But I do not expect a man to understand this.
And what's more, I would not like to see a man play the victim along with me.
I have female friends for that.
I did not know this about myself before I stepped into the Manosphere jungle.
I invite the males in my entourage to 'play the victim' with me all the time without even realising it. But now I know I would not want them to take the bait. For them to do so would be to lose serious credibility with me. I know this now.
None of them has ever taken the bait so far.
Good boys.
They are not all 'alpha'.
And yet, they are consistently men I can look up to.
Because they have never failed a fitness test of mine. At least, not this particular one.
The concept of 'fitness testing' is one that I notice is bandied about in the Manosphere a lot.
I asked myself, 'why is this?' a lot, before I began to see a few patterns.
Fitness testing is very much a part of feminine behaviour. Like 'tossing men back out into the parade', it is a necessary part of a woman's life. Femininity is all about fulfilling this function. Women who accept 'all and sundry' and do not do any fitness testing are worse off than those who do a little 'filtering'.
This is something I would not expect a man to understand, but full marks to him if he does.
In one of Bellita's posts, she recounts a Muslim man trying to convince her that her 'reward' for converting to Islam would be 'a thousand men' or something to that effect.
Bellita's response to that is typical of a woman's reaction to this: absolute horror.
That man was projecting his own standards to a woman. It doesn't work. Because men and women are different. A woman is never truly interested in more than a few men in her entire lifetime. Of those few, she must still do some filtering. There are always outliers, sure. But for now, we concentrate on the inliers.
I think life is hard for a woman these days (playing the victim :-) but I also have more sympathy for men these days (snapping out of it :-)
Why?
Life became hard for women when they had to go out there and fend for themselves in the same way that men had been doing since time immemorial.
Life became hard for women when they had to kill their own snakes and take care of baby as well. All alone.
Life became hard for women when the big ugly troll commonly known as feminism stepped into the picture.
But the big ugly troll was not content to ruin womens' lives.
In fact the big ugly troll's intended target was men.
To bring a man to his knees, you don't go for him directly. That would be the stupid strategical move.
To bring a man to the jaws of defeat, you get his woman. Gangsters know this principle well.
In this respect, so it would appear, does feminism.
Except feminism hurt women more than men in the process.
In the old days, a man would go out there and bring home the bacon.
Home to an equally hardworking woman who loved him and was suitably grateful for the bacon.
Home to male children who looked up to the hero and wanted to be just like him when they grew up.
Home to female children who wanted to snag a man just like their hero incumbent when they grew up.
Fast forward fifty years and the picture is very different.
Nowadays, a man will still go out there and get the bacon, but in order that he is not taken for a fool, he has to step into another role.
Relationships have always been a woman's domain. Nature designed it that way. Nature also aids and abets women in this role.
My grandmother knew more about men than I will ever know.
Her mother and grandmother probably knew even more than she did about men.
These women spent their whole lives learning about men.
Because their whole life depended on that knowledge.
If they didn't know men enough to choose one well, to the best of their abilities, they would literally die of starvation. Or at least, figuratively speaking.
Feminism removed this skill from women starting fifty years ago.
A woman does not have time to 'learn about men'.
For a start, she is out killing snakes.
So now, there are many more clueless women than there were sixty years ago.
A man can see now that he cannot afford to blindly follow in his grandfather's footsteps.
To do so would be to run a 'fool's errand' as someone described on a previous post.
So now men have to learn what their grandfathers never had to. All about women.
Pick Up Artistry is about understanding women and their psychology.
Know the enemy, so to speak.
The LTR/marriage-minded man has to do the same in order to avoid the traps his father fell into.
But he is up a creek without a paddle somewhat.
Because women are much more complex than men.
Stephen Hawking has finally figured this out, aged 70. And he ain't dumb :-)
So a man is more likely than a woman to make mistakes in the dating arena. It is not his fault. He is trying to scale a greasy pole.
One common mistake men make is to see everything a woman does as a 'fitness test.'
In general, men do not 'fitness test' women. They have 'frames'. He is who he is. If a woman wants to step into his frame, fine. If she doesn't like his 'frame', she is free to walk. He usually has no need to 'test' anything.
It is women who do the 'fitness testing'.
Because women have every need to.
If the 'king' is a rogue in disguise, or a weakling, she and her children are in trouble.
So she will test and test and test until she is satisfied he is the real deal.
She is supposed to.
Which is why the red pill men who have figured this out talk about fitness testing a lot.
Women don't talk about this because men traditionally do not fitness test women. (But times are changing, fast).
Moreover, because women do not realise they do it, and because they never have it done to them, they often do not even know about this until it is pointed out to them.
There are a few exceptions to a woman's 'fitness tests'.
Certain things are actually a sort of 'frame'.
Her 'non-negotiables'.
A man has to accept it or not.
She is prepared to really walk if he is not a good fit for this 'non-negotiable'.
For every woman, this 'non-negotiable' is different.
A man interested in a woman needs to know what this 'non-fitness-test' is for her.
And then acquiesce to that if it works within his frame too.
In other words, fail this one test if it is not worth losing a special woman over it.
But pass all the others.
It is not easy being a man these days (back to playing the victim, but now on behalf of 'the other side').
Because 'the other side' is not allowed to be a victim.
It's a horrible job, but someone has to do it ;-)
Before I ventured out into the Manosphere jungle, this was my idea of a fitness test.
How long ago it all seems now.
And how odd my vocabulary has become.
45 comments:
spacetraveller said...
"So a man is more likely than a woman to make mistakes in the dating arena. It is not his fault. He is trying to scale a greasy pole."
While I ruminate on the rest of this post, I'd just like to thank you for a disturbing mental image.
The Navy Corpsman
@ The Navy Corpsman,
"While I ruminate on the rest of this post, I'd just like to thank you for a disturbing mental image."
I am laughing so hard it hurts!
Thank you, Navy Corpsman for this Quote of the day.
:-)
@SpaceTraveller
In the old days, a man would go out there and bring home the bacon.
Fast forward fifty years and the picture is very different.
Nowadays, a man will still go out there and get the bacon, but in order that he is not taken for a fool, he has to step into another role.
Because [women's] whole life depended on that knowledge. If they didn't know men enough to choose one well, to the best of their abilities, they would literally die of starvation. Or at least, figuratively
speaking.
And therein lies the Red Pill. In my mid-50s, I am having to figure all of this out. When I married the first time, 30 years ago, the landscape had already changed. My father couldn't teach me, because he didn't realize what had happened.
Bill
@ Bill,
"When I married the first time, 30 years ago, the landscape had already changed."
Yes. The seed of destruction had already been planted.
By the time I was born, it was already 'Game over'. I just didn't know it.
I had a similar discussion with Bellita in an old post (I think it was the MGTOW post).
We are all people on a runaway train who may or may not manage to get off before it comes to a crashing halt.
Feminism put us all on this train.
The problem is, I don't remember buying a train ticket.
I don't even remember being at the train station.
How did we all get on the train?
Someone must have administered some sedatives.
In which case, I call foul play.
"A woman is never truly interested in more than a few men in her entire lifetime."
There's an old saying in American:
'I call BS on that.'
It means, you're not being truthful with yourself, much less with me.
In nearly 50 years of living on this Earth, I've found that almost all women are truly interested in only a few men At Any One Given Point In Time. Sometimes, a woman will only be interested in one man at a given point, but usually, most women have a few phone numbers to call, should they want to go out. And if any of those men should fail a test, they're delisted immediately, or at the first available opportunity, depending on the depth of the relationship. He is easily replaced by another, sometimes with emotion attached to the loss, to a greater or lesser degree.
Now, you're protesting quietly, Not All Women Are Like That. Maybe not, but this is rounding the corner to the home stretch of the world of the Red Pill. So many women are like that, so few are NOT like that, MGTOW has become a phenomenon much discussed on the interwebs, and has even started to spill onto the mainstream media in several countries.
Believe me when I tell you, many MANY men are a little bit aware that women love to play the victim. Many MANY men are aware that women love to pull 'fitness tests' or 'shit tests' as the PUA websites call them. And here's a bit of information you may not have known:
Women have been doing both, and more, for millenia. They have always been a part of the gender relations, with possible exceptions regarding arranged marriages, where women often became business, chattel to increase a family's fortunes. Regardless, some men know that these tests and the victimhood are part of the game, and respond appropriately. PUAs deflect and reframe, men of marrying minds usually look for someone less high maintenance. The problem is, for women, you cannot tell those two types of men apart until you spend a lot of time with them.
I recall a very very beautiful woman I knew in college (university), whom I dated rather steadily for about two months. One night, after finals, we were having a drink at a popular hangout, and she said something particularly cogent about our relationship. I leaned over to her and just before I kissed her, she turned her head so that I kissed her cheek. Now, realize that I was all too aware of the stifled laughter in the background... I stood up, stated in a normal tone of voice, "Awww how cute, we're 10 years old all over again."
I grabbed my coat and she looked very surprised, and asked me if I was leaving. I said, again in a very even tone of voice, "Of course, we've been dating for two months, and you won't let me kiss you on the lips in public?"
Two weeks later, she asked me to marry her. I refused. As I told you before, I suspect I was an 'alpha' by today's word definition.
Now you know why the PUA websites call them 'shit tests'. We (men) don't actually care about these little tests, although we're quite aware of them, if the man in question is even a little bit observant. What we don't care for, is the control implied behind them. Some men may want those 1000 women, but more than a few men actually do want the One. That One Woman who they can trust completely, that One Woman whom they can put on a pedestal AND take off the pedestal to wrestle around with on the weekends. But, that means we will be willing to accept silly tests, as long as those tests aren't about stupid control issues.
The Navy Corpsman
"In one of Bellita's posts, she recounts a Muslim man trying to convince her that her 'reward' for converting to Islam would be 'a thousand men' or something to that effect.
Bellita's response to that is typical of a woman's reaction to this: absolute horror."
He is not a man who sleeps with one thousand different women. He who is a man, sleeps with one woman, one thousand different ways.
"Except feminism hurt women more than men in the process."
Yes, and no. Many women have gone farther, and done more things, than they ever could have, 50 years ago. Many women love their new found power, especially those old enough to remember the 'bad days' of the fabled patriarchy. I have no clue what the percentage is, but I suspect that a majority of women are pleased with what feminism hath wrought, and fewer than 50% are unhappy.
Similarly, I suspect more than a few men are quite happy with the changes in gender roles and workplace law, as well as divorce law, but I doubt seriously that such men would number more than 30% of the men in the UK or USA.
Given that approximately 51% of the US population is female, this actually comes out a bit fewer women than men were 'hurt'. My numbers may be way off, but I just really do not know, these are my opinions. Now, if you ask were hurt MORE, I'd have to say women, because I agree with you that interpersonal relationships are part and parcel of a woman's soul. Men can survive without quite nicely alone, but women do suffer, I think, when denied such relationships.
What is undeniably true, is that both genders have been lied to and falsely enrolled under the guise of 'equality', which is an admirable, yet unreachable goal. Men and women must be equal under the law, and right now, just as 50 years ago, it is not true. But even if we have complete equality in law as well as workplace, men and women will never be truly equal. One cannot undo certain biological facts. Whether it's evolution or grand design, we cannot change this.
Equality, true equality will only be achieved when men and women are exactly the same, and I hope to be dead and gone before that happens.
The Navy Corpsman
Navy Corpsman: It never ceases to amaze that men think they have some kind of right over the bodies of the women they're dating.
@ The Navy Corpsman,
Thanks for your nuanced comments.
I appreciate them, because in fact I have learned something new.
Which is the point...
Yes, I do mean women were hurt MORE. I make no claim as to the relative proportions of men and women who were hurt by feminism. I honestly do not know this ratio.
I think women were hurt more because of the very reason you mention: Interpersonal relationships ARE part and parcel of a woman's soul, whether she knows this or not, whether she chooses to ignore this side of her or not.
So thanks for helping me make my point even clearer.
" 'I call BS on that.'
It means, you're not being truthful with yourself, much less with me."
But I am.
Now you may tell me that in this regard, men are actually remarkably similar to women. I would accept that. In fact, I do accept that already, having found some evidence to support this already.
But, you really ought to believe me when I tell you this: Even the most 'promiscuous' woman on the planet only really loves one or two men among the many.
Pity I have to bring in yet another celebrity into the equation, but to make my point, I think it might help. I was watching Brigitte Nielsen on german TV recently. You may know she has been married 5 times. She is also known to have had many other relationships. When Arnie's indiscretions came out, she came out and said that she TOO had had a fling with Arnie at the time he was aleady in a relationship with Shriver...
And yet, both she and Elizabeth Taylor always mention just one guy out of the many when asked 'who is the love of your life'?
Sure, these women 'had a funny way of showing it', but I am just using these extreme examples to illustrate what is at the heart of the average woman.
It is why I always take the view that a man ought to tread carefully. Because if a woman has not chosen him as her Top Spot man, she can feign love all she wants, but one day, he will witness total lack of love she has for him.
As many men have found out already, this can be incredibly nasty. I know. I have seen it too.
Men who 'have a funny way of showing it' are not hurt so much by their actions.
Women are. Because that is how Nature made them. A man can be 'promiscuous' and get away with it (actually, not really, but that's another argument in itself) far easier than it would be for a woman in the same situation.
So my statement above is not to BS you. I am telling you the truth, or the Truth (capital T), as per a previous definition of yours.
Some women choose to live by their principles, others don't.
Each to his own.
I am only discussing general principles here, albeit using specific examples to illustrate my point.
So lots of people choose to ignore their true nature...what's new?
That is not to say that the underlying nature is to be neglected by everyone else.
That would be like saying to a student, 'don't bother with your studies because you may not find a job after you graduate'. He may well not find a job, but to renounce his studies only makes that more likely...
I totally agree with you about equality.
I also want to be dead and buried the day men and women are 'equal'.
I and lots of other people did not sgn up for 'equality'.
That rule was in place well before we were born.
We are doing our best to navigate our way through someone else's mire, with variable success.
That's not to say we endorse the status quo.
So yes I say again, NAWALT.
And for that matter, NAMALT.
"He is not a man who sleeps with one thousand different women. He who is a man, sleeps with one woman, one thousand different ways."
I seriously doubt that the man in question here was talking about anything other than 1000 different men for our dear Bellita...
Maybe Bellita herself could clarify?
Fitness tests carry the same risk as any test – that of generating a false positive. Or with these would it be a false negative?
It seems to me that women put more faith in these than their own judgment, common sense and dare I say it their intuition.
Fitness tests pose a challenging question I think for women – don’t you trust yourselves?
Grasshopper
@ The Navy Corpsman,
I just saw Charming Disarray's comment...
I have to chip in here (again).
Because I think she makes a very important point.
A point I tried to make in my original post.
A point that would require you to really see things from a woman's point of view, just for once.
Because unless you and men in general are willing to do this, the SMP would remain as is: highly dysfunctional.
This is what I think CD is referring to. Interesting that it did not escape my notice either...
(Feel free to correct me CD, if I am misrepresenting you in any way here).
In the example you gave, Navy Corpsman, even removing the era/context out of the way, (I presume we are talking about 30ish years ago?), I get your frustration at the girl. I really do. Because I have learned to look at the world with 'masculine eyes'.
But consider this: Especially as this was 30ish years ago, can you not see that being kissed on the lips in public by a man not your husband could have been one of her non-negotiables? Even today, believe it or not, there are still women who feel this way.
Can you not see that no matter how long you were going out with her and therefore felt 'entitled' to her responding to your advances, she may have been (rightly) concerned about how she would be perceived by those around you?
I agree, if she was consistently refusing to kiss you even in private then that would have had to be a clue to you that she was not interested.
I agree that you did the right thing by walking away, paradoxically.
I can tell you that that girl probably did like you very much, because what was her response after you stood your ground?
She 'chased you a bit'.
But alas, your mind had been made up. Fair enough.
My point is (and of course I don't know the full story - I am only going by what you tell us here. I mean, if you told us that she was in fact sleeping with the nearest frat boy all along, than I would say to you, please ignore everything I have said above!): sometimes a woman has to do things that a man would simply not understand, in the same way as a man has to do things that a woman would never understand.
We are not 'equal'.
That girl was fulfilling a womanly function. In the context of the time period you are referring to, she was not wrong to do what she did. Same as you wouldn't have tolerated (quite rightly) being disrespected in public by her. She perhaps couldn't afford to be seen as a word rhyming with rut, in public, even with a guy she had been dating for two whole months? Have you considered this possibility?
I am willing to bet that some men would have seen this girl as exactly the kind of girl they would have wanted. If I were a man, knowing all I know now, I would have done exactly what you did. Walk out on her, refuse her proposal, but then some time afterwards, I would have proposed to her myself.
But alas, I am not a man...what do I know?
@ Grasshopper,
"It seems to me that women put more faith in these than their own judgment, common sense and dare I say it their intuition."
My personal opinion on fitness testing by women is that in fact it is one of the tools to sharpen their judgment and intuition.
In this sense, they are useful weapons.
But I can understand how men can see this as a bad thing/manipulation thing. Some women overdo it, sure.
But the principle of fitness testing is a sound one, I think.
At the risk of offending women everywhere, and of course with my 'masculine hat' on, I would venture as far as saying that most fitness tests serve no useful purpose in advancing a relationship in the right direction. They are only there to serve as 'practice' for the woman, to allow her to sharpen her intuition as fas as the man is concerned. Like Braxton-Hicks contractions are 'practice contractions' before labour.
The only fitness tests which are worth taking seriously are what I am referring to in the OP as 'non-negotiables'. A man really needs to recognise these. For a start, they would be consistent, persistent, repetitive.
I don't give advice to anyone, as you know. It is my opinion however that a man should never take on a woman who does not have 'non-negotiables'. Because it means that she has no 'boundaries', no 'standards'.
What would that say about a man who picks a woman with no standards?
Exactly, that he has none, either.
Quality seeks quality.
You are batting 1000 girl. This great. LInking this to my site soon.
You are a gem Love. Brody sends snogs.
spacetraveller said...
"It is why I always take the view that a man ought to tread carefully. Because if a woman has not chosen him as her Top Spot man, she can feign love all she wants, but one day, he will witness total lack of love she has for him."
But this is exactly my point. I don't know relative numbers, but men like myself would never feign love, for any reason. You point to Elizabeth Taylor, and claim this is proof of only one true love. If so, why did she marry eight times?
If you meant that most women will only truly love a few men in their lifetimes, then I would agree, but that is not what you said. You said that a woman are only truly INTERESTED in a few men. I suppose it depends on what you (and therefore women) define as INTERESTED vs how men define it... Looking at it naturally through a man's eyes, interest is not defined as True Love, but possible marriageable material.
What I was saying, put another way, is that my own personal experience, plus conversations with other men, has shown me that women are more than capable of being interested in dozens of men over their lifetimes, by the definition I gave above. Sure, I agree that filtering is part and parcel of the game, and it's done by both men and women. Men tend to make the initial approach based on interest, whether that interest is sexual or marriage material. Even in today's society, most would agree that men make the initial approach to women, not the other way round.
I can assure you, if a man is considering the possibility of conversion to Islam based on the 'reward' of a thousand women, or 72 virgins in Paradise, that man has not grown past thinking with his penis, which is admittedly far too common. It's appealing to the basest of urges of the human male. Yes, I am saying it's a boy-man reaction. And yes, I DO find it hilarious that this male projected his own desires onto Bellita, and had I been her, I would have been less than polite in my reply to his proselytizing. It's still a male reaction, but not one of a mature male, capable of realizing that a relationship with a woman consists of far more than sex. I don't condemn the PUAs for wanting to sleep with a thousand women, but I sure don't condone it. It's their life, let them do what they want.
Perhaps I'm not understanding you fully, always a possibility. Perhaps it's a failing on definition of interest in the opposite sex. Like as not, it also has something to do with sexual interest; I would agree if you were to say that men only show interest in women they want to sleep with, whereas women only sleep with men they are interested in (as a very general rule, both cases). If true, then it does mean that men and women define interest differently.
Lastly, Miss Spacetraveler, NAWALT, NAMALT. I wonder sometimes, if the Red Pill gestalt is less an active denial, and more a resigned acceptance of fact, as in:
"We are doing our best to navigate our way through someone else's mire, with variable success."
Oh, how very excellent indeed. Partly victim and partly reframe. Are you sure you're not 'alpha' yourself? This isn't a criticism, it's bald admiration. Mind if I use this, I promise to cite correctly ?
The Navy Corpsman
spacetraveller said...
"But consider this: Especially as this was 30ish years ago, can you not see that being kissed on the lips in public by a man not your husband could have been one of her non-negotiables? Even today, believe it or not, there are still women who feel this way.
Can you not see that no matter how long you were going out with her and therefore felt 'entitled' to her responding to your advances, she may have been (rightly) concerned about how she would be perceived by those around you?
I agree, if she was consistently refusing to kiss you even in private then that would have had to be a clue to you that she was not interested."
I would have easily considered it a problem if she had not initiated kissing ME, in public, before that moment. In fact, she had been more than willing to initiate public displays of affection herself. I cannot recall whether she had allowed me to initiate kissing in public before that date, however.
I find Charming Disarray's comment uproariously hilarious, however.
"That girl was fulfilling a womanly function. In the context of the time period you are referring to, she was not wrong to do what she did."
Maybe, or maybe she was fulfilling her need to control. She had no issues previously in initiating a kiss in public herself, or dancing with me in what today would be considered quite sensuously, much less for 30 years ago. But, even had we never kissed before at all, if this was a non-negotiable point, (remember this was after the Sexual Revolution of the late 60s and 70s) then I would have gotten up and left the bar. I don't assume the right to any person's body, but I sure as hell didn't want to keep dating a female who refuses a kiss after two months of more or less steady dating. Again, I believe it WAS an issue of control, because of two months of dating AND previous kisses and other behavior in public. Without going into great detail, I had plenty of evidence that the relationship was both serious and sexual.
I'm not into controlling other people, and I refuse to be controlled, whether it's a question of male-female relationships, or religious beliefs, or any topic you care to name. You see, men have a right to non-negotiables as well, and one of mine is that control is not going to part of any relationship. Dating 12 or 15 times in two months is an "indicator of interest" in any reasonable person's judgement. Why on EARTH would she keep acquiescing to dates, if she had no interest?
And sorry to both you and Charming Disarray if you believe that is too soon to move in for a kiss. I think you'd find, even 30 years ago, two months was more than enough time to assume there was interest, even if she had never kissed me before. I have no doubt it was a fitness test, but it was exactly the wrong sort of test for me. She had every right to refuse the kiss, and I had every right to get up and leave because of that. She later told me that I blew her mind (80s-speak) when I got up and walked out. The one thing she never did do, is explain WHY she turned her head to receive the kiss on her cheek. THAT is why I refused her proposal of marriage, or at least part of the reason. I'm pretty sure that walking out of the bar would have communicated my negative emotions regarding the event. Was my leaving a form of control? Of course, but it was control over my own actions and decisions, not over hers. I trust that Charming Disarray and yourself allow a male the right to end a date as much as a female.
The Navy Corpsman
@ NC,
Sure, please free to quote me. Knock yourself out, as you Americans say.
:-)
Yes I see I used the wrong word which misled you. I did mean 'true love' instead of a mere 'interested'. In some cases of course, the two co-exist in that one follows the other in fairly quick succession...but that's another story :-)
Well, thanks for the update on your story with the girl. It does help to have the extra details. Even from where I am standing (female corner) I would agree that it does sound like she was trying to control you.
So hats off to you for nipping that in the bud. Obviously, from what you say, I am totally wrong that this was a 'non-negotiable' for her. It was, it would appear, just another (unhelpful) 'fitness test' that backfired.
I agree you did do the right thing.
If only you had been there to advise Seal...
Anyway, CD and I 'jumped' on you because some women are rather sensitive to the notion that a lot of men do have, which is, that a woman, in spending some time with a man automatically consents to all sorts...
Clearly, you are not of that mindset.
So NAMALT. I say it again :-)
"I think you'd find, even 30 years ago, two months was more than enough time to assume there was interest, even if she had never kissed me before."
I guess all a man or a woman want to know when they are in a relationship with someone else is that the needs of both parties would be met. If one or other feels this won't happen in a time frame acceptable to them, then of course it is more than fair for them to walk.
in your case, there was not even a question of doubt - you say she was quite happy to initiate PDA. She just didn't want you to initiate it, for whatever reason. I am sure she had her own reasons, but maybe not reasons anyone else but her would care to defend??
By the way, I should defend my own position somewhat, in regards to this case.
When I only had the previous details about this, I was just considering her position vis à vis a public kiss as a possible reason for her refusal of you. As you know, this is important to women, especially 30 years ago. Private is private. But public is a different matter. A woman's reputation is everything to her. Not so much now, I guess, but I am sure, 30 years ago, it was all the rage.
Your case reminds me of an incident where Princess Diana turned her cheek to Prince Charles when she was presenting him with a trophy when his team won a polo match (during their troubled times). He was of course humiliated by that. Which was the idea, I guess.
But I see she was perhaps also being controlling. I reckon he deserved a kiss in public or otherwise from his own wife...even if he was not being such a great husband to her.
Mind you, I fully understand her reason for doing it though.
I guess it ain't funny if you are a beautiful young thing and your husband prefers a woman twice your age.
Incidentally during her now infamous 'Panorama' interview, when asked who the love of her life was, she answered, 'Charles'.
Go figure...
@ Danny,
Thanks!
Sure, I'll happily snog Brody...
Erm... in private?
Hahaha
:-)
@ Spacetraveller
The point about being wary of women who don't fitness test at all is a valid one. It's a big red flag that she has no standards. I know that it can be frustrating to a man, and in relationship, women can go overboard into outright disrespect. Being conscience of our "process" can help women in sorting out a lot of lesser testing.
"And sorry to both you and Charming Disarray if you believe that is too soon to move in for a kiss. I think you'd find, even 30 years ago, two months was more than enough time to assume there was interest, even if she had never kissed me before."
Obviously it wasn't, since she had kissed you before, but does that mean that because she kissed you once that after that she always has to kiss you whenever you want and can never say no?
Maybe there was some other reason she didn't want to be kissed at that particular moment, but you were so caught up in feeling offended that you missed it. What is the deal with men who are obsessed with control? Why is it a control issue if she doesn't want to be kissed one little time?
Good grief. I would never date a man that difficult. And if he started yammering on about being controlled over a tiny thing like that I would assume he was paranoid and had issues, and I would do the walking out myself.
@ JV,
Thanks, you make an excellent point. Like the boy who cried 'wolf', we women should realise that fitness testing should be sparingly done. So that when it IS done, it will be viewed with the seriousness it deserves.
Note to self: Always listen when JV speaks. She is an intelligent woman who knows a thing or two about life.
@ CD,
Wow, I can sense your annoyance here.
I must admit, my initial reaction to NC's story was, 'huh, he dumped a woman because she wouldn't snog him in public? What?!
But...I must admit, he does give a compelling argument for 'run the other way, this woman bad'.
Or maybe I am being a pushover. I dunno.
I think I can see at least one source of your annoyance.
The idea that a woman cannot go 'backwards'.
To explain this, dear CD, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to use 'Gamespeak' :-)
Men talk of 'escalation' all the time, i.e. moving forward in the whole seduction thing.
So if a woman has previously 'snogged', the man might feel cheated if she reverts to 'kiss on cheek' the next time, perhaps.
She is not allowed to go 'backwards' or stand still.
I realise this may only be part of the issue for you, but let's take the opportunity to ask the boys: Is this ever an issue with you guys? Are you offended if a woman takes a backward or sideways step? Do you feel you should always be going 'forward'? (Not necessarily in NC's case - this is just a general question).
Also, NC, could I ask: what do you make of CD's point that the girl just wasn't in the mood to be kissed that day? Was she upset for any particular reason, thereby killing the mood for her?
I was convinced from your account that she was 'controlling', but CD's comment is a fair one, no?
You know the girl, we don't. Any chance she could be given the benefit of the doubt here?
You know, fitness tests are not always 'conscious'. Is it just possible that she 'rejected' you because of a silly reason, and then when you showed her you were annoyed, she regretted and tried to redeem the situation?
Were you too quick to smash an ant with a sledgehammer?
In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?
No chance of 'forgiveness' from you?
You don't do 'second chances'?
Ever?
I'm annoyed because there are real and serious problems in the world, like women getting raped and beaten up, and I come on here and see some man whining that he didn't get a kiss in a bar thirty years ago. Cry me a river.
And then he tries to spin it like he's not the controlling one--like he's "free" to walk away. Of course he's free to walk away but he's still walking away because he didn't get to control the girl he wanted to control. If she had done what HE wanted, he would have stayed.
There are no shortage of men playing the victim, ST, and they're manipulative creeps.
And yes I am angry because I'm sick of tired of meeting men like this in real life, who have a chip on their shoulder the size of a mountain, with endless mood swings, unpredictable bullying behavior, and mommy issues.
Navy Corpsman, did it occur to you that perhaps you had bad breath?
Wow... just wow. Obviously, a little story about a fitness test I underwent, and apparently failed, commented on a post about fitness tests is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
I leaned in for a kiss. Clearly, she didn't want the kiss on her lips. It was finals week, that much I do recall, so we were both under stress.
It's evident that I've somehow touched off a response which was in no way intended. You don't know me, Charming Disarray, any more than I know you. I'll just gently disengage from this conversation, and you are free to dismiss me as just another man.
With respect for All others,
The Navy Corpsman
@Spacetraveller
I seriously doubt that the man in question here was talking about anything other than 1000 different men for our dear Bellita...
Maybe Bellita herself could clarify?
I'm sorry for the late reply. I didn't see this earlier.
And I'm not quite sure what I'm clarifying (Hahahaha!), but here's the full context . . .
The Muslim man I met believed that Heaven was a place of sensual pleasures and that his heavenly reward would include "many beautiful women." Hence his eagerness to reassure me that mine would be "many handsome men"! (*scream*) But only, of course, if I converted to Islam.
My gut reaction was, as ST has noted, utter horror. But after thinking it over, I was also very turned off by the idea that God would create women (or men) for no other purpose than the eternal sexual satiation of His chosen.
And if you want more hilarity . . . The man said that to me after bragging that Islam is a better religion to marry in because Muslim men don't care about a woman's beauty or sexiness, but look only at how much she loves God. And he claimed he chose his wife that way and didn't care about her appearance at all. Well, if you expect a garden of hot chicks for all eternity, then surely you can put up with a plain (but kind) woman for fifty years! :P
@ST
Incidentally during her now infamous 'Panorama' interview, when asked who the love of her life was, she answered, 'Charles'.
Sarah Ferguson can top that! She once wrote an article for some magazine about her ideal man, and after going on and on, had to admit, "I realize I've just described Andrew." Sigh!
@ Bellita,
Thanks for your clarification. Don't worry about it being 'late'. As it happens, it was just the kind of light relief we all needed at this point in time.
CD,
I understand your frustrations. They are normal frustrations. Seriously. I get it. Not to sound patronising in any way, I really do see your point of view. How can I not, being a woman?
"And yes I am angry because I'm sick of tired of meeting men like this in real life, who have a chip on their shoulder the size of a mountain, with endless mood swings, unpredictable bullying behavior, and mommy issues."
Hmm, I suspect everyone, male or female has at least one of these issues you mention.
You just have to pick the one you hate the least in the other person and take it from there...
Which brings me back to JV's insightful words.
Essentially, 'pick your battles'.
The point about my OP was, women can take a lot of 'cr*p' from men, but there should be one thing (or two) they won't compromise on... but that one thing (or two) should be important enough to her.
Similarly, men should understand that they may dominate, but there are things they should accept as 'non-winnable' in a woman. Without these, they WILL walk all over a woman.
So, pick your battles...
@ NC,
I don't think you failed that fitness test at all, for what it's worth. I think most people will agree with that.
Thanks for sharing that story. I think I for one, learned something useful.
Which is, for me (as a woman): don't turn the cheek, EVER!'
And if I were a guy, the lesson would be: don't expect a kiss when the lady is stressed, EVER!
:-)
It is true, we all need a breather at this point.
How about I also disengage from this one and post about something else?
I realize everyone probably thinks I overreacted, but the reason this kind of thing is so upsetting to me is because I know exactly how I would feel in a situation like that. I would feel like I had been slapped. In a relationship, that kind of behavior is emotional abuse, and it's the kind of thing that makes women not speak when they want something or, like in this case, DON'T want something. It's the kind of thing that makes them apologize for having an opinion or a thought. It's poisonous.
So yes, he failed the fitness test. Big time.
@ ST
Thanks for the kind words!
I wasn't going to comment on NC's story, but now that Diana's has been brought up, too, I have to wonder . . .
Is the insult in the woman's decision to offer her cheek when the man is clearly going for her lips, or is it in the fact that it happened in public?
@ JV,
Thank YOU for your wisdom.
@ Bell,
I really hope NC or another man answers your question.
But if I am to take liberties and go for it, I would say neither .
I was under the impression that for NC, it was the fact that she had previously kissed him even in public, but wouldn't let him do it when he wanted. The fact that it did happen in public must have been important to him too, yes, because he mentions he was aware of laughter in the background, so he must have felt in some way humiliated, just as Prince Charles must have been when he too was refused a kiss in public by his wife.
And CD's point was, well, it's her body, why can't she refuse a kiss?
Good point, I thought, except that NC had clarified that she kissed him whenever she felt the need...
AND we are not talking about NC asking for any more than just a kiss afterall...
Bof, to be honest, this is perhaps only complicated because we make it so. Maybe it shouldn't be?
Everyone has their own non-negotiable, right?
Clearly this was one of NC's - not the kiss, or lack thereof per se, but what it symbolised to him, i.e. the 'control' behind it.
I wasn't going to mention this before, but since this thread is still going, I guess I should come out and say it. (Disclaimer: this is just an observation and in no way meant as criticism or judgment):
"I'm annoyed because there are real and serious problems in the world, like women getting raped and beaten up, and I come on here and see some man whining that he didn't get a kiss in a bar thirty years ago. Cry me a river."
I think I spot a problem.
This may be one reason (besides others) CD is not getting any love from NC.
CD is right of course, that there are bigger issues in the world than a missed kiss in a bar 30 years ago.
But what's the example of the bigger issues in life she gives?
Rape. Women being beaten up.
Only women's troubles.
Whilst I don't see a problem with this, CD, because like you I am VERY sensitive to women's issues, like rape and domestic violence, the impression men have reading your comment might be that women are only concerned with the bad stuff that happens to women, not acknowledging that bad stuff happens to men all the time too.
I have noticed that this notion that women live in a 'woman-centric world' is like a red rag to a bull.
It might be true, in that you may actually think only women deserve your sympathy, or not, as the case may be, but the point is, men won't play the victim, but they will be extra harsh to those who don't acknowledge they have feelings too.
You might well think that the divorce laws that leave good men virtually penniless are a bad thing, but you didn't mention that in your comment. So there is no way to know if you have any sympathy for issues that affect men as well.
So men might feel justified in dealing harshly with you.
I think this is being played out right before our very eyes.
I am not saying it is right. In fact, as it happens, I don't think it is right. I can see you might well be easily misunderstood here. I am just reporting a phenomenon I have observed here.
A good man if rebuffed by his steady girl in matters of physical affection really has nowhere else to go. If he is doing right by her and is serious and committed to her – when it comes to sex or even kissing he has no other option. It’s either her or he does with out.
She shuts him off – even temporarily and perhaps in her mind for good reason – his need is still there. And even in doing this apparently she still expects her primary need of validation to be met by him. She wants him to understand and be OK with it.
To answer your question B – yes it happening in public in front of friends makes a major difference. I would find it humiliating myself.
You ladies are saying a girl may need a time out from providing for her man’s physical needs. Assuming the reason is valid (illness or outside stresses perhaps) and not manipulative - I really do understand what you’re saying. Just find a way to express it privately please.
I have to ask however - would you be as accommodating to a man who expresses a need for a time out from meeting your primary need of validation? Again assuming his reason is valid and not manipulative.
The key I think is reciprocation. Both parties have to believe they are getting equal value in return for what they are giving in the overall context of things.
Grasshopper
@Grasshopper
A good man if rebuffed by his steady girl in matters of physical affection really has nowhere else to go. If he is doing right by her and is serious and committed to her – when it comes to sex or even kissing he has no other option. It’s either her or he does with out.
This is so true!
It's leading me closer to the key piece of the puzzle that I know I'm not yet seeing, which is the feminine equivalent of this insult/deprivation.
Is there something that a woman can and should expect from the man she is in a relationship with and which, if he denied it to her, she wouldn't be able to get from anyone else? For those who are married, I suppose it's his financial support. But what if they're just exclusively dating?
Grasshopper,
Can I say something slightly risqué? At the risk of sounding like I am flirting...
I really do love your quiet manner of expressing yourself. To me it is so jolly je ne sais quoi. I honestly don't know what it is...maybe it's just the fact that it is so freakishly familiar to me...
:-)
(By the way, I got a question: does everyone else 'see' emotions even in writing? I cannot seem to separate anything from the emotion attached to it, as I see it. I don't know if Grasshopper is a 'quiet' man as I define 'quiet' but his writing screams it at me. I also 'see' music and not hear it. Anyone else have this 'problem'? Is this a personality thing, or a gender thing? I am curious to know...)
Anyway, Grasshopper, THANK YOU for your calmly-stated advice.
"She shuts him off – even temporarily and perhaps in her mind for good reason – his need is still there."
Strange as it may sound to you, sometimes we women forget about this or don't think about this enough, or simply don't know this.
But you are right: If the problem ain't staring you in the face anymore, it doesn't mean it's gone away. It may have gone underground ...and is now far more dangerous than when it was on the surface.
"Just find a way to express it privately please."
Again, simple advice that I really do thank you for, because lots of women are failing this one big time.
My own friend shocked me by putting her husband down in front of me (rather violently, I might add) recently...I was utterly shocked and by the looks of things, so was he. It wasn't pretty. I didn't know where to look...I was so embarrassed, nevermind him.
(But, in her defence, she was pregnant, so I guess she gets a free pass - let's just hope it wasn't like that the whole 9 months in their home LOL).
"I have to ask however - would you be as accommodating to a man who expresses a need for a time out from meeting your primary need of validation?"
Well, a lot of women would report that they already do. Which is why I was careful to include this line in my post about validating women:
Many women have learned to live without this external validation. This is admirable because it is not easy to do.
It is said that Princess Di only started down the road to bulimia hell after Prince Charles put his hands on her waist and said something to the tune of, 'Hmm, getting a little chubby these days, are we not'?
And she wasn't even fat.
(Hey, was this the reason she wouldn't kiss him in public years later???)
Just kidding...
But seriously, imagine what that sort of thing can do to an actual fat woman who is insecure about her weight. In fact forget the fat woman, look what it did to Diana herself!
@ Bell,
I am slightly confused by your question, Bell.
Is the answer not simply 'commitment'? Is this a trick question?
@ST
It's not a trick question. :) I've found that when women are confused by something that men take for granted, there is often a parallel assumption among women that clears everything up if you can just make the connection.
So I started wondering what the male equivalent of turning the cheek would be. Grasshopper helped refine the terms by pointing out that if a woman denies a man physical affection after locking him down to her exclusively, he really has no one else to turn to for it. It's not about him owning her body, but about her keeping up her end of the deal. (Within reason, of course.) Now I'm looking for something a man would be obligated (again, within reason) to provide to a woman who can turn to no one else but him for it.
(This reminds me so much of a passage I recently read in Middlemarch: "It is a part of manliness for a husband to feel keenly the fact that an inexperienced girl has got into trouble by marrying him." But now it has got me wondering what the parallel "part of womanliness" would be!)
@ST… “…Anyway, Grasshopper, THANK YOU for your calmly-stated advice…”
Thank you for your THANK YOU. And merci beaucoup mon ami for your je ne sais quoi :-)
I find myself on the receiving end of what I think you meant by validation. Without even trying ST I think you’ve made me understand why women like validation so much. In a do unto others sort of way you have really made the point. Thanks for the insight.
@B… “…Is there something that a woman can and should expect from the man she is in a relationship with and which, if he denied it to her, she wouldn't be able to get from anyone else?...”
That very thing was going through my mind as I was composing my last post. And no I can’t think of anything and that seemed terribly unfair to me.
ST has said a number of times that relationships are a woman’s domain. I have been reluctant to debate this point and I think your question brings to the surface one of the reasons why.
I don’t think you meant it as a rhetorical question but it very easily could be.
Grasshopper
ST, re the question of rape and getting beaten up vs. divorce.
I never claimed that bad things don't happen to men, but let's look at the two categories of things that men and women do to each other. You mentioned women divorcing men and taking their money. Yes, this is bad.
But in the other category, things men do to women, we have rape, physical violence, and sometimes death.
So I don't know about you, but I think getting raped is a hell of a lot worse than getting your money taken way. And furthermore, NCM didn't say his wife divorced him and took his money. He said his girlfriend refused to kiss him on one occasion, and he considered this a good reason to walk out on her permanently.
There is a definite imbalance here. This is why I just stay out of the manosphere. It's full of silly men who think they have a right to feel victimized when in fact nothing bad has actually ever happened to them. It's total madness.
Because anyone with perspective knows that the things men do to women are much, much worse than the things women do to men.
@ CD,
I believe rape is worse than murder.
St Maria Goretti comes to mind...
I find it telling that men who have gone through bitter divorces call it 'divorce rape'.
I have often wondered: Why do they use that word?
Is it precisely because these men understand the sense of violation that a woman might feel during rape, and they therefore use this word which depicts the very worst thing that could happen to a woman?
If your stance is that the two situations cannot compare, then you must feel that this is bare-faced cheek on the part of men to use the word 'rape' as applied to a divorce. Perhaps you would be right. Perhaps another word would be more appropriate.
My point is simply that both sexes can have it pretty bad. Both men and women can be raped, both men and women can be destroyed by divorce.
I don't disagree at all that rape and DV against women (or children)are heinous crimes. Of course not.
But I am not sure I could agree that 'nothing bad' has happened to those men whose lives have been ripped apart by divorce instigated by really nasty, horrible women (I am not saying all divorces are like this, of course).
@ Grasshopper,
Je t'en prie...(you're welcome). Re validation, hehe, I didn't see it that way!
I guess that was respect then. I shall save validation for CD and Bell :-)
Speaking of Bell and her question, yes, I must admit, I can't think of anything either... I thought I was close with my suggestion of commitment, but I don't think Bell accepted that as the answer she was looking for.
So, yes, unless someone can come up with an answer, this question remains rhetorical!
Trust Bell to ask difficult questions ;-)
(By the way, I got a question: does everyone else 'see' emotions even in writing? I cannot seem to separate anything from the emotion attached to it, as I see it.
I'm very sensitive to the written word. Even among abstract writing, I'll pick out words or phrases that indicate a shading of the emotion of the writer.
@ Bellita
Boy oh boy you ask the tough questions. I'm going to venture a guess. Protection? A women would expect to be protected or to feel safe with the man she loves. Failure to do so would result in with drawl. Another man providing it could be considered crossing the boundries because he would be venturing in someone elses territory.
@ JV,
Wow, I am pleased to hear that you also see the emotion in writing.
Is this a female thing, I wonder?
Hmm...
@ Bellita,
I got another answer to your question.
Could it be validation?
Grasshopper asked:
"I have to ask however - would you be as accommodating to a man who expresses a need for a time out from meeting your primary need of validation?"
I think if a man denies a woman validation she will either do without (the harder option) or seek it elsewhere because the need is still there.
When the problem is not so much a lack of validation but a 'negative' validation, as in Prince Charles calling Diana 'chubby', it really is horrible, and it really is emotional abuse if the intent is to hurt her. Of course, some men are just clumsy and do not realise how much their actions can affect women.
Can a woman get this validation elsewhere? I think most women would rather their husband said they were beautiful, or lovely, than some other guy saying it, like their brother or their co-worker. Of course, if husband repeatedly fails to say it and likewise co-worker repeatedly says it, we all know what might happen. It's not right, but it is understandable...
The danger is, if a woman learns to live without this validation from a man, then she will have no further use for him.
If he sees the error of his ways and starts to re-validate her after she has become accustomed to his lack of validation and has found a way to do without it, he may find it really is too late.
In this regard, the 'clingy' women who cannot live without their man's validation are more prone to be 'forgiving' because they haven't found a way to cope without that man's validation. So the need is indeed still there until he (and only he) provides it.
Which makes me wonder about something. Getting used to the absence of validation cannot be a good thing for a woman. Because a woman's self-worth really does come from external sources, unlike a man's. Lack of validation can make a woman no longer open to a man. It closes her off. It shuts down her femininity.
I daresay, it could be a major source of bitterness and 'hardness' in women.
I wonder: are the resentful 'feminista' women just hurt women who have not been validated by a man, or men in general? Can anyone really blame them?
Validating someone costs nothing.
How sad that something which is essentially free is denied to so many.
I have to say i must disagree with your little Stephen Hawking example. i was going to write about it but then remembered that someone wrote about it already and in way better fashion than i could have
http://www.solvemygirlproblems.com/2012/01/stephen-hawking/
@ Lost,
Hahaha,
Good find!
But here's the thing.
This was the last comment on that thread:
"Women are no mystery. Once you finalize that women simply aren’t into men, then there is no mystery.
Besides that, you can explain women in 1 sentence: women tend to fall into 2 categories, bimbos or gold diggers, but not both."
Huh?
Clearly someone has not yet finished their homework :-)
That man has a loooong way to go...surely everyone knows that golddiggers and bimbos often coexist in the same woman, no?
:-)
I do however agree that the age-old 'mystery' of women is declining, because men are needing to study women more and more just to stay afloat these days.
That's what learning 'Game' is all about. That's what your friendly Manosphere is there for :-)
But for now, I am reminded of this by Donald Rumsfeld.
There are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns.
Until very recently, Lost, women knew that they knew men.
And men did not know that they did not know women, hence a false sense of security that got brutally exposed by feminism.
Men were 'blindsided' by bad women...eg. in the divorce court.
So yes, men are fighting back.
Stephen Hawking is of a dying breed.
Agreed.
You got me.... i didn't read the whole thing, you write a lot, and i work a lot, so skimming has become #1.
I don't think women know men at all, from experience, and taking from one of Dannyfrom504's latest posts, the notion the if a man is getting some he is automatically happy, such flawed notion that a woman can get by in a relationship by just having sex every other night is proposturous and shows just how much women THINK they know men when they really don't.
generally speaking!
Lost,
Again agreed.
That is why I was careful to state in my last comment, 'Until very recently'.
There is some sort of weird 'role reversal' going on.
Historically, a man did not need to learn about women, because all he had to do was go out there and bring home the bacon. Relationships were not his domain. He only communicated if it was necessary, like to say to his buddy on the hunt, 'there's a deer, let's go for it' :-)
If a father talked to his son about anything, it would be about 'how to be a man' and not specifically about women.
Historically, the women had all the time in the world to learn about men and more importantly talk to each other about men, because communicating is inbuilt into us, and this education on men was actually vital to our survival . The herd, in the form of groups of women doing household and other chores together was a good thing because it allowed this 'teaching' to go on, particularly amongst the different generations of women. No woman was left 'clueless' generally speaking.
Now, a woman is out on the hunt too, like a man, thanks to feminism. She has no contact with the older generations. The little time she has, she is talking with equally clueless women her age.
That is why you now have the kind of woman Danny is describing in his post.
Now, the men are the ones learning about what makes women tick. And now, they are talking to each other about women - via The Manosphere.
There is a lot of mentoring going on, some of which is great, some of which is not so great...
And clued-up fathers are now specifically telling their sons about women, in addition to educating them about being men.
Men are still at a slight disadvantage in this realm because it is not their natural domain, but the progress has been remarkably fast.
I think we are now seeing a new breed of man who knows more about women than women know about men for the first time in history.
For sure, this man is the spawn of Mama Feminism. The good thing about him is that he is a man who has added to his repertoire...he can hunt and is well-versed on women. So he can bring home the bacon and make himself attractive to a woman in a way that his grandfather never knew how. He is leaving nothing to chance, like his father did.
But, what I am asking myself is, is he really a new breed? Or is he just the same man as yesteryear who just never had to tap into his 'solution-finding' reserves to this degree?
I suspect the latter is true.
Women can still buck this trend by reclaiming this role. (But maybe the horse has already bolted from the stable).
I don't think men particularly want this role. Like women are tired of going on the hunt.
This is why the men are exclaiming, 'why can't she just be like my/her mother?'
And the women are saying, 'Why can't he be just like my/his father?'
And round and round the carousel we go.
(Hey, not the 'carousel' you are thinking of!)
how do you know which carousel i was thinking of?
i personally would rather just be a man (the man that i am) than an effeminate lil shit that society tells us to be, thankfully i have a strong father and traditional mother to thank for my manliness
Although here in Canada we are greatly influenced by the states, i don't think our women (most of them) are at the same level they are. thats just my observation
"how do you know which carousel i was thinking of?"
:-)
Nice to hear Canada is doing it right, Lost.
Not saying we are "Doing it right"
just stating a fact that we aren't as fucked in social dynamics, speaking from personal experience.
but yeah, we're doing it right haha, well the girls are anyhow
Post a Comment