Friday, February 10, 2012

What is your end-point?

The last few posts have alerted me to a problem I didn't see coming.
But in fact it is a problem which lies at the very heart of the confusion in the SMP.

Take the above  question for example:
What is the end-point of the dating game?

Here we find a huge disconnect.
Some people will answer, 'to get married'.
Some will answer 'to have a lasting marriage/relationship till death do us part'.

Now, I know that there is no gender divide when it comes to the answer to that question.

But, (and don't shoot the messenger), the number one complaint by modern men against modern women is that most if not all women will give the first answer, and that they would give the second answer.
It is the basis for the question: where are all the good women?
This is what I have observed.

But why do modern men think this?
The short answer is this:
High divorce rate being increasingly instigated by women (even though women would argue that they are pushed into it by unruly men!).

Another short answer is this:
Kim Kardashian and Heidi Klum.
These women are giving the rest of us the impression that they would like to get married, but not to remain married, certainly not beyond 'the good times'. I am sure they have not set out to do this deliberatly, but there we are. We can but draw lessons from those in the public eye.
I declined to take the bait when Charming Disarray proposed/invited thoughts on Kim K. But I have changed my mind (woman's perogative and all that).
This is because Kim K is actually relevant to this post.

As is Bellita's recent post on Masculine women.

Beginning with Bellita's post, there is a discussion there about two different types of women. The so-called 'masculine woman' or 'high T' woman and the regular woman.
Interestingly, I do not personally think there is necessarily a correlation between a woman having a 'masculine' outlook on things and being physically of the appearance of a 'high T' woman with the prominent jaw, narrow hips and so on. But there may be an overlap, for sure.
I believe Michelle Obama is a 'masculine woman'. Nothing to do with her height. Notice she has strong male influences in her life pre Barack.

Commenter 'just visiting' makes some extremely insightful points on Bellita's post.
One of them is this:

"Much has been said about the high risk of long term relationships with high T women. I think that it depends on a few things. High T means higher sex drive. More than likely they have a lot of male friends (And are able to relate well to men.) and their female friends will be high T as well. Slut tells in the manosphere.
Here’s the thing, we also have a higher chance of developing that one thing the men in the sphere claim women do not possess. Honor.
As well, there’s more of a chance of developing integrity, introspection,rationality, principals, and courage. It helps to be brought up with these things, and helps if society at large encourages those things, but it’s not always necessary.
These things are the “set” switch on the hamster, as opposed to the default setting that the sphere concentrates on. When things are not going well in a marriage, we may very well stick it out by rationalizing the importance of marriage. The stability and well being of children. What our faith means to us, this too shall pass, focusing on the positive traits of a husband, having the courage to walk through the mouth of hell to retrieve him or die trying in some cases. And having the strength to deal if we lose that battle, without becoming bitter and hard."

The so-called 'masculine woman' (not the 'sex-positive' variety of course - there is a difference between a high sex drive and promiscuity) is the one most likely to give the second answer to the above question.
She is the 'good woman' the men are looking for.

But where is she?

Precisely because of her thinking, she refuses to dress like Kim K. She refuses to appear so-called 'feminine' because she is disgusted at what 'feminine women' do. She is often very principled, she may even be fiercely religious or spiritual, but none of that is getting picked up by anyone, let alone her intended target.
She is not completely right in her thinking, of course.

She has a lot to learn from the 'feminine woman'.
If only she will outwardly display her femininity which is buried under all that 'masculine thinking', and therefore become more visible to men, she will be a 'winner takes all'.

In the same way as the 'beta' man with real character can learn 'Game' to become visible to women.
These two groups of people are not visible to each other because they are missing an essential ingredient in their gameplan. They are missing the chance to get their foot in the door, so to speak.

"I was fortunate enough to acquire feminine graces growing up. My father and my maternal grandmother saw to that. "

Notice that just visiting atrributes her femininity to both a man and a woman. It is a point I made in my Blue Pill post. A woman needs both masculine and feminine influences to 'get there'.
This is one reason why fatherlessness is a crime against humanity. I make this point in The sins of the Mother.
I make it here again.

As a side argument, I note to myself that there is plenty wrong with the film 'Fireproof' in which a man attempts to win back his wife who is well on her way to becoming unfaithful to him as a result of problems within their marriage.
Whilst I find the film unrealistic because Caleb is not at all typical of men who find themselves in the situation he finds himself, I find it interesting that the advice Caleb's father gives him actually comes from Caleb's mother. But somehow, it works better for Caleb when it is delivered by Caleb's father. Caleb's father knows this, which is why he does what he does.
Interesting. I don't know why this is.

Back to Kim K, I believe the big issue with her entourage is this:
She and her sisters effectively live in a matriarchy.
I believe her biological father, Robert Kardashian was a patriarch. But he died when the girls were young. A big shame.
Enter beta Bruce Jenner.

Like Seal, this is someone you could easily mistake for an 'alpha'. He won Olympic Gold. He looks like a masculine guy.
And yet, as step-father to Kim and her sisters, he is essentially invisible. He is led around by the nose by his wife, mother to the Kardashian clan. His only way to survive is to avoid them as much as possible. He has no authority whatsoever in his own household.

This is why the girls are 'ultra feminine' but ultimately, and yet paradoxically, end up being attracted to either 'badass' alpha types (as Bellita calls them, 'sizzle without the steak' kind of men) or beta men (who on the surface, again you could easily mistake for 'alpha' if you are not discerning or mature enough - Kris Humphreys is afterall a 6ft 9 professional athlete! And yet he was 'led a dance' by 5 ft 2 Kim).
Which begs the question: Who is telling these young men that it is a good idea to marry a woman whose only claim to fame is a sex tape? It's not even Blue Pill advice. Maybe yellow pill?
But...and it must be said, since his divorce announcement, Kris Humphreys has displayed a lot of maturity for one so young, to his credit. Watch out for this kid - in a few years he will be the real deal, and more. That's my prediction for him. All the makings of a decent mature fellow are there. He just got 'caught' early on in the game. In his case, recovery is everything.

Kim K's idea of femininity is an entirely female idea of femininity. It can be toxic for a long term relationship because the 'masculine' component is missing.
But, she is the one who is more visible to a man because of this same 'feminine femininity'.

A man with real ('inner' plus 'outer') Game can tell the difference between the two - the 'complete' and the 'incomplete' femininity.
He can confirm his suspicions with a little 'fitness test' of his own, aka 'alpha behaviour' even if he is intrinsically a beta man.
Kris Humphreys did not do this apparently.
So he got 72 days of what he thought would be a lifetime's worth of marriage.

Can Kim K recover?
The answer to questions like this is always 'yes'.
But it depends.
Can she mentally or physically separate herself from her toxic herd?
Not easy in her case, as the 'herd' is also her closest family.
But it can be done.
Can she find a 'father substitute' of susbstance who can give her what just visiting got? And I don't mean a 'sugar Daddy' type.

It does bear repeating: Quality people attract each other. Non-quality people also attract each other.
It is a law of...you guessed it, Nature.
To attract a quality person, one has to become quality oneself. Whatever 'quality' means to one.
No-one is born 'quality'. One has to simply work at it.



64 comments:

Bellita said...

Spacetraveller, this is an excellent analysis! The idea that "masculine women" are the "betas" of the female sex makes so much sense! I think I'll build another post out of it. ;)

As for Bruce Jenner . . . I don't watch the show, but I once read a recap from someone who did. She said that Bruce was upset when his own daughter was wearing a dress that he thought was inappropriate. He told her she wasn't allowed to wear it, and she cried and whined . . . only to have her mother whisper something like, "That's okay. We'll let you wear it when Daddy's not looking." A terrible example from Mommy, I think! :(

spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"The idea that "masculine women" are the "betas" of the female sex..."

Even better analysis :-)
This sentence alone could have replaced the entire post.

Dannyfrom504 said...

Very good post Love. You really are knocking it out of the park.

I think masculine women do naturally attract beta's. I'd NEVER let a woman dictate the relationship or insinuate how I think/feel. NEVER. The guys I run with would never allow a woman to frame them.

Wolves make are masters of their domain.

Bellita said...

@Spacetraveller

So now that we know that we're "beta," what do we do about it? Serious question!

By the way, the word verification box has me typing in "hyper"! Hahahaha!

spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

Thank you. How's the chest?

"I think masculine women do naturally attract beta's."

I think the operative word here is 'naturally'.

To answer Bellita's question, if a woman finds this is her natural 'pattern', why not do something a little different?

As Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over agian and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Bellita,
You already know and practise the answer to your question.
You've got the steak, like the decent beta man with real character. So you just add the 'sizzle', the outer Game (which the naturally beta man also has to learn in order to pull the ladies :-)

What is 'outer' Game for the ladies?
The 'feminine graces' which just visiting mentions.
It's already there. It just gets displayed outwardly and unashamedly unlike before.

Some ladies can do this on their own. With others, the 'switch' goes on after they meet 'the man who would be king', if you see what I mean :-)

spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"By the way, the word verification box has me typing in "hyper"!"

One cannot make stuff like this up :-)

Bellita said...

@Spacetraveller
With others, the 'switch' goes on after they meet 'the man who would be king', if you see what I mean :-)

Anacaona hinted at something like this. She said that she has very strong hands and is always the one her female friends ask to open tightly sealed jars. But when she is around her husband, she turns into a wilting flower and needs to ask for his help! She says that it's because her body recognizes he is her mate!

On a more abstract note, I agree that different people bring out different things in us. On Badger's blog, there was a post a couple of months ago that advised men to live in a place that brings out their best selves--and to move there, if necessary. That's a more drastic application of the advice to be with someone who brings out the best in you without even trying.

Bellita said...

PS-Perhaps I should change my blog's name to "Beta Bellita"! ;)

spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"PS-Perhaps I should change my blog's name to "Beta Bellita"! ;) "


I laughed out loud at this...

Might I say, I would prefer 'Bella Bellita' as it describes you better...

"On Badger's blog, there was a post a couple of months ago that advised men to live in a place that brings out their best selves--and to move there, if necessary."
I can see why this is a good idea.

When I was a schoolkid, a teacher of mine once came to my house. My studyroom was a mess because I was going through an 'untidy' phase. My teacher advised that simply tidying up my study area would help to declutter my mind and help to advance my studies.
I found that advice to be true.
To this day, if I want to declutter my mind, I start with 'decluttering' my environment whether it is at home or at work.
It does wonders for me every single time.

Your environment is everything. I agree with Badger.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I would say here, is to caution you about drawing conclusions from the lives of celebrities, about the general state of gender relations.

These people are so far from the norm, their lives become a parody of all that is screwed up in life.

The cult of celebrity that has bloated into a major industry, is no way to observe society. They are in no representative of average human beings, just as supermodel tall-and-thin size 0s are not representational of average females.

I view their lives as anecdotal, something to show my grandkids as bad examples, not celebrity worship. For the most part, they qualify for attention whore status, regardless of personal gender.

The Navy Corpsman

spacetraveller said...

@ Navy Corpsman @ 1.48PM,

:-)

Agreed.
Their tangential lives make good fodder for general discussion, though, don't they?
And being well-known means that they make for a good reference point for anecdotes.

But you are right - beyond that, nobody really cares about their lives...nor should they care.

Grasshopper said...

To your question in the OP - the end game is to have no regrets – no matter if you choose to marry or choose to GYOW.

Of course when we make a life decision we do not always know the outcome or if we might later regret choosing that path. And we never can know what might have been if we had taken that other fork in the road.

Even if we feel some regret at times that does not mean we made the wrong decision. Who knows if we had chosen the opposite we might be experiencing even more regret.

At the end of it all if you can look back and honestly say of your life “I did the best I could with what God gave me to work with.” No matter the actual outcome of your life’s endeavors – that is how you win the end game.

Grasshopper

Charming Disarray said...

Ha ha, I didn't think you would take the bait! :)

Very interesting about the Kardashians being a matriarchy...it really is. Except for Khloe! It's interesting because she's the least overtly feminine of them, and has a strong protective/aggressive streak, but in their relationship she allows Lamar to be the man and clearly wants it that way. So this certainly lines up with the point of your post. Totally unlike Kim/Kris, Kourtney/Scott, Kris/Bruce. (Phew!) I think Kim wanted it both ways. She wanted a strong man but also wanted to control him.

Sigh. I've spent too much time watching this show.

Charming Disarray said...

Oh, I wanted to add, though...there's a problem with the scenario of a woman learning feminine traits. Not in itself, of course, but in the effect it has on men. I don't think I'm "high T" but I identified with many of the comments on Bellita's post. I will stand up for myself and others, like to argue, and will analyse something to death...and men don't like this! But because I'm small, quiet, and seem ladylike and (dare I say it) submissive, I attract men who freak out and make stupid comments the moment they discover I am capable of having opinions and acting on them.

It would be so nice for a change to meet a man who isn't so easily threatened, or who doesn't end up feeling cheated because he thought I was a spineless Victorian maiden.

Incidentally, American men are much more guilty of this than any others I've met. A man I went out with in Scotland told me more than once, with genuine surprise, that he couldn't believe how apologetic I was being when told him things. I felt like I could talk to British men without constantly worrying that I was going to say something that was going to make them question their manhood.

And I seriously am soft-spoken, quite short, weigh less than a hundred pounds, and usually wear dresses. I have no idea how these men even survive in a world that contains women.

Bellita said...

@Charming Disarray

You like to argue??? Really?! Could have fooled me! ;)

Now here's my shocking confession . . . I love to argue, too! Gasp!

I'm a bit surprised that you say American men are most threatened by your demeanor. I'm not questioning your experiences, but the perception of American men where I grew up is very different. My cousin is married to an American and our grandmother is amazed at what my cousin can "get away with"--or rather, amazed at how tolerant and understanding her American husband is. And my own mother has recommended that I date an American because she thinks I'm too "strong" for local men. A depressing thought.

just visiting said...

@ Danny

I think that one of the interesting things that has come up in the discussions was that masculine minded women were more inclined to seek out femininity. The paradox being that while other women in the culture have been embracing masculine traits, the rest of us were actively developing the feminine. The Ladies at TC opining that such women were looking to men for their cues on femininity instead of the culture or women. The irony being that some of the most feminine women were masculine minded.

Thanks for the quotes ST. Quite the surprise to come over and find out that I was a guest of honor. Lol.

spacetraveller said...

I must say, all the recent comments made me laugh for one reason or another.

How nice to have lighthearted exchanges like these!


Thank you guys and girls :-)

@ Grasshopper @ 4.49PM,

You are right of course. The final end-point is to have done the best you could have done given what you were handed by the Good Lord.
That's a philosophical view, I guess. I was leaning more towards the practical/logistic side of things, but it's nice to be reminded that there is another view, which in fact trumps all others. Merci for that reminder.

@ Charming Disarray,

"Sigh. I've spent too much time watching this show."

Hahaha. I feel the same way. I am grateful that I now have no access to shows like that anymore, as I am no longer living in the English speaking world.
Except the french equivalents are just as bad :-)

I agree Khloe is a bit different from the others, yes. Interesting that she is also the tallest and most 'masculine-looking'? And yet the one who is the most 'feminine' in her relationship with her man?

How ironic indeed! The SMP/MMP is full of paradoxes, I find!

@ Bellita and Charming Disarray,

Interesting about your experiences of American and British men!

@ just visiting,
You're welcome. Please keep talking. Your words make a lot of sense to me.

Like your last comment: beautiful summary of what I was trying to say in the original post that took like a million words to say it :-)

Anonymous said...

spacetraveller said...

"Their tangential lives make good fodder for general discussion, though, don't they?"

I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm still at a loss to figure out what they have done to get celebrity status. Guess I have different notions as to what constitutes a celebrity.

Of course, a lot of my attitude may come from not watching TV.

The Navy Corpsman

spacetraveller said...

@ The Navy Corpsman,

"I'm still at a loss to figure out what they have done to get celebrity status."

So are we all, Navy Corpsman, so are we all :-)


Of course, a lot of my attitude may come from not watching TV.

You are one of the lucky ones, then.
:-)
I am trying to detox myself from TV - the very last of my entourage to do so...everyone else took the plunge years ago.
I restrict myself as much as possible to news channels...which are packed full with...celebrity interviews!

Can't win...

just visiting said...

ST, I have a theory, which you all may agree or disagree with. I'm cringing at the beta Bellita joke and I'll tell you why.

I think there's a very good reason why these women are looking to men for their cues and not women. They're wired for it. One thing that keeps coming up with masculine minded women is how they can't take cues from the herd, even if it's to their detriment. That's because in the natural order of things, they aren't meant to. In the natural order, the slightly elevated levels of T increase intelligence and dominance. These are the women who keep the herd in line. (Women respond to dominance from men AND women)

So, in the hypergamous days of old, these women ruled the harem while the male was out hunting. Because of their wiring to male cues, they'd be inclined to pleasing behaviors to the male. Hightened sex drive, same thing.

In a civilized society, male cues made for ultra feminine women who then enforced those standards on the others. (Remember some of the remarks at Belita's about the church ladies?)

In a society where the male cues are confused and mixed, complimenting masculine behavior in women but silently disliking it, creates conflict. And some of the situation that we are seeing.

spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

Actually, I like your theory - for the same reason as all your other comments - because it makes sense!

In fact, I don't think your theory conflicts at all with the 'beta woman' concept, if you define 'beta' as the woman who cannot seem to 'get the guy' because of outward/external issues which make her 'invisible' to the opposite sex.

I got a little question though:
In your theory, is this 'dominant woman' actually more or less attractive to the male?

The reason I ask this question is that in a naturally occurring harem, as in a polygamous marriage in a small tribe somewhere in the Amazon, there is of course such a woman as the one you describe. She would normally be the oldest wife, and she would rule the household in the absence of the man.
But this woman is also the least (sexually) desirable because her dominance comes from natural androgeny caused by her declining oestrogen:testosterone ratio.

Or is it possible that in fact this woman is the man's favourite wife, because she understands him the most having been with him the longest, and he can therefore truly be who he wants to be with her, whereas with the younger wives, he may find them sexually appealing, but beyond that he doesn't truly enjoy their company because they are a bit 'foreign' to him?

Maybe a man could help us with the answer here (polygamous or not?)

(No-one's going to tell the cops :-)

just visiting said...

In a naturally occurring harem, the most sexually pleasing and dominant woman leads. There are no old wives as that is a structure of civilization. It's not natural, but starts to occur when groups of people create tribes and rules.

Charming Disarray said...

@Bellita

Yes, my love of arguing is a very well-kept secret, ha ha. :)

"I'm a bit surprised that you say American men are most threatened by your demeanor. I'm not questioning your experiences, but the perception of American men where I grew up is very different. My cousin is married to an American and our grandmother is amazed at what my cousin can "get away with"--or rather, amazed at how tolerant and understanding her American husband is. And my own mother has recommended that I date an American because she thinks I'm too "strong" for local men. A depressing thought."

Interesting. If you don't mind my asking, where is "local" for you? I had thought you were in the US. I would like to believe that in some places American men are like your cousin's husband, but my experience has been that most have a huge chip on their shoulder. Either that or they're doormats. This is partly because of where I am, which is West Coast in an area not known for its manly men.

However, I've suspected for a while that I send out a signal that attracts sensitive, insecure men, and fails to catch the notice of more confident ones. I honestly think I attract a lot more of my fair share of this type, which is annoying. My ex-boyfriend was hyper-sensitive to anything he perceived as unfeminine in women and used to tease me about how I talked to my sister on the phone. We just talk normally to each other, and never use gushy, squeaky, girly voices. He would say we "sounded like soldiers."

Soldiers.

spacetraveller said...

@ CD,

"This is partly because of where I am, which is West Coast in an area not known for its manly men."

Are these men you refer to 'cheerful' or synonyms thereof, by any chance?

Charming Disarray said...

Ha ha, I'm not talking about those. (Although there are plenty of them.) The ones who are not synonyms of cheerful tend to be on the nerdy side, though. But my ex was from the midwest, so there's more going on here than meets the eye.

Anonymous said...

I know this is going to sound harsh, and I don't mean it that way, probably NOT what ya'll want to hear on a blog, but:

Don't overanalyze this stuff.

hxxp://www.relationshipcontract.net/x3TwoSidesOfStory.html

And hey, don't make fun of nerds, I are one.

The Navy Corpsman

spacetraveller said...

@ The Navy Corpsman,

Hahaha!

So true...

:-)

Bellita said...

@Just Visiting
In a civilized society, male cues made for ultra feminine women who then enforced those standards on the others. (Remember some of the remarks at Belita's about the church ladies?)

Oh, I remember, at least. :P I'm not enough of a natural leader to be a "church lady" (although a male friend has called me a natural "instigatrix"), but I admire anyone who is above "the herd."

Now, do you remember the one commenter on my thread who left an entire religion because of the church ladies in her former community? I wonder if her averse reaction to their dominance has less to do with it being "unnatural" and more to do with her own "masculine" ideas about which laws should be laid down? If the latter, then she's already more of a "church lady" than I am!

@Charming Disarray
For me, "local" means the Philippines. :)

Now you're making me wonder how I sound when I talk to my best friend on the phone. :/

Charming Disarray said...

"Now you're making me wonder how I sound when I talk to my best friend on the phone. :/"

Oh, please don't! This guy's subtle but effective influence in my life has left me paranoid about many similar things, which I think I overcompensate for by acting like a nervous goody-two-shoes, which is totally opposed to who I am and apparently attracts the attention of very insecure men who are afraid to talk to anyone else. You do not want this!

just visiting said...

@ Bellita

The church ladies were an extreme example. Very clumsy use of influence. (And rather un necessary) Though literature through out the ages tells of such women.

Influencing positive good is a subtler thing in this day and age. A good example being blogging. Ha.

Anonymous said...

What is the end-point of the dating game?

Therein lies the central question, the Gretchen frage of this dance between the sexes.

The conventional answer is marriage.

Tried that. I'm now in the end stages of Number Three. Given my own experiences (Wife #1 was high-T, Wife #2 was bat-shit crazy, and #3 has a bunch of issues), I have no desire to continue pursuing the conventional wisdom.

And Marriage 2.0 is a fool's errand for men in America.

Should I follow the Roissy / Heartiste model of collecting flags? Sexual variety has its perks, but first-time sex with a new woman is rarely as satisfying as sex built on shared experience.

So what else is there?

For me, I plan to resume plate-spinning. I was happiest between Wives #2 and 3.

I had a "soft harem" of three women. Sex with each one just kept getting better over time. I had variety, they each had my undivided attention when I was with them. Pleasant conversation, good company, enjoyable activities, great sex.

Each woman was vaguely aware of the others. All knew that they were important to me, but not irreplaceable. And I to them. No expectations of marriage, but some expectations of a LTR.

For this middle-aged man, that's my desired end-state.

YMMV.

Bellita said...

@Just Visiting
The church ladies were an extreme example. Very clumsy use of influence. (And rather unnecessary) Though literature through out the ages tells of such women.

History throughout the ages tells of such women . . . and of course, I am personally most familiar with Church history. ;) So I don't really think church ladies are an extreme example.

The Germans have a saying that a woman's three concerns are Kirche, Kueche and Kinder (sp?): church, kitchen and children. Traditionally speaking, next to the raising of her own children, the religious life of her community is where a woman can wield the most influence. I'd bet that many of the canonized abesses, queens, female founders and female reformers were high-T women. (And interestingly, they all had a "best friend" who was a man.)

spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous @ 8.30PM,

Sadly that is a typical male story these days.

I am sorry to hear of your experiences. Yes it takes two to tango.
But relationships/marriage are a woman's domain, so once a man commits to a woman who loves him,(him being the gatekeeper to marriage/commitment) she should see it for what it is (a gift of his 'freedom') and work to show him he didn't 'run a fool's errand'...
Not a popular view, I expect, but there we are...

Out of interest, Anonymous, might we tap into your thoughts on your little harem? (Thanks for mentioning it by the way - was that a little cue for me to pick up? If so, here I am picking it up!)
Do you have a 'dominant' one? Is she higher T than the rest? Is she your 'most desired' in the physical sense too?

Don't be shy.
Please spill the beans. We are all ears.
I would like to see if JV's theory does play out in real life.

I suspect it does, but any evidence to back it up would be gratefully received :-)


@ JV @ 12.06PM,

I am liking your theory better and better.
:-)

Let's hope 'Anonymous' and other men can back it up for us.

I must say though, I don't like the idea of 'harems', on principle.
I know your theory is based on the concept of the 'harem' being the wider population of women in general, as opposed to an actual harem, but I am sure we will get examples and anecdotes of actual harems that individual men are keeping :-D

Why stay in the classroom when you can go out and get field practice? I won't turn up my nose at 'field practice' if that's handed to me on a platter :-)


@ Bellita,

KInder, K├╝che, Kirche...yes, like the English equivalent, Barefoot and pregnant. Tied to the kitchen sink.

Whilst it sounds extremely sexist and oldfashioned now, I cannot help but wonder...is it so bad, in marriage ?
I agree, it is not so great to be barefoot and pregnant when you are single , i.e. not committed to baby's father...

I dunno.
I'll have to come back and give a verdict once I have tried the pregnant and barefoot thing myself, I suppose.

Until then I guess I am not really qualified to talk too much about it...
But it's good to talk nonetheless, huh? :-)

spacetraveller said...

Another question to Anonymous @ 8.30PM,

Have I got this right?

To you, a LTR with ONE woman is the best option, but if that goes south, then 3 LTRs with 3 simultaneous women, i.e. a 'soft harem' is still better than sexual variety in the form of ONS?

If so, have you always felt this way? Or is this a function of age?

At age 23, if someone had siad to you: 'I give you 1000 women - you can have one a day for the next 1000 days, and then after 1000 days, you will say goodbye and not see any of them again - with the possibility of another new set of 1000 women thereafter, rinse and repeat for the rest of your life' and 'here are 3 women - you can have all 3 everyday for the next 1000 days, but no-one else, and with the option of keeping all 3 for life'...

At age 23, which would you have picked?

At age 50, which would you pick? (I think you have answered this latter question already :-)

Or would you in fact pick neither option at both ages and prefer the monogamy of marriage to one woman, if only she was 'worthy' in your eyes?

Just curious...

Anonymous said...

SpaceTraveller,

I'll try to answer your questions over the next day or so.

To you, a LTR with ONE woman is the best option, but if that goes south, then 3 LTRs with 3 simultaneous women, i.e. a 'soft harem' is still better than sexual variety in the form of ONS?

I think marriage is the best option. Committed, soul-entwining marriage. "One flesh."

I thought I had that with Wife #1. I was wrong.

I was an alpha at work (where she met me). Once married, I became the ultimate supportive beta at home.

She began an affair with the AMOG of our social group the first year of our marriage. Then she switched to affairs with women. Apparently, everyone in our circle knew, except me.

This went on for 21 years and two children.

I'll add to the story later.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@JV

Please let me riff off your statement:

I think that one of the interesting things that has come up in the discussions was that masculine minded women were more inclined to seek out femininity. The paradox being that while other women in the culture have been embracing masculine traits, the rest of us were actively developing the feminine. The Ladies at TC opining that such women were looking to men for their cues on femininity instead of the culture or women. The irony being that some of the most feminine women were masculine minded.

Wife #1 was high-T. I met her and married her just as we both entered high-T careers (military service).

She went from an environment where her looks (below average face) were a detriment to a 90% male environment where they mattered little and she could have a pick of men.

She married me (decent looks, moderately alpha, strong beta qualities). Then she took up with the AMOG of our social group, a Roissy-level player.

She started a series of affairs with women. First with another high-T woman, the rapidly switching to highly feminine women. She sought out the feminine in her lovers, while keeping me as the homemaker and occasional stud service.

More to follow.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

At 23, I was totally in the Blue Pill world. I would have opted for the single LTR over the other options.

Now at 54, I'd still like that. But I think the odds of my finding and maintaining such are minimal. So I'm going a different way.

One thing that was missing in Marriage #1 was nurturing children. Wife #1 lost interest in our first-born when he was about 2-1/2. She stepped off the Mommy Track and dove back into 60 - 70 hour work weeks. I became de facto Mom. When our daughter was born five years later, Wife #1 returned to work after six weeks and said the nurturing was on me.

The other thing that was missing from Marriage #1 was companionship. The intertwining of lives. Having someone to call in the middle of the day and say, "How is your day? Can I tell you a bit about mine?"

Calls went unanswered. My day would close with feeding, bathing, and tucking in the kids by myself. Wife #1 often got home just as I had the kids in bed, so she would wake them up and get her Mommy fix with them. Then fall asleep on the floor of their room. Lather, rinse, repeat Monday thru Friday.

About ten years into this, is started an affair with an old high school friend. Her husband held a low-status job, didn't want kids, and just wanted to pursue his hobbies.

Since we lived in different cities, the affair was phone calls two or three times a week and sex once or twice a year. I got companionship from her and paid her for it with reciprocal companionship and occasional sex.

This went on for ten years, until the guilt of my adultery became too much. I ended the affair and divorced Wife #1.

More to follow.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

The harem was "soft" because the women didn't interact with one another. No "senior wife" managing the junior wives and concubines.

Member A was a cougar of my own age (the late 40s). No kids still at home. She'd been a dominatrix. Her comment after the first time we made love was that it was the best she'd every had. The sexual gratification she sought in dominance, she found with me. And it kept improving with practice.

Member B was a semi-virgin. Married a few years, divorced for seven years when she met me. I was her first relationship post-divorce. Helped her have her first orgasm. She was hooked from there on. I think she had hopes of turning it into marriage, but I never encouraged her thinking.

Member C had gone thru an ugly and public divorce a few years before. She was open to marriage with me, but only if I abandoned my kids. Sex between us was good. She said I wasn't the best she'd ever had, but I was the best first-time and showed lots of potential.

Member D was a struggling single mom. Two girls, long hours, close but disfunctional extended family. She lied to me about birth control and became pregnant on our second date. I married her. She is, for now, Wife #3.

More to follow.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

At age 23, if someone had siad to you: 'I give you 1000 women - you can have one a day for the next 1000 days, and then after 1000 days, you will say goodbye and not see any of them again - with the possibility of another new set of 1000 women thereafter, rinse and repeat for the rest of your life' and 'here are 3 women - you can have all 3 everyday for the next 1000 days, but no-one else, and with the option of keeping all 3 for life'...

Thirty years ago, the one-a-day variety pack would have sounded good.

Today, I''m not that interested in ONS. Although most of the women I've made love to said I was the best they'd ever had (or their best first time with a new man), I can't say the same for them.

Quality of sex is greatly dependent upon repeated experience with the same partner. I've been making love with Wife #3 two or three times a week for seven years. We are approaching (if not past) our 1000th session together. Porn stars would be jealous of the quality of sex we have now.

The first time I made love with her, she came five times. She said (and I believe her) that it was the best sex she'd ever had. Now, five or ten for her is just foreplay.

As for the soft harem, I never expected long term stability. Rather, I expected that over time the membership would change. I might get bored with one and stop getting together with her. One might find a better arrangement with another guy and opt out. Either way, no problem. Always another bus coming soon.

In sum, I'm not interested in the serial ONS a la Roissy. The quality of sex is likely to be low. And the bang-to-buck ratio is unfavorable.

Rather, I will recruit a team of three or four and keep up a gentle rotation. Always looking for new talent to replace tired / retiring playmates.

Doe this help you understand the situation any better?

Bill

spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

I must say I really appreciate you giving so much detail about your life experiences here.
It is invaluable to those of us who haven't been through as much as you and would like some guidance.
So thank you again.

I have heard more than one man say they prefer a LTR with one (or a few!) women than ONS.
Being a woman, and seeing the behaviour (and knowing the biology :-) of men, I did find it hard to believe that, I have to say. Until I realised that wanting something and going about it the wrong way are not in fact mutually exclusive :-)

But seriously, is this really true for the majority of men?
Really??
Or just a principled few?

You mentioned an infidelity on your part. Was it done as 'revenge' to Wife No 1 because of her own infidelity, or was it more 'accidental' than that.
Do you feel then, that you are 'even' in some way, and therefore is her infidelity easier to forgive? Or does it make no difference at all, because she was the first to cheat?
I just want to understand the 'dynamics' of this, if you are able to share.

I understand that when someone experiences their greatest fear, they have one of several reactions:
1. They cease to have any more fears, i.e. the worst has happened, so they're 'done.' Such people are slightly 'dangerous' because they are utterly fearless and can be therefore scary, in a good way :-)

2. They become fearful of the next tragedy round the corner. They become the 'walking dead', too afraid to live life anymore.

3. They get slightly unhinged in that they think, 'huh, was that ALL'? and they actively seek out more pain because now they think, 'if I could handle the last one...'
The difference between this group and Goup No 1 is that Group No 1 don't go looking for trouble. They are not gluttons for punishment, but are stronger than before.

Question: Which group do you think you are in? And which group do you think most men are really in, deep down when it comes to a failed marriage?

I have heard it said that after a failed marriage, women turn against men, but men turn against marriage.
I don't know if people here agree or disagree with that.
In your case, you got married twice more after No 1, so it isn't true for you. Until now, anyway.


By the way, what is a 'bang-to-buck ratio'?

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

I'll follow up on some of this privately.

As for "bang-to-buck ratio", it's how many bucks I have to spend to get laid.

Examples:

1. Dinner for two at a nice restaurant could easily top $50. Add drinks for $20 or $30 more, maybe a movie for $15. A single date, which might end in a ONS, could easily cost $100. One bang for $100.

2. Same date results in an ongoing relationship. Some future dates are similar, some much less expensive ($20 - 30), and some are zero cost (sex only). Bang to buck probably under $50.

3. "Escort" from Craigslist could easily to $150 for a "date".

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

You mentioned an infidelity on your part. Was it done as 'revenge' to Wife No 1 because of her own infidelity, or was it more 'accidental' than that.
Do you feel then, that you are 'even' in some way, and therefore is her infidelity easier to forgive? Or does it make no difference at all, because she was the first to cheat?


No thought of revenge. She had asked my permission to have her affair (this was in the early 1980s, "open marriage" and all that BS). I didn't know until after the divorce that she started years before she asked for permission. And kept getting new partners along the way.

I felt guilt at breaking my marriage vows. As my adultery continued over the years, that guilt corroded my soul. I hated myself.

As the years went by, I realized that my wife would never have more than a token interest in me. I needed the other woman's attention in order to stay married to Wife #1. I finally accepted that, in order to end the affair, I would also have to divorce my wife.

It sucked.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

I understand that when someone experiences their greatest fear, they have one of several reactions:

1. They cease to have any more fears, i.e. the worst has happened, so they're 'done.' Such people are slightly 'dangerous' because they are utterly fearless and can be therefore scary, in a good way :-)

2. They become fearful of the next tragedy round the corner. They become the 'walking dead', too afraid to live life anymore.

3. They get slightly unhinged in that they think, 'huh, was that ALL'? and they actively seek out more pain because now they think, 'if I could handle the last one...'

The difference between this group and Goup No 1 is that Group No 1 don't go looking for trouble. They are not gluttons for punishment, but are stronger than before.

Question: Which group do you think you are in? And which group do you think most men are really in, deep down when it comes to a failed marriage?


I'm in Group 1. I can explain why, but I'd rather not do it in public..

I can't really speak for other men. We don't get together, talk about these things, and compare notes.

Big life tragedies, like divorce, change people.

Men who were fearless Alphas can lose their self-confidence, the thing that makes them Alphas.

Betas can stop caring about the people around them, part of their Beta essence.

Those poor schlubs who married the only woman who ever noticed them get divorced and give up on women altogether. MGTOW squared and cubed. Bitter guys who go off the reservation..

That's my take.

Bill

spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

"MGTOW squared and cubed. Bitter guys who go off the reservation..That's my take."

I like 'your take', Bill.

The thing with MGTOW is that it is in fact a self-regulating problem. A woman cannot communicate with a MGHOW who never comes back nor looks back, no matter how far out of the reservation she ventures in search of him.
If he has left the playing field, his scorecard is reset to zero and given to someone else. The only ones in the sporting arena are those willing to play the game.

"As the years went by, I realized that my wife would never have more than a token interest in me."

This is undoubtedly one of the saddest things I have ever heard come out of a man's mouth.
And of course, I have indeed heard this many times.
A man should never have to speak of his wife (present or former) in these terms.
A woman who LJBF'ed him 10 years ago, sure.
A woman who he had a casual thing with, sure.
But not his wife.
I have personally seen what this sentiment does to a man. Not nice.
So I feel for you.

"I felt guilt at breaking my marriage vows. As my adultery continued over the years, that guilt corroded my soul. I hated myself."

Perhaps she felt this way too?


Re your comment @ 3.41PM, problem solved.

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

Perhaps she felt this way too?

I don't really know. How do any of us know what's really going on within the mind of another?

She expressed little anger about my adultery and no remorse about her own. Her anger and resentment were directed towards my decision to divorce her. The rationalization hamster was spinning the wheel at Mach 1.

During the divorce, she told me that I could continue my affair, as long as I stopped the divorce.

She tried to mobilize the small church we attended into shaming me enough to end the divorce. I left. The priest got "reassigned" to an obscure backwater church. And most of the spiritually healthy members of the congregation left.

Since i was still in the military when the divorce began, she contacted my commanding officer. She told him I was erratic and suicidal and that I should be committed to a psychiatric facility. He declined to do so.

I think Danny is trying to open a private line of communication for us.

Bill

dannyfrom504 said...

i had/have a soft harem. they know they aren't the only ones i have but they also don't really ask about it too much.

spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

"She tried to mobilize the small church we attended into shaming me enough to end the divorce. I left. The priest got "reassigned" to an obscure backwater church. And most of the spiritually healthy members of the congregation left.

Since i was still in the military when the divorce began, she contacted my commanding officer. She told him I was erratic and suicidal and that I should be committed to a psychiatric facility. He declined to do so."


This is actually fairly typical behaviour for a woman who is hurt and has gone 'emotional'.
At least the thought of doing stuff like this would cross most women's minds. It is 'normal'.
But what stops most of them from proceeding with this plan of action?
I refer back to your heartrending comment which you made at 3.38PM; Feb 12, and which I respond to in my comment at 2.41AM, Feb 13.

It is the absence of such a 'token interest' in a man that would prevent her from going all the way into her plan to annihilate you.
If she had loved you more than in a 'token' manner, I promise you, after her cooling off period, things would have been alright again.

I am sorry you encountered a situation like this.



@ Danny,

They know there are other women? And they are OK with that?
Are you sure?

I have a theory as to why they don't really ask questions...

But I wonder if any other women have their own theory on this before I divulge mine?

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

But what stops most of them from proceeding with this plan of action?

It is the absence of such a 'token interest' in a man that would prevent her from going all the way into her plan to annihilate you.
If she had loved you more than in a 'token' manner, I promise you, after her cooling off period, things would have been alright again.


IMHO, the situation with Wife #1 was atypical. This was not, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." Rather, this was the inverse. She didn't love me, but she loved the fact that I was in love with her. She treasured the relationship, just not me. She didn't care what I did, so long as the relationship endured. As long as I remained the dutiful and supportive wife, I could do as I pleased.

Why did she act out what other women in similar situations only contemplate? I can't say for sure. My conclusion was that she had developed a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

She saw no boundaries between what she wanted and my life. I was an implement to help her achieve her ends. She wanted a powerful career: I was there to support her. She wanted to be seen as having a great marriage: I was the dutiful and adoring husband. She wanted intelligent, well-mannered children: I nurtured them.

When I stopped providing those things, she first sought to coerce me back into line. She told me directly she would inflict so much pain on every aspect of my life that I would stop the divorce and return. And she tried her best.

Why don't other women in similar situations go thru with such actions? I think because of a sense of limits, which Wife #1 lacked.

Bill

spacetraveller said...

Bill,

"She treasured the relationship, just not me."

I just realised something, reading this.

I have heard before that men marry when 'the time is right'.

It took me a long time to realise that in fact, it has nothing to do with time per se.
It is the arrival of 'the right woman'.
Because men need never worry about 'time'.

'Time' is a woman's word. Because a woman never quite gets too much of time. Because of her biology.
So a woman is more likely to settle 'when the time is right' and not necessarily with 'the right man'.
And this is why, a 'marriage' or 'relationship' becomes more important than 'the man'.
I think I touched on this a bit in 'The Reluctant bride'. But you confirm it for me with this comment of yours.

I am not a fan of this phenomenon, because as in your case, and in many I have seen or heard of, I can see the pain this causes.
And I totally agree with you that it is indeed selfish.

I don't know enough about NPD to agree or disagree with you on whether it goes as far as that.

I have my suspicions about that, but I better keep them to myself :-)

Bellita said...

I have a theory as to why they don't really ask questions...

But I wonder if any other women have their own theory on this before I divulge mine?


It seems obvious to me. Even without any sex involved (on any side), if I were dating a man who was seeing other women too, I'd ask questions only if I wanted us both to be exclusive and if I were willing to cut line completely if his answer were no.

spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

I think your theory is very similar to mine, but not identical.
To summarise yours, the woman may be too fearful of losing the guy altogether if she were to reveal that she wanted him all to herself (some might say that under these circumstances she never really had him in the first place, of course...)

Mine is, she wouldn't ask questions so she could use the argument of 'plausible deniability' later on, in other words, 'Oh, he had other women? I had some inkling but I didn't know for sure'.

It is a face-saving move.
A kind of cousin of the 'hamster'.

Dannyfrom504 said...

They don't ask because I live in Florida and they are in new Orleans. I'm cool with all them though. I spend time with them talk with them, but we just happen to have sex sometimes.

Anonymous said...

@Bellita

I think you are on the right track for most women. "Don't ask the question if you can't live with the answer""."

@SpaceTraveller

For some women, saving face is important. Especially with themselves.

Nice analogy with the hamster wheel.

Bill

Anonymous said...

@SpaceTraveler

The difference between this group and Goup No 1 is that Group No 1 don't go looking for trouble. They are not gluttons for punishment, but are stronger than before.

Question: Which group do you think you are in? And which group do you think most men are really in, deep down when it comes to a failed marriage?


I said in an earlier post that I'm in Group No. 1. I have experienced my worst fear. More than once. I thought my first divorce was a bad as life could get. I was wrong.

My losses didn't leave me stronger than before. They took away a part of me that I can't replace. I learned to compensate for the losses, like a man who loses his dominant hand learns to use his other hand to write. The handwriting isn't the same as before. And it isn't better than before. But it isn't gone altogether.

I'm not fearless. But I have become like the honey badger: I don't give a sh!t about a lot of things in life.

I can't say with any authority how "most men" emerge from divorce. Equal distribution amongst the three groups you describe? I dunno.

Bill

badgerw said...

@ SpaceTraveler

Another way of viewing the "bang-to-buck" ratio.

http://kaneadvice.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/cost-per-notch-redux/

spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

Although I thank you wholeheartedly for educating me, I have to say, I REALLY wish I hadn't looked at this link.

Danny always pre-warns me when he has something of a 'male locker room' nature to show me...

And now I know why I like Danny so much :-)

Bill, next time, please warn me.
I can only take so much!
My sensibilities should not be this delicate, having delved into Manosphere territory...

But alas, they are :-)
Hahaha

Anonymous said...

@ SpaceTraveller

Oops!

Sorry to offend your "delicate" sensibilities. I thought Kane was pretty refined and gentle, as opposed to my "honey badger" approach of bang-to-buck ratio.

I guess I'll have to get back in touch with the beta side of my personality.

Bill

Bellita said...

Re: Kane

I think he's pretty mild and woman-friendly, too! I once sent one of his links to a dear friend, and she wrote back, horrified and calling his writing "poison." But I've found a lot of his stuff helpful (either directly or indirectly) and am sorry he isn't blogging regularly any longer.

spacetraveller said...

@ Bill and Bell,
Hahaha, your names match!
:-)

I must admit my last comment on Kane's link was half in jest.

I am not familiar with Kane's blog. Glad to hear he is woman-friendly normally, Bell.

I should explain...
I guess there is no 'delicate' way of calculating the price of a woman's 'favours' - not to a woman anyway. That was the source of my 'sensibilities' being ruffled...
But if I try really hard to look at this rationally, I guess it is no different from a woman sizing up a man to figure out his earning potential before she gets involved with him, as has been the case since time immemorial, and is actually a declining art nowadays...
I guess I am being hypocritical, yes.

But... and here is the strange thing...when Bill explained 'bang to buck ratio' succinctly like he did, I didn't bat an eyelid. I was even slightly amused. But when another guy explains it, in such a detailed way, I get all offended :-)

It was just the fact that a whole post had been dedicated to the mathematics of ... a woman's worth in purely sexual terms.
I also realise that there may be an element of 'stranger danger' involved here too, perhaps. (Clearly this is not restricted to children LOL). I 'know' Bill. So I have no problem with anything he says. He can't possibly offend me. Even if he says something I don't like, he is still my 'friend'. A strange man (Kane, in this case) is unfortunately subject to my 'b*tch shield' until I decide whether he is 'safe'.

Somehow, I have no problem with prostitution per se. If a woman is fully aware of the consequences, fine.

But it kinda wasn't funny to see that a woman's body (and clearly Kane was not talking about prostitutes here) was being evaluated in a purely economic way like that. I guess Kane was being as woman-friendly as he possibly could, but the subject matter just wouldn't allow him to be as woman-friendly as I would like!
Like I said, maybe I am being a hypocrite on this issue because we women do it all the time to the guys...
But...it must be said, a man's version is somehow so much cruder (sorry boys, I say that in all humility, respectful of your 'biology').

And...believe it or not, I don't think I am a 'prude'. Stop laughing, I am serious :-)

I guess there are certain parts of the male mind I just shouldn't venture into...
I should take Danny's advice on this for sure :-)

But I still say, thank you Bill. It's good to touch raw nerves once in a while. Otherwise how do you know you are alive?


God, now my other problem is, how do I keep CD from seeing this thread?
Just a wild guess, but I think CD would be much more sensitive to this issue than I am, given her reaction to NC's 'missed kiss'.

Just a guess...

Bellita said...

@Spacetraveller
Now that I think about it, the first time I saw that post, I didn't care for it, either. It was only in the context of the rest of Kane's blogging that I was able to process it.

But there is an economic component (and not necessarily a crude one!) to courtship and dating that I think most women would do well to be aware of.

I recall another blogger writing about a woman who had had nearly a hundred first dates in a single year and still hadn't found a boyfriend. A commenter's reaction: "Women have no idea what it's like to date them!" My own reading between the lines: "If a woman had had to pay for those dates, she wouldn't have blithely gone on so many and/or written off all the men she had invested that money on."

Hence the common Manosphere maxim: "What else do you have to offer a man (besides sex)?"

Anonymous said...

@ SpaceTraveller

...now my other problem is, how do I keep CD from seeing this thread? Just a wild guess, but I think CD would be much more sensitive to this issue than I am...

This is where we insert the obligatory boilerplate discussion about "taking charge of one's own feelings," AKA "put on your Big Girl panties."

Bill

spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it that way.
In the end, we are all cattle in a dairy farmer's market...

:-)

I don't quite know why it is so hard for me to see it in such simplistic terms :-(
I think I have an element of 'head-in-the-clouds syndrome' about this somewhat.
I just have this mental block about it that I can't easily shake off. Not a 'non-negotiable', but close :-P

@ Bill,

Haha.

Maybe it is only me who needs the 'big girl panties' LOL.

For all I know CD would be completely fine about the whole 'bang-to-buck ratio' discussion, making me so surprised I would need those big girl panties for entirely different reasons :-)

You never know, in this world...
Eternal optimist, me :-)

Bellita said...

@ST

I think you're just a hopeless romantic! ;)

(Full disclosure: So am I!)

And there's nothing wrong with failing to see something in simplistic terms. I'm sure even Kane would admit that while bang-to-buck ratio is one consideration when he is looking for a woman, it is not the only one.

I can't remember who said it first, but someone explained that the reason you'll find a lot of stuff simultaneously presented simplistically and blown out of proportion in the Manosphere is that this style of communication is both good for teaching and good for encouraging men to join the discussion. Women may be put off at first glance, but we're not the main target audience.

Along those lines, I have anti-Manosphere friends who say they are amazed at how well the same things sound after I write about them in a style more appealing to women. Same content, different style. I do my best. ;)

spacetraveller said...

Hahaha, Bell,

Either that or romantically hopeless :-)

I love these little 'wortspiels' by the way.

My old boss had a favourite catchphrase: Working hard, or hardly working?

You are right about the 'translation' that is sometimes required when discussing male-female issues. I must say, you in particular are good at this 'translation'.
Definitely makes it more palatable when someone can 'gender-ise' it appropriately.
I always find it fascinating and sometimes amusing when The Private Man and his male friends 'decode' some poor woman's words into language only men would find appealing...

It really is not pretty, and sometimes it really does border on the distasteful, but I guess as you say we are not the intended audience.
I guess it might be equally distasteful to a man to sit through a 'chick flick' for 2 hours, LOL.

So, to protect myself, I really will obey when it says on the locker room door, 'Keep out'.

:-)