Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Reader Comment on the Sexual Power of Women
I'll post a couple of substantive articles later today and for the entire rest of the week, but as a warm-up, here's a comment a reader just left on Do women really hold all sexual power?
The first time that I saw this claim that women hold all the sexual power, I just knew that something was wrong with that statement. It is shown to be nonsense by being mocked by reality.
For example, many women, with “all sexual power,” are in relationships in which they are miserable and unhappy.
Many women, with “all sexual power” have been pumped and dumped have been the community mattress, cum receptacle, with their STD infested pussies, are damaged goods find that no decent man would ever touch them with a long stick.
Many women, with “all sexual power” but not man, and not even a child, are desperate that they can't find a man. Some of them have passed 30 and remain childless. They get more desperate as they get older, less attractive and less fertile. Some of these women, with “all sexual power” but no man nor child, as they approach late 30s and 40s, have taken the desperate step of paying $15000 to fertility centers to extract and freeze their eggs and inject themselves (ouch) with hormones. This, in attempt to use their “all sexual power” to get a man to some day go to the fertility center, unbuckle his belt, pull down his trousers, bend down and jerk off in a petri disc to try to fertilize those near expired eggs.
Many of these women take good care of themselves and look good, but the problem is they have “all sexual power” but complain that they cant find a man. How very interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whenever you post stuff that makes getting laid sound not that great and when you post stuff about how women are not happy,
ReplyDeleteit makes me feel better. Improves my self esteem, feel less about myself.
Good stuff.
I think he's just making a point that there are just as many women who are desperately unhappy with their love lives as their are guys. It's not meant to put women down, just to debunk the ridiculous notion that only men suffer the negative consequences of the sexual marketplace.
DeleteYou really should have edited these comments for readability. "Harmonies" don't get injected for fertility treatments, "hormones" do, for instance.
ReplyDeleteFor those interested, a recent book chronicling one woman's fertility treatments is titled One Good Egg and can be found on Amazon.
I'll comment more fully on this post later.
Thanks for pointing this out. I missed that typo.
DeleteWomen hold all the sexual power until the moment you have sex with them.
ReplyDeleteWhen a woman says, "she can't find a man", what she really means is that she can't find a man that meets her 529 point checklist. Also, only 20% of men are really "men" to her. If she really wanted any man whatsoever, then she wouldn't have trouble finding a man. However, that isn't what she really wants.
ReplyDelete@Black Pill, yeah, but it's the same for men. If you are willing to consider hambeasts, like one of my friend does, you have all the sexual power in the world and can get laid every night you go out.
DeleteIt's also a matter of perception: since many men believe that girls are so difficult, they get more nervous. If you just layback and test for girls who are recpetive, you can get laid supremely easily.
@Anonomous, utter bullshit on both counts
Delete--1--
"If you are willing to consider hambeasts, like one of my friend does, you have all the sexual power in the world and can get laid every night you go out."
--1--
We covered this myth at mating selfishness:
Myth: shooting out for your leage and lowering criteria
Basically, AS A MAN, lowering your criteria doesn't automagically get you laid. You still have to TAKE ALL THE RISK, do ALL THE MOVES, know EXACTLY when and how to say and do what to escalate. You still risk creep-shaming unless you're good/smooth. You still need SKILL. And the only difference is your ratio might go SLIGHTLY up, not much though. You will never get more than a 10% ratio no matter how ugly you target, that still means 9 rejections for every 10 random (cold) attempts.
Of course, one can do warm attempts (testing for receptivity) as you mention below, but I'll cover that in the second part of this reply.
And as a bonus, ugly women are far more vicious and rude in their rejections. If anything, it's easier to get rejected from hot women, than wilderbeasts. See MS post mentioned above for more details.
--2--
"If you just layback and test for girls who are recpetive, you can get laid supremely easily."
--2--
That's like saying "If you're Kobe Bryant, scoring points in street Basketball is easy"
The point is this is an ADVANCED SKILL - proof, only a small percentage of us have it. THIS SKILL you speak of (developing the ability to know exactly which chicks are receptive, how much, and when and where and how to make which move to test for which receptivity with easy and smoothness) is a skill 99% of men DO NOT HAVE and will never have. People either luck into it, or have to spend years working hard to develop it.
This skill is the ONLY major difference between guys with 5 partner-counts and those up in the hundreds.
You can't possibly compare it to women lowering their standards. Lowering your checkpoint list from 500 items to 50 is not a SKILL, it doesn't take EFFORT, hard work or time, you just need to DECIDE it, and you GET IT. A woman can go out TODAY and DECIDE to have a reduced checklist.
A man can't DECIDE to go out today and have James Bond's suaveness. GET IT?
Alek, are you aware that you've slipped back into a Game mindset where you are now talking about how it takes all sorts of "skill", "suaveness", and James Bond smoothness to get girls in clubs and bars?
DeleteI know, I know, all these skills won't "create" attraction, they merely allow girls to act on their pre-existing attraction. But whats the difference? You're creating a tremendous amount of pressure and demoralization for men and making it seem like getting girls is a herculean task.
One of the worst thing about game is precisely that it made getting girls seem such a complex, intricate, and difficult task - that message was so demoralizing. One of the most liberating things about reading you and Aaron was the message that getting girls can be easy, hassle free, and does not involve any special skills, much less James Bond smoothness.
It's sad to see you slipping into old ways of thinking under new guises. I am immensely relieved that I actually bought into the message that getting girls can be easy and straightforward and went out and tried and saw for myself that it was true, before reading the new Alek Novy. At this point, I KNOW from personal experience that it does NOT take anything near James Bond smoothness to hook up with girls fairly frequently. All it takes is a simple, basic social skills. That's it. That was the liberating message I got from you and Aaron.
You're new talk of James Bond smoothness is the talk of a man who isn't doing very well on the girl front and needs explanations. I am sorry that that is happening to you. I can only shake my head.
As for hitting on girls on your level - this is KEY to a successful strategy. Cultivate self-awareness and self-knowledge, and unless you are wealthy and have status, go for your level. Of course, what is your level is fairly obvious if you pay attention - the girls that check you out in bars and give you approach signals on any given night, are on your level. Enough nights out and you'll get a very clear idea of what your level is, and learn the wisdom of not deviating from it.
@Anonymous who blurted out this horribly manipulative strawman
Delete--
"Alek, are you aware that you've slipped back into a Game mindset where you are now talking about how it takes all sorts of "skill", "suaveness", and James Bond smoothness to get girls in clubs and bars?"
--
My QUESTION TO YOU IS are you:
A) COMPLETELY misrepresenting and TWISTING MY WORDS as a concious manipulative ploy and strawman
OR
B) Are you READING CHALLENGED and unable to FOLLOW ALONG in a conversational thread
Fucking FOLLOW THE CONVERSATIONAL THREAD you ADD-riddled brain.
--
"it takes all sorts of "skill", "suaveness", and James Bond smoothness to get girls in clubs and bars?"
--
I NEVER SAID THAT YOU MANIPULATIVE LYING CUNT. That was not the topic.
I was RESPONDING to a VERY SPECIFIC claim, and my response was ONLY in terms of that SPECIFIC thing I was responding to. And unless you are retarded, you are STRAWMANNING on purpose. I see no third option
Witness the drunken inability to follow a conversational thread
----------------------------------------
Source topic/claim: Women can *immediatelly* go out and get laid *effortleslly* (without effort) every single night if they dropped their criteria list
The Retarded Response: Well, well, well any guy can just go out (implied: *immediatelly*) and get laid *EVERY NIGHT* (implied through power line: *EFFORTLESSLY*) if he simply lowered his criteria
My response to THE SPECIFIC CLAIM: That (re: getting laid *every single night* *effortlessly* and *without rejection*) is an advanced skill, irregardless if you're targetting hotties or trolls
Your STRAWMAN: Alek, why do you say getting laid at all is complex and hard and takes complex skills, you're just preaching PUA again
----------------------------------------
EXCEPT I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT YOU LYING CUNT!!! My RESPONSE WAS ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT, INVOLVING THESE THREE POINTS:
1) Every single night
2) Effortlessly
3) Immediatelly
This was clarified with a bunch of clarifiers in my post, but it seems someone was more interested in being a smartass and pointing fingers than CAREFULLY READING the thing they're responding to...
I DID NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING JAMES BOND TO HAVE ANY KIND OF SEX LIFE AT ALL or even to experience "frequent hookups" - AND YOU ARE EITHER RETARDED, OR YOU ARE MISREADING ON PURPOSE for shilly purposes
- I'll respond to your other horrible strawmen manipulations in a second comment if I find time today... I can't believe how much fucking filthy lying and misrepresentation you managed to put into one comment - simply incredible.
- I'll also clarify the difference between "Simple", "easy" and "effortless", and "immediatelly" vs "experience" because it seems your retarded reading-challenged brain thinks these words are synonyms for some awfully retarded reason.
- I'll also explain how your shilly/feminist/troll brain is purposefully conflating the james bond reference in the topic of feminist standards for sexual harassment vs. the mention here "about getting every single night effortlessly" and immediatelly.
All in all, you are either the world's best manipulator (feminist/pua shill purposefully tangling things), or retarded
beyond belief, I see no third option.
Alek, where did you or the anonymous you were responding to use the words "effortlessly" or "without rejection"? No one used those words.
DeleteAnonymous said "get laid supremely easily" and "get laid every night".
You think getting laid supremely easily is an advanced skill requiring James Bond like smoothness. That's a Game mentality. I completely deny that's the case for men.
Getting laid every night is possible neither for women nor men, what is clearly meant is "fairly frequently". You think that for a man to get laid with fair frequency requires James Bond level skill. That's Game. I deny that.
Nor did I attribute to you the position that one needs advanced skill to have ANY kind of love life, as you claim I do.
Your tactic of making ever more subtle distinctions has become a tool for dishonesty in your hands, and a tool for confusing the issue. I remember when you would argue with Gamers you used this tactic honestly and responsibly, but now you seriously abuse it.
Your current message that getting laid fairly frequently with reasonable ease requires incredible skills is both untrue and dangerously demoralizing for men, and your de-emphasizing of looks in the sense that being realistic about your own level and your emphasis on skills instead comes very close to Game.
At this point with your talk of women being super-ambiguous and men needing advanced skills to get women easily and frequently - a position bearing many close affinities with Game - leads me to question whether you are autistic and social skills come extremely hard for you? I am not saying this to be derogatory, but you might consider that these skills you claim are advanced - things like escalating gradually - are not difficult for most men and come fairly honestly.
I want the readers to consider a few facts when parsing the claims by the feminist/pua shill above...
DeleteThe average man on this planet
only has (reports)
between 4-7 partners
depending on the country
This is
- not per week
- not per month
- not yer pear
- not EVEN per decade
this is PER lifetime
No, that is not a TYPO, that is just 4-7 partners for a LIFETIME.
- and most experts agree that the reports are probably exaggerated since they don't add up statistically, so probably slightly lower, i.e. 2-5
Now, also consider the fact most of these sexual partners are long-term relationships through long-term courting... meaning
- the man met her through friends
- the man courted her for months
- it took him months to make the first move and he moved very slowly. The average man takes 2-3 dates JUST TO INITIATE a FIRST kiss
(the VAST MAJORITY of men have NEVER had a one-night stand, HAVE NEVER hooked up with strangers, and have NEVER had quick escalations, EVER - hence the appalingly low 2-5 partners a LIFETIME. Even most lotharios believe cold-approaching is IMPOSSIBLE and get laid from popularity and social circles)
(yes, the average man is THAT BAD)
Now, if you're in the middle of your sexual lifespan, and you want to start approaching women in clubs, can you IMAGINE how bad your ability to read and send signals is, if your lifetime experience is just TWO partners (2 escalations) that lasted for several akward months? Will this guy be able to approach a chick in a bar smoothly, know when and how to make moves or will there be a lot of AKWARD moves, a lot of misreading of cues, a lot of rejection?
If you ask feminist and trolls, he should find it "supremely easy" if he merely stopped pining for supermodels. If he lowered his sights, he would be able to approach and escalate "supremely easily"
Keyboard jockeys who live in a hollywood fantasy would like to believe that anyone who's not hollywood smooth is "autistic". And by keyboard jockeys I mean not just PUA jockeys, but feminists (and most women) as well, because they've never actually had to play that role, so from their perspective it seem fairly EASY (it looks easy when the guys on TV do it, therefore it must be easy)
and effortless
-> This is how you get the crazy feminist who believes that any man who approaches or escalates in a non-smooth way is a "creepy sexual deviant". In fact, the crazy feminist standard is that ALL mating should involve ZERO rejection, ZERO misunderstandings and PERFECT cue and hint reading from men
-> This is how you get the crazy keyboard jockey troll who believes that getting laid should be supremely easy, and anyone who differs is "autistic"
According to the super high standards of these feminists, and the fucked up "logic" of these trolls, about 3 billion men on this planet are "autistic creepy sexual deviants".
Something here doesn't add up. Why are 3 billion men choosing to ONLY have 2-5 partners in a LIFETIME if getting laid is "supremely easily"?
If you ask the feminist trolls above, the only reason men have such appalingly low partner-counts, is because they're refusing to hit on anything except supermodels when they go out... I kid you not... Because, otherwise it would be SUPREMELY EASY.
Can you smell the bullshit?
If, say the average man has sex with 3-6 women in a lifetime, you have to also consider that the men that have sex with a lot of women do up to a 100 or more in a life time. And as predicted by evolutionary psychology the average man is not popular, and since the most popular men have more sexual partners, the average number of sexual partners is higher than the median man's number of sexual partners. This means that Average Joe actually has FEWER sexual partners than this already low average number. An average guy will basically need to go for women below his league even to get sex at all, under normal mainstream circumstances. He will have VERY LITTLE or NO experience of escalation with normal women.
DeleteI think that a reason that women think that most men get sex and have experience in escalation is because they only pay attention to the men that are already considered attractive. I had a fb that said she had about 3 orbiters. I had to push her before she even counted the less attractive orbiters as existing, brining up her number of suitors at any given time to 5 or so.
So imagine how it is to be a less than average looking guy that never had experience of normal escalation (If they did it was with a woman that was fucked up/broken). This must be at least a third of the men out there. These feminist shills don't even realize these men exist.
(I know evolutionary psychology is not a popular theory here but you can't deny that this is actually what happens in the real world)
Now I'm moving more over to the topic of the other blog post about sexual harassment laws promoted by feminists, but to continue; The feminists demand flawless mutual and reciprocal flirting, or it's supposedly sexual harassment at the campuses. An estimated 25% of young women and 20% young men suffer from a range of personality disorders or other mental problems. An equal share had no earlier experience of normal sexual escalation. To demand "perfect" behavior from all students at all times under these circumstances is just unrealistic.
DeleteGame - you have to practice thousands of hours and develop a complex skill to make women attracted to you and get them with any level of frequency and ease.
DeleteAlekNovy - you have to practice thousands of hours and develop a complex skill to let women act on their attraction to you with any level of frequency and ease.
Game - you should approach women indiscriminately because it is up to you to create attraction so it means nothing if women indicate disinterest or no interest upon seeing you.
AlekNovy - Women are utterly ambiguous. A woman indicating disinterest or no interest upon seeing you does not mean she is even likely to be uninterested in you. In fact, Alek says many girls he has approached who indicated disinterest turned out to be more interested than girls who indicated interest. Studies have shown women unable to tell which girls are or are not interested. Although Alek hasn't drawn the logical conclusion, isn't the blindingly obvious logical conclusion from Alek's position that you should pretty much approach indiscriminately and not bother looking for indications of interest?
Game - you can get the hottest girls if you act right, so don't only hit on girls on your level.
Alek - only hitting on girls on your level will not increase the ease or frequency of getting laid.
In practical terms, can anyone see the difference? Neither can I.
And so we have come, sadly, full circle - from an anti-Game warrior to a a peddler of Game in a new guise.
And what is the common root of Game and Alek's position? A desire to belief that there is some way to not have to accept that you are limited in what you can get.
Both positions suggest to you that you don't have a "level" you should limit yourself to, that indications of disinterest from the women you are surrounded by at any given moment are not the barrier they might seem, and that if you develop some complex skill over hours and hours of practice you will be able to get girls easily and with frequency.
Let me tell you whenever anyone tells you something social is "complex" they are selling you a lie. Whatever is learnable about social interactions is both simple and learned quickly, or unlearnable. Be wary of the complexifiers and the ones who tell something as basically human as being social requires hours and hours of practice!
And make up your own minds about this - do YOU think the notion of gradual escalation is an insight that requires "genius", as Alek says? Seriously, think about that for a moment. And think more, do you think ANY social skills can takes thousands of hours to "master" or do you think most social skills are basic and simple and part of being human?
If so, why do you think someone will tell you some social skills are incredibly complex? Because they are socially off themselves, or because they don't want to accept some final limitations about their social prospects and harbor the utopian fantasy that if they can just figure it out, they can overcome their own biological limitations - the common underlying feature of all Enlightenment inspired utopian fantasies, from Communism to Game, that by "figuring things out", you can transcend biology"
And one more thing...it's not "skill" Alek.
DeleteThere are lots of reasons guys have few partners. Not everyone is as women obsessed as you are, Alek, and plenty of men have no interest in one night stands and parties and clubs and bars, or even if they are interested, don't feel comfortable in those environments and don't have a self-image allowing them to participate. Plenty of men want long-term girlfriends and then want to get married young, and plenty of men don't live in big cities with great nightlife and lots of women.
Of the small self-selected group of men who frequent bars and clubs and who are interested in one stands and want lots and lots of women rather than stable long term relationships, it would be interesting to see the partner counts of THOSE men.
But God forbid you consider anything nuanced or that doesn't fit your narrative, Alek.
You are clearly trolling. I wouldn't expect Alek to respond to you, but I'll leave your comments up as an example of some of the bullshit people submit to this blog.
DeleteI am another anon. Not the other two. But I don't disagree with the anons above that if you do lower your standards you can get laid with relative ease. Of course I am probably wrong but I went out 3 weeks in a row to one specific place. I had the following experiences:
Delete1) Night 1 I made out with some 27 year old, unattractive nurse. I would say a 4. She gave me her number. I think (don't know because never followed up) that I could have banged her. She seemed extremely interested.
2) Night 2 - Made out and kissed the breasts (skin to skin) of a 44 year old milf (nice body, ok face). I am sure (if I had followed up) that I could have fucked her.
3) Night 3 - blow out night...sausage fest at the club. Didn't approach anyone.
Of course I don't know what would have happened in case 1) or 2). From experience I know these things normally go nowhere. But I do believe that if all I wanted was sex with 'randoms' I could get it fairly easily. I have had sex this way before...met a woman at CFA exam and told her I wanted to fuck her...but it depressed the fuck out of me.
Generally I think if you are willing to go after older, uglier women and you really try you can get sex pretty straightforwardly. The main reason I didn't was because I don't want those women. I want a 20-26 year old, who is a 7 or 8 looks wise. AND THOSE ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH HARDER. Actually are they? No they aren't if you know were to go!!!! I made the mistake of going to the wrong club. The young ones there are not targeting me....but if I travel out of the way....I mean way out of the way where they frisk you for weapons at the entrance and half the club is black...then everything changes :)
Is this stuff hard? In some sense it is. I hate going to clubs. I hate the noise. I hate the environment. I hate trying to seduce some useless woman. Its also hard in another sense....
Its hard not to do what everyone else is doing. Is it hard not to spend $15000 dollars on your wedding. For me its easy. But for most Americans it is seemingly impossible. But actually reallys its pretty easy. But no actually its really not. But it is but its not. It is hard because we have a hard time doing things other people aren't doing.
Is it hard to get women. Psychologically tremendously so. I hate the rejection. I am entitled. I feel its demeaning for me to have to search. I hate it. Can't stand it. And yet...yet yet...ah fuck. Sometime you think of those moment...special moments which often went nowhere but yet maybe just maybe...if you had done this or that. THat cutey would have been yours. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the vast majority of cases they do hold the power. Any social setting in most cases its the man who has to approach the woman. Its the man has to make the sexual advances. If the girl is really ugly it might be different.Even those girls have options with decant good looking guys.
ReplyDeletePower can be misused, after all. The captain of the Exxon Valdez had power over where the ship went, but drove it into the rocks.
ReplyDeleteSpot on. I have yet to count how many women i met that could choose if they wanted to "meet" a guy etc. As a guy, that's not really happening to me (or the guys i know of personally)
ReplyDelete"PUA intellectualizes and rationalizes away bad behavior by women using evolutionary psychology. Women have the right to act like bitches, because evolution makes them that way. They have more to lose by getting pregnant, and they have more people approaching them than guys do, so they have to act like bitches when they reject you. Women need a protector, so they have to “shit test” you, that is, to test you by giving you an inordinate amount of childish, shitty treatment to see if you’re “good enough” to be with them. It basically sells you on the idea that women have a genetic basis for being shitty, bratty entitled cunts and it’s your job to work around this evolutionarily created reality. Shitty behavior becomes just a fact of life, and it’s up to you to overcome it."
ReplyDeletehttp://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-4/
This guy gets it. Read the whole thing. You guys will find it interesting. He breaks down the whole PUA movement from Mystery through the present day.
I've been saying the same things for years, just not in as complete a way or as persuasive.
"People think men are driven by pussy, and they’re just chasing sex. They aren’t. Sex matters to men less than the validation they get from sexual combined with conquests and affection (by affection I mean just any type of friendly, warm approving treatment). If it was really about sex in a vacuum rather than the ego validation that comes from the combination of sex, conquest and affection, most men would be happy with prostitutes and find them interchangeable with one night stands they meet in clubs. However they don’t. So it’s not really about the sex. It’s about knowing that they somehow earned a woman’s approval and affection along with the sex. She found them worthy. They like the sex not just because of how good it feels but because of what it stands for: female approval and affection. That is what guys really are driven by, not sex by itself.
Think about it, if men could live under the bridge in a cardboard box and still get sexual conquests and sexual affection, how could you sell them anything? If men became stingy with flattering attention, how could you sell them anything? Think of how much marketing and moneymaking revolves around the implicit promise to men “Do this and you will get sexual conquests.” Think of how much marketing and moneymaking revolves around the implicit requirement of men “It’s your job to provide flattering attention to women and seek their approval.” Think of how much government control revolves around making sure society revolves around those same principles. It prevents anarchy and keeps men under control in their eyes. That’s why it’s important to keep prostitution stigmatized and illegal. Otherwise, men may start finding sex without the added ego validation of conquest and affection to be almost as worthwhile as the socially accepted practice of jumping through hoops for so-called “free” sex, and at that point the social dynamic that is the engine of capitalism and civilization is fucked up."