Rolling back the odometer

The AFP explains how Tunisian women are suffering the injustice of having to trick men into marriage after they tire of riding the carousel:  Social pressures force Tunisia women to fake virginity

…she was forced into it by “the hypocrisy of men and of our society”.

The young woman decided one day that she would be honest with her boyfriend, whom she had not slept with, and told him she was not a virgin.

“But as soon as he knew, he refused to marry and did everything he could to get me into his bed. That’s the way Tunisian men think. A woman who has had sex before marriage is just a slut and can’t be a good mother!”

Commenter Rob offers a different perspective:

My first inclination is to laugh at these Arab men for wanting a virgin. But then I look at my situation. My wife of 26 years was “completely honest” with me about her sexual history. She told me she didn’t know the last name of the first man who got her pregnant. (A pregnancy that ended in abortion.) There were many other unions in which body fluids but not last names were exchanged. And then she told me that no one she had ever dated had to wait longer than I did before “union” occurred. (She had multiples more partners than I did.) This has left me with a sense of being the sucker left holding the bag for the entire duration of our marriage…….. Perhaps these Arab men, whom I have an overall low opinion of, are not so far off base wanting a situation a little more male affirming than mine?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Cracks in the narrative, Finding a Spouse, New Morality, Slut. Bookmark the permalink.

201 Responses to Rolling back the odometer

  1. Tom C says:

    If you don’t want to spring for surgery, the Japanese make an artificial hymen for $30 that you install just before intercourse. They seem to be especially popular in China.

  2. Muslims and Middle Easterners (also known as Western Asians) are different because of two things: one cultural strain possessed a weird form of “enlightenment” much earlier than Westerners and hence developed more time for recovery, while another cultural strain never had a “modern enlightenment”. So it’s two different but interrelating phenomena going on.

  3. Don’t forget the excessive inbreeding thanks mostly to cousin marriage (and to a much lesser extent polygamy).

  4. Boxer says:

    I guess it doesn’t matter as much as it used to (DNA tests are better than an intact hymen, though an intact hymen was better than nothing for suggesting paternity of the first kid). Even so, I can definitely identify with “Rob”. Why should I marry some slut after she has had some fun, when I’ll have only obligations from that point on, and she’ll have only extra resources? When a woman sleeps around, she is choosing “harlot” as her vocation. Only a chump would pay her bills after that.

  5. jf12 says:

    Subtracting on N, eh? Funny thing about subtracting, it’s the same as adding a negative. So, a “negative” man leaves a woman with a smaller N, better than he found her, or something.

  6. GF Dad says:

    Rob knew the truth, went into it with eyes wide open and yet, now, after 26 years, admits to feeling this way. What level of cognitive dissonance or brain washing must he have been dealing with?

  7. TFH says:

    Keep in mind that Tunisia is near Libya and Egypt, both of which have been besieged by Islamists, partly in protest to things like ‘feminism’.

    The Islamists may be barbaric in some ways, but the sluttiness of women (which has spread even to Arab Muslim Tunisia) and their ‘alpha fux, beta bux’ nature, might just cause the bottom half of men to think strict Islam (although not polygamy) is a better deal for them.

    Gee…..the equivalent could never happen here. It may not be violent revolution, but more like Game for the above average men, and total disengagement for below-average men. with only manginas and whiteknights have the ignonimy of trading their entire life’s earnings for sex with a washed up slut who later divorces him and takes his future earnings with her (which is precisely what manginas and whiteknights deserve).

  8. Matt Stevens says:

    I think the number of notches on the woman’s belt is a better predictor of the present and future state of a relationship than the number of notches on the man’s belt. I’m not sure if it’s causation or correlation. In the case of a high N man, he knows he has other options. The impact that has on the dynamics of the relationship is easy for me to understand. In the case of a high N woman, there are deeper and more mysterious forces at work. I’m not sure I understand those mysterious forces, but I know I can’t verbalize them. I don’t begrudge the Tunisian men their double standard one bit.

    I’ve been reading this blog for some time, and I think it is brilliant. Up until now I have chosen to just read and absorb instead of commenting. I’ve been married twice and divorced once, but for some reason was unsure if I should chime in until now.

    PS – I’m not sure if this is actually my first post or my tenth, because the browser on my phone was not behaving as expected.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Drat. I was going to post one of the links to this news over on the “rationalizing sluttery” thread.

    More seriously, recall that that the “Arab spring” began in Tunis, when a student (computer science if I recall correctly) who could not find work was selling things out of a cart (fruit?) and was hassled by a female cop. Some time later he committed suicide.

  10. Charlotte says:

    I’m always a bit surprised when acquaintances of mine manage to get married despite lengthy rides on the carousel, particularly when their hard partying ways were so well known across their social circles that the men very likely knew of their women’s pasts. No matter how many time I see it, It boggles my mind that so many men are willing to scrape the bottom of the pan for leftovers after dozens of others have been down the buffet line.

    As for abortions, I’ve noticed that men are often uncomfortable with marrying a woman who has had one or even one who simply supports it. It bothers them that the potential mother of their children would be okay with the thought of aborting their own flesh and blood. My husband is still a bit shell-shocked by the time a woman he dated told him if she ever got pregnant out of wedlock, she’d abort the baby without even telling the father because she didn’t want to look like a whore. It definitely disqualified her in his mind from being good wife and mother material.

  11. embracing reality says:

    If these women aren’t going to trade their virginity for a man’s lifetime of devotion and hard earned resources what else do they have to trade? If they’ve already given the sex away for free to someone else thats just incentive to be that guy, not to marry her. At what point in the future do harlots start pursuing men for marriage with offers of gifts, financial support, I don’t know, a new car? The sex is already free, and the merchandise is beat up. Incentive! What’s my incentive?

  12. As for abortions, I’ve noticed that men are often uncomfortable with marrying a woman who has had one or even one who simply supports it.

    Correct.

    Evil is evil. Abortion is the work of Satan. Why marry that?

  13. Pingback: the Revision Division

  14. finndistan says:

    “…she was forced into it by “the hypocrisy of men and of our society”.”

    Was she not forcing him into her hypocrisy?

    “The young woman decided one day that she would be honest with her boyfriend, whom she had not slept with, and told him she was not a virgin.”

    From what I know about those places, if he was indeed thinking of marrying her, then it was already a long term relationshit. So after a long time dating, wasting his time, giving him promises that he is special, but not letting him play with the goods, and possibly him respecting what he thought was a hard to get commodity, special for him, she tells him that he is a sucker, and a fucker already fondled the goods and drew off to greener lands. That is not hypocrisy?

  15. greyghost says:

    That first quoted comment is what I advise guys all of the time. Let a ho be a ho. Sluts are for sticking your dick in not for marriage.
    Dalrock this has got to be one of your best finds in the effort to restore politeness. No rings for sluts and this is what it realities like. Awesome

    That abortion thing is true. Nothing will turn the romantic white knight in me into a “she got what she deserved” kind of guy quicker. A young man sees women as sex partners and can make that call in less than a second it takes a pleasant nature to be seen as a marriage partner and the attitude that comes from how she speaks on abortion will close the marriage door real quick. With the laws the way they are a man is fully relying on the woman’s character. She will kill a baby for her own interest there is nothing she won’t do and you can feel that.

  16. What she’s calling hypocrisy is just common sense:

    Man wants sex.
    Man meets woman he wants to have sex with.
    Man assumes it will take a long seduction, maybe even marriage, before said sex happens.
    Man finds out she gave it away easily in the past, so he thinks, “Well, that kinda sucks, but at least I get sex soon.”
    Woman tells man she wants to wait.
    Man feels rejected — she found a man she doesn’t want sex with! — and more frustrated than if he hadn’t met her in the first place.

    It’s kinda like finally getting into an exclusive restaurant and then being told you can’t have the special that everyone’s been raving about.

  17. feeriker says:

    That’s the way Tunisian men think. A woman who has had sex before marriage is just a slut and can’t be a good mother!”

    Evidence of this woman’s insularity that she thinks this attitude/reaction is unique to Tunisian men (and no, I can tell you from experience that such insularity is not a prevalent characteristic of the Arab world as a whole).

  18. Johnycomelately says:

    Shades of ‘born again virgins’? There’s nothing new under the sun.

    The amazing thing is these women are well aware of the cultural taboos and went there anyway (sexy time), the power of the hamster.

    Hypocracy, the iron rule of hamster logic, any restriction, fault, perceived slight, negative outcome, unwanted decision or undesired effect is always someone else’s fault.

  19. Another way to put it: when a woman who’s been slutty in the past won’t have sex with a man she’s seeing now, he feels like he’s being punished for her past sins and those of the other men she was with.

  20. This is really something. Rollo has the story of the poor dude whose wife was handing out missionary sex unenthusiastically , then he found video of her taking 4 guys during college or some such thing.

    I wonder what the Christian counselors say. They must have encountered this because its likely normative today for the wife to have participated in some wildness while on the carousel, then picking the man she will tolerate to use her as a friction post once a month for the rest of her life.

    This could goes to see the church counselor and lays out a story like the one Rollo has written about. What does the counselor say?

    In addition to sarcasm and humor, Id be interested if anyone took a stab at a real guess.

  21. Robert What? says:

    Rob, I feel your pain, as one sucker to another.

  22. Longtorso says:

    I wonder what the Christian counselors say.

    @empathologism They say “Jesus forgave her so STFU” and then seek the woman’s approval for their actions, because God is Love. On the other hand, if his eyes linger over an underwear ad too long he’s addicted to porn and can be divorced for Cash ‘N Prizes, because God is Just.

  23. Badpainter says:

    The most insulting part is the arrogance of the woman who settles for PlanB and believes that she’s doing him a service and not the other way around. It’s as if to say: “to atone for my slutty past I chose you to reluctantly, unenthusiastically and only occasionally have boring necrophiliac role play sex with, and you should be grateful because I add so much value to your life.”

  24. jf12 says:

    @Cail re: restaurant special analogy. Yes, but. The price discrimination isn’t the most evil part of women’s brazen disrespect of men. The worst part is that the man who is refused admittance, who is not permitted to partake, is supposed to feel specially CHOSEN by her. She literally thinks she’s that good, comapred to him. It is the ultimate in disrespect, but all women will spin it otherwise, always trying to disrespect the men even more.

  25. jf12 says:

    @Badpainter, yep. All women will further the insult, however, either by supporting the woman in her choices, or calling the man a stupid dork who couldn’t get laid otherwise.

  26. Yes, it’d be one thing if a woman said, “I made some huge mistakes when I was younger, and gave away what I should have saved for my husband. I’ve repented and done penance for that. I hope God will have mercy on me and send me a husband, and if He does, I will make it my mission to rock his world better than I did any man before.” A lot of guys would take that deal — a lot of guys think they are taking that deal when they propose to a girl with a wild past.

    But as we know, that’s not what usually happens. Usually she learns to associate awesome sex with sin and bad boys, so now that she’s ready to be a good wife to a nice guy, the awesome sex is off the table (and off the bed too). So the nice guy not only misses out on her innocence, but doesn’t benefit from her experience either.

  27. Badpainter says:

    “So the nice guy not only misses out on her innocence, but doesn’t benefit from her experience either.”

    But her experience makes her such a great person! OK I doesn’t make her nicer, more pleasant, more understanding, supportive, a better, mother, lover, cook, house keeper, or more financially responsible, or thinner…..but damn it she’s a better person and that has to be appreciated, validated and celebrated!

  28. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    April 9, 2014 at 7:27 am

    Exactly. Young lurkers out there need to read this and read it again. And then read it every day.

  29. earl says:

    Rob, Arab men, all men have this same feeling.

    Which is why all those guys just out for notches secretly hate that lifestyle. They know what they are doing to themselves and to those women.

    If she is a single mother, had an abortion, rode the carousel, and hasn’t made any proof of repentance and change in life…she doesn’t deserve marriage from any man. If a man continues living a life of watching porn, chasing notches, and living in sexual sin without repentance…he doesn’t deserve a wife or family. In the olden days some prostitutes that repented lived the life of hermits in the desert. That’s true repentance to me.

    Some people who do this lifestyle still get married…but how happy do you think they are?

  30. deti says:

    “she learns to associate awesome sex with sin and bad boys, so now that she’s ready to be a good wife to a nice guy, the awesome sex is off the table (and off the bed too).”

    Right, because if she was having sex with sin and bad boys, that makes her a bad person who did bad things. Hot sex is therefore bad and evil, and you mustn’t do it. Therefore, she imagines, I’ll marry a nice guy, because niceguys will understand that it’s bad and they won’t expect me to do it. And he will want me to be good and not a slut, because only sluts have awesome wild sex. Only sluts do those things. And I’m not a slut anymore.

  31. Pingback: There are two kinds of women | Something Fishy

  32. En-Sigma says:

    Yes, it’d be one thing if a woman said, “I made some huge mistakes when I was younger, and gave away what I should have saved for my husband. I’ve repented and done penance for that. I hope God will have mercy on me and send me a husband, and if He does, I will make it my mission to rock his world better than I did any man before.” A lot of guys would take that deal — a lot of guys think they are taking that deal when they propose to a girl with a wild past.

    But as we know, that’s not what usually happens. Usually she learns to associate awesome sex with sin and bad boys, so now that she’s ready to be a good wife to a nice guy, the awesome sex is off the table (and off the bed too). So the nice guy not only misses out on her innocence, but doesn’t benefit from her experience either.

    THIS IS WHY THE SPHERE EXISTS. Good articles followed by excellent comments (mostly). We need articles that articulate the feelings of men.

    Not that you need it from the likes of me – but nice work, Cail.

  33. MarcoP says:

    “And I’m not a slut — with him.”
    Fixed it for you.

  34. Tam the Bam says:

    “In the olden days some prostitutes that repented lived the life of hermits in the desert. “
    Today that would possibly see them getting whacked by a fly-by-wire drone. Definitely, if a feminist was tugging the joystick from her airconnned watercooler-replete “active service” bunker, half a mile from her home.

  35. Lion says:

    That would be one way to celebrate wedding anniversaries: a wife gets the procedure done every year, so it’s like “the first time” on every wedding anniversary night. The same thing she did for her ex husband?

  36. finndistan says:

    Cail Corishev, and Deti, very important point. A point that destroyed my soul at some point, when the best advice was in the GQ magazines and Venus Mars shit of a book.

    “But as we know, that’s not what usually happens. Usually she learns to associate awesome sex with sin and bad boy”

    The way I put it, it starts with,

    “Those men did not mean anything”, , which is supposed to put the man at ease. You know, they meant nothing, he means something, he is special, yippie yea.

    But it does not stop there, sadly. She continues the chat in her head;
    “Those men did not mean anything”
    “The sex was meaningless”
    “Now am in a relationship”
    “Relationship means a lot.”
    “Relationship is special”
    “Sex is meaningless”
    “A special relationship cannot dish out easy access to sex, as that makes sex as same as the older sex, which was meaningless, this makes the relationship meaningless” (notice the “easy access ignores the fact that there is nothing easy about it when a man has committed his life to the relationship)
    “A special relationship cannot dish out frequent sex just for the sake of sex, as previous experience has shown that sex for sex with meaningless men was meaningless, thus sex for sex in a relationship makes the relationship meaningless”
    “So, this man, who is special to me, will only get sex if he proves I am special to him, my pussy is special to him, and the last sex was not a) closer than x days away or b)a quickie etc…” (again note: living together, having commitment etc does not factor in her feeling special)

    This was long, yet the logic follows as such, and in the end,

    It is a special relationship which requires proof of being special for every sex act, lest the sex act is deemed meaningless, causing the relationship to be meaningless.

    And looking at myself, the wounds can be healed, but the scars are to stay forever.

  37. Opus says:

    I believe I see a flaw in the theory (as expounded above) because:

    1. Men like outgoing women and such women are often sluts
    2. Men believe the slut has merely been led astray, and that
    3. By agreeing to marry, women (having found the real Mr Right) will be chaste.
    4. Men then marry ex-Carousel riders

    If the article adequately reflects the general views of men across North Africa, then one can only wonder what they must think of those single, white, women who vacation alone in North Africa – I do not think the Valley of the Kings is first on their list of priorities. Is it any wonder that Muslim men in England have taken to ‘grooming’ (grooming, being, so far as I can divine indistinguishable from Day Game) young, white, women for sex. The elite are outraged (as the girls are sometime under sixteen years of age – pass the smelling salts), but it seems a perfectly rational reaction to what the Muslims see as gross immorality of white women and to my mind reveals the delusional attitude of the elite towards to young females, an attitude which can be seen in any Rape trial where the Defendant is found guilty and the Slut is washed whiter than new-lain snow. Naturally (in true Uncle Tom mode) the ‘grooming’ cases will be prosecuted by a man called Khan just to prove that Muslims are equally offended. I once suggested (in writing) to a fairly senior Police Officer that I failed to see why just because my client (a man in his twenties) had wolf-whistled at a girl who turned out to be fourteen that that was any matter for the police, or represented any threat to the Public Order in his County. Coming from a force that shoots dead unarmed naked civilians in bed the moral horror in the letter by way of reply to mine seemed a bit much. I stood by my view and my client remained at liberty. My observation is (behind the posturing ) that women are always flattered by unexpected attention from men yards away and frequently some tens of feet in the air.

  38. jf12 says:

    @finndistan, and there is no rolling back the understanding. There is no Cyper-choice to go back to ignorance. Given that we know, now, how the hamster wheel turns, as your mental chat aptly illustrates, how should that make us feel? More sorry for women, because women are that way? More sorry for men, because women are that way? More sorry for women, who think they aren’t that way? More sorry for men who don’t know yet that women are that way? More sorry for nice guys who now know women are that way but are powerless to do anything, uh, nice about it?

  39. DrTorch says:

    The most insulting part is the arrogance of the woman who settles for PlanB and believes that she’s doing him a service and not the other way around. It’s as if to say: “to atone for my slutty past I chose you to reluctantly, unenthusiastically and only occasionally have boring necrophiliac role play sex with, and you should be grateful because I add so much value to your life.”

    it’d be one thing if a woman said, “I made some huge mistakes when I was younger, and gave away what I should have saved for my husband. I’ve repented and done penance for that. I hope God will have mercy on me and send me a husband, and if He does, I will make it my mission to rock his world better than I did any man before.” A lot of guys would take that deal

    These are two great comments. These are what pastors (who are willing to marry divorcees), counselors and FotF should be offering as guidance. But pastors are far too wary of this topic, and are far too steeped in the feminism and fear that produced this mess. So the “be a beta- nice guy schumck” is the easy advice to give.

  40. earl says:

    And that’s why birth control is such a grave evil for everyone.

    Women can have hot sex with the bad boys without the biggest consquence (at least in their mind) of a kid resulting. Then when they are all used up they go to the beta provider when they are ready for a kid. Never mind that they could be infertile due to a host of STDs, age, or the fact they don’t know the meaning of submission other than in the bedroom. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their problems…I haven’t even addressed their mental state or heart.

    The bad boy effs, and nice guy bucks can only exist on this grand of scale with birth control so available and backed by a government that gives money to people who engage in debauchery.

  41. Just Saying says:

    I tend to believe that the US Government has it right – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. When you get a clearance you get a poly-graph – guilty til proven innocent, as well as drug tests, and they verify every source of income every year. I’m always amazed that men know nothing about the women they marry. There are some positions where your grandparents, and parents must all have been born in the US – that is to be sure you’re not a “sleeper” agent. So I assume every woman I meet is a slut that I can bang in a couple of hours until proven otherwise. (Usually I’m right…)

    I’m amazed that women get away with lying about these types of things. If I was ever going to marry someone, I would pay for a full background check – including interviews with people in college and everything else. My standard for blowing a load in a woman is a lot less – I don’t need, or even want, her name – I want her p*ssy, mouth, and other parts that those are right there for my use, so I’m good when she comes up after a show since she has everything I want and need right there. (And I know that’s why she came up after the show – she wants to be plowed like a field.) But marriage? Jeez, I get more information on the car I’m buying than most men know about their “wife”…. It just never ceases to amaze me.

    Having been the man that banged the woman while she was roping in the doctor and not letting him touch her, I’m quite knowledgeable about how much you can trust women. That particular one, went off her birth-control the month before her marriage and I was tapping it nightly as my “wedding present” to the bride – the groom got sloppy seconds on his wedding day. So women don’t surprise me – it surprises me that men are as stupid as they are. That is why I don’t feel bad about some of the things I do – if you are THAT DUMB, you deserve to be taken advantage of..

  42. earl says:

    @Just Saying….

    Just admit it, you’re not getting married.

  43. Michael Neal says:

    Who would get married after reading that?

  44. The funny thing is, men are supposed to be the ones with the Madonna/whore complex, the whole “saint in the daylight and a sinner at night” thing. And that’s true to a certain extent. But women are now taking it to the other extreme, saying you can’t even have a little of both. If you want her to be your slut at night, you have to accept that she’s always been a slut. You’re not even supposed to care about that; and if you do, you’re an insecure, controlling loser.

    So which is more reasonable? Men don’t have any problem with the idea of being one way in public and another way with our families at home. It seems pretty normal to go be hard-nosed in business — even shoot and kill people in war — and then come home and be loving with the wife and playful with the kids. That’s just life: adjusting your approach to fit your surroundings. Who gave women the idea they should never have to do that, that being a bitch at work means hubby has to accept them being a bitch at home, and being a saint at church means she can’t beg for a good hammering at home?

  45. Badpainter says:

    Cail Corishev.

    The Churchian memo I got said all the sex I have is sinful, or inspired by sin, I’m not even supposed to want sex because wanting sex makes Jesus sad, and all the sex everyone else has is none of my business and I can’t judge, and besides the only reason I’d care is sin, and marriage is about love not sex, sex is for babies, but still sinful because lust, and marriage is all about me choking back my tears, and disappointments, and sacrificing my temporal life for the wife and Jesus because I’m a sinner and I don’t believe the right way, and still lust, but dare to judge the churchian sluts who dress like holy hookers, their saved because Jesus loves everyone including me but I have to walk the righteous path, carry my sins and everyone’s because charity, and do it with a smile, and love, and ignore the blue balls, because it’s all my fault anyway.

  46. She continues the chat in her head;
    “Those men did not mean anything”
    “The sex was meaningless”

    I just had a thought; wondering what you guys think of it: Sex is never meaningless for a man.

    Now, I think the first objection there would be that it does seem pretty meaningless for the PUA who has one one-night-stand after another, or for the guy who uses prostitutes (although how meaningless can something be if you’re willing to pay for it?). But those guys are in the minority. For a regular guy, at least, I don’t think sex is ever meaningless, at least when he’s pursuing it and having it. It might seem less meaningful years later when he can’t remember her name; but at the time, you might even say it’s the most meaningful thing on his mind.

    So when a woman says “the sex was meaningless,” I think a man just assumes that’s a lie. It might seem true from her perspective, because either she was in the relationship for other things and the sex was incidental (or bait), or in the case of a one-night-stand she’s convinced herself the whole thing was meaningless so the sex must have been. But guys don’t work that way — and we’ve certainly been taught that women don’t work that way even more — so, “the sex was meaningless,” sounds like, “I just drew a square circle.”

    In short, it makes us think one or both of two things:

    “If it was meaningless with them, how do I know she won’t be telling the next guy it was meaningless with me?”

    Or, “If sex is so meaningless for you, why are you not naked yet?”

    It’s not nearly the comforting platitude that she intends it to be. She might as well say, “Let’s Just Be Friends” and be done with it.

  47. earl says:

    Sex within marriage is not a sin…sex outside of marriage is a sin.

    So if all they are doing is sexually sinning…eventually they’ll see sex as a sin, no matter what state of life they are in. They’ve become accustomed to a lifestyle.

  48. Yet another way in which feminism is hurting women. It’s also a way in which it’s hurting men, but how many women care about that?

  49. earl says:

    “I just had a thought; wondering what you guys think of it: Sex is never meaningless for a man.”

    It’s not meaningless to anyone. Even if you contracept, even if you are drunk…your brain and heart imprint those images for life.

  50. The Churchian memo I got said all the sex I have is sinful, or inspired by sin,

    That’s interesting, but not surprising with the amount of Gnostic influence in modernism. (Gnostics believe, among other things, that matter is evil/sinful and only spirit is good, so physical pleasure is always suspect.) Pope John Paul II tried to address that with his Theology of the Body, which I haven’t read, but I get the impression that while he said some good things about how marital sex is a positive good, he still fell into that trap of, “sex in marriage is good because it unites the two souls in a spiritual sense.” But that’s not the case; sex in marriage is good because it’s sex in marriage. As long as it’s open to procreation, it’s good, and any unitive benefits are a bonus. If it’s just rutting like bunnies at the end of the day so you can relax and fall asleep, and she’s just doing it out of obligation, it’s still Good.

    I think the hope is that women will be more interested in sex if you play up the spiritual side of it. But that presents a new problem in that she sees “spiritual sex” as good and “fun sex” as bad. For women who have had quite a bit of “fun sex” in the past, that leaves them feeling like only “spiritual sex” is appropriate in marriage, and then they want you reciting the Song of Solomon or something during the act instead of pulling their hair. After all, if it’s all about “uniting your souls,” why would it need to be fun? And you wouldn’t want to remind her of her past fun sinful acts and break her out of that spiritual unity with you, would you?

    (Again, I haven’t read Theology of the Body, so it may be better than that; that’s just what I get from the people who claim to teach from it.)

  51. Martel says:

    Another reason men will accept reformed sluts is the underlying belief that women’s sex-drive is pure, that way deep down it’s all about candlit romantic evenings, rose petals, and unicorn sighs.

    Therefore, even though she may have been actiing like a slut, she wasn’t REALLY a slut. Deep down she wanted a nice guy like me, but she suffered from low self-esteem and was tricked by all those players into thinking she could have a relationship with them. It took time for her to realize her own value so that she could appreciate a guy like me and also takes “experience” to see through the lines of all the bad boys who were tricking her into thinking that the sex meant something to them.

    Besides, I’m not perfect, either. Who am I to judge a triple-digit N when I’ve looked at porn, swore at my boss behind his back that one time in ’09, and smokes pot a few times in college?

  52. By my parsing the boyfriend was NOT having sex with her, expecting that she was a virgin and that he would marry her. Upon finding out she wasn’t he did the sensible (if amoral) thing and tried to get some himself. Seems rational to me, why should he buy the cow that’s giving free milk? The other thing glaring out is that the man is not allowed to have his standard, his standard is victimizing the women. Even if he is a man with a double standard why does he not have the right to it? And if he is SO HORRIBLE and so patriarchal, why would a woman care about his standards anyway? (Hint: the sluts are still ashamed.)

  53. Michael Neal says:

    Catholicism has gone the same way, head in clouds hippie love without discerning anything. God must have brought her to me and I should forgive and live in lala land.

    Didn’t Christ say “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Be gentle as lambs but wide serpents.”

    This has been completely lost, we are no longer wise as serpents but just sheep to the slaughter.

    Read this following topic.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=873039

    This guy’s wife goes to a bar, pick’s up a guy and has sex with him because he works too much. He feels guilty that he works too much and forgives here. Later finds out that she is pregnant and the man she slept with was black, they are now having an interracial baby that is obviously not his. The kicker is that that had been trying to have a baby for years. Almost everyone advises him the take the child in and forgive his wife, live in the lala land of make believe where nothing bad happened. He feels guilty and responsibly for the whole affair because he neglected her with working too much.

  54. Michael Neal says:

    wise as serpents I meant

  55. Martel, you’re exactly right. I used to have all those thoughts: she’s just been tricked; she has low self-esteem and doesn’t know how much better she could have it (with awesome me, of course); she just needs time to see the light. Sickening.

    And it’s true that, if I’d been hit on at 18 the way a typical girl is hit on, I wouldn’t have gone to bed very often. It’s not like I had great moral restraint then either; but as a shy guy, celibacy was the standard, not a choice. So in a way, I don’t really blame girls for following the script of serial monogamy and delayed marriage that they’ve been handed. But I won’t pretend that it doesn’t change them either. It does affect their ability to be content and dutiful as a wife, so that can’t be ignored. If a 30-year-old woman with a double-digit N wants me to think she’d make a good wife, I’m willing to listen; but she’d better not start by telling me her past doesn’t matter. She needs to admit that it matters, and then explain how she’s been working on overcoming it and what she plans to do in marriage to combat any issues that arise due to it.

  56. @ Empath, “then he found video of her taking 4 guys during college or some such thing.”

    Clearly the man was doing something wrong if he found this video. Pastors everywhere agree that this a divorcing offense.

  57. jf12 says:

    @Cail, although I admire JPII’s reasoning abilities, the whole thing was prompted by his experiences as a priest counseling women. Roughly, his purpose was to upend the traditional teaching on “marital obligation” by carefully, oh-so-carefully, building up an argument about why a husband should not pester his wife for sex so often.
    http://www.catholicprimer.org/papal/theology_of_the_body.pdf

  58. Michael Neal says:

    Catholic Church does not believe adultery is a divorcing offense though

  59. Badpainter says:

    “Read this following topic.”

    No thanks, your brief description has raised my blood pressure enough. I wonder though how that woman would have reacted if quit his job worked less and made less money. Well at least he has a forever reminder of the of the value of his wife’s love and respect.

  60. earl says:

    “Catholic Church does not believe adultery is a divorcing offense though”

    Jesus did put the kibosh on stoning a woman for adultery. So while it is a terrible injustice to the parties involved…it is not above mercy and forgiveness.

  61. JF12, I suppose I should read the thing one of these days so I can comment on it directly. I’ll just say I’m not thrilled at the upcoming canonization, and leave it at that.

    Priests can be excellent counselors on marriage and sex topics in general; I know some who are. But it doesn’t just descend on them like Pentecost when they get ordained; they need a solid grounding in philosophy and traditional theology and a lot of time spent in the confessional where they hear it all and lose any illusions they had about women being naturally good. Most modern priests don’t have that, so they’ll be no better than a secular counselor.

  62. Matt Stevens says:

    Cail hit the nail on the head:

    “but at the time, you might even say it’s the most meaningful thing on his mind”

    Each day I go without sex it becomes more and more important. Eventually, I reach a point where sex is indeed the most important thing in the world to me. Outside of a relationship, it is mostly just a physical drive. Inside a relationship, especially marriage, it takes on a deeper meaning. I view sex in a relationship as a physical demonstration of her commitment and submission. It temporarily alleviates concerns about her bailing out, breaking up the family, and ruining my financial future. Frequent sex with my wife does more for my sanity than anything else.

    My old pastor told me that for women, sex is all about emotion, and that is for men it is just physical. That might have been true for me earlier in life, before the first wife blindsided me with a frivorce.

  63. Martel says:

    @ Cail: Shy guys are often “restrained” more by external circumstance than morality. However, even those who are objectively relatively virtuous probably consider themselves sinful compared to the women in their midst.

    A thirteen year-old boy gets wood because he sees a hot bikini, LUST! SHUT IT DOWN! But does he hear the girls his age get admonished for their obsession with boy bands? HIS budding sexuality is a beast that must be controlled, her budding sexuality is just a phase. She’ll get over her crushes on the dudes who keep getting expelled soon enough and revert to her true sexual nature of rose petals and the quest for deep true love.

    Her mistakes are understandable, a phase, or the result of low self-esteem. His are just evil. At a very early age his mind is primed perfectly to accept and forgive the sexual indiscretions of whatever single mom might want his wallet later on.

  64. Just Saying says:

    @earl:Sex is never meaningless for a man.

    Absolutely not… That’s because men have to work for it – even if it’s playing a guitar for a couple of hours, men always have to work for it. And a man always feels good about a job well done…. Even if it’s only when he sits back on his heels, looks down at her sweat covered body, and says, “I did that.” Or “Welcome to America.” :)

    @CC:when a woman says “the sex was meaningless,”

    If a woman can ever dismiss sex as meaningless, the man isn’t doing it right… (snicker) I’ve had women crawl away from me saying, “No more. Please…” And I pull them back for another go round… Of course, I doubt they ever talk about such things – they just smile and the guy they are with, never knows why his demure little wife is smiling… When it comes to women sex is ALWAYS for a reason – it could be revenge, boredom, pity, it’s been a slow week, or because she feels fat today – but there is always a “meaning” – they just never want to admit the WHY behind it because they think it will make them “look like a slut” if the reason was because “he looked like my third grade teacher”, or “he reminded me of my boyfriend’s hot brother.”

    Men want to believe all of the PR non-sense about women, but the truth is that women are just as sick and twisted as your are. Bless their black little hearts – and other more colorful parts….

  65. jf12 says:

    @Matt Stevens “Eventually, I reach a point where sex is indeed the most important thing in the world to me.” A week is too long. Ten days is much too long. Two weeks is torture, and yet is deliberately imposed by most women on most husbands most of the time.

    The importance reaches a peak/plateau after about a month, at which point the nocturnal (and other involuntary) emissions are inevitable and copious, and the wet dreams are intrusive, night after night, bleeding into the day. There isn’t any relief in sight, really, for those who are determined, but I’ve heard that the nocturnal emissions decrease somewhat after a couple of years.

  66. The importance reaches a peak/plateau after about a month, at which point the nocturnal (and other involuntary) emissions are inevitable and copious, and the wet dreams are intrusive, night after night, bleeding into the day.

    That is just God’s release value to keep the prostate from bursting.

  67. earl says:

    Men have to work for everything we get. Which is why the complaining, the victim hood, and welfare mentality…especially in men…is a really weak play.

    It doesn’t matter what it is…from virtue, to muscles, to money, to women…you have to work to get it.

  68. While Dalrock teaches that one must first and foremost serve a women’s butt and ginat tingzlzllzozozozooz via Game, True Religion teaches that Man must honor God and the Law of the Prophets, which Jeusus came to Fulfill.

  69. Anonymous age 72 says:

    In the 50′s, the dad of a school mate told us a story about a girl in his (small) home town. This had to be depression era.

    She gave sex to every male in that town but one. He married her.

  70. earl says:

    “True Religion teaches that Man must honor God and the Law of the Prophets, which Jesus came to Fulfill.”

    In case anyone needs a refresher…

    And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

    Matthew 22:36-40

  71. What’s wrong with ‘wet dreams’?

    As to Earl’s comment. Sure, men just like to know if their energies are being put into the correct destinations so that they can achieve the outcome they desire. When men are told to work at something that is meant to achieve ‘x’ but they get ‘y’, that is when men get angry or despondent.

  72. jf12 says:

    @Cail, you should delve into the whole thing. But I will point to the two times JPII delves into the notion of “conjugal rights”. First, in the linked pdf, read the discussion following the paragraph numbered 5 on page 219, with special attention to the paragraph number 8 on page 220. Keep in mind this EXTREMELY careful derivation, involving “sensitivity” towards “the very different subjectivity of the man and the woman”, all of it is INTENDED to make men ashamed of pestering their wives too often. Believe it or not, you may not have noticed it unless I pointed it out. He’s that good. Then, in the ONLY other time in 334 pages, in The singularly greatest teaching about marital duties in the modern Church, that he bothers to mention “conjugal rights”, in paragraph number 2 on page 262, he deliberately leads us into inferring for ourselves the JOKE that “Marriage is where flaming passion goes to be extinguished.” Yes, he’s that good.

  73. earl says:

    There’s nothing wrong with wet dreams if you are single. In fact doing it right…that should be the only time you have sexual release.

    In marriage…that’s a completely different story.

  74. aquinasdad says:

    I am always amused and appalled when I hear/read someone say ‘I lied because I knew you would judge me’. The truth is virtually always ‘I lied because I knew I deserved judgment’. Amused by the obviousness, appalled by the self-deception.
    If these women truly believed that there was no shame in what they had done, they would never feel a need to lie.
    On the other hand!
    Let’s look at this from the perspective of “game”, shall we?
    1) Girl realizes that a large portion of her MMV is based upon a low to 0 N
    2) Girl deceives guy about her N in artificially inflate her MMV in order to get a higher-MMV mate
    The men here agree this is deceitful and wrong, correct?

    How, exactly, does it differ from a man using “game” techniques to sppeak more ‘alpha’ to increase is SMV or MMV?

  75. fh,

    What’s wrong with ‘wet dreams’?

    Nothing. Ever.

    That is just God stepping in and releasing the pressure. God gave us hormones to make us want to reproduce. If we can’t find a way to do that without sinning, God must step in and give us release.

  76. DrTorch says:

    As long as it’s open to procreation, it’s good,

    More non-Biblical nonsense. You want the root of the problem, well that’s a big part of it. It’s always some excuse as to why some marital sex is “not good”.

  77. The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Dalrocka’sz Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo & A brief history of Christian Civilization:

    The Center and Circumference of Christian Civilization is Virgin Wives Who Serve and Honor God Over Butt and Gina TIngzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo

    A brief history of Christian Civilization:

    EXODUS 20: And God spake all these words to Moses, saying,

    14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    GENESIS 3:16:

    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Matthew 5:17

    Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law of Moses, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Dalrock 2012-2014: Christians must man up and learn GAME* so as to serve butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzozoz as Jesus came to abolish the law of Moses. Also, Christians must man up and never, ever read a GReat Book for Men, nor quote them either, but only castigate and impugn the Great Books For Men, as doing so does not serve women’s butt and gina tingsallzlzozolzozzzlzozozozozoz, while wearing furry hats and negging them does. Every night, after gaming one’s wife so as to keep her from stealing teh children, and/or fornicating with women, one must kneel before the church of Dalrock and state, “Homer was a Pagan, but Dalrock, the great emperor, forgives us for our gamey game and buttehtsthzt, for Dalrock is great and good, and Homer and Virgil are Pagans.” lzozozlzlo

    *The word Game can mean anything at any time. For in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was good, and the Word was God, but now, I, Dalrock, dictate that My Words can mean anything at any time. So man up and get used to my Marxist march of deconstruction through our institutions, and the rule of da butt and gina tingzzlzlzolzolozoz.

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/the-center-and-circumference-of-christian-civilization-is-virgin-wives-who-serve-and-honor-god-over-dalrockasz-butt-and-gina-tingzzlzlzlzlzoozzozozo-a-brief-history-of-christian-civilization/

  78. Michael Neal says:

    @ Earl:Jesus did put the kibosh on stoning a woman for adultery. So while it is a terrible injustice to the parties involved…it is not above mercy and forgiveness.

    leaving a wife who is an adulterer is not like stoning her

  79. Escoffier says:

    How, exactly, does it differ from a man using “game” techniques to sppeak more ‘alpha’ to increase is SMV or MMV?

    Is this a serious question?

    There might be some equivalency if the man were using game to rack up his N. Even then it’s a stretch. To make it even more equaivalent, the guy would have to be deceiving his potential mate about his N. But that doesn’t really work either because women care much less about a man’s N than men care about women’s N, for the simple reason that a man’s N does not degrade his fitness to be a husband to the same degree or extent that a woman’s N degrades her fitness to be a wife.

    Even if you want to place this strictly on the basis of “no fornication,” it’s still a false comparision because by the terms YOU set, she’s fornicating and he is not. She’s also lying.

    I suppose the point you really want to make is that “game” is somehow a lie, akin to telling the outright untruth that your N=X when in fact it equals X+Y. But, no. Lying to get a girl into bed by saying “I am a test pilot” or somesuch, when you aren’t, would be an equivalent. Simply adopting behaviors that women find attractive and not repulsive is not.

  80. Edwin says:

    hmmm….
    as to the abortion comments:

    Maybe a woman who says she will abort a baby if she ever gets pregnant before wedlock isn’t so bad. You guys do realize it’s a tacit acceptance that marriage is the only legitimate context for baby making, right? Sure beats a feminist type who insists that she can or should reaise the baby herself, or that she has the right to abort at will (the one comment I read above said the woman said she wouldn’t tell the man, which at least implies some feeling of shame in the situation)

    not telling him is deceptive, but at least there’s tacit acceptance that the pregnancy situation is a failing, as opposed to all the reflexive “I have the right to do what I want and nothing I did was wrong” type of talk that is more typical of our modern feminist culture.

  81. jf12 says:

    One Deep Thought after another here. Human female menopause is something of a headscratcher, evolutionarily. Yes, it makes sense to cease wasting time on “all that” since she’s infertile anyway, but old age infertility is NOT a necessary thing biologically in other species. Here I propose a different reason: menopause is nature’s way of ensuring old men die of prostate cancer.

  82. Crank says:

    Along these same lines, here is a recent Huffingington Post article (with an associated video interview of the author) justifying women engaging in casual sex (or, in her words, “debunking myths” about women who do it). After reading her first so-called “myth” and her counter fact, how is it that women can wonder why men would not then want to be the one for whom she lowered her standards (in her mind) in order to gain commitment? These Tunisian guys may not be articulating that way, but why would any sane person think they obligated to be that chump?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marrie-lobel/shedding-light-on-the-myt_b_5001326.html

    As an aside, it’s also concrete evidence for the 80/20 rule that a certain blogress has come to claim is an absolute myth – so we’re supposed to believe her rather than believing the women who are actually engaging in the casual sex. She comes right out and says that in order for her to want casual sex with a guy, he has to be out of her league for a relationship. And she says that proudly. lol

  83. jf12 says:

    Re: emissions and “Love will find a way.” The helping hand of God or something. I ain’t buying it.

    Ah, Love. In the Spring, a young man inhales (and later swallows, very little being exhaled since pollen isn’t that small) grams of pollen per day. Yes, grams. Yes, plural grams per day.

  84. earl says:

    “leaving a wife who is an adulterer is not like stoning her”

    Alright if you go that route, if the man forgives her and leaves…then he can not remarry until she dies. If he is willing to give up sex with her and other women over this type of injustice he gets my respect.

  85. “Fact: Women who engage in casual sex set higher standards on their new boy-toy than they place on men considered relationship potential. ”

    Even if that were true, that’s a stupid plan.

  86. jf12 says:

    Here I sit, brokenhearted, in a conference call that is too big “blah blah blah”, on a beautiful day. I guess I’ll go walk after “lunch”.

  87. earl says:

    “Even if that were true, that’s a stupid plan.”

    Yeah…it’s like men see this pattern and think, well if women are doing this stupid plan anyway that gives me the right to be a part of this stupid plan.

    You’re still doing a stupid plan.

  88. DrTorch says:

    Alright if you go that route, if the man forgives her and leaves…then he can not remarry until she dies.

    Never short on the ridiculous posts.

    Jesus himself said that divorce was legitimized b/c of adultery. Not necessarily prescribed or encouraged, but legitimate. If the RC church is teaching otherwise (and I’ve heard protestant pastors say similar things) there’s a word for that. Wouldn’t be the first.

    Trying to pit scripture against scripture is not an honorable way to interpret the divine Word of God.

  89. Joey says:

    Wow, that really sucks for the girls.

    FWIW, where I come from, “social pressure” forces men to work hard, to bust their asses from age 18 to age 70, in order to show strong evidence of material success, in order to land a woman.

    It’s JUST NOT FAIR!

    Heh.

  90. earl says:

    “Jesus himself said that divorce was legitimized b/c of adultery.”

    You can look here at the Cathechism under the Divorce section.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

    The money statements are this:

    The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.

    Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”

    The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

    If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

  91. DrTorch says:

    “Jesus himself said that divorce was legitimized b/c of adultery.”

    You can look here at the Cathechism under the Divorce section.

    As opposed to the Bible? There’s a reason why Wycliffe and Tyndale are regarded as heroes of the Christian faith.
    And I suspect there’s a reason why you so frequently provide logically fallacious responses.

  92. jf12 says:

    Re: reconciliation after adultery. Cail said “That’s just dumb” about a man expecting more credit for the extra degree of difficult of love. I agree.
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/she-was-trying-to-fix-men/#comment-117611

    Still “blah blah blah” btw. Some people just go on and on, don’t they?

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tunisia is indeed where the “arab spring” started, however the man who self-immolated was not a college graduate or a college student. The official who allegedly turned over his fruit cart was a woman.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

  94. aquinasdad says:

    Escoffier,
    Heck, yeah, it is a serious question. Aren’t these women just using “girl game” to up their perceived MMV?
    Of course they are!
    You wrote,
    “There might be some equivalency if the man were using game to rack up his N. ”
    Isn’t the main point of “game” for the user to rack up his N? Of course it is, don’t be naive.
    You wrote,
    “To make it even more equaivalent, the guy would have to be deceiving his potential mate about his N. But that doesn’t really work either because women care much less about a man’s N than men care about women’s N, for the simple reason that a man’s N does not degrade his fitness to be a husband to the same degree or extent that a woman’s N degrades her fitness to be a wife.”
    No, but what about a guy that deceives his fiancee on, oh, his actual levels of self-confidence? Who works hard to appear more prosperous than he really is? You state directly that men’s MMV is different than women’s MMV – does “game” say *nothing* about men manipulating their perceived MMV to attract a better wife?
    You know better, I hope.
    “Game” is all about tricks and cheats to improve your perceived SMV and MMV – so why can’t women do the same?

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    The point being that Tunisia is more modernized, and thus more feminist than other North African arab countries such as Libya. Therefore we see correlation between the “degree of feminism” in a society and the promiscuity of the women in it. True, there is no indication that Tunisian women are racking up big N’s prior to marriage as many Western women do, but it’s a difference of degree, that’s all.

    Tunisia has a thriving hymenoplasty business apparently on an outpatient basis. That fact when considered as an artifact of society demolishes any claim that feminism is only to be found within the industrialized West.

    And that fact proves in a simple fashion one thing: when they think that they can get away with promiscuity, AWALT.

  96. Anonymous Reader says:

    Aquinas Dad

    “Game” is all about tricks and cheats to improve your perceived SMV and MMV –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

  97. Eidolon says:

    “Who gave women the idea they should never have to do that, that being a bitch at work means hubby has to accept them being a bitch at home, and being a saint at church means she can’t beg for a good hammering at home?”

    I’ve been working on a theory that people can choose to be either masculine or feminine, and that these are the only choices. When it comes to women, on the one hand you have your homemakers. These women typically do not have stressful, professional jobs. They focus on the home and are sweet and pleasant to be around. On the other hand you have your hard-charging professional women. They tend to be colder and more demanding.

    My feeling is that a person must choose to follow a masculine or feminine path. Women who choose the masculine path at work will generally follow it in their private lives as well, being masculine in terms of sluttiness or in terms of being demanding and fighting for control in marriage.

    On the other hand, feminine, soft women will not be able to survive well in a stressful, professional environment. They must either become masculine or take a job more in keeping with their feminine attitude. A feminine woman will probably focus on taking care of her family, whereas a masculine woman will, if she has a family at all, probably not spend much time on that aspect of her life, and will probably not nurture her children as much as she would if she were more feminine.

    There’s probably a similar divide for men, but I feel like when I look at it that way, it makes things clearer. You can’t turn masculinity or femininity on or off like a switch. It’s a whole way of being, a total attitude. In most cases a woman masculinized by long hours of stressful med school and residency can’t just turn into a sweet homemaker when she gets home.

  98. Thinkn'Man says:

    “the hypocrisy of men and of our society”.

    “That’s the way Tunisian men think. A woman who has had sex before marriage is just a slut and can’t be a good mother!”

    And, while the hamsters are churning furiously, I leave you with the very apropos: “Night in Tunisia”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQYXn1DP38s

  99. jf12 says:

    aquinasdad is right that the reason for a man’s game is to up his SMV, but he’s not right if he thinks that the situation is symmetric between men and women. The symmetric situation about a “former” slut lying about her earlier life in order to get a better man, would be a “former” player pretending to have been a dork in order to get a better woman. That’s even more ludicrous in reality than it sounds in text.

  100. Eidolon says:

    @jf12

    I think the equivalent would be a man lying about having a lot of money, or giving the strong impression that he had a lot of money while in fact being poor.

    You’d then have a similar conversation later about how “I didn’t think it was that important” but “I thought I should tell you.”

  101. I’ve learned a lot from Game and use it to improve my interactions with women all the time, but I haven’t increased my N in ages. I must be doing it wrong.

    Or maybe….nah, never mind, I’m too tired to beat up the ‘game is just about getting laid’ strawman yet again.

  102. deti says:

    Anyone who thinks there’s any equivalence at all between a woman faking virginity and a man learning Game is simply not living in the real world. Women have been engaging in girl game, feminine wiles, guile, manipulation, and outright fraud and deception for millenia. There were societal restraints on those tactics up until, oh, around 1955 or so, give or take a decade. Those societal restraints no longer exist. Game in whatever form you call it, is simply leveling the playing field.

  103. Escoffier says:

    Isn’t the main point of “game” for the user to rack up his N? Of course it is, don’t be naive.

    This has been explained to you 100 times, but slow day so … No, it isn’t. Or, not necessarily.

    A woman can dress attractively, use makeup, be flirtatious, etc., in order to entice a hot alpha to have sex with her, or to find a husband, or to do many other things–some moral, some immoral, and some amoral. The same techniques can be used for a variety of ends or goals.

    Similarly, if we define game as “male behavior that attracts women’s interest while avoiding behaviors that suppress such interest” (which is not a bad definition), then it’s clear that game too can be used for a variety of ends. From upping one’s notch count, to finding (and keeping) a wife, to managing office politics and much else.

    No, but what about a guy that deceives his fiancee on, oh, his actual levels of self-confidence? Who works hard to appear more prosperous than he really is? You state directly that men’s MMV is different than women’s MMV – does “game” say *nothing* about men manipulating their perceived MMV to attract a better wife?

    There are several non-related and even contradictory thoughts here. But to take the two most important:

    Faking self-confidence is actually a good idea for an under-confident man. Nobody likes a sad sack. A man who works on his personality to overcome what is a character defect is to be admired, not faulted. It’s a difficult thing to do and most do not even attempt it. By upping his apparent confidence, he actually makes life easier and more pleasant for the people around him, not just for himself. It’s much the same as when a depressed person makes an effort to be cheerful and fight through the pain on the surface even when, deep down, he’s still depressed. This is both good for his own character and an act of mercy and kindness toward those around him. I suggest you take a page from your namesake and read the section in Aquinas’ Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics where he treats what Aristotle says about the “social virtues” (Book IV, Lectures 13-17).

    Lying about one’s prosperity is lying and as such is out of bounds. But it’s also not the same thing, in kind or degree, as what’s at issue above.

  104. Woman game is present in but a handful of them. The rest just lack self control. That that is attractive to men is coincidence

  105. jf12 says:

    @Cail re:” I must be doing it wrong.” isn’t so, odd, that about this subject of mating etc that it doesn’t respond properly to poking it at a distance, it doesn’t matter how long our ten-foot-poles are? To get *anywhere* with the subject we have to grapple with it.

    Re: increasing N. Ah, but you know you *could* have. Virtual but truly potential N “counts”, in a way that virtual but truly imaginary (fantasy, pr0n) N sort of subtracts.

  106. jf12 says:

    Driving in reverse used to work.

  107. jf12 says:

    Do I win?

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tangentially, it is significant that Mohamed Bouazizi has a Wiki page, as does Thích Quảng Đức, and others. There is a Wiki page on self-immolation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

    But there is no Wiki page for Thomas Ball. None. The feminist editrixes at Wikipedia absolutely will not allow it. Winston Smith would be proud.

  109. earl says:

    “As opposed to the Bible? There’s a reason why Wycliffe and Tyndale are regarded as heroes of the Christian faith.
    And I suspect there’s a reason why you so frequently provide logically fallacious responses.”

    Sola scriptura type I presume?

    The Bible is one of three things my faith is based off of…that and the Magisterium and apostolic tradition.

    The other Christian faiths don’t have those two things.

  110. “Driving in reverse used to work.”

    Is that what they call it these days? Mmm-hmm, whoa, yowzha

  111. TFH says:

    The ‘arguments’ against Game are becoming increasingly absurd and embarrassing.

    Furthermore, to call a man who practices Game a ‘pussy beggar’ is just as absurd as calling a man who has a skill via which he earns $1000/hr, a money beggar.

  112. jf12 says:

    Other things that used to work: cool cars. The kind that a girl would want to ride around in, or, rather, want to drive herself. “And she’ll have fun, fun, fun.” A lot of sports cars were designed specifically as, what the chaps called, pu–y cars. Literally, the consumer market research panels focused on whether girls could see themselves with guys who had those cars. And yet, guys who did buy those “cool” cars weren’t made fun of as if they were pu–y beggars.

    Somehow I don’t think anyone, guys or gals, would be impressed by a scrub hollering out of his Kia “Hey you! You just wanna impress chicks with your lame-o Jaguar! Who cares that it works to impress chicks! It’s the fact that you wanna impress chicks that PROVES you need to impress chicks! Whereas, comma, my choice sends a strong message of my stability and sense. It was a really good value.” That being said, I’ve exclusively driven tiny pickups myself.

  113. enrique432 says:

    Eidolon says: On the other hand, feminine, soft women will not be able to survive well in a stressful, professional environment. They must either become masculine or take a job more in keeping with their feminine attitude. A feminine woman will probably focus on taking care of her family, whereas a masculine woman will, if she has a family at all, probably not spend much time on that aspect of her life, and will probably not nurture her children as much as she would if she were more feminine.

    I’ve seen that, except, I have found largely, women suck in the competitive work environment anyhow. The Alpha females revert to victimhood (and crying) as soon as being a bitch doesn’t work-particularly when some men in positions of authority remain, to either make them out as the Work-Rapist-Boss/peer, or to alternatively, cry for a White Knight (that they will later stab repeatedly in the back) , and when you get one of these women in a position of power who promotes others like her, they proceed to completely destroy an organization that was once managed well.

    I watched in the previous 10 years a gaggle of women at my organization play this touch-and-go game for years, at various levels of Star Trek multi-level chess, to where it was actually amazing to watch. I often wondered if they actually had strategy meetings to coordinate their victim/mega-bitch operations, or if they were just naturally inclined to know how and when to play the part (and how and when others were playing the part, and how to provide the “foil” of support in whatever appropriate role would work).

  114. Furthermore, to call a man who practices Game a ‘pussy beggar’ is just as absurd as calling a man who has a skill via which he earns $1000/hr, a money beggar.

    You miss the whole point of what the person meant. I say this completely independent of taking a position on game. Your comparison simply fails. I’m surprised by that frankly.

  115. galloper6 says:

    Game techniques from a “Good Man” a winners body language or standing up for yourself of for good cause is NOT fraud. It is showing good character traits that good men should have an d practice.
    Game from a Not Good Man; say a never employed pot head with 10 baby mamas IS fraud. When the never employed pot head struts around like a crown prince he is deceiving potential mates.
    When a hard working salt of the earth good catch man struts he is telling the truth.
    The problems is good men have been taught to be humble doormats, leaving the mating field open to the frauds.

  116. MarcusD says:

    The men here agree this is deceitful and wrong, correct?

    How, exactly, does it differ from a man using “game” techniques to sppeak more ‘alpha’ to increase is SMV or MMV?

    “C’est en forgeant qu’on devient forgeron” – or, in other words, the man practicing “Game” possessed such qualities innately, and thus didn’t need “Game” (no?). Either way, is he deceiving her in the same way?

    Simply adopting behaviors that women find attractive and not repulsive is not.

    Which is to say, a quality like ‘virginity’ is not a ‘behavior.’

  117. Hamsta says:

    In the end, a girl who misrepresents her n count is just a fraud. Do you want to commit your time, money and personal energy to a fraud?

  118. galloper6 says:

    Women are attracted to his behavior not his past. Tell a woman that the swaggering slim super fit hawt workout instructor WAS a pudgy shy comic book reader will be of little interest to her.
    Tell a church man that the prim properly dressed woman on the next pew use to do gang bangs with the local sports team, it will be a major issue to him.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Is it not interesting how any discussion of the behavior of women shortly becomes sidetracked into an argument about the behavior of men? Even more interesting, it is as often a he-manly “traditional conservative” who derails discussion as it is a feminist.

    Why, it’s almost as though the tradcons and feminists are allied on certain issues. Such as encouraging the pedestalization of women…but, of course, that cannot be. It cannot be because tradcons forever insist they are opposed to feminism. It’s just a coincidence that they so often work hand in hand, or perhaps “hand in sockpuppet”, with feminism.

    The Female Imperative explains a great deal about the world…

  120. eric Cartman says:

    if women have the right to lie about their partners and virginity without consequence, then I as a male have a right to lie about my wealth without repercussions

  121. Finn McCool says:

    A clear indication of people’s warped minds today is that even in very traditional forums some men will actually suggest taking a wife of another race, guaranteeing that his children will share little of his DNA. Why not just adopt?

  122. Finn McCool says:

    I met a girl at a Meetup group, and she said that she read Christian books, and we proceeded to an instant-date (apparently we look like a good match; a long-married black couple helped with logistics since I don’t know the area around the Meetup). She’s been very forthright about responding to texts and phone calls. We had dinner Monday, and she wanted to show me pictures on her phone: I went over to her side of the booth, and put my arm around her, and she said “I take things really slow”. We have hugged at the end of both dates, though I think she turned herself a little more sideways the second time.

    I called her today to arrange another date, which might be at a church function (she seems involved with multiple churches). After warning me that it was Charismatic, she asked if I thought we were “more than friends”. I said yes. She said that she likes me, but she “moves really slow”, didn’t believe in premarital sex, didn’t believe in activities which are close to sex. So far so good. But she also said that she didn’t want to do “things like handholding” until she was “comfortable”, and that it was in part to protect me, “because it creates a bond”. I said that she didn’t need to protect me, and asked if she had “always been this way”. She said yes, but that she is divorced and therefore has experienced sex, but not outside of marriage.

    My Churchian upbringing says that I should “persevere” and that this is normal for a Godly low-count woman. My Red Pill side says that by going along with her Zero Affection Policy until she “feels comfortable”, I’m failing a “shit test” / “fitness test” and also setting a bad precedent.

    Options I can think of are:
    1) Go out with her again and sulk (the weakest of weak moves)
    2) Cheerfully accept the Zero Affection Policy
    3) Tell her I have too much self-esteem to go along with this, especially since she’s previously been married (this likely means never seeing her again)
    4) Keep going out with her, and keep pushing for physical contact anyway (this seems fatiguing and degrading to me, and it seems like conditioning her to reject me)

    Other suggestions? If I’m going to spend time being “more than friends”, I would like the relationship to be affectionate.

    In the broader sense, she is very familiar with Spanish/Mexican culture, and has a good female friend who is black, so she seems to be at a high risk for miscegenation.

  123. TFH says:

    empath,

    You miss the whole point of what the person meant. I say this completely independent of taking a position on game. Your comparison simply fails. I’m surprised by that frankly.

    Which person? Surely you can see that I am not addressing a person in this thread directly, as evidence by no address to anyone, or italicized quote being responded to.

    I am merely commenting on how their points have fallen from ‘very weak’ to ‘disastrous’, and how the most common objection of them all, that of ‘begging women’, reveals their complete lack of understanding of what Game is.

    The comparison I made is a popular one. Heartiste himself likes it, and uses is.

  124. Boxer says:

    Dear Finn:

    Gee, you’ve been paying your way and hers too, and her best attempt at thanks is a quick side hug at the end of the night. I don’t think I’m going to tell you anything you don’t already know here, but I’ll go through the motions anyway.

    But she also said that she didn’t want to do “things like handholding” until she was “comfortable”, and that it was in part to protect me, “because it creates a bond”.

    What she was really saying is that she “didn’t want to do things like handholding” with you, because she is “not comfortable” doing that with you. She’s comfortable getting you to buy her dinner, drinks and movie tickets, mind you, just not any of that yuckkie hand holding.

    I’m just going to venture a guess that if the right guy wanted to hold her hand, she wouldn’t have a problem with that (or a whole lot more).

    Options I can think of are:
    1) Go out with her again and sulk (the weakest of weak moves)
    2) Cheerfully accept the Zero Affection Policy
    3) Tell her I have too much self-esteem to go along with this, especially since she’s previously been married (this likely means never seeing her again)
    4) Keep going out with her, and keep pushing for physical contact anyway (this seems fatiguing and degrading to me, and it seems like conditioning her to reject me)

    Other suggestions?

    5) Delete her name from your contacts list, delete all her texts, don’t call her, and forget about her. Keep your dignity intact, my man. There are, like, 4 BILLION women running around loose on this planet. Some of these wont want to “hold hands” with you, and that’s cool. They’re doing you a favor in saying so early on, so that you can find someone more worthy of your time.

    Regards, Boxer

  125. Finn McCool says:

    Boxer, we’ve split the check both times.

  126. TFH says:

    Finn,

    To augment what others have said, unless you and a woman thoroughly kiss on the first date, you chances of getting anywhere with her are slim. I guarantee that unless this woman is under 23 and from a conservative ethnicity or highly conservative religious denomination, she has certainly had sex with men within just 6-8 total hours of meeting them.

    Also, never spend more than $10 or $20 on a woman before she is willing to come to your place.

    Lastly, meet enough new women (mostly through approaches, but also hobby activities, online dating, etc.) that you can always see a new woman in a matter of days. The confidence in knowing that you can start seeing another and another and another woman as needed, will provide you with enough sense of self-worth to not allow yourself to be used in this way. Plus, by not being in a position of neediness (which women are hyper-acutely aware of), you will appear more attractive to women even via that alone.

    And good god, go read Heartiste, Roosh, Krauser, etc. Do that for 30 days at least.

  127. TFH says:

    Finn said,

    (she seems involved with multiple churches)

    Sunday Morning Nightclub, baby!!!

    Seriously, though, I would bet good money that she has had a lot more sex than she has disclosed to you. If that can happen in Arab Muslim Tunisia, for Chrissake, that can happen here…

  128. Finn McCool says:

    I should also add that I’m not emotionally invested in this girl, and in fact met another very nice and fun girl between the insta-date and our dinner date (kind of weird after about a 5 year dry spell, but I have been making a lot of changes in how I spend my time).

    I think I’ve long overcome excessive one-itis, but I feel that simply ejecting at the first sign of resistance is weak. Also, more importantly, a significant fraction of low-N highly religious types that we supposedly value are going to be like this in some way: this is part of why I’m asking here.

  129. TFH says:

    Finn,

    I think I’ve long overcome excessive one-itis, but I feel that simply ejecting at the first sign of resistance is weak.

    True, but that assumes that attempts at escalation are over a period of hours, not days. Also, spending money on a woman while she says ‘no physical contact’ puts you firmly in the ‘beta bux’ column. She attends multiple churches in order to reduce the chances of the men she has sex with knowing each other.

    Church-hopping is merely club-hopping, except 12 hours later (Sunday morning rather than Sat. night).

    Also, more importantly, a significant fraction of low-N highly religious types that we supposedly value are going to be like this in some way:

    How old is she? What does she think is the right age for marriage? What does she think is the acceptable number of sexual partners a woman can have before marriage? What does she believe about Biblical roles for women, and male headship?

  130. Finn McCool says:

    TFH, I read The Game when it first came out and am familiar with the PUA community. This girl *is* extremely religious, and in her answer to my question about whether she’d *always* held to her beliefs, she explicitly said that she did not have sex with her husband before marriage. Of course she could be outright lying, but I have to go with the best available information.

  131. TFH says:

    Finn,

    she explicitly said that she did not have sex with her husband before marriage. Of course she could be outright lying, but I have to go with the best available information.

    We could evaluate a lot if you can tell us her age, and what age she thinks is acceptable to marry by. Also, my other questions above, if possible…

  132. TFH says:

    Wait, she’s also divorced? I missed that bit until now.

    How old is she now? What does she think are acceptable reasons for divorce? At what age does she think her chances of re-marriage drop sharply?

    I have got to say, if she is divorced, *and* involved in multiple churches….. things are not looking good…

  133. MarcusD says:

    But her experience makes her such a great person! OK I doesn’t make her nicer, more pleasant, more understanding, supportive, a better, mother, lover, cook, house keeper, or more financially responsible, or thinner…..but damn it she’s a better person and that has to be appreciated, validated and celebrated!

    I’ve never found a response to the people who say (of N>0 women) “It’s made them who they are today” – or rather, a response they’d accept.

    A woman can dress attractively, use makeup, be flirtatious, etc., in order to entice a hot alpha to have sex with her, or to find a husband, or to do many other things–some moral, some immoral, and some amoral.

    I don’t see that as lying. Besides, N is a quantifiable thing.

    Other things that used to work: cool cars.

    I recall seeing a study (Guéguen, Nicolas, and Lubomir Lamy. “Men’s Social Status and Attractiveness.” Swiss Journal of Psychology 71.3 (2012): 157-160. – on multiple occasions, given its popularity) that showed that women preferred men in expensive cars over mid-range cars over inexpensive cars.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/08/fatten-up-or-you-face-expulsion-92-pound-yale-student-wins-battle-with-university-after-refusing-to-force-feed-herself/

    A naturally thin student who weighs 92 lbs and stands 5ft 2in tall has won a battle with Yale University after refusing to force-feed herself with junk food to prove she was not suffering from an eating disorder.

    Frances Chan, 20, was threatened with expulsion by the Ivy League university for apparently being dangerously underweight.

    College medical staff insisted for months that she must gain weight. But they have now backed down after she insisted that her slight physique was her genetic inheritance from her Taiwanese-born parents and grandparents.

    “I have never had an eating disorder, but all the pressure from Yale to eat more was making me sick,” the third-year history student said.

    “I finally just told them that I wasn’t going to force-feed myself any more.”

    Help me understand this
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=873963

    I think Dalrock has touched on this topic before.

  134. Finn McCool says:

    For the benefit of others, she’s 26; I’m 36, unemployed (thanks H1-B!), and told her that I’ll be filing bankruptcy soon.

    TFH, your questions are useless and distracting.

  135. TFH says:

    Finn,

    It is ‘useless and distracting’ to know what she thinks are acceptable reasons for marriage, the duties of a wife in marriage, and whether she believes in male headship?

    Well…..ok, then.

    I was trying to help, but I think Boxer’s advice is what I should have seconded from the get go.

    __________________________________________

    P.S. I continue to marvel how 125,000 H1-Bs per year, who are not that highly skilled (as IBB has described), are seen as a cause for unemployment across a workforce of 140,000,000 people, or about 1100 American workers for each H1-B. That too when any Silicon Valley job board shows tons of $150K software engineering jobs going unfilled…(again, H1-Bs are not that numerous or that highly skilled).

  136. Finn McCool says:

    H1-B’s are extremely germane to this site because they are concentrated at the entry level in precisely the fields which middle-class young white men enter in order to support a family. The few white guys who do luck out and get entry-level engineering jobs have to work long hoursto keep up with their indentured co-workers (a majority at some companies; the overwhelming majority at my last job), leaving them with little time to work on physical fitness or social skills. The H1-Bs come from cultures which still practice arranged marriage.

  137. TFH says:

    Finn,

    Quite off-topic, but :

    The H1-Bs come from cultures which still practice arranged marriage.

    1) Only 25% of H1-Bs are Indian. What about the other 75%? Or did you not know that 75% of them are not Indian?
    2) Arranged marriage is a terrible deal. A culture with that is not a happy one, as arranged-marriage systems are also oppressive to men (women are excused from having to put much effort into their looks, explaining the huge gap between the attractiveness of Indian women from India (low) vs. those born in the West (high)).
    3) The few white guys who do luck out and get entry-level engineering jobs …..
    Wait, so it is not just software, but *all* engineering jobs (chemical, electrical, mechanical, civil)?

    So out of 125,000 H1-B’s entering this country with 140,000,000 workers, about 31,000 of those are Indian (and not all Indians do arranged marriages), and these 31,000 are blocking out an entire section of American workers? And inflicting marriage arbitrage on them too? What about the fact that they have to spend time adjusting to a new culture, and you do not? Is that not to your advantage?

    And at age 36, surely you are many, many years past entry-level. Age 36 is when an engineer would be at his peak….

  138. Pingback: Rolling back the odometer | Truth and contradic...

  139. finndistan says:

    A woman lying about he N to get the man into mariage with all the accompanying investments, promises, and lost time waiting for the special sex cannot be compared to a man behaving differently but not lying.

    A beter comparison would be a man lying about his intentions to get married to the woman to get her into bed, especially if she is a virgin, and especially in cultures where virginity is valued.

    And you know what, in many places this is rape; “extracting sex under a false promise of marriage”

    A woman spreading her legs because a man knew what to say? That is a man looking at a woman because she wears make up.

  140. greyghost says:

    Yahoo comment on the subject.

    greyghost 1 day ago
    The author Kaouther Larbi seems clueless. Those women are lying sluts trying to pass them selves off as victims of a man that is serious about marriage. Western men are slowly catching on. this from the article says it

    But the 27-year-old also chose to lie and yield to social pressures, rather than run the risk of remaining single.

    “If I had told my husband that I wasn’t a virgin, he would never have agreed to marry me. And it’s the same for many women in Tunisia.”

    Grizz 1 day ago
    you don’t lie to improve your life? It is called a double standard you twit, society condones premarital sex but the insecure little weasels want to believe they are getting a virgin….EVERYONE is happy except you. Sounds like you have never had to worry about deflowering a woman (something else maybe?).

    Danger 23 hours ago
    Grizz,
    It isn’t a double standard because you cannot compare apples to oranges.
    Women don’t judge men on whether they had sex before, but judge on power, status and earning ability.
    Men don’t judge women on power, status and earning ability, but on whether they are attractive and hopefully not h0rs.
    You want to “fix the double standard”? Change how women judge men.

    Stephanie 19 hours ago
    There are many, most?, women that have broken hymens that happens naturally as you age and grow as a girl, but they still have to get this done. What about them?

    John 18 hours ago
    This story is about women who have had sexual partners before marriage…..

    Stephanie was cute wasn’t she? Greyghost spending time on line being an asshole

  141. jf12 says:

    @Finn, if not cheerful, then why bother?

    It seems perfectly normal for a religious woman to require no touching.

  142. Other suggestions? If I’m going to spend time being “more than friends”, I would like the relationship to be affectionate.

    I’d open with that. Just say, “Look, I understand you’re worried about moving too fast, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have some affection. What I’m getting here is that you’re not interested in a real relationship, or you don’t trust me not to be able to hold your hand without trying to rape you. If we’re going to keep this up, I want us to be more affectionate with each other than if you were one of my guy friends; they already don’t hold my hand.”

    The easy answer is that she enjoys your company but doesn’t really like you That Way, so Next her. But there’s a chance that she’s trying to follow an extremely conservative Good Church Girl dating script — there’s a push out there among some, especially the born-again-virgin set, to not even kiss until the wedding — and just needs to be told that’s not acceptable to you.

  143. DrTorch says:

    Finn,

    You’re looking for excuses to do the wrong thing.

    If you want to spend time w/ her as a friend, then do so. But romantically? Stay away from that hot mess. If she’s frigid now, she won’t change in marriage. And there’s a pretty good chance she shouldn’t be re-marrying anyway.

    Move on to someone else. Don’t invest time pursuing her, even for friend activities. Move on to someone else.

  144. Finn McCool says:

    jf12: I don’t really understand your response, but I’ll try: She’s actually quite cheerful, and even seemed to enjoy the moves I made. “Why bother” because she’s N=1 and we supposedly value that. This site talks about low-N women and Game, so I’m looking about help to how to apply Game principles to a relatively traditional, low-N woman.

    And “no touching” does not seem “perfectly normal” to me: perhaps at 13 (when “no dating” is more appropriate), but a 26 year old divorcée with a masters degree who teaches in a public school is capable of handling the wide gap between affection and intercourse. We’re Christians, not the damn Taliban. (But I guess that’s what leads a lot of younger men into the Christian manosphere: we want healthy women who are kind, pleasant, affectionate, and attractive but with some values; what we get is either Nuclear rejection from Gnostic hyper-prudes or N=25 harlots.)

    @Cail: thanks; that’s the best response yet. But I am struggling with how to communicate it: we live in a rural area, so there is a lot of driving involved when we get together. I don’t really want to make it a burden / obligation nor do I want to make it an argument, nor do I want to make it an ultimatum (especially on the phone), because she’ll walk.

    Being game-ish, though, I’m going to enjoy time with the other girl, and might look for a way to subtly bring that up in our next meeting.

    And this situation reminds me of Scott and Bethany Torode: Bethany wrote an article in Boundless against premarital kissing: I disagreed, but as a Beta, felt worried and confused “Oh, no: this is what Christian girls are like…guess I’ll have to pretend to not want affection.” Scott wrote a reply disagreeing with her. They got married, had several kids at a young age, then she frivorced him. But the relevant point here is that he was Alpha and Dominant in this context by disagreeing with her, unlike the rest of us who either wrote her off as a crazy idiot (correct in retrospect!) and/or felt shame.

    @DrTorch: I’ll handle the decision about whether to marry her myself; things are rather unstable and we’ll possibly be in different states in a few years. I just want advice on how to break through this barrier. I’m not obsessing over her, but surrendering at the first sign of resistance, and accepting her idiotic frame, is unmanly and unsuccessful.

  145. Finn McCool says:

    “And at age 36, surely you are many, many years past entry-level. Age 36 is when an engineer would be at his peak….”

    “Would be”: typical Indian abuse of English, but it’s actually correct in this case, like a broken clock. I WOULD BE at my peak, but entry-level technical jobs were extremely difficult to get early in my career (9/11 * dot.com bust * H1-B boom), so I have much less experience than would be expected.

  146. Finn, while I generally agree with Nexting a woman who seems distant, I also know that I missed a lot of opportunities when I was younger because I was too risk-averse and fearful of rejection. And as you’ve noticed, some women who are trying to separate themselves from a past overdo the “see, I’m such a good girl now that I don’t even touch boys” thing. So I’m inclined to say that, if you like her enough to go see her one more time anyway, why not just say what you want and see what happens?

    Just make sure that’s it — one discussion, things change or we shake hands and wish each other luck finding what we want elsewhere — not letting it drag out while you wait and get more attached.

  147. Finn McCool says:

    @Cail, thanks again for the reply. Importantly, she doesn’t really “seem distant”: she’s been 100% transparent with calls, texts, and time / scheduling (despite teaching high school, teaching at a community college, starting a side job as a waitress, and going to really long church events multiple times per week). She asked if I saw our relationship as “more than friends”, I said yes, and she did not contradict by saying she wanted “friends first” or anything, just no sex (great), no almost-sex (OK), and oh, yeah by the way, no touching whatsoever (not OK).

    While I explicitly asked about her past, apparently she has only ever had sex within marriage (which is part of why I’m devoting more time and attention to her). But perhaps her “past” may have been that she rushed into an ill-advised marriage too quickly, and is overcorrecting with me by an excess of caution. Thanks for the insight.

    And thanks for your concern, but I’m not really getting that attached.

    My main concern about “drag on” is that changing course will become increasingly difficult the longer that we continue in this inappropriate direction. Partly due to inertia, and also because she’s put herself in the leadership role, largely on the pretext of religious superiority, and as Sunshine Mary would admit, any compliance from me is a major turn-off. That’s why I think that the Zero Affection Policy is a Shit Test / Fitness Test (whether she understands it or not).

    Now backing up to the freebies: although she’s paid her share financially, we’ve mostly talked in French, which she’s been learning (and is already pretty good). Although it’s also helpful for me to practice, and it’s an enjoyable common interest, I’m considering withholding this language instruction until she resumes appropriate behavior.

    As far as logistics, I think I’ll have dinner next time she’s in my town to teach, we’ll go to a restaurant near a walking trail (mentioning the existence of the trail before we eat), and towards the end of the meal, I’ll bring up this issue and suggest that we go for a walk together.

  148. Dalrock says:

    One thing I would add Finn is to learn to accurately read IOIs (Indicators of Interest). If you can’t read these, you aren’t ready to start evaluating potential wives. It is very dangerous to assume a woman is attracted to you just because she is indicating an interest in marriage. The risk isn’t that she will waste your time courting her with her deciding in the end not to marry you, the real risk is that she will marry you without feeling a strong attraction for you.

  149. jf12 says:

    @Finn, you mentioned option 2 “Cheerfully accept the Zero Affection Policy.” Why not be cheerful about it for the time being?

    I did not kiss my first wife (first kiss ever) until our wedding. For example.

  150. Anonymous Reader says:

    Finn McCool, I do not wish to be argumentative, but have you a clear goal in mind for this woman? That is, are you looking for a short term relationship, a long term relationship, or a marriage? Given the nature of this site it seems reasonable to assume the last of the three, but you need to be sure in your mind what your goal is for any given relationship with a woman.

    If you wish to marry, then you need to know more than you do now, and frankly you need to know at least in broad terms why this woman is divorced, and you need to know what it is that she wants as well. As Dalrock notes above, you need to be able to read IOI’s for self protection just for a start.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    And speaking of IOI’s I continue to be fascinated by hair twirling. Since I began learning Game a few years back I’ve started watching women, often indirectly, with new eyes (‘the glasses”). I’ve watched college women sitting with their woman friends suddenly start twirling their hair when a group of young men approach, I’ve personally had women avert their gaze from me and start twiriling the hair behind their ear (often with the left hand, in right handed women, why?), and so forth.

    I’ve seen women of 50+ years who are talking about the time they met some mildly famous individual a decade or more in the past suddenly and absent-mindedly start twirling a lock of hair, only to tuck it behind an ear and then abruptly change the subject. Perhaps hair twirling is a displacement activity, or perhaps it is a subconscious “pre-mirroring” (“I’d like him to play with my hair this way”), I cannot say. But it is remarkable as an IOI, in its consistency.

  152. Opus says:

    @Anon Reader

    Whilst in the pub on Tuesday Afternoon (see first comment on latest post) I also observed an attractive woman, probably about thirty-five, slim and, catching my eye, she began with her left-hand to displace her left bra-strap – as if slipping it off – and play with her blouse at that point of her anatomy. She continued like this (glancing in my direction and chatting to her female friend) for a few minutes. As with hair-twirling I assume both behaviours to be entirely unconscious and aimed at males to whom they are attracted.

  153. TFH says:

    Finn McCool,

    “Would be”: typical Indian abuse of English, but it’s actually correct in this case, like a broken clock.

    The butthurt racism of that aside (I grew up in America, and most assuredly got a higher SAT verbal score than you did, as well as higher GRE and GMAT verbal scores), you have just revealed exactly why you are unemployed, in the best job market your profession has seen in the last 12 years.

    I am the same age as you, endured the same recessions, and so on, and still never had significant stretches of unemployment as an engineer in Silicon Valley in my early days (I am not an engineer anymore; I am in high finance, where I decide which tech companies get funding, so that they can hire engineers :) ). The same was always true of other engineers I knew (white, Chinese, Indian, Iranian, etc.). Of course, I didn’t know people who were not good at what they did – they just vanished from the field.

    Since there were also periods of expansion (2002-07, 2010-present), Yah cannah blame rrrecessions fer yer prrredicament, McCool (Scottish highland dialect).

    Now, since you see yourself as a grammar zealot, perhaps it would be prudent for you to conduct a detached assessment and introspection of why you are having employment trouble in a job market that is booming for tech workers, and why a mere 31,000 H1-Bs from India (only 25% of H1-Bs are Indian, a fact you dodged with great dishonesty as it makes it harder for you to blame a small and obscure group for your self-inflicted inadequacies). First and foremost, you need to cease being mendacious with thine own self. (now, go a head and attack the grammar of that, Mr. I-can’t-compete-in-a-booming-market-for-engineers).

    Perhaps you should be an English teacher, rather than an Engineer. That is a recession-resistant field.

    An old Indian saying that Finn should learn : When you point a finger, three fingers point back at you.

  154. TFH says:

    Opus,

    As with hair-twirling I assume both behaviours to be entirely unconscious and aimed at males to whom they are attracted.

    Yes. There is a good book called ‘Undercover Sex Signals’ by Leil Lowndes, that covers these signals that a woman gives, with pictures. There are about 25 such signals, and men usually miss over 90% of the signals women toss their way.

    It is also just about the only useful tome of Game material, entirely written by a woman. I recommend that book.

  155. Finn McCool says:

    @Dalrock: Thanks from the Man Himself! I gave up on reading IOI’s before the time I discovered them, really: John Molloy said in “Dress for Success” that “the science of sending body language is far ahead of the science of reading it”, and gave an example of a woman in an office who put her arms across her chest: when interviewed, he found that she was neither afraid nor cold, but was ashamed of her breasts as a young teen and never broke the habit.

    The other reason I don’t bother is that it puts the girl in the driver’s seat: “she loves me / she loves me not”. Now I go in mostly with a “I like her, can I take this interaction in a direction I want it to go”.

    But generally, in this case, as I’ve said, she’s been an enthusiastic participant the entire time, except for the anti-touching lectures. And she did seem to get excited early on when I would touch her.

    @Anonymous Reader: creative nickname. It’s too soon to know what my “goal” is: I have known her less than a week, and just learned that she’s divorced (which is a negative), and the Charismatic stuff is not really my thing. But chastity is a plus in the marriage department and a boundary that I respect.

    That is something I always found bizarre about the Churchian Courtship stuff from the 1990′s: how am I supposed to be “intentional” and “do not defraud” with someone I hardly know? (The answer is that it has nothing to do with reality or common sense, it’s a feminist initiative to overprotect all girls everywhere from experiencing any emotional discomfort when a relationship ends. If the message excessively shames and overinhibits young “males”, who cares: they’re just cannon fodder.)

  156. @Finn, you mentioned option 2 “Cheerfully accept the Zero Affection Policy.” Why not be cheerful about it for the time being?

    I think he answered this: he’s not happy with a “no touching” relationship. If he were, there’d be nothing wrong with that, and he probably wouldn’t be asking for advice. But since he’s not, he should let her know that, then if she’s determined to stick with that she can move on and find someone like yourself who’s on the same page.

    That’s not to say he shouldn’t be “cheerful”; he should cheerfully tell her his concerns, cheerfully accept her decision, and cheerfully go his own way if that’s the result. But he shouldn’t cheerfully keep seeing her and pretend to accept it if he doesn’t.

    I’d say AR’s point about being clear on her goals is even more important than usual in a situation like this, because with all physical affection off the table, it’ll be that much harder to tell how into you she is. Is she really just trying to take it slow? Does she only truly want friendship from you? Is she fearful of intimacy — something that could be a big problem in marriage? Is she just trying to follow the script from a book on Christian dating? There are many different possible reasons, and you need to know which one it is.

  157. TFH says:

    Grammatical correction in an aforementioned paragraph :

    ……..and why a mere 31,000 H1-Bs from India (only 25% of H1-Bs are Indian, a fact you dodged with great dishonesty as it makes it harder for you to blame a small and obscure group for your self-inflicted inadequacies), are the recipients of your ire. First and foremost, you need to cease being mendacious with thine own self. Now, by all means, proceed to attack the grammar of that, Mr. I-can’t-compete-in-a-booming-market-for-engineers.

  158. Just the other day a cashier at the gas station twirled her hair and tossed it over her shoulder while helping me, and it made my morning. There’s probably no stronger IOI a woman can give a man without touching him.

  159. Finn McCool says:

    @TFH
    1) My SAT and GRE verbal scores were both 800, the maximum, so yours could be equal but not higher. I did not take the GMAT, so you win that one.

    2) During the weak “jobless recoveries” since 2001, I was neither experienced nor a recent grad, so I stuck with the non-technical career path: this is a typical outcome. And I was not in Silicon Valley.

    3) Indians are not a “small and obscure group” of anything, and whether H1-Bs come from India, China, or Syria is irrelevant to whether they displace white Americans. But since you are preoccupied, apparently only have my eyes been lying to me over the last 10 years, but Bloomberg is apparently part of the lie also:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/india-nabs-nearly-two-thirds-of-u-s-h-1b-visas.html

    http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html
    http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411562_salzman_Science.pdf
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

  160. Pingback: Thoughts about long hair | Something Fishy

  161. galloper6 says:

    Finn I would stop contacting her, and see if she responds by trying to contact you. Dont let her think you are too interested, which is a turn off. Let her do the seducing if she is really interested. It would be good to know some of her friends or these “other” churches if they exist. At these other churches or social circles she may have history or reputation as a high N woman.

  162. jf12 says:

    @Opus re: women twirling things and “play with her blouse at that point of her anatomy.” The first time I noticed it was a budding girl in 7th grade who was intently reading pages on her desk and unconsciously tweaking her nipple through her shirt. I’m fairly certain all of the boys noticed, actually, and that it wasn’t directed at anyone. Since then, I’ve noticed it a lot in girls (especially developing young women), but not once in grown women.

  163. Cort says:

    Tunisians are not Arabs. They are Berbers who are a Med race. Not Semitic or Armenoid at all.

  164. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cort, how much does that matter?

  165. Luke says:

    A number of problems solved in this thread, in just one post, right here.

    1) A woman you’re not having sex with (or at least periodically kissing at some length AND engaged to be married to, if fundamentalist Christian) is not one with whom you’re having a relationship. You don’t owe such women (with whom you’re not really in a relationship) anything in the way of forbearance WRT starting whatever constitutes a relationship with another woman. It’s like a company that hasn’t hired you yet, is owed zip in the way of reluctance for you accepting a jb offer elsewhere. (You COULD tell her that the position is currently open, and see if she wants to fill it, starting right away, but you have no obligation to do so.)

    2) I’ve dealt closely with a number of Indians (dot not feather) in the sciences. They’re typically very well spoken, all over the place in competence, and nearly always completely amoral (although they want to be considered moral, and get highly indignant if their lack of internal moral/ethical constraints is noticed). As there are plenty of fully-qualified Americans for almost every STEM job opening in the U.S. (although more than a few need the pay raised), and we really should hire our own first, the ones (they’re all really just visiting) here really need to go back home to India and free up jobs for Americans. Oh, the ones here need to keep their families back in India, and neither marry nor reproduce in America in the meantime. The way the Chinese railway construction workers were handled in the late 1800s is a decent model for how to handle this.

    3) Just point your hand towards someone like a karate chop, and presto, all 4 fingers are pointing at the other person. Q.E.D.

  166. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog and commented:
    Even in an Arab, Muslim country like Tunisia, hymenoplasty is becoming increasingly common, as their women end up like many Western women today in terms of their mores…

  167. Finn McCool says:

    Yesterday evening, we eagerly set up another dinner date meetingfor Monday (I expressed no concern with the Zero Affection Policy). Late at night, she texted me very late that she “could not longer see me”. We exchanged more texts, for the benefit of Churchian Hamsterology. Keywords included “pressure”, “stressed”, “not ready”, “friends first”, and “really long time”.

    I wrapped it up today. I chose my words carefully, hoping to prevent her from developing a sense of self-righteous pride at having dispatched an Insincere Threat to Her Purity who Only Wanted Sex through the sacred and all-powerful Youth Group incantation “Friends First”. (And Where Have all the Good Men Gone?).

    Essentially, I said that I never pressured her, but investing in pursuing her after her rejection would just lower her attraction & respect for me and if she wanted adult male/female interaction, she had my number.

    At this point, I utterly don’t care whether she was disinterested in me personally, hasn’t recovered from her divorce, or is generally immature about relationships.

  168. Finn, sounds like you handled it well. It’s hard to tell whether she was genuinely feeling “pressured” and all that by the idea of things like holding hands, or she just wasn’t that into you. But either way it wasn’t going anywhere if you kept playing along. Next.

  169. jf12 says:

    @Finn, all’s well that ends well. Really, there is no better ending qua ending. Thanks for the informative update from the field.

  170. Boxer says:

    Hey Finn:

    Next time this happens, a one word reply is apropos. Something like “cool” or “OK” or “lame” is what I use. From the female perspective, many women agonize over things like this, and dread nexting a dude (I know that will amaze some in these parts, but it’s often true). A quick exit is a sign of respect to her and to yourself.

    Many men are upset at women who do these things, but a self-aware playa is generally respectful to a woman who refuses to waste his time, and ply him for free stuff, while leading him on with ideas of white-picket-fences-in-the-sky, and sexytime *real soon now*. The woman who is self-aware enough to “next” you is doing you a huge favor and making something of a sacrifice herself (she could very easily lead you into a one-way relationship). Now you are free to find someone who is actually compatible. We should thank women like these, not resent them.

    Regards, Boxer

  171. I’m still quite amused at the divorced woman trying to “preserve her purity”. Praytell, how does a woman become divorced at age 26?

  172. Tam the Bam says:

    Once again, EvilScience™ to the rescue!
    Now it’s not only repentant Didos and Barbary piratesses that can have a retread.
    We can all have one too! In fact why not a dozen? Bottoms-up, chaps! Wizz for atomms, etc.

    Although there’s no mention of the frilly bit that people seem to set so much store by being fitted to the basic model. Can’t understand the fuss, the (2) girls I brutally plundered of said membrane never even noticed amidst all the hurly-burly until I drew it to their attention and scrabbled around for a t-shirt or the like.
    (Well actually I was near shitting myself with trepidation, seeing as both times (years apart) I was uncharacteristically sober, and they had only just left school, and it was somebody else’s house. The quality of rubbers wasn’t what it is now, but they were quite emphatic they wanted shot of it before Uni. Well, what’s gent to do? Noblesse oblige, my dear old thing).

  173. Finn McCool says:

    Cail, agreed on the root reason (me, her divorce, or her general immaturity).

    But for the benefit of Christian Hamsterology, I think the “pressured” about “in a relationship” was not about the physical, but that I said “yes” when she asked “do you think we are more than friends?”

    In my takeaway, I said I never pressured her for physicality or exclusivity, which would be the risky / difficult parts of being “in a relationship”.

    But she’s possibly got some sort of relationship script in her head from Youth Group that includes “friends first”, and “do not defraud”, so she probably has a phobia about casual dating. I agree that we were not ready to be “in a relationship”, so that only leaves “just friends”, which was never on my mind, nor was it on the minds of the Huxtable-like couple who burned up gas helping us set up the insta-date. But someone who mentions that touching “creates a bond” (and yes, she applied this all the way back to handholding), isn’t really capable of casual dating anyway.

    If she’s still messed up over her divorce and unable to remarry at this time, then there could be no better therapy than casually, non-sexually dating me.

    All of this is to say that some of the difficulty here is probably the result of Churchian Feminism, the the inspiration for a lot of the wacky Christian dating concepts: “let’s prevent all girls from ever being disappointed in any way, or from ever having to do any sexual gatekeeping”.

    @Boxer:
    As I previously explained, I’m sure that her hamster would translate, a one-word entry, to “he gave up because he just wanted sex: now I must go tell everyone at every church I attend about how Friends First saved me from temptation and be a Role Model for their daughters and Where Have All the Good Men Gone”?

    And since I already “lost” the Game, if my takeaway contains a little wisdom that makes her think a little about her behavior / plans / expectations, maybe she can wake up and grow up before she goes infertile.

  174. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer’s right – when a woman indicates an unambiguous lack of interest early in a relationship she’s doing you a favor. When I was young and blue-pill I got a couple of cases of bad oneitis. One girl just never reciprocated, and the other played me for a sucker. The first one did right by me, the second did not. You might want to send the woman a thank you card. Nothing about leaving the door open or staying as friends, either – just a straight-up card to say thanks for not playing games, then wish her well and sign it “Sincerely, Finn.”

    I’ve never regretted any of the times I took the high road.

  175. jf12 says:

    @Finn, although I mentioned I did not kiss until my wedding to my first wife at age 20, I deliberately neglected to mention marrying my second wife at age 40. I had been divorced 10 years, and she 15, with no other sexual partners in between, so we were not very casual physically. But, again, it was the desire to take it to the physical level that prompted (swift) marriage.

    Having once tasted of casual physicality, within marriage, it is far too easy to fall into it again, especially with someone (like your divorced woman) who has also previously tasted. With me, on the couple or so occasions (after engagement, to be sure) prior to marriage that I actually kissed, then we inevitably went overboard. Apparently “a little bit of kissing” is the functional equivalent of “a little bit pregnant” for me. Or, maybe I just don’t know how to do anything half heartedly. So, I think physical escalation is extremely risky to the relationship, much more actually hazardous than merely risqué, unless you’re “almost” married already. It cannot be some “test” of getting married; physical involvement IS marriage.

  176. But for the benefit of Christian Hamsterology, I think the “pressured” about “in a relationship” was not about the physical, but that I said “yes” when she asked “do you think we are more than friends?”

    Good catch. Now that I think about it, I don’t think women have that much trouble with guys “pressuring” them physically. With the rare exception of rape, of course, I think most women can handle a guy getting too fresh. They expect it and have an idea what to do about it, how far they’re willing to go, etc. It’s also an ego boost, and for most, just part of the fun unless the guy gets really obnoxious about it.

    On the other hand, I can think of several times when a woman dumped me or turned me down because she felt relationship pressure. It sounds like that’s really what was going on here. It wasn’t so much the physical aspect of hand-holding — unless she thought you’d both be so turned on and uncontrolled that it would go directly from there to the sack — but what holding hands would represent. Buddies don’t hold hands; couples do. She doesn’t want to be a couple. Maybe not with anyone, or maybe just not with you, but that doesn’t really matter.

  177. Opus says:

    I have just been re-reading Finn’s dating dilemma (some good advice I’d say here) and I was reminded of the only woman I have had, potentially, real trouble:

    She was slim, maybe a year or so older than me – and had a little yellow sports car; that set her apart – and she accepted my invitation to have a drink. The date went well enough but there was something non-physical in her demeanour – perhaps a lack of human warmth. I did not force myself but because she was fairly cultured and not like the usual Dorises I invited her for a second date. I believe in all we had seven dates – I enjoyed her company – and I had three other women on the go so I was not running into one-itis. On our last date she invited me home and made it clear that now was my big opportunity: she might as well have used a neon-sign, it was that clear, but somehow as we worked her way through her entire record collection (or so it seemed) and probably more than one cup of coffee, nothing seemed to happen. Eventually, I made my move; she froze, I paused, removed my hand and made my excuses, about needing to get home – work in the morning etc. What happened next (as it did – boot on other foot) dramatic though it was is immaterial. Years later, talking to a friend: he said that he knew of her and that one day a male acquaintance of his, had come to him in disbelief as this same woman was putting around the notion that this guy who had dated her had more or less attempted to Rape her – utterly implausible of course. Clearly she might have said the same of me.

  178. If she’s still messed up over her divorce and unable to remarry at this time, then there could be no better therapy than casually, non-sexually dating me.

    Yep. Whether or not she was consciously planning it, she might have been working toward a scenario where you’d be her non-sexual, supportive boyfriend while she worked through her post-divorce fears; and then when she was ready for intimacy again, she’d graduate from you to a man who brings back the tingles. Even if she didn’t intend that — even if she thought you’d be the one she’d get ready for — that’s how it ends up. The “We were just friends and I never saw him That Way until…” fantasy is movie crap; in real life by the time she gets ready, you’re too firmly planted in the friend zone to get out.

    You definitely don’t want to be that guy. That’s a world of pain.

  179. xoxoxox says:

    Lyn87. You think the first girl did you a favour – in a way she did. But she exhibited not as much honour in doing so as you might attribute to her. She simply did not want to waste her time – she found nothing whatsoever redeeming about you and could not bear to spend one minute with you. It was not because she wanted to be honest and not make use of you. If she had declined your expensive gifts and continued to ignore you, then yes she did right by you. Otherwise, she is just another self absorbed nacissistic person.

  180. Finn McCool says:

    @Cail: I agree that “relationship pressure” is bad, but I never did any relationship pressure. As above, the first time she had a problem was when I put my arm around her while she showed me a photo on her phone.

    (As an aside, wasn’t the “Christian Courtship” movement basically a lethal concentration of “relationship pressure?”)

    I made one mistake, and I will learn from it. This sounds really bad in print, but it took only a couple of seconds out of our total time together: after discussing her process for picking out food that fit her dietary restrictions and allergies, I said something to the effect that I have allergies to pollen but not food so that cancels out genetically.

    That sounds totally like a clock-ticking bachelor baby-rabies stereotype, ouch. In my case, it happens to be a theme that I’ve been discussing in abstract terms at least since my teens, e.g., “it would suck to meet someone you like at support group for an inherited disease, because obviously you shouldn’t have kids together because they’d be almost guaranteed to have a really bad case of that disease. I should definitely not talk to any girls at the allergy clinic.”

    It probably didn’t change the outcome, but it’s a good reminder never even joke about babies, genetics, family, etc., even with a conservative and presumably “marriage-minded” girl.

  181. Finn McCool says:

    you’d be her non-sexual, supportive boyfriend while she worked through her post-divorce fears; and then when she was ready for intimacy again, she’d graduate from you to a man who brings back the tingles.

    Yes, that’s a less positive view of the situation. I have a sense that I will be moving for a new job in a few months, so I’m kind of blind to issues of long-term serious commitment at this time (even though this girl seemed like the marrying kind and before I knew of her divorce). But the experience would be beta-izing for me.

  182. galloper6 says:

    Finn, Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect the girl met or saw a new church alpha. You know a hawt tattooed exbiker “just got saved” with good testimony. Am I the only one to see these types swagger into church and snag the pretty girls fast?
    Where have all the good men gone? Yea right…….

  183. Lyn87 says:

    xoxoxox says:
    April 11, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Lyn87. You think the first girl did you a favour – in a way she did. But she exhibited not as much honour in doing so as you might attribute to her. She simply did not want to waste her time – she found nothing whatsoever redeeming about you and could not bear to spend one minute with you. It was not because she wanted to be honest and not make use of you. If she had declined your expensive gifts and continued to ignore you, then yes she did right by you. Otherwise, she is just another self absorbed nacissistic person.

    I see your point, and it has an element of correctness to it, but I still can’t blame her. The fact is that I was a mess at the time, and she had an absurdly high SMV. She was – not to put too fine a point on it – WAY out of my league. Sure, it took big brass balls for a nerdy, blue-pill, pimple-faced freak like me to ask her out, but she was the kind of gal who could get nearly anyone she wanted, and she could do “better” than me. (That was probably a bad long-term strategy, because I became a much better “catch” later, but nobody can foretell the future.) I don’t blame her for passing up my invitation, but I credit her with doing it so politely that I wasn’t even sure whether she was categorically ruling it out or if she really was just tied up that week-end. Obviously I eventually figured it out.

    Once my own SMV took off a few years later I was on the other side of that divide – being approached by women who did not interest me. Although I declined their offers, I never did so in a way to make anyone feel gratuitously bad. That doesn’t make me “just another self absorbed narcissistic person” any more than her rejection of my offers made her one when the roles were reversed. It just means that nice people don’t hurt other people just for expressing interest in someone with a higher SMV, nor do they play with their emotions for their own gain or amusement.

    The other chick, though…

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    I don’t blame her for passing up my invitation, but I credit her with doing it so politely that I wasn’t even sure whether she was categorically ruling it out or if she really was just tied up that week-end. Obviously I eventually figured it out.

    Various men in the androsphere have observed that higher SMV women are less prone to nuclear rejections than their plainer sisters. Just a remark that some lurkers may find interesting.

  185. Boxer says:

    Cail sez:

    Even if she didn’t intend that — even if she thought you’d be the one she’d get ready for — that’s how it ends up. The “We were just friends and I never saw him That Way until…” fantasy is movie crap; in real life by the time she gets ready, you’re too firmly planted in the friend zone to get out.

    Having the opportunity to gain the resources and energy of an orbiter must be, for the average woman, similar to those opportunities we average men occasionally get from women for no-strings sex. These are very difficult to resist (and I’ll cop to the fact that in my younger years I never resisted, cuz I was pretty thirsty back then).

    A woman who is aware enough to “next” a potential orbiter is, contrary to some opinions in these parts, doing an honorable thing.

    xoxoxox sez:

    It was not because she wanted to be honest and not make use of you. If she had declined your expensive gifts and continued to ignore you, then yes she did right by you. Otherwise, she is just another self absorbed nacissistic person.

    That’s not accurate in most cases. Many women actually agonize over nexting a dude, not only because an orbiter represents free stuff that they’ll lose access to immediately, but also because women tend to be scared of a dude’s reaction when being brushed off (despite all the feminist claptrap, we’re a lot bigger than they are, and sometimes we break stuff, you know). The average (cowardly) woman will find it much easier to just let a dude keep buying stuff, keeping him at bay in the process, trusting that he’ll eventually get frustrated or run across a better catch. In the interim, she bleeds him dry (emotionally and often financially too).

    I realize that it’s the custom to hate on the chicks and ascribe to them the worst possible motives for absolutely everything, but reality isn’t so easy. Seeing things from their perspective often helps me understand their reactions.

    Regards, Boxer

  186. Boxer, I’d add another reason that’s not necessarily evil: she may genuinely enjoy his non-sexual company. Most women don’t like to be entirely without a man for long, so if there isn’t a romantic interest in the picture, she’ll enjoy having a male “best friend” hanging around as long as he’s too fearful or too much a gentleman to violate the boundaries of the friend zone. She’ll tell herself, “Hey, I told him I wasn’t ready for a relationship, and he said that was fine, so I’m not doing anything wrong.”

    Also, women don’t tend to have a lot of girl friends these days. I suspect that’s because of the increased competition between them for the apex alphas; but whatever the reason, that leaves them depending on beta orbiters for someone to talk to who won’t gossip to the rest of the herd or try to steal their prospects.

  187. jf12 says:

    @Cail, and Boxer, and everyone. What keeps LJBFriended orbiters in the loop is Everywoman’s story. Everywoman who is currently “happily” married has the story that she wasn’t really all that attracted to her husband when they first met 22 years ago, but he wore down her resistance, and now she can’t imagine ever thinking she could have lived without him. Everywoman. The ONLY difference between Everywoman’s marriage story and Everyotherwoman’s divorce story “I never was attracted to him but he kept trying, and finally I felt pressure to walk down the aisle, knowing it was a mistake” is the ex post facto justification of the outcome, NOT the beginning.

  188. JF12, also, a zillion books and movies that tell it that way. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the books and movies are the main reason women present it that way, far more often than it’s true. The true story — I was intrigued by him the first time I saw him, he asked me out, we dated, and now we’re married — is ordinary and boring. It also doesn’t provide the ego boost of “He just wouldn’t take no for an answer.” So she retcons it later in her mind to a romantic pursuit worthy of having Fabio on the cover.

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    CC, the romantic pursuit is a better story because it makes her an even more special snowflake.
    The more prosaic story means that both he and she could have married someone else, and that contradicts the One Twu Wuv Soulmate myth. Some men argue this nasty package goes back to the Victorians, others claim to be able to see it all the way back to the middle ages, I dunno.

    It does seem to have intensified over the last 40 to 50 years. People I know, or increasingly knew, who grew up prior to the 50′s didn’t seem so ridiculously romanticized. The men loved their wives and the women were grateful to their husbands, and they did all sorts of things for each other, but there wasn’t this Disney princess air to their interactions.

    Hmm. Disney princess…kill your TV if you have daughters?

  190. John Deigh says:

    You can’t make a ho a housewife.

  191. Art Deco says:

    And this situation reminds me of Scott and Bethany Torode: Bethany wrote an article in Boundless against premarital kissing: I disagreed, but as a Beta, felt worried and confused “Oh, no: this is what Christian girls are like…guess I’ll have to pretend to not want affection.” Scott wrote a reply disagreeing with her. They got married, had several kids at a young age, then she frivorced him. But the relevant point here is that he was Alpha and Dominant in this context by disagreeing with her, unlike the rest of us who either wrote her off as a crazy idiot (correct in retrospect!) and/or felt shame.

    The name of the couple is Sam and Bethany Torode. They went so far as to write a book extolling natural family planning and then refute it. They started out evangelical, then converted to Orthodoxy, and are now (as a former couple) in separate liberal protestant denominations. I do not think either one of them is very….stable.

    http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/July-2011/Culture-Dont-Shoot-Look-Beyond-the-Messenger.aspx

  192. Art Deco says:

    Tunisians are not Arabs. They are Berbers who are a Med race. Not Semitic or Armenoid at all.

    No, Tunisians are Arabs. Algerians and Moroccans are on a spectrum which runs from Berber to Arab. Berber dialects are still commonly spoken by a minority in Morocco and Algeria, not points east (and in all three countries, French is commonly used in business and government).

  193. Nations change, the mindst stays the same.

  194. Robert in Arabia says:

    John 7:53-8:11 in the New Revised Standard Version:

    The pericope is not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John – P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century.

    Cast the first stone story not in any of earliest New Testament manuscripts.

  195. Justin C says:

    The funny thing is, instead of crying about society, these women have the option of… being honest… not lying… maintaining the virtue until marriage if that’s what men want in marriage… I mean these men are just wanting virtuous women to mother their children and instead they’re not only getting whores, but lying whores. It’s pretty sad that these women think they have the right to cry “victim”.

  196. BuenaVista says:

    Here’s a man who found himself a born-again virgin. Don’t read it if you prefer your self-celebrating texts to exclude self-celebrating, and an implied proxy-Jesus status.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3150328/posts

    “And this is how I see Taylor. She is completely new, completely transformed, and completely clean. This is not because she became a part of a helpful program, or because she really “pulled herself together.” It’s because God, in his incredible, infinite kindness, took Taylor’s dark, crimson life, and made her as white as a snow. He took all of her sins on placed them on his Son, and then gave her Jesus’ righteousness to wear like a perfect white wedding dress.”

  197. Luke says:

    Okay, Buena Vista. So, she’s repentant, accepted Jesus, and now can go to Heaven when she dies. She STILL should be shunned for marriage, even dating, by men with prospects for any kind of decent future. Her past sins make her forever a terrible bet for a wife and mother. We don’t say that the guy convicted of murder (for picking on and killing someone at a bar after a few beers) should get let out if, 2 weeks after he’s sent to prison he repents. He has to serve at least most of his original sentence, and will still always be rightly deemed an ex-con. Same deal.

  198. alphabetasoup says:

    @ FInn

    A bit late to the party here but something came to mind when I read through your story. Im not sure if the ‘relationship pressure’ she felt was actually from the contact or not. I may be way off base here but what she felt was probably your eagerness. When she asked you if you were more than friends I think you spooked her with your reply. How can you on your second quasi-date be anything other than aquaintances, let alone friends? It seems to me you came off as too eager to commit. That freaks women out to no end and falls into the creepy catagory in their mind

    Also you may have picked the wrong hill to die on with the physical touch bit. In my experience it pays far bigger dividends to let that one go because it allows them to loosen up a bit without all of their instinctive defenses on all the time. Of course it depends on the girl but, every girl I have given at least a little bit of room in that department came around quickly when the relationship got a bit more established.

    IOW Hold down your impulse to touch. Its good for your frame and in the long run your patience pays big. With a womans comfort and security, the physical part comes quite easily. But you have to maintain a good frame and let her know that you are willing to respect her boundary, and that it doesnt rattle you. You have to have the mentality that the best outcome in all of this is for HER not to be able to keep her hands of of YOU, not vice versa. If you can get her to that point, you are doing it right.

    Just my .02

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s