying to regroup my business dealings and address personal issues, but I'm definitely back. Just gave up a FWB situation (chances are I could still hit it again if I want it) because I banged it out with her best friend. Best friend now wants a relationship with me. Ex g/f's seem to be coming out of the woodwork. One was sending me emails about "you know what would happen if we got together". Several women all over the state and different parts of the US that given the right timing i could bang/make my g/f. Got a date with a 27 yr old cutie tomorrow night too. So it isn't all booksmarts and unproven theory.

.... When I was young and callow,I remember asking an old Outback barmaid how one should treat Women"Treat 'em rough N'Ride em hard"she responded......This charming old Girl also had a very apt response to another soul searching problem,it related to the age old problem of size...."Well" she responded,looking thoughtfully into the distance "when you want to scratch inside your ear do you use your thumb?".

Old school "down under" flava representin'....

This is one of the most important - and frustrating - truths about women. Women are the anti-Stoics: they are seduced by impressions, they believe only what is in front of them. I don't care how educated a woman is, unless she can see through the matrix of lies society has set up around us I don't consider her "smart".

Then you must not consider many men to be "smart" either. A good portion of them manage to break through the outer shell of lies, but as I have said many times before- there is another deeper, darker layer than most men either don't have the opportunity to see or pretend that it doesn't exist.

Yes I realize I could use this to my advantage -- if I want to blow my load in some woman. The only kind of relationship I can have with these kinds of women (ie most women on planet earth), is a parent-child relationship. Which, again is fine for blowing my load. But I could never see myself in a long term relationship with such a woman -- I know me, and at some point I would get sick of the games and the bull**** and just throw he out of my life.

I learned years ago that I do not want an intellectual equal. I am quite alright with a woman whom I must guide toward a happy life for the both of us. I will admit that it is a plus for her to possess a FEW traits that elevate her above the masses, but at the end of the day a woman who is a woman is fine by me.

 

[STR8UP]

Women are naturals at a level we could never fathom.

No doubt.

This is why the disparity between women who "get it" and men who "get it" today is HUGE. Women learn VERY quickly the value of the commodity that resides between their legs. In today's world, you have a bunch of frustrated men who grew up indoctrinated into the feminist/beta mindset who, just 50 years or so ago might have found a wife and settled into at least a "comfortable arrangement" that worked for both parties. Today we have a bunch of pu$$y deprived men wallowing in self-pity who if they are lucky, stumble upon the PUA community, DJ principles, etc. that at least give them a fighting chance.

"If you want to win the game you have to play like a woman" is as true today as was when the feminist first started to twist it around into a competition to see who has the bigger balls.

But then these women would cry and convort when I dumped them because a better girl showed up on the scene. This fvcked me all up. Even though I knew they were the masters of manipulation, I started feeling sorry for them and tried the honesty route, only to find my supply of pusssy completely shut off.

The only thing you have to remember is that given the opportunity and the right circumstance, they would have done it to YOU without guilt or reservation.

Honesty isn't the best policy with women (unless you are telling her she's getting a little chunky in the thighs). By their very nature women are wired to serve us best when there is always at least a hint of doubt as to what you are doing and who you are doing it with.

I agree with the concept. Let me ask you, though...if women are devilish *****s at their base level, what are we men? I mean that in all seriousness and I'm not trying to turn the tables on the discussion.

The reason I ask is because on SS we often complain about women and their amorality, then turn around and say that women don't have the sense of loyalty or honesty or trust that a man has.

Loyalty and honesty - intellectual choices, no? When you consider what history has shown us, which is that a man might sell out or kill his own brother just to get ahead, isn't it true that BOTH sexes are at their root "sinister," with all of the Freudian window dressing added by our egos to keep us moral? Women and men "get ahead" in different ways, and those ways are probably repulsive to the opposite gender. Isn't this simply what evolution has shown us...that survival isn't pretty?

I suppose if there's one lesson to remember, it's that all's fair in love and war.

This discussion could go many different directions, but I do agree with what you are getting at. I was royally fukked by childhood friend. A person I was tight with and thought I could trust. But at the end of the day there was a price on our friendship, and he decided to cash in my trust and it cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

Outside of family, the price for most friendships and relationships really isn't that high. Don't be surprised if several people you thought you could trust betray you one day whether it is by fukking your wife or cleaning out your bank account.

I would say the main distinction we need to make between "morality" of men and women is that since women are the weaker sex, they MUST be the more cunning and manipulative. They have to be the most capable of breaking societal mores and rationalizing them after.

This is why I tell men that they need to wise up and eschew "morality" when it comes to the mating game. If morality were an "attractive" virtue, why does it seem that the guys who are least moral, or at least those who walk the line are the ones getting the most puss?

Another aspect of this is blind loyalty, bravery, basically all the crap that society feeds you to make you think that being expendable is your DUTY as a man. It's all propaganda designed to keep you in your place in the machine to allow society as a whole to continue on.

I do believe in loyalty in business and politics. In these types of venues proper alliances can make the sum greater than its parts, but with women, morality, loyalty, honor, bravery.....EXPEND ABILITY.....has no purpose for a man who wishes to come out ahead.

 

[Señor Fingers]

Truth is most people are selfish, dishonest and predominantly stupid. This is not exclusive to females - its just human nature to look out for number one, and do things that are bad for you just for the thrill of it.

In the end the only constant in the game is cause/effect. Whatever behavior you perpetuate will tend to reflect right back at ya, further influencing your perceptions

I would even go so far as to say that cheating on a woman might LESSEN the chances that she will cheat on you, providing you maintain an alpha frame. As long as she is strongly attracted to you chances are she will let it slide and be more eager to please you because of it.

^^ May be true in many cases, but the question remains - would YOU build a future or even respect a woman who lets herself get played out like that? Can you really add quality to a woman who does not value herself?

IMHO, you can wrap a piece of sh*t in gold foil, but its still sh*t. If a gal is worth the long haul she will already have a lot of her ducks lined up - she wont be perfect, but she will be a gem that you can polish and hone to your liking.

In an ideal situation she will also teach YOU a thing or too about improving the quality of your life. Even though men lead in the dance of seduction, its the women that help us become better dancers.

All of this comes from a guy who has had unusually great luck with most of his relationships. Of course luck had nothing to do with it - I screened a LOT of candidates and stuck to my guns on the important stuff - which is all that really mattered.

At the end of the day, there are some great women out there - but I will concur that they are a rare find and that most of them should be treated with apprehension and absolutely no attachment. This really is a numbers game and trust must be earned - never granted freely (especially based on looks/pvssy)

Overall good post STR8, title sucks though

 

[Luthor Rex]

Then you must not consider many men to be "smart" either.

That would be correct.

:yes:

 

[grinder]

Excellent thought-provoking post.

I understand this as a framework to comprehend a woman’s seemingly irrational behavior. If you understand the motivation and drive behind the behavior then you see the wizard behind the curtain pulling the strings.

Sorta like when you first found out there is no Sana Clause, isn’t it?

But I think we need to ask if we are completely de-humanizing behavior, both male and female?

Is their an irreducible point of human motivation? Are you willing to say all of human emotions are nothing more than the result of drives and needs expressing themselves so that they may be satiated? It’s just biology propagating itself?

Just pull the right strings and voila, she “loves” you?

I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit here but, you have to recognize that a large measure of what we learn here on SS teaches us that in being a man, our actions do punch buttons and pull strings……..and many of us have found out that not only does it work, but it works ALL THE TIME without exception, even if you don’t believe what you are seeing before your very eyes.

 

[STR8UP]

Truth is most people are selfish, dishonest and predominantly stupid. This is not exclusive to females - its just human nature to look out for number one, and do things that are bad for you just for the thrill of it.

In the end the only constant in the game is cause/effect. Whatever behavior you perpetuate will tend to reflect right back at ya, further influencing your perceptions

People selfish, men and women? Check.

Not buying all of the "behavior reflecting back at ya" though. There is SOME truth to this, but karma is overrated, and (more what I think you are getting at) the cause/effect thing doesn't work the same way for men as it does women.

^^ May be true in many cases, but the question remains - would YOU build a future or even respect a woman who lets herself get played out like that? Can you really add quality to a woman who does not value herself?

I'm glad you brought this up, because I meant to touch on this earlier.

Yes, absolutely i would be able to respect a woman who got "played" in that way.

Why?

In biological terms it is due to the fact that male infidelity is not NEARLY as costly to the the woman as female infidelity is to the man. It's like comparing a kid stealing a candy bar to an executive who embezzles a hundred grand. Yea, it's that much different.

In practical terms, it is because women are willing to share a man of high value, regardless of her own value.

A woman doesn't have to hand over her balls and her last shred of dignity to forgive a cheating husband. By forgiving infidelity, the man, on the other hand, has just abdicated all of his power to a relationship that is probably doomed to fail anyway.

In an ideal situation she will also teach YOU a thing or too about improving the quality of your life. Even though men lead in the dance of seduction, its the women that help us become better dancers.

If you mean by keeping us on our toes and CHALLENGING US to be better leaders in the relationship, then I agree with you.

Overall good post STR8, title sucks though

Marketing 101 homie....

But I think we need to ask if we are completely de-humanizing behavior, both male and female?

When we start to talk about "dehumanizing" we start to hit that slippery slope. The whole point of my post and the quotes that I mentioned was to do exactly the opposite- to legitimize and acknowledge those parts of human behavior that people would rather not even talk about. It is all about understanding what IS "human".

Is their an irreducible point of human motivation? Are you willing to say all of human emotions are nothing more than the result of drives and needs expressing themselves so that they may be satiated? It’s just biology propagating itself?

Just pull the right strings and voila, she “loves” you?

I think the PUA community has done a pretty good job of making the case for just how strong of an influence our biology plays in the mating game.

Are ALL emotions a result of of drives and needs expressing themselves? Well, when it comes down to it just about everything we do as humans can be traced back to meeting our basic needs.

You would think that someone expressing emotion at a piece of inanimate art would have nothing to do with sex, but a pretty good case can be made to show that there is a link. That's pretty deep stuff though. Science is just now catching up to the truth about the BASICS. The jury is still going to be out for a few more decades on the deeper issues.

 

[RedPill]

This is one of the most important - and frustrating - truths about women. Women are the anti-Stoics: they are seduced by impressions, they believe only what is in front of them. I don't care how educated a woman is, unless she can see through the matrix of lies society has set up around us I don't consider her "smart".

I attended a conference a couple years ago where one of the presenters was this feminista chick talking about how to make your business appealing to women. Some of the stuff she was saying was really out there in that she painted most businesses as 'inferior' because they did not go out of the way to become female friendly. Despite the fact that her strong feminist slant was semi-obnoxious to the audience (primarily men), there were some nuggets of wisdom in there.

One of those was that for women, intuitive perceptions are by-and-large women's primary basis for making judgments about everything, whereas men will use information to make judgments. If the public bathroom in your office is anything less than sanitary & comfortable, a woman will use that as a gauge for the success of your business over actual financial data. In that same regard, she'll use testimonials (social proof) from other women over any proof-based demonstrations of success you have. Obviously these are generalizations, but they underscore the point that there are fundamental differences in the way the two sexes perceive the world around them.

Bear in mind that the ability for the everyman to create the illusion of success has only been around for the last 100 years or so. Consumer debt has created the ability for people to acquire material possessions which allow them to feign success & status. For a 21st century example, look no further than social networking - the ultimate way to craft a perception of status which may not be at all aligned with reality. Yet, facts are trumped by facades in female psychology, and it's nothing to fault women for. It's simply how they're wired.

I think what we can learn from awareness of this reality is that part of our role as men, in the role of leader in relations with women, is to control the facade. Keeping her interest level peaked is a function of her consistently being able to see and bask in your success as a man. It costs money and it costs time to deliberately focus on one's image, especially if you are content with a low-complexity lifestyle, which I think describes most men's inclination were it not for the mating game (i.e. society's expectations, driven by the feminine).

It is scary though how easy it is to sway the hearts & minds of most women simply with imagery over substance. It's manipulation of the image which makes even broke chicks get into a rabid frenzy over $200 purses. Successful politicians and marketers have become masters of working this psychology.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Yet, facts are trumped by facades in female psychology

Actually, I would have expected the opposite. Women have had so much more to lose by picking a bad mate then men do (evolutionarily I mean, not legally). It seems to me that women should have evolved a mechanism to be able to spot men who's confidence comes from self-delusion easily. But for some reason they can't. For some reason they can't see through the bullsh!t to the truth of the matter.

RedPill is right that women are made this way, but I see this as being more damming than vindicating. Maybe they can't 'help it', but if they could help it then that means they could change. Instead we are stuck with them being broken at a biological level and therefore they cannot be repaired. Which means there is no hope of things getting better. Sure we could adjust our game accordingly, but this also means women won't see through the lies of feminism and thus will continue to make stupid choices that either wreck individual men's lives or men as a group in the case of passing feminist laws or setting cultural norms which are damaging to men.

 

[ketostix]

I agree with this, but it is SOCIETY that imposes morality on women, not the wishes of individual men.

I think you are focusing on society posing morals or standards on women when I'd say modern society imposes no standards on women. I see it more as women imposing their agenda and what they think is in their interest over what is men's agenda and in their best interest. I just don't see women's prerogative or "hard wiring" as something a man wins in the end by following.

What we are saying is that although the system may be "flawed" or "skewed" or that women are inherently "amoral", you can use ALL OF THIS to your advantage to guide the interaction to your benefit.



That is why you operate within the confines of what is under your control.



When you look at it for what it is, these "problems" become less of an actual problem. No matter what happens, SOMEONE is gonna get laid. You just have to be the right guy to give women what they respond to at any given time.

I'm all for making due with what you are given to deal with, but I just get the sense that you are of the belief that it's the natural order for women to be XYZ and you have to deal with it women on their terms. That might be the reality of the situation now, but I don't call that the natural order of women. I call that a matriachial society where women hold all the cards.

And yea, everyone but your immediate family wants to take everything you have. the only things that stop them are a loose moral code and the realization that politics can result in a greater long term payoff than jacking $20 out of your wallet when you aren't looking.

Everyone has a dark side. That's why you have rules and laws and expectations that people have to meet. Otherwise chaos ensues. On the other hand everyone has a positive side and a sense of fairness and fairplay or at least most men do. The point I trying to make here is if you're too accepting of women's behavior than you're going to get a lot of bad behavior. That's what I think men have come to.

I guess what I'm getting is, women are all hors and only good for sex while they're meanwhile being a hor with some other "alpha". That's not much a concellation prize for all the effort. Women always liked sex and would get freaky, but they weren't always unaccountable, untrustworthy hors.

My theory is humans show natural tendency to be both promiscuois and monogamous. I've said it before but it's your "beta" females that can't really commit mainly because they can't find a guy of suitable value that wants to commit to them. Why would it be in a high value woman's mating strategy to be a cheating hor? And really a true high value male wouldn't waste his time and give these women the oportunity to be a hor with them. Just so I'm clear I'm not talking about women getting freaky or casual sex, I'm talking about the concept that women are all cheating hors.

 

[ketostix]

Actually, I would have expected the opposite. Women have had so much more to lose by picking a bad mate then men do (evolutionarily I mean, not legally). It seems to me that women should have evolved a mechanism to be able to spot men who's confidence comes from self-delusion easily. But for some reason they can't. For some reason they can't see through the bullsh!t to the truth of the matter.

RedPill is right that women are made this way, but I see this as being more damming than vindicating. Maybe they can't 'help it', but if they could help it then that means they could change. Instead we are stuck with them being broken at a biological level and therefore they cannot be repaired. Which means there is no hope of things getting better. Sure we could adjust our game accordingly, but this also means women won't see through the lies of feminism and thus will continue to make stupid choices that either wreck individual men's lives or men as a group in the case of passing feminist laws or setting cultural norms which are damaging to men.

The simple answer is you are coming to the same conclusion that men came to thousands of years ago and upheld until recently. That women aren't truely soverign adults. They didn't use to have free reign in picking their mates. They weren't allowed to vote until the 1920's, hold postions of authority etc. Some things can stand to change with time but one thing people of the past weren't wrong on was their view of women. It's the natural order for men to call the shots, and what you have now is women calling the shots. I see it the way you do. I don't see how men are going to win in the bargain but I guess you got to make the best of it.