Skip to content

Do Settle

October 13, 2009

Following on from LILGRL’s post:
A good question when choosing a man is this:

sxc.hu/profile/hisks

sxc.hu/profile/hisks

Will he hold your purse in the cancer clinic? I cannot emphasise to you how important this is.

Just today, there was a wife who said her husband kept a diary of all her important medical dates — a record so good that the consultant said he needed to find four like him for his daughters. A husband said he always stayed home — even away from family functions, such as weddings and christenings — due to his wife being agoraphobic for forty years, and her not liking him leaving her. Another man sat with his wife and reminded her of anything she’d forgotten. There is inestimable value in a man who is good to you.

If you want to build a family and have children with a stable man that you love, you must accept a fact that is true for 90% of women these days: the man you are most sexually attracted to is not going to be the man who will make you happy and who will make your dreams come true.

t4nsu.deviantart.com

t4nsu.deviantart.com

You must accept that your sexuality is a dark place, and that you need a lot of drama to attain your best orgasms (or perhaps orgasm at all). This means that the man you are most sexually attracted to will, by the very nature of your sexuality, very possibly completely destroy you psychologically. Settling is true in more than one word: the man you are most sexually attracted to will not settle down.

This is precisely why sexual compatibility should be a threshold value, rather than the ultimate value, in who you are going to spend the rest of your life with. He must at least meet your sexual attraction threshold: you’ll find him extremely difficult to live with, make happy, not negatively manipulate — a process detrimental to both parties’ happiness — and respect if he does not. A good way of keeping your threshold low is to minimise your sexual experiences.

You must evaluate him for stability and values. His job and his attitude to it are an easy screening tool for this. Let us be clear, this in no way means he should be rich. In fact, quite the opposite a lot of the time. It does means he has a reasonably steady way of providing for himself and a good set of skills. You are looking for his belief in doing something that is worthy and being able to take care of both himself and perhaps others if needed. You are looking for an ability to be forward-thinking. You are looking for a man who takes educated risks: one that may not play it completely safe nor one that is addicted to risk-taking. You are looking for a  man who dislikes the idea of having no options and makes provisions against this. You are looking for a man that matches you.

The relationships he has with his family are another thing to examine. Is there any evidence that he cares for them? Are the relationships loving, or are they more troubled? Is he sufficiently independent, but not utterly distant?

AJ Travis has a comprehensive guide to the kind of approach you should probably be considering:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
[Note: Travis' seeming definition of beta is -- to keep it simple -- any man who is not a manwhore.]

Being rational and acting on your rational reasoning is very difficult but it is made much easier if you decide what you’d ideally do before you involve yourself in any situations.

This means you will have to work with him to keep your attraction to each other as embers with the occasional flare-up. This is slightly different from the all consuming flames that immolate your psychological well-being and all those who depend on you (e.g. children, friends, family) with it. You can actually do many things towards this: first of all, you must maintain his attraction for you. Look after your looks: healthy diet, exercise, cosmetics, botox and even cosmetic surgery. Look after your dynamics and conversation: no, no, no nagging. Be thrilled with his muscles or looks or conversation or whatever you’re finding attractive or masculine — make no secret of it. Encourage his masculinity, his nights with the boys, his continuing appreciation of women, rather than working to suppress it. This should act as a preventative measure for him declining or becoming excessively complacent. Inspire him to stay on top of his game. Remember that you must not press for, or encourage, behaviours that would turn you off eventually but benefit you in the short-term (e.g. him letting you have your way).

Spend time being very selective and choosy about what kind of man he is: find someone attractive to you who is a man of values. Once you do, stay with him and be 100% loyal. Your main goal should be establishing a family, or at least having a companion who provides you with reasonable happiness and contentment for life — not a person you spend every moment with (it’s a woman’s lot that a man’s interest declines with time especially once she hits A Certain Age, in a relationship or not) but a ‘witness’:

”We need a witness to our lives. There’s a billion people on the planet, what does any one life really mean? But in a marriage, you’re promising to care about everything. The good things, the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things, all of it, all of the time, every day. You’re saying ‘Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go unwitnessed because I will be your witness’.”
– Shall We Dance

Once you choose him, forget about doing better or being with anyone else. This is very damaging, especially if you make a habit out of it. Your nature is to think that you could do better. You are wrong. You can do no better by settling on one carefully chosen man whom you love and who loves you sincerely back. He is here and you have chosen to be his. That decision is permanent.

Don’t make the wrong choice.

89 Comments leave one →
  1. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 1:03 am

    You must accept that your sexuality is a dark place, and that you need a lot of drama to attain your best orgasms (or perhaps orgasm at all). This means that the man you are most sexually attracted to will, by the very nature of your sexuality, very possibly completely destroy you psychologically. Settling is true in more than one word: the man you are most sexually attracted to will not settle down.

    I agree with 90% of what you wrote but I choose not to believe that the guy you’re talking about picking can’t be absolutely the greatest thing since sliced bread in bed. I don’t think you need drama to have fantastic orgasms either (spoken from experience). You need comfort level and a willingness to explore, you need to shut off your brain and react instinctively – these things are possible with any man not just the dangerous ones.

  2. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 13, 2009 1:11 am

    David Alexander wept.

  3. October 13, 2009 1:30 am

    David Alexander wept.

    Why?

  4. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 1:34 am

    Cuz us grls are gunnin for ya now DA! Vrooom vrooom…chugga chugga…

  5. October 13, 2009 1:53 am

    Cuz us grls are gunnin for ya now DA!

    There is no market for sub-human males.


    Bhetti –
    No baiting DA on my posts, please. DA, I’m quite happy for your comments as long as you keep them cheerful. You were provoked in this instance, but please no more.

  6. October 13, 2009 5:06 am

    I agree with 90% of what you wrote but I choose not to believe that the guy you’re talking about picking can’t be absolutely the greatest thing since sliced bread in bed. I don’t think you need drama to have fantastic orgasms either (spoken from experience). You need comfort level and a willingness to explore, you need to shut off your brain and react instinctively – these things are possible with any man not just the dangerous ones.

    I agree, but I also think that when Bhetti talks about sexual desirability, she’s not necessarily talking about sexual ability. It’s true that you don’t need drama to have fantastic orgasms, though. But yeah, I think that when we talk about dangerous guys being sexually attractive, that’s because they are — sexually attractive. They might be terrible in bed, but there’s still that stupid hindbrain attraction to the dangerous bad-boy. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual sex, but what we perceive as sexually desirable (before we ever get into bed with them). It’s just easy to explain in terms of sex, because it is “sexual” attraction.

    Maybe better to call it “raw animal lust”.

  7. Arawn permalink
    October 13, 2009 6:36 am

    If you want to build a family and have children with a stable man that you love, you must accept a fact that is true for 90% of women these days: the man you are most sexually attracted to is not going to be the man who will make you happy and who will make your dreams come true.

    I would refrase this a little bit: the man you are instantly most smitten by is not going to be the man who will make you happy. You can be more sexually attracted to a man, who will make you happy, it’ll just take more time to flame up. But when it does, it is much stronger than any “love at first sight” attraction.

    Bhetti –
    I can’t comment on the contrast between the nature of sexual attraction in initial infatuation and flame ups with confidence but intuitively I believe you. What I would say is that it seems to me there should be a reasonable baseline of sexual attraction to begin with (in some cases, we don’t allow ourselves to be aware of it or its potential) that flames up depending on how things progress and how he’s acting towards you.

  8. Obsidian permalink
    October 13, 2009 8:39 am

    A very interesting social experiment I like to do every now and again is to go into a crowd of folk at say, a party or other social function, and strikeup a conversation about Male/Female relationships-a hot topic anywhere, and one that is an order of magnitude hotter in Black USA for now what should be bleedingly obvious reasons.

    I like to point out such politically incorrect truths, such as how Women, not Men, actually benefit from Polygamy, or how most Men-including those who are married-dont get laid on a regular basis-and, one of my personal favorites, which is the subject of this thread:

    How Men are *expected* to settle, but it is a Cardinal Sin to even suggest that a Woman do same.

    Think about it-chances are youve heard someone say that a guy’s expectations are too high, and that if he would only lower them enough, he too can find happiness. Whether or not the notion is indeed true, the point is, that Men are not only encouraged, but are *expected* to lower their expectations in a mate/sexual partner.

    Women, on the other hand, cannot bear even for a moment, of the prospect of “settling”-in fact, in the Black community, an entire mythos has grown up around this theme: Sistahs, particularly those with a bit of college behind them, will defiantly proclaim “I refuse to settle!”, or, “I can do bad all by myself”, and other such stiff upper lip declarations.

    Of course, that sounds good in the midst of a “war council”, or while shooting down a poor suitor who thought he had a chance. But, as we all know, Time can be quite the cruel SOB to the vast majority of Women…sooner or later they will bow before Father Time. One way, or another.

    Of course, all of this only confirms what we in the Game know are Core Truths of the Human Condition, known to some as Evolutionary Psychology-for Men, having a Woman, even if much less than ideal, is far and away better than nothing at all-a very real possibility, since historically speaking, most Men didn’t live to sire any heirs. Besides, sex for Men is, all other things being equal, a low risk affair-we can afford to boff a fugly or two.

    Women, on the other hand, from a purely Evo POV, can’t. Ladies only have a finite amount of reproductive resources, both in terms of absolute numbers (eggs) and shelf life (age is a detriment to healthy eggs and ability to give birth safely). Everytime she lays down, she risks getting up w/an “L” on the scoresheet.

    So, this is why it takes only minutes for a guy to shop, and the better part of a day for Women to complete the same task-EvoPsych is a MFer, ain’t it?

    And, in an age where nearly every whim can be indugled in on the spot, w/minimal censure or approbrium, where expectations are wildly high-especially for Women-it all makes sense why Women, from the Chocolate City to far flung spots in Canada have an extremely hard time “settling”. For what it’s worth, knowing Human Nature as I do, I have a great degree of empathy for this view.

    But, empathy cannot supercede basic facts or physics. The truth of the matter is, that even w/ solid saturation of Game and all the Natural Alphas available, there ain’t enough of us to go around-Women will simply have to settle if they want any chance at a happy life. Note how I didn’t say anything about a family and kids, because, let’s face it-a Woman can and often does get those things on her own. What I’m talking about here is something no amount of formal education, money, status or freedom can buy-HAPPINESS. And for most human beings, most of the time, having someone to, as someone above put so well, “witness” your life, plays a huge role in all of that.

    No longer guided by the Wise Women of yore, Today’s Women have an extremely skewed view of life that sets them up for a tremendous degree of heartbreak, sadness, loneliness and eventually, bitterness. I done lost count as to the number of Black Women I’ve seen in this mold-Women who are so despondent in their misery that they even chase off close friends, who don’t want to be exposed to yet another round of recounting the past and why that Alpha didn’t stick around. Of course, what they refuse to see-note my word choice here, its not an accident on their part-were the many good guys who would have made solid mates for them. Only now at the end, do they see the truth.

    And it hurts.

    Although I applaud the efforts of Bhetti and her erstwhile sisters here, I have to say that I am not optimistic for our collective future. I will grant that this venue may prove itself to be an atoll in a sea of Female Disappointment and Dispair, and for what it’s worth that is to be commended.

    But in the main, the cultural forces at work, to say nothing of the economic ones, don’t help you Women, they actually undermine you, all the while giving you so many the false hope that someday your prince will not only come, but stick around. And because stable Stable Boys simply aren’t as sexy as Landed Gentry or Knights, I simply do not see a critical mass of ladies “settling”.

    Such is the Gift, and the Curse, of Evo Psych. Lots of Men settle because something is better than nothing; lots of Women can’t bring themselves to settle because…well, you know.

    Hmm.

    The Obsidian

    Bhetti —
    You always sound like you’re speaking from a podium with energy. This time prophesying doom and seeing no solutions, Obsid. Well, let us change our island if we cannot change this world.

  9. October 13, 2009 8:53 am

    DA:

    Why?

    Because Bhetti’s article plays into the hands of your sworn enemies: women forgoing hot sex with alphas for the security (and resources) of beta males.

    But, as a sub-human, I guess you don’t have to worry about either scenario.

    LI’LLIAR:

    They might be terrible in bed, but there’s still that stupid hindbrain attraction to the dangerous bad-boy. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual sex, but what we perceive as sexually desirable (before we ever get into bed with them). It’s just easy to explain in terms of sex, because it is “sexual” attraction.

    Maybe better to call it “raw animal lust”.

    Which is why I’ve stated repeatedly in the past at Roissy’s that all the sexual geekery in the world doesn’t make up for just being alpha. A woman will be popping O’s as soon as you slip it in if you’ve established psychosexual dominance at the outset. Studying cunnilingus or the Kama Sutra, while a worthwhile endeavor in some respects, can easily tranform into a form of supplication. Why do I need to be a sexual technician when the the mere fact of my awesomeness –and hard, thrusting, unrelenting purple-headed warrior — should be enough?

    Bhetti —
    To be not in bed, she is not attracted. To be bad in bed, she is not strongly attracted and you have bad skills or even good skills. To be good in bed, she must feel insane attraction to you. To be the legend and addict her forever, you have both insane skills and have her insanely attracted.

    Have I got the progression roughly right?

  10. October 13, 2009 9:11 am

    Why do I need to be a sexual technician when the the mere fact of my awesomeness –and hard, thrusting, unrelenting purple-headed warrior — should be enough?

    Since someone did me proud and mentioned Arthur Koestler: Koestler’s novel The Age of Longing” (1951) touches on this theme. In it, the female protagonist, a daughter of a high-level American diplomatic attache in post-WW2 France muses on her current and previous lovers.

    She recalls a high-status proto-SWPL ex boyfirend, an art gallery owner or such, “who made love like a bird.” And her notorious casanova onetime lover, who despite his heroic efforts and prodigious skill, failed to launch her into orbit, even with the finest of techniques.

    Where she did find satisfaction, as she painfully admitted to herself, was with a short, ugly Soviet agent in Paris. Though malnourished as a boy and in no way even remotely handsome, he had something our protagonist called “faith.” Faith in Communism, to be sure, but faith nevertheless.

    This quality gave him alpha-like qualities, and it was with him and not with her worthier ex’s that she found sexual release.

  11. Lisa permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:16 am

    Why do I need to be a sexual technician when the the mere fact of my awesomeness –and hard, thrusting, unrelenting purple-headed warrior — should be enough?

    Because the clitoris is not located inside the vagina.

  12. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:29 am

    Lisa:

    Because the clitoris is not located inside the vagina.

    Are you familiar with the phenomenon of vaginal orgasms?

    In any event, lets not forget what LI’LLIAR said:

    But yeah, I think that when we talk about dangerous guys being sexually attractive, that’s because they are — sexually attractive. They might be terrible in bed, but there’s still that stupid hindbrain attraction to the dangerous bad-boy.

    There is no one-to-one correspondence between lust/desire/sexual attraction and “technique”.

    Technique is what betas use to make up for the attenuated desire of their mates.

    Bhetti –
    If he focuses on technique before he focuses on his own self-development, then I can easily see the progression to supplicant. His confidence in himself as a man first, technique later.

  13. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:36 am

    Lilgrl I see what you’re saying – it’s the thrill of the dude himself that can get you going, yes, yes I know the type (alpha-ex). Totally not great for a long term prospect. I do think you can have awesome sex with a man who may not get you at first glance but who you totally dig once you get to know. Intimacy trumps lust.

    Bhetti –
    Sounds to me like the component of being with someone you love and feel intimate with is almost critical for ‘the best’. It’s a complex level of attraction, built beyond the initial levels of lust. Do you think some women falsely manage to experience this in a short-term way somehow?

  14. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:40 am

    Tupac we may get all turned on by your fine self, but it still matters WHAT you do – don’t kid yourself. Thrusting with power loses it’s affect about five minutes in. Mind you that could be your time limit? The first time may be all rockets and fireworks just because of the thrill but I’m betting she gets bored real quick if that’s the extent of your repetoire. Just sayin…

    Bhetti –
    From things he has said here and there, I definitely don’t think that’s the extent of Tupac’s repertoire. He is drawing a mental contrast between a man who has a PhD in technique and another who has a PhD in being a sexy man. The latter — as we can all acknowledge — is much more important. How important it is is open to debate and the subtleties of that is not something I can comment on knowledgeably, really.

  15. Epoxytocin No. 87 permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:41 am

    @ lil

    They might be terrible in bed, … It doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual sex …

    Trying to convince people we’re a slut, are we now.

    @ tupac

    Technique is what betas use to make up for the attenuated desire of their mates.

    Another instance in which “don’t be a try-hard” is golden advice.

    Women’s enjoyment of sex is 90% self-fulfilling prophecy.
    If only betas knew.

  16. Epoxytocin No. 87 permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:48 am

    aoefe -

    Totally not great for a long term prospect.

    Not so fast there sweetheart.

    Some women’s prime happiness lies in home, hearth, and family. Other women’s prime happiness lies in being utterly dominated, controlled, owned.*
    There are obviously not mutually exclusive, but their relative priorities differ VASTLY from woman to woman. For the latter type of woman – especially one who’s had at least one relationship with a genuine alpha woman-whisperer – the ONLY “long term prospect” that will not lead to a life of stultifying misery is another alpha woman-whisperer. Even with all the attendant drama.

    But for the former type, well, yeah, alpha-chasing is stupid and self-defeating.

    *Almost all women fall into one of these two categories. Most of the tiny minority who don’t are men-with-tits who find their prime happiness in careerist power-mongering; the phenomenon of women’s relentlessly declining happiness is ENTIRELY due to their following in the footsteps of these pernicious few.

  17. Lisa permalink
    October 13, 2009 9:54 am

    Are you familiar with the phenomenon of vaginal orgasms?

    Most women don’t have them. It feels good, but anatomy is anatomy. To tell a man that thrusting “should be enough” is a disservice to him and his partner, who will probably fake it under such an expectation.

  18. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 10:11 am

    Some women’s prime happiness lies in home, hearth, and family. Other women’s prime happiness lies in being utterly dominated, controlled, owned.*

    I’m not just saying this to be difficult but I want all the things above. I believe they’re possible with the same man. In fact the first sentence describes MY priorities and the second describe HIS. We both get our bang for our buck.

  19. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 13, 2009 10:34 am

    I’m not just saying this to be difficult but I want all the things above. I believe they’re possible with the same man

    FeministX, is that you?

  20. aoefe permalink
    October 13, 2009 10:43 am

    LOL! Caught me. (that was a joke for those of you who took that as serious).

  21. October 13, 2009 11:09 am

    PA…astonished that you mentioned Koestler’s “Age of Longing,” because I was just thinking about it while reading this thread.

    Hydie, the protagonist, is completely blown away by Fedya, even though–as you point out–he is short and ugly, and (as Koestler also points out) his skills at foreplay are nonexistent. IIRC, though, Fedya is *not* drawn as a jerk; he is a likeable enough guy as an individual. It is the fact that he believes fervently in something (Communism, in his case) that draws Hydie (formerly a devout Catholic, but has lost her faith) to him so strongly.

  22. October 13, 2009 11:22 am

    Bhetti, most women settle by being with a man they do not truly love (and by love I do not mean lust). This is the type of settling trap I fell into, and I am loathe to give the advice to other women to settle again.

    Then again, the man I “settled” for I met at 17, and I was with him for 8 straight years. I doubt most women will find themselves on that path these days.

  23. October 13, 2009 11:24 am

    Gah. I meant that I “met” him at 15, and started a relationship with him at 17. That was far too young to pick a lifelong mate. I’m mainly speaking to the “get them as young as you can” advice given to men.

    Bhetti –
    Let us have no misinterpretations. This is an issue I’m currently struggling with: how do you choose correctly? How do you work around the shortcomings of your own judgement? How do you overcome the lack of judgement in the people around you? You have to choose very carefully. It is a misinterpetation to say we cannot control who we fall in love with: we can. We can choose who we allow the opportunity to become close to us. Intimacy is where love flowers, remembering that the seed is in a threshold value of sexual attraction.

    So who to choose? One useful question at a time. No, it shouldn’t be rushed, Hope, for sure. However, we should keep in mind that our options do gradually become more limited as time progresses. It’s a balancing act, definitely, requiring a strength of judgement and the strength of will to act on that judgement.

  24. October 13, 2009 11:32 am

    Also in Koestler’s novel (hope this isn’t too far off-topic), Hydie is pursued by Julien, a poet who has been a hero of the French Resistance (the book was written circa 1950). She is unable to feel anything for him, although he is perhaps the most admirable character in the book, because of his cynicism and because he is too much like her–she tells him that going to bed with him would feel like incest.

    Bhetti –
    Off topic? Are you kidding? I heart this discussion, Mr. Foster. In fact, love random tangential conversations as long as they’re interesting, fun and/or hot.

  25. October 13, 2009 11:40 am

    Hah, David, this is awesome. I don’t think I know anyone who woudl have read anythign by Koestler, exept maybe his best-known novel “Darkness at Noon.”

    For reasons not entirely clear to me, Koestler “disowned” The Age of Longing. I think it was on stylistic grounds, though I don’t recall the exact reason. I believe he considered it badly written. In retrospect (I read his stuff during the early 1990s) it was the most “human” novel, with the major characters NOT being mere allegorical tools for some clash of abstract concepts.

    His two-part autobiography “Arrow in the Blue” and “Invisible Writing” are excellent, though there is evidence that some of his ‘adventures’ were fabrications. John Derbyshire pointed to a chapter on his visit, circa 1930s, to a Soviet village that apparently had never existed.

    He wrote teh really good stuff during th efirst 50 or so years of his life. After that, he turned his attention to espteric mysticism and ESP, subjects I don’t have a lot of interest in.

  26. jennifer permalink
    October 13, 2009 12:14 pm

    These kind of discussions seem to me to leave something out…it’s all about tradeoffs between lust and practicality. How about LOVE?..or does it sound too silly to use that word in our sophisticated age?

    For me at least, there are some guys who I am totally entranced buy..love the back and forth of talking to them..want to know everything about them, what they were like as kids, what their favorite ice cream is. Other guys may totally turn me on and I may really like them as people but I’m not FASCINATED by them.

    Thinking about one guy in particular who I really like, who is really responsible and successful, and who I suspect could screw me very satisfactorily, thank you very mcuh…but I don’t think I could be IN LOVE with him.

    Am I just being silly and 17-ish about this?

    Bhetti –
    I’ve said the word many times over the course of this post. There’s no additional meaning to be added by explicitly spelling it out.

  27. October 13, 2009 1:32 pm

    These kind of discussions seem to me to leave something out…it’s all about tradeoffs between lust and practicality. How about LOVE?..or does it sound too silly to use that word in our sophisticated age?

    Love is difficult to talk about in relation to the “average” long-term relationship and marriage. Only 10% of people (according to brain image scans) feel as passionately as they initially did about their partners after 20 years. The rest 90% of people do have to make trade-offs between passion and pragmatism.

    It’s not silly and 17 to want true love. I suspect (though I do not know) that on some level, everyone wants it. But the problem with your train of thought is that you believe some random guy whom you do not love could “screw [you] very satisfactorily,” which I think is a rather low bar set for satisfaction. That’s just me though, and apparently I’m an outlier.

    You must accept that your sexuality is a dark place, and that you need a lot of drama to attain your best orgasms (or perhaps orgasm at all).

    There is a light and dark approach to sexuality. The dark approach is the one that has been sensationalized of late, but there is surely a light side. I did not know until this year what making love truly means. I had to experience that spiritually transcendent, glowingly light side of love first hand to fully understand.

    A woman will be popping O’s as soon as you slip it in if you’ve established psychosexual dominance at the outset.

    Maybe there is some biological basis for this. Women who have easy orgasms might be more likely to go for the dominant men who treat them like crap, and they put up with the jerk-off “alphas.” (No offense Tupac.)

    Personally I don’t care what “most women” get turned on by or how they get orgasms because I’m not them nor am I trying to get them into bed. I’m not somebody who wants to sleep around. I know my own body and my own responses.

    Dominance from a random “alpha” doesn’t do anything. Dominance from the one I love is arousing. Sweetness from him is awesome, and cuddling with him is blissful. Just being able to watch him eat a sandwich is a treat in itself. I am nearly late to work every morning because I linger near him while he lays in bed. Has nothing to do with how dominant he is when he’s half-comatose and groggy with sleep (hah).

    I am deeply monogamous when in love. This is a situation where I shall gladly be the outlier. I hope I can be among the 10% of couples who are still passionately in love with the passing of years.

    Bhetti —
    Okay, you constantly showing off how awesome you and your fiance are currently is just mean, you insufferably happy woman. >=(

    (I tease. Spread the joy like Christmas came early, girlfriend.
    )

  28. October 13, 2009 2:45 pm

    poxy –

    Trying to convince people we’re a slut, are we now.

    *Sigh* Why me…whyyy meeee…

    For the latter type of woman – especially one who’s had at least one relationship with a genuine alpha woman-whisperer – the ONLY “long term prospect” that will not lead to a life of stultifying misery is another alpha woman-whisperer. Even with all the attendant drama.

    (My emphasis) — what are you trying to say, love? Hehehe…I’m kidding, I’m kidding

    Hope –

    Bhetti, most women settle by being with a man they do not truly love (and by love I do not mean lust).

    TRUE STORY!!!! TRUE STORY!!!! TRU STRY!!!!!!!!!

  29. October 13, 2009 4:00 pm

    Bhetti, I think it’s important to note that being attracted to a risk-taker (which I think many women indeed are) is not necessarily identical to being attracted to a thuggish and psychologically-destructive sort of man.

    Special-forces officers, fighter pilots, test pilots, commercial divers…there are lots of people who take risks but do it in a highly disciplined and socially constructive manner.

    Bhetti–
    Risk-taking is both attractive and a marker for instability if in excess. All in balance. This will probably be a little different for each woman and man i.e. not all fighter pilots are made of the same metal.

  30. October 13, 2009 4:08 pm

    Bhetti–
    Rewrite of Depressing Alexspeak, Bhetti style:
    It is wrong for a woman to settle for a man who makes a great husband but does not meet her sexual needs. Cheating and divorce are disagreeable options happening too often in my locality* that should be avoided.

    *(Haiti! Wonderful place, you should visit.)

  31. October 13, 2009 4:31 pm

    “Okay, you constantly showing off how awesome you and your fiance are currently is just mean, you insufferably happy woman. >=(”

    /Hangs head in shame. My apologies! I do wish everyone would be happy and would find their own love. I did not mean to show off.

    Mainly I was trying to argue against this line of thought: “Girls, if your guy isn’t dominating and controlling you and making you pop O’s left and right, you’re missing out on all the fun you could be having with alphas. You would be inclined to cheat on the beta you settled for because you’re wired to behave this way…”

    David Alexander and Tupac Chopra are basically saying the same thing from two seemingly different angles. Neither of them seems to believe in true love, and both prefer to tout the supremacy of biomechanics. But I do understand their perspectives because I was once victim to that same ideology. It wasn’t until I started the process of spiritual awakening that I began to snap out of it.

    I had a much longer post written about spirituality, but it was way over-the-top. I’ll save my inanity for some other place and time.

  32. October 13, 2009 4:33 pm

    I don’t think a woman’s primary directive in a relationship should be finding someone to offer her unconditional love and devotion. I have an easier time getting a man to fall in love with me than I have finding someone who’s merely compatible with me.

    Honestly, I’m extremely choosy and this has paid off well for me. Why would I ever downgrade my standards? I can’t help that I’m precocious, eccentric, and charming. Maybe even moderately attractive.

    I think the men here *coughObsidiancough* are really melodramatizing the effects of having expectations? Like, seriously? I have confidence that FeministX could secure a good husband.

    Whatever, dudes. You don’t like what liberalism has wrought, but I challenge you to philosophize our society into a better position, also considering the dialectic that has brought us here.

    This bemoaning, whiny, pathetic tone comes across way too often with the men of Roissy and quite frankly it reeks of betatude and loserdom. Wow, I wonder what it could possibly say when a man despises female sexual selective advantage.

    I’m happy I don’t have to endure what women did 100 years ago. So, I’m sorry that I can pursue the route of love and finding someone who truly satisfies me.

    Every generation has this pack of losers that wants to return to the way things were. Sorry if it seems harsh, but it’s true. I sympathize with your qualms with feminism considering it’s an unfounded, inchoate, and incohesive “philosophy”, but FFS, you can repeal legislation and history has a way of self-correction. Get with the program.

    This comment might come across as snarky or biting, but after skimming through the “Dissonance” thread I’m kind of disgusted at the lack of logical analyses and introspection that seemed to occur.

    Ugh, just go educate yourselves. Or something. Dwell in the real world.

  33. October 13, 2009 4:43 pm

    Thank god for Sofia.

  34. Obsidian permalink
    October 13, 2009 4:44 pm

    Sofia,
    LOL. I like your spunk.

    Personally, I have no problem in the least with your, FemX’s or any other Woman’s choices, be they good or bad, right or wrong, etc. I applaud you and every other Woman’s right to do as you please.

    All I’m saying is that given female nature, coupled with the Four Sirens, the chances for Women enmasse finding happiness isn’t very high-and already there are reports and articles to that effect.

    I take issue with you, not because of your choosiness, but because of your refusal to broaden your horizons. In so doing, you run the real risk of hurting yourself in ways not yet seen by you in the longrun.

    But I respect your right to have a hard head…and a soft behind.

    The Obsidian

  35. October 13, 2009 4:50 pm

    All I’m saying is that given female nature, coupled with the Four Sirens

    What Four Sirens? Enlighten me.

    the chances for Women enmasse finding happiness isn’t very high-and already there are reports and articles to that effect.

    Contrary to my direct personal experience, those of my family and friends, and anecdotal evidence that all serves to support the opposite.

    Reports and articles? Wow, how scientific. I didn’t know we could quantify happiness! Have you ever thought even if there was a general trend of unhappiness (however the heck that’s measured) it could do with a whole host of OTHER factors? There was an Industrial Revolution that occurred in the late 18th century. I wonder if capitalism and liberalism may perhaps be linked. HMM.

    In so doing, you run the real risk of hurting yourself in ways not yet seen by you in the longrun.

    So, then why would you take personal issue with this if it’s hurting myself? People tend to take issue with things when it affects them.

    Anyway, no hard feelings, but – and I’m saying this to everybody – don’t mistake baseless conjecture and assertion for fact.

  36. October 13, 2009 5:05 pm

    The source for happiness trends since 1970s:
    http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

  37. October 13, 2009 5:09 pm

    I can’t see it. Summarize the data?

    In any case, happiness surveys are bullshit. Our dominant culture is a result of larger forces which we haven’t successfully been able to deconstruct. Capitalism has made happiness completely relative, so yeah, it makes sense if people are unhappier. On the other hand, people are found to be happier in liberal societies because of the increased role in our individual destinies we have. So, yeah, either way it’s meaningless.

    All empirical data (read: data) is intellectually unsound because it hasn’t examined the foundation of anything.

    ALSO, happiness?! You can’t quantify happiness. It’s more abstract than intelligence. Also, hyper-subjective oweing to dispositional qualities. Oh, and happiness surveys don’t take into acct. higher/lower order measures of satisfaction. Re: Freud.

  38. novaseeker permalink
    October 13, 2009 5:23 pm

    Every generation has this pack of losers that wants to return to the way things were. Sorry if it seems harsh, but it’s true. I sympathize with your qualms with feminism considering it’s an unfounded, inchoate, and incohesive “philosophy”, but FFS, you can repeal legislation and history has a way of self-correction. Get with the program.

    Actually, I quite agree that there’s no turning the clock back. Time’s arrow points in one way.

    What men need to do is not wish for a ne’er-to-come return to the past, but simply take the present into their own hands and use the freedom the world permits today to carve out our own destinies. Men need to walk away from traditional male roles — not by taking up traditional female roles (unless the men concerned truly wish to do so, and not in response to being cowed by the women in their lives or shamed by social expectations which yet again seek to hem in male behaviors and channel us), but by simply doing what we want, how we want, and defining our masculinity that way. Anger is understandable, because the current scenario basically sucks in many ways for most men. But one can’t control when one was born, and these generations of men need to not “get with the program”, but rather make their own program — take the freedom we are offered and run with it in millions of different ways, embracing our own many destinies, and eschewing social roles and expectations of society at large — whether from women or from other men. That is the path forward for men. Not backward. Forward.

  39. October 13, 2009 5:36 pm

    You have to generate your own tables. Okay, just because I love you Sofia.
    Men:
    1972
    Very Happy 3.2 (229/847 of men were very happy)
    Pretty Happy 3.7 (457/847)
    Not Too Happy 6.5 (161/847)

    2008
    Very Happy 4.0 (290/946)
    Pretty Happy 4.2 (526/946)
    Not Too Happy 5.2 (130/946)

    CONCLUSION: Less men are ‘Not Too Happy’

    Women:
    1972
    Very Happy 2.8 (248/758)
    Pretty Happy 2.8 (394/758)
    Not Too Happy 4.0 (115/758)

    2008
    Very Happy3.9 348/1,070
    Pretty Happy 4.0 570/1,070
    Not Too Happy 5.2 151/1,070

    CONCLUSION: ??? Marginally more ‘not happy’ if you use a calculator. And I don’t want to do the maths on the rest :(

    EDIT: Nope, rechecked, marginally more ‘not happy’ in 1972.

    *shrug*

    EDIT2: The numbers on right represent raw data, I believe and those on the left represent some sort of weighted adjustment. EGAD, I’m not a statistician!

  40. October 13, 2009 5:45 pm

    Haha, thanks. Sorry, I’m at Robarts and simultaneously wading through Ancient Greek. Honestly, there is just too much to factor in besides feminism. Like context. Obviously, a larger ideological/sociological shift must have occurred to set the template in order to allow a revolution of sorts to occur. Or, we could take a Marxist perspective. Dominant culture changes slowly over time, not suddenly in revolution.

  41. October 13, 2009 6:20 pm

    novaseeker: If you’re happy and you know it and if you really wanna show it, GSS!

    You men are just great, anyway, apparently. Resilient chaps.

    Well, that’s the data.

    We can question the data, maybe.

    But what it says is that men as a faceless average are happier.

    My crazy theory: Videogames, porn and sexual freedom are very effective as a combination for men as antidotes to any losses. And they’ve always shown the least satisfaction in family life. (Data also available via the GSS, above.)

    Women, heh, not so much effective alternatives!

    Oh, well. ‘Tis just like a woman to shoot herself in the foot once she wrests the gun from a man.

  42. October 13, 2009 6:23 pm

    Videogames, porn and sexual freedom

    Yes, these are just outward manifestations of a larger paradigmatic shift. There has to be a template for the phenomenon to develop.

  43. novaseeker permalink
    October 13, 2009 6:35 pm

    The underlying template is likely that men, on average, are more comfortable than women are, on average, with a less communitarian, more individual-driven lifestyle.

  44. October 13, 2009 6:52 pm

    Sing it Sophia.

    I had this whole rant about the presumption that women in previous generations must have been happier because of their more traditional role. But you already covered that by pointing out context and other shifts.

    novaseeker, I understand and see your point; I don’t know what path y’all will carve or how much I’ll be glad you did but that makes sense and stands in counterpoint to obsidian’s condescending “LOL! I like your spunk!” and “refusal to broaden your horizons”. (where have we ever seen that Sophia is the one to refuse to broaden her horizons?)

    Bhetti, I also like and agree with your original post. Good advice, and i wish I had been reading it when I was running around irritated because even the prom king was so average.

  45. October 13, 2009 7:22 pm

    The underlying template is likely that men, on average, are more comfortable than women are, on average, with a less communitarian, more individual-driven lifestyle.

    Yes, it’s true, but there’s further deconstruction that needs to be done. Weber had some interesting insights on well, “The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism.” Still, there are some flaws in the argument that perhaps Marxist theory could explain. Furthermore, Hegel’s interpretation.

  46. novaseeker permalink
    October 13, 2009 7:28 pm

    Perhaps, but I’ve always been rather skeptical of the outcomes of the Hegelian dialectic (in its essence it’s harmless enough, yet in many ways its conclusions seem subject to the same “just so” critique that many today apply to evo-psych, simply in a different context) and its Marxist offspring. I’m not very convinced that history is the tale of opposing forces and the synthesis their opposition produces — it is one way of interpreting events, but only one of many, it seems to me. Weber’s work is quite right, generally, yet I am not sure how it directly impacts why women may find the current environment less satisfying than men do — but I have not actually read Weber in many years now.

  47. Doug1 permalink
    October 13, 2009 7:45 pm

    Excellent post Bhetti. One of the best here so far I think. It’s also attracted one of the best commenting threads.

    Ah yes thresholds.

    You’re applying it differently in interesting ways than I have on the male side though. I’ve said men do use thresholds. You’re saying wise girls should use thresholds for their forevaeva. (And, interestingly, that not doing so while slutting up before supposed forevaeva choice, makes it harder to do so for LTR, and thus harder to actually be happy LTR. Interesting synthesis of Roissyworld man speak about sluts from a girl’s different point of view.)

    In part I think the diff arises because girls are endlessly told to just go with their gut about all things love or sexual attraction related. Whereas men are endlessly told not to, especially when it comes to an existing relationship, but pretty much across the board. Men are told to work to be attracted (even if they aren’t “initially, due to programming” not feeling it) to women who are : i) obnoxiously assertive and acting like a man (“strong”); ii) not so good looking (not superficial or a “Barbie”); and iii) obnoxious ideological leftists and feminists (“smart”). With women their true gut feelings are the lodestone of love; with men their true gut feelings only prove that “all men are dogs”. In feminist culture.

  48. Doug1 permalink
    October 13, 2009 8:00 pm

    LILGRL–

    But yeah, I think that when we talk about dangerous guys being sexually attractive, that’s because they are — sexually attractive. They might be terrible in bed, but there’s still that stupid hindbrain attraction to the dangerous bad-boy. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual sex, but what we perceive as sexually desirable (before we ever get into bed with them). It’s just easy to explain in terms of sex, because it is “sexual” attraction.

    Interesting observation. True of course. Though you’re describing an extreme pole of “sexually dominant but doesn’t give a shiite” asshole alpha attraction. Most of the time alpha’s in that direction do drive the girl crazy in bed, and not just the first or tenth time either. Or anyway the not so dumb ones do because they figure that’s what works best for them if they like her enough to want repeats, anyway.

    Ok, now I’d like to float something.

    I’ve had this insight fairly recently, and this thread gives me a bare excuse to surface it, that I’ve NEVER seen in type anywhere or heard either for that matter. It’s this:

    The reason the female clit is not inside the vagina is to give certain kids of beta males a competitive chance. The attentive, “good dad” kinds, not the all around loser kinds, who should really be called omegas, or lesser betas, etc.

    Doesn’t the distance of the clit, i.e. that locus of most (though not all) of a woman’s nerve endings that respond to sexual stimulation, quite a ways outside of where the cock meets the c*nt, suggest that evolution working on homo sapiens was trying to do something to advantage the attentive vs. the doesn’t give a shiite super dom male, in some respects sometimes? Something primal that is?

    Now if I was an academic I’d hold this back until I’d hinted about it in grant proposals, spent two years and a lot of resources and Uni hiring investing the idea, and then written it up in some evo psych etc. journal.

  49. October 13, 2009 8:09 pm

    Thank you, sir Doug the first. I like your summarisation here:

    You’re saying wise girls should use thresholds for their forevaeva. And, interestingly, that not doing so while slutting up before supposed forevaeva choice, makes it harder to do so for LTR, and thus harder to actually be happy LTR.

    i) obnoxiously assertive and acting like a man (”strong”); ii) not so good looking (not superficial or a “Barbie”); and iii) obnoxious ideological leftists and feminists (”smart”)

    We have a new joke. What do you call a woman who’s i, ii and iii?

  50. October 13, 2009 9:36 pm

    The reason the female clit is not inside the vagina is to give certain kids of beta males a competitive chance.

    Bhetti, feel free to chime in with your vast medical knowledge here. ;)

    A woman’s anatomy (owing to her neurological hormonal profiles prenatally and in puberty) is responsible for her ease or difficulty in achieving the so-called “vaginal” orgasm via sex. This is partially genetic and partially environmental. This also has a direct impact on her sexual behavior as well as her mate selection process.

    Freud’s theory, that the only legitimate orgasm was the vaginal orgasm, or the “mature orgasm,” is ridiculous. Note that this does not discount psychological factors in orgasmic ability but specifies the physiological roots. Clitoral tissue is responsible for all female orgasms, whether it is directly reached or stimulated indirectly through vaginal penetration.

    “Recent discoveries about the size of the clitoris show that clitoral tissue extends some considerable distance inside the body, around the vagina. This discovery may possibly invalidate any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145367?dopt=Abstract

    Women can surely experience great psychological arousal sans physical stimulation, just as men can. But imagine even a very aroused man trying to reach orgasm via scrotal or anal stimulation alone — it might be possible for a small percentage of men, but for most men penile stimulation (the same prenatal tissue that makes up the clitoris) is required.

    suggest that evolution working on homo sapiens was trying to do something to advantage the attentive vs. the doesn’t give a shiite super dom male, in some respects sometimes?

    Oxytocin-style pair bonding behavior has been observed in humans. Monogamy does have biological roots. Sensationalist-style evolutionary psychology focuses on r-selection, but K-selection is another important and powerful drive in many if not most human cultures.

    The following is relevant to those who wish to have harmonious, loving long-term relationships. It is good news that such relationships can be made, not born of some intrinsic quality.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200909/the-lazy-way-stay-in-love

  51. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 13, 2009 11:18 pm

    Hope:

    Clitoral tissue is responsible for all female orgasms, whether it is directly reached or stimulated indirectly through vaginal penetration.

    Many women are known to reach orgasm through nipple stimulation alone.

    You were saying?

    I’ve even read of women who can “think themselves to orgasm.”

    I think you are vastly underestimating the power of the mind in this regard.

    Also, some women are just more sensual. Their whole body can be an erogenous zone.

    The power of the mind — perception — has a lot to do with a woman’s sexual response and release. And the type of man perceived makes a big difference.

  52. October 13, 2009 11:55 pm

    Many women are known to reach orgasm through nipple stimulation alone.

    You were saying?

    I think that’s where an imprecise definition of an orgasm comes in. I know exactly what women are talking about when they say they can reach “orgasm” just “thinking” about it. That feeling is even more elusive than the orgasm itself. A plain ol’ orgasm can be reliably reached via clitoral tissue stimulation. That other thing is different.

    It can often feel better and even more intense than an orgasm, involving uterine and involuntary contractions. Utter lack of control on the part of female, a feeling of basically falling through air, grasping for breath. Completely ecstatic. I’m not sure if there is a male equivalent at all. The only time I’ve ever been able to feel that was for a man I’m in love with or have an insane crush on. Let’s not mistake that for the clinical definition of a male/female orgasm though.

  53. October 13, 2009 11:55 pm

    Tupac,

    It’s true. When I was at my most sexually frustrated, if I spent a long time dwelling on my well, sexual frustration, sometimes I would touch my arm and it would feel highly stimulating. Then I would begin to rub my arm and the sensation would feel well, as sensitive as it would on other parts of my body. This just through half hour of fantasizing.

  54. aoefe permalink
    October 14, 2009 12:01 am

    I heard of a girl whose boyfriend taught her to orgasm on demand by counting backwards from 10. I’d hate to see her at a rocket launch huh.

  55. Arawn permalink
    October 14, 2009 5:16 am

    Bhetti: “I can’t comment on the contrast between the nature of sexual attraction in initial infatuation and flame ups with confidence but intuitively I believe you. What I would say is that it seems to me there should be a reasonable baseline of sexual attraction to begin with (in some cases, we don’t allow ourselves to be aware of it or its potential) that flames up depending on how things progress and how he’s acting towards you.”

    Yes, I agree with you here. But, then again, this attraction may not be visible at the first time you meet a new person. I’ve met lots of men of whom I didn’t think basically anything more that they are just ok, but after few encounters I started to think thay hey, that guy is actually quite hansom and hot… and nice, and charming, and funny and I could – but here I’ll have to stop since I’m living in a steady relationships. :)

    Anyway, I think that people really don’t give enough chances for attraction to grow. They expect that it should hit like a lightning, instantly. That is rather sad because it limits peoples choices quite radically.

    Hope: “I am deeply monogamous when in love. This is a situation where I shall gladly be the outlier. I hope I can be among the 10% of couples who are still passionately in love with the passing of years.”

    Yeah, I hope this too… For time being it looks quite promising but we shall see. :) Alhough I admit I’m not maybe so complitely monogamous, at least not in my mind.

    Novaseeker: What men need to do is not wish for a ne’er-to-come return to the past, but simply take the present into their own hands and use the freedom the world permits today to carve out our own destinies. Men need to walk away from traditional male roles — not by taking up traditional female roles (unless the men concerned truly wish to do so, and not in response to being cowed by the women in their lives or shamed by social expectations which yet again seek to hem in male behaviors and channel us), but by simply doing what we want, how we want, and defining our masculinity that way.

    I think these are truly great words.

  56. Obsidian permalink
    October 14, 2009 7:33 am

    Sofia,
    Replies below:

    O: All I’m saying is that given female nature, coupled with the Four Sirens

    S: What Four Sirens? Enlighten me.

    O: My pleasure-please Google the phrase along with Roissy’s name. He can explain it much better than I can-oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to get his thoughts on the matter. I suspect he may agree with my position over yours.

    Just sayin.

    O: the chances for Women enmasse finding happiness isn’t very high-and already there are reports and articles to that effect.

    S: Contrary to my direct personal experience, those of my family and friends, and anecdotal evidence that all serves to support the opposite.

    O: Interesting that you would rest on something so…unscientific. Hmm.

    S: Reports and articles? Wow, how scientific. I didn’t know we could quantify happiness! Have you ever thought even if there was a general trend of unhappiness (however the heck that’s measured) it could do with a whole host of OTHER factors? There was an Industrial Revolution that occurred in the late 18th century. I wonder if capitalism and liberalism may perhaps be linked. HMM.

    O: Oh dear. Listen Sofia, the evidence is out there is you want it-earlier this year Ferdinand Bardamu and Marky Mark took up yet another major article written by an unhappy Woman, Anna Pasternak I think her name was. Then there’s the article written by Satoshi Kanazawa on the matter. And, of course, there’s the biggest confirmation-using one’s eyes and taking a page outta Yogi Berra’s book.

    As for the notion that “only” that which can be measured with calipers has any merit or relevance in the world, I thought you were smarter than that. If what you say above is the case, then the Arts really have no meaning to human beings, nor does Religion-at least, that’s how the “quants” would like it to be.

    But alas, much to their chagrin, if anything, its the other way around. The arts and religion informs our understanding of the Human Condition in ways that science is still playing catchup on.

    For example, Ferdi recently reviewed the Victorian classic Madame Bovary. It, along w/other noted literary works of the period, gives us at least as much understanding of Female Human Nature as any “quant” study, and for my money-and I think I speak for quite a few others here and elsewhere-a great deal moreso.

    So, we can kindly kill the noise w/regard to “science” here. One does not need to be Newton to see what it is I’m saying.

    O: In so doing, you run the real risk of hurting yourself in ways not yet seen by you in the longrun.

    S: So, then why would you take personal issue with this if it’s hurting myself ? People tend to take issue with things when it affects them .

    O: Who said I DID take “personal issue”, Sofia? Methink the lady doth focus on herself a bit much. I was simply speaking on the issues as you presented them, which, last time I heard, wasn’t against the law to do.

    S: Anyway, no hard feelings, but – and I’m saying this to everybody – don’t mistake baseless conjecture and assertion for fact.

    O: None taken, and one good turn deserves another:

    No investigation, no right to speak.;)

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  57. Obsidian permalink
    October 14, 2009 7:58 am

    Al,
    You asked out loud:
    “stands in counterpoint to obsidian’s condescending “LOL! I like your spunk!” and “refusal to broaden your horizons”. (where have we ever seen that Sophia is the one to refuse to broaden her horizons?)”

    O: My remark was in direct response to comments made by Sofia, in part based on her very narrow (but very common-for young Women) “list”, as well as her views on Black Men, which I recently spoke about originally at In Mala Fide and reposted said commentary here in this forum. I maintain that Sofia is limiting herself unnecessarily, and that it could prove harmful to her in the future.

    But again, I applaud her right, and any other Woman, to do as they wish. Ignorance is Bliss indeed.

    Also, I’d just like to address something else Sofia aimed in my direction…

    The idea that I, and/or other Men are in effect, crying in our beer, lamenting the times and pining away for the good ole days is, for me, ridiculous. My track record shows that if anyone is concerned with Men taking personal responsibility for the trajectory and ultimate outcome of their lives, its ME. I refuse to coddle grownassed, able bodied Men who can and should be doing better in arguably the one area of their lives that really matters, and that’s with Women. And, more than anyone else here, Male or Female, I understand, in spades, just how brutally unfair and unforgiving life can be for a guy. Yet no one can or will ever hear me wallowing in my sorrows. The simple evolutionary truth is, that no one will shed too many tears if a Man fails to make it. Women, on the other hand, have and do to this day, assistance, sympathy and support, from Men and Women both. Rightly or wrongly, them’s the facts, and it does no Man any good to shake his fist at it, any more than it did Don Quixote any good to go tilting at windmills.

    This is why I am such a big advocate of Game, because its really just about the only real, practical solution a Man has in our time of living some sembalance of a happy life. And to do Game well, you have to be willing to work on yourself.

    Just wanted to clear the air a bit.

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  58. October 14, 2009 8:06 am

    Bhetti, feel free to chime in with your vast medical knowledge here. ;)

    Here is my vast non-medical knowledge on teh matter, as I understand the origin of these anatimical and physiological phenomena:

    The little button of pleasure (gotta use euphemisms on this computer) is a vestigial male organ, from early-stage fotal development, before the baby took on male or female direction in development.

    While the elusive internal zone of explosive joy in a woman is a proto-prostate.

    Thus, the big O’s in a woman are almost an accidental phenomenon, not some evolutionary adaptation… sort of like men’s nipples. Is the above speculation, taken from general knowledge on these things, correct?

    Bhetti –
    Let me just make it clear before saying anything that a medical background makes me an expert on disease and that is where the focus is by both me and medical schools. I may state something that is inaccurate, not being a specialist here or having studied it in any depth except for my own reading. Alright, now that’s done with.

    Adaptation is a strange thing. The human body is efficient: it makes slight modifications which make big differences. The same component or building block serves multiple purposes. Once an extra purpose becomes accidentally served for but this ‘accident’ is advantageous, this component is selected for in concert with others i.e. if the women having clitoral orgasms versus the ones who do not achieve successful reproduction long-term more often, then it makes sense that there will simply be more women having orgasms that favour that approach and this adaptation or extra sensitivity will be passed on to both males/females. It in fact makes little sense for a male to receive pleasure from his prostate but it does for a female, as it’s related to stimulation vaginally. Yet, they both do. The question then for all this is: has it been going on long enough for adaptation to occur and for it to be selected for?

  59. aoefe permalink
    October 14, 2009 9:10 am

    O: you might want to get his [Roissy] thoughts on the matter. I suspect he may agree with my position over yours

    Why do you think think that Roissy’s view will alter Sofia’s? Or better question why do you need Roissy to back YOU up?

    S: Contrary to my direct personal experience, those of my family and friends, and anecdotal evidence that all serves to support the opposite.

    O: Interesting that you would rest on something so…unscientific. Hmm.

    This is an important quote for the discussion that occurs later in the O/S discussin O posted.

    O goes on to say:

    And, of course, there’s the biggest confirmation-using one’s eyes and taking a page outta Yogi Berra’s book.

    As for the notion that “only” that which can be measured with calipers has any merit or relevance in the world, I thought you were smarter than that.

    Obsidian I admit I might be confused but aren’t you chiding Sofia above for relying on her “sight” with her family, friends and other anecdotal experiences? And then you turn around and give her heck for being scientific?

    Just sayin

    The aoefe ;)

  60. Obsidian permalink
    October 14, 2009 10:35 am

    Aoefe,
    Replies below:

    O: O: you might want to get his [Roissy] thoughts on the matter. I suspect he may agree with my position over yours

    A: Why do you think think that Roissy’s view will alter Sofia’s? Or better question why do you need Roissy to back YOU up?

    O: Whether Roissy’s or anyone else’s views will or won’t alter Sofia’s are irrelevant; my only point was to answer her question for information and to note that I wasn’t alone in my view.

    S: Contrary to my direct personal experience, those of my family and friends, and anecdotal evidence that all serves to support the opposite.

    O: Interesting that you would rest on something so…unscientific. Hmm.

    A: This is an important quote for the discussion that occurs later in the O/S discussin O posted.

    O goes on to say:

    And, of course, there’s the biggest confirmation-using one’s eyes and taking a page outta Yogi Berra’s book.

    As for the notion that “only” that which can be measured with calipers has any merit or relevance in the world, I thought you were smarter than that.

    Obsidian I admit I might be confused but aren’t you chiding Sofia above for relying on her “sight” with her family, friends and other anecdotal experiences? And then you turn around and give her heck for being scientific?

    Just sayin

    The aoefe ;)

    O: No problemo: I was merely responding to Sofia’s notion that in order for something to be true it had to be “scientific”, while noting that in fact, SHE was the one who was doing something decidedly UNscientific, in answering a comment I had made. Please review the discussion post in its entirety, you’ll see what I mean.

    Now then – do you agree or disagree, with my points wrt the relevancy of the Arts and Religion to inform us about the Human Condition at least as well as, if not better than, Science? And if so/not, why?

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  61. October 14, 2009 11:28 am

    if the women having clitoral orgasms versus the ones who do not achieve successful reproduction long-term more often, then it makes sense that there will simply be more women having orgasms that favour that approach and this adaptation or extra sensitivity will be passed on to both males/females.

    In my estimation — and this is merely conjecture based on my own informal reading and thinking — humans have a myriad of adaptions that do not seem to make immediate individual evolutionary sense, for instance self-sacrifice for one’s group, but when viewed as a collective “gene group” they begin to be more adaptive.

    Humans have usually lived in families and tribes rather than strictly mother-father-children nuclear family units. A gene that codes for “caring” for one’s relatives makes that family unit much stronger than the next one, where each individual is more selfish and does not want to share food and resources with others. Since these familial groups tend to have genetic similarities, higher empathy and mirror neurons in a more successful group would then pass onward.

    Human reproduction does not require female orgasms, this is a fact. However, it is also a fact that back in the days prior to modern sanitary conditions, females may have had a lot more reproductive tract issues such as infections, pains, etc. As women are only fertile for a short window of time during the cycle, and men tend to want to have sex as much as possible, a more monogamous relationship would require that the men and women more or less match up in sexual desire.

    One study shows that women who have sex with most symmetrical men orgasm 75% of the time, while with the least symmetrical men they had orgasms only 30% of the time during intercourse. “Furthermore, the most symmetrical men were more likely to ejaculate at the same time that their female partner was orgasming.”

    In another, 70% of college students deemed an instructor physically attractive when he acted in a friendly manner, while only 30% found him physically attractive when he was cold and distant. Quantitative proof against asshole game?

    Female orgasms therefore serve multiple functions:

    1) Cues women may subconsciously use to select optimal father genes, as more symmetrical men have an easier time making women orgasm, and more attentive and caring men want her to orgasm, a proxy for his increased dad qualities and higher chances of staying around after childbirth. As others have pointed out, “betas” can be good looking and highly symmetrical.

    2) Make women more receptive to the activity of sex due to the pleasure factor. Women bleed for a week each month already, and the time before/after this may be unpleasant for them to participate in sexual activity, particularly in primitive conditions sans regular bathing and cleanliness. Those who were non-orgasmic would have been selected against as they would not have the extra motivation to engage in sexual activities.

    3) Facilitate pair-bonding due to release of oxytocin as well as increasing other positive feelings between partners who are empathic towards each other (feeling pleased by another person’s pleasure as well as compassion, kindness, and loving feelings).

    P.S. @Tupac I’ve even read of women who can “think themselves to orgasm.”

    Who’s the one presenting the audience with outliers now? :P

  62. aoefe permalink
    October 14, 2009 11:28 am

    Now then – do you agree or disagree, with my points wrt the relevancy of the Arts and Religion to inform us about the Human Condition at least as well as, if not better than, Science? And if so/not, why

    Yes I agree with your points – I’m sure most reasoned people would. In all things we require balance. If we were to take our information from only one source (i.e. science) we’d miss much. Not to mention science isn’t an exact science.

    Personally I think if we can achieve balance in spiritual, emotional, mental and physical areas we’re better off. In order to obtain balance in these areas we need to be open to learning from all four positions. There would be a mental imbalance (no pun intended) if we concentrated on book learning/science only.

  63. aoefe permalink
    October 14, 2009 11:31 am

    P.S. @Tupac I’ve even read of women who can “think themselves to orgasm.”

    Who’s the one presenting the audience with outliers now? :P

    ZING!!!!

  64. Doug1 permalink
    October 14, 2009 11:54 am

    Bhetti–

    Adaptation is a strange thing. The human body is efficient: it makes slight modifications which make big differences. The same component or building block serves multiple purposes. Once an extra purpose becomes accidentally served for but this ‘accident’ is advantageous, this component is selected for in concert with others i.e. if the women having clitoral orgasms versus the ones who do not achieve successful reproduction long-term more often, then it makes sense that there will simply be more women having orgasms that favour that approach and this adaptation or extra sensitivity will be passed on to both males/females. … The question then for all this is: has it been going on long enough for adaptation to occur and for it to be selected for?

    The answer to your last question is almost certainly yes.

    I think it’s still generally taught in schools or really more just taken for granted that human evolution in most important respects ended some 100k or anyway 50k years ago. (For obviously ideological reasons people talking to general audiences have generally wanted to set the fuzzy date for this before the major geographic races more or less separated. That last is NOT want I want to get into here.)

    However there’s now a mountain of evidence that there’s been LOTS of recent evolution. In fact there is evidence that there’s been LOTS more selected for mutations in the last 10k years than in the previous 50k years. Lots of that is disease defenses related but by no means all of it. In fact there’s now mountains of evidence that only a few thousand years are needed to fix a trait and in some cases even a few hundred or so years will sometimes do.

    See Cochran and Harpendig’s intellectual blockbuster: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution.” One can get the gist from it:
    http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/01/a_week_with_gre.html#005817

    One thing people were typically misinformed about in school biology clases is the role that mutations play and now they only come about gradually. There’s truth to that but also a whole lot that’s misleading about that. One of the reasons there’s so much natural diversity in sexually reproducing species, certainly including humans, is so that there’s already at any moment in time a rich pallet of things in the population for natural selection to work upon.

    For instance lactose tolerance is far more prevalent in Europe and some, cattle raising parts of north eastern Africa than it is in Western Africa or especially East Asia (and many other parts of the world). Here we’ve quite clearly got a human cultural adaptation – raising cattle and having milk, cheeses and other dairy products available – creating genetic changes fixed genetically at a very high level in the population. In Denmark IIRC something like 95% of the native population is lactose tolerant. A majority are in Italy as well I believe, but a much lower majority. The lactose tolerance of the Nuer and the Masai of E. Africa is apparently mediated by different genes. I.e. it seems to have arisen independently in Europeans and some (cattle raising) east Africans, rather than due to common recent ancestors.

  65. Doug1 permalink
    October 14, 2009 11:59 am

    The takeaway from the above is that when a trait exists in a population at all, only a few thousand years, and in some cases when there’s strong selective pressure, a few hundred is enough time to take a trait from present in small or even trace amounts to fixed in a very large percentage of a population. That’s why there’s human bio diversity in the first place.

    Because something can happen doesn’t mean it has of course.

  66. October 14, 2009 6:54 pm

    I would say — pointing at the various way women’s sexual drive works (really liking Cless’s k-selective and r-selective as terminology:http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/two-sex-drives/) — that there must’ve been quite considerable movement towards k-selective.

  67. October 14, 2009 11:00 pm

    Mu Sistahs, particularly those with a bit of college behind them, will defiantly proclaim “I refuse to settle!”, or, “I can do bad all by myself”, and other such stiff upper lip declarations.

    Uncle Mu, either you don’t understand what that term means when it’s uttered by sisters or you’re purposely simplifying the meaning.

    I can do bad all by myself is most often used when a woman finds herself in a relationship with a man who is lazy, has children with many woman, abusive and/or likes to live off of a woman etc. It is not(typically) used as a slur against a man who makes 40k versus his girlfriend’s 80k

    mu Ladies only have a finite amount of reproductive resources, both in terms of absolute numbers (eggs) and shelf life (age is a detriment to healthy eggs and ability to give birth safely)
    Then this^^^ is all the more reason for a woman to be conservative about who she chooses to lay down with. You are forgetting that many women don’t want children and of those who do, many only want to have one child.

    mu Everytime she lays down, she risks getting up w/an “L” on the scoresheet.
    Well they say that 80% of men don’t have a clue so you could be on to something.

    mu The truth of the matter is, that even w/ solid saturation of Game and all the Natural Alphas available, there ain’t enough of us to go around-Women will simply have to settle if they want any chance at a happy life.

    What is a happy life? Please explain.

    mu No longer guided by the Wise Women of yore, Today’s Women have an extremely skewed view of life that sets them up for a tremendous degree of heartbreak, sadness, loneliness and eventually, bitterness
    I have 90 year old great-grandmother and other female relatives in that age bracket. They can you that they weren’t always happy. NO human beings is always happy.

  68. October 14, 2009 11:09 pm

    Bhetti You must accept that your sexuality is a dark place, and that you need a lot of drama to attain your best orgasms (or perhaps orgasm at all). This means that the man you are most sexually attracted to will, by the very nature of your sexuality, very possibly completely destroy you psychologically. Settling is true in more than one word: the man you are most sexually attracted to will not settle down.

    Bhetti MD I disagree. This is complete and utter hogwash. I know plenty of women who would argue that’s it more about skill and how comfortable the woman feels with her partner. Why would any woman need unnecessary drama to heighten her attraction to a man. Maybe this is where that comment about being turned on by a slap across the face comes from.
    *shudders*
    There are plenty of men who give you drama and 30 seconds max in the sack.
    Look after your looks: healthy diet, exercise, cosmetics, botox and even cosmetic surgery. Look after your dynamics and conversation: no, no, no nagging.

    Yes it’s important to keep up your looks but do know that you can do all of this and a man will still desire new flesh. Even new flesh that is less pleasant to look at than your own.

    BTW, stay away from the botox, for the average woman, it ain’t that serious.

  69. October 14, 2009 11:10 pm

    Mu Sistahs, particularly those with a bit of college behind them, will defiantly proclaim “I refuse to settle!”, or, “I can do bad all by myself”, and other such stiff upper lip declarations.

    Uncle Mu, either you don’t understand what that term means when it’s uttered by sisters or you’re purposely simplifying the meaning.

    I can do bad all by myself is most often used when a woman finds herself in a relationship with a man who is lazy, has children with many woman, abusive and/or likes to live off of a woman etc. It is not(typically) used as a slur against a man who makes 40k versus his girlfriend’s 80k

    Ladies only have a finite amount of reproductive resources, both in terms of absolute numbers (eggs) and shelf life (age is a detriment to healthy eggs and ability to give birth safely)
    Then this^^^ is all the more reason for a woman to be conservative about who she chooses to lay down with. You are forgetting that many women don’t want children and of those who do, many only want to have one child.

    Everytime she lays down, she risks getting up w/an “L” on the scoresheet.
    Well they say that 80% of men don’t have a clue so you could be on to something.

    The truth of the matter is, that even w/ solid saturation of Game and all the Natural Alphas available, there ain’t enough of us to go around-Women will simply have to settle if they want any chance at a happy life.

    What is a happy life? Please explain.

    No longer guided by the Wise Women of yore, Today’s Women have an extremely skewed view of life that sets them up for a tremendous degree of heartbreak, sadness, loneliness and eventually, bitterness

    I have 90 year old great-grandmother and other female relatives in that age bracket. They can you that they weren’t always happy. NO human beings is always happy.

  70. October 14, 2009 11:15 pm

    the man who lost clio Are you familiar with the phenomenon of vaginal orgasms?

    Lisa Most women don’t have them. It feels good, but anatomy is anatomy. To tell a man that thrusting “should be enough” is a disservice to him and his partner, who will probably fake it under such an expectation.

    Girl you after my heart.
    *gives lisa a friendly hug*

    TUpac, how many times do I have to explain how important a talented licker is for most women.

  71. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 14, 2009 11:23 pm

    Me and my boy picking up Chic Noir and her crew:

  72. October 15, 2009 12:10 am

    1.your friend’s dirty mouth would be an instant turnoff.

    2.The two of you are far to thugged out for my taste.

    3. How can I date a adult blk man who styles his hair like 4 year old shirley temple.

  73. October 15, 2009 5:18 am

    chicquita: is botox harmful? I have seen cases where it didn’t work so well but none causing harm. (Alcohol, smoking and obesity on the other hand, cause most of hospital admissions/chronic cases combined.) It depends on your skin type as to how bad the wrinkles are. However, you should only spend on it it can be afforded.

    It looks like we’re using different definitions of drama. I’m certainly not talking about violence, there. I’m talking about women who are addicted to feeling intense emotion and even actively seek it — its quite clear in their behaviour — because it heightens the sexual experience for them. I’ve seen it happen toned down and in extremes. It’s part of the reason some women like creating dramas out of nothing if their partner doesn’t provide it for them.

    Being attracted to your partner is very important, chicquita. I was once licked by someone I wasn’t attracted to enough and even though there was a strong physical reaction and I was usually ‘comfortable’ enough with him, I had to pull him off me because it wasn’t enjoyable at all and hell on my mind: I didn’t want him to do it.

    So what I am saying is that being attracted to him is more important than skill. I would say most women need the hormonal activation — to feel the lust — before any pleasure can be had.

    Step 1: LUST — Oh, I want him to touch me! Oh, I want to touch him!
    Step 2: TOUCH — Reaction to TOUCH depends on level of LUST. Level of skill capitalises i.e. builds on level of LUST.

    So once the level of LUST is high, you should be in the mode where you would be very thankful and get a lot of pleasure no matter where he touched you and even if you were simply allowed to touch him. Once the level of lust is high (which is more important, the Step 1, an essential precondition before you can enjoy him): A man who cares for you would probably enjoy the absolute level of abandon it would give to inspire higher heights and heights of pleasure for you with the repertoire of skills available to him and that he will build on.

    The argument between you and tupac is essentially a step 1 versus step 2 when both are very much desirable. I do believe step 1 is where everyone needs to start and where the maximum importance lies.

  74. gunslingergregi permalink
    October 15, 2009 11:03 am

    ”””””’This bemoaning, whiny, pathetic tone comes across way too often with the men of Roissy and quite frankly it reeks of betatude and loserdom. Wow, I wonder what it could possibly say when a man despises female sexual selective advantage.

    I’m happy I don’t have to endure what women did 100 years ago. So, I’m sorry that I can pursue the route of love and finding someone who truly satisfies me.

    Every generation has this pack of losers that wants to return to the way things were. Sorry if it seems harsh, but it’s true. I sympathize with your qualms with feminism considering it’s an unfounded, inchoate, and incohesive “philosophy”, but FFS, you can repeal legislation and history has a way of self-correction. Get with the program.
    ””””””’

    Interesting except for the fact that it is fake equality not brought about by woman but enforced by men recieving a paycheck and an illusion of choice. Other than that rock on with your bad strong self.

  75. gunslingergregi permalink
    October 15, 2009 11:15 am

    Or guys need to get their sons ready for the new paradigm just go ahead and impregate them all no worries get your first automatic bill out of the way.

  76. October 17, 2009 5:24 pm

    chicquita is botox harmful? I have seen cases where it didn’t work so well but none causing harm

    Yes it’s very harmful if not “treated” or mixed properly. It can cause paralysis. We’ve had a few people become paralysed by the stuff because the doctor didn’t properly fix the botox before injecting it. Don’t forget that botox is one of the most powerful toxins on the face of the earth.

    I’m talking about women who are addicted to feeling intense emotion and even actively seek it — its quite clear in their behavior — because it heightens the sexual experience for them. I’ve seen it happen toned down and in extremes. It’s part of the reason some women like creating dramas out of nothing if their partner doesn’t provide it for them.

    AH now I understand you. I don’t like drama and try to avoid it as much as possible. I guess men should pay attention to the type of woman they have and adjust their personality accordingly.

    Being attracted to your partner is very important, chicquita
    Who you telling. You know how many times I’ve had this argument at the château. Of course I agree ^^^with this statement.

    I was once licked by someone I wasn’t attracted to
    *DEAD FAINT*
    My girl
    *chic noir Colgate smile*
    *gives Bhetti MD a high five*
    *runs to shut the door so doug can’t hear all the details*

    even though there was a strong physical reaction

    That’s good technique for you. Had it been a guy you were attracted to but had lousy techique you may not have had the strong physical reaction.

    So what I am saying is that being attracted to him is more important than skill

    I think it’s a combination of skill, attraction, and comfort. You can be attracted to a guy with good skill but not feel comfortable around him. Lack of comfort will impede any sort of deep enjoyment for myself.

    Bhetti are you a woman who is big on drama?

  77. Doug1 permalink
    October 17, 2009 6:07 pm

    chic noir

    *gives Bhetti MD a high five*
    *runs to shut the door so doug can’t hear all the details*

    You think I haven’t chic?

    As well why would you “high five” a bad sexual experience, even a bad quite limited and ultimately rejected sort of one?

    It put her completely off both sex and men who acted in any way sexual or interested, for some time. Angry even. Confused her about love, sex and men. Especially since she felt guilty about letting anything at all happen to begin with, and then … awful.

    Deeply confused her because she couldn’t consciously admit she wasn’t attracted enough, because he was a “nice guy” who was doing the right things with his life and had been courting her for a long time, and in the end another (slutty) girl had competed for him. Made her think maybe romance just wasn’t for her in fact, despite loving romance novels. Was part of what lead her to hang around Roissy’s after stumbling upon the site.

  78. October 17, 2009 6:17 pm

    doug You think I haven’t chic?
    It was a joke.

    As well why would you “high five” a bad sexual experience
    calm down
    , even a bad quite limited and ultimately rejected sort of one?

    I’m not bhetti so I can’t really speak for her. But it seems like she had a strong reaction so that sounds good to me.

    The guy didn’t give her enough drama so that was her beef with him.

    GEEZ doug.

    Deeply confused her because she couldn’t consciously admit she wasn’t attracted enough, because he was a “nice guy” who was doing the right things with his life and had been courting her for a long time

    I think you’re overplaying this. You make Bhetti’s story sound like somthing on Oprah or maybe a Lifetime movie. Her experience wasn’t that bad. Most women question themselves about love,sex and men somewhere along the line. Shit happens and life ain’t always pretty.

    The End!

  79. Doug1 permalink
    October 17, 2009 6:44 pm

    Chic Noir

    I think you’re overplaying this. You make Bhetti’s story sound like somthing on Oprah or maybe a Lifetime movie. Her experience wasn’t that bad.

    How the hell would you know?

    The gall of you to think that you know better about how this effected Bhetti than I do is quite astounding. As is your cultural insensitivity / ignorance. No I think amusing is a better word. We’ve talked about it extensively.

  80. October 17, 2009 6:53 pm

    The gall of you to think that you know better about how this effected Bhetti than I do is quite astounding.
    Where did I say that ???

    As is your cultural insensitivity / ignorance.
    Please expalin my cultural insensitivity??? and this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle blk.

    No I think amusing is a better word. We’ve talked about it extensively.

    We have???

  81. Doug1 permalink
    October 18, 2009 11:19 am

    We’ve talked about it extensively. = Bhetti and I have, obviously.

  82. October 18, 2009 4:05 pm

    Doug1
    We’ve talked about it extensively. = Bhetti and I have, obviously.

    Oh OK. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. I love the romance that you and bhetti have. Remember, I was the one who white knighted you during yumgate over at the chateau.

  83. October 18, 2009 7:00 pm

    I have neither time nor energy to expand at the moment but just to settle this: I hated it. I hope it wasn’t good technique because it hurt so either something was wrong with the technique or something’s wrong with me. My body reacting was probably the reason why he ignored me when I was trying to stop him with ‘it hurts’ and pulling him off without injuring him hugely. The boy gave me plenty of schizophrenic (as in voices in his head) drama. We can even include this instance where he gave an emotive ‘sorry’ just before doing it to acknowledge it was something he knew I didn’t want.

    Well, I blame myself for getting myself into the situation.

    I hated his drama. Retrospectively, it’s hard to believe he didn’t deliberately try to mess around with me and my emotions to get what he wants, with what he wanted being something he wasn’t honest about. I am glad to be rid of him, which I did fairly quickly after one drama-fest of his too many. I clearly wasn’t in line with his agenda and he wasn’t in line with mine.

    As to the permanent harmful effects from this incident, I can’t tell. Specifically with it: I’m very reluctant at the idea of a repeat, but would give it a try with someone I was with and actually really attracted to who wanted to do it. In the general context of it happening, it shouldn’t have.

    So, thanks for the puzzling high five but it’s really not appropriate.

    And I really don’t want to talk about it further as have said too much and trying to move on from that memory.

  84. Doug1 permalink
    October 19, 2009 10:02 pm

    @Bhetti–

    There was lots wrong with his technique as we’ve further discussed since this comment of yours. Hadn’t know about the physical pain of sorts before. I’ll leave it at that here.

    @Chic.

    I know you’ve been friendly to Bhetti’s and my online flirtation =>romance, which I do and have appreciated. Just thought it was awfully presumptuous of you to charge on little evidence and without a good sense of Bhetti’s culture/situation that I was talking through my hat / over dramatizing.

    But I realize it wasn’t mean spirited.

    Peace.

  85. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 2:46 pm

    We ALL settle. There is not one single person alive who can fulfill our personal ideals of the “ideal mate”. Everyone is imperfect. Everyone settles. End of story.

  86. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 3:09 pm

    “Look after your looks: healthy diet, exercise, cosmetics, botox and even cosmetic surgery. Look after your dynamics and conversation: no, no, no nagging.”

    Healthy diet and exercise – YES. Cosmetics – NO.

    Many women look worse with make-up than without, especially older women (40 and above). Cosmetics are made with toxic chemicals that are harmful for your skin and internal organs.

    A light use of natural and organic cosmetics may enhance some features on a woman’s face – some light lipgloss may serve to lighten and brighten her face, but heavy makeup like foundation, blush, eye-shadow… if you are naturally pretty you won’t need that, and if you are not naturally pretty, the makeup is not going to help, it’s just going to look like gook on an ugly face.

    Most men I know do not like a heavily made-up look.

    The most attractive older women (40 plus) are the ones who age naturally and gracefully. Women just don’t know how ugly they look when they gob on the makeup, hoping to look 20 something again… but good looking 20 somethings don’t need or wear makeup.

    Eat right, exercise, stick with very light organic makeup if any at all.

Trackbacks

  1. . o O ( How to Find the Man of Your Dreams Reviewed: Scam or Serious? )
  2. Cultivating Inner Peace and Happiness « Girl Game
  3. Dimensions of attraction « Girl Game

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers

%d bloggers like this: