We’ve heard this word tossed around in the Manosphere, but what exactly does it mean?

Readership: All; Men;
Theme: Feminine Submission
Length: 1,750 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes


Rollo Tomassi made a major contribution to Red Pill lore with his distinction between Transactional vs. Validational Sex (2018-3-7) stemming from his original postulate, “you cannot negotiate genuine desire”.  Rollo went on to describe many of the problems and pitfalls surrounding Transactional Sex, but to my knowledge, he never explored Validational Sex beyond its evo-psyche association with hypergamy and hormonal estrus.

So here I’ll examine a few case studies in which we’ll see certain patterns surrounding the phenomenon of “validation”.

Case Study 1 – Tobacco Juice leads to Love

Here’s an old story from the post-WW2 era.  This odd story always confused Blue Pilled me, but it makes perfect sense to my Red Pilled sensibilities.

A young woman bought a brand new pair of expensive white shoes that were in fashion.  She wore them while she was out and about town with a female friend.  As they passed a young man chewing tobacco, he abruptly turned his head to the side and carelessly spit right on her shoe, presumably by accident. She was very angry and demanded that he should pay for a new pair of shoes as a replacement.

Long story short, this interaction led to them getting married.

In a sense, this is a bizarre Meet Cute.  Blue Pilled men will be confused and ask, “Why did she fall in love with a man who spit on her favorite shoes and ruined them?”  Red Pilled men know “Chicks Dig Jerks.”  The deeper reason is because he carelessly defiled her and this aroused an emotional response, most notably her desire for an ego affirmation.

Case Study 2 – The Bored Hoe

Cameron232 came across this short Dear Abby message.*  She calls herself a “ho” (!!!) and she even uses the term “validational sex”!  (Evidence that the Red Pill is fully mainstream now!)

Dear Abby,

I’m a ho who’s bored with my hubby.  Can’t make the switch from validational sex to love sex.


Damaged Goods

Translation: “Bored” means her marriage isn’t “validational”, as Rollo would say.  IOW, there’s no Ego Affirmation in the act of sex.

Case Study 3 – The Dazed H0e

Slate: My Husband Thinks I Don’t Have Sex With Him Because It’s “Typical” for Married Couples (2022-5-18) (Archive)*

“My husband and I have been married for seven years. We’re in our 30s, with two small kids. Our relationship is in a good place. However, our sex life has been lukewarm for years, and despite some haphazard and short-lived efforts to either “talk about it” or even “spice it up” with toys or new positions, I know that my husband is unsatisfied insomuch as he makes frequent “jokes” about how my libido has significantly stagnated since the initial years of our relationship — lots of jokes about how we’re such a “typical couple” in that our sex life has diminished in heat since we’ve been married, and so on.

She gets down to the nitty gritty in the following paragraph.

“Well, I know why my libido has really waned.  […]  When we first started dating, I was in what I call my “sexual awakening” period — I began having sex at a relatively later age than most of my peers, so I racked up a number of sexual partners in a short period of time.”

Slore status confirmed!

Reading through this article gives insight as to exactly what “validation” entails.  [Emphasis mine.]

“And during this time, I came to associate sex almost exclusively with being desired and associating that with a kind of (ill-placed) validation and affirming of self-worth.  Once I entered into my first real loving relationship with my now-husband, I didn’t need the sex anymore to validate his interest in me or my worth as a sexual being.  In effect, I never translated my association with sex as a form of validation to sex as an expression of love.”

~ Dazed and Very Confused

The host is thoroughly confused and responds by glibly urging her to “have more fun” in her sex life, seemingly ignorant of the fact that Fun = Defilement.

Some things we can get out of this…

  • The phrase “my worth as a sexual being” is loaded with euphemistic meaning. Her self image is based on being a dominant man’s sexual plaything and she has never developed any personal character aside from this identity.
  • She has learned to depend on the libidinous male initiative to get the bed bouncing, which suggests that she never really explored her own desire and sexuality in the process.  IOW, she learned to always be served, and never learned to serve.
  • Old habits die hard, and this includes bedroom habits.  The reality is that married sex is nowhere near as libidinally charged as hooking up after a long dry spell.  So this leaves her high and dry (literally), especially after 7 years of marriage and a couple kids.

The thought would never occur to her that she could develop her self-image as a wife and mother, nor that she has her own libido that could be explored and put to good use. But the problem is that (1) these things come from her own initiative and (2) are not defiling enough to be fun.  Alas, she can be defiled no worse, so there is no more ego-affirmation nor fun to be had; hence, the dazed dryness.

Note: There was a discussion about this same article at Patriactionary: Wife confesses in advice column to riding the c0ck carousel, hence why bored with sex with her hubby (2022-5-20)*

Case Study 4 – The Ambitious H0e

Here’s the next correspondence to the “relationship expert” at Slate (same link, further down the page).  This letter conveys the story of a wife who wants an open relationship.  She writes,

“Through many conversations, my boyfriend and I decided long ago that our sex drives and desire for multiple partners differ — I am the one with the extracurricular desires — and that it’s OK by both of us for me to have sex with other people. However, though he denies it, I’ve noticed he seems to get a little jealous or uncomfortable if I reference other sex partners. I do believe him when he says this is not a big issue for him, but I think he chooses to process some of his understandable emotional reactions privately.”

Hamsterbation!  It is a very big issue for him, but he doesn’t have the balls to tell her, “No, you’re mine!”  Probably because the sex is so thrilling and he’s afraid of losing out on that.  IOW, he’s a slave to her V Power.  His hesitancy to enforce a boundary actually increases her sense of insecurity and tips her desire to mess around.  This is revealed when she says,

“When this all first began, I had sex with maybe one other person every other month. It’s now sometimes become once a week, depending how horny I am.”

Here, it should be noted that Men crave sexual variety, but Women cannot have sex like Men.  Women like this are not promiscuous for the variety.  No.  They crave the affirmation of being dominated and the “fun” soul-shock of being defiled again and again.  If this is not done by the same man enforcing boundaries, then she will seek to have it done by a series of men.  Whatever is necessary to humble her.  This humility is what brings “validation”.

As long as he stands by and lets her go on, she will get further into the habit of quickies with strangers – and this will continue until she becomes totally burned out and jaded, or else something happens that puts her in touch with reality (e.g. pregnancy, physical abuse, contracting an STD, etc.).

Fornication is a somewhat reliable source of humility, but it does not endure long and brings an array of negative consequences to the heart and soul.

Case Study 5 – The Revolving Door

Rob Says: She Doesn’t Want You, She Wants To Know She Could Have You. (2022-10-10)

In this post, fellow blogger Rob relays some personal anecdotes about several women he had a fling with.  He ended some of these relationships, and the woman ended some of them, but all the women he mentions popped back up in his life a few months after it ended.  Looking back on these experiences, he observes,

“The only time women have been quasi-serious about “getting me back,” or “staying in my life,” was when I ended it.

Any time they ended it, whether they stayed in contact or not, they were not serious about “getting me back.” They just wanted to know that they could.”

Rob quotes Rian Stone to explain all this behavior:

“She doesn’t want you.  She wants to know she could.”

I’ll go a little further to say that all these women already got the thrill of being humbled / defiled by him, but the ones that ended it got enough Ego Affirmation / Validation out of him to move on.  The ones that he ended came back looking for an ego-affirmation that had been elusive or incomplete while they were together.  They all toyed with him until they got it (women call this “closure”), and then they either casted him aside or else put him on the backburner as a backup orbiter, and then went off searching for another fresh sexperience of Defilement / Humility / Ego Affirmation.


“She’s not yours. It’s just your turn.”

Scott et al. have noted this behavior in wimmin before, comprehensively describing it as,

“Women’s preferred sexual strategy is serial monogamy.”

The reason women have the propensity to become serial slores is because they’re hungry for the validating humility of being dominated and defiled in an ego-affirming manner.  Once the relationship has progressed to the stage in which no more Domination / Defilement / Humility / Ego Affirmation is forthcoming, they’ll move on to the next man, looking for the same all over again.

To sum all this up in elegant form,

Validation = Domination + Defilement –> Humility + Ego Affirmation –> Feeelz of Self-Lurrrve

Put simply, in fellow blogger Jim’s words,

“You are mine!”

Put crassly, CH style,

“The worse you treat her, the more she’ll love you.”

It all goes back to the point I made harder, that Wimmin always have sex on the brain.  To be more specific, they crave the fun humility of defilement. They’ll repeat this behavior because they don’t know God’s love and this Humility is the closest thing to love that they can find (short of repentance).

Ultimately, they’re looking for sanctification (i.e. God and His love and grace), but they’re going about it in the wrong way.  The sad thing is, they will drift farther away from both God’s love and the authentic love of a man the longer they continue in the idolatry of the feeelz.

Disclaimer: Presumably not applicable to non-hoes, but there’s no guarantee.

* H/T: Cameron232


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 Adultery and Fornication, Archetypes, Attraction, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Handling Rejection, Hypergamy, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Male Power, Models of Failure, Polysexuality, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sex, The Hamster. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Validation

  1. Lastmod says:

    Notta one of you when you first met your potential wife “spit on her shoes” to “defile her” so she would like you more. None of you went out-of-your-way to treat her like filth. None of you went out to shame her so she would like you more.

    Neither did Rollo.

    Neither did Scott.

    Neither did Els husband.

    Part of me KNOWS that your dating expertise to help men ONLY works…if she thinks you’re hot to begin with. Average guy spits on a gals shoes, HE will pay for them. No doubt.

    Average guy at work “negs” a pretty gal……he is sent to the HR office and has to take “sensitivity training” and Chad will get to f*ck on the copy machine after work

    All the psychological terms I was lost on. 99% of average guys looking for a wife dont have time, nor should they be expected to get an AA in complex female socio-sexual biology to get a “date”

    Anyway……..the larger question is not being asked to men:

    “Why are you pursing women who have really effing psychotic behavior?”

    The answer: Men are thirsty, desperate and will clownsuit, follow any trend to MAYBE get noticed. How do I know? I did for over twenty years

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      I started chewing after my wife and I got married, just so I could spit on her shoes retroactively, but then I realized she doesn’t own white shoes, and chewing causes cancer, so….

      Liked by 3 people

    • I pulled her into a dirty creek and laughed at her.

      By the time she cleaned up she was all over me. I just saw her as a typical freind up to that point, i was only semi intrested in girls at all then. Apparently she had liked me for years.

      Occasional degradation is lots of fun for girls. Especially when coupled with the idea that I can degrade her but anyone else who puts her down is at a real risk of getting beat up by me.


  2. info says:

    Defilement. Is basically like hard drug use and eating junk food. Good married sex is fine food by comparison and legitimate pleasures. It may not provide the highs of hard drugs but greater satisfaction.

    I think she does need to recalibrate her reward system by a form of asceticism, exercise and eating healthy.

    I dunno if Eastern Orthodox fasts completely heal her alongside holy living. But her pleasure senses are likely fried too.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Kentucky Gent says:

    Western Civ is doomed.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. ramman3000 says:

    Case Study 3 is a good example of the difficulty that comes with giving yourself to someone who isn’t your spouse.

    “I began having sex at a relatively later age than most of my peers, so I racked up a number of sexual partners in a short period of time.”


    “Old habits die hard, and this includes bedroom habits.”

    The “Alpha Widow” is just one instantiation of the wider truth that if you give your heart, soul, and/or body to another person, that will have unavoidable consequences when you ultimately marry.

    Long before I married, I had a friend that I wanted to marry, but she didn’t have the tingles for me (because, let’s face it, I’m not a top 20% and I don’t get IOIs). We were best friends and extremely close, arguably ‘soul mates’. There was no meaningful way in which I wasn’t in love with her. She had been considering dating me and told me that she probably would have, except it was precisely then that her future husband popped into her life. And so I lost out to the alpha due to matter of timing. This became a problem when I finally married my wife years later, as in essence she was not my first love, even though I had never even dated the first girl, let alone have sex with her.

    When people say “it doesn’t matter how many people she’s/he’s dated or how many guys/girls she’s/he’s slept with”, I don’t believe them. The whole “we have to see if we are sexually compatible” is nothing more than rationalization of the consequences that come with defilement.

    Arranged marriages avoid the defilement of dating, sexual exploration, etc.

    As I meditate on marital unity (and eventually finish a blog post or two on the topic), I’m becoming more convinced that the defilement of the modern dating ethos (not to mention divorce) causes permanent damage to the concept of marital unity. I’m growing to conclude that authority or domination is being grasped specifically in response to this damage.

    “The reason women have the propensity to become serial slores is because they’re hungry for the validating humility of being dominated and defiled in an ego-affirming manner.”

    She’s damaged and what she seeks is a poor imitation of the feeling that comes with true unity:

    “Ultimately, they’re looking for sanctification (i.e. God and His love and grace), but they’re going about it in the wrong way. The sad thing is, they will drift farther away from both God’s love and the authentic love of a man the longer they continue in the idolatry of the feeelz.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • info says:

      If all the women available has been defiled as this evil culture is intent on doing at younger at younger ages so as to make this more unavoidable. The damage is harder and harder to avoid.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. thedeti says:

    Case studies 2-5:






  6. thedeti says:

    Affirmation and validation just means statements, emotions, and conduct demonstrating that their selves have some sort of worth and value, either to themselves or to others. That value can be expressed by others (extrinsic) or developed internally (intrinsic). Women want validation from attractive men.

    To men, validation is mostly intrinsic. Most men want validation from THEIR women, not necessarily women in general.


  7. redpillboomer says:

    “She’s not yours. It’s just your turn.”

    I really think earlier generations, pre-1960s, had a lot of this down; not perfectly mind you, but they had at least a basic understanding of female nature (and male nature too). That’s why they had guardrails in place; again not foolproof guardrails, but guardrails involving male-female interaction nonetheless.

    I’m old enough to remember, even though I was a kid and a young teen at the time, FATHERS still very much involved in their daughters dating, and certainly mating. It was cliche, however it came from a very real cultural place, a young man had to go meet the father, I mean like sit in the living room with him and talk before the young man could take his daughter out. There was a reason for this, dad was screening the young men for his daughter, “Is this kid a ‘good kid’ or not? Is this kid good enough to date my daughter? Is he safe enough?”

    Yes there was/were the town bicycle(s) and cads back then, but everyone knew who they were, and they had their own social circles that they moved within. I remember there was still an echo of this during the 1970s, but it was fading fast… very fast. By the end of that decade, the guardrails were all but gone in society and replaced by the earliest versions of hook-up culture, call it hook-up culture 1.0. We’re probably on hook-up culture 5.0 by now.

    I heard this wonderful line from back-in-the-day where a father is giving his son dating advice. It’s so succinct and thought provoking, “Son, never forget, there are only two kinds of women out there in the world, mothers and whores; and don’t EVER get the two mixed up.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Looking back to my adolescence and early adulthood, there was a lot of Red Pill knowledge about women specifically that I was specifically steered away from by my parents and most other adults in my life. Most of that RP knowledge came from a few rough-around-the-edges older men, and older boys.

      -find ’em, f__ger ’em, f_ck ’em, forget ’em

      -why do you need to know ‘where it’s going’? Ok, you don’t know. So, don’t know. It goes wherever it goes.

      -women don’t care about you. Women just use you for their own reasons, few of which have to do with you as a man.

      -women aren’t all that important

      -who cares what one woman thinks/feels/believes

      -don’t ditch your male friends for a woman, because you’ll need your friends when she breaks up with you

      Of course, I didn’t listen – I listened to the blue pill adults all around me telling me my entire self worth should be derived from what women, and ultimately my wife, thought of me.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Joe2 says:

        My adolescence was a mixture of strong blue pill and nascent red pill knowledge. The blue pill was advocated by adults in authority, such as with these examples –

        A church pastor in the morning sermon said, “You should place your wife on a pedestal and worship her.” (All these years and I still remember that gem of advice.)

        A problem with a girlfriend – send her a box of candy and say that you are sorry. (Even if you did nothing to cause a problem)

        A girl will notice your inherent “goodness” and find that attractive because you are not like the other guy. (That never worked for me)

        Be a gentleman and always defer to the girl’s wishes. (What the girl wants is important and you’ll earn her respect.)

        Yet I did receive from friends some red pill advice such as, “Don’t you know she is just using you for a movie ticket?” And I learned that one of my classmates always had a couple of girls (in various stages of undress) at his home when alone. Why was that happening? He wasn’t even a good student!

        All of these experiences left me seriously conflicted and paralyzed in my relations with girls. My self worth depended on my success with girls which was seriously lacking.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:


        I’ve learned the hard way over the years that if there’s anyone who shouldn’t be on a pedestal, it’s women.

        Women aren’t sexually attracted to “goodness” in men.

        I also got some red pill advice like “deti, can’t you see how bad she wants you?” “Yeah, but… that would be wrong.” (Shaking my head.)


      • Kentucky Gent says:

        And I learned that one of my classmates always had a couple of girls (in various stages of undress) at his home when alone. Why was that happening? He wasn’t even a good student!

        LOL, I had a similar experience during my time in HS and college. Why do these “dumb” guys get all the girls? I am way better at grammar, science and math! Not joking – that’s how badly blue pilled I was.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        Seems like their definition of Goodness is synonymous with mere niceness. David was good but he was also a great warrior and leader. And didn’t simp, Michal daughter of Saul treated him with contempt when he danced before the LORD. And she was thereafter childless.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Lastmod says:

      When the 1970’s ended where I grew up….in so many ways, that decade never really came. All my childhood peers in the town, neighboring hamlets and the like…their parents were married. No, they were not “religious” or even “church attending” (actually rural communities have lower church attendance than most suburban and urban settings). Appalachia, and in the Adirondack in particular.

      It wasnt even that everyone was “moral” in a smug Christian way. You got married and stayed married. For better or worse. Richer or poorer. My parents were immigrants and also my family was part of a swath of folks in late 1960’s / early 1970’s who indeed moved to the Adirondacks; the opening of the Adirondack Northway in 1967 probably accelerated this trend for some people.

      Most people were poor. Did seasonal work in the ski industry, or summer tourism (working at The Great Escape / Storytown on Lake George). The shrinking but still viable papermills in Ticonderoga. Most folks inherited the home they ended up living in. My family was considered “rich” for the area. Most folks in my area met at LPH (Lake Placid High School) married a few months after graduation, and that was it.

      It was like Kid Rock’s character in that “Joe Dirt” movie (which he played a little tooooooo well).

      The last papermills closed in the 1980’s. Lumbering, what was left of it died with it. The seasonal work at the local resorts, or camping related industries, their wages stagnated. You could work full time and overtime in the summer and still be behind when the season ended. This is one reason why I look with a sourness on the 1980’s. I saw people get poorer. I saw alcoholism and other crimes rise. I saw a resignation of sorts, where it wasn’t shameful to be on Welfare / County to survive.

      I saw people OUTSIDE the Adirondacks call us lazy, inbred, dirty and dumb. I didn’t fit the stereotypes of that region, but it angered me when I would see it on the news. Downstaters. Albany and NYC politicians.

      I don’t know what held it all together for most married couples. Probably each one knew they really couldn’t do any better than what they already had.

      Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        Those elitist “liberals” despise the countryfolk. Not like the Nobility of Old. Who were warrior aristocrats with the ethos of Noblesse oblige.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Find ’em, f__ger ’em, f_ck ’em, forget ’em.”

      When I was a teen I finally figured this out for myself. I had it, like so many other guys, that it was being a gentleman: Candy, flowers, movie tickets, etc. I found that worked with the mom, I.e. got in good graces with her, but with her daughter, not so much. Lost one girl I liked a lot to the “bad boy” which left me wondering, how’d that happen? She’s a “good girl,” next door type. How could she do that to me the “good boy?”

      At one of my HS dances, I got so mad when I saw that particular girl with yet ANOTHER guy, that I asked a girl from my math class to dance. I thought she was “out of my league” a bit, but found out differently when we went outside and started making out. I was at first amazed she was kissing me, then I figured, “Let me try my luck down there.” First tentative move, my hand was pushed away. Against all rational thought (mine) I decided to try one more time; to my amazement I was “in like flint” as the old saying goes.

      Baffled me at the time because it went against everything I thought I knew and had been “taught” from wherever I’d picked all that blue pill training up from, the “Disney stuff” I’m referring to: Girls being sugar and spice and all that. I remember thinking along the lines of, “That was easier than I thought it would be. She didn’t stop me. Maybe there’s something I don’t understand with this “girl thing?” Looking back, maybe that was the very first Red Pill seed that was planted.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. feeriker says:

    I listened to the blue pill adults all around me telling me my entire self worth should be derived from what women, and ultimately my wife, thought of me.</i☆>

    Part of me hopes that there is an especially nasty place in Hell awaiting those adults who gave this terrible (and terribly destructive) advice.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Devon70 says:

    This stuff only works on women that are messed up. A healthy woman doesn’t want to be spit on or insulted. In the few healthy marriages I know both people treat each other well. The guy found a humble kind woman and that is the key.


    • thedeti says:

      I think you misread the “spit on” episode as intentional. It wasn’t. In that episode the guy was chewing tobacco and turned to spit like chawers do, and he accidentally spit on his future wife’s shoe. Well, she naturally got angry about it. He probably handled it with some aplomb and charm, and talked to her some afterwards (and didn’t pay for the shoes). The point of it was that the spit on the shoes incident was something of a “meet cute” (or meet brute, perhaps).

      Healthy masculinity works on all women including messed up women and healthy women.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        It was intentional.

        Leaving a party from behind the cornfield on my campus. A guy named Shane. One of the top guys on campus. Not academically…but you know, classically very handsome.

        Anyway, this gal Sarah is destroyed drunk from grain alcohol that was served there. I was getting her back to campus. She was just an average looking gal. Not hot. Not sexy. Average looking college gal.

        Shane comes next to her pushes her into the muddy ground that is common there from October rain, starts laughing. She gets up confused. Reaches for me, “Jay….why did he do that?” she says in a drunken slur,

        I help her up, give Shane a bro look of “hey yo…come on, no reason for that”

        We start walking again. He then two hand shoves her hard into the muddy wet grass again, laughing even louder. She tries to get up. knocks her back into the mud.

        Shane gives me the look of “what are YOU going to do about it” and also daring me to not cross him by his posture. I just say “Shane, lets just get back to campus”

        He then picks her up, flings her over his shoulder. She is covered in mud. She then begins to drunkenly laugh “Shane, what are you going to do to me?”

        He walks off. With her. Two days laetr or so, she comes to my dorm room and demands why I didnt do anything to help her. (she got plowed by him, she loved it and NOW he doesn’t-want-to-be-her-boyfriend so SOMEONE must be blamed! Yes, the loser will!)

        It was all very intentional, this guy just happened to marry her…probably because she already pregnant, and in those day…you kind-of had to do that

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        No it wasn’t. Tobacco Chawer didn’t intentionally spit on her shoe. He turned to spit and she happened to be there.

        Men, even jerk alpha men, don’t go around looking for random women to mistreat and insult. They don’t go around yelling at restaurant waitstaff, stealing candy from babies, gr@ping women, or beating up random men. Jerk alpha men do sometimes go around bullying men, yeah. But they don’t go around spitting on shoes or pushing random women into the mud.

        Shane pushed the girl into the mud because he was playing around with her. He wasn’t being intentionally mean. He was being playful. And it worked. And it was completely different from Tobacco Chawer.

        She showed up at your dorm room wanting to know why you didn’t “help” her because she, like most women, was and is constitutionally incapable of taking responsibility for her own actions. Shane had his way with her that night, and she was looking for someone else to “blame” for it. She was half-joking too, I would suspect. She just wanted to give you a sheepish, half hearted “explanation” for what you already knew had happened. Shane did her, you knew he did her, and she just wanted to “justify” it to you so you wouldn’t judge her too harshly.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Pushing drunk people into the mud (anyone) isn’t being “playful” and “just having a bit of fun” and a two hand forceful shove isn’t being playful. Its just being a straight up a-hole. The kind of guy that goes into a public bathroom, urinates all over the seat, and shoves the toilet paper roll into the toilet for the worker to clean up. “just a bit of harmless fun”

        If the tobacco chewer didnt do it intentionally, then he would have said…”sorry, d*mn, sorry about those shoes…my name is……”

        He did it because he knew he could get away with it

        And I am sure, the woman with the shoes gave a subtle IOI to him when she first saw him. She had no problem with HIM doing this. Any otehr guy she didn’t find attractive would have paid……she would have tattled to bigger guys, made a scene…..

        Sarah didn’t care. She, like most women my age back then wanted to be able to ‘stand up to a man” so she could brag to her friends about it. Mind you, the man she stood up to was the man “who couldnt do anything about it” and just would have to take it.

        Even then (from experience) if had said anything the reply would have been “you’re just jealous that Shane is everything you can’t be” type of statement.

        I’ve seen now full circle what the “Sarah and Shane’s” have done to the world. They are childish, always someone-eles’s-fault” or problem and they still blame the nameless faceless men out there like me and perhaps some others here for why “relationships have all gone to sh*t”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        Whether the Shane and Sarah incident was intentional or not intentional is kind of irrelevant.

        The fact is Sarah enjoyed the attention she got from Shane even though it left her muddy. If Sarah were truly distraught she would have been crying, sobbing, screaming, hitting Shane, pushing him away, etc. She didn’t do anything of the sort, but laughed.

        No doubt she gave Shane some IOI’s at the party or they may have even “dated” each other at some time. Since she wasn’t distraught after the “first push” which may have been an accident, Shane got the green light from Sarah to go ahead. The subsequent pushes were intentional and enjoyed by Sarah.

        Shane’s reaction to LastMod was loud and clear. The message was that Sarah was his girl and LastMod should butt out. And its possible that Sarah was playing LastMod against Shane to make Shane jealous. She may even been hoping for a fight which would help her validate her worth to men because she was not hot, not sexy, just average.

        Note to self: The lesson to be learned here is don’t be a white knight to a damsel in distress and especially not to one who is drunk. Let them learn from their own bad decisions. And make doubly sure that if you do get involved you know exactly where you stand with her. Who knows whether that a guy who she says is just a “good friend” will show up later and beat the c*ap out of you or even worse.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. dave sora says:

    I agree and disagree at the same time. I think that women preferring serial monogamy is a seeming thing the actuality of which is women crave polygamy. They desire to share a man that other women desire with those other women and to have 3somes with him and another woman. And serial monogamy (including dating another woman for a bit) is the modern way of achieving what used to be achieved by polygamy. Women want to marry Solomon and have him f her in front of her best friend that he also married. But since men banned polygamy in an attempt to spread the vaginal wealth, men screwed themselves by accident.


    • A third part in a first rate man >>> a first part in a third rate man, and all that.

      High status men banned polygamy so they could screw around without having to care for all the women they boned. Polygamous culture also makes men take ownership of the women they screw. Monogamous gives an easy out.

      There’s a set of tomes about this called Thelyphethora: a treatise on female ruin. It was written by the Wesley Brothers freind Martin Madan, who aslo wrote part of Hark the Herald Angel’s Sing.


    • locustsplease says:

      It was the ten commandments. They won’t publicly admitted how much they love being shared. Every fwb situation every girl I dated none zero would have got angry if they caught me having sex with an attractive woman. In fact they openly encouraged it. They got off on how attractive the other women I dated were and would ask I would show picts and they hated if she was not as or more attractive. But loved if she was much more.

      They would openly tell me to invite girls over. I had a roster of many milfs and they would half orgasm hold breath when I showed and told them about a early 20s girl I was hooking up with. It’s half the reason my exwife couldn’t respect me if I started a roster of 20 somethings she would have fought to the death to keep me. But it’s not very Christian is it?

      Liked by 1 person

  11. dave sora says:

    Case Study 1 – Tobacco Juice leads to Love

    Knowing the dude already has a couple of wives leads to love.

    Case Study 2 – The Bored Hoe

    Needs a sister wife to make out with.

    Case Study 3 – The Dazed H0e

    Because there is no sister wife, she is bored with hubby. If he f’d another wife in front of her she would heat up.

    Case Study 4 – The Ambitious H0e

    Needs a sister wife to munch muff with.

    Case Study 5 – The Revolving Door

    Needs several sister wives.

    Desire for polygamy explains all the cases.


    • ramman3000 says:

      If only they were Ninjas.


      • info says:

        Artisanal toad really went off the deep end didn’t he? I suspect he may have gotten mixed up with a polygamist cult or something.


      • Is sora actually artisinal? The personalities don’t seem to match.


      • ramman3000 says:

        “Is sora actually artisinal?”

        Nah, it’s more like looking for Elvis and only getting imitators. I’m fairly confident that I’d recognize Toad if he popped up with another alias. He was a fantastic sparing partner and I’ve saved all of our old debates. I owe him a lot for helping me fine tune my arguments about sex, marriage, and the one-flesh bond. Although we diverged quite a bit (due to the circularity of his arguments, or rather perhaps the axiomatic nature of them), some of his arguments are golden.

        AT is the one who got me researching the Exodus 22 verses that were quoted around here recently, as we spent some time debating them.


        Sigma: Would have 2 to 3 wives only if polygamy were legal.”

        …two ninja wives and one nice wife makes you a sigma.

        Liked by 2 people

      • If you find Toad let me know. I was looking for something like Dalrock and wound up viewing some of his old comments. But his website is le kill so idk where he comments anymore.

        He had a good split between virgin and widow etc re the obligation to marry after sex.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “He had a good split between virgin and widow etc re the obligation to marry after sex.”

        He was very good at splitting complex topics into their many-variate simpler components and then tying them all together using logic. This is an incredibly rare feat. His comment threads were hilarious, because he would utterly destroy anyone who wasn’t a logician. The only one I know who can destroy people’s arguments that quickly is Steve Sailer (on Twitter). Scott will know of him.


  12. dave sora says:

    Alphaness and Betaness which until now have had nebulous definitions I now give objective definitions based on my infallible theory:

    Alpha: Man who would be a polygamist if it were legal, and have as many wives as he could afford (more than 3).

    Sigma: Would have 2 to 3 wives only if polygamy were legal.

    Beta: Man who would insist on monogamy even if polygamy were required by law (because he is diseased with oneitis and pedastoolization).


  13. Pingback: The Wages of Sin are Paid in Marriage | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Validation is about Losing Self-Control | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity

  17. Pingback: SMP Paradigms Compared | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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