Saturday, March 24, 2012

Boundaries, or: If you let them, they'll walk all over you

A member of my forum, Cani, recently made two excellent posts on personal boundaries (part one, part two). This inspired me to not only think about personal boundaries in relation to picking up women, about which I'll have more to say further down, but also about one source for the often fairly inappropriate behavior you witness from girls, and the sad fact that guys willingly tolerate it, or even think it's "normal".

One of the most striking observations to make in the Western world is indeed that far too many men are willing to let women walk all over them. Part of it is surely due to the mainstream media not only bashing men and spreading lies like the gender pay gap myth. Even worse is that it is nowadays the rule rather than the exception to depict men as fumbling idiots in TV shows, movies, and commercials.

However, if you have ever worked with women in a field that required a modicum of logic, you will have made the conclusion that it is women who often seem severely challenged when it comes to tasks that requires some degree of abstract thinking. No, I am not saying that they are all stupid, and we men without exceptions reincarnations of Isaac Newton. However, you will normally find that women argue in a more irrational manner, which does make them much less suited for some jobs (and of course better suited for others).
But turn on the TV, and you'll find that we men serve as the laughing stock. For starters, check out this compilation of TV spots from world-leading ad agency BBDO:


Of course, we men are all fucking idiots:


This Verizon spot made me puke too:


There are commercial reasons why man-bashing is so prevalent, and it is because women spend more money than men. I was about to write that female spending powers have increased (which is partly true), but female spending often means taking out loans for reasons of conspicuous consumptions. Of course, frivolous consumption in the present leads to severe problems later on, when they'll find that a nest egg might have been more worthwhile than spending money on $400 shoes in their 20s.

While the advertising industry and their clients, i.e. big corporations, do have sound reasons (for them) to flatter the female ego, the consequences are certainly less than favourable. Women adopt a bizarre sense of entitlement, and men think they have to cater to a woman's fickle emotions. It's no surprise that many women, who may more or less successfully fulfill their role at work, behave pretty much like spoilt children in private. Ask any man who has dated a few women, and he'll agree.

If you let them, women will simply walk all over you. For this reason, it is mandatory to draw a line. If a woman insults you, a concept that the "seduction community" calls a "shit test", you put her in her place, and you certainly don't reward her behavior by continuing the interaction ("plowing", in community terms). Just think about what this says about her character, and about yours too!

A second and very common example is that she shows up way too late. About this I have read some of the worst advice imaginable. First, by showing up, say, half an hour late, she tries to figure out how much shit you are willing to take. After about ten minutes, you should already be on your way. Ideally, you schedule your dates in such a way that the time investment for you is minimal anyway (like in a café close to your apartment, or your workplace), and you can easily walk off.

On the other hand, if you just sit there, waiting (I've heard stories of people who were waiting for their dates for up to an hour and then told the girl that it was "no problem at all"), you give off all the wrong signals. One is that you apparently don't value your time at all, but much worse is that you indicate that she can already dictate the terms of the interaction, even though you hardly know her. Basically, you've got "TOOL" written all over your forehead.

Some women just flake, in which case it is best to just forget about her. She'll only deserve a second chance if she has a really good explanation, and is more proactive, too. I personally recommend raising the stake and accepting nothing less than movie or cooking at your place.

However, "community wisdom" disagrees. Once I read, I think it was a David DeAngelo piece of advice, that you should then call her up and play the "Sorry, I was late gambit". Ludicrous! She flaked on you. You waited for an hour until you realize that she probably won't come, but instead of just forgetting about her, some "guru" tells you that you should give her another chance. To make it less awkward for her, you are supposed to tell her that you are sorry for not showing up because of, I don't know, an important business meeting or so (DHV! DHV!). This is downright pathetic, and will only further reinforce that you've got no spine.

In life, you have to figure out for yourself how much abuse you are willing to take. As you have surely noticed, some people will ruthlessly exploit you if you don't draw a line early, and don't kid yourself that it will automatically get better after a while. Just like your boss might at first ask you to stay "half an hour" longer one day, this will eventually grow to one or two hours, and eventually be expected of you. Similarly, a woman might at first ask you for a bit of cash here and there, but once she has tested the water, she'll go all out and wreak havoc on your finances. No, not all will. Just as there are decent employers, so are there good, decent women out there. But not all of them are.

40 comments:

  1. Okay. I have two friends who have serious relationship. The female's Facebook status is 'single'. Why? And how should he have acted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her status is probably "single" on facebook because she's still looking. After all, there is the term "facebook official", and girls in general take this rather seriously.

      Tell him to ask her why she hasn't changed her relationship status. If your friend indeed challenges his girlfriend, then please let me know her reaction. (I have an hypothesis about how it will go, though.)

      Delete
    2. It's funny what kind of shit guys will put up with. I mean jesus fucking christ. It's obvious as a dead fly that she (in her mind) is NOT in a serious relationship. And is probably fucking on the side... wake the fuck up guys.

      Delete
    3. "However, if you have ever worked with women in a field that required a modicum of logic, you will have made the conclusion that it is women who often seem severely challenged when it comes to tasks that requires some degree of abstract thinking."

      I think this comment is unfair. Women argue irrationally over trivial matters but men do too. Why is the average women even more ill suited for a job requiring a great deal of abstract logic than the average man? I mean assuming you are right the answer is obvious, but I think you may consider the possibility that you are too strident. People tend to be stupid in general at low level jobs, your limited experience (and mine) is insufficient proof. Let science determine such differences if they exist.

      Delete
  2. What the fuck? Sorry, but this entire article reeks of a misogynistic attitude.

    "It's no surprise that many women, who may more or less successfully fulfill their role at work, behave pretty much like spoilt children in private. Ask any man who has dated a few women, and he'll agree."

    I've dated more than a few women, and I do not agree with this one bit. Yes, some people are entitled, but I don't think this is more common amongst women than it is in men. Perhaps you're interacting with the wrong women?

    I can relate to not being as strong with my boundaries as I should be, but why does the argument for boundary-setting have to get bogged down by dubious assertions about women as a whole? All these characteristics are as prevalent in men as they are in women, maybe you see a trend because you gravitate towards very attractive women - this is definitely something I see as a trend in people that are extremely physically attractive.

    Bottom line, why get into the "women do this"? Who the fuck waits an hour for anyone? If they're not there in ten minutes, wait five more and then FUCKING LEAVE because you are a fucking man, not a boy who seeks validation from others. If a woman disrespects you by being excessively late or by talking shit about you in front of your friends, she's a shitty person and you need to value yourself enough to only give your time and emotions to someone deserving of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you man. This is not really just about women. It's about people. Unless you buy into the men are from venus woman are from pluto crap. Although I am certainly NOT saying that men and women are equal. They are not. Nor are people in general.

      Delete
    2. RIPterriers,

      I wasn't speaking of women as a whole. Yet, there are strong tendencies. Also, it's great that you do have a strong will and value your time. However, this is far from common, and many men are only too eager to please women at all costs, even though they only get treated with disrespect. In this regard, we fully agree with each other.

      Delete
  3. Here's what I would do although this has never happened to me. Oddly enough I was once an hour late but I did actually have an excuse. She wasn't happy though but I did end up fucking her.

    Firstly, I would never ever leave, never. I want to tell that bitch what she just did and make her accountable. Here's an example of how a dialogue of this sort might unfold:

    HER: oh I'm so sorry I am late...blablablaa
    ME: (Lean against wall with cigarette dangling in mouth... take a few drags... and finish my game of Angry Birds on my phone and tell her to hold on a sec...)
    HER: (starting to get akward and impatient and restless)
    ME: (Put phone away, flick cigarette like I am setting fire to a weapons building before walking off into the sunset....)
    HER: again, sorry sorry blablablababaaa
    ME: Listen to me very carefully... (take off sunglasses)... you were one hour late. Now I honestly don't give a fuck why. You're here now, that's cool. And the only reason I waited was to let you know how much I fucking despise people being late. I have zero tolerance for it unless it truly was an emergency. So here's the deal, we either end this now and go our separate ways or you make up this hour to me somehow. And by somehow I mean you are my slave and I we go back to your place...

    Or something like that...

    Leaving is boring.

    And btw, Facebook personal profiles have TOOL written all over them. I take great pleasure every time I get to say that I don't have a facebook page nor intend to get one so I can watch another asshole smiling beside the Eiffel Tower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alternate ending:
      ME: ... and by somehow I mean we skip the coffee and bullshit and go back to your place. (you have nothing to lose at this point)

      Delete
    2. Dude thats actually kinda childish if you act like that! Why should you wait and call her out? It doesn't matter what you're gonna yell at her, YOU WAITED for her to tell her how she should treat you.

      Yeah she'll gonna be surprised and what not, she probably says im sorry and pays for your coffee, maybe let you fuck her...but deep down inside her SHE KNOWS ALREADY that you dont wanna loose her. She's important to you even if you guys meet the first time.

      Delete
    3. I agree with danielstierblut, waiting regardless of having something to say to make her feel guilty or teach her a lesson, is not worth it. It maybe boring, but why spend that hour doing something you enjoy or find other girls who are into you.

      You could always call her up, and tell her that. Or you could tell her that in person, if you give her another chance to meet up.

      Regarding the article, and women being less logical or abstract thinking etc, I cant really agree if true either way. Yet women are becoming more spoilt, with the laws, and priorities for women to get jobs etc etc. So it is always important to start with the sex first, then the long term second, that way you dont waste your time with the spoilt girls. And you get the girls you want, and lots of sex.

      Thanks for mentioning my name Sleazy,

      Cani

      Delete
    4. @ danielstierblut: Yeah you're probably right. And I actually doubt I would ever wait that long. I would give that speech after 15 minutes although I have never had to wait that long on a date. Maybe 10 at most which is not a problem for me. I was just having a little fun with my post and have probably watched too many movies. Although if it's a nice day outside and I'm really not in a hurry, why not play it out my way and see what happens. I think it's more exciting than just leaving especially if she does come eventually and even more, if she's hot. And I don't give a fuck what she 'knows deep inside already' no matter how big your capital letters are.

      Delete
    5. Haha Skeptic that's a nice idea. Funny shit. Too many men asskiss to women these days eh Skeptic? good shit. Too many people are obsessive with looking cool or some other bullshit.

      Delete
  4. Blog posts don't come much more valuable than this one.

    Men comply to female quirks because, if they don't, the chick can find one who WILL.
    You can work on your body, style, wallet, coolness and what not, to be desirable.
    But you're still exchangable for any other guy with similar qualities, and more willing to take crap than you.
    Such men exist.
    Chicks know this.

    And you know what, they aren't to blame for taking advantage of the fact. We as a group are, for not knowing. Or not caring.

    Sleazy has an audience here that pays attention to what he has to say. And he uses it to do something about this.

    BIG thumbs up for that !


    BTW : In these matters, I learned a lot from this book :
    "Play or Be Played - What Every Female Should Know About Men".
    (actually written by a man, for women)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Men comply to female quirks because, if they don't, the chick can find one who WILL. "

      This is a key observation! Just imagine they knew that they couldn't easily find such a chump, and how quickly they'd change their behavior!

      Delete
    2. "But you're still exchangable for any other guy with similar qualities, and more willing to take crap than you.
      Such men exist.
      Chicks know this. "

      This is why guys dont want to have boundaries, and act all passive aggressive.

      The thing is, the same is true for men. We can exchange a woman who is acting all bitchy or giving us crap, with another women. There will always be women who is into you and wont give you crap, well just long enough to fuck you. There are a lots of situations, such as she is real horny that night, wants to make her boyfriend jealous, jealous that her girlfriends are happy, just really attracted to you and cant bear not losing you etc etc.

      The problem is that men have to go out find the next girl, whereas women can just wait as the next sucker will come to her. For most guys, find the next girl is too difficult/stressful etc, so they rather not lose what they have. But guys who are used to approaching (its a habit) and escalating, and keep their foudnations strong, will have no worries about losing a girl or finding a more suitbale girl.

      I believe that strongest thing a man can do with a women is carry out your threats. I mean if you dont like her being late or she is just rude when talking with her, all you got to do is give her warning that you dont like that. IF continues, then tell her I already told you I dont like it, And WALK AWAY. NEVER LOOK BACK. WAIT FOR HER TO MAKE CONTACT AND APOLOGISE.

      cani

      Delete
  5. Aaron i do like your post, especially the phrase "...that you indicate that she can already dictate the terms of the interaction, even though you hardly know her. Basically, you've got "TOOL" written all over your forehead..."

    Like you said as a guy should you know what you want and you need spine. Its kinda funny that guys who do not challenge themselves and push their boundaries maybe through sports, their job or other hobbies be in danger to behave in the way you've mentioned above. I see it a lot of the time if i go out...

    Not all girls will walk over you and not all girls are attracted to you if you're personality has that attitude. A lot of the girls out there do wanna have a boyfriend thats not a pussy, knows what he wants and tries to follow his goals with passion. But women who choose a man w/o any spine sometimes have a problem with themselves and need to bash someone down.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "However, if you have ever worked with women in a field that required a modicum of logic, you will have made the conclusion that it is women who often seem severely challenged when it comes to tasks that requires some degree of abstract thinking."

    I think this comment is unfair. Women argue irrationally over trivial matters but men do too. Why is the average women even more ill suited for a job requiring a great deal of abstract logic than the average man? I mean assuming you are right the answer is obvious, but I think you may consider the possibility that you are too strident. People tend to be stupid in general at low level jobs, your limited experience (and mine) is insufficient proof. Let science determine such differences if they exist.

    --Kevin

    P.S. I was confused at first by the commenting system here. I should not have replied to what skeptic wrote. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say that women have a tendency to be more less logical. With regards to the superior logical intellect of men, I don't see how anyone can doubt this. Seriously, how many eminent female mathematicians are out there? And if you now want to pull the old "they want to have kids and a family" canard, I want to invite you to have a look at the dedication of many outstanding academicians. They forego a family too. Apparently, something else was more important to them. Newton is alleged to have died a virgin, and for every flamboyant von Neumann there are ten with the disposition of a man like Quine.

      Or look at a field like software development. How many women are there? This is certainly not due to a lack of "women in programming" courses or other initiatives.

      Delete
    2. There are more geniuses amongst men - this has been proven - so high end achievement does not necesarily mean that the average woman has less logical ability than the average man. There are also more retarded people amongst men. Distribution is different.

      Logical ability before the very high level is probably equal for men and women.

      Delete
    3. Oh, are we arguing about semantics now? I clearly didn't speak of low-level jobs, and most jobs don't require abstract thinking to begin with. If you put a truth table in front of a random person and they are much more likely than not to be utterly confused by it. To make it clear: "abstract thinking" = "not an average job".

      That logical ability below the "very high level" (whatever that may be) is "probably equal" for men and women is something I'd severely doubt, and everyday observations confirm this. For instance, many girls do reasonably well in algebra, but once they find themselves in a calculus class, some aren't so happy anymore. Conversely, there seems to be a disproportionate number of guys who do much better in calculus than their algebra scores might have suggested. This is confirmed by my experience, and I would be more than surprised if there weren't any studies on high school students that showed the same.

      Delete
    4. As an addendum: you seem to have missed the thrust of the article. Men are depicted as fumbling idiots in the media, so even if we, for the sake of the argument, agree that men and women are equal when it comes to abstract thinking, it's enough to diagnose significant gender bias. More appropriately, you'd call it open misandry.

      Delete
    5. I am Kevin. Not the anonymous you replied to, Sleazy, although I agree with whoever that was. No need to get so defensive anyhow. I think you try to be fair minded. You are not just another misogynistic bigot with his own blog.

      Social reasons are probably factors in explaining why there are not as many female mathematicians. I think factors like that very probably explain why there are not as many female programmers. It could also be because of innate differences in men and women. However, admitting small differences in intelligence is obviously not the same as positing a vast disparity in intelligence between the sexes, as you did. There is no scientific evidence to support that conclusion.

      Causal observations never count as substantive evidence. You are an educated man, you should know that. Don't take this the wrong way but arguing based on personal experience is arguing like a racist argues.

      I think it is also worth pointing out that there is a difference between mathematical and logical thinking. I happen to be bad at math but I believe I understand logic pretty well.

      Besides all of this, I agree with your point. Men should not portrayed as idiots in the media.

      Delete
    6. Its true that men are depicted as fumbling idiots in the media, but how much of this is just humor? I mean, it is not intended to be a serious depiction of men. Yes, it can be over the top and lopsided, but I get the sense that the entire humor of it is that men are so obviously not fumbling and idiotic. So when you portray them as such you mine a rich vein of role-reversal humor. I have heard this gripe many times by mens advocate types, and I am generally sympathetic to it, but I cannot seem to get all worked up over it - the intent seems so obviously to create a make believe role reversal for the purpose of humor.

      As for female vs male logical ability, there is really no need to speculate about it and use anecdotal evidence. We have a wealth of IQ test data that yields the relevant information.

      Women and men have a roughly equal IQ, with women scoring slightly lower, but with men having a much wider range of distribution - i.e more geniuses and more retards. I believe the cut off point where men begin to have proportionally more representation is above IQ 130, if I am not mistaken. Thats at around the top 1%.

      So in average life, men are not more logical than women. In above average up to the top 1%, again men have no conspicuous advantage. It is only in the rarefied highest levels that men have a decisive advantage over women, which is why, of course, in EVERY field, even those where women supposedly do better than men, the topmost levels are dominated by men.

      Delete
    7. Kevin,

      I think it is also worth pointing out that there is a difference between mathematical and logical thinking. I happen to be bad at math but I believe I understand logic pretty well.

      I don't agree here. If you are good at logic but bad at math, then you probably had a bad teacher, or maybe you understand logic less well than you think. Also, I should probably point out that when I refer to logic, I mean logic in this sense: http://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf (I only skimmed this text book, but it seemed pretty good, albeit a bit slow-paced.)


      Anonymous,
      the problem with "humor" is that it is never humor. I for one don't find those TV spots funny, and neither does the school kid who gets bullied and hears "dude, we're just joking" from his tormenters.

      I've spent some time studying the design and implementation of IQ tests, and my conclusion was that this field is much less reliable than a the actual number might suggest. Apart from the inherent problems of test design, it doesn't seem to be generally known that IQ tests consist of sub-tests, and the resulting number completely hides that. For instance, you could have one person hitting the test ceiling in the analytical sub-tests, but messing up the spatio-relational ones, and thus averaging 100. Yet, some other person could score 100 on every sub-test. The former, though, has genius-level intelligence in some areas. Feel free to think about the implications of that for the statements you've made.

      Further, there is no cut-off point. It's not as if after 130 people are suddenly geniuses, and at 129 they're not. You'd probably view anybody above 120 as rather smart, and that's a sizeable number of people.

      Delete
    8. No, you make a very good point here - IQ tests have an aura of finality and invincibility, but the science behind them is highly questionable.

      For instance, g is supposed to arise from the observation that most people who score high on one sub-test, will do so on all sub-tests, suggesting the conclusion that there must be a *common* underlying factor of intelligence (itself a questionable conclusion). Yet this is only a very mild statistical tendency - lots of people, as you correctly note, will do significantly better on some sub-tests and do abysmally on others. So even if g exists, it clearly plays a significant but minor role in determining a persons performance on each sub-test.

      Yet in the psychometric literature, g is taken to be the most important thing in IQ, practically synonymous with intelligence itself.

      Yet women, for instance, do much worse on visuo-spatial than they do on verbal. The gap is quite large. Asians have a similarly large gap but in reverse. Jews have an even larger gap between these two sub-tests skewed towards verbal.

      So where does all this leave statistical tendency for people to score roughly equal on all sub-tests from which we have deduced the existence of a *common* underlying factor called g? Not in a very healthy position. It is clear that this statistical tendency is quite small, and frequently violated both by groups, and individuals.

      Yet these realities do nothing to undermine belief in the reality and importance of g, which continues merrily to dominate the understanding of intelligence and to be considered a very real thing.....

      Wishful thinking - the strong desire to find a single, unified, common factor of intelligence is obviously distorting the field of psychometrics to the point where laymen are simply expected to accept the existence and importance of this mystical construct called *g*, despite the incoherence o the theory.

      Delete
    9. When I was reading up on the theories behind intelligence tests, with little more than a Statistics 101 course under my belt, I was nonetheless appalled when I noticed how alleged "authorities" either completely gloss over important objections, or not even mention them.

      It's arguably also a fault of those researchers that there is now a cottage industry offering "brain games" and "brain foods". These days, there's even people trying to make money off the IQ bandwagon. Just check out this one: http://www.highiqsociety.org, and make your own conclusion about how much cash is flowing to the top.

      Delete
  7. You deleted my comment, Aaron. That lowers your stature in my eyes. I did not think you were the type to delete polite disagreements with you. Roosh does that. You are a lesser man than I thought. I am disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calm down, dude! Your comment was caught in the spam folder. Check out this screenshot: (http://i.imgur.com/cAo4M.png).

      Next time a comment doesn't show up, just wait a little bit.

      Delete
  8. Thanks ;) I will wait a bit next time. My faith in you is restored ;) I saw the comment on the blog, and then it was gone. I guess what I initially saw was just the screen shot.

    Its just that to me the ability to post disagreeing comments is a critical measure of a persons rationality as well as strength of personality. A big part of why I began to notice game was bullshit was when Roosh and Roissy and other gamers would delet, ban, and censor comments even when those comments were extremely polite and only mildly critical/disagreeing. It was clear they were insecure weaklings. Now I thought, oh no, Aaron is like that too! Glad I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that censorship does reflect poorly on people (as well as countries). A few comments did indeed disappear from my blog, but this was only when people were outright spamming, and I mean the kind of robo-spammer who want to place backlinks to websites that sell shoes, body building supplements, or financial products. Two or three times, though, people were making comments in utterly incomprehensible English, and I preferred to take them down as well. Apart from that, my blog is a haven of free speech. :)

      Delete
  9. I began to notice game was bullshit was when Roosh and Roissy and other gamers would delet, ban, and censor comments even when those comments were extremely polite and only mildly critical/disagreeing.

    See this:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mP1ijuQ0GtoJ:aleknovy.com/dating-seduction-sex/dating-seduction/chateau-is-an-insecure-cunt/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alek,
      why did you take your site offline? We've been losing some very good people recently. First Assanova, now you...

      Delete
    2. I never meant to have a public site. I first made my tumblog to chart my lifestyle, share my stuff with my friends, collect clippings of news-articles and photos...

      But people started sharing it, and before I knew it - it attracted thousands of visitors a day...

      -> I found myself censoring myself based on what visitors I have.

      -> I could no longer clip articles and newspapers and media (that'd be copyrighted)

      -> Started thinking what people want to read, instead of what I want to clip

      p.s.

      Only 2% of my stuff was anti-game or related to chicks etc....

      Delete
    3. Well, I don't see a problem if you went back and just posted what you want to post. I do the same on here. If popularity or money is your yardstick, you'd just churn out bullshit, but it's more interesting to say what you honestly think instead of trying to figure out ways to "build traffic", "create wealth online", or "increase your conversion ratio", or whatever those online marketers love to talk about.

      Your site was great because you seemingly didn't care much about pissing some people off, and that's not especially common. I've recently put up a link to Barbarossa's blog/videos for this entire same reason: an obviously very intelligent and educated man who shares his views on contemporary issues, but not with the motive to profit from it economically or become famous, but (seemingly) merely because he thinks that a voice like his is missing online.

      Delete
  10. IS there any way to still view Assanova's site? Google cache does not seem to work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, it is completely gone, and apparently for good this time.

      Delete
    2. That really sucks! Aaron do you have any idea why assanova deleted his site? You and assanova are by far the guys that understood picking up chicks the best.-jameso

      Delete
    3. Personal reasons. I guess he just got fed up.

      Delete