The Learning Psychology of Women who Participate in the Online Amateur Sex Industry

All incentives, no apparent penalties. What is there not to like?

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: This post continues discussing The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry (2021 January 4).  Readers may like to read this post first before continuing.
In this series, prostitution is defined as the sale of either (1) sexual services, (2) faux relationships (calculated by the hour, number of messages, etc.), or (3) personalized, self-produced, sexually titillating media content — for cash.
Length: 1,940 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

Introduction

In past essays, NovaSeeker and I have mentioned several motivating reasons why women enter into the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (OASIS).

To recap what has been said before, plus a few more I have added to the list, OASIS is attractive to women for the following reasons.

  • Easy, convenient, sanitized, sexualized attention and social affirmation.
  • The world wide web has allowed a seemingly infinite supply of male attention in socio-sexual terms. The amount of attention can run into the thousands, and for some women, the millions.
  • It feeds the strong, unique need of females to appear like they have a high SMV and to feel sexy about themselves.
  • In successful scenarios, a woman can exercise her perceived “right” to social and financial independence, as well as sexual autonomy, which yields a gratuitous ego rush.
  • The disintermediation has removed the seedier social elements of the sex industry, e.g. the strip club owner, pimp, or pornographer.
  • The $$$!
  • Women can access a source of immediate cash income on their own terms rather than on the dictated terms of the unsavory, demanding, and abusive pimps and madams.
  • The associated risks to reputation and bodily harm are altogether removed.
  • There is absolutely no risk of running afoul of the law.
  • The online interaction is comfortable for women, allowing them the convenience and privacy of working from home and through the computer/smart phone.
  • The nature of internet social media sanitizes the interaction with the client by making it virtual rather than in person.
  • Women can choose who they want to partner with in producing their photo shoots and market promotion.
  • For those wimmin who go “all the way”, modern methods of birth control (i.e. the hormonal birth control pill, the “morning after” pill, abortion, IUDs, etc.) eliminate the risks of pregnancy and contracting STDs.
  • The feministic influences over society have removed much of the shame and taboo of showcasing one’s body and marketing sexual services for cash.
  • Activities and transactions can be kept discreet and confidential.
  • Meeting clients in person is entirely optional, and subject to personal discretion.
  • The woman always has the option to quit or resume at any time.

The Frame of Behavioral Psychology

The 80/20 rule states that 80% of women are only attracted to (and banging) the top 20% of men.  This rule, which is well known around the ‘sphere, originated from a Pareto distribution. Data from OKTrends (from OKCupid) and other estimates confirmed this estimate. A more precise analysis from a couple years ago places the exact figure at 78/22.

But this was all from a few years ago. With the rise of OASIS, this is now changing!

If we view this phenomenon through the lens of behavioral psychology, we can understand the reason why wimmin are now quite happy to run towards the OASIS, even though it requires sexual transactions with low SMV males, which is quite loathsome for the average female.

Here, we’ll break down the list in the previous section by looking at the aspects of Learning Psychology (Reinforcement, Escape, Consequences, and Penalties) that are involved with young wimminz decision to go skinny dipping in the OASIS.

Positive Reinforcement (AKA Reinforcement):

This occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. There are many strong Positive Reinforcements which would entice women to start a business on OnlyFans.

  • Easy, convenient, sanitized, sexualized attention and social affirmation.
  • The world wide web has allowed a seemingly infinite supply of male attention in socio-sexual terms. The amount of attention can run into the thousands, and for some women, the millions.
  • It feeds the strong, unique need of females to appear like they have a high SMV and to feel sexy about themselves.
  • In successful scenarios, a woman can exercise her perceived “right” to social and financial independence, as well as sexual autonomy, which yields a gratuitous ego rush.
  • The $$$!
  • The online interaction is comfortable for women, allowing them the convenience and privacy of working from home and through the computer/smart phone.
  • Women can choose who they want to partner with in producing their photo shoots and market promotion.
  • Meeting clients in person is entirely optional, and subject to personal discretion.
  • The woman always has the option to quit or resume at any time.

Negative Reinforcement (AKA Escape):

This occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior’s frequency. There are many Negative Reinforcements (AKA Escape) which make online prostitution easier and more rewarding.

  • The disintermediation has removed the seedier social elements of the sex industry, e.g. the strip club owner, pimp, or pornographer.
  • Women can access a source of immediate cash income on their own terms rather than on the dictated terms of the unsavory, demanding, and abusive pimps and madams.
  • The associated risks to reputation and bodily harm are altogether removed.
  • There is absolutely no risk of running afoul of the law.
  • The nature of internet social media sanitizes the interaction with the client by making it virtual rather than in person.
  • For those wimmin who go “all the way”, modern methods of birth control (i.e. the hormonal birth control pill, the “morning after” pill, abortion, IUDs, etc.) eliminate the risks of pregnancy and contracting STDs.
  • The feministic influences over society have removed much of the shame and taboo of showcasing one’s body and marketing sexual services for cash.
  • Activities and transactions can be kept discreet and confidential.

Positive Punishment (AKA Punishment, or Consequence):

This occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as a shock or loud noise, which results in a decrease in that behavior.

In the past, there were several forms of punishment that existed for wimmin who chose to slurp from the OASIS. But now, no more.

  • Women were once unable to support themselves financially and assume real independence. They were largely dependent on men for food, shelter, and income.  The OASIS, along with other “equal opportunities”, supplants this material source.
  • If a woman was found to be pregnant out of wedlock, there was a social stigma attached to the entire family. This once serious issue was transformed into a non-issue through the crowning “achievement” of 2nd Wave Feminism which brought the widespread public recognition and increased acceptance of the pro-choice rationale, legalized abortion (Roe vs. Wade, 1973), and the late-term, and partial-birth abortion practices.
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) were once a strong incentive to discourage wimmin from drinking tainted waters. Since those days, many pharmaceuticals have been introduced for the prevention and treatment of STD’s, thus expanding women’s sexual proclivities.
  • Laws and public opinion toward racial miscegenation kept women drinking from their own cisterns. This is now seen as entirely rayciss.

As you can see, all of these consequences have been summarily eradicated by the The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 2nd Wave Feminism.

Negative Punishment (AKA Penalty, or “Punishment by Contingent Withdrawal”):

This occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child’s toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Like the consequences listed above, many penalties once existed for wimmin who behaved badly.

  • A social norm that depicted women as wives, mothers and homemakers, and which ostracized wimmin that didn’t fit the traditional mold.
  • Female discrimination and favoritism in the work force had deleterious effects for wimmin who went a swimmin.
  • Feminism has removed all fear of s1ut shaming and social repercussions.
  • We might imagine that there would be a “Marriage Strike” against women who dabbled in the pool and thus became unfit for marriage. But Dalrock put this myth to rest. Instead of a Marriage Strike, men are dealing with this risk through cohabitation and postponing marriage.
  • The opportunity of becoming a mother was once a huge motivator for women to prepare themselves for marriage, but now, most modern women see children as being more of a curse than a blessing.  The abortion statistics prove it. In the USA, there are over 3,000 abortions every day. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the USA are unintended, and 22% of all pregnancies in the USA (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Likewise, all of these penalties have gone the way of Cain.

The Flight of Cain by Fernand Cormon (1880)

Extinction:

This occurs when a behavior (response) that had previously been reinforced is no longer effective. For example, a rat is first given food many times for lever presses. Then, in “extinction”, no food is given. Typically, the rat continues to press more and more slowly and eventually stops, at which time lever pressing is said to be “extinguished.”

Women were once subject to conscience about their life choices. But now, conscience is regarded to be a pesky visceral embodiment of prudishness which prevents one from executing the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). The reasons for this malady are many.

  • The lack of role models who are chaste wives and homemakers.
  • Widespread pornography, sex, and violence has been glorified in the media, and this oversaturation of stimulus has deadened the sensitivity to the perils of fornication and violence.
  • The shame and guilt surrounding fornication has been displaced with the idea that sex and commitment are not concomitant, viz. “Free Love”, as popularized by the Hippies of the Boomer Generation, “Friends” and “Sex and the City” among Xers, and the liberal “Independent Woman” of the current era.

Over time, and with popular acceptance, these cultural influences have allowed females to ignore their consciences and give in to the internal and external pressures to explore money making opportunities like OASIS, and exercise female sexual hypergamy in general.

Conclusions

To answer the question of why women dive into the OASIS, they do it because…

  • There are many strong Positive Reinforcements which draw them in and reward them handsomely.
  • There are many Negative Reinforcements (AKA Escape) which make it easier and more rewarding.
  • There is no immediate Positive Punishment (AKA Consequence) for getting involved.
  • There is no Negative Punishment (AKA Penalty, or “Punishment by Contingent Withdrawal”) that would deter them.
  • For decades, there has been a society wide Extinction of the ideal archetype of femininity — The affectionate, submissive wife, the kind-hearted, loving mother, and the frugal diligent homemaker from public consciousness.

All of these spell out a strong motivation for wimmin to slore online, and a lack of correction that would inhibit them from becoming p0rn queens, nor teach them better behaviors.

“Collectively, our biggest fear isn’t that our daughters will become whores, but that they won’t become whores.  We just tell ourselves whoring is good so long as no money changes hands.”

Dalrock: Insta-Whores: Is money the real problem? (2019 April 30)

References

  1. Infogalactic: Operant Conditioning

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Decision Making, Feminism, Hamsterbation, Hypergamy, Internet Dating Sites, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Psychology, Society, Solipsism. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to The Learning Psychology of Women who Participate in the Online Amateur Sex Industry

  1. Farm Boy says:

    There are many Negative Reinforcements (AKA Escape) which make it easier and more rewarding.

    Should there be a “are not many” in there?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Farm Boy,
      No. The name is awkward. A negative reinforcement is the removal or bypassing of a negative consequence or an unpleasant penalty. In other words, it’s a type of anaesthesia that prevents one from feeling bad and enables one to keep going and to do more.

      Like

  2. lastmod says:

    Still perplexed by the low SMV men comment and assumption that only low SMV men are going to ‘only fans’ and the like. We are going to again go with what women “deem” as a low SMV man. To most of them, if he isn’t “hot” on a cultural standard, he is a low SMV man.

    What does this say about women? What does this say about the top 20% of men or thereabouts. If you are dating or married……you are a high SMV man? High SMV men are “moral” and would never go to such a place? Would never hire an escort for a sure thing?

    So what is the solution on the mans’ side? He should stop immediatley using ‘only fans’ go to the gym, put the hard-work in, change his genetics, become or move into the top 20% and date these women who are “not worth dating” and then be told no “good women are left” or just burn and be frustrated while he is still told to “ask jesus for a wife” and sit in church and be told to “find one because great women are everywhere”

    Prostitution is called “the world’s oldest profession” and perhaps this newer medium can be classified as such……..but there has always been a demand for this by many men…and women as well. Prostitution has throughout most of its history was something the “poor” could not afford. They were too busy working…..and actually married for economic necessity. This form of pleasure and relaxation always has been for men with means (having money or time). The harems we read about of kings and princes of long-ago-times we not “thirsty, low SMV men” and even in places like China where the brothels could only be afforded by the “land owning classes of men” and upward.

    Even in the good-ol-days of the modern era (1950’s thru mid 1960’s) strip clubs existed. Playboy and other magazines like this existed. Prostitution was around, and most people were married. Was it still all the low SMV men frequenting type of transaction? I mean, the Mafia had a huge business in prostitution during the 1950’s. That lower 80% of men I guess has always been around.

    Like

  3. Novaseeker says:

    The trend seems very likely to continue because the underlying cultural dynamics are in place that will feed the growth, and not the demise, of this kind of thing moving forward. As a result I expect that it will simply get more common, get increasingly destigmatized, and become an accepted part of life that any man who is with an attractive woman probably is dealing with a woman who has at least dabbled in the OASIS. The rate of acceptance of this will skyrocket generationally, as has happened with the rest of the sexual revolution.

    At this point by far the most likely disruptor of this trend would be a substantial economic dislocation. That isn’t impossible, or perhaps even unlikely, but it should be pointed out that the sphere has in general been predicting imminent economic collapse more or less nonstop since the late 2000 (noughts) and …. well, here we are.

    Like

  4. cameron232 says:

    “The 80/20 rule states that 80% of women are only attracted to (and banging) the top 20% of men.“

    I do not believe 80% of women are banging 20% of men. Others have shown that the numbers don’t work out and it doesn’t fit my common sense observations.

    The true numbers are probably closest to this 80/20 rule among the very youngest and the numbers become less skewed the older people become. It’s possible that 20% of men are popping 80% of the virgins although I suspect it’s not quite that skewed. It ain’t 50/50 for sure.

    I do think that women are probably strongly romantically attracted (e.g. sexually attracted) to the top 20% or so, with their romantic (sexual) attraction dropping fairly rapidly below approximately 80th percentile men.

    I also think women’s choice of men (the top 20% vs. a beta male) depends on where she is on the r/K-strategist spectrum, this being affected by genes, environment and her age.

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      I think a better way of saying it is:

      • Almost all of the “desire sex” engaged in by women is with the top 20% of men, while the sex that the rest of the men get is, typically (there are exceptions, but most of it) “other than desire” sex — that is, sex for intimacy, relationship and marriage maintenance/sustenance, duty, routine, boredom and, in a very small number of cases, outright transactional. But the desire sex is almost all concentrated in the top 20% because that is where the female desire itself is concentrated.
      • As a result of the above, the top 20% of men have more sexual opportunities than other men, and likely have more sex than other men do because of that — and the sex they do have is much more disproportionately “desire” sex, which is very high quality sex, as well.

      So it isn’t the case that 80% of women are having sex only with the top 20% of men, but rather that the top 20% of men are having most of the “desire sex”, and generate most female demand for such sex, and therefore have more sexual opportunities overall, and higher quality sex. The rest of the men are not shut out from sex, but they have much less desire sex (in many cases, none, because they do not inspire that desire in any woman, including in women who willingly will have intimacy or relationship sex with them), and have far fewer sexual opportunities.

      I think it’s also true that the number of truly sexless men is increasing, but most men are still having some sex. It’s rather that the sex that is being had is different, and that the quality sex and sexual desire are very unevenly distributed among the male population.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      In response to Cameron.
      Yes, the 80/20 rule is getting outdated, but Novaseeker’s interpretation of it (above) still holds true.

      Lately, I’ve read comments and op-eds that say, in general, fewer people are having sex, and this is heavily skewed, with more men than women having less sex. But those who are having sex are much more promiscuous. I’ll see if I can find some newer data on this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Excellent comment as usual Nova.

      @Jack I wasn’t picking on your post. It is hard to insert a detailed explanation like Nova gave into the OP – thus the use of shorthand – “20% bang 80%”

      I think Jack linked to someone a while back who said “20% of men receive 80% of female intent” – that’s probably a better shorthand way of saying it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “r/K-strategist spectrum”
      What is this? New phrase to me.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @boomer

        In biology, species can be viewed as (relative) r-strategists or K-strategists. Fast life history vs. slow life history. r-strategists have lots of sex, lots of offspring, relatively lower investment in individual offspring, “let’s see how many survive.” K-strategists have less sex, fewer offspring, mature slower, invest more in their offspring. r/K differences can be intra or inter species and are relative. All humans are K-strategists compared to mice.

        r-selected men are promiscuous. r-selected women are too and/or tend to pick cads over dads.

        There are some environmental factors at work: girls from unstable families, stepdads, etc. tend to be more r-strategists probably partly but not entirely for genetic reasons.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Short explanation:

        r reproduction strategy is when an organism has many offspring and devotes little, or no time, effort, or resources to raising them. Think sea turtles.

        K reproduction strategy is when an organism has few offspring and devotes considerable time, effort, and resources to raising them. Think elephants.

        For a more complete explanation, follow the link.

        https://infogalactic.com/info/R/K_selection_theory

        Like

  5. thedeti says:

    In addition to the learning psychology is the base psychology of women in OASIS, because it’s true of all women. Women’s attitude toward anything sexual is “if I’m giving up any kind of sex or sexual activity, I need to get something in return.” That “something” can be a variety of things: attention, validation, bragging rights, commitment, security, provisioning, protection, resources, money.

    She gets almost everything she could want from online amateur sex work. Of course, she gets money – more money than she could earn doing most anything else. Most women get into this because it’s a safe, easy way to make a lot of money.

    She gets attention and validation from her online fans. She gets bragging rights because she’s “better” than other women at it, is more successful, and earns a lot of money doing it. She gets a form of “commitment” from her subscribers in that they faithfully pay her, every month,, and they show up like clockwork to get whatever she’s offering.

    About the only thing she’s not getting here is in person protection and security from a man, but she doesn’t need that anymore, not in this society. She hasn’t really needed that for a long time. She lives in one of the safest, most secure societies that has ever existed. If she really needs security and physical protection, she can buy it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Women take this transactional attitude toward sex because of millennia of conditioning that sex makes women vulnerable, and because access to her body for sex is the most valuable thing she has to offer a man. She knows that once she’s given up sex to a man, she’s surrendered pretty much everything she’s got. So women are conditioned and hardwired to expect and demand something in return for sex.

      It is more or less the same for men with their commitment. Men do want and expect something in return for their commitment. But men are conditioned to suppress and deny their wants, needs, and expectations, and have been for many years. Men are taught and trained to make available their “commitment” in the form of time, attention, resources, and money to any woman who asks for or demands it, whether or not he gets anything in return for it.

      Many reasons for this, the prime one being that men are expendable. We don’t need all the men we have. Sperm is so free and most of it so worthless that most sperm can’t be given away. Men are physically stronger and mentally more focused, and can take deprivation and self-abnegation, or are expected to simply endure them. Men will do anything for sex, and everyone knows it. Men are taught and trained that a woman’s request or demand for any form of his commitment means:

      “If you will do/give me/get me X, I might have sex with you. If you do/give me/get me X enough times, I will definitely have sex with you.”

      All of society has reinforced this over millennia. So that’s why we are where we are, and why men are just now starting to refuse commitment or take back commitment when they’re not getting sufficiently “compensated” for it. It’s why red pill and the manosphere started advising men to refuse to give women anything of theirs without their “earning” it; and why they started telling men to withdraw and withhold commitment when they’re not getting anything back for it – commitment being time, labor, attention, and money.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “It’s why red pill and the manosphere started advising men to refuse to give women anything of theirs without their “earning” it; and why they started telling men to withdraw and withhold commitment when they’re not getting anything back for it – commitment being time, labor, attention, and money.”

        I made the point in the previous post that love is disappearing from society and the MMP. When love and trust evaporate from society, then people resort to transactional interactions.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        It’s why red pill and the manosphere started advising men to refuse to give women anything of theirs without their “earning” it

        So, the manosphere is now telling men “no woman’s going to buy the cow if you give the milk away for free”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        love is disappearing from society and the MMP. When love and trust evaporate from society, then people resort to transactional interactions.

        In a functional SMP/MMP, men love women; women respect men.

        Currently in our SMP/MMP dystopia: men hate women; women disrespect men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        So, the manosphere is now telling men “no woman’s going to buy the cow if you give the milk away for free”?

        More like

        “Most women don’t want anything from most cows; but if you’re offering them milk, they’ll take it because it’s free. If they don’t like that free milk because it’s spoiled or sour, they can just toss it. And even if they like the milk, they will not only keep taking it, they’ll spit in your face while you offer it to them.

        “Figure out which women want you, make her give you some milk; and then and only then, you can give her some milk.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “So that’s why we are where we are, and why men are just now starting to refuse commitment or take back commitment when they’re not getting sufficiently “compensated” for it. It’s why red pill and the manosphere started advising men to refuse to give women anything of theirs without their “earning” it; and why they started telling men to withdraw and withhold commitment when they’re not getting anything back for it – commitment being time, labor, attention, and money.”

        And I’ve noticed this in the Manosphere content over just the past three years. A couple of years ago, it seemed the women were starting to increasingly bitch about, “Where have all the good men gone?” In the last year, I’ve noticed an increasing awareness on the women’s part about MGTOW. Quite a few Red Pill content creators have featured clips from women doing their podcast shows questioning/concerned about/ranting about MGTOW. It seems the women are increasingly dealing with a supply/demand problem when it comes to marriageable men, particularly the thirtysomething women, and even the late twenty something women. If you happened to have heard the Tomi Lahren FB/YouTube rant back in August, I believe it was entitled “PSA for Boyish” men, you could hear the rising concern she and ‘her friends had’ with the pool of eligible men. Of course, most RP commentators focused on Tomi’s arrogant, feminist, ranting bitch on steroids views (although she claimed over and over she wasn’t a feminist), but I also heard her rising (unspoken) fear in the background about the MMP. Our Millennial women seem to be having increasing difficulty moving into the MMP after their Grrrl Power/CC riding teens to mid/late twenties joy ride. The rising MMP fear on the ladies part is becoming increasingly clear, even to the point of being palpable. Anything to add about this guys?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        RedPillBoomer:

        On women and MGTOW.

        1) Women don’t care about unattractive men going their own way. They don’t care about unattractive men, period. Women are just fine with unattractive men doing whatever they do, so long as those men do it away from them. The only times women care about unattractive men are when one tries to get on her radar (where she avoids them) or her attempts to get their money via her online webpage or OnlyFans site (where she feigns “interest”).

        2) I think women view the whole MGTOW/shortage of attractive men as being a problem that men caused. To women, the problem is “weak men screwing feminism up” (as Dalrock accurately called it). Women’s view on this is that women are advancing and doing it on their own, and it is men’s job to keep apace with what women are doing. It’s men’s job to improve themselves, be fit and good looking, and to be high earners, so they can be selected for sex and for LTRs and marriage, as women deem appropriate, when women want them. Women think that men not doing these things are being selfish, shallow, short sighted, immature, insecure, and “afraid of commitment”. In other words, “screwing it all up”.

        Women simply cannot understand why men cannot or will not do what they want. It just doesn’t compute. Women view men not doing these things as a personal affront, as if men are supposed to self improve for them. Because of experiences and interactions with others, most women really believe attractive men would always be available to them for whatever they want/need them for, whenever they want/need them. And indeed, that is precisely the experience of a lot of women from age 18-30 – attractive men are everywhere, for whatever purpose women want. All they see from age 18-30 are very attractive men for sex and relationships of varying duration and intensity (whom she’s sharing with a couple of other women, whether she knows that or not).

        Look up or search “apex fallacy” – the erroneous assumption that the characteristics of the top members of a group apply to all members of the group. Women believe that all men, including ones they don’t know, including men they have never talked to or noticed, and including unattractive men, are out there having all kinds of sex, all the time. I’ve talked to several women who have never heard of MGTOW or the manosphere who really do believe this. And they believe it because that’s what the attractive men they’re watching and having sex with are doing. Their conclusion is that “if the hot guys I have sex with are doing this, then that must be what all men are doing, right? I mean, men are all horndogs, so they’re out there getting sex from someone, somewhere, right?”

        Women don’t see or don’t know about men trying and failing, or having already been through repeated rejection and failure with women, or men’s ineptitude at dating and sex, or men doing the risk/benefit analysis and concluding it’s not worth it, and so they conclude

        “they’re just not keeping up, they’re not doing what they’re supposed to do. Those men are screwing this whole thing up! Don’t they know they’re supposed to be ready to be sex partners, boyfriends, husbands, and fathers when we need them? Hey, men, what’s your problem?? Why are you just sitting there not doing anything? You’re supposed to be courting us, asking us out, dating us, marrying us, and fathering our kids!”

        This is of course because the attractive men they were having sex with a few years before aren’t interested in commitment with them, or picked someone else and are unavailable. So they’re left with the less attractive men, who of course were either playing a different game with different women, or not playing, or unable to play. So there are very few attractive men left when they’re looking to marry in their mid 20s to early 30s.

        Women understand what attracts men, and what men like, for the most part. Women know how to attract men. But women in their 20s and 30s don’t really understand men’s different timetables and motivations for interacting with women at differing stages of men’s lives and that can make it hard for women to relate to men on anything more than a superficial level. They don’t understand or really care about why men do what they do sexually and relationally, and why they make the decisions they make, until it really starts affecting them. They don’t understand or care much to understand, why men decide to have sex, how they go about picking women for sex and relationships, and how men view the roles of sex, commitment, marriage, and parenthood in their own lives. Men and women are not the same at all in this regard. And a lot of women aren’t much attuned to those things.

        A key reason for this is that many women have never really seen a grown man go through his life, because they grew up as young girls not living with their fathers.. They’ve never seen an adult man live his life, how he lives, how he works, what he likes, the daily and weekly rhythms and ups and downs that he experiences. They don’t even really know how to live with a man. Not a boy, not her brother – a man Living with brothers is similar, but not the same. Girls watch their brothers interact with other girls in overtly sexual ways, so she learns about boys’ sexual proclivities and responses. But brother doesn’t show or teach her much else. (in fairness, the reverse is true too – at least some men aren’t much keyed in to women’s motivations and timetables, and that has caused a lot of these problems.)

        So that’s what I think is going on. Women don’t really care about MGTOW until it comes time to find men to marry, and there aren’t any men left. They don’t understand why the guys “aren’t keeping up”. And they don’t understand what’s motivating men at different times in their lives.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Hopefully Nova will weigh in.

        Here’s another huge problem with women’s alarm and concern over MGTOW. And it’s really an insoluble (unsolvable?) problem.

        Most women leverage their sexual value into AF sex with hot fun sexy men when young, because… well, because they can, there’s nothing stopping them, and we’re going into a third generation of women who live sexual lives this way. The “problem” is that there are fewer attractive men than there are attractive women. This is because of the differing ways men and women view attraction – most women are attractive to most men, but most men are NOT attractive to most women. There’s a hard limit on how much most men can improve their attractiveness. A guy who started out as a 4, 5 or 6 is never going to be an 8 or a 9. Just is not going to happen, ever.

        The current SMP and MMP has no workable solution to this problem.

        The prior solution and bulwark against this problem was a combination of (1) restricting and constraining women’s sexual and dating behavior to keep them realistic and prevent them from getting a taste for sexual attention from men who would never marry them because those men have better options; (2) getting young women paired off relatively early to SMP-comparable men around their age or a little older, (3) getting those married women pregnant and keeping them busy with homes and kids and sometimes jobs to supplement the family income, so they have no time to think about “bigger better deals” or lament “the one that got away”. (4) if all else fails, and Bertha or PlainJane can’t get the job done, well, we’ll just help things along and do some of this for them. We’ll set Bertha up with Poindexter (and they’ll be OK); and we’ll set Jane up with Ernie Engineer (and they’ll be OK).

        If Bertha and Jane never got to even talk to Quentin Quarterback, much less get a one night stand with him, then they’ll be just fine with their lower status guys like Poindexter and Ernie. They won’t be pining away for Quentin because they don’t even really know what he’s like. Susie’s busy at home with Paul Plumber and their 4 kids and her part time accounting job. Stacy got Quentin and is having his kids and going to the country club. Our intrepid girls, all wives now, have too much on their plates to give a lot of thought to what some guy they’re not married to or living with is doing…. because they never had anything with any other guys.

        We don’t have any of this now. We don’t have any solutions to this problem now. Because our society did not want that solution anymore. Our society wanted women to be sexually liberated, so they can have sex with whomever they wanted. So if women can have sex with whom they want, they ignore everyone but Quentin and Chad. And they bristle at the notion that after some fun with Quentin and Chad, if they want marriage, they have to spend the rest of their lives with men like Paul or Ernie Engineer or Stan Stemlord or Tom Teacher or Bob from Accounting or Billy Beta, or, God forbid, Poindexter.

        They have a very, very hard time accepting that they can’t get commitment from Quentin and Chad. After all, they got to sleep with Quentin and Chad, so why can’t they get commitment from one of those guys? Well, um, dear, it’s because you’re not attractive enough for that. And women REALLY get salty at that. They resent the hell out of that. And they transfer that resentment to the men they eventually marry.

        Women are responding by pushing marriage further and further out, and some are not marrying at all. If anything, women’s demands for attractive men are being pushed up – male physical appearances and looks are much more important now, and that makes the problem worse, because most men just do not meet that one physical ideal women like. Most men just don’t have those characteristics and never will, no matter what they do.

        The point is that under the present SMP/MMP regime, the problem of a shortage of attractive men cannot be solved for most people. There’s no way to solve it short of more and more people simply doing without.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Well, um, dear, it’s because you’re not attractive enough for that. And women REALLY get salty at that. They resent the hell out of that. And they transfer that resentment to the men they eventually marry.

        In part, this is because their experience and criteria are backwards from ours. Men have lower criteria for sex and higher criteria for marriage. Women are the reverse — sky high criteria for sex, lower criteria for relationships/marriage. So from a woman’s perspective, it doesn’t compute that a woman would be attractive enough for sex, but not for marriage, generally speaking. Women will have sex with some sexy, unmarriageable men, of course, but many of the men they are “riding” during the party years they would like to marry — if not him, and not then, someone like him, and eventually. So the idea that these guys would be willing to have sex with them super fast, but that they would not be attractive enough to marry is exactly the backwards way from the way most women feel things, viscerally. It’s precisely the opposite from men, and it blindsides them when we act directly opposite to how they would expect us to act, projecting their own way of looking at things onto us.

        The point is that under the present SMP/MMP regime, the problem of a shortage of attractive men cannot be solved for most people. There’s no way to solve it short of more and more people simply doing without.

        There isn’t really a solution that comes to mind that would not involve unwinding the social changes of the last 60 years. The “sweet spot” socially is to find a way to match up what the sexes bring to each other and seek from each other in an equitable way. What we are living through now, as Roger Devlin pointed out in his seminal works of the noughts-era, is the rejection wholesale by women of the “old deal”, which they chafed under and didn’t see as equitable. Instead they pushed for a “having my cake and eat it, too” solution of being free to pursue sexy men for sex without consequences (biological or social), followed by marriage to a suitably attractive, dutiful husband, coupled with exit options on fair terms at her choice, at any time. It was basically a “we win, you lose” scenario. They thought, they really honestly did think, that men would “play along” because … sex. The thinking was — we have the power of the pussy. Men have no choice, they have to do what we want, otherwise they won’t get laid at all, so don’t worry about the men.

        And that worked, for the most part, for most of the past 60 years. It still does work, to a large degree, but we are seeing erosion on the margins over time, as more and more men find it doesn’t pencil for them to play the game, and as more and more women get greedier and greedier about making it even more of a zero-sum “we win, you lose” game. OnlyFans is one aspect of this, and there are many others.

        It’s a much broader issue. Jack is, I think, thinking about a series on the broader issue of the problem raised here — the gamesmanship taking place, the incentives created by it, and whether there is a way out that is discernable and scalable — beyond being a successful outlier, which is always a path available to, well … successful outliers, lol.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “It’s a much broader issue. Jack is, I think, thinking about a series on the broader issue of the problem raised here — the gamesmanship taking place, the incentives created by it, and whether there is a way out that is discernable and scalable — beyond being a successful outlier, which is always a path available to, well … successful outliers, lol.

        That’s right. OASIS is the theme for January. In February, we’ll dissect the modern SMP to reveal the dilemmas and conundrums for Christian men. March will cover ideas for “solutions” and/or coping strategies.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        There isn’t really a solution that comes to mind that would not involve unwinding the social changes of the last 60 years.

        The only other “solutions” are (1) do without and spend the rest of your life single (what some men do); or (2) wait a long time and compromise/settle so deeply that it’s a net loss and worse than what you might have had with doing without (what a sizable number of men and women do). Door Number 1 is hard for men because they spend years without sex, and hard for women because being a “never married” is a huge status hit with the feminine social matrix. (I never realized this until coming to the ‘sphere – for most women, being a “never married” is one of the most humiliating and emotionally traumatic things a woman can experience. It’s why women go into full panic mode in their 30s.)

        Women need marriage/commitment like men need sex. They just have to have it and they’ll do almost anything to get it. Men will abase and embarrass themselves for sex, turn themselves into the worst kinds of simps. If they have to wait or pay for it, they will. If they have to beclown themselves, they will. If they have to learn pickup or game, they will.
        If they have to become good at complex algebra, they will. Women will marry men they’re really not all that into, marry men beneath them, marry men they don’t love. So, lots of people will pick Door Number 2.

        The “sweet spot” socially is to find a way to match up what the sexes bring to each other and seek from each other in an equitable way.

        That’s what used to be done. That just can’t be done anymore, because most men can’t give women what they demand. It really is “heads I win, tails you lose”. The only way men can win is just to say “I just won’t play, then. I’ll just keep my money and resources and commitment. Or, if I get hard up enough, I’ll get an escort, a sugarbaby or an OnlyFans subscription, and toss a little cash your way. Otherwise, step off.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti,

        A guy who started out as a 4, 5 or 6 is never going to be an 8 or a 9. Just is not going to happen, ever.

        That’s not true. It does happen.

        A man who starts out as a fat, unemployed slob, who then gets his life in order, gets in shape, and starts a career can boost his attractiveness by a pretty big margin.

        Does it happen often? No. Because that requires a hell of a lot of work. But, does it happen? Yes, it does.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “Anything to add about this guys?”

        Yes, Tomi and her friends are referring to alpha men, those who are managing relationships with multiple women and/or leaving old pssy for new pssy all the time. Notice her advice to “manboys” who need to “grow up” to date her and her friends: “be single”, make plans to meet up rather than a texting based relationship.

        Uh yeah, cuz most of us men (she calls all of us “trash” excepting young boys and old men) have multiple girlfriends and most of us men don’t actually want to see our (multiple) girlfriends in person, we just want a digital relationship.

        BTW, I see women at work here going through the epiphany in their late 30s instead of late 20’s – I don’t think the 29.999999 years old ephipany thing is entirely accurate – reality is sometimes worse.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Scott says:

    Deti– Email sent.

    Like

  7. redpillboomer says:

    “If anything, women’s demands for attractive men are being pushed up – male physical appearances and looks are much more important now, and that makes the problem worse, because most men just do not meet that one physical ideal women like. Most men just don’t have those characteristics and never will, no matter what they do. The point is that under the present SMP/MMP regime, the problem of a shortage of attractive men cannot be solved for most people.”

    This ‘attractiveness’ thing I think is more important than we give it credit for nowadays. We hear all the time it is the men who want the attractive women–the 8s-10s, if they can get them; fair enough observation. However, it is apparently the women in this current SMP/MMP, who we are told all the time want the ‘well rounded man,’ i.e. looks + resources/status + Beta traits of a good husband/father, especially as they age into their late twenties and early thirties, who still REALLY want that ATTRACTIVE guy.

    I’ve heard it outlined by RP men as the AF/BB (Alpha F*cks/Beta Bucks) strategy. Some RP men have observed that it appears to have shifted in the last decade. It is no longer the women thinking AF/BB, it’s really more like AF and F’s and F’s and F’s (the Carousel), with the women thinking as they get a little older, “Now when the hell is one of these Alpha’s going to commit to me? I’m ready to leave the CC and start my family, where is Mr. 8-10 when I need him to put a ring on it?” In other words, Capt Save-A-Ho is no longer acceptable to be a Beta Bucks man, that’s viewed as ‘settling’ now. It’s really more like, “Why can’t I get one of these guys, these damn Alphas I find ATTRACTIVE to commit to me now that I’m ready to get married and start a family in the next few years?”

    What do you guys think, has the AF/BB strategy really been superceded now by AF and Fs and Fs M’ lady from ages18-27, and then her mindset shifts to, “Now that I’m 28 years old…COMMIT damn you! I won’t ‘settle’ for anything less than you Mr. Top 5-10-20% man. I’m entitled to one of you!” Are we going to see the trend of ‘Alpha Widows’ escalating in the nest few years? Btw, this seemed to be a subtext in the the Tomi Lahren rant that went viral last summer, the “PSA for Boyish” men diatribe. She seemed to really be throwing a tantrum about this very thing; and coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, she was just turning 28 years old at the time of the rant.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      What do you guys think, has the AF/BB strategy really been superceded now by AF and Fs and Fs M’ lady from ages18-27, and then her mindset shifts to, “Now that I’m 28 years old…COMMIT damn you! I won’t ‘settle’ for anything less than you Mr. Top 5-10-20% man. I’m entitled to one of you!” Are we going to see the trend of ‘Alpha Widows’ escalating in the nest few years? Btw, this seemed to be a subtext in the the Tomi Lahren rant that went viral last summer, the “PSA for Boyish” men diatribe. She seemed to really be throwing a tantrum about this very thing; and coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, she was just turning 28 years old at the time of the rant.

      This has been the case for some time, actually.

      AF/BB is an issue of sequencing.

      That is, women start off with AF, with the idea of trying to get the most suitable of the AFs to commit to them. That is the goal. They do F some unmarriageable bad boy AFs, too, but they also gravitate towards men that, perhaps with a few adjustments (in the woman’s mind) would be a good potential long term partner, but is also an AF, and try to get him to commit. In other words, looking for the “AB”, or Alpha-Bux. This is pretty much always the first strategy women employ, sequentially, in this SMP — try to find the Alpha-Bux and secure his commitment.

      Almost all of them realize at some stage that commitment by an AB is not going to happen for them. Either because they can’t find an actual AB in their local market, or because the ABs they did find are not interested in committing — often to anyone, but sometimes only to them. The age at which women realize this, however, varies greatly. It varies by geography (women tend to AB hunt for much longer in big blue metro areas than in smaller dating markets), and has changed over time (the age is increasing over time). Right now in places like Manhattan and DC that age is mid-30s. In someplace like Omaha or Pittsburgh it’s more like 26-27. There’s a lot of variation. The SMP is local, and also varies by social class somewhat — so people tend to put a lot of stock in the universality of what they see in their own locality, because that is their local reality, but overall there is quite a lot of local variance behind the national stats.

      But at some point, most women transition from hunting for the AB to compromising, and hunting for the best BB they can get. That is the “epiphany” that Rollo Tomassi refers to, or what is often called “lane changing”, where women consciously shift their aim from mostly chasing the elusive AB’s commitment, to trying to find the best BB they can get. Again, the age at which this shift happens varies, and overall is increasing, such that in, say, Manhattan, this isn’t happening now until the mid 30s. But it does happen for most women.

      Some women never make the shift. Either they are one of the few who marries an AB (some of the female personages in the sphere are like this), or they are of the “never settle” mindset that is so conditioned by riding the endless train of alphas in their 20s and earlier 30s that they can’t bring themselves to settle for a beta, greater or not (Kate Bolick is one example of this). Some of these women write articles in The Atlantic and Medium. Some of them go for “The Lesbian Option”. Some of them just go for longer term singleness, finding other holdout single women “never settle” types to brunch with and travel to exotic places with, and write travel or food blogs with and so on (“Sisterhood is Powerful!!! Natch!!!!” type of thing).

      But outside of those outliers most women do change lanes eventually because most women do marry still, and they are almost all not marrying ABs because ABs are very few in number. Most do make the shift and settle, but the age at which they are doing that has been getting pushed back, and, on the margins, over time more women are being left out when the music stops because they find there is a shortage of age appropriate marriageable men when they do finally decide to lane change. That’s a real thing, it’s happening, but like truly sexless men, while it is a thing and is increasing, it’s still marginal — most men are not completely sexless (just less sex and less quality than they would like) and most women are not going without marriage (just later and to a less attractive man than they would like). The marginal changes are, however, real and growing over time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      RE: The Tomi Lahren rant. She seemed to confirm a lot of manosphere claims. Notice the focus on certain things men need to do, particularly “BE SINGLE” and “MAKE ACTUAL PLANS INSTEAD OF TEXTING.” It was pretty obvious that she and her friends are having experiences with men that have soft harems (“be single!”). These men text instead of making plans to see her in person because they are managing relationships with multiple women. This is the apex fallacy someone mentioned above – the idea in their head that most men are doing this when in reality a lot of guys can’t even get ONE GIRL!

      Don’t know if anyone found out more info but it seems the context of her rant was she tried to trade up; tried to trade Chad for ultra-Chad and didn’t stick the landing.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Cameron,

        According to the Daily Mail (yeah, I know), Ms. Lahren broke up with her fiance, Brandon Fricke, back in April 2020. He’s a tall, former D-1 QB, current NFL agent, who ran for congress in Beverly Hills, and bought her a $50K engagement ring.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8269291/Tomi-Lahren-calls-engagement-fianc-wasnt-ready-settle-down.html

        That wasn’t good enough for Ms. Lahren.

        Before that, according to the Daily Mail, Ms. Lahren dated a Navy SEAL, so she pretty much has the bases of masculinity covered.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3170103/This-hunky-Navy-SEAL-boyfriend-conservative-TV-news-anchor-Tomi-Lahren-s-inspired-tirade-against-President-Obama-half-baked-ISIS-policy.html

        Given her looks and status, Ms. Lahren has a good shot at sticking the landing, but I doubt she’ll do better.

        According to Infogalactic, Ms. Lahren has been working for OANN since 2014 covering politics…

        https://infogalactic.com/info/Tomi_Lahren

        … which means she’s been in the public eye, and surrounded by super-high-status men since she was 22. So, she’s had her ego inflated by super-high-status men constantly telling her how beautiful, and wonderful, and conservative she is, while living at the apex of the feminist life script.

        There’s not enough hotness on the entire planet to make up for that level of entitlement.

        Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Latest rumor is she is ‘dating’ former Bears QB Jay Cutler who is separating/separated/divorcing/being divorced by his wife, who I believe is also some sort of celebrity in her own right. Not sure about any of this, it is just a rumor that floated through the Manosphere in the couple of months after her rant. Apparently the ‘Ultra Chad’ was some Country and Western singer who she monkey-branched to and into his harem from the Brandon Frickes guy she was engaged to. Apparently she got ‘caught between the branches’ and had quite a fall, i.e. C&W star dumped her. I don’t know what is true, other than the Frickes part, which was well documented by the Manosphere because of the reliable sources of information concerning it–including Tomi herself who mentioned it in passing, or at least alluded to it in her clips. The C&W star and Cutler, part of the rumor mill on the manosphere, not sure how true either is–has the ‘ring of truth’ about it; but I’m not sure if it is true or not. Frickes for sure is true. Anyone have any insight into this? Is it even worth knowing, to round out the story maybe? Idk.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Tomi Lahren specifically is aiming for the apex, that’s true. She’s attractive, blonde, in her 20s, and has the eye of apex alphas. This makes it hard for her to settle for one. She is still “only” 28. She has access, through her circles, to lots and lots of top tier men. The seal, whom I remember her talking about, had no chance — he was a “nobody”, and that wasn’t going to be good enough once she started accessing men who were higher than a very attractive man who was a “nobody”. Fricke probably was a case of bad timing — she was still “too young to settle down” — aka, could still find a higher apex male. That backfired, as she is learning that apex males, by definition, have a lot of options, and Tomi Lahren, with her unsubtle conservative feminism, may not be the best option for many of them, although she likely is quite fun for a while.

        Hard to say where she will end up. If Cutler chases her that would be foolish of him if his intention is anything more than fun.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Nova & boomer

        Well, according to her that’s pretty much all of us – alpha males with harems – LoL – some men have no choice but be alone – almost no woman has to be alone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        Ms. Lahren is also an example of how women today have no idea (because they haven’t been taught) what men want.

        She claims to want a conservative, Christian man. She obviously wants a tall, handsome, super-athletic, super-high-status man, because that’s who she dates. And, given that she’s 28, she’ll probably want a man who’s 30-35.

        So, what does a 35-year-old, conservative, Christian, high-status, single man want? What’s missing from his life?

        Probably a family. Children.

        If he has high status, then he also has a high-stress, demanding career.

        What does Ms. Lahren bring to the table? Youth and beauty, sure, but those are abundant (for a high-status man), depreciating assets.

        What else does Ms. Lahren bring to the table? She has high status, and wealth.

        But the men she wants already have status, and wealth. And besides, if they both have high-stress, demanding careers; who’s going to raise the kids?

        From the perspective of the men Ms. Lauren wants, the assets she brings to the table are
        1. abundant, and/or
        2. depreciating, or
        3. redundant.

        But she doesn’t see that, because she’s never been taught to see things from a man’s perspective. She has zero empathy for men.

        Despite all that, she still has a good shot at sticking the landing. Damn that male privilege!

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Most men aren’t going to give a rat’s ass about her wealth – that’s not what we want in women. And that’s sure not what the famous men she dates want since they have it. She’s projecting.

        In her rant she bitched about men complaining about she and her friends being “difficult” – it was clear her men (probably the country music guy) called her “difficult” to her face. She should get a clue – most men want a pretty woman who isn’t a pain in the ass. The probability of not getting dumped would go up if she was nice.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        The apex fallacy plays a much, much bigger role in all of this than most of us realize.

        Women see high status, high value, top tier men, and that’s all they see. So, they see “all men” (the attractive men they see, not the unattractive majority of men they don’t see) have lots of options, get lots of female attention, and get lots of sex. Women conclude: All men are out there with options, and lots of attention and sex.

        Truth: That’s the experience of a small minority of men. The vast majority of men are out there fighting each other for table scraps. Most men do get some sex, sometimes, but only if he gets a relationship, and even then many times it’s not very good or frequent sex. Most men spend long stretches of time with nothing – not even a mediocre failing relationship. For most men, what they can usually keep going is a beta orbiter thing.

        It goes the other way too, but to a lesser extent. Men see most women (including attractive women, average women, and some below average women) with lots of options, getting lots of male attention, and getting sex whenever they want. Men conclude: most women are out there with options, and lots of attention and sex and whatever they want:

        Truth: What men see is mostly correct. The experience of average women, HB5 on up, is options, lots of attention, and quality sex on tap. Nearly all women can get sex anytime they want, and some of it is really good sex. Most women can get sex from attractive men. Most women have had the experience of sex with a Chad. (By contrast, most men never get to bang Stacy.) Most women have had the experience of mind blowing, curl your toes, earth moved and angels wept sex. (By contrast, most men have had “good” sex at best.)

        What men get incorrect about most women is that they can get “whatever they want”. They can’t. Women can get sex whenever they want. They can usually get good sex. Some of it is pretty crappy sex, to hear them tell it. They usually can’t get the relationships they want. They can’t get their sex partners to treat them how they want. Most women can rent Chad for a while, but can’t keep him. They have to share him and at some point, their “rental” is up and they have to “let him go”. The serial rejection takes enormous mental and emotional tolls on them, in addition to whatever other issues they have (and most women have issues).

        What is striking about women’s views on this is the near-total lack of perspective on this. They can’t even begin to see what men’s experiences are. Even when you emotionlessly tell them about it, just matter of factly, they run screaming from the room. I don’t expect sympathy or even empathy, just intellectual acceptance of the concept, much like men are when they’re learning about something new. Like “Oh, ok, I see, that’s how this works.” Women just can’t do that with the male lived experience, including the male sexual experience. They can’t wrap their minds around it even in a sterile, intellectual fashion. They cannot even begin to understand the experience of “the bottom 80%”. They can’t see it, can’t grasp it, can’t conceive of it, can’t even HEAR it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        From the perspective of the men Ms. Lauren wants, the assets she brings to the table are
        1. abundant, and/or
        2. depreciating, or
        3. redundant.

        But she doesn’t see that, because she’s never been taught to see things from a man’s perspective. She has zero empathy for men.

        Correct, Oscar.

        I’d also add that she isn’t a serious candidate for any serious Christian man because she is openly pro-abortion (unsurprising, because she is also obviously sexually active). She’s not the kind of woman any serious Christian man, alpha or otherwise, would be interested in pursuing.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Men don’t care about a woman’s “high status” either. A lot of men do want a woman with an education level comparable to or a little below his own, mostly for compatibility and for having and raising kids. Men don’t want to let a dummy run their house and have access to the money.

        But, yeah, most men just want a pretty woman who isn’t a complete pain in the ass, and who isn’t a complete moron.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        What men get incorrect about most women is that they can get “whatever they want”. They can’t. Women can get sex whenever they want… They usually can’t get the relationships they want.

        There’s that lack of empathy again, only in the opposite direction. Men, also, are not taught (or are outright lied to about) what women want.

        Neither side knows what the other wants, and therefore neither side is getting what they want, except for the lucky few. It’s almost as though God knew what He was talking about when He commanded chastity, and monogamous marriages in which the husband loves, the wife respects, and both serve each other.

        That brings us right back to the issue of trying to outsmart God. How’s that working out for us?

        Liked by 6 people

      • Jack says:

        “Neither side knows what the other wants, and therefore neither side is getting what they want, except for the lucky few.”

        Worse than this, they don’t know what they themselves want. They are too lost in their extravagant and vain social/sexual lives to consider what it means to them and what it’s costing them. They’ll never do the introspection necessary to figure out the answer to the questions, “What do I really need the most?”, “What is most important to me?”, and “What am I willing to do or to sacrifice in order to have it?”

        In another comment, Deti said women really really want to get married. This is true, but actually, they don’t want to BE married, because that pressures them to grow up. They just want to have that on their life resume. Once they have that checked off their bucket list, they’ll throw it away on a whim, as evidenced by the data. (40% of marriages end in divorce, with 70% of these initiated by the woman.)

        Lahren makes this perfectly clear. She had the chance to be married to a fine man — a top 5% man! But she backed out. Why?
        This shows what is most important to her. It’s not marriage, nor having an alpha man, not money, not status, not even c0ck (either quality or quantity). No, she wants CHOICE, and she’ll hold on to her options as long as she can… until she has no options! She likes to play god, to be the lord of her own candy land life. It’s “me first”, all the way to perdition. This is the reason why she cannot empathize with the needs of the men in her life. She doesn’t care what they want, because that would require humility. According to her world view, men should bow down and worship her god of Choice — herself. So yes, it is impossible for her to ever be an obedient Christian in any meaningful context of marriage, as NovaSeeker said above. She has defiled herself with the world and will never achieve a God glorifying Headship marriage. It’s probably better for her not to marry at all. She can continue to pursue this illusion of choice, and she won’t defraud any man she might have otherwise married, and then ruin his life with a frivorce when she finds out that it isn’t what she needs the most in life. Her Christianity is only a cultural identification, as NovaSeeker described in a post last year.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        Worse than this, they don’t know what they themselves want.

        Well, they’ve been lied to a lot, so it’s not all their fault.

        It’s probably better for her not to marry at all.

        It’s worked for Ann Coulter, so far.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      has the AF/BB strategy really been superceded now by AF and Fs and Fs M’ lady from ages18-27, and then her mindset shifts to, “Now that I’m 28 years old…COMMIT damn you! I won’t ‘settle’ for anything less than you Mr. Top 5-10-20% man. I’m entitled to one of you!”

      In recent years, women have been explaining their AF choices with the following justification:

      Yeah, he was an AF, but I never even considered him for anything serious, because he was and is completely unsuited for anything serious. Not as a boyfriend or possible husband. At best he was a short term thing, couple months at the most. He was just for sex, for fun sex, he was hot and he was there, because I needed an orgasm, to scratch an itch, to salve my ego, to score some bragging rights points, because my friends F’d him and said he was good/had a big d*ck and I wanted to try him out for myself, or alleviate my boredom. I would never have tried to get that guy to commit.

      It just strikes me as sour grapes, to some extent. They’re right that there are a lot of AFs who are completely unsuited to relationships, but that doesn’t usually stop women from taking them for test drives and trial runs, in the longshot hope they can convert him to boyfriend status.

      A few other observations men should note:

      –women want sex with attractive men

      –penis size does matter. Women say it doesn’t, but it does, very much so. It matters A LOT

      –looks do matter. Women say they’re not all that important, but they are, very much so. They matter A LOT

      –women will tolerate sharing attractive men with other women. They don’t necessarily like it, they wish men wouldn’t do it, but they’ll put up with it if they believe he is their best option

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        –penis size does matter. Women say it doesn’t, but it does, very much so. It matters A LOT

        –looks do matter. Women say they’re not all that important, but they are, very much so. They matter A LOT

        Yep.

        These play out a bit differently, but both are true.

        Looks matter, across the board. They matter even more in a world where most dating is driven by dating apps, which have swipe formats, because people make the initial cut, or not, based entirely on appearance — no vibe, no interaction, just a picture. So looks are far more important, probably, than they have ever been in human history, for men, when it comes to women.

        Penis size matters, too, for two reasons. One, women are watching porn (younger women almost all watch it, even if they watch it less often than young men do … they almost all watch it at least sometimes) and porn tends to feature men who are all above average, some greatly so. This sets a norm and expectation in women’s minds about penis sizes, just as porn as set standards about breast sizes (with many young women getting breast enhancement surgery prior to age 25), bikini waxing and so on. Porn is setting visual standards and sexual standards … but, hey, it’s like Michelangelo, really, and even if it isn’t like Michelangelo, it’s no different from the stack of playboys in Uncle Billy’s garage. Yep.

        The second reason is that women are having more sexual experience overall, and a part of this is sampling different penis sizes and how they like them visually “in person”, and how they feel inside their bodies. Women are developing a “preference” in penis size as a result of this sampling, such that men who do not match the preference are going to be immediately disappointing both visually and in the tactile sense. It isn’t a straightforward thing in terms of “bigger is better”. There are true “size queens” for whom biggest is desired. There are lots of women for whom girth is more important than length, and some for whom it’s vice versa.

        But guys who are of average size and girth (or if you are one of the unfortunates who is below that) be warned — women who have any significant amount of sexual experience are likely to prefer a different kind of penis than the one you have, and if they do opt for you they will always hold this as a “concession” they made to you, even if they never tell you about it openly. And, unfortunately, even girls who do not have a significant degree of sexual experience may still be impacted due to having the one or other ex-bf who was very well endowed and imprinted that expectation on her visually and viscerally, or due to watching porn and internalizing its standards.

        Yet another thing that men did not need to contend with, for the most part, historically because women did not have the sexual experience to become connoisseurs of the penis such that they developed conscious preferences for size and girth. Not so anymore, folks.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Women are developing a “preference” in penis size as a result of this sampling, such that men who do not match the preference are going to be immediately disappointing both visually and in the tactile sense.

        Yes. Women are increasingly getting experience with penis sizes even whether they intend it or not. A large percentage of sexually active women have experience with men with very small, way below average size penises, and men with very large, way above average size penises, and everything in between. Penises they say they can’t feel because they’re so small; and penises they say they can’t tolerate because they’re so big. In both cases they say the sex just isn’t enjoyable at all, because in the first instance there’s no tactile sensation and in the second because it’s too painful. Or so they claim.

        Bringing me to my last point on this – the internet revolutionized this simply because women are seeing these men, having sex with many of them, and talking frequently and publicly about their experiences with them. It used to be that women talked about this amongst themselves, quietly – remember that scene in The Godfather where the girls are giggling about Sonny Corleone and one holds her hands out to show length? Clearly they’re talking about how he’s got a big d*ck, and they all giggle knowingly, because, well, he’s had sex with all of them, and they all know it. Now? Women talk about this matter of factly, on the internet, on TV, in magazines, in TV shows – all the time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “A large percentage of sexually active women have experience with men with very small, way below average size penises, and men with very large, way above average size penises, and everything in between.”

        No way to prove or disprove this claim, but seems highly unlikely to me. This large percentage of women would have to have huge notch counts, probably in the hundreds to encounter both Meat and Peewee (reference to the movie Porkies).

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        This large percentage of women would have to have huge notch counts,

        In the extremes, sure. But women who date around (which means sleeping with a fair few men in 2021) will have experienced a variety of sizes, and many will have developed a preference, in addition to the porn effect I describe.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Impossible to know but best science (e.g. British urology study passed around sphere several years ago) suggests a lot less variation than most people think. Porn to endowment is like the NBA to height – a collection of medical curiosities.

        Based on available data, notch count would have to be 100+ to experience meaningful variation (particularly in both directions) since distribution is approximately normal (like most other attributes) not uniform. Homosexuals probably do experience this variation since they have huge counts and extremely indiscriminate sex practices.

        Like

  8. lastmod says:

    Who is Tomi Lahren?

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Former Fox News contributor, big social media following. She published on Facebook I believe it was, a video of her talking (re: ranting) last August about men and relationships that was entitled “PSA for Boyish Men.” She also did a follow-up to it. You can watch it on YouTube, just Google it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        No thanks…I don’t need to hear another woman telling me what I am not doing enough of….and even if I was……there is absolutely ZERO chance of a woman this attractive ever dating me or whatever….even when I was young.

        So what does this prove by bringing this woman up? It’s the same thing the sphere has been talking about since 2012 when I arrived and before that I am sure. How is this helping? Is it warning men to stay away from women like this? If man can’t figure this out by the time he is 25 and reads the gazillion comments about this type of woman he needs WAY more help than the sphere

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        Nope, I’m not interested. As you mentioned, she has a big social media following. And she also has a degree in broadcast journalism and political science so she does have the training and skills to develop content to keep herself relevant and her following interested. Thus, she may very well be playing to her audience, telling them what she thinks they want to hear. Kind of like politicians playing to their base.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “So what does this prove by bringing this woman up?”

        I suppose it’s interesting to look at real world cases to see if our beliefs are accurate. We can be an echo-chamber.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. thedeti says:

    Quick bandy about the ‘net about Tomi and Jay Cutler: They say they’re “just friends”. Rumors abounded after friends saw Lahren and Cutler having fun at a bar, sharing a table, doing shots together.

    But, we all know that celebrities live on planes of existence far above ours, and that the usual laws of sexual and relationship physics don’t apply to them. Anything could be true there. They could be FwBs. They could be starting a romance privately, while using media lackeys and sycophants to run cover for them and deny it.

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Rumors abounded after friends saw Lahren and Cutler having fun at a bar, sharing a table, doing shots together.

      Indicator number 2 that Lahren is not serious material for a Christian wife/mother position for any serious Christian man, alpha or otherwise.

      A woman who is a good candidate for that isn’t spending her time doing shots in bars with recently divorced male athletes. She’s a garden-variety alpha-hunting minor celebrity, with a Christian “skin” — she isn’t actually Christian in her behaviors, but rather behaves like a godless heathen woman of her same age and beauty would.

      Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        I listened to a few RP content creators point out that this is one of the things men need to keep in mind about “Trad Con” women, even church women. Most of them are not what they appear to be. Once you get beyond the Trad Con surface-level attributes, you’ve got a feminist, or at least one with pronounced feminist leanings in their world view and their view of relationships. In addition, many of them are riding the CC. They are not what they appear to be. Tomi Lahren is an archetype of these types of women. Anything to add to this?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I agree with that.

        I think you have to look at other criteria apart their expressed political and social opinions/affiliations. You have to look at how they choose to live, spend their time, where their energy and emphasis is in how they live their lives. If a woman pursues degrees, career advancement, travel enrichment, beauty/fashion, and lots of dates with hot guys, in effect she is the same as the garden variety feminists regardless of what she professes as her belief system or political alignment. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

        There is far too much emphasis, I think, on what comes out of someone’s mouth, in terms of professed belief, and too little emphasis on how that person is living, in terms of living out and exemplifying a belief system. Many, many “conservative” women mouth conservative affiliation for various reasons (many of them revolving around a perception that feminists are ugly, man-hating lesbians or something like that), but live lives that are exactly the same as attractive, careerist women who are openly feminist. These women are really feminists, themselves, but they just don’t like the label. Men should not be so easily fooled, but men often are because looks blind them. They want to believe that the “conservababe” is really a traditional woman, and not a feminist just using a different label, which is almost always what she is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        I think you have to look at other criteria apart their expressed political and social opinions/affiliations. You have to look at how they choose to live, spend their time, where their energy and emphasis is in how they live their lives.

        You mean, “pay attention to what they do, not what they say”? “Actions speak louder than words”? “By their fruit you shall know them”?

        Isn’t it amazing how we keep reinventing the wheel?

        Liked by 5 people

  10. Swanny River says:

    We cover old ground, but as a farce. Compare Lahren’s childish demands with something similar but with a huge dollop of feminity: “I love you honey,” by Patsy Cline. I couldn’t figure out how to paste a youtube clip, but it’s a fun 2 minute song and worthy of listening to.

    Like

  11. lastmod says:

    Oh…”looks matter a lo”t……been saying that since 2012 on these blogs, 99% of you thought I was crazy for daring to say such a thing back then. Hey, you know……sometime the dullard has the best insight here and there

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Why are you complaining about people who agree with you?

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        A lot of men want to believe that looks don’t matter – that it’s about status. This gives them hope that they are or can be alpha males (if they just get their game worked out of course). This would be common among the type of men who post on these sites – fairly successful, educated men. They want to believe high status men are alpha: Bill Gates ain’t alpha.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        No-one ever said “looks don’t matter” — at least no one of any consequence. Not Roissy. Not Rollo. Not Dalrock. Roissy explicitly said that “Game” is not going to take you from attracting 3s to attracting 7s. Perhaps some idiots in the commentariat suggested that, but no-one of actual consequence in the old sphere claimed that “looks don’t matter”.

        What they disagreed with was that “looks are the only thing that matter”, which is what the black pill has been saying since 2009. In 2009 that wasn’t true, and so people disagreed with them. But they didn’t say that looks didn’t matter at all, but rather that one could improve by deploying Game (which is really a shorthand term for “applied social skills”), within whatever “band” your looks permit you to date in. And, later, red pill writers, even in the Christian manosphere, like Deep Strength, explicitly have said that guys should “looks max” (that is, get the most out of the looks they have) before engaging in the MMP. Again, not “looks don’t matter”.

        Since the rise of app dating on smart phones, the importance of looks has skyrocketed, such that things that were written in the sphere in 2008-2012 are no longer accurate. Apps were a game-changer in that they permit women to screen efficiently without men having any opportunity to contextualize the screening, and they also have created an expectation that meeting people outside of the app context is inherently “creepy” (“dude, there’s an app for dating, don’t be creping on me by chatting me up at the club/bar/school/church/party/etc !”).

        In general, the sphere, both old and new, has always suffered from a plague of binary thinking, I think in part because it attracts a lot of STEM type thinkers who are very prone to binary thinking to begin with. Multifactorial explanations that are not binary “either X or Y” are not that popular in the sphere, and so for many people it seems that either looks are all that matter, or looks don’t matter at all — with the truth instead being that looks matter, and in 2021 they matter more than they ever have, but that once you get past the looks screen lots of other things matter, too. It’s multifactor, but with apps being the main funnel for dating in 2021, looks now matter more than ever — but they still aren’t all that matters, or close to it.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. lastmod says:

    Not complaining. Stating a truth. In 2012 / 2013 was a heretic for daring to say this fact o. Dalock.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      You’re complaining. More importantly, you’re complaining to the wrong people. No one here said “looks don’t matter”. Nova just pointed that out to you.

      No-one ever said “looks don’t matter” — at least no one of any consequence. Not Roissy. Not Rollo. Not Dalrock. ~ Nova

      So, once again, why are you complaining about people who agree with you, instead of complaining to whomever specifically stated that “looks don’t matter” (if such a person exists)?

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Nova is incorrect. Never heard of Roissy btw. He can’t that important. Dalrock frequently alluded to looks not mattering. DS told they never did, until “they did” and the peanut gallery on Dalrock roasted me for daring to say such a thing…and I don’t recall you ever tearing their comments apart………probably out of fear of being labeled a cuck, or something

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Maybe it’s misplaced here but he’s right that there are manosphere types who come pretty close to claiming looks don’t matter if not outright stating it. Some might be content creators who want to make money off giving other men hope. Some I think are men who want to believe they can be “alpha males” if their status is high enough and that they have control over that.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Roissy/Heartiste is the pick up artist type – totally secular – “enjoy the decline”, very influential in the secular manosphere – some influence on the Christian manosphere – usually men quoting him without endorsing him.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        ah yes…..that whole “he isn’t Christian, but gives great advice to men” kind of thing. Just do what he says without “sinning” works perfectly everytime. There are so many of them still purporting the same thing……..what 30% of men in the west / Japan now who have not had sex or a date in over ten years just are not “trying” and are losres and would rather be miserable. Know that type very, very well.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Nova is incorrect.

        Okay. Can you prove it? Do you have a quote? It shouldn’t be too difficult to find, if what you say is true.

        And, even if it is, why are you complaining about people who agree with you?

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        You just answered your own question of me Osacar. If I indeed proved it….which I could, you then continued with “even if it’s true” it doesn’t matter. This shows your blantant, slavish and outright childish ignorance

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        If I indeed proved it….which I could

        Let’s see the evidence, then, if it exists.

        you then continued with “even if it’s true” it doesn’t matter.

        Have you ever noticed how often you accuse people of saying things they never said? Do you realize you’re lying?

        I never said that “it doesn’t matter”. I asked why you’re complaining to people who agree with you, instead of complaining to the people you claim believe that “looks don’t matter”.

        Like

  13. redpillboomer says:

    “A lot of men want to believe that looks don’t matter – that it’s about status. This gives them hope that they are or can be alpha males (if they just get their game worked out of course). This would be common among the type of men who post on these sites – fairly successful, educated men. They want to believe high status men are alpha: Bill Gates ain’t alpha.”

    Yes, many of the men in the Manosphere I’d say occur to me as ‘fairly successful, educated men.’ You can tell by the way they speak and/or write. Here’s one thing I’ve pondered quite a bit, maybe you guys can think out loud with me and help me out. This whole Alpha thing, the term I mean, it has been so overused in the ‘Sphere it seems downright blurry and confusing to me. So let me start with a little ‘old school’ thinking, and you guys take it from there, see if the Alpha can be deconstructed, or is it just a trope that most of us think/wish/hope we could be? Oh, and don’t reference ‘silverback gorillas,’ lol, I get the Alpha concept quite easily when it comes to the animal kingdom. What about in human beings-men in particular?

    Back-in-the-day, when I was in High School, the Alpha was the ‘top dog’ guy, the one most all the girls wanted…the old HS quarterback trope. In my school’s case, it was the quarterback and running back, because both were star players. The QB while handsome, didn’t quite match the running back in looks, because the RB looked like a freakin’ movie star, uber handsome and well built, so I think he was ‘top dog’ because he edged the QB out in the LOOKS department. Although it did seem there were other ‘top dog’ guys in high school, inside the other factions, i.e. the ‘top dog’ actor in the Artsy bunch, the ‘top dog’ musician in the Rock band bunch, hell even the ‘top dog’ stoner in the weed smoking, partying bunch. I was ‘top dog’ in none of those niches, however I was a decent athlete, relatively handsome, a good student and a pretty good kid for the most part. I could not get Stacy in my grouping, she went to the ‘top dog,’ the running back. And yes, lol, there was a Stacy in the stoner group too. I could get athlete group Stacy’s friends to pay some attention to me here and there, but only for a season because they were all in competition orbiting Stacy for the ‘greater betas.’ I say greater beta, because while some of these guys were pretty impressive in their own right, they were not the Alpha as I understand Alpha, the ‘top dog’ male. So Stacy’s buddies were lining up for the best they could get; and yes, hypergamy was in play, although I didn’t know what that was at the time, but I did see/feel the effects of it, i.e. went through HS girlfriend breakups because of it.

    It seems Alpha has been so blurred now, that upwards to 50-75% of the ‘Sphere men would like to think they are Alpha or at least somewhat Alpha, you can see it in there podcast pics-beards, bald heads, knit caps, wife beater t-shirts, sunglasses, etc. I get that it is their ‘Shtick,’ their branding image, but hey, you may be masculine, but you’re not Alpha–‘the top dog.’ I heard one of the most well known ‘Spherian content producers refer to himself as a ‘lesser Alpha.’ Looking at him, I thought come on dude, you are not the ‘top dog’ in the looks department, and you appear to be pretty short; but hey, we’re all a bit Alpha right, aka ‘lesser Alphas.’ He’s married, so I guess he’s Alpha to at least one female, if she still looks at him that way after years of marriage.

    Sorry, rambling a bit here. Any thoughts on this Alpha/Beta thing to get it clearer. The best I heard so far was Athol Kay in Married Men’s Sex Life explaining the Aplha/Beta qualities. Oh, there was also one of the PUAs I believe from a number of years back that had it laid out in Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Omega, Gamma terms that I remember reading. I thought that was pretty good breakdown too.

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      In the sphere it refers very simply to “man who has greater than average sexual access to women, whether he uses that access or not”.

      That’s it.

      Different men can have a different basis for being that. It has nothing to do with any one particular basis, as such, however, because one can always find individual men who score high in a given basis and do not do very well with women, because of other things that hold them back. This is why you focus on the results, rather than the “qualities” — the proof is in the pudding.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. lastmod says:

    You’re a straight up liar Nova. For a man who isn’t Black Pill, or Incel, or has never been in the 75% or 80% of men you seem to just know everything about my life, how I live, what I go through and what countless men like me deal with.

    Damn. I have outright TRIED. I have taken contrarian, agreed, agreed in principle, have tried to walk in your shoes (you guys here THEN tell me “you just cannot understand” )

    And you’re effing wrong about the term Alpha. It was used by and coined first by Naomi Wolfe…..a feminist writer. That’s it

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I wouldn’t dare tell you I know more about your experiences than you do.

      I have an n=1 anecdote. I know a guy (husband of wife’s friend) who looks roughly like your picture. He has been overweight at various times. He was a drug addict. He met a single mom (signifcantly younger than him – he was in his 40s, she in her 20s) at narcotics anonymous. SHe had two kids and a cheating ex-husband. SHe decided the minute she saw him that she was going to marry him. She has a few tats but other than that is normal-attractive i.e. not overweight, long hair. My guess is the average guy would enjoy sex with her. Normal looking woman – not some hot babe or whatever. They married and have had 5 additional kids. He is a manager at a small truckstop type restauraunt (has a job but not an impressive career). SHe is an evangelical Christian who acknowledges her husband’s headship and seems to at least try to follow him. From what the wife tells me she puts out.

      Just an ancedote, maybe it is an unusual outlier case. I’m sure I’ll get blasted but that’s a story I felt like sharing.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      you seem to just know everything about my life, how I live, what I go through and what countless men like me deal with.

      Man, that is some industrial strength projection. Just a few days ago you told me that you “know” for a “fact” exactly what criteria I have for who can marry my daughters. Remember that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        I do. By your statements, behavior towards me over the years………yeah. I have a good idea. Also, I guessed incorrectly whay you were thinking at the moment as well. So, you really showed me 😉 Remember that? Like how you changed the trajectory of your questions of me as well. It’s now about projection….not anything I brought up.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I do.

        Exactly. “you seem to just know everything about my life, how I live, what I go through and what countless men like me deal with”, right?

        By your statements

        Once again, do you realize how frequently you accuse others of saying things they never said?

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        I know you are a braggart, an egotist, a person who likes or gets jollies out pouncing on those you perceieve weaker than you and have impossible standards for men in here if they want to marry. What you go through at home? No idea. At work? Don’t know. You’re an engineer….you got it made. Top tier man.

        Accuse? No, what many have said over the years was “looks don’t matter” and now they do. It’s like Orwells “1984” in here. It usually depends on who is saying a now accepted “truth” or “fact”

        Anything to CYA to prop up game, frame, red-pill, women evil, Rollo and other hairbrained theories in soft science with scant proof.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I know you are a braggart

        What, exactly, have I bragged about? Got a quote?

        you perceieve weaker than you

        I never said I “perceived” anyone being “weaker than” me.

        have impossible standards for men in here if they want to marry

        I never said that I had any “standards for men in here if they want to marry”.

        you got it made.

        I never said I “got it made”.

        Top tier man.

        I never said that I’m a “top tier man” (whatever that means).

        Accuse?

        Yes. And falsely. Just like you accused me of saying all kinds of crap I never said.

        what many have said over the years was “looks don’t matter”

        Who said that “looks don’t matter”? Got quotes? Links? Anything? And if so, why aren’t you complaining to the ones who supposedly said that “looks don’t matter”? Why are you complaining to people who agree that looks matter?

        Anything to CYA to prop up game

        I’ve never once advocated for “game” (whatever that is). But, as usual, you insist on reading minds.

        Once again, do you realize how often you accuse others of saying things they never said? Do you realize you’re lying?

        Liked by 1 person

  15. lastmod says:

    n=1 anecdote???? have no idea what that means or is

    That is a great story and testimony. If that guy came here and stated his intent to “marry” this woman and wanted some advice you all would have said “no! soiled dove! high n count! she can’t repent…..or if she says she did…she didn’t mean it! she’s going to upsur his authority! she has tats! impossible for a woman to change! don’t marry her! Rollo says! Dalrock’s Law……Cane Caldo said……..this man needs to go to the gym, and learn game and vett a woman who will submit!”

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I wouldn’t tell another man what to do – I can only make my own decisons.

      SIngle mom is a risk factor and also not part of most men’s preferences. It’s ok to point that out.

      I try to avoid extreme and/or absolute or hyperbolic statements. We are not all the same commenter – don’t paint the commenters with too broad a brush.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        A single mom WILL be the ONLY choice for most men after the age of 35 who do “burn” and want to be married. Well, the bottom 80% anyway……….you top-tier man who had plenty of dating, IOI’s, a previous marriage and women have even “lost interest” with you when you refused sex after the third date or whatever…..and again, that testimony is excellent. I won’t fault ANYONE who has a good marriage. I have never attacked a man for having a decent marriage. No matter who they are. No matter what he or his wife may or may not look like. No matter the career.

        Painting with a broad brush…..that’s a hoot. Because women, men like me, and all the churchians are painted with a pretty broad brush here frequently Daily.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I have told my story repeatedly. I have only had one women who I met as a teenager. That’s it. I am not the guys with many dating partners, lots of IOIs, refusing sex from women, etc. I am the outlier throughback to the 1950s or whatever. I acknowlege my luck/fortune and NEVER blame others (even implicitly) for their lack of luck/fortune. I never tell them that game and working out will make it all better. That’s what I mean by painting commenters with a broad brush. I remember your personal story but in your responses it seems like we’re all the same guy.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Would love to continue this dismalia after work………look, Cameron. You are indeed blessed by god / jesus. I won’t fault a man or put his marriage down for the fact he did get one that worked……or a man who didn’t (cough) “vett” properly with the first wife and married again and its going well. I don’t if it’s luck, fate, timing in these matters, or just a plain willingness by both parties to just make it work. My parents had that. It was a good thing. Wish I had that.

        Looks matter now, and they did in 2012, ain 1992, and 1987, and 1975……you don’t have them? You ain’t getting in the door.

        Like

  16. bee123456 says:

    “She claims to want a conservative, Christian man. ”

    I have never heard or read Tomi L. saying she is a Christian. I know that Rollo T. says she is a Christian but I have not seen it out of her mouth. She claims to be a Conservative, but lots of Conservative’s are not Christians.

    I did listen to her FB rant, I did not hear it in that video. I don’t watch her TV show, so I could have missed it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Indeed.

      It was just last year that Lahren said, in a commentary at Fox News about the Gorsuch trans Supreme Court ruling, the following ( https://www.foxnews.com/media/supreme-court-gorsuch-gay-rights-tomi-lahren ):

      “Attempting to take away someone’s conservative card for being pro-choice or pro-same-sex marriage or pro-protecting good and decent people from true discrimination in the workplace is why so many young people don’t feel the conservative movement is their movement,” she continued, explaining that she often hears this complaint from her peers.

      They’re fiscally conservative, support law enforcement, support border enforcement, support the military, support the First and Second Amendment, limited government, capitalism, and agree with 90 percent of the things President Trump stands for, but they feel like they cannot call themselves conservatives because they’re pro-choice or support gay rights.”

      That is what Lahren is: a libertarian. Not a “conservative” — not that being a “conservative” isn’t equally useless. She’s pro abortion, pro-gay rights, pro trans rights … not a Christian in any way, shape, or form, even if she happens to attend church (I too, could not find anything about whether she is, or isn’t, a Christian in name).

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “That is what Lahren is: a libertarian”
        I would call her politically ‘conservative,’ socially liberal; maybe even borderline progressive, depending on where she goes with the trans rights.

        Like

  17. Scott says:

    Redpillboomer.

    This discussion of “What is an Alpha?” reminds me of the common wisdom regarding the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If you are worried that you may have inadvertently committed it, you probably haven’t.

    If you sit around wondering if you are “alpha” all the time, you probably aren’t.

    Anyway, it’s a placeholder word meaning whatever traits have set any particular man upon a successfully trajectory (in secular or religious terms according context) at any given moment.

    Like

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

  19. Pingback: Sexual competition continues after marriage | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: The Rupture of the MMP | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Women Crave Male Attention | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Sappy Wall Day, Tomi Lahren! | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Secrets | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: She don’t need no man! Except… | 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