h1

For posterity’s sake that words should not be disappeared

June 28, 2012

pos·ter·i·ty

[po-ster-i-tee]

noun
1. succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
2. all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

I take no major credit for this post.. it wasn’t written by me 🙂

The reason this post exists is because i am a staunch libertarian and believe that opinions and ideas should be free to live and die by their own merits, and not by the swift cutting hand of an editor trying to silence words that do not conform to their ideal framing of the world. It does not matter if the silencer is a nice lady who you like or a man with a funny stash who likes to cast unwanted books into the bonfires with great joyous ceremony, band-playing, “fire oaths,” incantations and playing songs such like Der Königgreatzer.

I LOATHE censorship. Could you tell?

Unless a specific death threat or assassination of character, (or in a blogs case EXTREME trolling) i can’t see why someone’s opinion about something should be stricken from the records of history and time. Even if it goes against the ‘mission’ you’ve driven your life’s work towards, simply hitting the delete key because it offends your sensibilities is wrong wrong wrong. If your blog is a place where you have extremely high traffic from both male and female members looking for information, ideas, debate, etc.. regarding the dysfunction that is the current SMP, then they are not simply going there to hear ‘your’ side of the story, they want it all. They don’t want to be TOLD what to believe, they want to make that informed decisions on their own.

And by redacting or removing vital points of view from a running thread, points of view which have as much merit as any other point of view, you are not only insulting the people who come to your site to read and judge for themselves.. you are harming people by purposefully withholding information, thoughts, ideas, analysis that might allow them to take the correct course of path their lives need to head towards EVEN if it is at odds with your current mission.

I don’t think i need to actually write down the site in question or the operator.. most all of you who comment know. So without further delay i present to you the comments that were redacted in what i think is the correct chronological order in which they appeared. If anyone wants to correct me, please send me a line and i’ll fix it.  So let’s get started, after the jump.

This conversation that took place on a thread regarding the ethics and morality of ‘lies of omission’ regarding what clear lines of demarcation need to be in place in order to make one form of omission acceptable vs. another omission immoral. The participants who had their comments axed were Obsidian, Wudang and Deti. I fished all these out of my email after they were wiped off the site. This MAY get me banned, time will tell.

The first 2 comments by Wudang still exist (i believe), the remain comments after go bye bye.

START
Author: Wudang
Comment:
The key for me about seeing other women at the same time is if she understands or don`t understand that you are also seeing other women. She can know this because she asks and you tell, she can know it because you tell without her asking, and she can also know by you INDIRECTLY communicating it quite clearly OR by just understanding what type of guy you are. It has been my experience and the experience of my friends that get with a lot of women and an extremely consistent finding on PUA boards that when you come across as having a certain level of game women presume with certainty that you are also seeing other women. My observation of female friends and talks with female friends also bear this out. When the question of being formally together eventually comes up explicitly the women always presume that you are still seeing other women up to that point and are never surprised, shocked or angry upon at that time getting it confirmed explicitly. So as long as you come of like that type of guy women know and I have zero problem not stating it explicitly.An example of this dynamic is when guys who are new to game get a girls phone number in a club and she then sees him get another girls number and she gets mad at him for that but when his game gets better women never do that anymore. I have seen that development unfold a bunch of times on different boards.The reason I do not want to state it explicitly has a lot to do with the fact that game has taught me that with women it is almost always beneficial to communicate things indirectly and a lot of things they are perfectly fine with knowing with certainty if not said can be more problematic if said outright.I am not sure exactly why it works this way in this  type of case but it might have to do with you saying it feeling humiliating for her and maybe being something that she feels needs to be fought about whenever it is actually said outright. Until then she is fine fighting for you by dating and chasing you alone but if you say it then she sees that as a possibility to push for much more commitment much earlier than she otherwise would have. One thing I have repeatedly been told on PUA boards is that if you come across as a man with a lot of game and one who has a soft harem then women will ask for exclusivity at almost exactly the three month mark. There is probably some sort of chemical thing underlying that since it is so extremely consistent. The explanation I have been given is that this is the point where she absolutely HAS to know where things are going and if you are going to become an item or not. Now if you say something explicitly about seeing other women before that mark it might very well lead her to either push for the full relationship talk or to push for semi exclusivity where you are not officially together but are not seeing other people. As her agenda is to get your commitment she will push for it whenever it is opportune and this sort of statement/talk easily becomes such an opportunity. But if you don`t say it outright but just imply it there won`t be any talk and she won`t try to push you for explicit commitment.As a guy I want to hold of on commitment for a long time because I need time to evaluate properly wether I want to be exclusive with this girl and give up the benefits of my freedom and also, and this is very important to me, to maximize her attraction and keep the initial amphetamine love last as long as possible until it transitions to pair bonding love. The point is that the longer and harder you make her chase the stronger she will feel towards you even after you have become exclusive. A study found that frat members are more happy with their time in the frat even years after they finish college the harder the hazing was. This is the same thing. In addition to building attraction as high as possible I want it to last in amphetamine land as long as possible. People I know in real life often loose a lot of the amphetamine love even after 6 months to a year or a year and a half. I think that is because they become exclusive fast and then see each other all the time and without really thinking about it or understanding it do everything they can to create boredom and betaization. One thing I have found reading PUA boards is that they are extremely good at keeping the initial amphetamine crush going for the full three years it has the potential to operate strongly (in some couples it can, as found doing brainscans, last for life but I highly doubt it does so at the same intensity as the first three years). I want to achieve that both for my own sake and for the woman I am with. A big part of that is the long chase. So even if I might be perfectly sure I want to make a girl my girlfriend after two months I am going to wait until SHE ask if we are together, I will not do it myself. Doing it myself looses me points and having it earlier looses me points. So a big part of avoiding the explicit “you know I am seeing other people talk” is avoiding triggering her “here is an opportunity to push for more commitment earlier than I thought trigger” and getting drama and risking having a shorter chase and hence shorter overall emotions on her part.As for FWB/FB I had to learn the hard way that what matters is not what you say it is how you act. I used to think that as long as I said this was just sex that would set the right frame and I would`t have to worry about anything. It turned out that what I said meant nothing as long as I was as cuddly as I a naturally am and showed as much interest in her as a person as felt normal for me with someone I saw that much. I learnt that what mattered was how I behaved and wether that sent boyfriend signals. Now I take extreme care in avoiding that. That is a bit hard for me because of my natural inclinations. What I learnt to do from the PUA TVA_OSLO was to set the frame of us having a crazy sexual relationship where we can explore everything we want, be honest about all fantasies  and make everything an exciting new adventure and keep things fresh by not seeing each other too often etc. By framing it like this it is clear that it is a FWB, it does`t sound like you know this is JUST sex which sounds like a let down and you get all the stuff in bed you could hope for and because everything is framed so much as about being about sex and sexual exploration it further reduces the risk of her getting feelings.

Author: Wudang

Comment:
“If they don’t ask, they probably don’t want to know.”

I have noticed on non PUA and non manopshere forums that there are a not insignificant number of guys who never asked and some of them say outright they don`t want to know. I`m not sure exactly why but I think it might be because they don`t want pictures in their heads or to make it a reality they need to think and feel about. If they don`t ask they can sort of just imagine her with him and never think about others.

.

THE FOLLOWING POSTS WERE THE ONES THAT GOT NUKED

Author: Obsidian

Comment:
Hello Ms. Walsh, Everyone,
As per usual, interesting post topic.

Alas, you miss the mark; the problem isn’t one of abstract “lying”, be that by “omission”, or otherwise.

The problem is THAT WOMEN LIE/DECEIVE/MANIPULATE MORE THAN MEN DO WHEN IT COMES TO THE SMP.

That, is the problem; and worse, WOMEN ARE NEVER CALLED ON IT, by other Women, or Men for that matter.

Men are constantly called out for these behaviors, in ways big and small; they are constantly called on to put each other in check for it, and so forth. There is no analog for Women doing any of this. THAT again, is the big problem here.

The issue isn’t “lying”; it’s when said “lying” doesn’t happen to be in the interest of a particular Woman at that particular time. That, is the problem.

You and I are intimately familiar with the works of Prof. David Buss. I have both his books. In them both he makes all this very clear – Women lie more about their age, were deceptive clothing/cosmetics to hide their true appearance, tell unwanted suitors that they have a boyfriend or husband, and of course, they can and will use Men for drinks/gifts/meals and then sexually abscond. All of this is clearly document, again, even Buss has written about it quite at some length.

So, until or unless Women, as a group, begins to take themselves and the topic of “ethics” seriously, fewer and fewer Men will.

I’m just sayin’.

In other news, here’s the newest/latest from the new and improved O-Files:

Gabi Gregg “Fatkini”: Response To Readers
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/94654

Holla back

Author: Wudang

Comment:
I second Obsidian post. Women also lie, massively, to guys about what kind of sex they have had. They especially do this when the man is in the provider box and they want to cover up the naughty things they did with someone who gave them more primal attraction and which they don`t feel inclined to do with him since he does not trigger the same primal attraction. I am sure those guys would be thrilled to know that the reality isen`t that she does`t like xxx it is that she just does not want to do it with him because he does not trigger a primal submissive response. Women also lie, to an insane degree, about what their orbiters actually mean to them. You won`t hear them admit that they actually understand he has a crush on them. You won`t hear them admit that they enjoy not just the friendly feelings but the subtly sexual pedestaling attention and that is often the real reason for the friendship. Women also tend to feed the poor orbiters just enough hope of something happening in the future to keep them around. The guys who she goes on dates with just for the attention are deceived. The guys she goes on dates with just for drinks and food are deceived. Women also lie or omit about just about anything they feel puts them in a negative light. I just have learnt to expect half truths from women to a degree that I don`t from men. I always have a level of lingering doubt about what women say because I know they so often say what is socially opportune. If you ask women about dating or relationship advice they will far too often tell you either what they feel will sounds like the thing to say or what makes themselves or team women sound good rather than the blunt truth. To a large extent this isen`t easily accessible to women for various reasons we have talked a lot about but often when I hear women talk about this stuff I get the feeling that SOMEWHERE you know what you are saying isen`t really true.

COVERT is the feminine strategy so what is one to expect? I think by finally bringing these things up more something can be improved but I think women naturally are inclined to deal so much in the realm of indirect communication, covert strategies and image management that fundamentally you can`t expect the same degree of clear honesty from women. I think for women managing their perception and coming of as innocent and deserving have been absolutely vital whereas for men getting stuff done or dominating have been key. This has allowed men to be bluntly honest because their battle lies more in achieving a rank that stems from real world results and social dominance not so much image management and being perceived as good and deserving. But for women this has been key. I think thats why women have a very hard time dealing with very straight talk and often need to have things wrapped in a  way that makes very sure she isen`t JUDGED. So from that perspective I`m actually OK with the fact that women will tend to deal more in the grey area of truth. I judge it differently. I know it feels much worse for them admitting something they feel is socially unaceptable or makes them feel judged so I give them more slack when it comes to that. I try to have empathy for the fact that I know it is harder for them while for me it can sometimes even feel good in a “fuck everyone else I do what I want way” to admit something socially unacceptable. I know it is easier for me to stand alone than for most women. I know that it is easier for me to be blunt with my friends than for them to be blunt with theirs. I know they prefer that I “get” things on my own instead of having to tell me what they like although for me it is fine to explain what I like clearly. So I try to not judge them for that and although I do get ANNOYED I don`t get angry. But, the line gets crossed at stuff like really USING a guy, lying about a lot of what I mentioned before and I think that needs to be talked about more and punished socially more.

Author: Obsidian

Comment:
@Zach,
Yes, you are correct; the sexes are in what is essentially an evolutionary arms race, and Buss says as much in both his works, “The Evolution of Desire” and his textbook for students, “Evolutionary Psychology, 3rd Ed.”.

You owe it to yourself to get those books. Essential reading for any Gamesman out on the modern day SMP.

All that said, again, your comment, nor does Ms. Walsh, does NOT address my point; I cannot be emphatic about this enough:

THAT WOMEN LIE/DECEIVE/MANIPULATE MEN MORE THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND OUT ON THE SMP, AND THEY ARE NEVER CALLED TO ACCOUNT ON/FOR IT.

Men are. Constantly. The problem is that Women rarely, if ever, are.

Therefore, we need to stop this sham about “ethics”. It is nothing of the sort. This is about “lying”, WHEN IT HAPPENS TO INCONVENIENCE THE INTERESTS OF WOMEN.

Huge, huge, difference.

Author: deti

Comment:
Obsidian is right, and nutshells it nicely:

Women lie/deceive/manipulate men more than vice versa in this SMP, and women are never called to account for it.    Men are constantly called out for lying, deceit or manipulation.  Even the tiniest, most inconsequential male infractions are blown out of all proportion.

The difference though now is that men are recognizing this.  Their response?

–Game
–MGTOW
–refusal to marry
–pushing hard for sex as early as possible (to gauge female interest)
–sharply limiting investment/commitment (to gauge female interest)
–autodumping women when clear interest isn’t shown

.

.

So there you have it. I’ve done my part for history. Was i being melodramatic? Maybe, i have a flair for it.

But again, there’s only one reason why i did this…

and i’ll let Indy explain.

Henry Jones: “It tells me that goosestepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!”

ps-if any of the formatting is fucked up, blame wordpress. i’ve been fighting the HTML tags all night and am too hungry and tired to care anymore. i’m off to eat.

.

[UPDATE]

Ok, im back belly full. Just caught one extra snippet that somewhat saddens me.

Mike C, longtime commenter there took up the task of questioning whether ‘her house, her rules’ was the right path to take. Firstly he notes that other comments previously were allowed to stand:

In another thread, there was a poster “Ghost of Nice Guy” whose comments seemed to me far more hostile but were not deleted.

the response:

And if you saw the end of that thread you noticed that I had deep regrets about allowing HUS to be highjacked to Libya and back. I’m certainly not obligated to continue making those mistakes….
…Every time I have welcomed or allowed male supremacists to have their say here, it has been confrontational, misogynistic, hateful and incredibly time consuming for me. This last factor cannot be overemphasized…
…One last thing – Ghost turned out to be a disturbed individual, and God help the MRM with men like him on the roll. However, I am actually quite sympathetic to MRA complaints about family law in this country. I gave him an opportunity to have his say because beneath the hate speech was an argument I understand and support.

The comments I deleted had no similar merit, in my view.

To think that their comments mirrored confrontational, misogynistic, hateful language and had no similar merit should weigh heavily on Wudang, Obs and Deti. Her response to Mike C’s secondary inquiry was equally painful to witness:

Your most vocal critics would suggest you cannot handle real debate and want to create an echo chamber.

Since I don’t respect them, I don’t care. I’ll proudly stack HUS up against any one of them and prove I allow a lot more debate than any of them do. I’m also proud of my commitment to controlling for hate speech – the fact that other bloggers allow their commenters free rein reflects very poorly on them, IMO. There’s also some legal question about whether a blogger is responsible for commentary on his or her site. I am conservative in this regard. I do not wish to be put in the position of ever defending the views of these crazies.

Opinions. Ideas. Thoughts. Real life experiences. Anecdotal evidence. They all have a place. If any of you disagree, you are more than welcome to say what you wish here on my site. Free to be debated in the open light to stand or fall through open discussion. Free to say whatever you want to say, even if i think you’re an idiot for saying it. It’s for me to rebut and let viewers decide for themselves whether your words stand or fall.

I guess giving each and every one of you free rein to do so will reflect very poorly on me.

So be it.

42 comments

  1. In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea how men (educated as we are in all matters fine and delicate) would expect anything different from such a blog run by a woman.

    I don’t get it.


  2. I think we hold out hope some may turn into unicorns. Somehow i don’t think this would be an issue if someone like GirlWritesWhat was running a blog. She’d probably teach us guys a thing or two, but would seriously knock every girls hamster out of the ballpark with extreme prejudice. Oh look! She does run a blog!

    I guess when your mission starts by trying to fix outcomes inside a broken system by telling people to avoid the problems instead of actually fixing the system.. you end up seeing the black cat cross your path more than once and say ‘Whoa.. deja vu’ She want to fix the matrix. We want to live in the real world.


  3. Lord, someone help me with this:

    “…Every time I have welcomed or allowed male supremacists to have their say here, it has been confrontational, misogynistic, hateful and incredibly time consuming for me. This last factor cannot be overemphasized…”

    Does anyone, ANYONE think that myself, yohami, or some of the others that got the ban hammer are “male Supremacists”?

    Show me a person on this planet that has actually thought that of me after having a conversation with me. I dare you. Someone call her out on this kind of crap.

    None of these posts were untruthful, and she takes no time to address any lying by omission that women do all the time. In the last two weeks I’ve read articles about women that go out on a date every night for a free meal because they’re poor but attractive, or went on 100 dates in 6 months, or this new loathable website Roissy posted about women having soft harems renamed ‘Gaggles’ of men she’s leading on – from the beta orbiters to the alpha guy she’s fucking. It even got into CNN’s website

    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/14/every-woman-needs-a-gaggle-of-men/?hpt=he_bn3

    Really, its disgusting. So when you say men can’t do it and do nothing to call out women, is it surprising you get a big reaction from men in the know?

    Also, when I read the original post by her, I wanted to throw up. She couldn’t have made it more targeted at men if she wanted to without out and out saying that anything with a penis is obviously a misogynistic womanizer unless he immediately forks over all commitment as soon as the woman asks for it and is a boring blank slate from the first date. She tells men to be game aware, but game requires that a woman EARNS THINGS. If she hasn’t earned either of these things, you’ll get boredom at best, loathing and using you for free rides at worst.


  4. Here’s a quote from the actual author of gaggle and the website.

    WARNING, DANGEROUS HERDS OF RAVENOUS HAMSTERS AHEAD! BRING SHOTGUNS, HOWITZERS, AND BE READY FOR ANYTHING

    “Gaggle (n.)
    The select group of guys in your life – many of whom you are not explicitly romantically involved with – who play different roles, fulfill different needs, and help you to figure out who you are, what you want and what kind of relationship you ultimately desire.

    The gaggle is a way for you to learn more about yourself. You are at the center of your gaggle. So rather than thinking about how many guys there are in the world who just aren’t that into you (and feeling judged and hurt in the process), you can now commit to living your busy and exciting life while recognizing that, yes, there are actually men in it! Men with whom you communicate via all the modes that are available to us – phone, text, email, AIM, Gchat, Facebook, BlackBerry Messenger, Skype, MySpace, Twitter, snail mail…and face-to-face interactions, when there’s time for that!

    What’s more, the gaggle forces you to stay open-minded about guys and helps you pinpoint the one who might ultimately be right for you, even if you haven’t met him yet. You never know when a moment of romantic chemistry might hit – maybe you share a new experience, maybe you learn something new about each other – but when it does, the gaggle empowers you to explore that spark. And who knows where that will lead.”

    In otherwords. If it has a penis you like, ride it without feeling guilty. If it has a penis and you don’t want said penis, don’t worry about not having tingles. Bleed him and his wallet dry while looking for a suitable alpha male among his friends!


  5. Can’t disagree with a single word you said.


  6. Yup. I think i reblogged his post here about the CNN article

    https://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/230/


  7. Ah. That was before I started reading your blog then.

    As for your professed hatred of CNN that you stated on your original post on that, I’ve seen other articles that actually give full stories of simple facts instead of opinion pieces on crimes committed by women. Their editorial sections are trash, but their actual news articles are usually well done.


  8. Of that i have no doubt.

    My hatred of CNN stemmed from a litany of other reasons.. but this was just one more proverbial nail in a coffin even the Hulk wouldn’t be able to pry open.

    The only thing i hate worse than CNN is FAUX Newz.


  9. The comments on that CNN article overrode any disgust I felt.

    ‘Gaggle my balls, bishes’, indeed.


  10. Haha. I’ll make sure to work that into any response I have if I ever hear this term ‘gaggle’ in terms of men in person.

    Shit test = passed.


  11. Susan Walsh can run her site any way she wants. If she wants to censor viewpoints, she can do that. She posted on a controversial topic — ethics of concealment in dating. Posting on controversial topics invites controversy, strong opinions, and sometimes heated debate.

    It really came as no surprise to me that someone eventually would point out what Wudang did — some women’s dating strategies which make use of concealment, gilding the lily, fudging, not asking/not telling, and, well, outright lying.

    Look, men lie too. I’ve done it. Most every man has in dating and relationships. I can only think of maybe one woman who was honest with me about EVERYTHING — or at least I can’t show she lied about something important.

    I just didn’t get how pointing out that women lie more than men (an unsubstantiated opinion, but one which I thought was on topic) was going to provoke extreme trolling.

    But more to the point was the issue of who gets called out on lies and concealment more — men or women. The point of talking about concealment in dating was to show it’s wrong — for men and women. I kind of thought that was one of the post’s points.

    So if concealment and lying is wrong and unethical in dating and relationships, and the point of the post is to help ourselves and others curtail concealment and encourage honesty, is it not appropriate to point out that women, as well as men, should be confronted and corrected for their lies and concealment? Is it not appropriate to point out that women in general aren’t confronted and corrected, and the consequences to relationships and society that flow from it?

    But, bottom line — It’s Susan’s site, and she can run it how she wants. Those points can’t be discussed there — at least not on that thread.


  12. “Is it not appropriate to point out that women in general aren’t confronted and corrected, and the consequences to relationships and society that flow from it?”

    Depends. Is your goal to make it easier for women to date or is your goal to help women intelligently STOP dating by finding a guy to marry while her value’s high?

    Susan’s goal seems to be steadfastly bound to the first one with knowledge and conversations that lend themselves more to perpetuating a girl continuing to be in dating/hookup culture while saying the strategies are for the second.

    I have no doubts she thinks she’s on the second all the time. I think she just doesn’t always check in with men or reality on her thoughts and ideas, but rather writes on things as if they’re the way she wants them to be sometimes. Good intentions and all that.


  13. Susan sounds more and more like Amanda Marcotte every day.


  14. I’m borrowing this from Jack Donovan, who put this in an article on his site today about The Good Men Project:

    ” *** if you want to hear men’s stories, you have to make it OK for them to say what they actually feel, without worrying what women want to hear.”


  15. +1,000,000


  16. Until it happens that we have a society that values men’s stories, I’m going to modify it thus:

    “If we want to tell men’s stories, we have to make men that are ok with saying what they actually feel, without worrying what women want to hear.”

    ^If I had to codify what I think the current goal of the manosphere should be, it would be that. We can bitch, moan, and discuss ideas all we want here. Until we get men that aren’t afraid of losing their jobs, their wives, their friends, etc, when they speak out…. Well, those issues won’t go anywhere.

    Not saying that those aren’t valid concerns. But until we put a value on our concerns higher than those fears for a decent amount of the population, we won’t get much traction to create an environment where those stories are valuable. First dangerous but important, then respected and important.


  17. That is a pretty awesome quote there. Women have asked for, and received, entry in male spaces, then are shocked by what they hear and demand it be toned down. By the same token, they invite men into their spaces, encourage them to “share their feelings” then shame them for it – as if it were a big shit test.


  18. What’s going on over there is beyond ridiculous. Susan is so riled up about “cads” and “players” that it’s become a bogeyman, any guy who doesn’t say he’s ready to get married and have a brood is tagged as an inveterate immoral player and called on to explain his behavior to her. She says she “doesn’t want women to feel judged,” yet rails against “sluts” as some otherworldly beings that transmute themselves onto Earth and take away potential boyfriends from her focus groupers. Earlier this week M3 quoted me other there about sexual access as value, which caused her to pull a total non-sequitur by bringing up an old comment of mine, claiming it didn’t fit my male Ladder Theory and demanding I explain it.

    What’s ironic about the whole thing is that the more women like her agitate for some unenforceable “ethics” in dating, the more she paints adult women as victims of men who need to save them from themselves – the less I care about some nebulous “ethics.” Because I realize that women are going to criticize men for whatever choices they make in the SMP, and blame men for their own bad outcomes, I know there’s no way to win, so I don’t play the game at all. Which is sort of a healthy choice since men shouldn’t be trying to gain women’s approval anyway.


  19. I read M3’s comment quoting you, MikeC’s followup and Susan’s response. There’s a lot to unpack here, in my view, Please accept my humble take on it:

    1. There are no enforceable “ethics” in this SMP right now because it’s been set up to discard the old rules of early marriage and assortative mating. I submit it is this way because women want it this way. It’s been set up so that the only “rules” are those which women want or agree to — which means the rules are whatever women say they are.

    2. Susan’s response was a nonsequitur. It’s a given that men want sex with women. Men want sex with hot virgins and easy sluts. There’s nothing new about that. It’s not inconsistent with ladder theory; it’s a premise of the ladder theory.

    3. What’s going on here I think is an awakening. Men are wising up to how women have been running this SMP for the last 30 years or so. Entire websites are devoted to helping men unravel and navigate the morass of the elaborate web of deceit and fraud perpetrated on men: Women just want to get married; they are innately relationship oriented; every woman’s short-range and long-range goal is to settle down with and marry a nice, good, stable man; women don’t want to be sluts; and most important, women never, ever lie about any of this. Our entire culture is heavily invested in the pretty lies. It’s why most recovering betas (myself included) have been mostly spectacularly unsuccessful in the SMP; and why most of them could never (until recently) figure out what they did right.

    Men are finally figuring out that not everything women say can be taken at face value. Men have figured out women are not always honest, they say one thing when they mean something else. They project their own relationship and sexual goals onto men. They are not always honest about what they want in this SMP. They don’t say they want to f**k the hot men, and they do f**k hot men, because that makes them look like sluts. (I’ve said many times — women want to act like sluts and have sex like sluts, but they don’t want to APPEAR to be sluts.)

    But most of all — there seems to be objections and high dudgeon at men at HUS and other places, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT’S BEING UNRAVELED AND PRECISELY BECAUSE IT’S BEING EXPOSED TO THE LIGHT OF REASON AND TRUTH. It’s “hey, we’ve figured this stuff out, and we don’t like it, and until it changes, we’re going to play the game by the rules women have set out.” Which is to say:

    –limiting investment and commitment
    –escalating early and often for as much physical involvement and sex as possible
    –cutting losses when male goals are frustrated, stunted or not reached
    –walking away from subpar relationships
    –insisting on priority for male relationship objectives, satisfying sex being chief among them

    The natives at HUS are restless I think precisely because men are pointing out that men have been at a disadvantage in this SMP for years; and those men are taking steps to level the playing field.


  20. And: Most men expressing contrary viewpoints are called on to support their opinions with scientific evidence. Anecdotes and life experience are insufficient, except when they conform to the prevailing opinions.


  21. And:

    I think men in the manosphere are more realistic about women’s natures and don’t buy into the pretty lies.


  22. They must be restless if Susan is equating you to speaking in vile MRA misogynist rhetoric.


  23. Regarding “DeleteGate”…here are my thoughts. I actually think what was worse than deleting the comments, was the aftermath and subsequent comments from Susan once some time had passed.

    Long ago, I believed Susan was this super rational woman who had total control over her emotions. The passage of time has revealed like most women sometimes her emotions can get the better of her and either cause her to say or do things that are clearly an emotional reaction and not rational thinking.

    Prior to Deti’s, Wudang’s, and Obsidian’s comments, Susan had an ALL-CAPS post of roughly 2-3 paragraphs about “MALE HAMSTERBATING”. After I read that post, I realized she was in an irrational emotional state probably after the exhaustion of the Father’s Day Thread.

    Deleting the 3 comments was a purely emotional reaction. Trying to somehow equate Wudang’s comment to extreme misogynist, MRA stuff is just prima facie ludicrous.

    I tried to then respectfully suggest she made a mistake and point out why. I would have been very impressed if she simply admitted she reacted emotionally and put the comments back up.

    Instead, she reiterated a few times about her certainty in deleting the comments (methinks the lady doth protest too much), and she went into the defensive and frame shifting mode by trying to equate those 3 comments with MRA vitriol. This is kind of been the MO for a long time. I wonder if this is just one of those differences between men and women. I’ve had a number of times in my life when after some time has passed I think “damn, I was wrong”, and I’ve got to admit it. I think women are more prone to justify and rationalize by any means necessary previous conduct. Actually, you sort of see this with female adultery where women often try to blame the man for “driving them to it”.

    As a side point/question I often wonder if emotions are to a woman what sex drive is to a teenage boy, something that once it takes over the ability of the rational mind becomes greatly diminished.


  24. 1. There are no enforceable “ethics” in this SMP right now because it’s been set up to discard the old rules of early marriage and assortative mating. I submit it is this way because women want it this way. It’s been set up so that the only “rules” are those which women want or agree to — which means the rules are whatever women say they are.

    I think this is 110% right, especially the discarding of the old rules of early marriage and assortative mating. I think some want “new rules” which are essentially marriage whenever it “fits in” with a woman’s life plan with a reasonable number of “exclusive boyfriends” up to that point, and even better if the boyfriends “play nice” by intentionally limiting whatever sexual options they may have.


  25. I saw the all caps in my email. I viewed it as a neurotic breakdown.. but yes, she may have had too much on her plate. But it’s no excuse. I simply hate seeing censure, especially for unvalidated concerns equating Deti and the others to frothing MRA’s. (Doug1 came to mind). Even then i think they have their place, but probably not on Susan’s site. But i found everyones comments, including the deletions ON TOPIC and no warrant for their removal aside from Susan having a hissy fit that it didn’t fit the ideology/mission she was professing.

    The adultery bit.. isn’t that just a hamster on steroids? I mean really. I owned up to my mistakes in my marriage (not adultery), i’ve yet to hear anyone tell me my ex wife owned up to hers aside from saying she made a mistake. Ugg.

    If female emotions = teen male sex drive… it’s time to revoke their right to vote, operate machinery and drive motor vehicles.


  26. Cosign. I certainly hope you picked yourself a unicorn Mike.. otherwise i’d find it hard to play by the rules and limit yourself when you’re in demand.

    I only have one rule now. I don’t follow their gameplan. It’s my rules, my time, my schedule, they need to qualify to me. Otherwise, happy trails! Not too many unicorns left. All the sluts have been out there cutting off the good girls horns telling them it’s ok to have a stub.


  27. One of Susan’s points of discussion was that women take much bigger risks in the SMP through sex with men. Susan’s position is that when sex is on the table, the woman has much more to lose. But at least with attractive men, women are screaming loud and clear that these are risks they are willing to take. (I disagree that women risk this much; women can get pretty much what they want in this SMP, short of marriage.)

    Women need to know that with these kinds of risks, sometimes it doesn’t work out the way they wanted; and sometimes they lose. All the later complaining about pump & dumps seems disingenuous when they knew of the risks going in and also know of their power positions in the SMP.


  28. Hi m3!
    Thanks so much for posting this up; i intend to do the same thing at my blog in the coming week.

    I agree with deti & mikec-ms walsh is fully within her right to run her blog anyway she likes. But she risks alienating the very guys she champions out there on the smp. Ive told her this directly and w/o apology so she cant say she wasnt warned.

    While im in no way surprised by her and the other ladies of hus by what we said, i felt it was very necessary for the guys to hear for themselves exactly what women as a group (not all) really do think about what me deti and wudang said; in the end their biological imperatives trump ours, and any sense of ethics dont really apply. I would have been much cooler had they simply said that dating ethics only apply to men-just like reproductive rights only apply to women, for bio reasons. They cant even be honest about that.

    I agree w/you: ultimately all ideas will either stand or fall on their merits over time. Communism fell, literally, because the ideas upon which it was based could not stand the test of time. The same will be true for some of the ideas of feminism too. Game, whether some women and men like it or not, works because the ideas upon which its based are real. Every man who is honest w/himself knows this. Even if he never uses game himself he knows its true.

    Im glad that things went down the way they did over at hus because it really clarified things just like i oped my comments would. Simply put men are expected to be moral and upright come hell or highwater. That doesnt apply to women.

    O.


  29. Thanks for swinging by Obs. I’ve been watching your comments with great interest because so much of what you write rings true at least in my own personal experience. And yes, i take no offense by what you said wrt white folk, i do understand as an black man, you have it infinitely that much harder. I have no experience in the rougher side of life, i only see the worst of it on A&E | The First 48. Whether overblown or not, it certainly looks like the realities you speak of in which black men are literally one step away from death and no one has your back but yourself are all too valid. So you speak of the SMP problem and of women’s interactions in them from a unique point of view which i find refreshing, illuminating and quite disturbing all rolled up into one.

    Wrt HUS: the ladies there are probably some of the most sympathetic and self aware i know of in terms of understanding what’s going on today. And that’s the part the really frustrates me. Even the top tier still hold onto time honored tropes and expectations that don’t apply anymore. It’s like they understand the world has changed, but it doesn’t affect them so they still want to play by the old rules. Too bad the rest of the women in ‘the real world’ didn’t get the memo. I often refer to HUS as a nice clean quiet digital gated community. It’s safe in there so the expectation is to play by the rules inside the gates. Men are getting slaughtered outside the gates.

    Still for what it’s worth.. i’m glad the stuff does get discussed at HUS even if it rattles the natives at times. Lurkers need to see every side and choose for themselves how to apply things to their own lives/needs based upon which side of the fence they’re on. Voices like yours, MikeC, Wudang, Jimmy, Deti, etc.. need to be allowed to reflect the real experiences of men.


  30. Obsidian, M3:

    It looks to me like what is playing out in the SMP wrt white and Asian men has already played out in the African American community:

    1. increasing male underemployment and unemployment due to racism, economic pressure, competition with women for jobs, undereducation and lack of education; leading to

    2. The emasculation and disempowerment of African American men as a group; leading to

    3. AA women’s hypergamy kicking in and their finding black men unattractive as a group; leading to

    4. black families splitting up and younger black women never marrying; creating

    5. a matriarchal subculture within the AA community; leading to

    6. black men having no real incentive to do or be anything to anyone, having literally no one and nothing to live for, and no reason to improve or better themselves; causing

    7. a lack of male role models for young AA boys growing up; leading to

    8. a subculture of black men becoming hypermasculine and indulging their base traits to compensate for inability to assert other alpha traits or beta provider traits (having never learned other, more productive or more mutually beneficial ways to demonstrate alpha traits.

    And so what do we have? An AA community in which women do all the work raising children; many black men having either been shut out of the fatherhood role or never having learned how or having no reason to learn how. A black community in which the men have lost or never gained any economic or social power, because economic forces took it from their grandfathers; their fathers never learned how to gain any econonic power; and their sons have had to forge it for themselves. A black community in which a young black woman will have to make her own way and earn her own money.

    From what I read around these parts, these very things and events are playing themselves out right now in the white and Asian and Latino communities; just as they did 40 to 60 years ago in the black communities.


  31. Just got around to going into the comments section and reading whats still there.

    On the topic of Susan saying women are more at risk:

    This is because she’s reading, quoting, and not ever critically thinking about the Buss findings. Buss was researching evolutionary biology and psychology. Yes, for most of human history women risked more in the SMP by deceit.

    Yet this is no longer the case.

    Now a woman gets knocked up and she gets child care. She gets divorced she gets alimony. She has a poor judge of character and she can claim mental or physical abuse while being assumed correct without any evidence. Buyers remorse with sex and its rape.

    Women currently risk nearly nothing. Such minor risks that its laughable when comparing them to what men risk in the SMP. And that’s not even accounting for any day to day dangers or hardships found outside of it in work environments, military, etc.

    So I fail to see why they should be given a free pass on deceit, lies, and manipulation. All it is doing is clearly perpetuating the current conditions of the SMP.


  32. I think what I’m learning the most from reading that conversation in the comments over there is that majority of women operate on a weird mix of ethics powered by two things:

    1. The ends justify the means as long as women are gaining. Because they obviously have it harder, have more risks, and can’t defend themselves from the brute that is Man

    2. That number 1 is hidden by the rationalizations of saving face, not hurting feelings, and not losing status. Most of those being her own face, feelings, and status but projecting that any loss of those for herself would OBVIOUSLY result in the loss of face for any men involved as well.

    You see this in the debate that went back and forth about the very simple lie of, “I’m sorry, I have a boyfriend.”

    She doesn’t want to deal with the consequences of rejecting a man interested in her. She doesn’t know him well, so she doesn’t want to accept any loss of face for herself if she just rejected a high status man. (probably most importantly) She doesn’t want a scene that would show other would be suitors she’s inconsiderate. She just quietly wants him to go on his way so that her true targets and interests will just man the hell up and approach such an obviously high value woman such as herself.

    She protects all this rationalization under the idea that it’s really HIS status she’s protecting. Because, you know, a high value, confident man couldn’t just walk away. Or find out the truth and use it to improve himself.

    They also don’t realize its exactly THIS kind of lying that creates an environment where men stop listening to their protests. You see the examples like Sassy’s where the boyfriend line becomes something to overcome rather than something to take seriously. You learn enough game and you start ignoring it, making her give you a real sign of rejection rather than a lie 2 minutes into a conversation where she doesn’t really know you yet.

    You also start learning enough about female ethics that you reach the other example Sassy gave – where as a man you realize that if you are able to get the right environment going, it doesn’t matter if she really has a boyfriend or not. If she’s into you, and the circumstances are right, you can bag her anyways. She’ll blame it on the environment, on falling to a player, on her boyfriend not being there/not being a good boyfriend/on her friends not stopping her. Never on her own values, judgments, or morals


  33. Leap: Hadn’t thought that all the way through, but yes. There are much fewer risks now.

    The emotional risks (getting hurt, getting pumped and dumped) can’t be eliminated. But I say again: Women are shouting from the rooftops that with hot alpha men, they as a group are willing to risk emotional pain and pump & dumps. They’d rather be pumped and dumped by alphas than marry gammas or omegas.


  34. And i care for them as much as i do for people who scream like children when they get a ticket after clearly doing 50mph over the limit. Yeah the speed was a thrill, but they knew the speed trap was coming round the bend.


  35. Leap:
    don’t forget this. If she is hot for you and likes you, and she has no moral scruples, she will f**k you even if she has a BF or husband. This seems true based on all the stories we’re hearing about women’s extracurricular sexual adventures.

    I still believe it: Right man, right time, right circumstances, low risk of detection = cheating.


  36. M3:

    I see you’re still over there at HUS on this same thread, well into its second week of life, fighting the good fight with MikeC and Wudang. I can’t do it anymore. I won’t be missed, I think.


  37. “When they talk about game, men in the Manosphere are shoveling through the bullshit that the system tells boys about girls. This is work that needs to be done. If average young guys believe the official malarkey they are told about sex and relationships, they’ll be used and abused by entitled American girls for the rest of their lives. And, as they unpack feminist myths about the sexes, I’ve seen a lot of those guys start to wonder what it really means to be men. This is an important conversation.”

    –Jack Donovan, “Everyone a Harlot”, July 6, 2012


  38. That’s an awesome quote Deti. Have a link to the original post/article?

    As for stepping out of the fight at HUS – don’t blame you. And yeah, no man is missed from a woman’s life unless she loses value with it. I’ve never noticed anything different, even from close friends that say they considered me like “A brother” and them like a sister to me.


  39. Here’s the link:

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/07/everyone-a-harlot/

    It’s not worth the fight at HUS. You can’t win because on the one hand men are invited in to tell the unvarnished truth, and then on the other hand the women present get the vapors and cry foul when we tell that truth as we see it.

    Many women simply don’t want to hear what men have to say; or they want to hear only a sanitized, HR- approved, non-hostile environment version of what men have to say.


  40. That Jack Donovan article is awesome.


  41. Yeah, most of the time I’m glad I got banned actually. HUS would occasionally make me think about things in new lights, but usually it was just an unrewarded time dump following threads and commenting without making a change in others or myself.

    Now I have all that time to do other things. I’ll occasionally check in on comment threads like this one when they’re pointed out to me, but otherwise, I have other things that are a better use of my time.


  42. Yeah, most of the time I\’m glad I got banned actually. HUS would occasionally make me think about things in new lights, but usually it was just an unrewarded time dump following threads and commenting without making a change in others or myself.

    Now I have all that time to do other things. I\’ll occasionally check in on comment threads like this one when they\’re pointed out to me, but otherwise, I have other things that are a better use of my time.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: