Höllenhund brought up an interesting thought a few weeks ago:
This reminds me of something I wanted to ask here in general. The general narrative about MGTOW in the ‘sphere is that they are “avoiding women”. A more general narrative pushed in the mainstream media by Zimbardo, Hymowitz, Milo and other blue/purple pill journalists is that a growing number of young men are avoiding women.
What does “avoiding women” precisely mean in the current socio-cultural context in the West? The word “avoid” entails some sort of active, deliberate, protective measure. My problem with that is that the “avoidance of women”, or a breakaway from women doesn’t look like that at all in practice today, because the social context of male-female interaction has changed completely in the last 2-3 decades.
This is something our pal Novaseeker has described before. In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.
What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.
In other words, avoidance of women in the old days was an anti-social act of disengagement that was frowned upon. Today, avoidance of women merely means that you’re not expending excess energy and time to do certain things. It’s an “action” with few or no social repercussions – you won’t be socially ostracized or something. But technically it’s not an action. You’re basically “avoiding” women by not hitting the clubs on Saturday night. You’re avoiding them through simple inaction. You can have a full-time job, or go to college, have a social circle, have hobbies, buddies etc., basically a normie life, and still “avoid” women.
I thought this was an interesting observation because there is a stark contradiction in how these sexual zones are presented to men by women. From an old books perspective, men are still expected to be the initiators. It is incumbent upon men to be the sex that approaches and expresses intimate interest in women, and men who don’t, or who fail to build themselves into acceptable mates for women are shamed as being perpetual adolescents or just “giving up.” Our feminine-primary social mandate still promotes the expectation that men will prepare for, and initiate with, women.
However, from a new books perspective men are, as Höllenhund illustrates, expected to know their place in respect to whatever sexual zone they find themselves in, as well as having an understanding of how they are perceived in the SMP. So, in an asexual zone such as a college campus or the workplace, men are expected to know their SMV and act or not act accordingly. Men not meeting or exceeding what would make for an optimized Hypergamy with women are expected not to initiate or approach. In fact, this expected understanding extends to sexual zones and fosters the avoidance Höllenhund talks about here.
For all of the handwringing from feminine-primary gender pundits about men ‘dropping out’ of life or the SMP, it is this contradiction in atmosphere that promotes the avoidance. Hypergamy, being the prime directive of westernized societies, is figuratively best served when women are in complete and unilateral control of sexual selection. Thus, we see laws and social dictates installed to encourage men to self-select themselves out of the process and make this selection easier for women. Men will be shamed for not initiating and not approaching, but simultaneously be held accountable for as much as hate crimes if they step outside what they are expected to know are their appropriate sexual zones.
Why Millennials Might Be Having Less Sex Than Their Parents
Recently there’s been a spate of articles all attempting to explain why millennials aren’t getting after it in an age when it’s never been easier to hook up. Try as they will, nearly all of the explanations fail to account for how sexual zoning has affected the sexual marketplace today. Millennials have the ‘hook up generation’ reputation, but statistically they’re not doing much fucking.
Noah Patterson, 18, likes to sit in front of several screens simultaneously: a work project, a YouTube clip, a video game. To shut it all down for a date or even a one-night stand seems like a waste. “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,” he said.
It’s not that he doesn’t like women. “I enjoy their companionship, but it’s not a significant part of life,” said Patterson, a Web designer in Bellingham, Washington.
He has never had sex, although he likes porn. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”
One aspect that these largely millennial writers themselves seem oblivious to is the complexities of sexual zones that shift constantly for guys. In 2016 hooking up is easy, we’ve got Red Pill awareness and we have instantaneous communication, but what we don’t have are clearly defined sexual zones. Put a guy whose social intelligence is sub par into the wrong zone and it’s understandable that he has better things to occupy himself with that he ‘enjoys’.
This is a common refrain from MGTOWs. It’s usually some variation of “why should I waste my time trying to untangle some girl’s head just to put myself at risk of a sexual harassment or rape accusation?”
Fred Flange had this comment a few weeks ago:
Co-sign, and this “soft MGTOW” observation ties in nicely with the WashPost’s “no sex please we’re collegiate” article. MGTOW is now socially subsidized and easy to implement: just do nothing! At college, don’t engage in class, or even better, “attend” the lectures on-line. Say no more in class or lab than you must, then leave. Start no convos, you won’t be dragged into any. All of this goes for cubicle workers: in the lunchroom, stare at your phone, or eat at your desk, or if you can, get outside but go alone. No feelings caught, no feelings hurt. Everybody gets nothing, therefore everybody wins.
Eventually you can learn the fine art of disappearance in urban settings: yes you occupy space, but other than someone bumping into you, it is possible to go anywhere without your registering with anyone in the vicinity, not even cops. You can switch it on and off like a light.
One possible corollary to look for: see if the “bros before homes” shaming begins to die down. It should. Because before that you patriamalarkey-preaching Tumblr-inas insisted you wanted that cheesy-bro to go? He’s GONE! Soft MGTOW is the mandated social paradigm, outside of “safe social zones” like public streets, malls, clubs, etc. plus in some workplaces and colleges it’s law. You’re going to complain about men obeying the law?
There’s also no shortage of articles decrying the absence of boys and young men these days too. The frequent bugbear in these always point to guys ‘dropping out’ and playing X-Box all day. From America’s Lost Boys:
Young men, significantly more so than young women, are stuck in life. Research released in May from the Pew Center documented a historic demographic shift: American men aged 18-30 are now statistically more likely to be living with their parents than with a romantic partner. This trend is significant, for one simple reason: Twenty- and thirtysomething men who are living at home, working part-time or not at all, are unlikely to be preparing for marriage. Hurst’s research says that these men are single, unoccupied, and fine with that—because their happiness doesn’t depend on whether they are growing up and living life.
Now, granted, this article presumes men’s adulthood ought to be measured by his capacity to get involved with a woman, support a family and maintain a steady job. It’s very hard for writers who tackle this topic to pull their heads out of the old books reasonings. Thus, the go-to answer to the question of ‘why do guys drop out?’ is video games. It’s far easier to goof on men as a whole if they can be made to look juvenile, lazy or stupid to the point men not knowing what’s good for them.
It would take a real effort to tackle the larger reasons as to why men drop out, and men like Samuel James (article author) would be forced to acknowledge the disincentives for men to participate in what his old books reasonings tell him is some mutually beneficial arrangement. Those disincentives don’t paint women in a very flattering light, so it’s much easier to dismiss them as garden variety misogyny.
The drop out generation are content with their lot in life because they’ve accepted the realities of a social order that debases men and manhood to being appliances to better serve women’s imperatives. And the risks of investing themselves in a relationship or finding the inner will to become better men for the sake of “growing up” are significant when the rules of engagement and the acceptable sexual zones are constantly changing.
The Damage Done By ‘Mattress Girl’
“Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning.
“I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said. “But sometimes I don’t necessarily feel that way. Especially when I have to answer a man’s question: ‘are you sure you’re not too drunk?’ Or ‘you want to have sex with me?’ In a sense, it’s annoying and debilitating to be constantly questioned about whether or not I have agency and am a sexual human being.”
“Men are scared of women on campus now, and fear breeds anger and prejudice. Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”
I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.
It’s ironic that authors bemoaning the drop out generation of men never acknowledge the other side of the disincentives for men – those generated by a feminine-primary social narrative – the generation of women who remain unmarried well into their middle age. When this is explored, once again, it’s the result of the juvenile, ridiculous men that same narrative has created for itself.
It’s simple–there is nothing that any woman could do for me in the bedroom that would be as good as what she could to do me in the courtroom would be bad. Like that old Jim Croche song, “Five short minutes of lovin’ got me twenty long years in jail”, only now it doesn’t help if a woman is legally of age.
A couple of points.
One: for the most part , male-female interactions throughout the course of the species has been transactional. Man offers protection/food/tribal authority/ money , and woman offers sex . Whether sex or not happens depends on his resources and her willingness to accept the deal, as it were.
The Patriarchial societies tried to organize this into a covert marketplace. Sure it was couched in terms of romance: but the “Old Set of Books” rules were all structured to ensure the man’s resources or potential thereof met the female family’s overall standards – and on the male family’s side their goals were to verify the girls ability to raise and conceive kids .
Bye bye patriarchy. Now the market is deregulated. Much like what happened with Airlines in the 70s, no more premium service and set expectations. Hello rent seeking and dodgy games on both sides . Nowadays with the decline of male social and financial power (see college graduation rates), women are trying to sell their sexual goods….and finding no bidders. All the betas with the money to take on the “resources” role are already taken, and the remainder of broke dudes just don’t have the cash or statues to play the game.
I’m reminded of a former plate who recently moved out of my area. She was seeing her boss up here before packing bags and moving across the country with him.Boss was married with two kids, and rather then chase the multitudes of thirsty guys available today she worked on this married dude for months. Eventually she wore him down and convinced him to leave his wife, and move across the country as her new betabux.
Meanwhile she was seeing me on the side.
That’s the way the game is now; either she chases the highest value guy in her social circle, or she doesn’t bother. The “other guys” do not exist, which means whether they go their own way or not is irrelevant to the Feminist Imperative.
Two :
”
No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. ”
I have to disagree. In every office of decent size, there’s a minority of guys fucking the women. There’s a subclass of male in the modern matriarchy who gets to fuck every broad in the company/ office/ campus. Exactly who this guy(s) is depends on the political and social makeup of the area in question, and whether or not said dude has the game to take advantage of things. There’s bluepill Vice Presidents who could bang every broad in sight if they had the game to do it, and there’s mailroom studs WITH the game and looks to close any woman in the company despite being dead broke with baby momma bills. If you have game you win, and if you don’t you’re toast.
The core point -sex with women today is a luxury product like a Ferrari. Smart guys dont necessarily buy a Ferrari to keep: they’re fragile and expensive to maintain plus worthless in day to day traffic.
Rather -smart guys buy track time and a weekend lease, hoon the shit outta that car, then hand the maintenance time bomb back in. The loser is the moron stuck changing tires and timing chains on an Italian sports car because he bought it “to keep”.*
*note that I don’t actually have a problem with Ferraris. I’m merely using them as a way to get a point across.
As fucked up as this possibility sounds, I would not be surprised if the future of the SMP involves so many game unaware men that they realize the only way to get sex from a woman is to rape them. These game unaware men would be the result of the feminist agenda shaming men and taunting them for not trying. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Thus the agenda for avoiding a non-existent rape culture may actually manifest a real rape culture.
Again, I hope this is not the case and the SMP stabilizes.
The old set of rules was rather clear, with a micro level of ambiguity. Going to an age-appropriate social function from the teen years on was pretty clear, one was expected to behave in a certain way and that was that. Sneaking off into the bushes at the church social had a different set of rules, but still some. It was considered all part of providing a pool of eligible men and women to each other for purposes of pairing off. In the main it worked, with the tail end of the distribution becoming “spinsters” or “confirmed bachelors” as the case may be.
In many Western cultures young women were “presented” to the community at the age of 16, with an intent to marry them off in the next couple of years. However all these cultural structures were built on top of clear sex roles, each with responsibilities. And at the end of the dance(s), men and women paired off more or less appropriately in their SMV, which meant that most women didn’t even get a whiff of Alpha Male HB9, except maybe at some athletic event or movie.
With the mass movement of women into higher education in the late 50’s and the 60’s that arrived just as hormonal birth control and penicillin made sexual promiscuity low cost (in the short term) suddenly a lot of ordinary girls in the 4, 5, 6 SMV had a shot – even if only for one night – at a hot football playing HB8 or 9. Hey, five minutes of alpha…
So in order for the maximal number of women to have their turn on the Alpha carousel, the sex rules had to be rewritten to be much less clear, and much more ambiguous. The old set of rules favored male sexuality, with its clear demarcation lines. The new set of rules, with unending ambiguity that can change even after the fact, favors female sexuality.
The old set of rules meant that a solid plurality of women got the security they craved, but they paid for it by winding up with boring Betas. This chained the Alpha men down for the most part with one woman which no doubt chafed them and also bothered the women who could have gotten their Alpha pony ride, but didn’t because monogamy. Call this a system that benefited the 80% at the expense of the 20%.
The new set of rules means that a solid plurality of women get a shot at some Alpha, but at the considerable cost of having no man at all after a certain age. This doesn’t trouble the Alpha men, least of all the Naturals, and doesn’t bother the higher SMV women that much because the option of soft harems works for them. It is absolutely driving many average men out of the SMP entirely, and it’s doing the same to average women as well. This system is fun for the 20% and is becoming a form of torture for the 80%.
Because the enforcement mechanisms of the new, ambiguous, sexual marketplace favor the few and harm the many. Shy women who won’t hit the party world are harmed because that’s where more and more meetups take place – hence the popularity of match services such as OK Cupid, the various religous Mingle sites, etc. because they enable women to pick and choose from a position of perceived safety. Those women who are not disposed to use Tindr. Those women who just aren’t all that adventurous. Women who might have been tempted to maybe go out with Bob from Accounting 25 years ago now won’t get the chance, because Bob’s been beaten over the head with HR’s Sexual Harassment Is Evil lectures so long he’s frankly not going to risk talking to any woman except in the most vague and polite of ways.
Ordinary men swim in a world that is so toxic towards them the temptation to just drop out into other pursuits is very strong. Natural alphas and women don’t get this, of course, but that doesn’t change the reality that is all around us.
In anticipation of some of the usual objections: yeah, it varies with geography and industry and income level. So Not All (Whatever) Are Like That if it makes some people’s feelz better.
But the facts of things like “Affirmative Consent” which can be withdrawn hours, days, maybe even longer after the fact are out there. It’s mandated in some East Coast and all California higher education settings, so it’s going to be normed in business in 10 years or so, and in the wider culture not long afterwards.
The trouble with the whole Sadie Hawkins approach is obvious: 80% of the women will desire 20% of the men. That points to harems one way or another, and that in turn points to an ever less stable civilization for reasons that ought be so obvious I won’t bother to explain them.
Sound posting, Rollo.
I still have the feeling it is all just a big shit test. They send all possible signals saying you are unwelcome to hit on them, it´s unacceptable in such and such environment and if you do it, you are evil. If you buy it and believe you are unwelcome, it means you don´t have the balls to break the rules to get what you want and therefore… well, you really are unwelcome.
😄
I have to disagree. In every office of decent size, there’s a minority of guys fucking the women. There’s a subclass of male in the modern matriarchy who gets to fuck every broad in the company/ office/ campus.
The rules exist, and they can be and are used to keep the majority of men in line, often with punishments that can be downright Draconian. The fact that 10% of the men in a company are In like Flynn doesn’t change this, it merely highlights the fact that the new rules are ambiguous in application and sometimes even in regulation.
It’s the soft harem model. I think we can expect to see it more and more in the future.
I still have the feeling it is all just a big shit test.
Yes, that’s correct. The entire culture is held hostage to women’s feelwings.
ROLLO
I know you are on to something here.
For years we have had this discussion,where is the motivation?
I have always put it down to,no future,negative media,bad economy,the war,the green movement,political correctness and the educational curriculum.
But the bottom line is the best motivation for a young man is sex,it is why I got a job,bought a car,got an apartment.Fact is almost everything productive I have done was about sex,and then that really ramped up when I became a father.
All this seems so harmless,just drops of water,then it is overfull and there is a flood.
80% of women wanting 20% of the men and 80% of men wanting 20% of the women. Presumably the top 20% men will only want to be with the top 20% females. That leaves the 80% going W/MGTOW. Some of the 80% females will be side plates for sure for the 20% males. The 80% guys just spin plates to from the 80% chicks, as the 20%, because hypergamy, won’t bother with them (unless exploited as BB providers/orbiters).
The Sadie Hawkins approach will just make females even more proactive and promiscuous in order to out-compete each other. Men don’t have the same need to have kids that women do, so men being chased don’t have a need to get married. In the old order a women being chased would give in to one and start a family. This cycle, especially with Vasagel, will lead to population decline – welcome Rat Utopia.
>>Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”
Sounds like hamstering for the women. Women have a lack of desire to collaborate with men for a solution. Full…Stop. They must be conquered and defeated or they will destroy you. Collaborating with them is a fatal mistake so many married men make.
Yes, that’s correct. The entire culture is held hostage to women’s feelwings.
That’s because men are too cowardly to stand up to women and say enough we will tolerate no more but they don’t. Feminism is one big shit test.
They must be conquered and defeated or they will destroy you.
Excellent comment. Calling you “blue pill” is like calling a big guy “tiny”. You are more aware than most are.
Rollo- Long time reader. Your writing really changed the way I interact with women and while it was not bad before, I almost feel like I know them better than they know themselves. Anyway.. I think I can size up your article with this video..
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/2751966
“Thus, we see laws and social dictates installed to encourage men to self-select themselves out of the process and make this selection easier for women.”
Thank you for the article
80% of women wanting 20% of the men
True. Big data from OK Cupid supports this.
and 80% of men wanting 20% of the women.
No evidence for this. Big data from OK Cupid contradicts it. OKCupid rankings run from 1 to 5, and the data shows male attraction is uniform across that space.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction are in any way interchangeable, they are not. Because cats are not dogs.
What the hell would shakespear write with this in our time?
the 80% of women wanting 20% of men… is misleading. They want commitment from the 20%… not a pump and dump.
A man looks at average woman and says, “Meh. She’s OK I guess. Kinda average.”
A woman looks at average man and says, “He’s short. He’s poor. He’s ugly. He’s boring. He doesn’t have a nice car, he . . . ”
In short, for women there is effectively no average. You’re either hot, or you’re roadkill.
Joseph Blaugh
. Feminism is one big shit test.
Amen… and the seeds of its destruction already sown… because NO woman is happy when she gets exactly what she thinks she wants… RP 101.
Now if only the guys would realize this, stop cowering and begin to life again…
Insightful as always. Interesting times and difficult navigation for the lads. However, MTGOW has a completely different vibe for men who have swallowed the red at a ripe age. For us, it is not the changing/confusing zones or the ease of avoidance that modern society has created. Those are problems for the young man. It is the harsh realization that the many traits of hypergamy do not render the woman attractive enough to warrant the investment.
Rollo, I really don’t get your talk of need for sexual zoning. Perhaps this thinking is something that is still “in the works”. For example there are defined sexual zones in corporate cultures in the west. In general you are not really allowed to date/be sexual/casually see anyone at your company unless there is explicit continual permission given by the woman. period. end. of. story. Which is a pretty good definition of a zone I would think. If you had been through a few HR investigations you might have a better perspective about defined zones already existing.
The corporate west is very interesting in it’s dynamic. Men in power can flaunt rules like the HR policies at will due to their status. The poor newly hired betas are afraid to even talk to a female at work.
I mentor Junior staff in my job. I help the men get laid and women not to fall for my more handsome and married mid level managers. With millennials its a full time job deprogramming college gelding. And deprogramming the female 20something daddy issues.
The Alpha boys just slay in the corporate west today.
The higher Beta boys (had 1-2 girlfriends in college and know what it feels to get laid) can be saved
The rest of the boys are just hopeless.
The girls are another story.
For example high Betas that work in my division have to be TOLD that anyone not working for our company, a partner or, vendor are in fact fair game to hit on. And actually depending on the vendor relationship even most vendors are fair game. I actually had one guy say he can’t date a girl at the corner coffee shop DUE TO HR POLICIES!!!! Yeah have fun with being a monk kid.
Another thing about millennials and why they are not having sex. It’s because High Schools and Colleges ARE SCARING THESE KIDS TO DEATH with the adverse consequences of sex. After 4-8 years of Marxist indoctrination you can bet these kids are terrified of the sex act.
This is why you have the explosion of girls who are very sexually active (blow multiple dudes during a week) but are technically virgins. Because these girls need the outlet but School Sex ED was all about STDs pregnancy and all the other nightmare scenarios. The rate of transmission in the West of AIDS via hetero sex is infinitesimally low and some of even these low percentage cases can be explained by the use of shared needles and hetero annal sex. But if you talk with your average high school in a very wealthy area they really think that AIDS is just one f*ck away always.
Which is interesting when these good girls who are very inexperienced sexually come into an environment where the boys they dated in college are gone and they mostly have older men around that regard them as fresh meat. In this environment do they find the eligible Alpha? Hell no they can’t get him he’s got a conga line at his cube for all the late 20s early 30s recent divorcees or hopeful divorcees. Do they date the Beta guys that look at them yearningly? Nope they have illicit affairs with one of my handsomer married managers / supervisors. Every. single. time. It’s like a corporate version of wild kingdom out there.
These days I can’t do it. But I fully agree with Adult Swim’s no women policy.
http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/4/13156398/adult-swim-female-writers
I think what is not realized is that many men will not find their way in the restricted zoning we see today.
The zoning, of course, always permits a small percentage of men who are the sexual winners to pursue normally regardless of zone — we are, in effect, zoneless. And that is what we are trying to teach other men to become — become anti-fragile when it comes to sexual zoning. That doesn’t mean you bang your way through the office, of course … it just means that you absolutely could, and could do it without major consequences — provided you weren’t stupid and allowed a woman to catch feelings and then try to get you fired for harassment … yes, I’ve seen that happen to hot men at the office, so there is always that risk, but there’s more guys in that category who skate out scot-free. TRP is about becoming a guy who can do that regularly, no “luck” required.
The broader issue, however, is that, as we know, most guys won’t do this, and most of them won’t risk being tossed from work or school, either, so we’re going to see much more “soft MGTOW” in the years ahead. Very few men stepping up in any kind of environment that isn’t explicitly “permitted” (like parties, bars, clubs), and in those situations finding themselves hopelessly outcompeted by men with Game. Most of these won’t learn Game, most will retreat, not due to MGTOW ideology (although some will find that, too, via the internet), but de facto due to having bad options, in their own minds, and not wanting to make the changes to join the small minority of men in the winner’s circle.
There isn’t any way out of this one, folks, on a systemic level. With women inundating the workforce, there were going to inevitably be rules put in place to prevent the sea of workplace betas from “harassing” them (i.e., showing unwanted interest). That was inevitable — otherwise how are you going to ensure sanity in a dual-sex workplace. Sure, the minority of us with Game aren’t subject to the same regime, de facto (we are de jure, and that can bite if you’re careless), but at the same time we can’t be stupid enough to understand that it really *is* necessary to keep the betas in their place in the workplace so that both the betas and the women can be productive.
Novaseeker
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/—publ/documents/publication/wcms_457317.pdf
http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2016/07/articles/sex-harassment-in-the-workplace-an-uptick-in-cases-or-awareness-or-both/
I’ll just drop this in here. Notice the source is NY Magazine, and I am much amused by the subtopic, it’s visible in the URL.
http://nymag.com/betamale/2016/05/women-are-now-cheating-as-much-as-men-but-with-fewer-consequences.html
the 80% of women wanting 20% of men… is misleading. They want commitment from the 20%… not a pump and dump.
LOL. No, they want, period. You know that yourself, as you are part of the 20%, dude.
This article is 4 years old but it is still valid.
https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
Don’t even have to read all the words if there’s not enough time.
Just take a quick look at the graphs, the whole story is there.
Rugby — Yep. Interesting doc from the ilo.
AR — Yeah, I saw that a few months ago, too. This is the money quote, right at the end: ““Women are more forgiven because it’s the struggle of being a certain type of powerful woman,” she says. “You were a different person when you began the relationship. And he’s just not.” ”
Yep. Men and our needs are irrelevant, women are heroes regardless of what they choose to do, and we are to be judged based on what we do, because reasons. Basically FI 101.
Don’t bitch about this, guys. Realize it, accept it, work with it, and be the guy who wins despite this crock of crap that we live in today.
As someone who does well at social circle game, you do have to realize the threats posed by white knights and betas as well as “feminists” about “inappropriate” conduct—which is nothing more than gaming and asking women out.
They get “offended”…but it’s two-fold. You have to be able to game properly and calibrate. I’ve found that while the neg and teasing work 90% of the time, not all women “get it”…So I have to calibrate more.
There’s a lot at stake here with women in any situation. The fact they get “offended” is not always a bad thing. That initial resistance is a shit-test.
Calibration is key….”you look edgy” is my new go-to neg…it immediately gets the woman thinking without being “offended”…
Text game is also a factor of this. Like many men who’ve been “taught” to be super cautious and become betas…many women too are “taught” to be bitchy, brassy and defensive….to screen out the time-wasters. The problem with that is they often screen out the alphas and then have to back-track and apologize for their behavior.
Calibration is key here. Know when to push and when to say “ok, thanks, bye.”
Really great essay, Rollo.
I was talking to a male relative of mine about this recently; traditionally, societies create ritualistic activities for young men and women to meet for the purpose of choosing a mate. The idea is that through these mechanism they naturally find a good person to marry by early adulthood.
Western society today has done away with all of this There are no opportunities for the purpose of marriage. College used to be the place you met your spouse; girls would joke they were going to get their M.R.S. degree. That is no longer the case. I feel like I was attending college on the tail end of that societal change in which women en masse really started to embrace the YOLO lifestyle and had no plans to marry anytime soon.
After college a man has to be very proactive to meet women within a sexual/romantic context, whereas back in the day a bachelor in his late twenties and thirties was someone who had been proactive in avoiding marriage.
I’ve mentioned this somewhat at Dalrock’s, but I think we’re reaching a point where current state coercion will be changed because of how men have responded to them. For now, men can opt out and avoid the entire marriage, family, divorce court system and all the controls of the FI simply by not being proactive, by not doing anything. The current setup is intended to control men who are proactive in this regard.
The next step will be to introduce legal mechanisms that target the inactive men such as the “bros without homes” and force them to act in order to avoid some kind of consequence. Not sure what specifically, but the requirement will be how the FI through the state will coerce men into fulfilling their prescribed role. This new mechanism could be a tax or a legal thing or something.
I have a feeling we’ll find out in the next few years.
This new mechanism could be a tax or a legal thing or something.
Already in place. Between subsidies, transfers and so on which are not equally distributed in the least between men and women, taxes (which men pay more of due to the false “wage gap” of men working more than women) flow from men to women.
I agree we will see more of this, but it will remain subtle. Need to keep the masses of non-aware men anaesthetized by ESPN and Xbone and so on. But, the process is also well, well underway. It’s a staple of the FI — resource transfer from men to women. Historically this was done mostly in marriage and inheritance. With marriage folding like a cheap suit in most of the population, resource transfer is being moved to other areas outside of marriage, disguised mind you but still there — the resource transfer must occur, otherwise women can’t raise kids. That is, it either comes from men in marriages or men not in marriages, but it will come from men regardless.
“College used to be the place you met your spouse . . .”
In 1940 only about 5% of the population went to college. By 1970 that had risen to about 15%.
Most people met their spouses at social dances, church or through friends/family.
In 1940 only about 5% of the population went to college. By 1970 that had risen to about 15%.
Most people met their spouses at social dances, church or through friends/family.
Exactly. What has changed is that the college class, which has expanded, has largely abandoned college as a means of spouse hunting. That is new. It was historically a smaller group than it is now, for certain, but college as spouse hunting is dead now, and that is new — well, new-ish — it was already dying when I was in college in the 80s, but there were still quite a few engaged folks at graduation in my HYS college in the late 80s — not happening now.
The broader issue, however, is that, as we know, most guys won’t do this, and most of them won’t risk being tossed from work or school, either, so we’re going to see much more “soft MGTOW” in the years ahead. Very few men stepping up in any kind of environment that isn’t explicitly “permitted” (like parties, bars, clubs), and in those situations finding themselves hopelessly outcompeted by men with Game. Most of these won’t learn Game, most will retreat, not due to MGTOW ideology (although some will find that, too, via the internet), but de facto due to having bad options, in their own minds, and not wanting to make the changes to join the small minority of men in the winner’s circle.
Just to add another thought onto this …
Porn, and its ubiquity, feeds into this and amplifies it, without question. On the one hand guys are getting zoned, while on the other, they have strong drives due to testosterone. Porn is the outlet, and it sates the drive just enough to enable men to neuter their sexual response in de-sexed zones on a maintenance, on-going basis — it takes enough of the edge off of the sex drive such that these guys are able to obey the FI zoning more easily.
Hence a major reason why the FI, despite all of its lip service against porn, really hasn’t done much at all in the way of concrete actions to eliminate it or even restrict it meaningfully — it’s a critical safety valve on which the integrity of the entire contemporary social edifice depends. Men are complicit in this, obviously, but the benefits to the FI social system are quite clear once you step back and look.
@ Novaseeker
I’m not sure that porn helps to keep a lid on anything, because the Betas and Omegas that rely on it for an escape would be Betas and Omegas regardless of porn’s availability.
Saying it helps to keep a lid on anything would be implying that Betas and Omegas would do anything differently if porn weren’t available, and I don’t think that’s the case.
Unless doing something differently means awkwardly hitting on women, and demonstrating unwanted interest (i.e. running bad Game) in “zoned” areas.
To which I’d say, so what? The men that would do that weren’t going to get laid in the first place because their Game sucks, so it’s a moot point. If you run tight enough Game you can get away with murder, and if your Game sucks you don’t get shit at best, and at worst you get in some deep shit.
At some point this argument becomes circular, because men who are fazed by sexual “zoning” are the same men who would not get laid even if they were allowed to hit on women anyway.