Fifty Shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn’t.

Today's post is a guest post about men, women, sex, even more sex, and orgasms. Greg Swann has been around here a few times and most recently, featured weekly, chapter-by-chapter for his book Man Alive! Last week, Greg and I presented back-to-back at The 21 Convention. Given what so many presume and assume that convention to be about (some is, much isn't) you should find this an interesting read. I'll have more to say personally about T21C and PUA in general in my own future post. As always with guests posts, views expressed are the views of the guest author and not necessarily my views.


[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary - Ed]

Fifty shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn't.

by Greg Swann

AnotherIneradicableRegret
Another Ineradicable Regret

Here are two complementary facts about the ontology of adult genetic Homo sapiens:

Men are seed-sprayers.

Women are egg-layers.

Men and women are functionally equivalent, in the sense that, away from our sex differences, we can all do pretty much the same stuff. We are intellectually equivalent, even if the vestigial effects of poverty, religion and tradition have cost humanity the full benefits of female mental prowess over the centuries. We are politically equivalent, obviously. There are biological differences that result from our sex differences -- men tend to have better upper-body strength, women have better blood circulation at the core but poorer circulation in the extremities -- but apart from those sex differences, we are an awful lot alike.

That much is not surprising. We are the same species after all, and the XY model is just the one-off variation on the XX prototype. Even men's sex hardware, of which they can be very proud, is just women's junk turned inside out. This is true of male mammals in general -- except for the pride part.

But because males -- male mammals, not just male Homo sapiens -- are seed-sprayers, their reproduction strategy will be different from that of the egg-laying females.

Human beings are thoughtful creatures. We have had the gift of mind cultivated within us, the graduation from an animal's style of cognition and communication to the fully-human state, thinking and communicating in notation systems -- in Fathertongue. For now I am am talking about thoughtless biological reproduction strategies, but in no way am I excusing human beings for behaving like thoughtless animals. Too much the contrary!

But the thoughtless reproductive objective of a seed-sprayer is to spray those seeds everywhere. This is what a Maple tree is doing with those cascades of whirling "helicopters," and it it what an Agave plant is doing with its seed pod, one of the most inspiring phallic symbols to be found in nature. For seed-sprayers, reproduction is a numbers game. His supply of seeds is effectively infinite, and, plausibly, his best chance of reproducing himself is to spray seeds everywhere.

Egg-layers have the opposite problem. Eggs -- and the conditions necessary for their proper gestation -- are extremely scarce. Female sea turtles can lay their eggs and swim away, but female mammals have to stick around to nurse their young. That's what those mammary glands that give our class of organisms its name are for, after all, their ornamental beauty in human females notwithstanding. Egg-layers nest, and, practically speaking, the most important manifestation of her reproductive strategy will be not reproducing -- except with the right male.

Every species of mammal is different, but the only species of organisms that matters to us is us, Homo sapiens. Even then, we're only really interested in human beings, genetic Homo sapiens who are fluent in Fathertongue. It is possible to argue that male human beings should pursue every possible mating opportunity, much as a male lizard should spray every egg it comes across. It is possible to argue that female human beings should deflect every male suitor who presents himself, since it's unlikely that any of those slobbering jackasses is going to live up to the arduous role that is fatherhood for human beings. But I can think of at least two insuperable objections to those propositions:

First, both infinite-impregnation and zero-impregnation are very poor strategies for successfully reproducing human beings.

And second, for the most part human beings pursue sexual contact for reasons other than reproduction.

What do male human beings want from sex? Romantic intimacy leading to orgasm.

What do female human beings want? Orgasm -- both of theirs or just his -- leading to romantic intimacy.

That's a currency-exchange issue, and I've talked about currency-exchange in the larger context of marriage: He promises her loving devotion in exchange for a lifetime of hot sex while she promises him hot sex in exchange for a lifetime of loving devotion. If they talk through this currency-exchange in open, explicit Fathertongue, they will have a great marriage -- lots of love, lots of great sex, boundless devotion to each other and to the family they make together. If they do not talk things out, each partner will cheat the other with counterfeit currency from the outset of their marriage, and each will never tire of bitching about the other partner's duplicity.

But the failed currency-exchange starts long before the wedding bells ring down at the chapel. If what he wants is an orgasm, it's to his interest -- he may tell himself -- to pay out as little in romantic intimacy as he can get away with. Likewise, if she can get romantic intimacy without giving him many -- or even any -- orgasms, she may think she's getting a great deal.

The latter scenario -- all traction, no action -- is the Victorian sexual ideal: Suitors court in courtly fashion and the blushing bride putatively comes to the marriage bed as a blushing virgin. But the first strategy -- maximum action with minimal traction -- is where we are now: Men do everything they can think of to get laid as often as possible, with as many different women as possible, while offering as little true romantic intimacy as possible in exchange.

Who is at fault here? The men are just doing what they say they intend to do, pursuing orgasms. The women are getting cheated out of most or all of the romantic intimacy they might hope to reap from their sexual encounters -- but they are volunteers to their own repeated despoiling. They're doing what they think they have to do to get men to pay attention to them at all, but the sad truth is that they have been scammed by a very clever con game.

Somewhere there is an evil genius of sex who came up with this idea: What if it were possible to get egg-layers to behave like seed-sprayers? Human beings can have sex for fun, not just for reproduction, so what if we could come up with words and ideas that would induce women to relinquish their very high sexual power -- the power to withhold sex until the desired price in romantic intimacy has been met -- and instead estimate their sexual value at or below the very low evaluation men hold for their own sexual power?

In other words, what if we could convince women that their best strategy for attracting lifelong love and devotion is not to behave like high-value ladies but instead to act like low-value skanks?

The Sexual Revolution did not start in the back seat of Daddy's car. It was not caused by the birth-control pill or rock 'n' roll music. The Sexual Revolution was caused by a sheaf of very clever Fathertongue ideas devised to convince women that their own desired sexual currency -- romantic intimacy -- was worth less than that sought by men -- orgasms -- to the extent that they not only could not negotiate for romantic intimacy to be delivered "up front," they might not be in a position to demand it at all.

So the girls put out, and the boys put the word out. Loving devotion? Romantic intimacy? Respect in the morning? The truth, never said out loud but obvious to everyone, is to be found in this expression: "Baby, I don't even respect you now!"

So the girls dress like sluts, dance like sluts, drink like sluts, screw like sluts -- and are nevertheless endlessly dismayed that the boys treat them like sluts, like self-maintaining pass-around sex-dolls.

So the girls twist themselves this way and that, striving desperately to find the interest or hobby or pose or costume that will somehow hold his attention -- or even just his eye-contact -- in the seconds after he is done coming. Some of them literally eat their hearts out, starving themselves, stuffing themselves, guiltily puking up anything they manage to eat.

And now comes the bleak world of Fifty Shades of Grey, in which women seek to fascinate men by volunteering to become objects of humiliation and degradation. The logic could not possibly be more wrong -- "Of course he will love me after he has seen himself treating me like garbage!" -- but the logic behind every one of these stupid dating strategies is inverted. That's the point, to convince women that the only way they can win the game of love is to surrender every value they bring to the table.

This is a mistake.

It's a horrible reproduction strategy, obviously. Men cultivate precisely those attributes of character that will make them the worst possible fathers. Women squander precisely those assets -- loyalty, fidelity, probity, sobriety, chastity -- that will make them most attractive to the best available fathers for their children. But it's a mistake just as a dating strategy, as well.

Why? Because, in reality, women start with the better hand in the dating negotiation. The currency she holds -- the power to grant or deny him orgasms with her -- is far more valuable to him than the currency she is seeking -- romantic intimacy -- is to him. There are interesting Fathertongue reasons for this, but there is a purely biological factor in play as well: She feels no terrible bodily urgency either to fertilize or to dispose of her eggs, but he feels physical pain if he does not dispose of surplus seed on a regular basis. She may want to have an orgasm, but there is a a degree to which he needs to come.

That's why he takes the risks of making the initial overtures, despite his tongue-tied fear of rejection. That's why he takes on the awful burdens of making smalltalk, making time, making out. That's why he buys the drinks, buys the dinners, buys the movie tickets, buys jewelry and clothing and cars and houses. That's why he writes love poems and love songs and love stories -- and deep, yearning lamentations over frustrated or unrequited love.

Boys discover girls at twelve years old or sixteen or twenty. Girls discover boys when they are still children, and, hence, they are adept at handling boys long before the boys even know they're being handled. This is why men's overt dating strategies seem so transparent to women. But it is also why this covert strategy -- getting women to hold their own immense sexual value in contempt -- has been so devastatingly successful. She thinks she is trading for stuff -- for drinks, dinners, jewelry, cars and houses -- and she does not see until it is too late that she has traded an infinitely valuable prize for useless trinkets.

Here is the blinding epiphany that occurs to teenage boys when they finally grow into their own sexual power: "Women want love and sex, too!"

Here is the countervailing epiphany, which men have successfully concealed from women for all of human history: "Men want love and sex more!"

Do you want proof of that claim? If what men want is orgasms, why don't they just jack-off? They do. A lot. But it's still not enough. They may say they disdain romantic intimacy, but they want it even so. Men make time with women they have no sexual interest in, just for the human contact. Men pay prostitutes for sex and then swear they are renting a girlfriend. He wants to achieve orgasm, and his body wants to throw away surplus seed, but he wants loving devotion, too.

She wants orgasms, too -- and her orgasms can and should be much better than his -- but not nearly as much as she wants romantic intimacy, ultimately leading to the loving devotion of marriage.

And that's her bargaining power, her ransom from a sexual dystopia that is fifty shades of bleak. All women have to do to regain the upper hand in their currency-exchange with men is STOP PUTTING OUT!

When women raise the bar on sex, their men will rise to it. His body will insist most insistently that he do so, but his mind will rise to the challenge, too. He'll be a better man for it, and he will love her that much more for making him become a better man.

Meanwhile, while masturbation for him is a second-best orgasm, a woman who has learned to masturbate proficiently has no need whatever to wake up next to a slobbering jackass just to get her rocks off. If she buys a Hitachi Magic Wand vibrator along with the Gee Whizzard attachment, her nights degrading herself with slobbering jackasses will be over for good. If all she's going to get from him is an orgasm -- maybe -- she can cut out the middelman and at least get a good orgasm.

We are organisms, animals, mammals, and our urge to have sex is biological in origin. But we are reasoning animals, and hence we can discover and explore the pure, ecstatic, orgiastic joy of loving coupling. But we are rationalizing animals, too, so we can look for love and sex in all the wrong places, for all the wrong reasons. We can end up looking for love everywhere it isn't, and never in the only place it truly is -- in the mutual and enduring commitment of two people who like, lust for, honor and respect each other.

That's the love that has a chance, at least, to turn into a marriage, to turn into a family. He wants her body -- he wants those orgasms. But what he needs is more than just a mad, frenzied dance of masturbation-by-proxy. What he needs most, and what his children need most, are her virtues -- her loyalty, her fidelity, her probity, her sobriety, her chastity -- the virtues he dismissed when he was busy entreating women to shed their virtues with their clothes.

She needs his virtues, too, and not just his comfort or his affection or his doting devotion. Marriage is the means by which self-adoring adults cultivate the best attainable virtues within each other. The attraction and admiration and respect she felt for him when first they met should grow ever stronger, ever sturdier over the years. As they grow into each other -- and grow with each other -- their sex lives will be ever more loving, and their love lives ever sexier. Nothing worth having is easy, but this is what their marriage can be -- and should be -- if they work at it.

This is the love that provides the best chance for human children to grow up to be happy, healthy, responsible, productive adults. But this is also the love that most enriches, most ennobles and most enthralls each one of us. This is the love we were born to make, and this is the love that makes us most worthy to be loved in return.

Accept no substitutes...


Readers here know me as the author of Man Alive! I've also written a novel illustrating my ideal of love and devotion, The Unfallen. It's a very sexy book about philosophy and a very philosophical book about love and longing written about and for smart, productive people who understand self-adoration the way I do. On a more practical level, I've written quite a bit about sex -- especially orgasms, to which material I commend you. Life is short. Drink deep.

[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary - Ed]

Free The Animal is supported by readers like yourself shopping Amazon and CLICKING HERE to do so. Costs you nothing but sure helps out around here quite a lot. Always appreciated.

Comments

  1. Oh, my.

    I do love Greg Swann’s way of looking at and articulating a lot of things, and always enjoy his guest spots on FTA.

    However… some of his basic premises here are a bit off; a combination of over-pedestalizing women and a misunderstanding of female desire, which is something that not a lot of women even understand themselves. (Full disclosure: I’ve worked in the sex industry on both sides, distributing porn to men, educating women about their bodies and sexual health, and selling sex toys to both. The understanding I’ve gleaned from that particular ‘Life University’ is fascinating, but will seem deeply counterintuitive to many well-intentioned men trying to “rational” their way through such subjects.)

    I’ll hold off on the monologuing for now because I want to see the conversation unfold… in any case, I am so very much in agreement with this:

    >>” If they talk through this currency-exchange in open, explicit Fathertongue, they will have a great marriage — lots of love, lots of great sex, boundless devotion to each other and to the family they make together. If they do not talk things out, each partner will cheat the other with counterfeit currency from the outset of their marriage, and each will never tire of bitching about the other partner’s duplicity.”

    Very well put. While the ‘currency-exchange’ concept can seem cold and unromantic to some, I think that shying away from a frank and open conversation about it up-front does much covert harm to relationships. If a long-term relationship is a house, this currency-exchange reality is the plumbing. We ignore it (or refrain from installing it at all) at our own peril.

    • yep, his article is interesting, but not definitive. to claim that “women do this” or “men do that” may fit one person’s observations, but is too general — if someone acts on these recommendations, there WILL be disillusionment eventually.

      • > if someone acts on these recommendations, there WILL be disillusionment eventually

        If women negotiate for a better deal from their men, they’ll be disappointed? Why?

      • C’mon, It’s ovbious ain’t it? He will pick the path of least resistance and the demanding women will be left all alone wondering “where all the good men went.” I’m fixing to write another comment explaining why this is so…

      • Greg, way too long of an article for such a simple point. I also have to disagree, women simply not “putting out” is not going to make the situation better. In fact, it may make it horribly worse. It would just drive men to easier women, and don’t think you can get all women to unionize and agree to not “put out” unanimously with a list of demands. I’d be just as horrible a failure as Occupy Wall Street, a bunch of cry-babies with nothing to offer demanding it all. The reason women are in such pain and sexually frustrated on a general level is they’ve been conditioned to expect unrealistic things. Go read the men and women ad’s on Craiglist for your favorite local city and you’ll see what I mean.
        This goes back to the old Disney knight in shinning armor, courting, romance, etc. Women’s expectations of what a real man is has been highly distorted and it comes out every time I see a woman post on FB or some online ad, or complain in the open, about how “all the good men are taken.” The reason they don’t see any ‘good men’ in real life is because that idealized man they have in their mind doesn’t exist.
        I would understand if you said they should stop putting out for the ‘jerk’ or ‘bad boy’ and start finding the ‘nice guys’ and putting out for them in volumes. THAT might be your point, but that would be a waste as well because that isn’t how nature works, or hasn’t worked in modern society, thus ‘nice guys finish last.’ You could argue that they can train ‘nice guys’ to have the attributes and attractive qualities the ‘bad boy’ has and that would make the difference you talk about, but much like the paleo diet movement it’s gonna take some effort. Modern society distorts the evolutionary attractiveness of men, just like our modern niceties distort the evolutionary human diet and makes us fat, lazy, and sick.
        If women want to take initiative and start bettering the sex pool… turn off the reality TV, stop being so materialistic and shopping compulsively, and start dating the real men of value (nice guys with his life in the right direction). And realize that dating can be painful like running a marathon, but the ultimate goal is to find someone worth keeping around, and it’s highly unlikely the first or two or three will be the best fit.
        As for men, maybe we too have been programmed with an unrealistic view of beauty and that is why women are becoming anorexic, bulemic, and thin body image minded… perhaps we too need to stop paying attention to the sex defining ads and work on making the worthy girls better fit. Perhaps, it’s really getting off the paleo diet that has fucked everything up and leds to pain in not just the body, but the mind, heart, and relationships. After all there is no need to puke yourself thin or stop eating altogether when you have paleo :)

      • Crap, Richard, can you make the comment above (my longer one) a top level comment. I didn’t intend on making it a followup.

      • Jorge, the nesting limit is the limit, is the nesting, which is why I always advise commenters to quote or reference what they are responding too (nesting has seemed to fuck up comments more than it has helped, but I hold hope because it’s all about hope :).

        Great comment. Prescient in a number of ways in my view and trust me, Greg WANTS to be taken to task on everything he posts. But glad some people saw enough to actually put in sme effort.

        The dismissive ones are dismissed.

      • Travis Steward says:

        @Jorge

        “If women want to take initiative and start bettering the sex pool… turn off the reality TV, stop being so materialistic and shopping compulsively, and start dating the real men of value (nice guys with his life in the right direction). And realize that dating can be painful like running a marathon, but the ultimate goal is to find someone worth keeping around, and it’s highly unlikely the first or two or three will be the best fit.”

        I think you got it wrong here, Jorge. I think this is a common misconception many men make: women don’t actually want the “real men of value”, the “nice guys” with their “life in the right direction.” This is usually claimed as a higher virtuous man-type only by men who categorize themselves in this area. While it is possible what they really want can at times possesses these particular qualities, the reality is that women, on a very deep level, are looking for something far more sexual/primal/evolutionary. Unfortunately, they find themselves pigeonholed into having to trade with a man for economic reasons, and yes the “responsible nice guy with his life in the right direction” tends to make a bit more money on average than the slightly more risk taking, possibly somewhat of an asshole type of man. But here’s the thing about risk-takers and those willing to face COSTS with a bit more fervor: they’re usually a fair bit better in bed. And not only that, they tend to be a bit funner in confrontation, directly against their partners, and against anyone who tries to infringe on the daily affairs of the relationship. Which has context for women, as I’ll try to explain.

        Here’s some evolution for you: women feel a bit insecure because of men. It’s not because we’re dashingly beautiful, definitely not, rather it’s because (likely) that we’re a bit physically larger than them. It’s sort of like a silent, mildly pestering fear that is always there behind the surface. Maybe they are ashamed of it, maybe they aren’t, who knows, but sometimes this manifests itself in getting enjoyment from this basic difference, particularly in the dominant/submissive relationship, where that insecurity is offered up as pleasure to the more physically dominant man, AKA spanking and the like.

        I think men on the whole need to realize that women are powerful, complex creatures that deserve much more male effort and focus on cultivating our collective sexual skills.

        If you don’t believe me, you will when your girlfriend cheats on your ass with another woman.

      • @Travis,
        “the reality is that women, on a very deep level, are looking for something far more sexual/primal/evolutionary.”
        I acknowledged as much when I mentioned the ‘nice guys finish last statement.’ Yes, they are more attracted to the ‘asshole/risk-taker’ which is my point with the ‘bad boy/jerk.’ I didn’t ignore any of these ‘evolutionary traits,’ but I believe you missed the point of the article, which is not what women are attracted to, but how women can get a man to commit to romantic intimacy and monogamous relationships.
        My point was that if Greg expect women to ‘improve their options/relationship commitments’ they’re better of starting not by closing their legs, but by training the men with the ‘romantic/provider/stable’ types so they can compete with the other type of man. It’s easier to take a man like that and add the primal attraction qualities than to tame a man that has no reason to be tamed. The ‘risk-taker/natural’ male will just go onto easier women if one woman decides not to put out. The ‘nice guy’ is less likely to wonder around because of a concept called learned helplessness, which also leads to less of a risk-taker mentality. He get’s this way by not having been successful in the past, but all that can be undone with successes. This makes them become confident and more naturally acquire the dominant male characteristics found in the ‘natural,’ which will raise the competition bar for all males and force them to seek out betterment of himself.
        The reason I deeply disagree with Greg is because he is promoting artificial scarcity, which is what tyrants do to control people, and much like in economics it creates resentment as it brings everyone to the same shitty level when things are rationed out and people are forced to sacrifice one thing for another. If women up the competition by giving confidence to the ‘non-natural’ males, they can and will increase competition which forces all males to improve their lot. Free-markets tend to lead to prosperity far more than artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity is a lose-lose for everyone, economically, socially, and sexually.

        And as for a woman cheating with another woman, that’s not something their driven to from bad sex with men. They would seek out another male for better sex if that were case (was this what you meant to say?). A small percentage may be driven to lesbianism out of desperation or disillusionment with men, but I think most that do eventually ‘cheat’ on their mates with other women ask him for a threesome first and go there only after being denied. Regardless how good a man is in bed it he still doesn’t have what she is looking for in another women.
        This is another thing I’d reference the Craigslist postings on, read through the personals on their and besides all the spam you will find people stating the reasons they go on their looking for such.

      • > If women want to take initiative and start bettering the sex pool… turn off the reality TV, stop being so materialistic and shopping compulsively, and start dating the real men of value (nice guys with his life in the right direction).

        I think this is a fine idea, and not just for women. We find the world we’re looking for. If you;re not happy with the world you’re finding, you need to look elsewhere.

      • For the record, I have been ‘persuaded’ into a monogamous relationship before because I had perceived losing the sex part of a relationship, but I do believe had I not gone monogamous she would have stuck around anyways. The reason I did it was because she had much more to offer than just THAT, and I did value the romantic intimacy part just as much. What can I say, I’m kind of a softy…
        But in order for women to play that power card they have to have traits to back it up, otherwise it’s just a bluff.
        Women now-a-days are graduating at about a 50% greater rate from college than men, and are starting to make more money in some industries than men. That means in about 10 years when I’m likely ready to settle down I’m gonna have a wide variety of well-educate, rich women to pick from :)
        This also lends support to the argument that if women want to have a better dating pool to pick from they better start up the ante and start dating more college-educated men, only then will men as a whole start bringing up their numbers in that respect….unless those college educated women want to provide it all. I see alot of frustration in sex-lives in the coming decades if this disparity continues…

      • Greg, that’s why I never understood the concept of cheating…if you’re miserable with the person you’re with, set them free and go find someone else. Especially BEFORE you have kids if you’re marrying for that reason (to start a family).
        I think cheating is about the most selfish act someone can do. Not to mention that it will eventually blow up badly. That’s why I prefer having an open relationship or just dating unless you absolutely know you the girl a keeper.

      • “The reason I deeply disagree with Greg is because he is promoting artificial scarcity”

        Greg was talking to individuals. Get it?

      • Travis Steward says:

        @Jorge
        “I acknowledged as much when I mentioned the ‘nice guys finish last statement.’ Yes, they are more attracted to the ‘asshole/risk-taker’ which is my point with the ‘bad boy/jerk.’ I didn’t ignore any of these ‘evolutionary traits,’ but I believe you missed the point of the article, which is not what women are attracted to, but how women can get a man to commit to romantic intimacy and monogamous relationships.”

        Honestly, if you and Greg think that women don’t know that withholding sex is their great power, you honestly haven’t gotten off the computer chair that much. Women are masterful negotiators. They know exactly what their power is and how to exploit it.

        That said, the point of Greg’s article is an attempt to help women get what they want, but at the same time having very little understanding of what women actually want. He promotes the price idea that has caused centuries and centuries of discontented women.

        He said men are the sprayers. As far as I’m concerned, he really needs to work on that orgasm technique then.

        “My point was that if Greg expect women to ‘improve their options/relationship commitments’ they’re better of starting not by closing their legs, but by training the men with the ‘romantic/provider/stable’ types so they can compete with the other type of man.”

        Okay I missed this. I somewhat agree with this point, as long as the training of the boring men is in the realm of how to get a lady to soak your bed in under 20 minutes.

        “It’s easier to take a man like that and add the primal attraction qualities than to tame a man that has no reason to be tamed.”

        I think the better strategy is for the women to up their own skills and go for the big game. Those men can be monogamous, they’re just have extremely high standards.

        “The reason I deeply disagree with Greg is because he is promoting artificial scarcity, which is what tyrants do to control people, and much like in economics it creates resentment as it brings everyone to the same shitty level when things are rationed out and people are forced to sacrifice one thing for another. If women up the competition by giving confidence to the ‘non-natural’ males, they can and will increase competition which forces all males to improve their lot. Free-markets tend to lead to prosperity far more than artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity is a lose-lose for everyone, economically, socially, and sexually.”

        Honestly, the idea some women come together and plan the ascension of the “boring man” via training and tutelage is rather far fetched. There isn’t going to be some grand herding of the under-nerd cattle and turning them into the under-nerd studs.

        But if you’re speaking about the “artificial scarcity” in the context of a women simply lying about their interests (making sex scarce to increase trade value but hiding their own interests), well then I most definitely agree. Creating an artificial reality to alter the power balance cannot be maintained long-term and will have consequences.

        “And as for a woman cheating with another woman, that’s not something their driven to from bad sex with men. They would seek out another male for better sex if that were case (was this what you meant to say?). A small percentage may be driven to lesbianism out of desperation or disillusionment with men, but I think most that do eventually ‘cheat’ on their mates with other women ask him for a threesome first and go there only after being denied. Regardless how good a man is in bed it he still doesn’t have what she is looking for in another women.”

        You sir have clearly not yet been introduced to the Secret Lives of Lesbian Women. Tread lightly my friend, for you would find it utterly mind-boggling if you actually found out how many women you know have been with other women. Straight or otherwise.

        This shit is a modern epidemic. A very HOT epidemic if you got the confidence to handle it.

      • > Greg was talking to individuals.

        Yes, of course. There is no one else to talk to. ;)

      • >> Greg was talking to individuals.

        > Yes, of course. There is no one else to talk to.

        Amending this: I can’t keep up with these long exchanges, but I wanted to emphasize an obvious point:

        What I am saying is at the top of the page. These long screeds insisting that I am saying this or that — this is all the Straw Man Fallacy. Honest people quote. Quibblers emote. I’m trusting that the people sitting on the sidelines can tell the difference.

      • Understood. But like I said, most men are like water or electricity, they will follow the path of least resistance, or vagina of least resistance…

      • @Travis-
        –“He said men are the sprayers. As far as I’m concerned, he really needs to work on that orgasm technique then.”
        Dude, you sound like a promoter for David Shade products… he didn’t mean it simply as someone who ejaculates when they orgasm, he meant men have a “thoughtless reproductive objective of a seed-sprayer” and can be done with the relationship after sex. Whereas a woman can be committed for 9m-18y because they are egg layers and “eggs are scarce”and therefore should be treated as such.
        It would seem we have similar opinions, but you continue to make the focus on men having better sex technique to get/keep the women. The opposite (contrapositive?) of what your getting at is what the article is about, how do women get a man they want to commit to a monogamous relationship.

        What you are proposing by giving women extreme pleasure is what Greg says created the imbalance….
        “Somewhere there is an evil genius of sex who came up with this idea: What if it were possible to get egg-layers to behave like seed-sprayers? Human beings can have sex for fun, not just for reproduction, so what if we could come up with words and ideas that would induce women to relinquish their very high sexual power — the power to withhold sex until the desired price in romantic intimacy has been met — and instead estimate their sexual value at or below the very low evaluation men hold for their own sexual power?”
        Not that I disagree with your proposal…I am a man and would like to have the negotiating power, but it doesn’t solve any problems for women that want commitment. Perhaps teaching women a few new tricks, instead of men, would achieve the goal Greg is getting at… after all a woman that can induce multiple orgasms in a man is a special one.

      • ” If women … giv[e] confidence to the ‘non-natural’ males,”

        Ah, but see? We cannot respect the son we’ve raised to manhood. We can love him, think well of him, wish the best for him — but respect him (as a man)? Willingly subordinate our lives to his? (Most women still put the man’s career first: if it’s a choice of who moves for the other’s job, or skips work for the kids, etc.) Just as men will disrespect a “leader” who isn’t worthy of it, women want (I’d say need, but I’m very alpha) to respect their man. (By choice and because he shows he is worthy of it.)

        My late husband used to say, sardonically, “a woman should always be just slightly afraid of her man.” (He also said that for “a man to strike a woman was as embarrassing as appearing in public naked.”) It’s a knife’s edge men must walk: they must be “man enough” without being a brute. Their commitment must be to be as (prepared to be and capable of being as) violent as necessary (whatever the situation) to protect “their own,” but never towards their woman or children. (And their woman and children must know that in their bones!)

        Today’s woman have been masculinized out of any concept of how to form a relationship such as they want. “Real” men won’t have a pseudo-man — or an enemy! — in their home/as their mate; and until “modern” women learn the balance between their natural femininity (which should be their anchor at home) and the masculinity required of the (modern) workaday world, they will find real men backing away without a word or sign. (Alas.)

      • “Today’s woman have been masculinized out of any concept of how to form a relationship such as they want. “Real” men won’t have a pseudo-man — or an enemy! — in their home/as their mate; and until “modern” women learn the balance between their natural femininity (which should be their anchor at home) and the masculinity required of the (modern) workaday world, they will find real men backing away without a word or sign. (Alas.)”
        I agree with the above. And I have several FB ‘friends’ that I only continue to have because of the entertainment their complaining about not finding a good man brings. Again this goes back to my prior comment that women ought to seek out a man with the qualities they like instead of sitting back and picking from the ones that present themselves. Women can ask a man out too if they feel there is potential there.
        “— but respect him (as a man)? Willingly subordinate our lives to his? (Most women still put the man’s career first… women want (I’d say need, but I’m very alpha) to respect their man.”
        Not sure what your point is here, but I wasn’t talking about subordinating to anyone for the sake of it. I acknowledge you say women ‘want’ to respect their man, but alot of men today are a by-product of the post feminist, male-bashing movement. Just look at all the TV commercials and print ads and you’ll start to notice the wife is always portrayed as a smart, sharp, run the business types woman and the husband as a dim-witted but loyal (like an aging watch-dog) type who has trouble following even the simplest of furniture assembly instructions. Of course, we aren’t talking about the most interesting man in the world commercials lol…stay thirsty my friends.

      • “Of course, we aren’t talking about the most interesting man in the world commercials lol…stay thirsty my friends.”

        I love those.

      • Point taken, don’t forget you spur conversation on alot of other things to when you write about such subjects.. Thanks for reading and participating in the comments as much as you have!!

      • @Greg
        “Amending this: I can’t keep up with these long exchanges, but I wanted to emphasize an obvious point:…..What I am saying is at the top of the page. These long screeds insisting that I am saying this or that — this is all the Straw Man Fallacy. Honest people quote. Quibblers emote. I’m trusting that the people sitting on the sidelines can tell the difference.”

        Point taken, don’t forget you spur conversation on alot of other things to when you write about such subjects.. Thanks for reading and participating in the comments as much as you have!!

      • Hi Jorge,
        “— but respect him (as a man)? Willingly subordinate our lives to his? …
        Not sure what your point is here, but I wasn’t talking about subordinating to anyone for the sake of it.

        A company doesn’t run well with two presidents; a ship wanders with two captains. A family disintegrates — or has ongoing fights and negative feelings — if both parties want to be in charge of everything all the time! Way too many “modern” women want the man to be the leader ONLY when they want him to be, but otherwise he should shut up and behave. ({wince})

        Maybe the word “subordinate” carries too much baggage. Perhaps a less dismaying phrasing might be: someone chooses to ‘give way gracefully’ (one would hope gracefully!) rather than fighting tooth and nail for ascendance and leadership. By understanding how men and women naturally differ (and they do, modern propaganda notwithstanding), partners can negotiate who takes the lead in some, many, most, or all situations — subject, of course, to renegotiation if someone feels very strongly about something.

        Which partner chooses to give way isn’t sex-linked (except in consideration of actual physical differences: husbands/male partners are pretty much never going to be breastfeeding the baby!), but by understanding natural inclinations including personal preferences and desires, a couple can find a balance between ‘running’ things, and ‘being run’ (as it were). But unless you’re willing (one is willing) t0 have knock-down-drag-out fights over lots of things, having chosen ‘sides’ — anchoring one’s self in a masculine-energy (provide, protect, cherish) or feminine-energy (feeling, receiving and giving back) position will allow smooth sailing and a successful ‘corporate’ operation.

        In my marriage, my husband was the (agreed-on) leader. I could ask him for things (e.g., I always wanted the master bedroom to have hardwood floors) but our ‘deal’ was that HE decided, I followed. And he decided that was not an expense / disruption we would have (for many years). He always took my feelings into account; he always tried to make sure I had what I wanted and needed, and he made the decisions as he saw fit. I could always appeal, but he could also affirm his decision. Because I knew he had considered my feelings and desires in his decisions, I had no hard feelings about him denying me the (not very many) things he did.

        I had owned my own house before we met, had owned my own company. I KNEW how to run my own world. But my higher priority was a happy and successful marriage. My ‘gift’ to our marriage was that I did NOT try to run things the way I would have / did when I was single — because I was no longer single! I describe it as ‘tuning my sails to his winds.’ I no longer made ‘independent’ decisions, because I was not longer a single lady. He made decisions for the two of us, because he had taken on that responsibility when he chose to marry me.

        Adjustment period? HELL YES! I was 41 when we met! I had been a hardline, staunch (yes, shrill) feminist in my day (for which I deeply abjectly apologize to some of the world’s men). Giving up being the queen of my own realm was really hard! Was it worthwhile? OMG yes!

        Learning to anchor myself in my feminine side (which I doubted I even HAD) and not ‘take over and run things’ was very difficult. But I chose to give up that masculine side (with him only, not overall!); and in return he cherished and cared for my feminine side. (Now that he has died, alas, I am having to live all the time in my masculine side (and “be my own man”), but I am keeping an eye on my feminine self, and hope, one day, to be able to relax back into a balance that doesn’t work when one is struggling to survive.)

      • Oh, and he did, finally, agree to the hardwoods — fantastic lovely hardwoods in the whole upper level… finished just three weeks before he died. {sigh}

      • Oh, Elenor.

        Having wiped away the weepy from my eyes, I’m so sorry. You may have posted about that before in comments.

        Such a huge story from such a huge woman personality. Thank you.

      • No, thank you, Richard for a lovely and challenging blog.

        When I was a young woman, I would have ‘tarred’ myself as a traitor to movement, but as Greg pointed out (here? over at his blog?) (and I’m paraphrasing/expanding): feminism is socialism is communism is destruction!

        Going from a (very) liberal NY upbringing into the Navy (via Officer Candidate School in lovely Rhode Island) began “my awakening” — the world was NOT what I’d been told! Michael just finished what life had already started teaching me. In my youth, I was a willing participant in the Sexual Revolution — thankfully emerging physically unscathed, but emotionally battered… I started to realize that all the ‘stuff’ I’d been taught and told about how ‘catting around’ was just fine for women too, cause “we liked it just as much as men” — didn’t apply to me (so I must be weird). (And don’t get me wrong — I LIKED it! {wink}) Followed by the realization that — hey, it wasn’t me that was broken! It was many, probably most, women for whom the Sexual Revolution was a battle lost!

        Would I got back to the ’50s? Not on a bet! But we women were (are) brainwashed into not seeing our own tremendous value (as something OTHER than a ‘two-person masturbation tool’ for boys)!

        Teaching women to value themselves — and, something I think is even more important: how to gracefully say no — is my way of making up for my own gracelessness back then. (“Draw a graceful boundary and then observe it!”)

        Greg is, I believe, saying that women should recognize this, their value, and act accordingly. We joke on my list about WalMart valuation and Tiffany valuation. Sleeping around is WalMart valuation. To elicit a man’s desire to ‘buy’ a Tiffany jewel, the jewel must BE a jewel, not WalMart cut-glass!

      • Eleanor:

        I’m not surprised we have a mutual affinity/experience. NSI, Newport Rhode Island, summer of 1981, me, the summer both the first Sumperman movie came out, as did Raiders of the Lost Ark (saw them both there). Same exact place where they do OCS. We were college sophomores going to junior year, deciding to enter NROTC and that was the catch up.

      • Hi Elenor,
        I see what you mean, that is the kind of woman I want in my life, someone strong, but not dominant when in comes to the relationship, but I’m not in a rush to find her yet (Im 29). I definitely don’t want a Peggy or a Marcy from Married with Children and I’m not an Al Bundy or Jefferson either. Thinking about it now, that show had pretty much all polar opposites.
        I also think some women today are too much to the extreme on both ends… what’s with women being deathly afraid of bugs and other such things? I can’t imagine the woman of the wild west were anything like that if they had to take over the man of the house role when the husband went hunting for days or away for supplies for weeks… just a thought.

      • > Thanks for reading and participating in the comments as much as you have!!

        Bless you, jorge. Thank you.

      • (Oh heck, guess I’m older ‘n you are….) I was in Newport in 78. (Oh, did you ever eat at the Greek restaurant downtown called Odyssey? Oh. Oh. Just the THOUGHT of their spaghetti and sauce makes my mouth water! Not Italian, didn’t seem really Greek — but it was stellar! Not paleo, though….)

      • > Greg is, I believe, saying that women should recognize this, their value, and act accordingly.

        Yes. Both you and jorge make great sense to me. Yesterday someone equated negotiation with manipulation. All human social contact is manipulative in the sense that I am offering what I have in pursuit of what I want, and my hope is to persuade you to value what I have more than what I want from you. This would only be a negative if I am trying to trick you — which is what I think popular culture has done to women. An open and honest mutual-trade-to-mutual-benefit is a net positive for both partners to the trade.

      • (Sorry, I don’t know who those characters are — never watched that sort of show.) Women today are very much masculinized — to succeed in work, which is a masculine energy space, you have to be masculine. (That is, before anyone jumps at me: you must act out of your natural masculine abilities, and keep your feminine self for after work!)

        John Gray (whom I don’t think particularly highly of; his diagnosis is great, his “cures” useless!) had a cute skit where he’s the dispatcher for the fire department, but handling the call “as a woman” (he would say) / from his feminine-energy side (I would say):

        Hello, fire department. What’s your emergency?
        Your house is on fire?
        That sounds very frightening. Are you frightened? But really, I’m sure you’ll be okay.
        Wow, yes, fire IS a very bad thing, and I can certainly understand why you’re asking for help.
        Is it hot? Can you feel the heat? That must make you feel like running away.

        and so on… Women (myself absolutely included) freak out about bugs because we’re feelings-centered — we, WAY moreso than men, react to and from our feelings. (Men — and masculinized women — ‘suck it up’ and do what’s necessary. Despite being stuck by my life in my masculine side, right now, I have a HORRIFYINGLY huge terrible bug-thing trapped under a glass bowl in the kitchen… and it’s not dead yet, and I CANNOT make myself deal with it. Dammnit! It’s been trapped for nearly two weeks — it OUGHT to have died!! I went to see if I could put it in the trash, and it raced circles like a crazy (horrid) thing!) {shudder}

        I doubt Richard wants me to give a whole dissertation on why women need to be able to ‘read’ and empathize with emotions (pre-verbal babies, anyone?)(barely-grunting adult males? {wink}) in a way males don’t/didn’t need to — and have never been ‘selected’ for. But men (males, it’s at least mammalian, possibly further back) ignore pain, ignore injury, ignore danger, (ignore the lack of curtains and comfortable chairs!) and do what needs doing to achieve their aims.

        Women in the old west, women in today’s business world (albeit, NOT as well) *become* masculine to carry the man’s duties while he’s away. Alison Armstrong — who does just EXCELLENT relationship education — says that when a husband is going away for two weeks, the woman will be all excited and planning all the lovely girlie things she’s gonna be doing with/for herself — and about 20-24 hours after he leaves — she turns INTO the man protecting the castle. Women in the old west weren’t “feminine” (-energy) while they were alone; they were men! They may have had a much better chance (because it was socially demanded) of ‘returning’ to their feminine selves when their man came home. Today’s women mostly don’t even know that’s possible or desirable!

        (Huge, huge problem in the military — the man gets deployed, the woman becomes the man of the house — and when the physical man of the house returns, she has trouble giving it up. There is not much social or educational support for the switch-over and rebalancing.)

        (Just a word of advice Jorge, from an old lady who studies this stuff. Yeah, you want to wait till you’re older and ‘ready’ — and by then? The women who are your peers will also be older and past ready, maybe burned or burnt out… Unless you’re wanting to marry someone much younger (and there are some benefits as well as detriments to that), you may find much slimmer pickings — cause the ‘best’ women-to-be-wives have long since been claimed. (Just as modern women are finding about men!) The marrying kind? They … you know … MARRY!)

      • I don’t even remember eating. I was too enamored with the fact that the drinking age was 18, I was 20, and still a year away in dirt scratching primitive Oregon, Nevada and California.

      • Manipulation is generally perceived negatively, but it’s necessary. Educated (I might call it “honorable”) manipulation requires learning about male-female differences, about cultural/regional differences, about individual/personal differences and idiosyncrasies — and then using those to create a compromise where both partners get as much as possible of what they need (first) and want (second).

        Men, generally (and all my words are general; there are always exceptions and gradations), like to provide; they are personally (internally, and one hopes externally) rewarded by successfully taking care of their loved one(s). They DISlike being told when, where, and how to provide. If you (partner to a man) know this about men, you will be better able to achieve your own ends: to *get* what you need (first) and desire (second) by couching your requests in a way that suits a man’s (most men’s) innate desires.

        Rather than, “honey, I need you to take the garbage out, right NOW!” (or my deepest desire right now: “honey, I NEED a bug taken care of! Help me, RESCUE me, please!”), you would appeal to his desires (manipulating him? Of course. Every human, every primate probably, works to manipulate those around to achieve his/her/its aims.) “Honey, the garbage really stinks and it’s making me feel bad. Would you come take care of it for me?” (Is it guaranteed to work? of course not — but it’ll work a helluva lot better than trying to give him orders!!)

        Dr.Pat Allen, the guru of our marriage (she’s out in LA), talks about grace in manipulation (although not necessarily in those terms). She describes so many marriages/partnerships — where the partners don’t know how to manipulate gracefully and in accordance with each other’s innate tendencies — as being like gymkhana (a sort-of version of barrel racing, check YouTube): the rider is yanking and pulling and kicking and leaning and … just trying to force the horse into doing as she wants. (It’s usually a she.)

        Well-balanced partnerships are like dressage — the merest, nearly invisible tightening of a calf, the curl of a finger on the rein, and the 1000-pound animal dances! Each partner reads the other and responds in a way that best suits the other. (No, my marriage wasn’t always dressage, but it was almost never gymkhana — once Michael had “tamed his feral female.”)

      • p.s., Greg? I got a chuckle where out two messages were juxtaposed: note our “related” avatars?! Tee hee hee!

      • > Huge, huge problem in the military — the man gets deployed, the woman becomes the man of the house — and when the physical man of the house returns, she has trouble giving it up.

        The first generation of rock stars were born in 1939 and 1940. They grew up being the man of the house until daddy came back from the war and set up Oedipus Rex in a million households. The rebels who led millions of baby-boomer kids into one bad decision after another began their rebellion at the age of five or six — just the right time to set a lifelong pattern of behavior. Jim Morrison (born 1943) wrote about all of this explicitly in The End. None of this justifies anything, obviously, but if you want to know where someone is, it helps to know where they’ve been.

      • > “Honey, the garbage really stinks and it’s making me feel bad. Would you come take care of it for me?”

        I’ve said something to this effect before without thinking about it, and my husband’s reply is almost always to the effect of if I need/want something, just ask him straight and plain for it.

        (And, for anyone whose toes are curling at the thought of a woman asking her spouse for anything as ‘mundane’ as garbage-cartaway, he takes the garbage out while I replace the bag (which he hates doing). A nice division of labor IMO =) )

      • Hi E.C., hhhmmmm, I guess I’d ask how your phrasing differed, because what is more straight and plain than “would you come take care of [this] for me?”

        Jeff Foxworthy has a very funny skit where he teases about women “training” their men. He says something along the lines of: just the other night, he and his wife were in the bed readin’, and she announced to the room: “I’m hot.” He was up out of bed and HALFway across the room before he realized that HE was not hot, and yet he had just gotten up to turn on the fan! He had been trained! And he could just imagine her, the next day, calling her mother and saying, “Mamma! I’ve done it! Last night, I said I was hot and Jeff got up to turn on the fan!” And her mamma says, “I’m so proud of you, dear! I’d tell yer daddy, but I mentioned I was hungry and he’s gone into town to get me an ice cream.”

        And lest anyone (usually prickly feminists — been there, whined about it!) complain that they are NOT going to ‘watch what they say’ to their mate (or the men or women around them)… {shrug} I would hope y’all watch what you say around EVERYone! Most (civilized) folks don’t swear like a truck-driver around a 4-yr-old child (or an 80-yr-old lady). Most folks speak differently to/in front of their boss and their drinkin’ buddies, their mother and the paperboy, their best friend and some store clerk. We’re always adjusting our way to speaking to match our situation. Only children and (some) autistics don’t!

        Deborah Tannen — another amazing and excellent source for male-female diffs, specifically in communication (Great book: “You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation”) — says that we’re speaking different languages, men and women, even though the words sound the same. (The only example that appears in my pre-coffee brain is this one: A woman says, “I have nothing to wear” — she means nothing new or appropriate for the situation. A man says, “I have nothing to wear: — he means nothing clean!) (Oh, I think that particular example is from Emmerson Eggerichs, excellent (if mostly religiously based) book; “Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs” — he provides the science too, if you can get past the religious… stuff… I often can’t but this is a very good book!)

        (Yes, yes, OF COURSE that’s a generalization! It’s silly to try to deal with everyone and every situation as if it’s a one-off! Humans are pattern-making and pattern-recognizing animals. Go watch Tom Naughton’s (great and very funny documentary) “Science for Smart People.” It’s on YouTube. The one from the low-carb cruise; the one from AHS2011 doesn’t show the slides, and you need them.)

        Oh, I always remember a young woman I worked with — who had just gotten married to her sweetie — and she was really struggling. She wanted to DO things with her mate, and “he wouldn’t”! She complained that they’d be in the living room, he’d be watching sports or doing a crossword and she’d be reading, and … she was getting upset because he was ignoring her, they weren’t ‘doing anything together.’ She was afraid he was regretting marrying her, not wanting to be with her! But, when she would get up to go read somewhere else, he’d ask her to stay.

        I pointed out that, (oh-SO-) contrary to how a woman would view it — to a man, being in the same room doing different things at the same time WAS ‘doing things together’! He asked her to stay and read near him, because, to him, they WERE doing something together. (Two men out fishing for a day, never uttering a single word? It’s stereotypical, because it’s a (male) pattern!)

        I explained to her that to a man (to most men) doing different things NEAR each other was doing things “together.” There’s not a woman on the planet who would agree, but that’s how (most) men see it. I got her to see how he WAS sharing himself with her by asking her to stay around him… He DID want to be with her, just not in the way she was used to/could read automatically (not “like a girlfriend”). And if she wanted to … you know… *actually* do something together, she needed to suggest what she’d like to do with him! (And she did, and he was perfectly happy to do things *with* her that seemed like doing things to her! And she tried to remember that to him, her being nearby was enough!)

        Michael and I spent a lot of time in our computer room (back-to-back, about 8 feet apart; him on his computer, me on mine). It was sort-of “doing things together” and I liked the closeness. (I was always aware of him, within arm’s reach.). But I used to get… uncomfortable… because when he finished, he would go out in the living room and watch (icky-violent) movies. I always felt “distant” from him (instead of 8 feet, it was now about 35 feet away {bemused eye roll}); I worried that he would think I was “ignoring him” (not being a ‘good’ wife) by staying at my computing and not watching movies with him.

        I asked him once if he felt… I dunno… ignored? rejected? (very girlie thing, that) because I didn’t join him in the living room? He said, ‘not at all, so long as I was *in the house*, we were “together” in his mind, and he was fine.’ When I was out shopping, he was (continually) aware that something was missing from the house, but so long as I was within his walls, all was well. (Didn’t quite feel like it to ME — I felt a wee bit rejected, alone, distant, lonely… but I was choosing it by staying at my own computer!)

        This was a man who required that I call him every couple of hours if I was out-and-about… Not because he was controlling, but because if I were carjacked, and I had not ‘touched base’ with him periodically through out my wanderings, he wouldn’t know it for many, many hours (I shop like a girl! {wink} ALL day long!) and he’d have much less chance of finding me. If I kept him notified of my progress/whereabouts every couple hours, he would know sooner if something were wrong. What I might have seen as unpleasantly controlling (“typical overbearing man”!) was actually loving protection! (“I need to know you’re okay.”)

        We humans tend to ascribe the worst motivations to others (esp. the other sex’s) actions. It takes conscious effort and awareness to allow for others to be “other.” Alison Armstrong says women tend to, unconsciously, see men as “big hairy women who misbehave” (i.e., “If a woman did that/whatever he just did, she could *only* be doing it maliciously, intending to hurt my feelings!”) and men (unconsciously) see women as “weaker, emotionally volatile men they can’t depend on.” (That last is not quite her phrasing, but it’s the general idea.)

        It’s fascinating, the male-female differences, once you quit believing the feminist claptrap! It also eases the slings-and-arrows that a close relationship always has. Takes work and education, though…

      • “And, for anyone whose toes are curling at the thought of a woman asking her spouse for anything as ‘mundane’ as garbage-cartaway, he takes the garbage out while I replace the bag (which he hates doing). A nice division of labor IMO =)”

        Must be genetic. Same thing chez nous.

      • Notre chez, aussi.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Ditto. I can and do take out the trash or toss stuff in the outdoor compost bin, but touching an empty can with a bag makes me shudder.

        Don’t get me started on the difference between disposing of a dead carcass and dusting. Shudder.

      • “This was a man who required that I call him every couple of hours if I was out-and-about…  Not because he was controlling, but because if I were carjacked, and I had not ‘touched base’ with him periodically through out my wanderings, he wouldn’t know it for many, many hours (I shop like a girl! {wink} ALL day long!) and he’d have much less chance of finding me.   If I kept him notified of my progress/whereabouts every couple hours, he would know sooner if something were wrong. What I might have seen as unpleasantly controlling (“typical overbearing man”!)  was actually loving protection! (“I need to know you’re okay.”)”

        Yep, same here. The worst is if she goes to some teacher function after work and it goes on longer than was anticipated, then she doesn’t answer her phone cause of the noise in the room or whatever, and the imagination begins to do awful things to you.

        On the other hand, last weekend I dropped her at the airport to go attend to her brother’s rehabilitation progress in SoCal and once she’d arrived safely, no sweat. She’s now in the hands of her dad & mom and they’re just as competent about these things as it took to raise three kids. So, hand off complete and I have no worries.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        There’s a definitive line between loving mate-guarding and overbearing jealousy. That line is drawn most by body language. It’s how one communicates their previous actions in non-verbals versus verbals that induces their partner’s trust or distrust.

        On the other hand, in Red Pill lingo, a man with status is a man with options — even if he doesn’t acknowledge them. I would guess, with strong confidence, that if either Elenor or Richard’s dame cheated, either guy would replace the cheater in a heartbeat.

        It’s never mentioned or spoken of, but women with higher status husbands inherently know this deep down. Trust should be a fuse, not a circuit-breaker.

      • If my comment wasn’t completely clea, by imagination running wild I’m talking abduction, car accident, that sort of thing.

      • Absolutely double-ditto. There was nothing of jealousy or mate-guarding here. (Michael was 100% certain that I would never cheat; was that arrogance or confidence? He was right, but it wasn’t a consideration for him.) His concern and actions were directed to his responsibility for the well-being of his family (me). He took very seriously his job as my protector, to the point, here in open-carry Georgia, of wearing a .45 on his hip (which choice I ADORED).

        Albeit, he did not do that in a swaggering or displaying sense: he did it to make a philosophical statement: in HIS world, aristocrats went armed and the peasants were disarmed. This was, to him, an upside-down world, and he would not partake! (He described himself to me, when he was courting me via email (we met online), as an “ante-modern Nietzschean” — which could also be accurately spelled/intended as “anti-modern Nietzschean”!)

        (We were married 14 years, together 15.) Oh, I was also ‘required’ to always have at least $20 in my wallet — no walking about without cash, as I had comfortably done for 30-some years! We used to drive my still-staunch-feminist younger sister crazy, when we visited LA. She and I would be heading out shopping, and I would stick out my hand to him and say: “money?” and Michael would put money in my hand. Used to just make steam come out of her ears! Tee hee hee!

      • “took very seriously his job as my protector, to the point, here in open-carry Georgia, of wearing a .45 on his hip (which choice I ADORED).”

        I used to carry a loaded .308 in the glove compartment, even though it was illegal for me to protect us in that way. It’s a misdemeanor, which means max a year in jail. But I would also never consent to a search, it is in the glove compartment, so I figure I can always beat them on probable cause ($250k vs a year in jail)..

        Just another day in The Land of the Free, as I always say.

    • > misunderstanding of female desire

      My plan is to misunderstand female desire as much as I possibly can.

      > While the ‘currency-exchange’ concept can seem cold and unromantic to some

      Check. How do you keep people from negotiating? Dismiss the idea from consideration in the first place. If that doesn’t work, disparage their currency. These are not new phenomena.

      • wow — LOL — i should have checked back sooner … where do i start?

        first, i find it interesting that it was only men who got involved in this thread….

        second, y’all are interpreting my comment to mean much more than i said explicitly. my point was, generalization is dangerous. if you ASSUME that your new girlfriend will react like your old girlfriend did, eventually you’re going to get a big surprise. some woman is going to react badly to a “conditioned response” … and it MIGHT just be a woman you want to keep.

        third, it would make life a lot easier for all of us if we’d treat each other like the individuals we are, honestly and without the formulaic behavior of USERS. there’s nothing wrong with a purely sexual, non-serious relationship, IF both parties are on the same page.

        fourth, … it doesn’t hurt men (or women) to learn a bit about how to please others in the sack! hint: “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” doesn’t work.

        ;-)

  2. muddy rain says:

    Wow. What a thought provoking, well written post. I’m not sure I agree with everything. Afterall, in India, where women don’t put out I got touched up everyday by sexually repressed men. In Asia I’d probably earn a buck as a bar girl, and 50 years ago in the UK, I’d be a
    housewife who didn’t know what an orgasm was…

  3. muddy rain says:

    Oops… got cut off.
    That’s not to say what the author is saying isn’t true… but it’s very idealized. No? The real world we humans create for ourselves is much more messy.

    • > The real world we humans create for ourselves is much more messy.

      Agreed. The question, is, can we do better?

      I want to prey upon you, if I can, muddy rain, just to get some general caveats out of the way:

      To the wide, broad readership of FreeTheAnimal.com:

      1. Of course you are smarter than me. You have a bigger penis, too, and at least seven more testicles. For all of me, the ad hominem display behavior can stop. It’s not persuasive to anyone who is not looking for a hook to hang a hat on. The motivation behind this kind of quibbling is fully explicated in Chapter 7 of Man Alive!

      2. The Dancing Bear Fallacy (Chapter 2) is by now a complete bore. Human beings think and communicate in Fathertongue. No other organisms do this. We are fundamentally different from them, so insisting that their behavior should inform ours is an error.

      3. In the same respect anthropological or paleo-anthropological arguments about human sexuality are not useful for understanding the world we actually live in. The insight you offer up may be interesting to you, but they do not reflect the way you yourself live your one real, actual, existential life.

      In short, I think you are all brilliant butterfly collectors, much better than I could ever hope to be — at collecting butterflies.

      What we are talking about is coupling strategies as they are practiced in real life right now by people who are pretty-much just-like-us. If we make an effort to study everything except the thing under study, we can waste a lot of time getting nowhere, but the gist of the essay is this:

      Women can do much better in their negotiations in the sexual marketplace if they recognize and deploy their undeniable sexual power. If they do this, the results they achieve will be better for them, better for their men and much better for the children that issue from their union.

      For all of me, this is painfully obvious. It only needs to be said because our culture is sick, with that sickness being expressed in a mad desperation to say anything except the painfully obvious truth.

      Is there really any argument with the actual point of the essay? Because the victims of excess-testicle-syndrome can have all the quibbles.

      • I don’t feel that we should approach other people (socially or sexually) with an attitude of power over or power under (I kind of like “power with”) and I’m not sure it’s healthy to use ones sexuality as a weapon or negotiation tool.

        Why can’t we just express our sexuality how we *want to express it* and realize that there’s consequences to this. One may be acquiring a very good mate, and one may be acquiring a very bad one.

      • “I don’t feel that we should….”

        Ok, so now we get to the real gist. It always ultimately comes down to how others ought to be behaving. I think Greg’s piece ought to be seen in a different light. Like me, he doesn’t like to “should” people. Rather, it’s an argument of persuasion, for WOMEN, that is essentially a run down of what that could be negotiating for in their relationships, but don’t.

        “Why can’t we just express our sexuality how we *want to express it* and realize that there’s consequences to this.”

        Greg is simply arguing that such expression has become a bit male dominat when the female really–short of males who would stoop to violate her gatekeeper’s authority–holds the ultimate cards. He’s encouraging them to play their cards. And why not? As much as it would have pained me to not have women jump in bed at the end of a night of mutual inebriation, I have to stop and wonder: what if she’d said no, and what might I have done in response?

        As to the last phrase, I think Greg is telling you what, in his view, are such consequences when you play your hand prematurely or negotiate badly, given what you hold and what someone else wants, and it’s all in the context of females wanting orgasms just as much, maybe more.

        If I was still single, I sure wouldn’t be afraid of having to step up my game for big game prize. Essentially, that’s what it’s about, to me. What man among you would not welcome the challenge?

        C’mon, guise.

      • @Richard Nikoley
        We haven’t met or talked before, so I’m making a small leap here, but when I said “should” you heard (making a small assumption, but it seems correct):

        “People ought to be compelled to do a thing either by me, force of law or some warm fuzzy thing in the universe moving them in a direction”.

        I don’t believe in ‘should’ in that way and it was misused in the sentence.

        What I meant was:

        “I feel (which means you can automatically take or leave it, as it’s my own whim and not based on any fact whatsoever) that it would be lovely if in this world people were honest enough with themselves and each other that there didn’t need to be concern over who had what power in what situation and instead we could all just have a laugh over how silly it all is”.

        *That’s not how people are*, though, and it’s not how I am in all situations. I’m working on it.

        Regarding the meat that was served: Greg’s article:

        I didn’t navigate though the waters Greg is talking about to meet my now-husband. I chose a long time ago to ditch the social structure and social norms that others seem comfortable with (because I am not comfortable with them).

        So a lot of this is very hypothetical to me and so my reaction is probably a little weird because of this.

        It’s my opinion that the currency we each hold (if we must put a sort of odd ‘value’ on our individual selves) is our intelligence, our emotional stability/maturity and our life experience. I think it’s a little surprising to me that to Greg (if I’m understanding at all correctly) the potential of sex is higher on the scale then the things I first listed.

      • Really? A reverse-psychology ad hominem? No, Greg, YOU have too many testicles. And probably can do more curls than me.

        I’ll leave it at this:
        “Women can do much better in their negotiations in the sexual marketplace if they recognize and deploy their undeniable sexual power. If they do this, the results they achieve will be better for them, better for their men and much better for the children that issue from their union.”

        I completely agree with that. You made a better argument there than in your 2500 word original post. Unless your objective was to provoke quibbling (I assume it wasn’t) you’d do much better with a refined version.

      • >> Women can do much better in their negotiations in the sexual marketplace if they recognize and deploy their undeniable sexual power. If they do this, the results they achieve will be better for them, better for their men and much better for the children that issue from their union.

        > I completely agree with that. You made a better argument there than in your 2500 word original post. Unless your objective was to provoke quibbling (I assume it wasn’t) you’d do much better with a refined version.

        Everything I have published here generates quibbling, with little discussion on the actual point. I’m not complaining. My assumption is that, taking account that everything I say is stone obvious to any child, I’m not hearing from the people who already understand what I’m saying. If I can give those people better arguments to defend their own positions, that’s a mitzvah. My assumption is that people twist their minds around quibbles when they can’t abide and yet can’t refute the claims I am making. How fortuitous for you, though, that you found a way to insult me while conceding my argument.

      • Greg –
        Criticism of how you choose to make your point is not just quibbling. If someone has the right conclusion, yet makes factual mistakes, uses poor style and takes forever to get to the point, most folks are likely to call that a poor argument. Doesn’t matter how good your nugget of truth is. I’m no rocket scientist, but you sure lost me along the way at first. I don’t blame you for being defensive, god knows I dont have the stomach to publish my philosophy for public judgment, but you might learn more if you stop dismissing people who don’t understand what you’re saying. Say it a little better and maybe you’ll persuade somebody, or at least have more productive discussion.

        I will refute your argument though, now that I think I understand it. You seem to rest on a basic belief that animalistic pleasure pursued without the context of some higher goal is a sin (not in the religious sense, but a waste of precious time that could be put to better use — a failure to live up to our higher “purposive” nature). It’s axiomatic to say that people would benefit from being “choosy” in every consequential choice they make. Of course. But here’s where you go wrong. Sometimes sex is INconsequential. Not just for men, but for women as well. We do things for pleasure, just because we want to. That’s ok, and it’s even good. We ARE animals as well as humans.

        I think the reason people can’t abide yet have trouble refuting your claims is because you shift meanings with the word “choosy.” Mostly you use the word to mean the same thing as “purposive.” That is a good thing for a person to be. But, in the context of women having sex, you conflate choosiness with monogamy, fidelity and chastity. Given our culture’s long and ongoing history of imposing societal control on a woman’s sexual choices, your choice of words obviously touched some nerves. You aren’t arguing just for women to be purposive about their sexual activity, you’re arguing that they should do it less often and with fewer partners. According to you a woman is selling herself short if she does it just for physical pleasure outside of the legitimate context of evaluating, securing or maintaining a committed mate.

        So here’s my counter argument. Sure people can and do pursue hedonism to the detriment of their own well being. Those people would benefit from considering their choices better – i.e., being more choosy. But when it comes to vaginas, the norm is that peer or social or religious pressure RESTRICTS rather than respects individual choice, especially for women. Women shouldn’t be any less “choosy,” but they should absolutely make their own choices without shame. You haven’t come up with any evidence that children are better off with a chaste mother than one who slept with seventeen men in college. You haven’t made the case that polygamy, or occasional swinging at the summer solstice, or even the unlimited intra-tribal sex that ItsTheWooo imagines, would somehow lead to a lower quality of human existence. And I can’t see that women deserve any more criticism here than men, yet that’s your implication. The value of a vagina in securing a committed mate is only important when the woman WANTS such a thing. If she is before or after child bearing, wants no children, or her children’s needs are already being met, catching a provider doesn’t matter. Yet, her sexual desires do matter, and it’s no longer “society’s” job to control the market on how she sells herself. That’s a step forward in individual freedom, and that’s a good thing.

      • jonw: “But, in the context of women having sex, you conflate choosiness with monogamy, fidelity and chastity. Given our culture’s long and ongoing history of imposing societal control on a woman’s sexual choices,…”

        (If I may, Greg…)
        Greg is no arguing for a return to “societal controls” — but (I believe) he is pointing out the oh-so-clear fact that the societal free-for-all has removed not just society’s controls, but also the girl/woman’s control of her own sexuality! You write that women shouldn’t be any less choosy — but what are our young women taught across the board in this modern society? They’re wrong and bad and prudes IF they choose not to be sexual without commitment. The whole 21 convention is (seems to be?) about teaching “men” how to TRICK women into casual sex.

        Most women prefer (a version of) monogamy, fidelity, and chastity. (Two-thirds of women, according to David Buss’s Harvard study — across cultures and continents.) They may have swallowed the crap the media/this society feeds them, and think they’re being daring and free when they “act like men” (seed-sprayers!) but they aren’t. They are HOPING that by (the old trope) “trading sex theyll get love.” (Nearly) All these girls “putting out” are HOPING the man will decide he loves her enough to keep her! {eye roll})

        jonw: “Women shouldn’t be any less “choosy,” but they should absolutely make their own choices without shame. You haven’t come up with any evidence that children are better off with a chaste mother than one who slept with seventeen men in college. You haven’t made the case that polygamy, or occasional swinging at the summer solstice, or even the unlimited intra-tribal sex that ItsTheWooo imagines, would somehow lead to a lower quality of human existence.”

        It’s not up to Greg to give you the boatloads of research showing that girls and women who sleep around — even those who say they love it and resent/resist any “control” on their “rights” — have a lower quality of existence. (Just ask ‘em!) Most females want a committed relationship and a family.

        And making their own choices? Howzat working in the food arena?! Not so good! Do you think a fraught arena such as sexual behavior is easier than food choice?!

        I run a dating/mating/marrying advice list (for mostly women), and these women are all trying to learn how to NOT be the man in the relationship — not based on religious demands {shudder} or “surrendering” or some other philosophical stance, but because in any balanced relationship, there needs to be (item: one-each of) a masculine-energy partner and a feminine-energy partner. BOTH people (of any sex) have both qualities / abilities / desires… but if both try to be masculine energy, there will be clashes (who makes this decision?) and if both try to be feminine energy, there will be clashes (whose feelings come first/take precedence?).

        By being AWARE of the yin-Yang balance, the male-female complementarity — and negotiating who does what when; who is president of the corporation, captain of the ship, and who is the VP/first mate, a lot of sturm-und-drang, a lot of disruption and damage can be avoided. A woman’s value is NOT that she can swear, spit, chew, and screw like a man. But today? That’s what they’re taught!

      • ” The whole 21 convention is (seems to be?)  about teaching “men” how to TRICK women into casual sex.”

        Exactly the opposite. It’s about getting out of your own way and getting a body language clue about who might welcome your approach, and then how to do that.

      • > you’re arguing that they should do it less often and with fewer partners

        I’ve said nothing like this, nor any of the other claims you have made in this thread. You paraphrase in order to fight with Straw Men. Honest people quote. When will you be joining their company?

        FWIW, though, I am quite certain that happy human beings make love, frequently and thoroughly, with one partner. This pattern — both the ideal and its realization — are ubiquitous not because nefarious forces want to frustrate your fantasy sex life but because it works.

      • > The whole 21 convention is (seems to be?) about teaching “men” how to TRICK women into casual sex.

        My read on this is somewhat different from Richard’s. My take was that about half of the PUA presentations involved the same kind of Jedi-mindgames you find in some sales-training programs. The fly in the ointment was that the “training” consisted of extreme extroverts trying to teach extreme introverts how to act up like extreme extroverts. The failure rate must be huge, but the re-sale rate (“Keep trying, doods!”) might also be very high.

        The participants, for the most part, were not looking to scam on girls. They were just trying to figure out how to get and keep girlfriends. My advice to them, no charge, was to join Toastmasters, which has been making CEOs out of extreme introverts for a hundred years. As Richard notes, what these guys need most is to get comfortable within their own skins. In reality, they are where all the good men are, tongue-tied and socially awkward, but smart, hard-working and committed to serious values.

      • Well, I’m pleased (if a bit surprised) to read that (from you both, thanks). I suppose it’s marketing that it’s all about how to become a smooth PUA — or maybe I’m conflating the 21-convention folks with their evil twins….

        One place where Pat Allen and I have always disagreed is she truly believes that “if only” women will treat males (boys/Peter Pans/ sleazeballs) “as if” they were men, why then they will choose it. (I’m not so optimistic.) I teach “my girls” that they must give respect before it’s earned (and only lose it when it’s lost by the male’s action), which is extremely hard for modern women. I vacillate in my views: I sometimes think that treating a Peter Pan male ‘as if’ he were a ‘real’ man might lead him to wish to grow up and then to do so… but other times I’ve lost hope.

        I do believe there are huge numbers of ‘boy’s (of whatever age) who DO want to grow up and be men… but don’t know how, can’t see a path, can’t find a way. (EVERYthing in this society is dedicated to keeping males as boys, and preventing them from even seeing the example of fully grown men. “Dumb and Dumber” anyone?) Perhaps these are the young males going to the 21 convention? Looking for that path? I hope so.

      • Greg, I didn’t make up your claim that chastity is a feminine virtue. Look the word up, it means “the state or practice of refraining from sexual intercourse.” “STOP PUTTING OUT” is your own three word summary. That enough quote for ya? We all know that means less sex, and I’ve acknowledged that you also mean less casualness in the sex.

        But now I’m dishonest. Or if you must have quotes: “honest people quote” and (my wild inference here) I’m haven’t joined their “company.” I think we’re done.

  4. I am ashamed to say that I have read “Fifty Shades of Grey”–my curiosity got the better of me, fortunately my self-respect stepped in and kept me from reading the other two books–and need to disagree with Greg about the book’s premise. It’s not the “heroine’s” willingness to be humiliated to gain love, it’s about her finding out he’s “damaged”–one of the many quotes that is mocked elsewhere on the net is the “hero” telling the “heroine” that he’s “fifty shades of fucked-up”–and believing she can save him with her love, which is a very common premise in romance novels. Unfortunately this is a belief that has spread into real life as well. I do volunteer work with young women, many of them abused, and I’ve had too many say to me with straight faces (and black eyes and bloody noses) “he just doesn’t know what it’s like to be loved.” When the “Twilight” phenomenon first reared its ugly head–yeah, I read them too, I have to keep up with pop culture, it helps in the volunteer work–the character of Edward Cullen struck me as classic abusive boyfriend, yet girls and women were sighing over how romantic he was. Another disturbing trait of both “Twilight” and FSOG (the latter, by the way, started out as “Twilight” fan fiction) is that the “heroes” are obsessed with their “heroines.” You have no idea how many young females think it’s so dreamy when a man stalks you. When we successfully teach our daughters and young friends that she has worth outside of being someone’s girlfriend, wife, or baby mama, when we successfully teach our sons not to view women as possessions or toys, then we will have taken a large step towards better male/female relationships. Unfortunately, that’s not happening.

    • The problem with people that don’t want to spend a few months without a significant other is that they suffer from poor time orientation. Men can suffer from this also, of course, but women are especially vulnerable because it’s easier for them to be constantly involved in a relationship whilst being passive as long as they are half decent looking–just go to a place where there are lots of men and wait to get approached.

      I had some very hot girlfriends in long-term relationships, but I’ve also spent long periods being essentially celibate because I didn’t want to get involved with women who didn’t meet my standards of looks and personality (I learned my lesson in high school with the “psycho” girlfriend who is usually just spoiled).

      I’ll admit I’ve not spent tons of time around battered women, but I don’t think they constitute a major portion of the population.

      When it comes to the people who really are the bedrock of the economies of modern first world countries, it’s not these broken people but the middle and upper middle class that we need to pay attention to. The problem there is not women lacking self-esteem and men viewing women as possessions/toys.

      When I see North American college kids here in Prague the women are quite far from lacking in self-esteem and the men don’t appear to be predatory assholes who view women as toys–more like supplicants. If it’s a mixed group the guys are usually quite passive, the big exception being an overtly gay guy who will usually dominate the group. My Czech wife often wondered, when we spent a year in the States, how American women who were lacking looks, brains or personality could be so damn confidant.

      A growing problem for this middle class that historically has been the bedrock of society is not that women lack self-esteem and men are predatory assholes, but the idea that men are disposable and that single parent (ie, single mother) children don’t suffer any
      consequences from being raised without a father.

      You have no idea how many young females think it’s so dreamy when a man stalks you.

      Young females think its dreamy to be stalked by a guy who’s out of their league for a long-term relationship, but they will call the cops (or piss and moan on the internet) when a normal guy stalks them to ask them out for coffee. Is the solution to this to increase these women’s self-esteem and blame men (or their parents) for being shallow?

      • OK, now we’re gettin somewhere. It’s time to bring up the F word. I don’t agree with this feminist pandering in Greg’s essay that it’s the patriarchy’s (Fathertongue) fault that some women aren’t getting what they want out out of relationships by being highly promiscuous. These women think that they are acting in a “liberated” manner, but all they are doing is driving away men who would make good mates. Some of us men actually prefer women who exhibit “loyalty, fidelity, probity, sobriety, chastity”. I’m fed up with self centered whacko sluts who think they are the center of the universe.

    • > it’s about her finding out he’s “damaged” [...] and believing she can save him with her love

      Check. That one is in Chapter 10 of Man Alive!, people allowing themselves to be held hostage to other people’s pain.

      My objection is not to the actual book but to the inference that women will draw from the sanctification of BDSM.

    • Travis Steward says:

      I think FSOG is far more complex than you give it credit for, Trish. I don’t think the heroine’s willingness to be “humiliated” (interesting choice of words) was glorified at all. By the second book, you realize Christian’s desire to harm another in a sexual manner was due to deep emotional pain, of which he made the conscious choice to deny because he cared about her.

      In my mind, the book is exploring, in a roundabout way, the concept of love and harm in a relationship. Let me phrase this in a more easy to understand manner: many relationships may not engage in the man spanking the woman, but they deal extensively in various forms of emotional attack from partner to partner, in the unconscious effort to harm, and sometimes harm very badly. We understand (and accept, in many respects) the existence and prevalence of emotional abuse, but when we read of a form of physical abuse like spanking, we lose our minds in how evil it is to harm another; how that can NOT be love. But what most people as love is exactly, EXACTLY the same concept occuring over and over in various non-physical iterations.

      I read that book and felt like it must be a mad world we live in where spanking-as-harm but verbal-abuse-as-harm are treated so wildly different. I don’t know if the author knew it, but she was (in my mind) mocking the modern concept of love and relationship in its entirety. As far as I’m concerned, we view “love” as actually the willingness to be harmed for another, or the expecting of another to accept harm if and when we care to dole it out to make ourselves feel better.

      The whole problem, as usual, is fear. And I think Greg’s proposition of women playing a collective “hard-to-get” would do nothing but exasperate this condition. Furthermore, it simply ignores the fact they want sex too, and good sex to boot.

      While Christian Grey’s willingness to harm Anastasia was just a typical metaphor for the modern relationship, Anastasia’s willingness to be vulnerable and unguarded is something new and exciting, or something very old, I’m not yet sure. Like all things, vulnerability always carries with it varying degrees of risk and reward.

      At least when it’s physical pain you’re causing, its easy to recognize the pain your causing your partner, and hence Christian’s desire to stop hurting Anastasia. Too bad most everyone else in their emotionally abusive relationships can’t see this as easily.

      • “I read that book and felt like it must be a mad world we live in where spanking-as-harm but verbal-abuse-as-harm are treated so wildly different.”

        I must say this is the fucking stupidest thing I’ve heard all day in the comments. It’s like “I get to be as stupid as I want to be today, just to show people how avante garde stupid I am”.

        Yea, let’s blur the distinction between words and deeds, between wishing dead or doing harm and killing and doing harm. Do I really need to go down that road? I’m not going to, because it’s so fucking stupid at face value that anyone ought to be able to see it and if they cant then they get to be as stupid as they want to be too.

        And if its just consensual, THEN THAT IS THE _ONLY_ RELEVANT MATTER. Jusus Fucking Christ, already. A novel, and you’re a dumbstruck teenage girl about how the world has so fucked you up?

        “I don’t know if the author knew it, but she was (in my mind) mocking the modern concept of love and relationship in its entirety. As far as I’m concerned, we view “love” as actually the willingness to be harmed for another, or the expecting of another to accept harm if and when we care to dole it out to make ourselves feel better.”

        Are you a teenage girl in real life?

        Holy mutherfucking muther of God.

        Yea, it’s just another in the never ending theme of victims for victim’s sake and now it’s just so cool.

        “mocking the modern concept of love and relationship in its entirety.”

        Oh, sorry, then. Forget everything I wrote, above.

      • Travis Steward says:

        “I must say this is the fucking stupidest thing I’ve heard all day in the comments. It’s like “I get to be as stupid as I want to be today, just to show people how avante garde stupid I am”.”

        Or, biologically speaking, harm is treated the same in the mind (we’re speaking of ass slapping here, not mutilation). Except the problem of emotional harm does not heal in the same way physical harm does. A slap to the ass brings the blood to the surface, which dissipates over time, while emotional abuse tends to linger and destroy confidence. Which to me makes it far more deadly.

        “Yea, let’s blur the distinction between words and deeds, between wishing dead or doing harm and killing and doing harm. Do I really need to go down that road? I’m not going to, because it’s so fucking stupid at face value that anyone ought to be able to see it and if they cant then they get to be as stupid as they want to be too.”

        That’s really not the point I’m making. We got 50 somethings running around taking action due to psychological damage from highschool. We got women 5 relationships removed from one where they were made to feel worthless and now are terrified at the prospect of becoming vulnerable.

        Hell, we got Angry Dick over here creating an entire blog because of the emotional damage of his weird religious upbringing. Cause and effect. Emotional abuse is nasty fucking shit.

        Honestly, I can’t say you made much sense in that last reply.

        My point still stands: modern relationships are remarkably masochistic, full of tremendous damage caused by the exchange of words leading to altered beliefs about the worthiness of oneself.

      • Travis Steward says:

        Let me add a bit more to my point: Trish was insulted/disgusted by FOSG. Her “self-respect” stopped her from reading. Why a woman would put up with such abuse is disturbing to her. I was merely pointing out my view that modern relationships are far worse, they just don’t have the theatrics of a clear ass slap to make the harm clear. I can scarcely name any relationship in my vicinity that does not engage in constant, subtle or not, destruction of their partner’s confidence and feeling of worth.

        That is all, now point that angry pecker at someone else’s ear.

      • Sorry, Travis, barking up the wrong tree. The “abuse” in FSOG had nothing to do with my self-respect stepping in. It had to do with the fact that the book is horribly written. If I hadn’t known a woman in her late forties had written it I would have sworn on anything you hold sacred that it had been written by a 14-year-old girl who had never been kissed. The dialogue is atrocious. The “heroine” is constantly mentioning her “subconscious” and “inner goddess.” If you do a shot every time the “heroine” is described biting her lip, blushing, or saying some form of “holy crap” you’d be dead of alcohol poisoning before the end of the fourth chapter. I’ve read stuff like “The Story of O” and Anne Rice’s Sleeping Beauty books, which make FSOG’s spankings look like “Pat the Bunny.” BDSM doesn’t float my personal boat, but the stories were WELL WRITTEN and therefore engaging. Hell, the premise behind FSOG might have been way more interesting to me had it been in the hands of a writer with, you know, ACTUAL TALENT. It might have even had me care about the characters. Take away the one whipping and two spankings, and you have your average Harlequin novel.

      • Actually, consent is NOT a defence to assault http://www.lawnix.com/cases/r-brown.html

      • @Richard
        “Yea, let’s blur the distinction between words and deeds, between wishing dead or doing harm and killing and doing harm. Do I really need to go down that road? I’m not going to, because it’s so fucking stupid at face value that anyone ought to be able to see it and if they cant then they get to be as stupid as they want to be too.”
        ROFL…and don’t you forget that spanking causes brain-damage and is child abuse!!! (Referencing someone else’s comments from an old entry, thought I’d give give you a jab in the ribs and remind you :)

      • Let me be clear.

        Spanking children has never been consensual and I abhor the idea. No exceptions. It’s just domination, unwillingly so. I never understood why a parent would want to have their child righteously hate them, for even a moment.

        I was spanked as a kid, as were my brothers. We were never beaten (superficial pain). It was just the way things were done. But I hated the fear and trepidation that went with it, everything that went with it. I don’t begrudge my parents having done what virtually everyone else did but I will also never, ever applaud or salute it. There is never, ever a justification for inducing unwilling physical pain on a child. It’s a shortcut.

        This is not the same as swatting the buttocks of a pre-conscious toddler to make sure he/or she always has your attention, for their own safety. STOP means stop. It can be life & death.

        I suppose what I object to is the idea that people who engage in B/D have some mysterious enlightenment the rest of the world lacks. Hey, I had my own playful times with tieing up, ice on the nipples and other parts, and all of that. But I never thought for a second that my life would revolve around play like that.

      • Richard,
        Since you are trying to be clear please continue…
        “There is never, ever a justification for inducing unwilling physical pain on a child. It’s a shortcut…….This is not the same as swatting the buttocks of a pre-conscious toddler to make sure he/or she always has your attention, for their own safety. STOP means stop. It can be life & death.”
        That looks like a contradiction. What is the difference between spanking and “swatting”? And a shortcut to what, correcting behavior?
        “There is never, ever a justification for inducing unwilling physical pain on a child.”
        I remember my parents warning me that I would be a spanking if I continued certain behavior… and when I did get one for continuing, would that be considered willing physical pain since I was warned of the consequences?

      • It’s pretty simple, Jorge.

        Parents should be absolutely and 100% dominant over per-conscious children. We love our dogs, but they did not evolve in a world of streets and cars and it is our responsibility to protect them and that is only done through complete subordination. When they begin to dart across a street to sniff a butt, STOP is quick and if it doesn’t work, you have not been a good and conscious steward of the mutual deal we and dogs have struck (they always hold up their end of the bargain with total devotion).

        Pre conscious children are like animals. You cannot yet reason with them, but you need them to obey you unconditionally once they become mobile.

        Does that explain it?

        Thanks for asking, BTW.

      • Got it.

      • “and hence Christian’s desire to stop hurting Anastasia.”

        What a hero.

        Novels aren’t written like they used to be, I guess.

      • Travis Steward says:

        He’s no different than most guys who get off on making their women feel less about themselves. He just does it with his palm on her ass.

      • > guys who get off on making their women feel less about themselves

        Just in passing, this is incorrect. I’m not arguing it here — it’s covered in Man Alive! — but the objective of domination is not profit — to “get off” — but loss. There may be some trophy in play, but this is a decoy. The primary purpose of any sort of scourging — physical or emotional, of oneself or another person — is the self-dectruction of the actor. He does not love his life and his self more after he has acted, but quite a bit less, and this was the objective he sought. This insight excuses nothing — to the contrary! — but if you train your mind to observe your own and other people’s choices in the context of present and on-going self-love and self-loathing — both measured in the currencies that matter most to the actor — you will have a much clearer understanding of what people are doing with their lives.

  5. “the power to withhold sex until the desired price in romantic intimacy has been met”

    ==

    To the extent that is an asset it is a wasting asset in that the power fades over time. Women get older, men get older.

    What was once

    “I would crawl over a field of broken glass for it”

    becomes

    “Meh. Whatever.”

    • > To the extent that is an asset it is a wasting asset in that the power fades over time.

      There is truth to that, but you are conflating that one currency with every currency that is being exchanged. There are assets that grow in a loving marriage, and these cannot be replaced, transferred or salvaged, once lost.

  6. First, a biological note. The metaphor about seeds whirling from a maple tree is cute, but seeds are actually embryonic plants, already fertilized and ready to go. I think pollen was the image you’re looking for.

    The rest is pretty hogwashy as well, and shouldn’t go far among paleo folks. Female chastity was invented after the agricultural revolution as a method for keeping inherited property in the family line. Religions that emphasized it tended to prosper, so the meme spread pretty much everywhere except for hunter gatherer cultures and others that haven’t been corrupted by missionaries. For a better idea of what natural human sexuality is like, check out our closest relatives the bonobos, or read the great book Sex at Dawn.

    • Leethal says:

      So one error outside the authors field of expertise discounts the rest of his points? And the fact that you can point it out means we should listen to your generalization over the thought provoking text above? I don’t agree with all of it either, but when I start taking my cues from monkeys I might start agreeing with you.

      • I don’t know if the author has ANY field of expertise, but he seems to think he knows all about sexuality from plants to mammals. I don’t care if he’s got degrees or is famous, but ignorance of biology and human evolution is a poor sign for the quality of his analysis. Marriage is a neolithic invention. The model of ideal monogamy (at least for women) presented here is about as far as you can get from “free the animal.”

      • Good points. Interesting too. Thank you.

      • What’s your evidence that monogamy is a neolithic invention?

      • Haha, nice try Merr, but I never said that. MARRIAGE — a legal contract approved by some combination of church and/or state — is a neolithic invention. MONOGAMY is a life style choice. Look around and you’ll see it doesn’t work for most folks.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        The legal contract of marriage is a very new construct. Don’t know exactly what you mean by neolithic, but it’s post 1000 A.D. or whatever terminology you care to use. The church only decided that marriage was a sacrement in 1215 (not B.C.E.) A few hundred years later, government got involved so it did become a legal contract at that time.

        Prior to, only royalty and extremely wealthy people had marriage contracts.

        The hoi polloi went out in private and declared themselves to be married. End of story.

        Even to this day, only the man needs to attend in a mosque for a marriage to be extablished. The bride stays at home.

        Are you refering to polygamy as an alternative to monogamy, or just the act of screwing around? The latter is not unusual. Apparently approximately 30% of children in the USA are not the genetic product of their ‘fathers’.

      • Thanks Merr. Good review. I’m starting to see where the book goes too far. In a continuum of possibilities, with 100% lifelong monogamy on one extreme and absolutely opportunistic bonobo promiscuity at the other extreme, I’d agree the norm is closer to the first end than the other — preferring particular partner(s) with occasional shopping around (power law maybe?). However, claims that we “should” be practicing a certain type of sex or shaming those who fall short of some ideal really get my goat.

    • Wooo, just to clarify, I do not think Greg is talking about virginity as some lofty value per se (though it’s fine for an individual to value it I suppose), and I don’t think he mentioned marriage once. He’s talking about the value of monogamy in a devoted relationship.

      His point is, women, consider making sure the guy has really demonstrated some character and is at least open to the possibility of further devotion before jumping in the sac. Seems like a reasonable argument to me–even realizing I’d have been pretty [not] screwed when I was 20.

      • > I don’t think he mentioned marriage once.

        More than once, and it runs all through the essay.

        > He’s talking about the value of monogamy in a devoted relationship.

        Precisely.

        > His point is, women, consider making sure the guy has really demonstrated some character and is at least open to the possibility of further devotion before jumping in the sac.

        Check.

        The display behavior is always fun, but I’m talking about real life right now. Exploring subjunctive notions can be fun if there at least the possibility that they might eventuate in existential reality, but to ignore the existential in preference to the subjunctive is a path to error.

      • Ok, let me argue with you, Greg. This goes to what others seem to me to be complaining about in terms of very varied experience in the context of really wanting to get it right ultimately.

        Let’s suppose you were a young male, not quite a virgin, but inexperienced nonetheless; let’s call it “once removed”. Suppose further that the very most hottest co-Ed in a co-Ed dorm of 6 floors paid more attention to you than a hot girl had ever paid. Let’s further suppose she has an HS boyfriend off at divinity school 3,000 miles away and has one of those 70-80s silly and gawd awful ceramic picture frame deals made into the shape of LOVE with his picture in it.

        It’s all friendship, for about a month or two, and it was a totally devoted friendship for me. But there was really only one reason she came to my room at 11pm on a Friday when my roommate was away for the weekend–oh, and her back was a bit tight and in need of a massage (it was the 80s, no idea what the ritual is now).

        That began an on & off deal for about a year and a half. But backing up, that Christmas break in 1982, after just two clumsy encounters (clumsiness on my part), I spent the whole time reading books on sex and low & behold, came back and was able to give her many in every encounter (she later told me it was after the break when she had her first one). I used to delight in thoroughly exhausting her and then watch her sleep for hours.

        My devotion was such that after the school year ended, she didn’t come back, instead taking a job in Seattle, a 5 hr drive away, I scraped and scraped to drive up almost every weekend, often overstaying to the detriment of classes, study, tests.

        I did a couple of very stupid, stupid things too and I have no idea whether it would have ever worked out had I not, but a year and a half later, that silly ceramic picture frame was still there, right above the bed the bed when I saw her for the last time.

        She ended up ok, great even (she didn’t marry either of us).

        She was not my first experience as “the back door man” far from it (one lasted about 7 years over three continents), but she was by no means ever slutty. And neither were any of the others.

        I wrote about this here (that book is still in draft).

        http://freetheanimal.com/2011/06/the-book-what-im-up-to-nothing-should-go-as-planned.html

      • > Ok, let me argue with you, Greg.

        I’m not hearing an argument. I haven’t heard an argument with anything I have actually said here, not in this post nor in all the Man Alive! posts.

        You and the girl were shopping — you quite a bit more seriously than her. She ended up marrying someone who met more of her needs. That’s how dating works, with or without sex or cheating.

        As with everything I have to day about anything, it’s the motivation behind the action that matters, not the action itself. Another girl in your dorm was putting out with any random idiot, just to avoid sleeping alone. Unless she made a radical reassessment of her values and how to attain them, her story probably doesn’t have such a happy ending.

        Earlier today on Facebook I made a casual remark about the continuity of introspective consciousness, and I person I was writing to had no idea what I meant. Once you make a choice, you can never unmake it. The memories of your past behavior will be with you forever, until the flame in your mind burns out. If you choose to do something that incites your own self-loathing, you will have done irreparable harm to your life. If you chose instead for self-love — the choice you were making when you made the effort to learn how to make love — ongoing self-love will be the consequence of that choice.

        My argument to women is simple: Stop frustrating your own values in order to capitulate to his instead. How you manage the negotiation is your business. But if you surrender every value you have to negotiate with, don’t be surprised if you get fucked over.

        To me this is obvious. Is there anyone here who wants to claim that you’ll get the really good food if you burn all your currency in the parking lot before you enter the supermarket?

      • Travis Steward says:

        @Greg

        “To me this is obvious. Is there anyone here who wants to claim that you’ll get the really good food if you burn all your currency in the parking lot before you enter the supermarket?”

        Not a great analogy. Generally referring to what women want as “good food” doesn’t respect the distinct differences involved in the two seperate things they want. While a “good monogamous relationship” is but one “food” women desire, they also desire “good sex” as another “food.” Here is where the conflict happens: The men most willing to put up with the scarcity of sex will be the ones more likely to not be good at sex and the ones most lacking alternatives. Giving sex freely to the those men who are most likely to react well to the scarcity unfortunately does not ensure they will get good sex, and more than likely, it ensures it will be less than optimal. As for the men who are immune to scarcity, you definitely increase your odds of getting them by being more sexually forward. Herein lies the problem.

        In my mind, the real answer is not fancy power/negotation tactics, but rather teaching women how to get a drop dead gorgeous body (see: Paleo) and to be very enjoyable in bed. That is, if they want to get a man of high truly high price. This is a strategy to directly raise their value, not to give false perceptions by artificial scarcity. I have no doubt you speak of lying in your Man Alive! book, even though I haven’t read it, and I hope you can see that what you propose is the exact same thing here. That is, unless you’re unaware that women too naturally want sex. You may be operating under false assumptions.

        PUA, NLP, etc all this shit is built around lying. Just up your price through direct physical and mental transformation and it’s easy as hell.

      • Travis Steward says:

        Here’s the proper analogy for the two “foods” and why the conflict happens:

        1. Don’t give sex too early (burn currency) if you want to lock them into a relationship (one type of “good food”).

        2. Barter your good sex to get their good sex.

      • “I’m not hearing an argument.”

        My argument, couched in an anecdote linked to yet another is that I lived a rather unique 10 years or so with women who were not at all promiscuous, but cheated with me on the side, for mutual fun and life.. As far as I am aware, and I’m kinda good at keeping track for curiosity’s sake, they all came out fine, with kids, family, etc.

        I was unmarried, uncommitted, but at the same time rather devoted to their fun & pleasure, seriously so. I never offered more than that, they never asked for more. Perhaps most interestingly, there was never a fight, never a demand, never a cry. all three relationships ended without any drama.

        Perhaps I’m just an outlier. I know this for sure: I would hate to not to have all those memories.

      • > I would hate to not to have all those memories.

        The reason we’re not having an argument is that no one in your relationships was putting out — consenting to sex in pursuit of someone’s else’s values.

        The post i wrote is ~2500 words defending these three words: “STOP PUTTING OUT!”

        I don’t know why your women friends were sleeping with you, but it seems pretty clear that they weren’t doing it as a capitulation to social pressure.

      • “I don’t know why your women friends were sleeping with you, but it seems pretty clear that they weren’t doing it as a capitulation to social pressure.”

        True enough. Nor any from me. I never required anything of them. Perhaps that’s the reason, at base.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        There is a difference between lust and love.

      • Greg: “Stop frustrating your own values in order to capitulate to his instead. How you manage the negotiation is your business. But if you surrender every value you have to negotiate with, don’t be surprised if you get fucked over.”

        {Standing!} {Cheering!} {Applauding!!} YAY!! BRAVO!

        I spend many hours doing that: teaching women (young and older) HOW to negotiate these ‘deals.’ Do any of you know any women who know how to say (easily and smoothly: trippingly off the tongue”) “thank you, I am very attracted to you as well. However, I know that if I act sexually with you, I will become bonded/too intensely connected, and so I’m going to have to say no to your offer of sex. I hope you can understand my feelings.”

        (This is for non-religious girls/women; the religious one *have* (but many don’t use) the: “god wouldn’t like me to do that.” But, for non-religious girls? Hell, even their DADDIES no longer teach them how to say no gracefully!)

        (*I* sure didn’t know how to say no in MY youth!)

      • Eleanor

        If you’re not fat, you are for sure huge. :)

    • I disagree, the value placed on female virginity is more likely a social manipulation strategy with intent to promote social structures that were strong and viable. IN hunter gatherer societies comprised of a few dozen humans which are highly codependent, there will obviously be no benefit to protecting female virginity.

      In that case how did the hymen manage to continually be selected for throughout mankind’s long, long history as HGers just so it could be exploited in this short pre-modern period for ‘political’ purposes by the landed classes who could actually worry about such things.

      Superficially you are correct when you say female virginity is commodity, property, a virginal daughter is like livestock or land. However, you seem to be missing that the larger purpose is all politics: to forge alliances , to create and preserving healthy strong viable social systems. Cows or land can’t do that but marriages and daughters can do that.

      Yes, terrible of him to miss the “larger” point that virginity is really about forging alliances. Why would virginity be prized above cows or land, which were only available for trade in the recent neolithic period, and only for those with the wealth to trade them?

      • Why would virginity be prized above cows or land, which were only available for trade in the recent neolithic period, and only for those with the wealth to trade them?

        ???

        In a world predating genetic testing, virginity is crucial to ensuring that cows, land, structures & money stay within the family and/or religion.

      • I think the practice of dowry also played a role in making virginity a big factor in old times, if a father is going to have to provide a much bigger dowry for an unchaste daughter then he is going to guard her chastity like it was gold, on account of it is gold to him.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        Not all societies practiced dower. There are societies where the groom’s family paid a bride price to the father of the bride.

      • Actually the is a more evolutionary psychology reason reason why a man would want a virgin. A man has no reliable way of knowing if a child is his or not. When life expectancy is short, a man may end up using all his resources to raise another man’s genes. Not good for fullfilling the prime directive of biological life.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        Plus, men want to marry virgins so the bride has nothing to compare. If he’s awful, they won’t know the difference. The bride won’t have expectations. She’ll just be disappointed or horrified. Men are very insecure about their sexual performance. Better to poke into a woman who knows nothing different/ potentially more enjoyable/satisfying.

        Also, it seems that men don’t want ‘sloppy seconds’ even ‘figuratively’.

      • I just never understood the virgin thing, perhaps because I was one myself until 20 and so didn’t have those teenage HS experiences or whatever. First few times were with non virgins with some experience, I valued that and went forth that way.

        Also, birth control methods were almost always employed.

      • More stereotyping.

        As a skilled lover, I’m not afraid of being compared with other men.
        I prefer experienced women because they are better lovers.

      • I have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        The thing about virginity, it’s not universal. However, as you know, there are societies where the bloody sheet is hung out for all to see after the wedding night. No blood? Use pigeon blood. Or there’s big trouble and the bride is returned to her parents as a disgrace.

        If the fully formed virgin who expressed intolerable pain on introitus attempts was way over the top for you. Consider trying to deflower a Somali or Egyptian or take your pick northern African who has had gential mutilation. I’m not sure if they are permitted to scream, but sure as hell it would hurt. But then again, the point of the mutilation is to ensure the woman doesn’t enjoy sex and won’t be promiscuous. Giving birth through a scarred vaginal opening is also extraordinarily painful and difficult.

        Occasionally the hymen is so thick it must be surgically removed because regular sexual activity will not break it. Maybe the screaming virgin had one of those.

      • Ha! I am betting your response would have you inundated with requests for “courtship” around these here parts.

      • Wooo,
        You’re smart and funny; I like you!
        I have the feeling that you would never provoke me to poo-poo woo-woo ;-)

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        It’sTheWoo wrote: ‘We also need to explain why many other mammals have hymens. I guess other mammals are also conscious of the hymen, huh?’

        Touché. LOL!

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        What gives you the idea that a bunch of sycophant bozos would appeal to her? I think she’s far too educated and sophisticated for knuckle walkers around here who (notice I didn’t use the word ‘that’ which would objectifiy?) are trying desperately to ‘free their animal’.

        Ay, and there’s the rub. Women who are educated and able to provide for themselves, buy their own homes, run their own businesses aren’t too interested in men who value themselves only on the basis of how far they can shoot semen when they masturbate. Wankers like that are just not terribly appealing.

      • “What gives you the idea that a bunch of sycophant bozos would appeal to her?”

        Wher’s the bunch?

        By my tabulation, one guy said something a bit nice to her and if he was serious, it is entirely their business.

        No?

      • Wooo

        Perhaps you’re just making a joke, and I can see how that could be taken, but it’s not what I meant.

        Seems to me you’ve got yourself quite a few fans here and I’d also say it’s well earned. Thanks for the many valuable contributions and things to think about. I’m pretty sure by now that nothing I’ve been told about you really much matters and none of it places you in any of the boxes it’s designed to. Go figure, human beings are complex creatures.

      • I’m not a resident.
        Just a free thinking visitor ;-)

        I’m also not a “knuckle walker”, PUA or competitive semen sprayer.

        I don’t know where this stereotyping is coming from, but let me suggest that if a woman makes a habit of that, she is depriving herself of opportunities to connect with good men who would make good long term mates.

      • Wooo

        Yea, you’re crazy. Me too. Welcome to the club.

        Thing is, I know what a blog is because I got on the train in 2003 and have pumped it out cathartically for nearly a decade now, self therapy, like a Scribble Pad.

        I actually remember you commenting on Stephan’s blog from way back. I don’t have time to review comment threads that much, anymore.

        Really, I love having locked horns with you, both on your blog, here, and in your comments. I’m also glad to get to know you a bit more and discover so many mutual affinities, like the cathartic rant, which you are almost as good as me at. :)

    • jonw: I don’t go to your church.

      > natural human sexuality

      No such thing. If it’s human, it’s purposive — planned out in advance in Fathertongue. If you want to pontificate on sex as we might observe it among genetic Homo sapiens within whom the gift of mind has not been cultivated — I call bullshit. You’ve never seen this, nor has anyone else who can report on the phenomenon. If you want to object, I will want to see a learned paper from a bonobos to support your claims.

      • This is dead on. The observations of Hunter Gatherers would be closest and still as you mention their behavior was/is purposive. If I recall correctly the observations were/are monogamous in nature. Of course, Inuit forced wife swapping – ideallic for the Nonconsenting women.

      • Re “natural human sexuality” I think you know what I mean. But just to be clear — the same way that we talk about “natural human diets” — I’m talking about what kind of sexual relations mature healthy humans might have, were they to grow up without religious and agricultural influence (analogous to Kurt Harris’ “neolithic agents of disease”). Such people do exist, and they don’t live the way you describe. You’re pontificating on a post-agricultural values system that’s based on controlling access to pussy, while claiming that it’s the best way for people to live. That’s a church I left a long time ago.

      • > Re “natural human sexuality” I think you know what I mean.

        Yes, I do. As I already explained, you mean something that cannot possibly exist. All purposive human behavior originates in Fathertongue — in free conceptually-conscious choices — and hence nothing of purposive human behavior should be considered natural in origin. Every human life in an artifact — a man-made thing — and everything done by human beings is artificial.

        > the same way that we talk about “natural human diets”

        Which also don’t exist.

        I have avoided all the posturing about biology, socio-biology, paleo-anthropology, etc., because it all seems to me to be male display behavior. But in fact, the claims people here have made have very little evidentiary support, while the real evidence available to you goes against you straight down the line.

        As an example, there are ~500 hunter-gatherer cultures still extant on the earth. What is their “natural human sexuality”? No two alike. What is their “natural human diet”? No two alike. In fact, the superficial variation of these cultures is deceiving. All of them are alike in one crucial respect: They hew to the customs and traditions of their civilization in preference to drawing rational conclusions about the world around them based on rigorous conceptualization of the evidence of their senses. In this respect, there are really only two extant types of human civilization: Greek and other. This is represented in population head-counts, too, with the result that all non-Greek human civilizations are extreme outliers.

        As an even better example, even though all the boys with imaginary extra testicles insist that monogamy is not “natural” to human beings, it is nevertheless ubiquitous in our own global culture.

        I am not interested in subjunctive postulations — imaginary circle-jerks about worlds not in evidence. I am hugely interested in the existential — in the world as it really is.

        > You’re pontificating on a post-agricultural values system that’s based on controlling access to pussy

        Straw Man Fallacy. I’m citing it because I’m here. Straw Men infest this comments thread like weeds.

        > while claiming that it’s the best way for people to live.

        Again. It’s worth noting, though, that absolutely no one has argued that women would be better off if they were even less choosy about who they sleep with. That would be a counter-argument.

  7. dr. gabriella kadar says:

    Mr. Swann needs to get back to the drawing board, so to speak. He needs to take his hand off his pecker, stop the fantasy DVDs from playing in his mind and do some serious research.

    • While I don’t find Greg’s premise–>conclusion philosophical approach to human behavior and interaction very interesting myself, I do have respect for his ideas and his obvious intelligence.

      The fact that you feel it necessary to belittle Mr Swann in such a childish way whilst proclaiming yourself a doctor says a lot more about your insecurities and snobbish presumptions than it does about the weaknesses of Mr Swann’s argument.

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        Have you read any of Mr. Swann’s fictional production? The stuff is so awful, it’s not worth reviewing.

        Stating my opinion in a straightforward manner which does not confuse the reader is neither snobbish nor a sign of insecurity.

        Sean, grow a backbone. Be a man.

      • “Have you read any of Mr. Swann’s fictional production?”

        Since exactly 1994. Yet here he is.

        “The stuff is so awful, it’s not worth reviewing.”

        I’ve never reviewed any of it. I’ve enjoyed some a lot, laughed a bit. Bean ambivalent here and there.

        What I’ve never done is ever judged Greg’s fiction by any mainstream standard because that would be so fuckig stupid, especially for an MD.

    • > He needs to take his hand off his pecker, stop the fantasy DVDs from playing in his mind and do some serious research.

      The time of your life is finite, and every erg of energy you expend must be paid for in productive effort. What value of your life did you get in exchange for this display? Will this be a moment of your life you will want recalled to your memory in the moments before your death, a proud trophy of a life well lived?

      • dr. gabriella kadar says:

        This is not important in the final analysis. Not every moment needs to be accounted for as ‘a proud trophy’. Life just needs to be lived moment by moment.

        I think the drooling masturbating 18 to 22 year olds who are possibly licking up all your verbal ejaculate as if it were the sweetest honey of life need to see that there are people who may not consider this rubbish worthy of intelligent consideration.

      • Go fuck off, Kadar.

        And drop the dr schtick. You don’t deserve it. You’ve proven yourself the most puerile of all commenters,

        No idea your baggage or history, but youv made me not give a fuck no matter.

      • > Not every moment needs to be accounted for as ‘a proud trophy’.

        The time of your life cannot be replaced and the continuity of introspective consciousness is difficult to disrupt. Every moment you throw away in these sorts of self-loathing displays moves you that much closer to complete Squalor. Your business — you are not hurting me at all. To the contrary, it is beneficial to me and to others looking in to identify precisely what you are doing.

  8. What a fiction, gender. There are only individuals… including those that surrender their individual identity hoping to inherent fantastical attributes from conceptualizations of idealized collectives.

  9. This was simply the poorest fair I have read in a very long while.

    • Thanks for letting us know your feelings, Grant.

      Don’t know what I’d do if I didn’t know how you felt about it. If not, perhaps you could take a few seconds to explain why, because someone put “Grant” in the name felled, I should give a second of thought to how you feel?

  10. I’ve long felt that gender is a spectrum with a classic bell-curve to it. I feel the same is true for sexuality – there’s very few ‘hypersexual’ people, and very few ‘nonsexual’ people.

    I was a sexual (very) early responder, even compared to the typical female, and I’ve always had a high sex drive (except for when I was anorexic, no surprise there), and little desire to have and raise children. I value my sexuality – and I chose a husband that valued it in himself and in me.

    I’m not Annie Sprinkle, but I’m not Suzy Homemaker. A glorious part of being human is that (I think) we’re degrees of each of them. I try to be my own person without embracing or rebelling against labels/neat little boxes.

    (Did I misread and he’s *not* stating that women are sluts if we embrace all aspects of our sexuality when dating/before marriage?)

    • > I’ve long felt that gender is a spectrum with a classic bell-curve to it.

      I’m sure this is true. As will all bell curves, the outliers are interesting to academics, but it is the fat middle of any bell curve — the existentially common — that should interest anyone who wants to know what is really going on. As with The Dancing Bear Fallacy and the Anthropologists Folly, focusing on the outliers is generally a path to error.

      > (Did I misread and he’s *not* stating that women are sluts if we embrace all aspects of our sexuality when dating/before marriage?)

      As regards particular people, I’m much more interested in the motivation behind the act than in the act itself. My argument is that individual people should negotiate the best deal they can get in the currencies that matter to them — none of which I can prescribe from the outside. The general argument is that women are selling themselves short, but I don’t want to be involved in that issue at the individual level except in my own family.

      • @Greg

        If your hoped-for reading audience is the larger part of the bell curve, then you must write to engage and address them, I agree.

        >The general argument is that women are selling themselves short, but I don’t want to be involved in that issue at the individual level except in my own family.

        I believe (carefully wording this as it’s not based on any fact) that *people* no matter their gender or sexual orientation tend to sell themselves short.

      • > I believe (carefully wording this as it’s not based on any fact) that *people* no matter their gender or sexual orientation tend to sell themselves short.

        I agree completely. It’s why I wrote Man Alive!

  11. This is based on so many faulty assumptions it’s hard know where to start and fisking it would be more work than it’s worth. This is spurious reasoning, resulting in nonsense that didn’t require half as many words to state. Very poor and way too much padding here; not a sign of an intelligent writer.

  12. Swanntongue is unbearable.
    Read Sex at Dawn for the skinny on sex.

  13. Travis Steward says:

    Withhold sex to increase scarcity (price goes up), and this achieves… reproduction in a happy environment where a man takes care of your economic needs? Sex traded for economic certainty. Great idea.

    Oh right, the happy environment part. Turns out, if you don’t make sex the initial focal point of the relationship, you may have kiddies running around a nice house with a nice car but you’re so fucking bored of your male partner’s shitty sex you spend a great deal of your time in between fantasizing about being spanked by the asshole down the street who you KNOW is an expert at providing the elusive female orgasm, and hopefully, the multiple orgasm if he gets into your head in just the right way.

    I know what you did Gregg: You looked at the sex life of 16-18 year old high school girls and used it to extrapolate all the problems with sex that women of any age are having. You intertwined this with some evolutionary logic and you think you’ve come across something profound, but the reality is the “withholding sex” strategy just got women tied up in boring marriages with well-to-do suitors that have fat wheat bellies and sweat far too much.

    The premise that women just want to lay eggs ignores the anecdotal fact that women have far more powerful orgasms than men. They are only forced to trade for economics because of the immobilizing problem of having children. We shouldn’t champion the economic trade, we should condemn it. Deep down, the last thing women want to do is trade for economics. It’s a ruthlessly de-empowering arrangement and only done out of weakness. Women now are stronger and don’t necessarily want to use cheap price gouging strategies to get the reproduction product sold with a higher barter value. They want the sex product and always have, it’s biological.

    So while you clearly hold them in contempt for being a sexual creature, it’s good business to trade sex early to see if the product you get in exchange is worth the trade.

    This all makes sense if you consider that women are not simply egg layers, but rather egg layers with greater sex drive then men as well. The sex drive makes it dangerous to have sex freely as the cost might be the economic burden of a child. When the world was far less economically advanced, women could not satisfy their sex drive safely, and many strategies and methods were designed to accommodate this high cost. With the world as it is now, reproduction is no longer economic suicide, so women can freely enjoy their rabid desire to get fucked and fucked hard.

    The problem then isn’t really that women are getting a cheap trade-off, but rather that their sex drive creates a far more specific attachment to any man who sprays with a little bit more skill and talent. So the problem is that women are being hurt out there by guys who are just a little bit better than the average Joe when it comes to the sex department.

    The hopes and dreams of female readers of 50 shades of Grey, the Twilight series, and whatever other series where very powerful, attractive, and sexual men choose to commit to one woman is that such a thing can happen in the real world.

    The real problem is that men of sexual talent are harder to replace for women, and women of sexual talent are EASIER to replace for men. This is the only thing in the nouveau sexual-economic landscape that creates a sad outcome for the female gender, not that they are simply “sluts” or whatever you think ALL women are because you saw a group of young girls skipping class and walking to Starbucks dressed like a bunch of whores.

    The highschool sex dynamic is so different and has so corrupted any natural biological imperatives when it comes to sex it is not worth any intellectual analysis. Throw out the whole system and you’ll find much more sense when looking at the sexual dynamic between men and women.

    If there are men who are so overly concerned with keeping the pathways to Starbucks clear of whores and sluts, then go take a few pointers from Christian Grey and get them off the streets and back in the bedroom – where they really want to be. But remember, if you’re that good it makes them vulnerable and attached, so do be kind.

    • Some very interesting and thoughtful perspectives, Travis. Thanks for taking the time to contribute in a constructive way. I’ll be anxious to see how Greg responds.

    • bravo, Travis — you seem to “get it” (and i mean the term, intellectually).

    • Cathleen Collins says:

      “So while you clearly hold them in contempt for being a sexual creature, it’s good business to trade sex early to see if the product you get in exchange is worth the trade.”
      “Clearly,” really? Did you miss Greg’s sex toy recommendations? Why don’t more of us use sex toys and forget the boys? Truly, the toys deliver better organisms than most men are willing to commit to. But, we want more than fantastic organisms. We — or at least I and the other women who have relationships that I’m privy to — want to be loved. This is the point of the essay — what do YOU want? If you want devotion, don’t go hopping from one hook up to another and expect to get devotion that lasts even as long as his afterglow.

      You trivialize, Travis, the sad state of hooking up as being exclusive to 16 to 18 year-olds. And even if it was true that this is a problem that lasts for only three years in a woman’s life, that idea in of itself would be a sad commentary on what girls are willing to do to find love. I was having a conversation the other day with my niece who graduated from college this past spring. This is a conservative, ambitious young woman. She recently broke off her two-year relationship with a young man whom she loves because she couldn’t imagine him fathering her children. My niece has a plan to work hard, make lots of money, then marry and have children. The having children part is important to her, but the rest of it is important to her, too. So, what was the conversation with this 22-year-old about? Sex. She was wondering what her aunties’ Numbers were. My sister and I took a moment to calculate our four decades of sexual activity, and (ignoring rape) we each came up with single digit numbers. My 22-year-old, conservative niece who had just ended a monogamous two-year relationship prefaced her own Number with, “Don’t judge!” Seventeen… Okay. There were those spring breaks, after all. But, then, came the eye-opener for me. She clarified what “having sex” means to a 22-year-old. The term is exclusive to vaginal penetration by a penis. Oral sex isn’t sex. Anal sex isn’t sex. We baby-boomers tried to argue against the merits of that definition, even pointed out that this definition completely excludes gay and lesbian sex, but only got that eye-roll that demonstrates old people’s ideas are sooo old fashioned. So, we wondered, how many “hook-ups” have you had? “Who knows?” she responded. “MY generation doesn’t count those things.”

      This isn’t trivial, Travis. This is the water we’re swimming in. The water our children — and the young women who are having children — are swimming in. Did you look at Greg’s essay at SelfAdoration? Specifically, I recommend reading the link from this essay to The Atlantic. This isn’t trivial.

    • “where very powerful, attractive, and sexual men choose to commit to one woman is that such a thing can happen in the real world.”

      Guessing you don’t know many women, eh? It’s the *commitment*, not the “great sex” that has women reading romances and loving these vampires (or human-animal hybrids/aliens/time travellers who can only have one mate ever for the rest of their lives, if they’re lucky enough to find him or her) or other man who commits fervently and permanently to the heroine. Women aren’t reading porn/sex books (like men watching porn;, they’re reading books where there may be hot sex scenes — but those scenes are preludes/steps on the way to the actual goal: a husband — a man who will provide, protect, and cherish her (she hopes/the books are written so as) “forever.”

    • Travis – bravo!

  14. Caleigh says:

    Yes, men like to have orgasms. Yes, women like to have orgasms. Yes, men like intimacy. Yes, women like intimacy. But the whole ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane’ is grossly underrated. Taking part in S&M doesn’t mean jack shit when it comes to intimate relationships. It’s about domination and trust. Fifty shades of Grey and it’s predecessor Twilight are works of fiction that pre-teen and teenaged girls went wild about because it’s a fantasy that they’d love to have as a reality because, well, they’re very very stupid at that age. ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time’….. I’ve taken part in a relationship where the man had issues with domination. I went along with it for about half a year until I realized that his issues were way more than I wanted to handle so I left. Yeah it sucked, and it was hard, but you do what you gotta do for your own well-being. I guess I had more self-esteem than I thought I did. Hah.

    Also, it takes two. There are stories, books and movies about fucked up women that men go wild for. Where’s the article on that? Is it too far removed from the ‘modern’ idea that women are ‘hearth and home’ chicks and men are seed sprayer whores?

    I will agree totally with the author that open communication is the key to a fundamentally successful relationship. Absolutely. But the problem is raising the kids to become openly communicative adults. THAT’S the challenge.

    • I think people miss the boat assuming this is a slam on women. I see it as a slam on men that women ought not put up with (in Greg’s perspective).

      • I don’t know how anyone got the idea that it’s a slam on women. It’s extremely pedestalising of women and not very kind to men. This guy is a huge mangina. But it IS a slam on women who enjoy submission, and the author projects his fear of dominating a woman onto those women who want to be dominated, making us out to be wacky. It is a tiresome message I’ve heard all my life and it’s one that feminists and churchy types alike push all the time, so I beg your pardon if I seem a little pissed off at this garbage.

        My man values and trusts my counsel, but I need his dominance. Furthermore, the slam on these ‘types of men’ (i.e. masculine) betrays his unwillingness to find his own balls.

      • “My man values and trusts my counsel, but I need his dominance. ”

        Sounds perfectly in line with Greg Swann and I’ve known him since 1995. I think you’re reading more of what you want to in what he wrote rather than what he actually wrote.

        Domination of male over female is simply a biological fact no matter how people dance around the issue. He’s no arguing against that. He’s simply saying that women could do better in choosing when and with whom they decide to surrender to that domination, like for example, to a man who “values and trusts [your] counsel.”

        [For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary - Ed]

      • Greg is advocating a fulltime D/s relationship across strict male/female lines? (I got the impression from CL’s post that she was discussing D/s as it would be discussed on Fetlife.)

      • That may be what he believes, but he has left so much wiggle room in this post a feminist could drive a bus through it. I found it insulting and now you are pandering to me, which insults my intelligence. I suppose I could write my own post and show what is wrong with this, but it might take me a little while to get to it.

      • I had to look up Fetlife because I had never heard of it. This is a typical accusation levelled at me and it shows a misunderstanding; this is simply trying to make a normal, traditional relationship into a fetish. Evidently you want to change reality and ascribe nature to stereotypes.

      • If I understand, you’re talking about males who want to be dominated by, pissed on, ridiculed etc. by females?

        To each his own in consunsuality for sure, but I think that’s far from the norm and to the extent it happens in suburbia, it’s probably more about play than the man who somehow has hangups about being a man.

        Just my 2c.

      • CL

        I’m simply putting up my argument in counter to yours.

        I fully expect feminists would drive a bus through it. But not all feminists are created equal, either. Camille came up on another comment thread, for instance. Have no idea what her take would be but I always take her very seriously.

      • I appreciate your correction of my error, please accept my apologies for my mistake.

        To explain why I had it, when someone says that they’re submissive and need their spouses domination, that does usually mean something more intense than a usual relationship. There are forums and safe discussion places on FL for traditional Christian/Catholic couples who do take very seriously even in a social-not-sexual context to ‘submit to your husband/dominate your wife’.

      • To me or CL?

        I made an error in interpreting what CL had said, and I apologized a minute or two ago to her since I did not mean to offend.

        D/s, etc happens and crosses a lot of gender/sexuality lines. I *don’t think* it’s what Greg was addressing, but I mistakenly thought CL was.

        Or maybe it’s one of the Black Swans that disproves his theory? I don’t know – for every social theory it seems exceptions can always be found, but it doesn’t mean it disproves the theory.

      • EC, not sure. One comment was in response to the charge I was pandering and the other in response to the idea that domination desire isn’t gender specific necessarily.

      • Yes, sorry, I’ve been multitasking as the replies from people who are much smarter about these things that I am has been interesting.

        “it’s probably more about play than the man who somehow has hangups about being a man.”

        I think we’re generally in agreement here. Substitute any gender/sexual preference/political party of choice for man and I agree even more.

      • @E.C.

        Basically, we follow the Biblical model. It is a D/s dynamic, but people take that and run with it, thinking it’s some kind of Master/slave or DD thing, which it is not. We value each other equally, but we have roles that are different. That doesn’t mean he can’t iron a shirt or I can’t replace a washer, it just means that after discussing things, he makes the final decision and I defer to him.

        Yet so far we have always reached a consensus. He leads the discussion but I have brought up issues many times. It works. Yes, our relationship is more intense and satisfying than the usual relationship, but that is due to trust, communication and mutual non-refusal.

        The love and respect flows both ways and it is the most equal relationship either of us has experienced, but it could not be this way without that dynamic.

      • @CL

        I appreciate you taking time to explain your relationship. =) I did not mean to reopen any wounds from people in the past who may have insulted you about it.

        When I was reading about WAPF style eating a few years ago, I did find some bloggers that had a similar relationship. I think it’s beautiful – I suspect if people knew how your relationship was and saw you together it wouldn’t seem ‘weird’ to them.

      • @E.C.

        Don’t worry, I’m not that delicate, I just get a bit tired of the shallow thinking on the subject. I think that because my man and I are are rather intense people, others imagine it to be a lot more extreme than it is and it scares them. And you are right – we appear as a regular middle aged couple.

        As far as kinks go, it is a matter of taste. The dynamic itself isn’t the kink, but the kink will reflect the dynamic, if that makes sense.

      • @CL – I think we are in agreement re: dynamic/kink.

        Mainstream people who can’t think beyond the obvious will make up whatever they please about people. I try to just shrug it off and smile. =) What they think reflects a lot about them and precious little about me.

      • > Domination of male over female is simply a biological fact no matter how people dance around the issue.

        That wants to be negotiated in detail. In emergencies — as you have pointed out recently — and in easy, habituated Mothertongue displays, there can be a biological basis for that idea of dominance and submission. But anything that can be overtly negotiated in Fathertongue should be, especially if it results in one partner or the other forswearing values — like, say, dignity or privacy — that are important to that person.

        It’s not an unobjectionable dominance and submission I’m talking about, anyway, it’s a fetish that seeks sexual gratification in the humiliation and degradation of another human being. I’m not talking about mutually-voluntary arousal techniques. I’m talking about conflating extreme outlier behavior with the norm and then expecting normal results in consequence.

      • I was talking about playful, mutual arousing techniques, just to be clear.

        I have never understood fetish, neither principally, practically, or manly or womanly. I’m glad so many find ways to cope with the arduousness of quotidian civility, however. There’s always that.

      • ladysadie1 says:

        I have to agree that it is a slam on women who enjoy submission. It also seems short sighted in that the implication is that when women submit men stop having respect for them. It seems to me that rather the opposite is true. This is very evident when you change the dynamic to “Lead” and “follow”. I suspect, CL, that what you are pointing out is that bonds created through mutual respect are much stronger when the man has the strength to assume his rightful role as leader, and the woman recognizes his authority. Correct?

        As for some of the other points raised by the author, I have to whole heartedly agree with the some of the admonition to women to “stop putting out” (before they are assured that they are valued by the man) even if not quite for the same reasons as presented by the author of this article.

      • @ladysadie1

        When a woman willingly submits to a good man, he will treasure her. He will be inspired by her support, not through her nagging him. Serving a woman is not the purpose of a man. Having a woman can civilise him but she does that as a catalyst, not as a overseer.

        It is through ownership and responsibility that he changes and not because of her watching over him and keeping him on the straight and narrow path.

      • “Having a woman can civilise him”

        This.

        Men self civilize in many ways, entrepreneurship being the most common probably outside the context of sex.

        But I think men generally adore the woman strong enough put up with his chestbeating, never show him how childish she sees it, but nonetheless recognize it kinda goes with the territory and so manages him.

        That’s what I saw my grandmother doing every day (now that I understand her vast power for what it was, and she was 13 years my grandfather’s junior). Word is, she usually initiated sex, too.

      • @Richard Nikoley

        I’m beginning to think you are taking the piss, but that is kind of the opposite of what I said. You have described a femDOM marriage – formerly known as a battle axe wife and a henpecked husband.

        I do not see my man this way at all. I have a deep respect for him that borders on awe. He manages me and does it so well he leaves me puddling. For him, I am easy to deal with. I find him easy to deal with. Others have found each of us to be a PITA. We do not fight because there is no need to jostle for power. My ‘power’ is weilded by my influence. It is not manipulative since the relationship is based on honesty.

      • You missunderstnd, CL

        My Gradfather was an artist, the total patriarch of the family. He was an entrepreneur, owned land, even got his head smashed in by hippies with a club in the 60s because they were camped out on his land and simply didn’t ask him nicely first (that was his ethic). He was a man among men, and that’s why he needed the taming of a little, darling 4’10’ woman who adored him to death but new how to deal with him more than any other.

      • So what you’re saying is he was an alpha male and she was gooey over him. Makes sense. Of course this is speculation, but she probably brought out his protective instinct by being a tiny, feminine woman. The idea that he needed to be ‘tamed’ by her is beyond silly.

        You seem to be doing back flips to try to couch it in feminist language for some reason. I think you may also be romanticising a bit.

      • I am with C.L. here. She would never (nor would any “s”) state the following. They would not emote it either,

        “…woman strong enough put up with his chestbeating, never show him how childish she sees it…”

        There would be no “silly men” discussions with their girlfriends. There is no “pussy control” either.

        On the male side there is no talk of women having power because of their genitalia. There are quite a few things Greg has mentioned that are generalized but at least point to these type of arrangements. They are not, however, restricted to the bedroom. If anything the bedroom reflects the dynamic.

        Interestingly, and as CL is demonstrating, a woman does not always extend her submission to the male race at large.

      • Agree with the “thoughtless” descriptions. Those that are thoughtless (not mindful/don’t pay attention) are either ignorant or at a point in life where they are not in mentally healthy. Both can be corrected. The sexual play between partners in that arena is all type of confusing and full of distress.

        There is not just a flipside, though. Because we are humans that have created a complex world the mindful/thought filled road offers at least a fork if not more options. Reproducing is not binding. So, I find myself at odds here.

        When an individual starts paying attention they are not at the mercy of the deep layers of the brain that drive a woman to have sex as currency nor a man to be the dog following the bouncing ball.

        Though, It is still a bit of a novelty for a man to say no to a great sexual prospect. Men will ask you “Why the hell would you do that.” Women will often feel rejected and inquire as to why they are “…not enough.” That or both parties will wave it all off as to the man being gay.

        And then there is THAT whole wrench in all of this.

      • Nevermind, CL.

        I’m talking about my grandparents. I was fortunate to spend my young years up to about 13, 100 yards away from the house and workshop my grandfather built on his 10 acres on the Trukee river outside Reno. He was an Idaho Mormon, the oldest of 13 who made his way to CA and then financed all his siblings to come out over time and settle. Paid for their weddings. Paid for all the hiccups along the way and everyone still owed him money when he died.

        He was a hunter of birds and ruminants of all sorts and he bought that property because he wanted to be able to fish after his day of work where back in the 50-70s, casinos in Reno used handpainted signs rather than plexiglass.

        But I see you were looking for another piece to fit into the diverse molds you have available for people.

        Sorry.

      • “She would never”

        You know no such thing.

      • Greg talked in generalities. You have talked in generalities. I talked in generalities.

        You are correct. Just as a man would never urinate sitting down. Sure, some do. Some of us have. We understand the language of never/always.

        Therapists in couple’s counseling get taught to not use such terms. I am no longer in counseling and tend to follow the flow as was used by the OP. Though you are very correct in correcting me.

        CL said some important stuff that would expand your frame. Your response seemed defensive.

      • Richard: “But I think men generally adore the woman strong enough put up with his chestbeating, never show him how childish she sees it, but nonetheless recognize it kinda goes with the territory and so manages him.”

        I’m not sure it’s seen a childish (perhaps some men, some women, do); chestbeating is male — it’s a *masculine* display, not a childish one. (That might be a good sorting concept: is what a man is doing a masculine chestbeating or a child’s tantrum?) I’d also phrase it differently: she doesn’t manage HIM, she manages the relationship. Alas, most women today have never seen a woman “manage” a relationship — and refuse to consider it…

      • I don’t feel it slammed women, I think it perpetuates some stereotypes of men and women that would probably be best done away with anyhow.

      • > I think people miss the boat assuming this is a slam on women. I see it as a slam on men that women ought not put up with (in Greg’s perspective).

        I’m pretty much equal-opportunity in my derision of thoughtlessness. This is an instance of mutual mindlessness that is easily corrected by women, though, and the correction of the error will have salutary benefits for all concerned.

      • Caleigh says:

        I don’t see it as a slam on women or men. But I certainly am not interested in the whole ‘all women want are romance and moonlight and all men want are sex and moonlight.’ To me that belongs with back rubs in the 80’s :p

        I may not agree with the tone of the article and his opinion about dominance, but I do think that people are more than the sum of their reproductive parts. Which is what I think the author is trying to get across, which is why I’m ok with the article.

    • > But the problem is raising the kids to become openly communicative adults. THAT’S the challenge.

      That’s what we have parents for — assuming they are grown-ups themselves.

      • Caleigh says:

        Yes, because all parents in most North American cultures are totally open about sexual reproduction and are completely frank about safe sexual practices and kids never have to rely on other kids or adults to learn about penises and vaginas.

        Oh, wait. What?

  15. I like it when women have sex just because they want to have sex.

    • > I like it when women have sex just because they want to have sex.

      Masturbation? Sex is social. There is always much more going on. If a woman is having sex with you just because she wants to have sex, two things must be so: Her evaluation of your qualities could not be lower, and she can get much better orgasms by masturbating with the right hardware support. I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but your talent for ejaculation is shared by 3.5 billion other men. What else do you plan to bring to the table?

      • What I bring to the table is being sexually attractive to women. What she brings to the table is being sexually attractive to men.

        Yes, 3.5 billion other people on the planet have a penis, but 3.7 billion other people on the planet have a vagina.

        We could both go home and masturbate, which is okay with me, but the idea that I have to bring something else to the table is unacceptable, if I wanted to hire a prostitute I would hire a prostitute. We both have a desire for intimacy, if she wants to be intimate with me, that’s fine, if she doesn’t, that’s also fine, I’m okay either way.

      • ladysadie1 says:

        @ rob

        via Greg Swann’s question, “What else do you plan to bring to the table?”

        Simply being “sexually attractive” seems like a weak skillset and an exceptionally low standard. I am sure there are lots of pretty (i.e. “sexually attractive”) skanks out there that are willing to let you have a go at them, but what value they place on either you or you place on yourself is questionable, IMHO.

        Sort of a pathetic PUA type of attitude to have when your only estimation of your value to a woman is to be her “hardware support” as Greg puts it.

        I would be horrified at the thought that a man was only interested in me for being visually appealing. Yikes!

      • I didn’t say visually appealing, I said sexually attractive. They are not necessarily the same thing, people are sexually attracted to each other for a lot of different reasons.

        Re “skanks,” I don’t see why a woman who wants to have sex with a man because she is sexually attracted to him should be deemed a “skank.” Why can’t a woman have sex simply because she wants to have sex? Men are allowed to have sex because they want to have sex, why can’t women?

        There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to bone the living bejesus out of a man.

      • ladysadie1 says:

        Yeah, only the skanks will lay down for the simple physiological benefit of being “serviced” or to feel “love” by being a cum receptacle.

        Again, what benefit to either party by placing physical needs above Actual Value?

  16. This post by Greg is excellent and I’d like to publish a french translation of it. How can I ask for permission ?

  17. The highschool sex dynamic is so different and has so corrupted any natural biological imperatives when it comes to sex it is not worth any intellectual analysis. Throw out the whole system and you’ll find much more sense when looking at the sexual dynamic between men and women.

    This.

    I dunno, I’m trying not to be a smart ass, but the post was hard to get through. It’s hard not to roll one’s eyes at a fifty-something man’s obsessing about infinite access to sex. His son, maybe, but the author? Oy.

    Anyway, the piece is a tower of odd assumptions and projections, stacked one atop each other. And most of them seem to be built on a juvenile high-school (really middle-school) perspective. (“Slobbering jackasses”, to pick just one of dozens — really? Care to define the term, Greg? And it’s an archetype that’s hardwired into Homo sapiens? Any evidence? Other than that guy you hated in homeroom?)

    And there’s no environment more artificial and neolithic than middle school. Unfortunately, it’s such an intense trial by fire that it seems to be revealing the “essential” nature of the species. But I’m sure Auschwitz felt that way, too.

    Anyway, Woo’s comment late in the ‘definitive guide’ post is a vastly more interesting and persuasive take on the same subject. Virginity and fidelity are only biggies in the neolithic context. When the tribe owns everything and cares for the children communally — ie, the tribe IS the family — fidelity doesn’t matter. There’s just not much horror in raising your friend’s child as your own when you’re pretty confident you knocked up his sister, you and your friend both hunt together all day with both kids tagging along, and everyone eats around the same fire every night. In this context, it’s not hard to imagine infidelity as almost a kind of social glue, rather than social napalm.

    In the paleolithic context, kids aren’t property; they belong to the tribe. Just like wealth. Paleolithic wealth rots within hours of being killed by the group. It can’t be stored. Greed is pointless in this context. (And any greed would be noticed and remembered, so sharing becomes the only thing that makes sense.)

    But in the neolithic context, everything changes.

    The advent of grain is tantamount to the advent of money. Grain can be stored, traded, INHERITED. More important, the capital required for grain production — land — is heritable.

    Suddenly, fidelity matters. Suddenly, a stranger fucking your wife puts title to your fields in play. Suddenly, one of your sons is incented to murder his brothers. Or you. And your wife is incented to murder one or more of her kids. Or her husband.

    A single throat, silently slashed in the dark, might enable one to seize a city-state.

    The utter destruction of civil war is not a farfetched result. It’s much easier to lock a belt around the girls.

    Now we need religion, because otherwise we have a lot of pissed-off daughters on our hands. So we invent a cosmic parent in the sky who will kill us all if daughter fucks around. Never mind that the real murderers would be us. Pretend that Sky Daddy will spank us.

    * * *

    Years ago, a friend of a friend taught a class in Zimbabwe to a large group of married women. At one point the class started talking about their husbands. It turns out every single woman in the class had a husband who was cheating on her. And they were all furious about it.

    They spent several minutes complaining about what bastards their husbands were. And finally the teacher interrupted with a sincere question: If every single husband was cheating with another women, where were these women coming from? They had to be coming from somewhere.

    So the teacher asked the wives if they would raise their hands if any of THEM were cheating on their husbands. Within 30 seconds, every hand was raised — and they were all laughing uproariously.

    My friends, please allow me to introduce Homo sapiens.

    • More very thoughtful comments from Joe.

      And I agree, Wooo’s comments in the other thread are a good contribution to the subject of DISCUSSION and synthesis.

    • This is the single best comment on this thread…

      Ah, the pure animalistic desire we have fucked up, mangled, and all but forgotten just to live peacefully in a “society”

      I’m sorry but men were not meant to only fuck one woman in there life. *braces for the whipped, submissive men to respond* I’m sure over the last 10K years things have changed, but from a genetic, testosterone point-of-view, it hasn’t. the race to be the first sperm to crack the egg still lives in most. We’ve gone downhill since allowing the non “alpha males” to reproduce. It’s all about survival of the fittest – but unfortunately thedefinition of “fittest” has changed over time…

      • Of course, men and women have always cheated on their mates. But, there isn’t much evidence supporting the view that we evolved from promiscuous clans.

      • “Of course, men and women have always cheated on their mates.”

        Some actually don’t. Over the space of decades and decades. Have you ever felt a tinge of envy for what it might be like, the joy of those lucky ones getting exactly what they wanted early on, mutually, curious over the space of time over what everyone is up in arms about, joking as they waft in each other’s embrace for the thousandth time, content on themselves as the most essential unit in all of existence? Joyous in it?

        “But, there isn’t much evidence supporting the view that we evolved from promiscuous clans.”

        We evolved from promiscuous primates. I don’t know about promiscuity in the early Neolithic, but I can guess. We have customs, traditions, religion, the state, and myriad laws. Extrapolate if you like.

      • Let me clarify. I see no evidence that we evolved from primarily promiscuous sex. What I intended to point out, not very well the first time, is that I acknowledge cheating happens. I used the word “always” when it should have been periodically.

      • MaryBeth says:

        Richard:
        This is a more a general comment on your blog but I loved what you wrote here so this is where I’ll post.

        “Some actually don’t. Over the space of decades and decades. Have you ever felt a tinge of envy for what it might be like, the joy of those lucky ones getting exactly what they wanted early on, mutually, curious over the space of time over what everyone is up in arms about, joking as they waft in each other’s embrace for the thousandth time, content on themselves as the most essential unit in all of existence? Joyous in it?”

        I came to your blog for diet reasons, I’ve bought your e-book (thank you!) but I come back again and again for the lovely, thoughtful morsels of wisdom & commentary like that, please keep them coming and expand on them at length.
        Thank you!

      • >> “Of course, men and women have always cheated on their mates.”

        > Some actually don’t.

        I have no opinion about marital infidelity. I’m told there is a lot of it, but it’s not a part of my experience, nor will it be.

        This is why all this Dancing Bear stuff is, useless, though, to my way of thinking. The reason I will not be unfaithful to my wife is a matter of conscious choice. Animals cannot do this, and all the paleolithics who might offer testimony are busy being dead.

        We make excuses for thoughtlessness — or rather, for affected thoughtlessness — but all purposive human behavior is chosen. My expectation is that the actual existential objective of most infidelity is to damage or destroy the relationship that is being betrayed.

        To take another perspective on the idea, what form might infidelity take with respect to a relationship with a close friend? With a beloved pet? Doesn’t fit, does it? That’s interesting to me…

      • “To take another perspective on the idea, what form might infidelity take with respect to a relationship with a close friend? With a beloved pet? Doesn’t fit, does it? That’s interesting to me…”

        Me too.

      • MaryBeth.

        Thank you, sir/ma’am. Reading what you quoted, I’m pretty happy with it.

        Best.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Read “Sex at Dawn” for more on promiscuity in our genes.

      • Hey Richard,
        Have you ever thought about writing romance novels?
        You could make a lot more money than writing Paleo books ;-)

    • You criticize Greg for odd assumptions and then go on to make your own assumptions. I prefer evidence rather than sweeping statements like, “When the tribe owns everything and cares for the children communally — ie, the tribe IS the family — fidelity doesn’t matter.” Seems like bullshit to me but it’s your claim to prove. You’ve got several more there but that’s a good one for starters.

    • LCForevah says:

      This is the best comment in a string of comments too often filled with sexual cliches.

    • Joe, awesome. Puts my 1 AM off the cuff reaction to shame. Your comment made me realize why I had such a negative visceral reaction to the OP. Greg Swann starts from a hand-waving generalization of biology/psychology (“men are seed sprayers”) and walks it straight to something out of a 1600s Puritan sermon (families need women with “fidelity, probity, sobriety, chastity”). Almost universally in modern culture, men and women are programmed to see cheating by a spouse as the worst possible betrayals, to the extent that assault, mutilation, kidnapping, theft, murder are all “understandable” responses (remember the misogyny 101 post?). Yet as Joe’s Zimbabwe example shows, humans being humans, sex happens, a lot. Folks cheat on their diets too. There are things worth breaking up a family for, but this isn’t one of them. It’s a shame to see how many folks still buy into this fundamentalist-religious-rooted crap.

      • Never been married or cheated on? Never had kids watch their parents go through it?

        I can’t imagine how a paleolithic woman would “feel” if the man she had formed an alliance with decided to chuck her for another woman. Y’all seem to keep talking about HG groups where relationships are all “internal” — my impression of most HG groups is they meet up with OTHER HG groups to find mates! (Even, apparently, they know too-close inbreeding was less than optimal.)

  18. Is too much complicated! Basic animal drives corrupted by infinite manipulations, caprices and fixations of human consciousness, which in turn corrupt by all manner of societal fuckeries. Nobody know what the fuck going on with fucking!

    Undenatured animal has no such pretenses. Maybe we enjoy sniffing you butt one day, but tomorrow we may wish to sniff different butt. No need for scrutinies, philosophizing, or insipid poetries.

  19. More from me, at Self-Adoration.com: Fifty shades of pink sock: Facing up to and fixing the hook-up contradiction.

    I have a post up this morning at Richard Nikoley’s FreeTheAnimal.com weblog about the absurd position women find themselves in in today’s sexual marketplace. I don’t want to lean too hard on this Atlantic piece, because it’s such a transparently tendentious argument. Besides, the solution to this problem is three-words simple — but you’ll have to go to FreeThe Animal to find out what it is.

    Back on campus with the hook-up girls, we note these facts:

    First, while there are nefarious lotharios aplenty in the sexual memestream afflicting young people, the actual underlying philosophy behind the movement toward random, rootless promiscuity comes from our old buddy Karl Marx. The Marxists know that private redoubts like the family frustrate the growth of the state, so they do whatever it takes to undermine any sort of purely-private social arrangements.

    Second, while we talk a lot about “connecting-the-dots,” a careful reading of “the news” requires that you sweep away all the rhetorical chaff that is being shot at you in order to obscure the dots. Author Hanna Rosin clearly wants for the hook-up scene to be proof of feminine empowerment, so she hides every evidence to the contrary. Where the map does not correspond to the territory, by all means dispose of the territory.

    Witness: What do boys who hook-up do? They turn copulation into a sport, with scorecards, bragging rights and cellphone-video highlight reels of the girls shared all around.

    What do hook-up girls, do? The suffer the consequences of being the target of too much anal sex — a condition they call “pink sock” — and cry to each other that they are being treated like garbage.

    Rosin thinks we should score that as a win for the girls!

    I have more than a lot to say about all of this, but The Unfallen is my ultimate argument on the subject. I’m not interested in all the ways we have found to get love wrong. But I am very interested in getting love right.

  20. What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/boys-on-the-side/309062/?single_page=true

  21. Counter-point:

    “What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/boys-on-the-side/309062/?single_page=true

    • I wrote about that Atlantic article this morning:

      Fifty shades of pink sock: Facing up to and fixing the hook-up contradiction.

      Your mileage may vary, but I found the protestations of sexual empowerment hard to credit. Every bit of existential evidence in the article made it very plain that the hook-up culture was demeaning and unsatisfying to women. The “good” news was all a matter of characterization, narrative representation without concrete examples. The actual concrete examples — men keeping box scores, as it were, pass-around DIY pornography, girls crying together, physical damage to the rectum — seemed like pretty bad news to me.

  22. Following up on my previous comment, I forgot to mention one point. The title of this article is also misleading. Most women do not ‘look for love.’ The sit around waiting for it to fall into their laps, picking and choosing from what is presented to them instead of pulling up their big girl panties and going out and approaching men. If they aren’t willing to put themselves out there and approach the kind of man then are looking for they don’t have much of a reason to complain. Yes, they probably will get rejected a good number of times, like men do, but thats the price to pay for playing the game, there are no guarantees in life and it isn’t always fair…but you can win if you don’t play.
    Women go above and beyond when dressing up to go out because they are trying to attract a man enough to drive him to seek her out. If she were the one approaching the man she wouldn’t have to stand out as much and put so much effort into her over the top appearance. And if they are just dressing up and globbing on the makeup just to look better than the other women, as if it’s some kind of inside competition or something… well there-in lies the problem. What is the mindset, to look better than the next girl (fit in) or to find a mate and create new social connections. Some call it Peacocking and the intention is to grab attention, but if you aren’t just waiting to be approached by members of the opposite (you are also approaching), there isn’t much of a need for it.

    • Correction: You CAN’T win if you don’t play.

    • > If they aren’t willing to put themselves out there and approach the kind of man then are looking for they don’t have much of a reason to complain.

      I think this is very good advice. I think all the speculation about my own sexuality is funny — for goodness’ sakes, just ask; I conceal nothing — by my own experience suggests to me that much of what you are talking about is a “seen and unseen” issue. There are a huge number of stable couples in which neither partner has ever entered any sort of meat market. People meet at school, at work, at church, all environments in which they are more likely to be focused on values other than just sexual attraction. The currencies in trade are different, the values being sought are different, and, not surprisingly, the results are different.

      Women: If your plan is to meet the guy of your dreams in a bar, the guy of your dreams is going to turn out to be the kind of slobbering jackass who chases women in bars. Dismaying? No, obvious.

      • Lol, perhaps you should be the one quoting, Greg. I have not made a single speculation to you sexuality. Are you using the reply to me to address someone else? I’d take it easy with the straw men too… Unless you consider malls, shopping centers, and social gatherings “meat markets.” I never mentioned bars specifically.
        I agree that currencies are different based on cultural views, as you pointed out and perhaps it’s those cultural beliefs that lead to the better outcome, not the bartering of sex for commitment. In any event, I think I’ve heard somewhere that generally arranged marriages have a much lower divorce rate than non-arranged, but I’d attribute that again to the greater cultural beliefs and shame associated with divorce. Ultimately, it may be better for the offspring of that couple but the parents may be dead inside. Then again they may live happily in cultural bliss.
        The fact is that the more freedom, intellectual or marriage wise, the greater the risk of emotional pain. There is no free lunch.

      • > Lol, perhaps you should be the one quoting, Greg.

        You’re right. You have my apologies. I was carrying more general beefs to you, which I should not have done.

  23. Nicely done, Greg. I have three daughters who will learn to bargain knowingly and wisely. Well at least knowingly.

    • > I have three daughters who will learn to bargain knowingly and wisely.

      I love it! Here’s is some very good news: Most things work out well. We just spend all our time talking about the squeaky wheels.

  24. Greg or anybody – for those not in the know, can you explain Fathertongue and Mothertongue?

    • Mothertongue is any form of bodily signaling, a form of communication we share with other organisms. Mothertongue can be intentional in humans, where conceptually-conscious intention is absent from animal display behavior. In human beings, Mothertongue signaling will tend to accompany emotional reactions, even when the actor is all alone. The class of phenomena we denote as “body language” is habituated Mothertongue display behavior.

      Fathertongue is cognition and communication is a notation system, such as speech, discursive prose, musical or mathematical notation, architecture, computer languages, choreography, etc. This is the normal state of human cognition: Once a child has had the idea of the self cultivated within his mind by his parents and other involved humans, his conscious thought and communication will all tend to be Fathertongue expressions, even if these are reinforced (or deliberately contradicted!) by intentional Mothertongue displays.

      This is from ManAlive!:

      Mothertongue is active, immediate, visceral and fleeting, where Fathertongue is generally passive, patient, cerebral and enduring.

      As is this:

      Fathertongue can be communicated at a distance, across time, without any direct contact between the communicants, to anyone already versed in the notation system – and to no one who is not.

      Much more here

      http://selfadoration.com/from-man-alive-speaking-in-tongues/30

      and here

      http://selfadoration.com/from-man-alive-the-greatest-invention-in-the-history-of-humanity/32

      The distinction is vital to me because human life, most fundamentally, is the life of the mind you and everyone conducts in the silence and solitude of the mind. The objective universe pre-exists your consciousness of it. But it is your conceptually-conscious awareness of the universe of your experience that makes up your life at its essence. This internal dialog — this relationship with the idea of your life that is your self — is conducted in Fathertongue.

  25. Agree with the “thoughtless” descriptions. Those that are thoughtless (not mindful/don’t pay attention) are either ignorant or at a point in life where they are not in mentally healthy. Both can be corrected. The sexual play between partners in that arena is all type of confusing and full of distress.

    There is not just a flipside, though. Because we are humans that have created a complex world the mindful/thought filled road offers at least a fork if not more options. Reproducing is not binding. So, I find myself at odds here.

    When an individual starts paying attention they are not at the mercy of the deep layers of the brain that drive a woman to have sex as currency nor a man to be the dog following the bouncing ball.

    Though, It is still a bit of a novelty for a man to say no to a great sexual prospect. Men will ask you “Why the hell would you do that.” Women will often feel rejected and inquire as to why they are “…not enough.” That or both parties will wave it all off as to the man being gay.

    And then there is THAT whole wrench in all of this.

    • Re saying no to a great sexual prospect, that’s an easy one, you say no because saying yes is going to make things complicated down the road. It may be something as simple as she’s someone you work with and are going to be seeing everyday for the next five years.

      • > you say no because saying yes is going to make things complicated down the road

        But exactly! And this is an example of the use of the subjunctive — the invocation of worlds not in evidence — at its most beneficial.

        We can project to future consequences and estimate if they are more or less likely to be happy.

        We can take account of our own behavior now and our projected future estimate of that behavior.

        We can acknowledge all of the fond memories that we have accrued in the past, memories that can be sullied but can never be restored or replaced.

        We can take account of all the people who will be hurt — not just your spouse but also your children, your parents, your friends.

        This is all Fathertongue — no other organism can do these things — but this is why discussion of biological goads on human behavior are irrelevant. All purposive human behavior is chosen by a process of conscious thought expressed in Fathertongue. Anything you can think about you can think twice about.

  26. > Though, It is still a bit of a novelty for a man to say no to a great sexual prospect. Men will ask you “Why the hell would you do that.”

    Here is a question I asked the boys at The 21Convention, to some amusement: Why would you stick your dick into a woman who disgusts every part of your mind but your eyes? She could give you a disease you’ll never get rid of, or stick you will a kid you’ll get to pay for but never see. Why do you hate your dick so much that you would insult it like that?

    It’s funny, but I’m just inducing a reevaluation of the currencies in trade. If, like me, you care about your future self-adoration more than anything else, passing up on easy lays is easy.

    • Rarely have I met a woman that “disgusts every part of my mind but my eyes”… There always something else that the crushing mind finds to like if you know anything about them.
      But true passing on easy lays is easy for me because I have standards, both for appearance and otherwise. I was surprise to see a stat the other day that said over a third of men were pressured into having sex they didn’t want, and I think it was peer pressure or the thought that a man ought to take advantage of the present opportunity that was the pressure. Kinda sad when u think about it.

      • > I was surprise to see a stat the other day that said over a third of men were pressured into having sex they didn’t want, and I think it was peer pressure or the thought that a man ought to take advantage of the present opportunity that was the pressure.

        It’s a topic for another essay, but I think quite a bit of human sexual behavior is fundamentally same-sex oriented. Not homosexual in the sense of being aroused by your own gender’s sexual hardware, but, rather, with the primary focus of the event not being your opposite-sex partner but rather your same-sex friends. Plausibly, this is of greater moment for younger people, but it’s never gone from the scene. It’s all through the PUA stuff, for example, and it’s what makes women’s magazines profitable.

  27. Blah blah blah blah…

    Go out and grow some vegetables people, listen to the sounds of nature, be thankful for the sun on your skin. Eat your liver.

    Who cares.

  28. M. McEwen says:

    NIGGERS. Look up the true meaning of that word and you will understand my feelings about Richard Nikoley.

    • M. McEwen says:

      I am not really named McEwen. The name is Ford. Long time fan of this site. Just wanted to pop my cherry with some guy humor.

  29. You know Greg and probably all you comments are contributing to the oppression of women.

    http://paleodrama.tumblr.com/post/30345362312/so-the-girls-dress-like-sluts-dance-like-sluts

    Misogynists!

    • I’m a misogynist because I’m a mangina.

      For everyone reading here: I don’t keep secrets. If you have a question about me, fee free to ask it. The mad speculation about what I “must” be doing is just as useless as all the strident claims about what humanity “must” be. If you want to argue with me, quote the text you object to, don’t quibble with a characterization you have invented. And if you want to know anything at all about my life, my work or my thinking, just ask.

    • Damn, I either read a complete different Greg Swann or I’m just a Misogynists.

  30. I don’t think there’s enough time in the world for me to make it through the entire comment stream here. But my two cents: the author is stuck in a mental trap, which is composed of the idea that, in order to connect, each gender must manipulate the other extensively. It’s true that playing mind games and messing around with other people can be entertaining. But in the long run, it cuts you off from your own compassion and empathy for other people and makes it much harder to really become intimate. In my experience, the best tool we all have for connecting to another person is to drop the bullshit and open your heart up. When you allow yourself to see the beauty in all others, soon they will see the beauty in you. Oh, I just spotted another trap the author is stuck in: he has somehow convinced himself that having an awesome orgasm is something separate from deep emotional intimacy. That is not necessarily true at all, and acting as if it were true is bound to be a bit soul-crushing.

    One last thought. The author suggests that men actually want romantic intimacy just as much as women do, maybe even more. If this is true, then I don’t really see why the solution to the situation is for women to anything at all. If men want romantic intimacy, perhaps they should come up with a better strategy for achieving it, since clearly using diabolical Fathertongue propaganda to convince us to become sluts has not really worked out the way you wanted it to.

    • I thought he was arguing against women boning every man they see, not in favor of it.

      Personally I’m in favor of women boning exactly as many men as they want to bone, no more, no less.

  31. what the hell is “Fathertongue”?

  32. Gregg,

    If you change the audience to people 60+, does any of this apply? Reproduction is not in the equation, and the man supply dwindles rapidly as age increases. To me observing my older relatives, many of whom are widowed, it seems like a reverse ant colony. The man is the queen surrounded by a swarm of female drones. Older women seem to have no negotiation power at all.

    • GILFs, they know what they want and they want it now.

      • GILFs – make better lovers!
        GILFs are the perfect date: no period, no fertility, no young dependents!

    • > If you change the audience to people 60+, does any of this apply?

      As you note, it’s a very different negotiation. I’m not shoulding anyone — not telling you what to value or how to pursue your values. My argument — my overarching general argument — is that other people are in most cases pursuing their own values and not yours. If you give up on something that matters to you in order to get stuck with the short end of a lousy deal, the fault is yours. If you want to avoid that fate going forward, you have to negotiate differently. In circumstances where the value you are negotiating for is in short supply, you may end up doing without, or you may end up striking a bargain that is less than ideal by your standards. If you’re doing this with your eyes wide open, and if you end up getting up more than you had to give up, measured in your own currencies, even if it’s not all you might have wished for, you have acted in a way that will promote your own present and future self-adoration. If instead you trade away more than you are getting in return, the consequence will be an instant and enduring self-loathing. Any one iteration may not amount to much movement in either direction, but the behaviors you habituate will move you in the same direction again and again. Allowing for topical incidents — such as contracting an incurable STD — it’s your long-term habits of mind and not your one-off choices that will be dispositive.

      This general idea — a sort of game-theory of moral philosophy — is covered in Chapter 7 of Man Alive!

  33. Lifetime sexual fidelity provides a powerful foundation for a couple. I found my way to this blog when my adult child was bedridden with an auto-immune disease. My husband and I vehemently disagreed on how best to approach her illness; he wanting to follow “doctor’s orders” and me supporting our daughter’s approach to go off reservation with less toxic approaches, like the WAPF diet.. Marriages frequently fall apart in the face of a child’s illness for good reason: stress, fear, or in our case, disagreement over decision making.

    Interestingly enough, the fact that we were virgins when we met and have not sexually strayed in our 25 years together gave us freedom to wrestle with painful issues in a safe, unspoiled relationship. Despite our differences, we trust each other. We’ve suffered bumps and bruises because of this crisis, but as our daughter slowly recovers her health, I’m confident our relationship will right itself.

  34. For record…

    My mother had cancer. There was nine years of non-intercourse. We lived in a small town at that point (lower than a 9k population) so infidelity would be easily known.

    Often said he was a saint.

    He often said he just worshiped a goddess.

    I have not had such experience but it has always played a part in my own mind. I still think these things have root in genes.

  35. A.B. Dada says:

    All this discussion, and the OP, sound nice and good but it’s too much.

    Women need to realize and understand their sexual market value, and then they need to find guys with realistic SMVs in comparison.

    For me, I never seriously date women with *any* urban living experience. Urban women have the SMVs confused. On the flip side, because my SMV is sky high, I can sleep with top tier women, but no way would I title them or give them long term access.

    When I do settle down, it’ll be with a gal in her 20s, with no urban living history, and an honest knowledge of her SMV. Plus, no overeducated lizards, no one with any debt, and someone who knows how to cook from scratch and keep a clean home.

    Until then, I date women wi a lower SMV than mine, and I’ll diddle the high ranked ones for a few weeks until they bore me.

    • God knows they could never be bored with you.

      You are the best reason for lesbianism ever invented.

      • “You are the best reason for lesbianism ever invented.”

        I get such a kick out of people who just can’t stand the fact that a guy knows precisely what he wants, goes for it, and has the audacity to state it.

        I’m betting on this: A.B. Dada doesn’t give a fuck what you think. Even moreover, you have no argument. You state no experience yourself. Just a pathetic, wanking hit & run.

      • No, he has no idea what he wants, because “sexual market value” doesn’t actually mean anything. He acts like it’s real, but it’s just something he projects his grandiosity upon.

        But he’s clearly very odd, very narcissistic, and very objectifying (of himself and women.)

        So I’m pretty confident in assuming that most women would find him insufferable. Unless they’re complete zeros with no self-respect.

        And this low “SMV”. (So he’s in a bit of a bind.)

        >> A.B. Dada doesn’t give a fuck what you think.

        He cares what everyone thinks. What other reason could there be for making such a bizarre comment in a public forum and attaching his picture?

        What’s more relevant is that he won’t care what his contracted SMV provider will think.

      • “But he’s clearly very odd, very narcissistic, and very objectifying (of himself and women.)”

        Ok, let’s start off with the obvious. Have you ever even studied any basic philosophy, like trying to separatate out the existential from the man made? Here’s what I know. Everyone who has ever used the word “objectifying” is pretty much a moron, taught by morons.

        To you, I am an object. Why? Because everything outside your own body and mind is an object. Literally. Everything. Every little thing. In philosophical terms I am as much of an object to you as the bacteria you wiped off your kitchen counter this morning.

        What your real complaint is, is that an object such as me, or the hot chick AB wants to fuck, doesn’t get automatic creds for being an object that is also a thinking, integrating reasoning human being.

        Or, it’s up to you which objects in your life you want to elevate to objects you adore and pay a lot of attention to.

        AB seems to know exactly which objects he prefers to pick up, fondle, polish and talk to. Your complain is that he is discriminating, a true virtue.

      • Wow, a lot of assumptions there, Richard.

        How do you know that SMV means a “hot chick” to him, let alone what “hot” means? How do you know he wants to “fondle, polish and talk to” them? He’s only mentioned requiring ability to cook and clean.

        But they must lack education, debt, or history of city-dwelling.

        What does that even mean…high school dropout cleaning ladies from Appalachia who never made it as far as Greenville?

        To me, women like that have a “sexual market value” of zero. So I’m not sure how you’re so clear on what he actually means by “SMV.”

      • “How do you know that SMV means a “hot chick” to him, let alone what “hot” means? How do you know he wants to “fondle, polish and talk to” them? He’s only mentioned requiring ability to cook and clean.”

        Philosophy 102 delves into metaphor. I was speaking to 101. So sorry.

        On the other points, the point is he knows what he wants and is stating it explicitly. Why in the world, if he’s not hurting anyone, would you object to him deciding what he wants from integrating and reasoning the data he’s received from his own sense for decades.

        In this I am quite certain: he will leave you to your own values.

        How come you can’t meet him there?

      • “How do you know that SMV means a “hot chick” to him, let alone what “hot” means? How do you know he wants to “fondle, polish and talk to” them? He’s only mentioned requiring ability to cook and clean.”

        Philosophy 102 delves into metaphor. I was speaking to 101. So sorry.

        No, it was a serious question. How do you know what he means? Your earlier reply implied that what SMV meant was obvious to you. Seriously, what do you think SMV means IRL, and why do you think that?

      • “No, it was a serious question.”

        That’s what you think. I don’t share your judgment.

        “How do you know what he means?”

        The same way I know what “serious question” means, even if we don’t agree on what qualifies.

        I have zero patience for over complicating the obvious. Masturbation is best performed in private.

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        @ Me,

        You’re right. Come on, Richard – initial gut reaction from A.B. Dada’s comment (re. ‘SMV’) is that the guy’s a dick. Now, you might know him, and he might not be a dick in actuality, but that comment….a comment from a dick. He is why whiny, tedious, overwrought feminism exists.

      • Your mileage may vary, I suppose. Seemed like an honest comment to me. I have no more problem with it than a woman saying the same thing in reverse.

      • No, his definition of SMV in a woman is because “whiny, tedious, overwrought feminism” exists.
        I know where he is coming from, though I do prefer intelligent knowledgeable women I can have a good conversation with. Of course his definition doesn’t rule that out.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        No, feminism exists because a bunch of overeducated Marxists decided to push the idea on society and then performed a coup over the education system. I also have plenty of feminist friends who absolutely detest my opinions, but they also know that having me around in the circles leads to opportunities. Oh, that’s high SMV proven, right there.

        For me, the #1 element of a woman’s SMV is that she is healthy. If I commit, I don’t want to deal with bullshit excuses or health issues that could have been controlled.

        Secondly, no debt, no shopping addictions. I find these are the ladies with time to care for my specific needs (cooking for me, taking care of my domestic needs, etc).

        Thirdly, a high status woman who knows she’s not higher status than I am. I tell guys regularly that even the most intelligent women will get “socially retarded” when she’s out with a higher status guy. Goofy love is real. If my woman doesn’t get this way, I’m out.

        Nowhere in this list is “beauty” or “sexuality”. In my experience, if she’s healthy and fit, the beauty comes more from style and fashion and hair and makeup. I’d bet on this. Sexuality comes from her having a higher status guy who is dominant in the relationship. That social retardation idea? Those gals also get high sexual desire for the man who is fulling feeding their biological need for a powerful man. Sex is never a question.

        Of course, I sometimes end up going on a date or two with a modern, urban, feminist-type woman. Usually one date, rarely two. I find them boring, unsatisfying, and ugly beneath the skin. My typical exit is to just fade them, but if it’s been more than a few dates, I’ll happily offer them a 6 month subscription to Netflix, a knitting class groupon, and a book on how to care for many cats.

        Asshole? I am.

        Loving boyfriend? That’s me.

        You can be both. I would venture you have to be both, to truly make a woman goofy in love.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Also, I should mention that I almost always post under my real name as I have here. My Facebook and Twitter profiles are 100% public with zero privacy set.

        When I date a woman very long term, their friends and family are aghast at her choice, but al that does is make her happier because she’s got a higher status guy who is confirmed as such by her inner circle, and he treats her hindbrain desires with meticulous attention.

        Women don’t trust what comes out of the mouths of other women for good reason: women are dual-minded by nature, and a man who wants to make his woman happy needs to appeal to her hindbrain (hormonal response) versus her forebrain (logical response).

        I am testosterone, she is progesterone. There’s vast differences in sexes, and most people of both species are fucked up permanently due to social conditioning, diet, lack of sleep, too many high-reward choices in their days, etc.

      • ” I find these are the ladies with time to care for my specific needs (cooking for me, taking care of my domestic needs, etc).”

        So, are you actually saying you want a house servant — and NOT a princess to your king? My husband (amazingly) did not think it was “my job” to do the housework. I was not his servant, I was his mate, his partner: being subordinate to him did not make me a servant! He felt it was his responsibility to provide slaves (or, failing that, hire servants to get it done); but fer shure it was NEVER my place to sink into servitude! And if he couldn’t or wouldn’t hire it done (and we couldn’t afford it), then it was *still* his responsibility, not mine! Anything I did to ‘help out’ was a gift to him. (And I had to fight him a bit to ‘get’ him to ‘let’ me do the laundry. Not cause he did it ‘wrong’ — but because I liked to!)

        How about this:
        The Lower Class Man prides himself on making a slave *of* his Woman.
        The Middle Class Man prides himself on being a slave *to* his Woman.
        The Upper Class Man prides himself on providing a slave *for* his Woman.
        Granted, most men can’t or won’t be as … extreme… as Michael was. Part of his self-concept was that he was an aristocrat, and so his wife was one (that is, “he *found* one to be his wife”) and our modern circumstances did NOT turn me into a house-servant or valet!

      • A.B. Dada says:

        The man is the gatekeeper to commitment.

        The woman is the gatekeeper to sex.

        I can afford to hire a housekeeper — and I do at some of my away-homes.

        A woman who commits to taking care of my needs is a woman who will get the reverse from me. Consider the fact that there are many more dateable women than men in all my cities I live in. Why would I choose a woman with no inkling of domestic knowledge?

        Men are not attracted to a woman’s job nor her degrees nor her shoes and purse fetishes. We don’t care.

        We seek out that which can provide for our needs, and we seek out those who have needs we can fulfill. I have an exceptional history of dating involving just 2 failures over 25 years. I always seek out domestic care because I’m bad at it. It’s a need I have, and it tests a woman’s love for me.

        Women are far easier to satisfy if a guy keeps his dominant frame and quiets her hindbrain.

        A man can’t debate these things with women because debates activate a woman’s logical forebrain, which angers the hindbrain. It’s why I warn both men and women to never ask a woman for relationship advice. Want advice? Ask a player or a guy who’s been happily married for 2 decades. They’ll repeat what I’m sharing.

        I don’t consider my domestic partner to be beneath across the board, just in areas where I’m superior. When it comes to emotional care, softness, adoration and making others smile, a woman can be vastly superior to the hunter male. I don’t want an equal, that’s called a competitor. I want a symbiotic relationship of needs covered for each other, by each other, freely.

        Since I haven’t been single since I was 13, and I’ve only had 2 explosive relationship failures (both my fault!), I think I’m on to something. Ask around and see how many guys and gals feel that confident in their data histories or abilities.

      • GILFs are also less likely to have been exposed to the Marxist-Feminist misandrist philosophy taught in modern “women’s studies” classes. They are also less likely to have been indoctrinated into the radical guilty white liberal eating didorder called veganism.
        It’s not a coincidence that Lierre Kieth was a 20 year vegan AND lesbian feminist.
        I do appreciate that she saw the light about the falsehood of saving the world with veganism.

      • I predict AB Dada and Wooo getting together.

        Seriously, while I think I grok you Dada, she’s a fine ranter and anyone who can’t take that from her ought to look elsewhere because that is very highly valued around here.

        How do you want to handle it, man? Do you want to remain silent, run back, or explain yourself to Wooo?

        I would say only this. I never ignore a good rant with nuggets of truth or insight (the purpose of a rant…not meant to be taken fully cognitively).

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Wooo, there’s no need for brain transplants, there’s already a solution to the dilemma you present: show young women what happens if they don’t stay hormonally-healthy and focus on their most elegant of abilities.

        Oh, who could we find that has matured to the point that she can’t regain control of her hormones and the lovely essence of woman that captures the most important human functions afforded by a proper progesterone balance?

        Of course, for guys who haven’t been as skilled as Richard is (and I’m sure others on this blog), Western women aren’t really that lost. We men of high value already save ourselves tens of thousands a year over the common video-game-playing-manchild. We don’t waste our funds on toys, and we certainly don’t waste them on women we date (we know that women aren’t sexually attracted to men who spend money on them, just men who have money). Sure, we can use those funds to explore Eastern Europe, where the villages and farm towns have young, beautiful, demure, highly skilled females who haven’t been cluttered by the modern urban feminist-Marxist examples that Hollywood offers. But we don’t need to do that, since all we need to do is show off to the new generation what becomes of a woman when she refuses to keep her hormones in check. Then, with our significant savings, we can buy a nice, small home (no mortgage!) and provide a protected and loving environment for our eager wives to care for and help us raise our children in. And we can do this with Western women!

        That still leaves me with which unhappy, damaged female example we can give to the young, beautiful, undamaged and rip adult females… I wish I had an idea, just a muse…

        Maybe you can help me, Wooo? If you figure out someone we can raise as a model of what a woman shouldn’t do, I’d be happy to provide you with a year of Netflix, a groupon for knitting classes, and a guide to raising a dozen cats safely.

      • Pretty Laf to both of you. Wooo vs. Dada.

      • I should add that I. Do not think for a single second there are not nuggets to learn and consider from each. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

        It’s mostly what I’m all about.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Just remember that I don’t think females with fantasies like Wooo are wrong, just unhappy.

        People are free to be unhappy. I am free to stay happy.

      • “It’s why I warn both men and women to never ask a woman for relationship advice. Want advice? Ask a player or a guy who’s been happily married for 2 decades. They’ll repeat what I’m sharing.”

        Do you truly believe that these two types of men would or could give the same advice about relationships? When their goals are so fundamentally different?! (Or do you think women are so easy to handle that the advice doesn’t actually matter?) Or, do you mean: if you want to learn how to be a PUA, ask a player; if you want to try to figure out how to have a long happy marriage, ask someone who has done it (and PRAY he has some idea *generally* and not just some ideas specific to his woman and his relationship)?

        (And think you the *woman* in that long happy marriage might not have had a huge effect on whether or not it was happy for all those years? If SHE was managing the relationship so as to make them both have happiness — would his advice still be the best sought?)

        I find your way of explicating your views to be … rather more coarse than need be (which may be interfering with your points). I am a lady who was married to a gentleman. I have spent most of my life studying men and women and how they differ (and are similar). I suspect I would give better advice to a much wider variety of men and women looking for a stable relationship, than someone who brags he has had great relationships all his life, but also says he LOOKS for a servant (i.e., not a partner) for his mate. (That may be merely a really bad choice of words, but what is advice, if not carefully chosen words?)

      • A.B. Dada says:

        A man who is married 2 decades can still toss a cheating or lazy wife and replace her with someone from a younger generation. A wife doesn’t have that option with a younger man. Your knowledge would be outdated for younger folk.

        A player also has the same short term goal as a man looking for marriage, he just doesn’t want longevity. The needs a man must fulfill in a hormonally-healthy hetero female are very similar between the vulture PUA and the hawk man if marriage: both much speak to her hindbrain’s needs and desires. Both can date (and marry) women much younger than themselves if they so desire.

        Women are SMV time bombs, with merely a few years of pedestal standing capacity. A man ages much slower in SMV. The adage is a man ages like wine, a woman like milk.

        This is what destroys a woman’s ability to give relationship advice, well part of it:

        1. A woman can’t voice her inner desires, her only voice is her rational brain, which often lies to protect her hindbrain’s real desire,
        2. A woman in a successful marriage is outdated in the SMV,
        3. A woman who is young is still in the sexual market, so she won’t give advice to her competition.

        As for partnership, economically that’s a risky proposition. The feminist-Marxists destroyed the reward of marriage by tilting divorce to a woman’s favor. When I mentor men who want marriage, I teach them to protect their futures through blind trusts, irrevocable living trusts, and corporate havens, before they marry. I teach them to own their homes for cash, they cars, settle their corporate shares/investments, before marrying. This is the only way to offset the mess that is divorce.

        A man can hire what a “partner” can bring to a relationship — except for sex.

        A woman can’t easily hire what a man can bring. Sure, women can earn on their own, but biologically speaking, women who do that price themselves out of the sexual market and end up miserable. This will be proven truer and truer as today’s powerful educated women end up in spinster retirement homes. A woman’s SMV is not changed for the positive by her job income or education — in fact, her SMV gets lowered.

        Progesterone balanced women admire male dominance and protection. Testosterone unbalanced manjawed feminist-Marxists are undateable. I know many of both types, and I see who is happy and who is not.

        The outliers are rare.

      • “…man who is married 2 decades can still toss a cheating or lazy wife and replace her with someone from a younger generation.”

        Your messages are all so… odd? You seem to view intersex relationships solely (or mainly) from an adversarial position. You sound as if all your ‘interest’ in a relationship is in the maneuvering, the trading (and winning!), the pseudo-economic pricing. I’d guess on the “satisficer/perfectionist” scale, you’d be way out (writing of outliers) on the perfectionist end.

        I think most men are more interested in creating a satisfactory long-term relationship, not finding a woman/statue they can keep on a pedestal (and chuck when she gets too old to have the right pricing structure)!

        “both much speak to her hindbrain’s needs and desires”

        Can you TRULY form a long-term happy relationship when you view your mate, your partner, perhaps the mother of your children, in this odd way? Is she merely a thing to you — and can you find much happiness with that? I’m baffled. (Are you “pricing” her all the time? Little stock ticker in the corner?)

      • A.B. Dada says:

        I feel as though there’s a straw man in your response, but I can’t find it.

        65-70% of divorces are initiated by women. In my non-scientific interviews of men and women, I’ve looked at thousands of non-marriage long term relationships greater than 3 years and a higher percentage of those were ended by women.

        Feminist-Marxism has caused the insanity you pointed out: the relationship economic pricing.

        Hollywood is in the game. Look at what has happened to entertainment: reality TV, rom-coms, etc.

        Mix in the reality that metabolic syndrome involves high-T in women and low-T in men and you have a society on the verge of a collapse in marriage-ability. I mentor to guys who want wives, families, longevity. I do not mentor to guys who want to slut around.

        My battle is against the social constructs that are now law, and if not law (marriage) than political correctness. I am not a misogynist or sexist, I’m pro-andrist and a paleogamist. Ive seeker out solid relationship examples in all age groups, and ask very intimate and hopefully non-biased questions of women and men, in relationships and out. More often than not, hormonal imbalance seems to be a consistent blame on relationship failure.

        Diets, starting with the fetus, are creating manly women and effeminate men. I have no doubt of this hypothesis. I start weak pansy men out with a paleoesque diet, heavy weights, and a focus on savings versus spending or debt reduction. Then, I help them become part time entrepreneurs.

        A man who is wise will wait until his mid-30s or later and marry a woman in her sexual prime (22-24 at best, 25-28 at worst). He’ll be financially stable, have a great circle of masculine friends, be free of high reward activities (addictions, in psychological speak), and be suited to raise, feed, protect and teach his family.

        He’ll understand the economical degradation of so many two parent incomes — a higher quantity of available workers leads to lower salaries. He’ll see the health gains in having children take fresh real food to school (if they are formally educated) that only a full time parent can provide. He’ll lead by example.

        If you don’t have a healthy hormonal balance, your future is benign at best, and destructive in likelihood. What jobs are best for individuals designed to handle higher testosterone levels? What jobs are best for individuals designed to handle higher progesterone levels?

        Sorry for spelling or grammar, my iPad is difficult to type long prose with.

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        @ Elenor,

        You’re right. That’s because he’s a dick.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        EatLess:

        A dick who doesn’t hide behind anonymity.

        By default, I win. My reputation grows, yours gets more stagnant. At best.

      • I don’t think there was a straw man… This message of your makes my eyebrows rise in astonishment. This, too, is what *I* advise my ‘girls’ — and the several, if few, men who have come for my advice. This message makes me respect you, where (no offense intended), your previous messages… diminished my respect.

        “65-70% of divorces are initiated by women”

        And alas, SO much of that is caused not (I believe) by hormonal mismatches (as you seem to say…er… write), but by the woman finally giving up hope. There are so few MEN, and so many boys in men’s bodies; and the women end up with children AND a child-man to care for. Alas, in this society, many women have work outside the house as well. If the man is NOT adding to her life, if he is merely one more burden, why would she NOT divorce and carry one less burden?

        I always insisted… indeed, I insisted to Michael when we discussed marriage, that *I* was never going to be in the position of being “the one responsible for making sure dinner got on the table.” (We were both too old to contemplate children, so it was not a consideration. And it’s a huge consideration!) This was in reaction against my mother working the same job (teaching the SAME school where my dad taught), and yet also carrying the vast vast majority of housework and childcare as well… *IF* my dad felt like taking us out to dinner, she got an evening off (well, except cleaning and laundry and school prep for the next day and and and….)

        Michael was equally insistent that he was NOT marrying a servant, but a princess! (He was not looking for “good domestic skills” — and when it turned out I had decent one, that was a bennie for him, not a requirement!)

        Imagine my ASTONISHMENT after I married Michael, when cooking for him was not only NOT a chore, it was a pleasure; it was a way I could express my gratitude for how well he cared for me. Our neighbor’s teen son noticed something once when he was out doing their lawn, as Michael was doing ours. Whenever he mowed, I always, after an hour or so, brought him a glass of ice water and some paper towels to wipe off. Jason was “sore amazed” and wanted to know how Michael “got me” to do that. I laughed and said: “he ‘gets me’ to do it by taking better care of me than I could have imagined; by providing for me, protecting me, and cherishing my feelings!”

        The problem I think is” which comes first? Does the MAN need to show himself worthy of a woman’s loyalty? Doe she need to work as a domestic before finding out if HE is willing to make it a pleasure for her, a RETURN on his investment is caring for her? It may be because I was 41, he 46, when we met, that our situation is inapplicable to younger folks. I don’t know. My advice to the young women is the same as to the older ones: value yourself (tip of the hat to Greg) and be open to the man showing he is worthy and willing to treat you as worthy.

        (I actually describe my work as “saving women from the damages of feminism, one woman at a time!” If I can ‘re-attach’ women to their femininity and self-valuation, in their personal lives, not so much in the work lives (where they should legitimately work out of their masculine side), then they can become a worthy woman for a worthy man.

        I am not in a position (or the body, actually {wink}) to work to create these worthy men — that’s your bailiwick, you and Richard and Greg… I would hope y’all would learn enough about women and what THEY value and what THEY need and how THEY see things to be able to help men ‘tame’ a modern woman into a worthy wife (taming a feral female, as Michael called them). A man’s ‘value’ to a woman is not just or mainly “good sex” — that’s the man’s currency. The woman wants to be CARED for — cherished, have her feelings recognized and dealt with — and yes, today’s women have no skill or training in HOW (and when, when not) to present their feelings to a man in such a way as to elicit his caring… God knows, *I* was bad at it! Poor Michael had his hands full — but at least I KNEW there was another way and was trying to learn to do it! (And now, I teach it!

      • Let me immediately disclaim ANY support for this / your message!

        There is nothing in your message of worth: if you disagree, say how. If you just want to be the shrill unpleasant female, then let me ask you to re-read MY message and see if you find anything in it leading to this …. well, I can’t call it a conclusion, because that word implies a careful consideration of his points — both good and flawed — which apparently you haven’t done.

        {shudder} If you can’t manage ladylike — how about trying honorable like a man?

      • Oh this last was addressed at EatLessMoveMoore…

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Those who know me know I lay the blame on society’s ills at the feet of males. I am sickened by weak, spineless, fat manchilds.

        Most of my blogosphere and social network posts seem to be anti-woman but they’re not; like Richard, it’s important for me to bait people into anger. It builds my traffic and gets me more eyes who may agree with me on some level.

        I’m against the feminist-Marxist ideology of man and woman being equal at all tasks. I shame modern high status women primarily as a tactic to teach my protégés what kind of female to avoid, but I castigate manchildren much more strongly.

        My goal isn’t to help both sexes, just to steal real Men away from the world. I want them to quit their jobs, focus on local cash or barter transactions or businesses, build up their foundation by themselves and then marry a good feminine woman who will help them build their own society, community, family, nest.

        Paleo eating and paleo exercise won’t work without paleogamy — but, as my Facebook generally shows, I’ve been founds by hundred of ex-high-status women who are now finally happy being the progesterone providers who have a testosterone provider to quiet their hindbrains.

        There’s a future in writing about paleogamy, and I plan on being part of it. It’s the missing link. I am not afraid to fat-shame, slut-shame, tyranny-shame, degree-shame and reward-shame to get traffic. I won’t be afraid to hormone-shame, either.

        In regards to currency: a man is the gatekeeper to commitment; a woman is the gatekeeper to sex. Both work very well when the currencies are bartered for the long term, and that’s what I preach, although I don’t currently fully practice it myself (for a variety of SMV reasons).

      • A.B. Dada says:

        ELMM is an example of a hormonally-imbalanced female, to a T (pun intended).

        She has plenty of time to dig up public “dirt” on others, but her many degrees has left her too high status — she’s been priced out of the sexual market. Watch where she goes in 10 years, it won’t be pretty. It never is.

        Too bad, too, because she looks good in a dress and I dig broads wearing glasses. I’d hit it with pleasure, if only to keep that trap of hers shut by quieting her hindbrain for a few hours a fortnight. Something her guy must not be doing since her rage is induced by high-T not offset by the beauty of oxytocin-vassopressin bonding that calms females and males alike.

        I quit Ph.D. Feminist-Marxist last year, though. Too much PC-conditioning for me.

      • “I would hope y’all would learn enough about women and what THEY value and what THEY need and how THEY see things.”

        I only care about Beatrice, now. Oh, yea I do care for all of humanity which is why this misogynist blogs for almost 10 years, but the love I don’t even begin to recompense is Beatrice.

        She doesn’t give a shit about any of this, first of all. Yea, she’ll read it from time to time, but she likes me less when she does, figures it’s me, leaves me to it.

        But I do have a secret. I cook her the beef liver she loves, enough for breakfast leftovers (wrapped in a corn tortilla), just about every week. She says it makes her feel awesome. It costs $2 per week, and 2 hours.

        Wish I’d found her when I was 20.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        You were a fat schlub at 20, weren’t you? Your body was too busy screaming for stability, there’s no chance you would’ve been able to keep her then.

        I was a fat schlub at 26. My ex-wife was a coke head party girl model. I’m a millions bucks in the hole for those 2 years. High reward lifestyle, I learned my lesson and fixed it so my body screams no more.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Sounds like your parent raised you with an ill diet, your egg donor had a poor diet and high stress, and your childhood was filled with high stress causing your body to act out and develop with masculine talents. You’re young enough, maybe a gender change is in order. Your cocky and smarter-than-thou demeanor is well suited for a man, I’d pitch $500 to help offset the hormone therapy.

        No B====D for you.

        Well, not from me.

        Cosmetic surgeons can do a great job with an implant though.

        I love and adore the women who serve my domestic, emotional and sexual needs. I am close to all my exes but 2. 25 years of dating and two nemeses isn’t too bad. I am even close to their husbands and even kids; Uncle Dada they call me. I know, through proof of my reputation among both the healthy masses and the plebeian fans, that I do good works and help others.

        But I know my place and my talents — and, magically, I’m happy every day. If I allow a woman into my life, she is happy, too. It’s a natural attraction between people who know their hormones drive their best talents in any relationship, sexual, platonic, business.

        That’s not sexism, that’s nature. And you are fighting nature. No wonder you’re such a miserable lout everywhere I see you post.

      • A.B. Dada says:

        Every man needs to at a high status popular model once in his life. No one warned me not to marry her, so I carry that torch to others.

        Also, I’m not bald or close to it. My hairline hasn’t changed ever. Same as it was at 15 years of age.

        Spin, hamster, spin. Nobody here to quiet it.

      • Thanks for making me almost 12 years younger, if only for a moment. Felt nice. I’m 51.

        I didn’t start the serious gain until after I met her at about 36. It was subtle and gradual the first few years, then took off once I hit 205 and was pretty rapid up to 240ish.

      • A.B. Dada // Aug 30, 2012 at 07:01

        The man is the gatekeeper to commitment.

        The woman is the gatekeeper to sex.

        After a few months thinking I found this wanting.

        An individual can, if they choose, be the gatekeeper of both. Male or female. I am.

    • I like the MILFs and GILFs myself.

      Give me a 45 year old gal who takes care of herself.

    • How does one figure out their SMV? Is there an online calculator or something?

  36. Memo to Wooo.

    My email is on my about page on the blog. Would you favor me with a private conunique at your convenience? I have something I wish to discuss with you.

    R

  37. Paul Riemann says:

    Wow. Interesting article. However, we are not animals. At least not in the crude sense of the word. I love Richard’s blog even though he, and many of his readers no doubt, are atheists. I on the other hand am a Christian theist and would argue that we are rational creatures which the animals are not.

    We can think rationally and logically in propositional form. I would argue this is true because we are created in the image of God–which is rationality. How the author of this article would account for rationality and logic on a presumably materialist worldview, I don’t know.

    As for the subject of sex I would only add that I am not a Roman Catholic, and thus would deny that sex is only for procreation. This, like many of Rome’s dogmas, is not found in scripture.

    Richard never fails to raise a few eyebrows–even when he doesn’t author the post. LOL!

    • “I on the other hand am a Christian theist and would argue that we are rational creatures which the animals are not.

      Aristotle defined man as “the rational animal.”

      • Paul Riemann says:

        Thanks for the reply Richard.

        Aristotle was brilliant thinker, but he was also the father of empiricism. I’ve yet to be convinced that sensation can furnish any knowledge whatever.

      • “I’ve yet to be convinced that sensation can furnish any knowledge whatever.”

        I have an easy solution to that. Go touch a hot stove.

      • Paul Riemann says:

        “Go touch a hot stove”?

        I’ve been following your blog long enough to know you’re probably being a bit of a smartass here Richard. Though you may be serious.

        I’m speaking here of knowledge in the philosophical sense that implies a universal truth; e.g., all bachelors are unmarried men.

      • “all bachelors are unmarried men”

        Thats even easier. Go to Google and plug in Tautology.

        “I’m speaking here of knowledge in the philosophical sense.”

        Ever read Hellen Keller? Ask her how hard it was with most of your data unavailable to you. How do you think she’d have faired as well, had not people with that data not taken an interest in her. Do you think she’s unique, or a lucky one with fully conscious and data replete humans who cared for her enough?

    • “However, we are not animals. At least not in the crude sense of the word. I on the other hand am a Christian theist and would argue that we are rational creatures which the animals are not.”

      Oh God… complete bullshit. sorry…

      you think we think rationally – have you looked around? I’m sorry you are Christian – its fucks you up. Even the Muslim think we are somehow better than the “other” animals.

      • Paul Riemann says:

        @mark

        I suppose I would argue that my Christian worldview has NOT “fucked me up”. Anyone is susceptible to irrational thought ( and I know many). But we ought to think rationally, and in fact we do think rationally every day using the laws of logic. We understand and use the science of necessary inference.

    • “we are created in the image of God–which is rationality”

      Which God? You have a steep slope to climb – starting now.

      • Paul Riemann says:

        @mark

        Which God? The God of the Protestant bible. I start and argue from my axiom. It’s not sensation (empiricism), or logic *alone*(rationalism), but propositional revelation.

  38. > How the author of this article would account for rationality and logic on a presumably materialist worldview, I don’t know.

    Vide licet: Man Alive! A survival manual fro the human mind. The word “materialist” has too many definitions to be of any value, but I have no objection to stipulating that everything I have to say about anything consists of observations about the substance, actions and attributes of material objects. This is what the science of ontology is for, and my entire moral philosophy can be summarized as ontologically-consonant teleology. I have no objection to other people claiming to believe in propositions they cannot demonstrate in existential reality, but I don’t credit those claims as having any intellectual value. Your mileage may vary, of course, and that is entirely your business.

    > we are not animals

    This is simply false. Because we can think and communicate in Fathertongue, human beings are more than animals, but all human beings are also material objects, living organisms, animals, mammals and Homo sapiens. What makes us human is the cultivation of Fathertongue in our great big brains, resulting in the abstraction of the idea of self as the cardinal value of the uniquely-human life, but we had to possess all of those other attributes as well or we could not have become human. Every material object is everything it is, not just the attributes we choose to focus on, and every human being is everything he is, not just a self. This is a precise and painstaking way of thinking about ontology, one that is less likely to result in error.

    • Paul Riemann says:

      “…but I have no objection to stipulating that everything I have to say about anything consists of observations about the substance, actions and attributes of material objects.”

      Do you have anything to say about logic, or justice, or love? How have you observed or sensed these abstract concepts? I’m sorry Greg, but I’m not an empiricist. If you start with sensation then how do you get to perceptions that produce memory images (which must remain after the perception is gone, and many people claim they have no images) and concepts and abstractions, and finally arrive at propositions?

      From Aristotle, to Aquinas, to Locke, all the empiricists have failed to adequately answer this question.

      • No problem.
        The process of starting with sensation getting to perceptions that produce memory images … and concepts and abstractions, finally arriving at propositions about logic, or justice, or love, is an emergent property, or artifact if you will, of the neurochemical functioning of a living (highly complex human) brain.
        QED

      • Paul Riemann says:

        @Jack

        That is not an argument and it does not answer my question.

      • Paul

        How about you wait around for God to answer the question that everyone else rolls eyes over because they can pinch themselves and know what it means.

        We’ll sit here and wait for the revelation.

        (I doubt I’ve seen a more accuse case of confirmation bias in all the time I’ve been blogging)

        If its not clear to you Paul, nobody is engaging your “argument” because most sensible people refrain from arguing over the self evident and axiomatic.

        You start with epistemology. Skipped right over metaphysics, didn’t you? It’s a hirerarchy, you know. Oh, wait, I guess you don’t.

      • Paul Riemann says:

        Epistemology is logically prior to metaphysics. We all must start our thinking somewhere Richard. But I reject the tabula rasa of empiricism in that my metaphysicas is theism; that is, “in him we live and move and have our being”.

        And what would pinching yourself demonstrate? Would that sensation prove anything to you? It wouldn’t, as some believe, prove that you are awake for example. It wouldn’t prove to you that there are other minds. Perhaps the sensation you experience as you “look at the monitor in front of you and converse with me”, exists only in your mind. Perhaps it doesn’t. But how do you know?

      • “Epistemology is logically prior to metaphysics”

        That’s true but only so much as to acknowledge that you have a mind.

        You were asking about philosophy, and that begins with metaphysics, logically, of not comlete on practical terms.

        As to the rest: pinch yourself. Do it until you have a blister that takes several days to heal. Then tell me you didn’t learn any knowledge,

  39. Dada wrote: “it’s important for me to bait people into anger”

    This is why I’’m tentatively willing to reconsider the “Dada is a dick” concept. As a technique…. I don’t think very highly of it. I’m sure you get a lot of emotionally charged men who want to join you and rant and blame women for destroying our culture (and it’s hard to then pull that focus over onto the MEN who deserve that blame!). You’re looking for publicity by appearing to be (or perhaps even being) a “dick” and creating a scene. ‘kay, it’s one way of getting attention. But from whom are you drawing that attention? And to what end? (And does it work for good in the long run?)

    If you’re the technological version of a nekkid drum circle in the woods, and men learning to cry cause their daddies were mean or absent… which males are you drawing? And are they recoverable? And how do they integrate their men’s circle back into some form of society: If they are bringing to potential mates the concept (you seem to teach, that) “women are BAD and you need to find the few who aren’t — and then keep them ignorant so they don’t go bad too” — how will they get on with actual live women?

    Or is your position here all just flash and publicity?

    Dada wrote: “I shame modern high status women primarily as
    a tactic to teach my protégés what kind of female to avoid, but
    I castigate manchildren much more strongly.”

    Hhmmm. So, trying to teach tact tactlessly? Teaching men to cherish a woman (and thereby get her devotion and anchoring herself in her feminine energy in relation to him) by showing them assault and degradation of (some) women? (Think for a second that will work?!) Trying to help men find a mate, by focusing them on the contaminated (Marxist/feminist) women and having them take shots at them too? (Dyah think you CAN shame a Marxist/feminist — or are you just participating in the further contamination and destruction of women?) Men are supposed to PROTECT women, not further damage them!

    You know, one of the things we women discuss about finding a mate, is that you can tell a lot about a man by how he treats waitresses and checkout girls. If he’s crappy to them, then all his “good behavior” with you doesn’t count! You, Dada, are having fun (it seems) chucking rocks at women who have done as women are built to do: fit into their milieu. The fact that our milieu has been so horribly twisted and made pathological, so that the women are fitting into that pathology (marxism, socialism, communisim, feminism: different names for the same thing), doesn’t make WOMEN at fault, it makes them pathological. (Just as it does these man-children.) Having fun enlisting men in the rock throwing does nothing positive that I can see!

    Do you really think there is a pool to ‘fish’ in for your uneducated, uncontaminated females from which these men can choose? (And, “how yah gonna keep ‘em down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree?”! We going back to purdah and burqas?) Rather than having fun verbally attacking modern women, could you not raise these men’s odds by teaching them how to ‘convert’ (reclaim) modern high-status women? (It’s possible — I’m one-such success story!)

    How does your slant on the world differ from a fox looking at sour grapes? You made what sounds like a huge mistake in your (youthful) mate-choice and so now you’re viewing every possible mate through that lens, AND trying to teach other males to see that way? But (it certainly sounds as if) you’re still defending and aggressively blaming — and teaching *against* that mistake — rather than teaching a better way forward to these men you would rescue and reform. Enlisting them with torches and pitchforks against “modern women” doesn’t lead them towards a solid community with stable relationships — just a mob and more destruction.

    Dada wrote: “then marry a good feminine woman who will
    help them build their own society, community, family, nest.”

    And this woman is going to come from where? And this woman, unless she IS too naive to survive on her own, is going to find attractive a man/male who talks — or even thinks — about “quieting her hindbrain”?!

    Dada wrote: “It’s the missing link. I am not afraid to
    fat-shame, slut-shame, tyranny-shame, degree-shame
    and reward-shame to get traffic. I won’t be afraid to
    hormone-shame, either.”

    So, basically, you’re just NOT a teacher, then. Shame is NOT a way to educate, change, enlighten, or otherwise improve someone. You’re getting publicity (though we’ve wandered faaaaaar from Greg’s essay) but are you getting anything even resembling success? It’s fun shooting fish in a barrel — but does it actually accomplish anything other than a waste of time?

    • A.B. Dada says:

      Elenor said: “But from whom are you drawing that attention? And to what end? ”

      I *am* a dick. I’ve always been this way, since I was 4 or so (according to my family). I firmly do believe in relationship economics across the board. I run businesses (international, as of last year) with retail service fronts. I tell my employees to kick people out regularly, to demean them, to tell them to fuck off. I keep our competitors’ business cards handy and shove them into the hands of morons and tell them to go elsewhere and tell their friends.

      Why?

      Because we are not suppliers. We are consumers. We buy cash, and we pay for that cash with our product. Not everyone’s cash is equal. The idea of “customer-supplier” mentality in business is *wrong*. I destroyed it. I succeeded. People now know to never walk into any of my businesses and make demands because I will, and do, tell them to go fuck themselves and tell their friends and Yelp about me.

      Guess what? Those very same people return. They come back. Because they’re desperate to sell their cash for our products and services. Customer service is for the mentally challenged, what people want is cheap and good and fast. I am an asshole to my clients, all of them, and they return over and over again. Why?

      Elenor said: “how will they get on with actual live women?”

      They get along famously — if they truly want marriage/family/home. My focus on men is to teach them to maximize their sexual market value selling price. In modern Western culture, males have become manchilds who are unable to quiet a woman’s hamster/hindbrain. I hear it from thousands of women in email, Twitter, Facebook, my parties I host, the travels I do every week. Women are bored with weak males.

      There are far more wonderful marriable women than there are powerful and responsible men. This means that men are less available. This means their “price” goes up. This means they have a wide selection of women to marry. This means they do NOT have to try to “fix” relationships or “fix” women or waste one moment of their ONE LIFE to try to “work things out.” If a woman fails a man, he should bounce the hell out of her and replace her (and learn why she failed). On the flip side, if a male is not Man yet, he should focus on that first. Build his business, be debt free, buy a tiny home and pay cash for it. Own a car he can maintain himself. Learn to cook and clean and dress himself so that he has a way to judge his future wife’s abilities. Figure out power tools and hunting and gardening. A man can do this in his teens and his 20s and his early 30s — 20 years of learning to ready himself to marry at 35 or 40. And a man at 35 can marry a suitable woman who is 22 or 25, because she’s at her peak reproduction age.

      Not all males want to be hawks as I call them, some want to be vultures. I bounce those guys out of my life, out of mentorship. Am I a “slut”? I may very well be, but I also do not have the jealousy gene that males need in order to be a suitable husband. That makes me suited to go on hundreds of first dates with women (as I have) and research, research, research.

      Elenor said: “So, trying to teach tact tactlessly? Teaching men to cherish a woman (and thereby get her devotion and anchoring herself in her feminine energy in relation to him) by showing them assault and degradation of (some) women? ”

      Yes. I also shame males who have engaged in lifestyle decisions that have an effect on me now, or may affect me later.

      For example: ObamaCare now causes me to have to pay for your obesity. That means I have a direct power and privilege and responsibility to myself to shame fat people who are costing me money or are going to cost me money. Good. Thank you, O State, for giving me that power.

      I get to shame the shyster-lawyers that support the abominable Law. I get to shame the gay marriage advocates and the gay marriage detractors for forcing marriage to be a legal entity. I get to shame the overeducated who can’t pay their student loans, forcing me to. Good. GOOD.

      My promotion of shaming others who have affected me is how I show my followers and fans that criticism becomes your privilege when someone tramples on your individual liberties. Shaming is fun, it’s not about anger, it’s about making them angry and then embarrassed at their actions/disactions/irresponsibilities. It’s about charging individuals to realize that the herd mentality has failed, and that individual uniqueness comes not from buying things and spending and embellishing one’s bodies and the freedom to shove crap into their mouths.

      Elenor said: “Men are supposed to PROTECT women, not further damage them!”

      Sure, but a woman has to be a woman in order to be protected. If she fails at providing what the sexual marketplace needs of her, she’s not a woman, and she’s open to attack and shaming. I speak to the inner logic of men, many who may start off hating me but then come to understanding the logic. I speak to the inner hindbrain (emotive) of women, many who may start off hating me but then come to understanding the emotional values I preach. In both cases, when they make adaptations to how they live, and find themselves happier (surprise!) they start inquiring deeper into what I promote. Then they themselves start shaming others, because embarrassment is the only way to change a society that has gone all legal on we the individuals.

      Elenor said: “You know, one of the things we women discuss about finding a mate, is that you can tell a lot about a man by how he treats waitresses and checkout girls.”

      Bullshit! This is why you can’t ask women for relationship advice, because they themselves have no idea. A woman’s hamster (hindbrain) wants a man who is provably desirable by other women. Women NEED this because they don’t trust their own selections. If a man isn’t desirable by other women, his own woman loses desire for him. She thinks she made a mistake.

      I flirt with clerks and waitresses all the time, right in front of the girls I date. Guess what? My women get closer to me, they love me more, they have hotter sex with me that night. Why? Their hamsters are silenced. I fulfilled a need for them to silence it. Women “shit test” ( Athol Kay calls it a “fitness test”) their men all the time to prove that they’re men, that they don’t back down, that they challenge conventional relationship wisdom. The more powerful/beautiful/younger the woman, the more challenging the shit tests are. A man never backs down, his testosterone forces him to hold the stronger “hand” in the frame of the relationship with a woman. This makes women hotter for their guy, makes even dominant women submissive because their hindbrain has been silenced.

      Elenor said: “Do you really think there is a pool to ‘fish’ in for your uneducated, uncontaminated females from which these men can choose?”

      I didn’t say UNEDUCATED. I said that many modern Western women are OVEREDUCATED. College today is Marxism, from start to finish. High school is becoming Marxism, if it isn’t already. It teaches young impressionable people BAD THINGS.

      A woman with a bachelor’s degree can be very helpful before child-rearing, and during empty-nesting. It can be very advantageous for a woman to have such a degree, although not really required. Once she goes past her bachelor’s degree, how the hell is a man going to compete with her SMV that her hamster is aware of? What is that man to do with all her unpaid college debt? Pay for her mistakes, the very thing that makes her too high priced to date or marry?

      I have NO PROBLEM with women who want to be PhD or MDs — I have many, many friends in real life and on social networks who are female doctors. But, many of them are UNHAPPY. Why? They’re too high priced and can’t find a man powerful enough, high status enough to quiet their hamsters. I know a handful of doctor females who ARE happy, ecstatically happy, because they have more powerful men. And those men quiet their hamsters. A woman truly in love has what I called “goofy love” or “social retardation” when she’s with her man. My primary #1 girlfriend, my favorite girl in a decade, is a very high power, high status, educated woman. She makes great money, she owns her house, she manages a group of high status men in an all-male industry. Guess what happens when I’m with her? She becomes a social retard. She can’t stop laughing, touching me, groping my ass and cock in public. I can playfully push her around, yank on her ponytail, and all it does is make her love me more. I’m her first true Man, and I don’t back down. I plan on domestic partnership with her and want to have babies with her, but she knows: if she fucks up or acts up, I will bounce her ass to the curb and replace her with another. The fact that I don’t replace her proves to her hamster that she’s doing right, that she’s acting properly, that she can be dominant at work but submissive to me, and she LOVES it.

      Her friends and family hate how happy she is. They hate it. They hate me, but they’re all fat, bloated gasbags with big educations and schlub husbands. They are losers, and their lives are OVER. They chemically toxify their children, their homes are nightmares, they’re bundled with too much debt and no time. I visit the Bahamas every month if I want to. I travel to Europe whenever I want to. No education. No debt. No expensive assets to maintain. I have many options for love, and I choose one as my #1, my first officer. And she knows this. It blows her mind regularly, but her hamster is quiet, and she has never fucked up.

      There are hundreds of thousands of gals just like her. A man does NOT have to choose some urban wash-out high-debt over-educated woman who has her reward center in the brain fucked by Hollywood and shopping and alcohol and pot and tons of choices of rock stars and bartenders to screw while she rides the cock carousel to her marital demise. A guy can drive 30 minutes away from a big town and have an amazing selection of non-urbanized non-modern women, WITH DEGREES.

      I have businesses in Europe, but I don’t promote this when I travel there. I usually “lie” and tell women I meet that I’m a poor working sap from the States. Even telling them that I am broke with nothing, European women LOVE confident and cocky men. I tell Western schlubs that if they can’t find a woman here, go there. There are millions of beautiful, rural, intelligent, domestic, funny, sexy and loving women just waiting for a husband to come and quiet their hamsters. There’s no need to waste your ONE LIFE on a useless piece of female flesh — none. There are more available women than men, so one must choose wisely and never accept second best.

      Elenor said: “You’re getting publicity (though we’ve wandered faaaaaar from Greg’s essay) but are you getting anything even resembling success? It’s fun shooting fish in a barrel — but does it actually accomplish anything other than a waste of time?”

      I get paid to mentor men, regularly. I charge quite a bit, as high as $290 per hour (and I do have a few guys who pay me that, internationally, plus travel and expenses). Guess who my most recent customers have been?

      Women. Married. Who hate their schlub husbands and beg for them to “man up” (I hate that term). You can’t imagine how overwhelmed my inbox is, be it Facebook or Twitter or Email. It’s all women. Women begging, crying because their hamsters are BORED and want to be quieted by a dominant man. Most women who contact me do so because their female friends told them that I can help. I usually recommend a few simple steps — a free consultation — and a small percentage of men understand and make changes. Most fail. Most are programmed to fail. That won’t change.

      I don’t give two shits what anyone thinks of me. I know I am making a direct difference in the lives of individuals. The groups, and their groupthink, can blow me, if I wouldn’t already have options for getting blown by much better, much hotter, much more submissive and fun and adoring females.

      I am not a teacher. I am not educated. I am not wise. I am just logical, and I see through the curtain of society and realize it’s an ugly, fat, trolly, unsexed little Marxist on the other side, pushing and prodding females to be men and males to be women. And I decided 8 years ago to put a stop to it, one individual at a time. And it’s working.

      Paleo eating, paleo “exercise”, paleogamy = trifecta of human perfection. I see it, I own up to it myself, and I’m beyond happy, every moment of every day. So are the men who hire me, and the women they lead hopefully for the rest of their lives.

  40. Follow up from me: I argue with y’all on my own turf in this video:

    My commencement speech: Why I don’t trade in your currency.

    I’m using extended arguments about the idea of preferring the subjunctive to the existential to defend my way of thinking in a comprehensive way.

    I’ve spent my whole life thinking about how to talk to you — I say that in the movie — and this little clip may be the most comprehensive job I have done so far of communicating at least this small idea: We are not talking about the same things.

    I don’t trade in your currency — I say that in the film also — but I am trying to convey to you why my currency is so much better for you than the stuff you’ve been trading with until now.

    This stuff ain’t easy, I know, and it is plausible to me that my take-no-prisoners approach makes things harder for you, not easier. Oh, well…

    This is me at my most me, the meest of the mes I have presented in these videos — all of which are intended to acquaint you with my style of being as the result of your having spent time with me being me.

    I love this movie. I hope you do, too.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] have a post up this morning at Richard Nikoley’s FreeTheAnimal.com weblog about the absurd position women find themselves in in today’s sexual marketplace. I don’t want to lean too hard on this Atlantic piece, because it’s such a [...]

  2. [...] look at this, from FreeTheAnimal.com: Fifty shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn’t. The comment stream is huge and growing bigger very [...]

  3. [...] publishing Man Alive! in chapters all summer long, and publishing a new essay by me this week: Fifty Shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn’t. That post was picked up and translated by a Francophone blog: Chercher l’amour partout [...]

  4. [...] two comment threads last week on two guest posts—one on women stepping up their game, and the other by the enviable backside that leads off this post—intense, huge discussions [...]

  5. [...] * The ladies’ auxiliary of the PUA platoon, which the “artistes” charmingly denote as “the cock carousel,” is discussed here in a post called Fifty shades of pink sock: Facing up to and fixing the hook-up contradiction. There is more from me on this subject at FreeTheAnimal.com in a post entitled Fifty Shades of bleak: Looking for love everywhere it isn’t. [...]