Exploiting Online Attention

The internet gives women more of what they want, and less of what they don’t.

Readership: All

Being Female is sooo much Trouble!

Σ Frame: The Objectification of Reproductive Potential must deliver an Ego Rush or else it is Chauvinistic. (2020 November 18)

In this post, Jack is talking about the top 50-60% of women under 30 who get showered with incessant attention in real life.  The core life problem for most women of that age range is not “how do I attract men?”, but rather “how do I attract the attention of those few men I find sexy, and what do I do with all of the “excess attention” I am getting all the time from these losers who are out of my league?

When a woman is in the 35-40% of women who do not get as much attention in real life (i.e., conventionally unattractive women), they do resent things like “beauty standards” and so on, because they are not getting the smorgasbord of attention they can obviously see conventionally attractive young women getting showered with. Because women are competitive when it comes to male attention, this rankles them. Attacking other women directly, while also done, is also somewhat ineffective (same as men attacking other men for fornicating) and also somewhat against the collective/herd approach and therefore somewhat taboo. So instead, the main vector of attack is on men, of course, and male attraction standards. It’s all transparent what is actually happening, however, and most men are quite aware of it once they themselves are past a certain age as well.

The Internet is a Smart Choice for Wimmin

As you can imagine, a savvy woman would deal with all these problems by finding ways to filter for what they want, and screen out what they don’t.  Enter the internet! Various apps and online forums now provide prodigious opportunities for computing the maximum return for the minimum investment, all available at their fingertips in a comfortable and relatively sheltered environment.

And, of course, we also see the opportunistic blending of all the approaches mentioned in the first section being done by the same woman, as they may lead, when combined, to various personal advantages.

This fully explains why there are so many women who make their presence known online, even though these online forums have a much worse chance of actually leading them to the kind of top man they desire. Online, the percentage of women is even higher than men, and the number of women at higher ages is still much higher than Manosphere guys ever want to admit, albeit lower than for women in their 20s.

A conventionally attractive female celebrity, for example, can cultivate her conventional beauty by spending hours in the gym and with beauty treatments, skin regimens, makeup application, sartorial choosing and the like, while at the same time burning a pinch of incense, as it were, for the publicly expressed social and political values of the female collective by decrying beauty standards in an Instagram post where she, herself, is exemplifying such beauty standards to the tee, but also engaging in a token act of rebellion against them, like sticking out her tongue, or making a face, for example.

To take one of many examples of this, Miley Cyrus is kind of a professional at this, and is constantly striking poses that claim to “stick it to tradition” (either through her behavior, or her haircut, or her making faces, or what have you), while at the same time maintaining very high conventional beauty standards in her toned physique, makeup application, sartorial choices (for proper photo shoots and appearances) and the like, and of course was literally married to a Hemsworth brother as well for a while. The result is that she can both suck up tons of yummy male attention while at the same time pretending to shake her fist at the patriarchy in feigned solidarity with her less conventionally attractive and mostly female fan base and the media at large which promotes her as well, all to her great personal benefit.

Her Grandiloquent Impertinency, Miley Cyrus.

The Internet is Changing the Norms of Intersexual Dynamics

Much of modern social life and interaction has moved to the online realm (exacerbated no doubt by the pandemic but not created by it). This has made it possible for lots of women, and not by any means only or even primarily the conventionally very attractive, to garner lots of male attention online. This is because the online world provides a safe space for the exchange of (1) visual access to female physicality for (2) male attention.

In past eras, this happened in the real world as well (and still does), but it was rather hemmed in, at least in polite society. In higher end social settings, men and women were checking each other out, but it was done subtly. In lower settings, like when walking past a construction site, the attention offered to an attractive young woman has, by contrast, never been particularly subtle.

The online world has changed this and created a safe space for the exchange of access to visual female beauty for male attention. The fact that this male attention has tremendous value to women — likely both intrinsically and as a means of intra-sexual competition with other women — is strongly indicated by the widespread participation in this activity by women in general. And, of course, some women find it lucrative as well in a practical sense such that they can entice male viewers to part with actual cash to continue viewing them in more revealing ways, which is, in effect, the privatization of pornography.

The site “OnlyFans” is a prime example. The sudden popularity of this site should surprise no-one, as the site merely represents the monetization of the intersection of two strong and durable social trends: (1) the rise of online porn, and (2) the rise of social media use by women for sexual attention.  This exchange of sexualized content for money, in some cases, could be considered a type of soft prostitution.  In certain cases, it undeniably takes the form of hard prostitution.

Bad News for Men

We are witnessing a strange social entente concerning how women deal with male attention and how men are permitted to show it.  This cultural phenomenon is manifested in three noteworthy shifts.

  1. The expression of male attention in the real world has become subject to much stricter limits, rules, restrictions, and expectations.
  2. Male attention online has become more sought after and more treasured by many women — even if, in almost all cases, the attention is coming from men who are in the “loser — would never give the time of day in real life” category.
  3. The monetization of sexualized interactions is becoming socially acceptable.

What has happened is that women have, in effect, moved the “acceptable location” for the expression of such male attention (which, again, has always been expressed in public in subtle and at times unsubtle ways) from the real world to the virtual one, where it can be more controlled, is less threatening and messy, and is subject to being manipulated and monetized more effectively.

All this brings us to a surprising conclusion regarding men — unwanted male attention is more wanted in 2020 than it has ever been before, provided that it is supplied in certain contexts and not others. The desire for this “excess attention” from less desirable men has always been there (women have always liked being generally attractive to men, which would include even unattractive men), but it has even more value today than it did in earlier eras, because the context in which it is now generally permitted to be expressed is safer for women, with fewer drawbacks, and more advantages than the real world expression of it was.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Boundaries, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Internet Dating Sites, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Exploiting Online Attention

  1. cameron232 says:

    Yes, this is something new – very thoughtful take on it.

    They still want real world attention more I think. They want it from men their hindbrains consider a possibility for marriage (LTR). They don’t want it from men their hindbrains don’t consider suitable for marriage, thus, workplace harassment charges for micro-offenses. I’d say, based on observation, they want it from alphas, want it from (greater?) betas, don’t want it from gammas and maybe lesser betas. My socio-sexual hierarchy here just means something like top and bottom 20%, middle 60%.

    Online, (monetized porn sites aside) they don’t know who’s looking at them. They probably still want online attention from men their hindbrains consider a possibility for marriage. My guess is they don’t think much about gammas and lesser betas , one way or the other, looking at them online.

    BTW as an aside, I am always disgusted by Miley’s appearance – think she is fugly and gross. That Hemsworth dude must be a nutter. This seems to happen with some Hollywood men. IDK – do they get so much sex from gorgeous women that their male brain starts looking for variety (from the boringness of conventionally beautiful women??).

    Additional examples: Brad Pitt (Juliette Lewis). Dolph Lundren & Sven Ole Thorsen (Grace Jones). “Buzz, your girlfriend, woof!!!”

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Women do place a value on attention from unattractive men. Women notice, for example, when men’s eyes, in general, stop following them around. Most of those eyes are the eyes of men that women couldn’t care less about, but they still notice when they stop getting noticed by them, and they care about it. They do care, of course, much more about the attention of the attractive men, but the fact is that when they lose the “general attention”, they notice, and they do not like it. I have read many pieces by women aging into early middle age and writing wistfully about how they became “invisible” to men — suddenly men who would previously be checking them out in grocery lines, on the subway, while jogging, would just look right past them or never look up from their phones or what have you. They notice, and they like being “generally attractive”, even to men to whom they would not give even the time of day. They hate when it goes away — for women who are quite pretty younger in life, it’s actually quite traumatic when they fall off the “general male radar screen” in that way.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        You are 100% correct. My wife has heard older women say that the thing they miss MOST is being noticed by men.
        I guess I was thinking of young women – I can’t imagine thoughts care about attention from unattractive men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I guess I was thinking of young women – I can’t imagine thoughts care about attention from unattractive men.

        They may not admit it openly, but they do miss it when it’s gone, because it’s the before (attention when young) and after (attention when older) that they are comparing when it goes missing. So they notice when men in general stop noticing, even though, when they are young, they take said noticing from unattractive men for granted if they are getting it.

        It’s like this, I think. When an attractive woman enters a bar, say, she enjoys seeing all the male eyes check her out through her peripheral vision. Even the guys she wouldn’t give the time of day to — she likes that they admire her, she likes that she is considered hot in general, as long as the guys who are unattractive stay in their cages and do not approach or do anything like that to annoy her. She does enjoy the attention. She misses it when it dissipates, again, even if it is from men in whom she has no interest.

        In general, this is because male attention is like a form of currency for attractive women — a very powerful currency. For example, a woman may not be attracted at all to the cop who pulls her over for a speeding ticket, but she hopes she is attractive enough to him to be able to charm her way out of a ticket by some light, non-obvious flirting — even if the guy is repulsive to her physically. It’s useful for her to be attractive to men that she isn’t attracted to. It’s also one of the ways that women compare themselves to each other on the female “leaderboards”, if you will — overall level of attractiveness/ability to turn heads “in general” (not just Ryan Reynolds head). Another way that women compare themselves to each other in 2020 is “likes” on social media, especially for pictures. They all know that most of those likes are from men who are “creepy” in the sense that they would not give these guys the time of day either online or offline … but they still want the likes. They want the guys to be attracted to them, it feeds them, it empowers them in competition with each other (“who is the fairest of them all”), and it’s a currency they deploy with men when necessary or useful.

        Now, of course, they likely would never admit to any of that, but that’s another story. Women, especially attractive young ones, don’t like to admit to a lot of the more unsavory truths about their behaviors and motives, often even to themselves really, but we can still discern what’s going on by observing what they do closely, and here it’s pretty ummistakeable that women of all ages crave attention from all men, provided that attention from men who are not attractive to them is expressed in a way that is only beneficial to the woman and is never threatening or demanding of her. Hence the rise in online attention gathering and the increasing taboo-ization of in person attention expressing by men. The ultimate “safe space” for women to accumulate the attention of unattractive men in a way that is undemanding and unthreatening (for the most part, cyber-stalking and so on aside) is online, and so we see a virtual stampede of women into social media, displaying themselves copiously for male attention there today.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I have to write this real quick. Men get (at least attempted) charges of harassment in the workplace for looking at women (if the man is unattractive). And women (in person) react negatively when an unattractive man looks at her. It isn’t just approaches that bother them. They might be neutral towards looks from beta males (in person -in teh work place). I don’t know about that one.

        Online I imagine it’s different. A “like” or “view” isn’t viscerally “creepy” to her – she can’t see the guy.

        Like

  2. cameron232 says:

    Sorry, slightly OT but this tweet from Anti-Gnostic was too good not to share (H/T: Will S.):

    “Reminder that a woman’s looks are her most valuable asset. If you are an unattractive woman, then you have a sense of what it’s like to be a man.”

    Like

  3. cameron232 says:

    Threadjacking already, sorry.

    Am I the only one who thinks that for attraction, a woman’s face matters more than her body (assuming she has a normal, healthy body)? Miley and the first girl pictured do not have attractive faces. I suspect that this (being a “face” man) is a beta male trait.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Cameron,
      For me, a pleasant woman with a pretty face can hold my attention. But a fit woman with a WHR < 0.7 is the one who arouses my male instincts. There’s a big difference.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Jack, I guess I am the opposite. A girl with a normal body is capable of arousing the male instincts and they’re always strong enough to do what you need to do (FWIW – coming from a man who’s only slept with one woman).

        I’m not sure how to understand this biologically. Does a man with a lesser sex drive, need a near perfect body to get him going? Is it men that are so alpha all they care about is perfect a near body (short term relationship)?

        Thinking back to HS, the sweet, romantic feelings (not to be confused with lust) were always directed at girls with a pretty face (and ones you could believe were nice).

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Cam:

        In my opinion, the facial attractiveness is what gets a man interested, because it’s the first thing he sees. But he doesn’t start thinking sex until he considers the body. Breasts, butt, waist to hips, the WHR, H/W proportionate – those are the things that really rev a guy up sexually.

        One of the things that can cause confusion about this in my opinion, is that men can assess face and body exceedingly rapidly. Men are hardwired to make those assessments very, very quickly. Think about it. The next time you go into a place where a lot of women are, consider that your brain automatically starts sorting out all the women into “would bang” and “would not bang”; “attractive” and “not attractive”. And you can do it really, really fast. I can assess 50 women in well under 5 minutes. I’m 52 years old, and I can still do it as quickly as I could when I was 22.

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Face is a harder genetic screen, I think. Women can work more on their bodies, and in particular can keep their bodies “hotter” for longer than they can with their faces, unless they engage in surgical interventions (which can have mixed results). A young woman who has a naturally very attractive face is, provided she is at least in shape body-wise, at the very top of the gene pool, because that kind of face is very rare genetically. It’s why face models are in such high demand and earn so much money. A lot of girls can look nice in a bikini, and with proper effort and dedication, most younger women can look at least okay in one, although different body types have different looks and advantages. But very few young, unaltered women can be face models.

      Natalie Portman, for example, was never much of a fashion model (too short for runways, and too much of a “boy body” for bikinis), but she was a very in demand face model when she was young, because she had a spectacular face — all genes.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Scott says:

    Nova-

    Noted, and accepted into the record. But they still give IOIs in the real world. They are way more subtle about it now, and a better job of disguising it as “I was just being friendly/nice you creep,” if things go sideways.

    Part of my argument though is IOIs of the most obvious type are subconscious and therefore not really volitional. They can’t help it.

    The context/cause is exactly as you described. “Meet cutes” are all F%&$ed up because of it. Thank God I don’t need to have one now.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. lastmod says:

    I was always invisible. A few gal-pals over the decades (some genuine, most used me for being that emotional blanket when things went bad for them) played this type of thing frequently with me. I fell for it and sometimes ‘knew’ I was being played, but I also was so starved for female attention, and if a pretty gal was giving me some……..I took it for what it was.

    Not now. Not since W Bush’s first term if truth be told……..one gal from my college days and I still speak (I introduced her to her future husband….they are still married) maybe once a year for a bit on the phone. Solid gal. Pretty too. I knew she would never go for me even back then….but she did make it clear that she did think I was a “pretty cool guy” and actually defended me to her catty girlfriends. That took some guts on her end all those decades ago……..

    What Nova points out here……for older guys (forty and over) this new medium will just get more confusing as it evolves for us. The younger set I am sure will adapt, be thirsty and pay whatever they have to pay to get access, attention, and dates, sex, ltr’s………

    The “alpha types” will again claim their amazing “game” and the lower 99% will be called chumps for participating in this new medium

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      I don’t think it’s confusing at all. It’s changing, but there’s no confusion in my mind, really.

      This is men doing what they need to do to get sex or facsimiles/imitations thereof. They used to have to take women on dates at great cost of time and money. Now, they do porn/camgirls/OF, and the more affluent get lite prostitutes, er, sugarbabies.

      This is women doing what they need to do to get commitment or facsimiles/imitations thereof. They have sex with Chad, immediately and for free (because if she won’t do it, another woman will and she’ll miss her longshot chance to lock him down), and then make everyone else wait for it and pay for it. But instead of “paying” with time, dinners, and commitment, they are making men pay cold hard cash for pictures, videos, and an hour or two of masturbating into a starfishing college student’s vagina. They’ve got to get that cash somehow. Chad ain’t coughing it up, there’s no Dad; and the bottom 80% beta bux guys are still getting cooked and fixed up. Paul and Ernie are years away from being ready, or even considered.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I get why men pay for actual prostitutes (sad and sinful as it is) but why do they pay for online viewing? If you have internet access, you’re 0.13 seconds away from nude pics and videos of girls for free. It’s been that way for 25 years now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Cam:

        They pay for online viewing because it’s personalized. OF, camgirls, premium pornsites and even pornstars now are personalizing things for viewers. Paying subscribers get perks that the “free” subscribers don’t get, and most of it has to do with personalized content. They have preferred viewers, and give “prime” and “exclusive personalized content” to paid subscribers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        they pay for “online viewing” because most men who probably participate in this actually and honetly believe they are going to be the “one” to get a girlfriend out of this.

        In the 1990’s a bunch of us guys would go to a strip club for lunch in San Francisco (IBM days). suits and ties askew, a quick beer or three…….

        I took it for what it was. Sure threw a buck here and there on the satge, but always that one or two guys throwing lots of money paying for lap-dances and of course “convinced” that said stripper was “totally into him”

        and I was called a “chump” back then. As if

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ thedeti,

        That’s super weird to me but I guess if there’s any sort of interaction, the male hindbrain thinks there might be actual sex, even though their rational faculties would tell them there’s not going to be. It’s no different than a 30 year old Playboy or adult video.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Well, it’s verfy confusing for me……..and we’re just different types of men I guess. I never had the “old fahsioned way” either so, this newer way of doing things really seems (and is) out of whack for me.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        That’s super weird to me but I guess if there’s any sort of interaction, the male hindbrain thinks there might be actual sex, even though their rational faculties would tell them there’s not going to be. It’s no different than a 30 year old Playboy or adult video.

        It depends on how well the girl “hustles”.

        A good, effective girl in these situations is quite effective at “reeling in” the male customer. She knows that they both know, on some level, that it is an act, that the whole thing is premised on being paid. But within that “suspension of disbelief”, a girl who is good at the act can really create an impression, within the time and space allotted, of the simulacrum of a relationship of some sort. It’s obviously not real, and it’s temporary, and conditioned on payment such that if the money goes away, so does she. But it’s different from watching a porn video. The girl who is effective at this has, for example, an entire fake backstory that is quite elaborate and interesting and that she can go on and on about in an authentic way for a long time, basically “playing a role” that she invented which is sexy and fun and educated and so on, and the best ones tailor this to the men they are dealing with so that the guy gets reeled in even more fully, with the goal being a repeat customer who is a reliable source of cash.

        Why does a man do this? Because he’s desperate, number one — guys who are in good relationships that are satisfying aren’t doing this, and guys who have good options with women are not doing it, either — but there are plenty of men left who are not in either of those categories. It’s different from watching a video because, again, if the girl is good at what she does, it can feel real to the guy, and that makes all the difference to him in terms of how satisfying the experience is.

        Sugar babies work on the same principle. Why would a guy pay a sugar baby college/grad student $2000 a month to see her 3-4 times in that period, when he could see 2 or 3 hotter “pay by the hour” hookers for the same cash, and get hotter girls and more variety, and “on demand” service? It’s because with the sugar baby he is having a fantasy relationship. A talented SB doesn’t act like a hooker. She acts like a “secret young girlfriend” or “protege” or “personal assistant” or whatever kind of fantasy the (almost always older) guy seems suited for, and she plays that role when she is with him — she holds his hand in public, they visit museums and restaurants on fake dates, and they have sex. A few times a month. In between they text, she doesn’t cut him off (although she may have some basic rules about how much texting, most SBs are good at doing this in a way that, too, feels organic and not overly fake). The money flows monthly in a venmo and feels less transactional because it’s completely decoupled from the in person meetings, which as noted flow like “normal” dates. It’s basically “fake, paid dating”. If you think about it, you can see why guys of means, if they are looking for paid companionship to begin with, would opt for a SB over a hooker. It isn’t because it’s real, but it’s still different in feel — again depending on how good the SB is at what she is doing (I am sure some are much better than others at being a credible fake girlfriend).

        None of this is good for men. It’s obviously all very immoral to begin with, and even leaving that aside it gives guys even less incentive to make the kinds of changes in their lives that can help with actual relationships with women. But given the context these men are in, and what’s on the table today (things like sugar babies existed in the form of “kept women”, but this was only available to a tiny sliver of ultra-elite men, whereas the SB market is massive), it’s understandable why we see the landscape of behaviors continuing to evolve.

        One final point — the landscape is impacting women tremendously as well. The percentage of women who have “dabbled” to some degree in some aspect or penumbra of the “sex industry”, broadly understood, is skyrocketing among young women. A greater percentage of “regular girls” have done some camming, or some online private porn, or even some sugaring, at this point, with noone around them being the wiser. All of that impacts their sexuality, their attitudes towards men, towards sex, towards relationships and the like. It’s another aspect of the impact of the changed behavioral landscape that is taking place in real time, and no-one is really discussing it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        I am still perplexed about how casual and just a no nonsense, matter of fact way this is being dicussed…

        “Isn’t confusing at all / medium has changed but exactly the same as 30 years ago /only men with no options do this / this isn’t being discussed (well….its the same as 30 years ago right? Just a different medium why should it even be discussed???)

        And for men with no options. I am certainly not doing this and as a man “with options” you seem to know exactly what men like me are doing 😉

        Many here hate “black pill” and the way many are discussing on how no woman is worth it…all at some point have or will do this novelle-hustle. Many of you are sounding more black pill than actual men who call themselves black pill 🙂

        But yet….yet….all Christian men, there are plenty of subservient young, beautiful women who are virgins and would love to marry a 35 year old man…just follow Dalrock’s advice on how to vett…..tons out there” and then with slight of hand “nope. None left…us “alphas” had our turn with them all, found OUR perfect wives….the rest of you chumps just learn Game and do all of this for no result because there are none left”

        Do you see any problems with this? I would not doubt many a man who has read these forums over the years decided MGTOW immediately

        Like

  6. thedeti says:

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    For the top 20% of men and top 50% of women, it’s business as usual, as it has been for decades and has come into public knowledge only about 30 years ago when hookup culture went total mainstream. The top 20% of men are still having lots of casual sex, and the top 60% of women are still riding the carousel with varying durations and frequency. Top 20% men are still in the catbird power position. Top 50% women are still getting pumped and dumped, and seethingly resentful when Chad, Brad and Thad won’t commit, and she ends up having to settle for Tom Teacher or Will WorshipLeader or Paul Plumber or Ernie Engineer or Stan STEMlord.

    Men are willingly paying to give away their unwanted attention, which women now want. Women want it because the exchange has been taken from public to private as you point out.

    The bottom 80% of men and bottom 40% of women still struggle. And this post is outlining how their struggles have changed. Men used to “pay” to give away their attention with in person dates: drinks, meals, entertainment, and commitment. Now, bottom 80% men increasingly spend much of their female attention dollar online – online dating apps, sugar dating apps, OnlyFans, camgirls, and the like. Bottom 40% women are working to crack into those markets. The pickings have always been slim for these girls, and it’s only gotten worse because their male counterparts were shut out of the game long before they were.

    And it has been taken totally private. What used to take place in public now takes place totally and completely out of the public eye. Men can gawk at photos and video of amateur pornstars, camgirls and OF girls in the privacy of their rooms. Women can prostitute themselves more openly and more privately at the same time. What used to be legitimate “charging” for dates (take me out for dinner and you pay, take me for a night out on your dime, take me out to the museum and you pay, let’s do a weekend away and you pay) is now shady “charging” for dates and sex (subscriptions to premium porn sites, camgirl sites and OF; sugar dating/prostitution lite).

    The type of prostitution has changed from “my sex for your commitment” to “depictions/facsimiles of my sex for your cash”.

    What doesn’t get talked about much are the total breakdowns of social mores and social etiquette; and poor socialization among men and women both. Men aren’t improving their looks or their bodies. Neckbeards and lumpenproles and skinnyfat dudes abound. More and more men have no Game. More and more men don’t know how to carry on a real live conversation using their voices, faces, hands, and bodies. More and more men can’t go up to a girl and talk to her.

    It’s been criticized that men won’t even try. Well, what should they try for? They have tried, and they get shot down, blown out of the water, and nuclear rejected everywhere they go.

    And women, these women, today’s modern women – these are the women they should be trying to date? Foul mouthed, mouthy, rude, b!tchy, hair chopped off, fat, s!utty, promiscuous, ill mannered, entitled, incompetent at the domestic arts, unable or unwilling to do even rudimentary self care and housekeeping, economically and historically illiterate, unable to cook or clean – this is what men are supposed to be putting forth all this effort for? Really? Are you serious?

    These women honestly and truly believe that because Chad had sex with them once, they’re entitled to commitment from Brad or Thad, and absolutely nothing less will do.

    Women are like this because everyone in society has let them get away with it. Everyone just smirks or laughs or shakes their heads and then looks away. And they are still getting what they want, mostly – oodles of male attention that men pay for, free money everywhere, “jobs” they don’t really have to “work” at, free passes because pu$$y, and pretty much skating through life on god mode.

    Online attention is just the next step in societal devolution.

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      More changes to intersexual dynamics, that are becoming more and more socially acceptable:

      1) What used to be

      meet – date – exclusive – engaged – sex

      is now

      sex – friends – FwB/f-buddy – date – maybe exclusive – break up – move on to next person – sex – friends – FWB/f-buddy….

      and Lather Rinse Repeat.

      2) Ghosting has become more commonplace. Ghosting is now an “accepted” way to end a relationship. I’m wondering when it will become acceptable to end marriages by ghosting.

      3) Men waiting for sex? No way. Men with options aren’t playing that game.

      4) Women committing without some funsex with Chad? No way. Women with options (which is almost all women) are going to have their funsex experience with Chad, and nothing will stop them. First, it’s fun, feels good, and is validating. Second, it’s a longshot at commitment – probably won’t work, but hey, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, right? AF fun first for as long as she can; then marriage at 38 – hopefully to Chad the Senior Partner, if not, then to a beta bux who will pay the bills.

      5) Women as dominant partner in a male-female relationship.

      6) “Alternative” relationship styles: Polyamory, polyandry. Multiple men (a beta or two, an alpha or two) sharing one woman. This is a woman’s wet dream – having commitment from multiple men serving different functions and varying levels of commitment and exclusivity as needs and desires dictate.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Another change to intersexual dynamics:

      Whether a particular man is permitted to act in a sexual manner is wholly dependent on how sexually attractive he is. Sexually attractive men are allowed to act in a sexual manner and ask women out. Sexually unattractive men are not allowed to behave in any sexual manner at all. They are not to comport themselves as “sexual” beings. Sexually unattractive men are not permitted to act as men – they may act only as “males”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • whiteguy1 says:

        You hit the nail on the head Deti, I had trouble articulating this. I can get away with being a man (up to a point of course) at my publicly traded firm all day, even with all the PC/feminist bullshit that we should be following. For exactly the reason you state. All the women love having a MAN around, even the old lesbian because I’m attractive to the girls there. 90% of the men there are all ‘deltas’ (with a couple of gammas/omegas tossed in) so not allowed to be men, just ‘males’ Sad really..

        Now it’s not all roses and unicorn farts for me, when we were in the office I got shit tested, multiple times a day, which honestly is a pain in the ass and makes it hard to get real work done when there. Oh well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        You wouldn’t allow any of the “males” to become men at your workplace, even if they wanted to improve. Most males get “bullied” by you probably most of the day because you can get away with it. Stop it with your “life isn’t that great being a high status man in a workplace……”

        When you get hauled into the Personnel Department (HR) as man for just saying “good morning” to a pretty woman at work and have your job threatened for “harassing a woman” you can use your manhood and stand up to these people and actually “change” it, since you are a MAN. Otherwise, you have zero clue what the lower 95% of men go through in the office today

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @ lastmod

        I’m going to say something to you, having seen a lot of your comments over the years to more “successful” men whose stories burn you.

        Don’t assume all these guys are what they say they are. Some anonymous posters are liars and/or inflating themselves. If you watch their comments, there’s a lot of inconsistencies. I’m not necessarily referring to the gentlemen above. But there are a lot of “keyboard alphas” just like there are a lot of “keyboard toughguys” who are ready to beat you up from 1000 miles away behind a pseudonym. Sometimes, I smell a rat.

        Manosphere is full of anonymous guys who successfully “game” women, who have to beat chicks off with a stick, who are kielbasa-crotch, blah, blah, blah. Don’t know what fraction, but some of it is bullshit.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Lastmod:

        I’m a bottom 80% guy, so I’m keenly aware of what it’s like. I’ve been hauled into HR. I’m one of the guys who has to act like a “male” and not a “man” at work. I’m not a top 20% man and never have been nor claimed to be.

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      And it has been taken totally private. What used to take place in public now takes place totally and completely out of the public eye. Men can gawk at photos and video of amateur pornstars, camgirls and OF girls in the privacy of their rooms. Women can prostitute themselves more openly and more privately at the same time. What used to be legitimate “charging” for dates (take me out for dinner and you pay, take me for a night out on your dime, take me out to the museum and you pay, let’s do a weekend away and you pay) is now shady “charging” for dates and sex (subscriptions to premium porn sites, camgirl sites and OF; sugar dating/prostitution lite).

      Right.

      This right here is the key shift. It’s generally advantageous to some women (the ones who want to take advantage of these kinds of things), while being largely disadvantageous to the ones who do not. Women are under pressures here as well and, as with everything else, how they respond individually to those pressures is dependent on some combination of values, upbringing, options, goals, looks and age. It’s all in the mix.

      Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      Been hearing this since I was a teenager: “Men aren’t improving their looks or their bodies. Neckbeards and lumpenproles and skinnyfat dudes abound. More and more men have no Game. More and more men don’t know how to carry on a real live conversation using their voices, faces, hands, and bodies. More and more men can’t go up to a girl and talk to her.”

      And the crux of this…..well, as for going up to a girl and “just talking to her” really is batting 600 for awhile now. I was a bartender in a nightclub almost twenty years ago in San Francisco after my IBM days……a physically good looking man on a “cultural standard” does this. Perfectly normal and okay. Anyone else…….she’s off to the bouncer, the bartenders “this creep won’t leave me alone, I feel harassed” and said dude gets escorted OUT of the nightclub he paid 35-50 bux to enter. Even if said dude just “went up and talked to her” and did nothing wrong. Hot woman was believed, dude escorted out.

      We bartenders sometimes would tell guys, “don’t say a word to a woman here unless she talks to you”

      Then women wondered why “ladies night” all over the fine City of San Francisco became a dud.

      More and more men have no Game. Strawman. Game is an excuse thrown at any man who can’t get a date or girlfriend. Just learn Game (which has a gazillion different meanings and applications) and thus…like the word ‘love’ it really has no meaning today. Zilch.

      As for skinnyfat and neckbeards and the other mentions……..no man at 45, 48, 52, or 60 looks as they did at 25.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Lastmod,
        I believe Game has received a lot of air play simply because it’s the one thing that made things start to click for many men. Game is what invited emotional responses from women that were not dismissive, and gave them social access to interacting with women.
        Of course, Game is not a silver bullet. Some men can’t “get it”, and some men get rejected/disqualified on other counts (age, race, too short, wrong style, etc.) no matter how good they are at Game.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Game has many, many…..tons more detractors than supporters now. It did nothing for most. It made them look even more “creepy” and actually a worse avenue of “looking desperate”

        Game HAS and still does…market itself as a silver bullet. Was told “looks don’t matter”
        was told the only thing you have to do is be “cocky funny” and “be confident” and “be alpha” and be “funny” and oh…..btw the way, change you style, haircut, be something you are not…….and…..and…..and…..and….

        in the end they told us after every defense of game had abysmally failed: “oh, its just a numbers game” / “I guess you like being cuck / not-a-real-man” and countless other negs (always thrown at men, never women by Game types).

        It worked for the above average looking guy who perhaps needed a touch up on conversation after he f*cked all the women in his apartment building, or local church, or dorm

        Everyone else????? Yeah, we just didn’t try hard enough.

        Game said from day one. Looks don’t matter. They do. Liffe really isn’t fair to any man below a seven now

        Like

  7. redpillboomer says:

    With all these societal shifts taking place the last couple of decades plus, one thing seemingly gets overlooked to some degree in all the discussion of the evolution (de-evolution?) of the male-female relational dynamic: the long run consequences of choices made during the twenties and early thirties, for both sexes, but especially for the women. I’ve mentored/coached/chatted up a number of post-wall women (35 and up) that I’ve come to know in an educational program that I take part in, as well as in a couple of other life venues. From time to time they ‘take their mask off’ with me share a glimpse of their life behind the scenes, not the ‘public persona’ they display on their social media and elsewhere. And gentlemen, it ain’t pretty. These post-wall women are suffering greatly from the consequences of their earlier life choices. I don’t feel sad for them, but I do feel sad for all of us as men and as a society in general. It is one hell of a cesspool that has been created, and it does none of us any good that so many of our women have been effectively used up and have little to show for it after 35. However, these women freely made these choices, over and over and over again during their best years (18-30), even though I believe they made them while being deceived by societal conditioning and the devilish indoctrination of feminism, e.g. ‘Girl Power, You Go Girl, You Can Have It All, Yolo-You Only Live Once, etc.’ They also left a lot of good men hurting in their wake, men who would have made good husbands, fathers, providers and protectors. And for what, ‘Chad, Brad and Thad?’ I’ve personally come to know a few of these ‘Chads, Brads and Thads’, and once you get past their looks and physiques, and in rarer cases their added status and resources, they are NOT marriageable men! If they don’t have morals, they are either just running soft harems (spinning plates as Rollo adamantly advises), or they are pumping & dumping/hitting & quitting it with one young lady after another out there in the so-called ‘Sexual Market Place,’ creating a slew of ‘alpha widows’ in their wake. I talked to one post-wall woman just yesterday, a beautiful 37 year old, probably a 6.5-7.5, maybe an 8 with her make-up on, back in the day probably a 9.5. She ‘settled’ one year ago and married a guy she probably wouldn’t have given the time of the day to back in her twenties. Here’s why I bring her up, she let her mask down with me, and shared about her ex’s, and one in particular, an Alpha, she still pines for. She can’t stop thinking about him even though they broke up seven years ago. She says she can’t stop comparing her husband to him, and keeps finding her husband wanting. Not only that, she remembers multiple ex’s and compares them to her husband as well. I’m listening to her speak and all the manosphere talk about the ‘Alpha Widow Syndrome’ is coming alive right before my eyes. I feel a bit sorry for her new husband, he’s ‘competing’ with a number of ‘Chad ghosts’ from her past. There’s just one example of the many consequences of the present day female populations high N-counts. Just a very depressing cultural situation that exists nowadays. I’m grateful for having been young in the 80’s. The hook-up culture had started back then, however the overlap with the traditional era was still there, a hangover effect if you will; plus the Internet had not shown up yet on the scene. That traditional relational era is long gone now. Very sad indeed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      The 1980’s sucked. I was there. Reagan was a bad actor who nearly nuked the planet. Traditional? Teen pregnancy exploded. The divorce rate peaked. HIV made sex potentially a death sentence. Abortions skyrocketed and peaked in the 1980’s.

      The music was terrible. Hence why classic rock radio had a bigger listening audience that top forty for most of the decade

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        What I was referring to in the 1980s was the traditional Meet>Date>BF/GF>Engaged>Marriage>Kids scenario was still around to some extent. The pre-Internet version of the hook-up culture was there with it, competing with it, and as we have seen in the ensuing decades, eventually besting it to the point of virtually eliminating it.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        80’s was my childhood. I met my wife in the 90’s. Immorality was deeply entrenched both decades. If there was a difference vs. now, I’d say the older, pre-1960s generation was around and had some influence on some kids (maybe the ones that were close to their grandparents). That’s mostly gone now – old people are Bill Clinton.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        I was a teenager in the 1980’s, and entered college August 1988. The immorality I fell into was drugs, which I started doing regularly during that time (LSD, grass) and then fell into cocaine. No one (ie family / parents) had a clue because I got decent grades, kept my hair short and didn’t dress like a “drug user”. I knew better and was raised better. Thankfully I came through it with most of my brain at least still functional, and it didn’t kill my tidy work ethic.

        The 1990’s…..all I remember post college and grad school was “going to work / paying off my student loans / trying to date and following useless advice. My only bragging right was that I lived in San Francisco during the dot.com era and had a high tech job. The music was just as bad then too overall. “Friends” on TV. Seattle for vacations. Living in India that eight months……..uneventful most of my twenties for the most part

        Liked by 1 person

  8. redpillboomer says:

    I was referring to back in the ’80s there was still a vestige of the traditional male-female dynamic of Meet>Date>Become BF/GF>Engaged>Married>Kids>Stay together (or Divorce eventually). The pre-Internet hook-up culture was right there with it, making in-roads against it, and eventually, as time has proven, besting it to the point of virtually eliminating it.

    Like

    • lastmod says:

      Well…I suppose it was. Saw mostly meet, date, move in together, kids, marriage or marriage / kids

      And no one was batting an eye at this
      The 1980’s still were terrible. Maybe its because I grew up in the rural Northeast (rust belt). The 1980’s was particularly bad there.

      Like

  9. Joe2 says:

    @Novaseeker

    Why would a guy pay a sugar baby college/grad student $2000 a month to see her 3-4 times in that period, when he could see 2 or 3 hotter “pay by the hour” hookers for the same cash, and get hotter girls and more variety, and “on demand” service?

    In addition to the reasons you mentioned, there is another reason for taking the sugar baby route. And that reason is paying for a sugar baby is legal whereas paying for a hooker is illegal.

    You may recall the high profile case of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and 24 other men who were charged with paying employees of a massage parlor to perform sex acts. The charges were eventually dropped, but the women involved reached plea deals and paid fines. Authorities take the soliciting of another to commit prostitution seriously and will prosecute.

    On the other hand, the payment to a sugar baby is strictly for her time and companionship, as may be stated in any agreement involving the transfer of money to her account. What actually rakes place (sex) between the sugar baby and her sugar daddy is between two consenting adults and not related to the transfer of money.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Thats why escorts advertise publicly. Legal loopholes.

      The easiest legal loophole many are doing is the porn route, and is why homemade has blown up. You start an llc to pay the ho for filming the movie with you (a middle man involved so it’s not payment for sex. It’s paid for entertainment). Independent “producers” get what they want, and then post it online, and sometimes recoup $$ on ads

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yes.

        And also why sites like OnlyFans are growing like mad.

        The internet disintermediates. Bookstores and record stores found that out the hard way. The sex industry did as well, where pimps and madams lost a lot of their “turf” as the internet made it possible for women to participate in various aspects of the sex industry without dealing with the creepy, organized crime lowlifes who used to run it. So a woman can strip on a cam regularly for tips without ever walking into a strip club, handing over “cuts” from her tips to everyone from the bouncer to the bartender to the DJ, or dealing with sleazy strip club owners and patrons in the flesh. A woman can be her own pornographer, finding a female photographer who isn’t creepy but “empowering”, and placing her own photos on her own OnlyFans site, and never dealing with the creepy porn industry directly. A woman can be an “escort” (who also trades money for time, and very easily avoids law enforcement, which is precisely why there is almost no law enforcement against escorts but only against low level operations like massage parlors) without having to deal with a pimp or madam or “agency” (euphemism for the same), and other women in the industry will teach her how to get the screening and booking services she needs from professional sources without being involved in a seedy underworld.

        All of these existed before, but were gatekept by the sex industry “professionals” and thus were extremely unsavory, leaving mostly the most desperate women participating in them. Today … that isn’t the case. While the women who participate are still very much a self-selected group and a decided minority of women, it’s not nearly as small as the group was when the industry was run by the pimps and madams and pornographers. And the motivations of many in the group have changed — it isn’t “survival as a last resort option”, which it often was in the days of pimps and the rest, but is a lifestyle choice based on other options available for income generation for people like students or office workers who are looking for supplemental income and the like These women in the past had very low participation rates in this industry, but not so today — today it is a different scene, precisely because the internet has disintermediated things and made it possible for women to access this source of cash without going through the seedier elements of the sex industry. In other words, it “sanitized” it for women, made it something they could do on their own terms, rather than on the dictated terms of the strip club owner, pimp or pornographer. Hence, it is empowering in a way that it simply wasn’t previously, and above all this is why there is no real outcry to get rid of porn, cams, sugar babies, escort sites and the like, at least none that is broad based and loud like many other social causes are today. Some people do feel very strongly about it, but there is a growing group of women who are to some degree empowered by it, even if in a relatively small way rather than in a full-time lifestyle way, and it therefore will likely continue and persist in this way in the years ahead.

        Authorities take the soliciting of another to commit prostitution seriously and will prosecute.

        They only care if it is institutional, to be frank. The authorities are not chasing down Suzy the Floozy who is turning tricks every day on an escort site on the internet — she is hiding in plain sight, and if law enforcement wanted to shut her down with a sophisticated approach they could. They have no interest unless some actual “other crime” happens, however, when it comes to “independent prostitution” …. throw in drug trafficking, human trafficking, domestic situation calls and the like and they will take an incidental interest in the private hooking they notice going on, but they aren’t actively enforcing against independent escorts on the internet. They will enforce like a ton of bricks, however, against “institutional prostitution”, where sex workers are being “managed” by an “operation”. Massage parlors fall under that rubric, because the women who “work” there are being managed/abused by the owners of the establishment and are often trafficked for the purpose (ie, imported to the US specifically to work as sex workers in massage parlors). So law enforcement does take an interest in that. If Haft had spent $800 an hour to see an internet escort, you and I would still not know about it, but instead he chose to opt for a $100 BJ at a massage parlor that was already being cased by the cops … well, bad choice for him, but as is often the case with the wealthy, they can be incredibly, and surprisingly, cheap when it comes to some things, and in this case it cost him some reputation.

        Again, no man should be visiting prostitutes of any sort, or sugar babies or anything like this. That goes without saying. But the law enforcement situation relating to this kind of activity is extremely differential based on what the context is, and in the context of the typical independent internet escort who is doing her own thing with no one “running” her as their worker/slave, law enforcement mostly looks the other way. If it wanted to shut this down tomorrow it could do so just as easily as Congress did when it decided it wanted to shut down Craigslist. They don’t care enough about it to do so.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Why is the online amateur sex industry attractive to men? | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: The Economics of the New Amateur Sex Industry | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: The Learning Psychology of Women who Participate in the Online Amateur Sex Industry | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: The Addictive Nature of the Online Amateur Sex Industry | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Cultural Influences | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Sticking the Landing is for the Elite | Σ Frame

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s