Thursday, December 4, 2014

She makes my heart sing

Ah, don't you just love consumerism :-)
With Christmas coming up, this beast rears its ugly head once again :-)

From the first day I saw the following advert, an unfortunate association occurred...





Now I cannot hear this musical…

or a documentary like this...
without thinking about...chocolate!


Ticked off as I am that I have encumbered myself with a Pavlovian response that I cannot seem to stave off other than to not book an African safari anytime soon, it begs the question: just how do they do it? (The 'programming', I mean).
Or is this something that one does to oneself, aided and abetted by the materialistic society we live in?
How does one wean oneself off from such unwholesome 'conditioning' whilst simultaneously living in the West?

Weird associations aside, the silver lining is that it is from this same advert that I acquired a favourite catchphrase of mine.
Whenever something pleases me immensely, I express this with the phrase 'it makes my heart sing'.


I found a reason for my heart to sing recently.
A reason to have hope in the current SMP.


All is not lost.
At least not yet.

I have mentioned before that I do find gems in unusual places. This is no exception.

I came across a new blog recently. It is not the blog per se which interests me (although it is interesting for sure!) but a particular video I saw on that blog.

The blog is called 'Goldmund Unleashed', and is run by an American man who practises Game - a lot.
Goldmund is a man who is clearly confident in himself and is successful in the SMP.

I am happy for Goldmund, of course.

But it is not Goldmund I am interested in, for this post. In his latest post, he interviews a woman who used to be his room-mate. He and this woman clearly have a beautiful friendship and he describes her as 'family' in the post.
The warmth between them does come across very well in the interview (which spans two short videos - here).

Why would this woman 'make my heart sing'?

Several reasons:

1) She is clearly a very smart woman. By this, I mean that she is a sensible woman. This woman is the very embodiment of what every young woman should be, in my humble opinion. She thinks deeply, and has a very clear insight into a lot of issues which matter. Frighteningly for Goldmund (and I think this is - paradoxically - one of the reasons he may be fond of her), she has a great deal of insight into him.


2) She is a pleasant woman. Sweet, but not soppily so. It occurs to me now watching the video how rare this feature is becoming, so it really warms the cockles of my heart whe I see this in action.
Even though she is (unsurprisingly!) 'disgusted' with his private life, she is still pleasant about it, because a) she recognises that it is his life and not hers, and he is free to live his life as he so chooses, and b) I think she also accept that men are wired differently, so she refuses to judge him even though his lifestyle is not what she would choose for herself. I really like this 'live and let live' attitude she adopts towards him. She is not a prude, but that does not mean that she 'high-fives' him about his lifestyle, falsely. She is refreshingly honest, but within boundaries that respect his autonomy for his own life. I like that very much, and I can see that he respects her for it.


3) I already touched on this. But it should be repeated.
Whilst she is 'nice' she is also 'not too nice'.


'Niceness' is a bit of a two-edged sword, for both men and women. It is a good thing, until it is not. I think you all know what I mean. This woman is nice, which is why Goldmund likes her. But she is (brutally) honest as well. She is not a supplicating, 'pleaser'. Very important quality in a woman.


One might argue that she does not need to be nice to Goldmund, because she is not romantically linked to Goldmund.
Fair point.
But traits are traits. In the end, we treat everyone the same whether or not we are trying to impress them, because old habits die hard, as they say. It is therefore almost certain that she is just as honest with her boyfriend (or husband?) as she is being with Goldmund here.


4) Her mannerisms are very feminine.  She is a naturally pretty woman (if she is wearing make-up, it is light and not 'heavy' in a way that I see all too commonly) and her 'inner beauty' shines through to the outside. She smiles a lot, and she engages well with Goldmund to whom she is speaking. She may not be necessarily a 'people person' (is this shorthand for 'extrovert?) but she has this je ne sais quoi quality which makes people feel welcome in her presence. I know that introverts seek this quality in anyone they approach, and extroverts thrive on it :-)
She could talk to anyone, this woman. I wonder if she is a teacher? Teachers often has this quality in abundance...


5) I like how this woman is free of what I have now come  to recognise as 'low-level misandry'. Bellita and I discuss this 'man-hate' a lot, particularly in this post.
This woman cares about Goldmund in a way that is unusual for non-siblings/non-romantically-involved. This point is perhaps related to point 2 above, but only marginally, I think. She is genuinely happy for him that he seems to have 'found himself' in the time-period that she has known him.
This is gold - for Goldmund (excuse the pun, lol).
So many women are poisoned with 'man-hate' from the crib onwards that this genuine type of friendship - let alone love - is really not possible between the sexes anymore. Tragic.


So Goldmund's ex-room-mate makes my heart sing for her genuine love for another human being, who happens to be male.
This reminds me of a phrase in italian. 'Ti voglio bene' which literally means 'I wish you well' is one way to say 'I love you'. Isn't that beautiful? This takes me back to a previous post on this blog, about love, in particular the 'caritas' kind. Love, or caritas, requires a certain generosity of spirit, which I can see this woman possesses in abundance.
By implication, I can bet with certainty that she has a genuine love for women too. The clue for this, I pick up when she mentions that she feels sorry for one of the women Goldmund had a fling with (?one night stand?).


And here I take a short diversion and vent my frustration at those people (aherm, looking squarely at feminists, cough cough) who fling the word 'misogyny' about like a frisbee.


Misogyny is a word that has come to mean anything and everything these days.
But what it is not, is denying women their 'empowerment'.
It is not taking away their 'freedom'.
It is most certainly not thwarting their desire for 'adventure'.


If all of the above desires leads to her (self-) destruction, and someone has enough love for a woman to divert her from said path to doom, let us not call this 'pulled back from the brink manoeuvre' - misogyny.


There is such a thing as misogyny. Oh yes. But it is presented as a 'friend' of womanhood, until it becomes all too clear it is not.
I do not want to detract too much from the positive tone of this post, but I have definite ideas about what misogyny is and isn't.
Perhaps a post for another day?


Our mystery woman, in feeling sorry for women who don't know what's in their own best interests, is showing compassion. That is philogyny right there.


6) She is clearly not American. There is a hint of 'foreign' in her diction. The relevance of this point is that I hear so many men lament the 'fall from Grace' of the American woman. This is a shame, of course. And a double-shame for me because I would love nothing better than to debunk this ubiquitous observation. But alas, not with this example.
So my search continues...
:-)
Is this woman a 'unicorn' of sorts?


I would argue...not.
I think there are many women like this who are normal, feminine women. But they live normal, quiet lives. They are not all in a video on a blog. They are not 'out there', so it seems like they do not exist.


How lovely when they are recognised for who they are by friends (like Goldmund), spouses, family members.


I think we should 'name and praise' these exemplary women when we see them (as in, opposite to 'naming and shaming' the bad ones, lol) for 2 important reasons:
1) That these lovely ladies are encouraged to continue their exemplary behaviour for which they are being commended.
2) That other ladies take note (we ladies are 'herd' creatures, lol).
3) That observers are reminded that these women still exist. Keeps hope alive, you see.
:-)


Whoever this lovely lady is, can I just say to you - well done for your wonderful demeanour. Props to you, more grease to your elbow and long may you continue!























60 comments:

metak said...

Wild thing! You make my heart sing! ;-)

Game is in the air obviously, and addiction seems to be even worse then I thought.

"*If any of you guys are interested in being coached by me, I’m going to launch a service this month. I can guarantee that you will meet and talk to women…the best practice you can get."

I lol-ed so hard after reading that and almost threw up my coffee...
All those suppressed traumatic memories about PUA's and 'Game' material in general somehow resurfaced. It's how every PUA-like scam operates. LOL ;-) First rule of this trade is to bring a good looking woman to sell your product.
Duh... second rule would be to make a 'demonstration' of your 'Game' where of course she's all 'feminine' and nice and god just shoot me... ;-) third step is to appeal to men's inner blue-pill mindset of finding that 'unicorn' which is done by stroking the ego and not the joystick... fourth step, as a true scoundrel, liar and a thief make them believe you're doing them a huge favor by teaching them all these awesome techniques, all that while you're bending them over and ripping them off... ;-)
But in the end as long as there are simps buying into it, I say f*ck 'em, and someone should write down their horror stories just for laughs. ;-)

::> this where I bang my head into the wall hoping to cause permanent memory loss...

Did I mentioned how you're projecting way too much onto what you see out there, ST?

"Is this woman a 'unicorn' of sorts?

I would argue...not.
I think there are many women like this who are normal, feminine women. But they live normal, quiet lives. They are not all in a video on a blog. They are not 'out there', so it seems like they do not exist."


That's the theory at least. Hence all different space programs. If it's 'out there' maybe someone will find it, someday... no trace of 'unicorn' was found on that asteroid for now... next stop is Mars... we'll see...

Unicorns i love them,
Unicorns i love them,
Uni-Uni-Unicorns, i loove them!

Uni-Unicorns i could pet one
if they were really real..
And they are!
So i bought one so i could pet it.
And it loves me,
And i love it...


Hello hell my old friend, it seems I'll be seeing you again. (for sure ;-)

Anonymous said...

Each to their own. I've got nothing against game, and I've never read up on it, so it's a closed book to me.

The woman was polite and pleasant, but the interview made me realize I'm not missing out on much. All her likes and dislikes and do's and don'ts... No thanks. I wonder if women spoke disparagingly about me behind my back the way she did about some of his male friends? I know for sure women enjoyed my company or they wouldn't have sought me out and followed me around.

I can only speak for myself, there would have to be a big improvement in the average quality of western women to make the effort of game worthwhile. When it comes to non-western women, well, either they don't need game or I already got it.

Re your diversion into Misogyny: A Misogynist is simply someone who does not immediately ass lick and kow-tow to the fembots.

Glissando

metak said...

@BG

Lucky you. Leave it closed or use it to start a fire when needed. ;-)

What most of the 'game' boils down to is man playing a role of dancing monkey.
There you have it. You just saved a shitload of money and you learned it all in comfort of your own home.

What matters is that everything is changing only for the worse for men. Here I mean laws etc. and it really doesn't matter what women are like. Recently I witnessed how fast a man can end up with a wife and a child... wife has one of those useless degrees, can't find a job and he's the sole provider... his life now is set to one of a work-horse till he drops... scary!

Sure, 'game' means lots of things to different people and who cares about it...

Anonymous said...

I know what a unicorn is. My sisters and my mother and her sisters are unicorns. I have a large expended family and all my female blood relatives are unicorns. From what we can tell online, it's quite possible, if not probable, that ST herself is a unicorn irl.

I've yet to meet an unrelated unicorn and I doubt that I ever will. One or two of the non-western women I've met may have been unicorns, but I didn't hang around long enough to find out.

MY homeland, NZ, is the land of predatory promiscuous princesses. Not much unicorn material here. I do enjoy the company of my beautiful cousins and relatives. They are delightful, and all 9 and 10 on the scale! A lot of men want to be my friend so they can be near those women ;)

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Game is indeed an addiction for me. I admit it!

In all seriousness, Metak, you KNOW why I like Game. In general, most men need some idea of Game to even get off the ground.
You know that. YOU may not need the help of some PUA, because you already have what it takes to get a girl, should you wish to. Other men are not so lucky...

You react to Goldmund much the same way you reacted to Danny. You sure are consistent! ;-)

The honest truth is, I don't really like to know the details of Goldmund's personal life. Much like the girl in the video, I would probably find it 'disgusting' too. But that's not Goldmund's problem. He does what he needs to do, and no doubt, his ladies love his confidence.
You say I am 'projecting' re this girl...Interesting. I call it how I see it - honest! She has many good qualities, you gotta agree. I don't know her, but I read good things into her attitude from the 2 short videos. Whilst it is good to recognise 'bad' women, it is also important to see when someone is great. This is why I take the trouble to showcase her good qualities.

Glissando,

I respect your 'no thanks' to whatever is available in the SMP. For sure, the point of this post is NOT to tell anyone what to like.
The point is to highlight qualities that are inherently good. For example, you say she spoke disparagingly about Goldmund's friend.
You are right, she did. But look at the context - he asked her to be honest and she was. She used his friend as an example, not to be unkind to that guy, but to make a point, which Goldmund perhaps already knows about because (it seems to me) they had already discussed that guy before. This is a very different scenario from a group of women making fun of a man behind his back, purely for their own entertainment. This woman has been asked to give a critique of undesirable male behaviour (to do with attraction) and she has. I think she is an ally rather than the enemy here. The best thing Goldmund could do for his friend is to tell him what this woman said. That would help him in the SMP, because he may be turning women off and not know why.

"I can only speak for myself, there would have to be a big improvement in the average quality of western women to make the effort of game worthwhile."

I am sure many men would agree with you on this one! Womanhood as a collective group has a lot of improving to do. I concur. This is a major problem for men, as I see it, and I realise that this problem is not solved by showcasing ONE polite and pleasant woman. Understood.
I don't belittle the problem that exists in the SMP. That would be like blaming the victim for their problems.

As ever, the eternal question is, 'how can we improve things?'
Every woman should do her part. Every man should do his part. I think this woman is doing her individual part. So I like her for this. But she is not a global solution. Of course not...

Spacetraveller said...

As to 'unicorns', I have a slight problem with this concept. Many men in the Manosphere use this word to imply they are seeking this 'special' or 'unique' person. I used to think I knew what a 'unicorn' was, but sometimes I wonder if it is a shield to hide behind? It is certainly true on 'planet woman' that 'all men are pigs' is the perfect excuse NOT to make the effort to delve into the SMP.

The word 'unicorn' implies 'perfection. It is for this reason that I do not think it applies to me because I know that I am not perfect. I know I often annoy you guys even online on this blog, let alone in real life. My job when this happens, is to find out what I did and try to correct the problem if I was in the wrong (easier siad than done, but this is how it must be, no?).
But of course, it is also my duty and pleasure to STRIVE for perfection, knowing I may never get there, but of course I also musn't hide behind 'I may never get there' and not try...).
So whilst I thank you for your nice words, I know that 'unicorn' does not apply to me. Certainly not on my 'red days, lol.

It should be the case that normal women are pleasant enough, polite enough, sensible enough...this is how it should be. It shouldn't be unique/special women who are like this. Enough women (the critical mass as I like to call it) should be like this for things to start functioning normally again in the SMP.
The other thing about 'unicorns' is that it should be as you have done it - it is MEN who can say if a woman is a unicorn. So your female relatives are unicorns indeed (if we insist on using this word, LOL), because YOU say they are. Even if I were conceited enough to call *myself* one, it would not hold true, because it is not *me* who decides.
And this woman is one because it is GOLDMUND who says she is, or at least implies that she is.

"A Misogynist is simply someone who does not immediately ass lick and kow-tow to the fembots."

Touché.
:-)

Anonymous said...

ST, you see a quality in her that I don't. Perhaps it's the interviewer. His voice is too loud relative to hers, and he frequently interrupts her. She might have agreed to the interview to help him out, in which case I'd have to say yes, she's showing some kindness. While he has asked her to be honest, she is caught in the conundrum of kindness and saying what he wants to hear. With all that interference going on, how do you hear her?

I know a little more about Game than I admitted previously. I've never practised it for myself, but I've seen it in action and find it amusing. My male friends take me out because according to them, I'm not interested in picking up women and they love it! The women are attracted, my friends play the game, and away the dance goes. It a closed book to me in the sense that it makes no sense!

Boys, if that's what it takes to get your rocks off, go for it! It's great entertainment for blokes like me! Enjoy! Party party party! Mwahahahaha!

Glissando.

metak said...

ST,

First step is admitting you have a problem... ;-)

Yeah yeah, I know why you like it. ;-) What I was saying was more along the lines of what @BG said:

"Boys, if that's what it takes to get your rocks off, go for it! It's great entertainment for blokes like me! Enjoy! Party party party! Mwahahahaha!"

My 'reaction' to Goldmund? Well, ST, it's funny to me how my old basic profile about PUAs and 'gamers' is still so accurate!? ;-)
I swear to you my papa Devil must have a special mold just for them. This is what makes me LMAO. ;-) And laughter is good for ya!

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-shows-laughter-produces-brain-waves-like-master-of-meditation

My point was, how much can you really tell from 2 short videos?
Especially when there's a conflict of interests.

In the end even PUAs get it... ;-)

http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-be-a-good-clown

Of course we'll never see eye to eye about this one ST, something something... ;-)

@BG

Brother, in one of your old comments you mentioned how you managed to build something from "my neck of the woods". What was it?? ;-)

Anonymous said...

@BM,

You've got me scratching the old bonker here, bro. The only thing I can think of is the style of garden I planted out back, making sure to build a small shed in the middle. I got the idea when I was in your part of Europe. My stay in your country was fairly brief, I spent more time in Budapest. Sometimes the locals would take me out to their huts in the countryside, a bit like a Kiwi going to his "bach" (North Island) or "crib" (South Island) for the weekend. Cribs and baches are oldish and usually charming little holiday houses by a beach or a lake, or anywhere really.
Here's a picture of a bach (short for "bachelor pad"):
http://images.holidayhouses.co.nz/hh/full/64/221764.jpg

But I digress. These huts in your part of the world were quaint like Kiwi baches, and smaller. The locals arrive at their huts and eat the food they grow in the surrounding plots. They'd prepare them or cook them (can't remember how) and the dishes were nice. The only part I didn't enjoy was the homemade wine. Yuk!

Does that answer your question @BM? I'm tempted to go on to describe a Hungarian woman who took me to her hut, but that's another story ;)

Glissando.

Anonymous said...

ST
My definition of a unicorn is essentially brief:
A woman who, if she commits to a man, stays committed for as long as he keeps to the deal. She is faithful to him and never turns off on him sexually.

Unfortunately for men, the typical woman is inherently non-unicorn:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/once-more-feeling/201306/female-sexual-desire-evolutionary-biology-perspective/

"for as long as he keeps to the deal"
What constitutes keeping the deal? This is where the unicorn shows herself to be the antithesis of modern western woman. The unicorn will NOT pull out for any of these reasons:
1. She raises his stakes. Things that she once loved about him no longer appeal.

2. She raises the money stakes. After the marriage she reveals that she wants more than he had expected.

3. She raises the emotional stakes. Comparing her lot with the impossible expectations she gets from the media, she is now irritated, dissatisfied, harassed, exploited, chronically unhappy.

4. Tingles: By the time his child by her has reached 2 years of age, 5 at the most (see link above), her biology tells her to dismiss him sexually and replace him with another man.

5. ME ME ME: Entitlement, feminism, whatever, the lives of others are irrelevant "because yer worth it".

Apart from my relatives, every western women I've met (except one) would break their commitment for any of the above 5 reasons.

To all intents and purposes, the unicorn is extinct. The fact that unicorns appear to exist in a tiny percentage of female humanity serves only to remind us of what might have been.

Glissando.

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,
"ST, you see a quality in her that I don't."


I do see that she is a fair-minded person who is helping out a friend, yes. This matters to me a great deal. This quality is dying out because men and women are no longer friendly towards each other.
The very fact that Goldmund chose a female friend to discuss Game issues on his blog says a lot about the female friend.
This is what 'attracted' me to the video in the first place.
I also like the friendship between them. They both respect each other's boundaries - he respects that she is some other man's girlfriend or wife, she respects his lifestyle of Game/getting laid.

Glissando, it is well-known that those men who do not need to practise Game are the very ones who are the most attracive to women.
I suspect you and Metak have little respect for Game precisely because you are both naturals at it, so you can afford to look down your noses at those who need it as their 'leg up' on the SMP ladder.
I say 'good for you fellas!' but at the same time have some pity/mercy for those me who need it.
I suppose I can understand where you guys are coming from. You are not the ones who witness the truly Gameless men out there - how could you - they are not approaching you! All I shall say on this matter is, there is a huge difference between those men who know what they are doing, and those who don't, and it is (painfully) obvious to a woman, who is the recipient of Game. Look at it this way...feminists or those who practise or preach 'fat acceptance' have no idea how a man (who is VERY VISUAL) reacts viscerally to a fat woman (which requires these people to 'see' things from a man's point of view/stand in his shoes/wear his hat - not easy if you are not actually man, granted). This is why these fat acceptance types should listen to men whose eyes are burning from the eyesores they see waddling aound them. It is a case of 'willful ignorance' because they do not see or feel what men (who are the recipients, or at least the 'audience' of female beauty (or otherwise as in this case!)) feel. So these fat acceptance people keep saying, 'why don't you just 'deal with it (fat women)?' endlessly, and the men reply, 'but we can't help it!' and round and round we go... Somewhere along the merry-go-round, someone has to recognise that this is a 'feature' not a bug of manhood. It is well within the capability of most fat women to lose weight. So they should. This would end the 'endless argument' problem.
You are doing something similar...'Why can't these guys just get with women they want!' And they are replying, 'but the women won't respond to us unless we have Game and w don't have Game, so we are learning it!'
If we can only learn it from a PUA, so be it!
So what I am really saying is, c'mon guys, have some solidarity for your less endowed brothers (less endowed with Game, I mean, before anyone gets any ideas...).
:-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"First step is admitting you have a problem".

Hahahahahahaha. This is indeed what they said to me when I attended the first meeting of 'Game-aholics Anonymous'.
!

And I also admit that my 'problem' is incurable, Metak.
:-)

"My point was, how much can you really tell from 2 short videos?".

Call it 'intuition' or 'an educated guess'. But really, you don't even need my 'feeeeelings' on this. The best evidence in favour of this woman's 'goodness' is that Goldmund (a man who knows her well) thinks highly of her.

How many men these days have women around them that they think highly of? (Other than their actual relatives - and even then, this is still 'hit and miss').

The point is, here is a man with good things to say about a woman not his sister.
This is a small thing, but gives me immense pleasure because I have found some evidence of 'not all women are b*tches'.

One small step for womankind, one giant leap for humankind and all that jazz, Metak...

You know, I recall something Bellita said on this blog a long time ago. Which is, as women go more and more feral, it will get harder and harder for you men to be impressed with us. Which means, when the majority of women were 'good enough', men were 'easily pleased'. Now, you guys need to see acts of saintly proportions before you are even remotely impressed. :-)
I am seeing the gravity of that truth now. And you know what? I am neither surprised nor blaming you (men). It is a natural consequence of bad womanhood. I accept it because it is what it is. I just make the observation to let you know what I am seeing.

Glissando,

I like your definition of 'unicorn.'

I see your 'unicorn' and I raise you my 'unicorn'. ;-)

How about this...
A woman who, if she commits to a man, stays committed EVEN IF he does not keep to the deal.

Outcome independence for the female species...how about that for a 'borrowed' masculine trait...

We all know women who still stayed when their husbands were unfaithful, don't we? We also know of men who took back unfaithful wives. Not easy, but these people managed it.
A man commented here a while back, telling us of a woman named 'Augustina' who did not ditch a failing husband. We went on to have a discussion about 'Caritas' and what it means.
Many people have spouses who either before or after the wedding day suffer from various addictions.
I agree some are hopeless cases, fair enough. But are ALL of them? I believe not.

I was asking myself in the post that Mac asked me to write on Pope Pius: WHY is marriage a sacrament?
I shall leave that one as rhetorical...

We don't actually need unicorns, Glissando. We just need women to go back en masse to pre-1950s standards, with men helping us along the way. That's all we need.
Unicorns are fun, sure. But one step at a time, Glissando. We got a long road ahead of us. :-) It's like in 'The Wizard of OZ (or in your case, the Wizard of NZ, lol). It's a very VERY long yellow brick road...'Unicorn' is the very last stop on that road. Let's aim for 'normal' first. :-)

Goldmund said...

Hi, this is Goldmund here.

First off, thanks for your in depth and accurate break down of the dynamics of the interview.

I sent your response to her and she cried when she read its honesty.

Keep up the clear thinking.

I am not a PUA, I have no tricks, there are no 'routines'.

I will admit to using all those tactics in the past, but now its just about stepping up to a woman and presenting myself.

The more women I sleep with, the more they want to sleep with me...its something I would have never thought true before, but the evidence speaks for itself. Girls can sniff it out like bloodhounds.

Also...I live in New York City. No one comes here to start a family and have kids. The culture is slutty, frivolous, and this truly is the fastest place in the world. Time moves 10x faster here than anywhere else.

So I work with it, its what I enjoy. If I was in a war, I be the best solider in the army. If we had to hunt, I'd be the greatest hunter in the tribe. Since this is a time of peace and prosperity, I'm doing what every man feels in his blood...having sex with as many beautiful women as possible.

Women like my ex-roommate are indeed rare. Its why we have such a bond. Out of the almost 300 women I've been with, I can say that exactly 2 were worthy of raising my children.

Thats all. This is a harsh world, bringing a child into it seems like a sin to me. I feel lucky to live the life that I do but am trying to make the best of it.

Cheers to your clear thinking and I wish the best.

Spacetraveller said...

Goldmund,

Thanks for commenting, and welcome to The Sanctuary!

Also, thank you for showing the video of your friend.
I am happy to hear that she heard about my little post about her.
She deserves any praise she gets. I truly admire her.

New York sounds like quite the cesspit...
Good grief, not a good place to be. You and all your fellow New Yorkers have my sympathy.

The odds you mention are so abysmal! Only 2 out of 300, you would consider having a family with?!

In that case, let's start immediately praising the other one as well - got a video of her? :-).

In all seriousness, I kind of understand why Metak and Glissando remain non-plussed. But I think my reasons for liking your friend are entirely valid.

Oh well, perhaps it is not just beauty which lies in the eye of the beholder :-).

Greetings to your friend.
And thank you. I wish you the best too.

Anonymous said...

"If we had to hunt, I'd be the greatest hunter in the tribe."

Well, let's see... I started hunting at the age of 8. At 16 I killed a 250 pound wild boar with a knife, and I have killed many since with the blade. My body has many scars. To this day, I hunt big game in the forests and mountains. I am 6 feet 5 and I can carry a gutted deer up and down mountains on my shoulders. This is like climbing with a 250 pound man on my back. Oh, and I'm an expert marksman.

Just sayin'

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

"Well, let's see... I started hunting at the age of 8. At 16 I killed a 250 pound wild boar with a knife, and I have killed many since with the blade. My body has many scars. To this day, I hunt big game in the forests and mountains. I am 6 feet 5 and I can carry a gutted deer up and down mountains on my shoulders. This is like climbing with a 250 pound man on my back. Oh, and I'm an expert marksman.

Just sayin'

Glissando"


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!
Metak, can I borrow your words and say to your bro:
Wild thing! You make my heart sing!
This has GOT to be Comment of the Month!

Glissando, this comment of yours is one of the best examples of gorilla-esque chest thumping, appendage swinging, AMOGing I have seen in a while!

Love it!

And in related news, all the single female readership of The Sanctuary are now boarding flights to New Zealand to find this fine specimen of homo sapiens hunter called Glissando.
:-)

Air New Zealand would personally like to thank the über-Kiwi Glissando for his efforts in boosting business for them ahead of the Christmas rush...

;-)

Can you not see that with this comment you are helping me make my argument as to why Game is a good thing for a man?

How can you continue to lock horns with me on this?

Perhaps you don't know that there are many men who just don't have this level of bravado/self-confidence, and thus would not even write this anonymously on a blog, let alone live it in their daily lives, simply because they do not have this mindset in the first place, Glissando.
This is a sad fact, yes. But I can tell you sincerely that it is true. You perhaps cannot imagine it because you are solidly masculine in your soul, and you don't want to believe that it may not be so for everyone else.

The first man who displayed this level of unapologetic, cocky confidence (other than my own relatives, lol), I...married him.

Don't underestimate the effect of this sort of thing on women, Glissando.

Where I live, there is a strong hunting element, and I see what you just did on a more or less daily basis. It is immensely fun, actually funny/amusing/downright hilarious to observe and is one of the reasons I don't miss life in big cities anymore. I see that the more rural the life, the more masculine the men. The women too perhaps become more feminine??

The only reason I am not on that plane to NZ myself is that my hypergamy instincts have been well and truly appeased :-)

Luckily for you, I won't inflict this type of pain on you, 'cos I am a respectable gal an' all, lol. But you carry on beating your chest ala Tarzan, and don't blame me if some other old bird does this to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv16j_i2Pdk

Hahahahahahahaha!


In all seriousness, well played, Glissando.
Spoken like a true man :-).
We women dig that. And now I WILL have a nice day, courtesy of you.
Ta, and g'day!




Anonymous said...

ST, are you sure you're not reacting this way because you know what I look like, and now you know my height as well? Or was it the wingman in the photo who has done this to you?
;)

Hahahahahaha!

Glissando

P.S. re Game: The time might come when peace breaks out between us. Things more strange than this have been known to happen :D

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

What can I say, your wingman should come with a public health warning for ladies :-)
Too cute.

"re Game: The time might come when peace breaks out between us."

I can't wait for this day to come!

Anonymous said...

At the time I came out with my comment at December 15 8:18 PM, I wasn't aware it was game. There's a lot of advice re game, but I've neither read it nor listened to it.

It's just that if a guy's going to say "I'd be the greatest hunter in the tribe" then he better be damn good. Same with the claim to "be the best soldier in the army." Some of my scars are from a knife fight against pirates in the South China Sea. If I hadn't won that fight (against highly skilled killers) I'd be dead. You better be damn good, baby!

Okay I got that off my chest. If that was goldmund's hidden intention, then I take my hat off to him for smart.

ST, has it taken a "gamey" comment from me for you to realize women like me? It was the very nature of my MGHOW issues, for goodness' sake!

Anyway, there's a tiny little seed of an idea growing in my mind, that would be a solution to our squabble re "game", ST.

"squabble" ;) lol

Friends. :)

Glissando

Anonymous said...

ST, if we can agree on the following proposition, then peace will threaten to break out between us:

Game is worthwhile if its rewards are high enough to:
(a) compensate for the low average quality of western women
(b) justify taking the ever-increasing risk of interacting with western women.

By (b) I'm referring to rape and DV, and also to the deluge of "manufactroversies" that fembots are bringing down on straight men.

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Happy New Year!
As to your proposition....Done!

I see no reason to disagree with you, on both counts.

I see Game as a refreshingly enjoyable way men and women can interact with each other. Girl Game can be just as 'naughty' as Boy Game, but both can be done with good intentions, and for sure it would reduce the angst between men and women. The best thing about Game is that it increases knowledge about the opposite sex. How can this not be good?
It can come in all shapes and sizes but it can be all good. I have been on the receiving end of 'Catholic Game' for years from my now husband, for example. Have you been on a first date where the other party suddenly starts saying the rosary even though they have no idea if you yourself are Catholic? I have! I have also been subject to other types of 'uncategorized' Game...I have no name for this type of Game, maybe you can give it a name for me...my husband used to (and still does) use my fingers to scratch any part of his anatomy he chooses...which is fine, but back when we were 'courting', I would get a little nervous when my fingers started approaching orifices...yes, sadly I didn't always get to pick my own nose...(ah TMI, I know - sorry for putting you off yer dinner!)

But do you see what I mean? It's all good fun if you can see the funny side. One thing about Game is that it can be very amusing. I am sure there are things women do that make you laugh involuntarily, no?

It doesn't always have to be 'grit yer teeth' painful between men and women. Good clean fun is so welcome in this SMP right now. Yes Game can have a sinister side, but it is up to the individual using it to use it correctly, with a pure heart:-)

Do we have a truce on Game?
A brand new year with a brand new truce?
*waves white flag*

:-)

Anonymous said...

"I have no name for this type of Game, maybe you can give it a name for me...my husband used to (and still does) use my fingers to scratch any part of his anatomy he chooses.."

This is just fun between male and female. It is arousing and challenging and as old as we have been around. It just "is". Are you re-defining "game" as anything whereby we give each other the tingles?

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

"Are you re-defining "game" as anything whereby we give each other the tingles?"

But yes!
No-one is claiming that Game is some sort of re-invention of the wheel. Game is not new. It just so happens that a man did not really need Game in times past because a woman was programmed to ONLY look at his resources to think him suitable for marriage to her or not, and indeed her father advised accordingly looking squarely at this suitor's resources/money. The only men who used Game were the habitual seducers, the Don Juans and the Casanovas. But these guys were not the marrying type, but they sure got the sex :-)
I explain this further in the 'Game and the girl' post.
But now, women have turned into something else, so now, your money is not enough! We now need tingles as well!
So nowadays, even the marrying man needs Game just to get a foothold on the girl ladder.
So many men are missing out just because they are totally Gameless, or they do get women, but the very 'bottom of the barrel' types that no-one else wants.
All I am saying is that Game is good for these men because it gives them a litlle more insight than they had before, and increases their chances of getting the type of woman they want, not just anyone. It levels the playing field for men, whether it is for the goal of finding a wife, or a girlfriend or whatever.

Granted, not all women need Game. But most do nowadays. And it is fun and educational for all. And women are doing their own Girl Game, I assure you, whether it is with the intention of getting some guy to propose to her, or (sadly) to just 'seduce' him (to her own detriment, of course, which she may not realise due to false feminist teachings that men and women are 'equal' when it comes to sex).

Paging Ceer....paging Ceer....I need your help! Does what I say to Glissando make sense? You are the only other Game advocate who regularly backs me up - please help!

Anonymous said...

ST, the game my friends play is different. They train themselves in it. It involves swagger, assertiveness, sudden switches from aggression to charm and back, bluntness almost to the point of rudeness interspersed with humor and suave politeness, and a lot of other tactics. It seems to me, each tactic quickly targets a different emotion in a woman one on top of the other until she's overwhelmed. And it does work, even on intelligent women. I've seen it work for men who previously had no luck with women at all.

I wonder if in some ways I understand women better than they understand themselves, EXCEPT...
Why do the women keep looking at me throughout these performances? I'll be standing, watching with amusement, and otherwise minding my own business. No game, no attempt to approach a woman, haven't even spoken yet. I'm tall, and I tend to stand out because of my height. However, some of my friends are taller. Others are better looking then I am. One of my friends is taller and better looking, and still I'm the one the women want to interact with. I just don't get it. If I'm unconsciously using game, how can it happen when I haven't spoken or moved?

"Are you re-defining 'game' as anything whereby we give each other the tingles? But yes!"

Do men really need to be trained how to caress, hug and kiss, or make a woman laugh?

I do look forward to peace breaking out between us, ST. I really do.

And may I belatedly wish you a happy new year! :)

Glissando

Ceer said...

I haven't checked out this conversation much as I've been away from my computer while visiting family. So allow me to go back and address some of your previous points.

@ Glissando

Game starts with the supposition that a man can improve his success with women by learning and employing certain social skills. You seem to get this. The idea has actually existed for a long time, going in and out of favor in various times and places of western culture. The actual term is new, introduced by the current generation of pick up artists.

If I'm unconsciously using game, how can it happen when I haven't spoken or moved?

Game is a social technique, any time you're in a social setting, you have a chance to put it in play.

Going back and looking at the video, it seems to be about a game practitioner interviewing a female friend or former lover. The first question is a request for a compare and contrast before and after the man learned game. In response, the woman basically lays out his characteristics as:

Before: Lame, "Does things that don't make sense", Handsome, Intelligent,

After: Confident, Handsome, Intelligent

Notice that the woman gives more emphasis to the lame/confident difference than the handsome & intelligent similarity. This response is consistent with many people who have claimed to successfully learn game.

It is certainly possible to sit down and survey others with amusement and attract female attention, particularly if you're tall and handsome. Just as it's possible to employ active game techniques and have your interaction ruined by poor presence. Pay attention to your and your friend's posture, mood, and tone. That will give you clues as to what's going on.

Do men really need to be trained how to caress, hug and kiss, or make a woman laugh?

This bit seems like projection to me, as these are all things that a man would want from a woman. What a woman wants, and what men need to be trained at, are men who show social dominance in interactions with them.

Game is worthwhile if its rewards are high enough to:
(a) compensate for the low average quality of western women
(b) justify taking the ever-increasing risk of interacting with western women.


Now THIS is the money shot...

a) Yes, if you subscribe to the idea that women will consciously change for a shot at an attractive man, or you subscribe to the idea that the ass you get will be of higher quality/younger than you could otherwise get.

b) Yes, if you subscribe tot he idea that women will consciously change for a shot at an attractive man, or if you value poon/shot at children more than the probability that you will be subject to a false rape allegation/divorce theft/false DV charges.

Women changing for men is less ludicrous than it sounds. They change for each other every day, it's how they form the sisterhood. The difficulty is getting them to identify with you.

Ceer said...

I haven't checked out this conversation much as I've been away from my computer while visiting family. So allow me to go back and address some of your previous points.

@ Glissando

Game starts with the supposition that a man can improve his success with women by learning and employing certain social skills. You seem to get this. The idea has actually existed for a long time, going in and out of favor in various times and places of western culture. The actual term is new, introduced by the current generation of pick up artists.

If I'm unconsciously using game, how can it happen when I haven't spoken or moved?

Game is a social technique, any time you're in a social setting, you have a chance to put it in play.

Going back and looking at the video, it seems to be about a game practitioner interviewing a female friend or former lover. The first question is a request for a compare and contrast before and after the man learned game. In response, the woman basically lays out his characteristics as:

Before: Lame, "Does things that don't make sense", Handsome, Intelligent,

After: Confident, Handsome, Intelligent

Notice that the woman gives more emphasis to the lame/confident difference than the handsome & intelligent similarity. This response is consistent with many people who have claimed to successfully learn game.

It is certainly possible to sit down and survey others with amusement and attract female attention, particularly if you're tall and handsome. Just as it's possible to employ active game techniques and have your interaction ruined by poor presence. Pay attention to your and your friend's posture, mood, and tone. That will give you clues as to what's going on.

Do men really need to be trained how to caress, hug and kiss, or make a woman laugh?

This bit seems like projection to me, as these are all things that a man would want from a woman. What a woman wants, and what men need to be trained at, are men who show social dominance in interactions with them.

Game is worthwhile if its rewards are high enough to:
(a) compensate for the low average quality of western women
(b) justify taking the ever-increasing risk of interacting with western women.


Now THIS is the money shot...

a) Yes, if you subscribe to the idea that women will consciously change for a shot at an attractive man, or you subscribe to the idea that the ass you get will be of higher quality/younger than you could otherwise get.

b) Yes, if you subscribe tot he idea that women will consciously change for a shot at an attractive man, or if you value poon/shot at children more than the probability that you will be subject to a false rape allegation/divorce theft/false DV charges.

Women changing for men is less ludicrous than it sounds. They change for each other every day, it's how they form the sisterhood. The difficulty is getting them to identify with you.

By the way, I learned they don't allow comments longer than 4,096 characters.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer to the rescue!

Thanks very much for responding to Glissando in a way that I could never have. Obviously, you understand Game much better than I do. I can ony talk about it as a recipent, not as a practitioner. So thank you once again!

Glissando,

Happy new Year to you too. Ceer makes some very good points, no?

Spacetraveller said...

I would just like to add that Ceer's point about the lame/confidence thing is a very important one and is a very good reason to learn Game if you are a man in this modern SMP. This is something women do ALL the time, even in non-romantic settings. It's automatic, and how a woman treats a man may well be on the basis of how she 'categorises' him on first encounter, even if that encounter was not in a romantic setting. It is similar to how a man judges a woman by her appearance first, before all other considerations. Deti once described this as two files: would bang/would not bang (sorry to be crude!) It is similar for women: wouldn't allow him to touch me even with a ten-foot bargepole/it's a distinct possibility :-)

C'est la vie...

One of the reasons I like this woman being interviewed is that she is brutally honest about this. This tells me that she really wants to help Goldmund and the men who are his audience watching this video. This is a much better woman than the ones who keep proclaiming that women want 'nice men'. What this means is, when she no longer has anything worthy to offer, she'll settle for the 'nice man' who has waited his turn patiently for years.
Game helps men not to be THAT man who gets the last ditch 'reluctant bride'.
Understanding the dynamics at play in this complex SMP makes all the difference. The PUA is not a saint, but even he has something to teach a clueless young man. If one is not fussy about where one gets one's education...

Ceer said...

When a woman says "I want a nice man", what she is really saying is:

"I want a man I find attractive who might also be nice from time to time." Game knowledge helps a man identify this.

Anonymous said...

ST and Ceer,

Thanks for the explanations.

I'm not at all sure about this from Ceer:
"This bit seems like projection to me, as these are all things that a man would want from a woman". However, it's a small point in the wider context. Let's move on.

With your comments regarding gaming in mind, I have been out with my friends again. (As already mentioned, my friends pester me to go out with them because they believe my presence speeds up the pickup process for them. There's not much in it for me, apart from the entertainment of observing my friends with women and "gaming" in action.)
Putting your comments together, it seems that there are at least two types of game. The first type is one that some men are born with or that developed naturally as a part of their "growing up". I will refer to it as "low game". The second type is one that a man can learn from books or tuition and trialling in practice. I will refer to it as "high game".

My friends are not "lame" men. They have confidence in abundance. They are so practised and skilled in high game, it comes effortlessly to them and it works. And yet, even as my friends are succeeding with women, the women are simultaneously showing a greater interest in me. My friends think it's because I show indifference to women. However, when my friends try the "indifference" approach it doesn't work for them. So I don't think "indifference to women" is the answer.

The answer must be something very potent. After all, I am starting from a position far behind my friends, who went through the long process of learning high game and the trials and tribulations of testing it on the ground. They have all the experience of regularly going out of their way for women and putting themselves out. It must be immensely important to them, to justify all the time and effort. By comparison I possess low game at the most. I lack their learning and experience in high game, and as if that's not enough, I seek no interaction with women in the first place (I am a MGHOW).

Perhaps the answer lies in something that has been curiously absent from the explanations both of you have given so far. I'm talking about the "bad boy" factor. My friends are all nice guys. Does their niceness prevent them from being something even more attractive than they already are as men versed in game?

People tell me I have a "wicked smile". I think women mistake me for a bad boy, which, incredibly, is enough to yank me from my place far behind my friends and actually place me ahead of them. I mean real bad, not just "bad boy" in the sense of "playboy". I mean the kind of bad that is attractive to women who like criminals. If by the rules of this low game, women are attracted to me because their instincts tell them I'm bad, then I want no part of it.

Apart from "bad boy", another possible answer I've often wondered about is the difference in the deportment of men who are used to risking their lives on a regular basis. This places such men apart from the men who define themselves by image rather than self and hone their bodies in the gym. I saw it very clearly when, as a country boy, I started living in the city. I think it's possible that women instinctively discern these differences in a man. But that's an entire topic on its own.

Again, my thanks to both of you for your explanations.

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

I rather hoped Ceer would tackle your latest comment, but since he hasn't, I shall volunteer this:
It is too 'technical' for me to take on. I could tell you the effect of Game from the other side of the fence, i.e. how 'Boy Game' affects women, and of course I could write a book on 'Girl Game' :-)

But the details of how Game works, or how men who know how to do it, do it...nada. I don't really know.

I know this sounds like a lame answer, but it really is the honest answer.
Perhaps Ceer or any other Game enthusiast could help us out.

Ceer said...

Glissando,

You are quite correct in observing two distinct types of game. Often, they are called natural and learned game, though your low and high terms for them also fit.

Another thing to keep in mind is that individual men differ somewhat in which game techniques will work for them. Because of that, there will always be at least some variation from person to person, even among the top practitioners.

It has been noticed in game circles that women respond most powerfully to men who do not appear to be putting in little to no effort trying to gain their interest. There is an important prerequisite: Attraction. An unattractive male who is ignoring women will safely be ignored in return.

I don't doubt your assertion that you attract women with very little effort. Some men are just like that. They have something going for them, whether that is physical attractiveness, good dress sense, or natural game would depend on the situation. Female attraction cues are complex, but all game sources agree that a women's attraction must be piqued FIRST before any successful relationship can be developed.

You are correct that the answer IS very potent. For years, pioneering game practitioners would seek to emulate people who were naturally good with women, leading to development of theory. For their part, naturals don't usually become explicitly aware of their behavior. The reason for this is a mix of temperament (they're not the most introspective people) and incentives (they're doing well with women, so why change...).

If by the rules of this low game, women are attracted to me because their instincts tell them I'm bad, then I want no part of it.

Attraction is not all of desire, merely the first step. You are right to take pause at this, though. If you would enjoy a possible LTR type relationship, I would recommend a type of beta game. Study and emulate beta behavior, then see how women behave from that perspective. Good game, even when internalized, can be switched on or off because it's a behavior. At the very least, becoming aware of your passive game will help you with your goal of MGTOW. However, as a man with natural game, my opinion is you are far more valuable to society with your game out in the open. The reason for this is you make much more of an impact on women when you talk about your MGTOW. Most women, especially younger ones are simply wired to respond to people rather than arguments.

Ceer said...

...another possible answer I've often wondered about is the difference in the deportment of men who are used to risking their lives on a regular basis.

That would work in two ways:
1) Selection bias. Any man who would willingly risk his life has an innate confidence compatable with natural game.

2) Learned Confidence. Any man who repeatedly risks his life will gain confidence in his ability not to screw up in that context.

Both of these may be part of the answer.

I saw it very clearly when, as a country boy, I started living in the city.

In the country, people are quite a bit more manly for a number of reasons. There is less support, social skills matter more, and the manner of life is more traditional.

I think it's possible that women instinctively discern these differences in a man.

Women typically use their instincts all throughout their mating life because they typically don't get any sort of real education regarding relationships and men.

Anonymous said...

ST, and @Ceer, Thanks.

The delay in my response is due to my determination get to the bottom of this. I've been out with my friends several more times. I've broken my MGTOW rules, and have interacted directly with women. I'm fairly sure I now know the answer.

We've discussed the "bad boy" factor, and the deportment of men who risk their lives. There's also a third possibility, which is role models.

In terms of marriage, I come from a very traditional family. My maternal grandmother's line going back to the 11th century is a string of strong marriages and no divorces. I grew up in a stable home with both inatural parents in a nuclear family. My father as a strong, confident, dependable role model and a leader of men. He has been described as "a dashing, strapping fine man".

In my extended family, I was surrounded by good male role models. In addition to my mother, I had grandmothers, aunts and great aunts as good strong women in my life.

I had a lot of exposure to females all through my life. I grew up with sisters and female cousins and with the companionship of their female friends. I had an easy familiarity with girls at school. Some of them even sought my advice on personal matters. I saw nothing special about them. Although the system hammered it into us how inferior boys are, my background was too strong for me to swallow the feminist bigotry. I consciously knew it to be false.

Women don't fool or mystify me. I'm more than just socially confident with them. I have an inner relaxation, a confidence that they can't embarrass or confuse or deflate me. Most of them bore me. That's why they keep looking at me, wondering what I can see. They also want to be the one who is with me. It's known as "validation".

I'd doubt that an instruction course could instil the "role models" type of confidence in men. A man is either lucky enough to be born into a conducive "role models" environment, or not.

I now know:

1. The "bad boy" aspect (as in the appeal of a crim) goes no further than my "wicked smile". So we can discard that one.

2. The fact that I'm a big game hunter and a trans-ocean sailor and am used to risking my life is definitely relevant. Women can see a difference in my deportment and demeanor, compared with other men.

3. Most significant of all, though, is social confidence enhanced by the relaxed approach that comes from the "role models" type of confidence.

So there you have it, ST. I can't object to my friends and other men learning game. I'm happy to know that the reason women are attracted to me is not because I seem like a crim. If men can learn effective game, good for them!

Peace has broken out between us at last!

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

Thank you again, Ceer for your (as usual)high quality observations. Indebted to you as always.

Glissando,

Hallelujah, peace at last!

Don't worry, it was already obvious to me how well-grounded you were in your inner (masculine) confidence. I think this was even obvious to me well before I saw your picture. It does come across even in your writing.

Your family background is something to be cherished. Whatever you may do with your life, you undoubtedly had a fantastic head start.

If one day I had sons, and they said this of their own upbringing/family background, I would be the proudest Mum ever :)

The perfect antidote to feminism is a strogly-grounded family, just like yours.

Wonderful to see it described with so much pride, as you do, Glissando.

Thanks for making my day a little brighter.



Anonymous said...

Great! Now I can go back to my usual jesting and japing and pulling of legs! Bro Metak, you there?

Anonymous said...

The comment at February 5, 2015 at 6:39 PM was me BTW.

I haven't thanked Ceer properly for all the info he related to my case, so I'll do so now: thanks mate.

Glissando

metak said...

Glissando:
"Bro Metak, you there?"

Nah, my interest in these sort of things has reached the lowest point ever.
Few functioning braincells left rebelled and rewired what was left of the previous brain. ;-)

Ceer said...

You're welcome, Glissando.

Ceer said...

Glissando, You're welcome.

Spacetraveller said...

Brother Metak,

LOL. Saturation point!

I think you are very much like Glissando in that you have no problems whatsoever with the opposite sex because Game is inherent to you, most likely.

I say good on you Brother Metak!
Good on you.

Anonymous said...

Well that's certainly not the way I read his comment! But ST looks on the sunny side of things and I don't want to spoil her day, so shut up Glissando! But do allow me this last parting shot:

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Glissando

metak said...

@BG

Sorry if it came out the wrong way, that wasn't my intention.
I just can't be bothered and I don't want to waste any more energy on these issues.

Nothing to do with me. Men that still care, can keep on discussing it ad nauseam.
Not my problem. Silence and peace rule my world. ;-)

Again, sorry.

Anonymous said...

The "Saturation point" comment got me. After she'd encouraged me to look into it, if I'd known that's how it would be received I wouldn't have bothered. Ceer put time into it too.

Anyway I got better things to do. I'm out.

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando and Metak,

Yes, I do sympathise with anyone who reaches 'saturation point' with 'Game', the SMP in general, etc.
It can be very draining, no?
You notice I take long breaks away from my own blog, lol.

If anyone gets to 'saturation point' often, it's me. :-)

So I was commiserating with Metak, but Glissando gets more credit as he stuck it out with me and Ceer longer than Metak. :P

metak said...

@BG & ST

LoL I didn't even read the discussion you guys had above about 'game' and my comment was just a short answer to you saying "Nah, I'm out..". These things just don't concern me ('game', SMP etc.) any more. Nothing to do with Ceer, you, ST or anyone else.

Typing comments is a real drag, but I hope I've managed to clarify things.
I apologize for the awkward delivery, again.

p.s. Happy MGTOW day to all of you! ;-) heh heh

Ceer said...

Glissando, You're welcome.

About your smile, people naturally tend to assume a more symmetrical facial expression is more honest. Look at your smirk and smile in the mirror, and judge for yourself. You can try to experiment with pulling them out at different times with different people to get the effect you want. This issue isn't irrelevant, but it's not the most important, either.

@ ST

Every man reaches his saturation point sometime. One good point about learning game is you can choose when NOT to employ it, allowing you to have some time off. Our new friends Glissando may want to learn it for that reason.

BTW, one of the reasons haven't been in touch is difficulty commenting. I've posted comments on this blog post no less than 3 times saying "You're Welcome" to Glissando, only to have them disappear into the void.

@ Metak

It's fine with me if you lurk.

Ceer said...

Testing, Testing, 124

Ceer said...

Oh, the frick....I had several good comments eaten...They all said some version of "You're Welcome, Glissando"

That's why I've been silent the past few days.

@ ST, you're right that dealing with the SMP can be very draining. This is why less pretty girls can get a major advantage over the prettier ones, they're more fun to be around.

Anonymous said...

ST and Brother Metak,

Peace.

Glissando

Spacetraveller said...

A very belated happy Easter to you all.

Yes, peace indeed.
(Thank you Glissando).

Indeed, obsessing over the SMP as I do can be very draining, yes. It is good to put things into perspective. I am sure you have done just that, Metak and Glissando.
I try to keep 'healthy' boundaries, and I hope everyone else does the same (however one defines 'healthy').

Ceer, sorry to hear you had some problems posting comments. I see that your comments came through though, somehow. I shall check the spam filter to see if they got stuck there.

Spacetraveller said...

Aha, Ceer, voila!

The spam box was filled with comments from you.

I am not sure why this happened, sorry about that. They are displayed now.

In the event of a long comment, please first check that that the words 'your comment has been saved' is displayed before closing the comments box. If not, look below the comments box and there will be an error message as to why your comment wasn't published. It is usually because of long comments (longer than circa 4,000 characters) but also, unrecognised editing functions, eg. italics html could be the reason...

About your comments about LFOD, thank you for your thoughts. I was rather harsh with LFOD (apologies LFOD!).

But honestly, I wish he could see for himself just how he came across. This should NOT be the image of MGTOW. MGTOW can be a truly positive thing, as many men have shown me, and NOT some man celebrating that he escaped buying flowers for a woman.

My point is and remains: WHO told you that you need to be buying flowers for a woman? Do you not make your own rules in your household?

Trust me, if you start doing this, any woman under your 'jurisdiction' will follow. If she doesn't, she is not the right one for you anyway, so you lose nothing.

Sometimes, gentlemen, women really NEED you to be confident in your own skin. We don't want to hear you moaning that you are not being ALLOWED to lead. It drives us nuts.

So I hope that LFOD can see that my female brain (OK, hamster, lol) detected 'weakness' in his comment, and caused me to fly off the handle. My outburst was directed at his own (in my opinion) self-flagellation: AKA, they told me to do X, and now I deny myself the possibility of a *potentially* mutually enjoyable relationship with a woman because at least I get to escape doing X, which THEY told me to do.
My French hamster responds with 'quoi?!'

Spacetraveller said...

Use me to learn these lessons, LFOD. I am a normal woman, I think. Beacuse I am a distant female, my visceral reactions to your comments won't of course make any impact on your life, but (I hope) they can only help you to see how a real woman in your own life might react. Christian or not, visceral reactions are a fact of life. I learn all the time about how you mean react viscerally to us women. I am happy to return the favour. As you can see, I may sometimes be 'logical' because I am trying to be. But I am very much a woman, and logic will never be my 'home'. I live on planet 'emotion' as do most other women.

If any man here still doesn't understand my beef with LFOD, ask me to explain it again and again until you get it.

I think too many men are simply unaware of how women think, and this is causing too many problems in relationships. Fifty years ago, men did not NEED to learn about women, because women were taught to compensate for men's lack of understanding. Nowadays men do, because women as a whole lack this 'training'. Perhaps because we are all busy getting careers?? As you guys know, I am not against educating women, but if a woman's education is taking something from her femininity, then I could be persuaded that indeed educating her is a bad thing. I do know however, that even in the 50s, a lot of educated women had this 'training' I speak of. So it CANNOT be the fault of the education. Must be something else ruining womanhood...
Being a good provider, etc. is simply not enough, as many men are finding out. You now need to actually understand the b*tch as well, lol.

I jest, but this is not funny...simple misunderstandings are leading to massive destructions of whole families... Definitely not funny.

Yes, women need to blink first, as Bellita and I agree upon. But you men need to gain some sort of control too. Learn about women's emotional triggers, however illogical they may seem to you. Learn Game. Honestly, you are dead in the water without it, even if you don't want to get married.

It is of vital importance. Even if you don't use your knowledge, get it anyway. It could help you one day even outside the SMP.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

The following comment of yours deserves further analysis:

"One reason why I'm not an MGTOW, is that I don't have faith in the ultimate rationality of women. MGTOW as a form of punishment makes sense if and only if:
1) The men going their own way are desirable sexually.
2) The men going their own way remove scarce resources that can't be seized by force.

I'm pretty sure many women WANT to see men they consider unattractive become MGTOW, because they don't need anything from them, best to chase them off for good."


This is an excellent point, and it is one that saddens me most about MGTOW. It happens to be relevant, because I have just responded to one such comment from a commenter by the name of James T Kirk (who may or may not be a man). This notion that MGTOW men are just 'losers who can't get laid' is VERY widespread amongst people who are not sympathetic to the cause.

But I know that this is not how most MGTOWs are. These men are actually successful, happy-within-themselves men.

So what do we do with this situation?

We could either ignore the haters, or give them a different impression of MGTOW.

In my opinion, ignoring something does not necessarily mean it goes away. Sometimes silence really is NOT golden. Will MGTOW really make an impact on women's attitudes towards men if these same women believe (or are made to believe) that MGTOWs are men they need to avoid anyway because they are all losers? I think not. At least part of MGTOW SHOULD be about changing the status quo, no? In which case, silence is a bad idea, simply because the message will not get across. If someone can convince me that the message will get across with silence, they would need to explain how. :) Unless of course one means that men demonstrating how successful they are without a word will itself make an Impact. But is that not too high a price to pay? If a man who IS so successful that he could have a nice family, doesn't, just so as to 'teach them b*tches a lesson' is that not somehow shooting oneself in one's foot?

Giving an alternative (i.e. more positive) view of MGTOW is of course desirable, yes. I know from experience in this very post that many men have successfully done this, at least for me. I now 'get it'.

I suspect you may be engaged in another option, Ceer. And that is, not to be a MGTOW, but openly lament the loss of general femininity. It goes something like this: Ladies, we men really need you to be Ladies (capital L). We don't like it when you trun yourselves into pseudo-men/b*tches/harpies/fatties/harridans/whatever.
We desire a return to your God-given natural feminine ways. Love, your men.

I secretly think that when (third wave?) feminism arose because of women's dissatisfaction with men, women simply went about 'regaining control' in the wrong way. We grabbed the 'power' back in a less-than-gracious way, unbecoming of feminine women. If women had simply voraciously made a plea like the one above (and yes, women are not prone to 'silence', so it would have been certainly VERY voracious as well as verbose, lol!) who's to say that things might not be different between the sexes right now?

Hm, does this 'Option 3' sound too much like 'grovelling', unbecoming of masculine creatures? Perhaps there are some who may feel it is, but I don't think so personally. I think women as a whole might respond well to this tactic because essentially we are guilt-ridden creatures, so if you appeal to our (innate)sense of guilt, you got us. :)

Anyway, interesting topic. Should be explored further, methinks.


Ceer said...

ST,

Allow me to give a short answer right now, since I'm busy studying. We can talk about this in depth in a few days.

You are correct in identifying me as not MGTOW. Though, I do sympathize with them, it's not my choice of lifestyle.

MGTOW, like any philosophy, should be analyzed based on its own rules. At its core, is the belief that men are best off choosing to live alone. Reasons for this may include perceived likelihood of divorce, suitability of candidates for marriage, quality of life, and financial reasons. Like any large scale movement, it will have internal differences, a wide variety of people from many walks of life. MGTOW can be understood as self-interested in that it concerns itself not for the society as a whole, but only bringing benefit for people who pursue it.

From what I have seen, rather than attempting to change the status quo, it focuses its efforts on preserving what resources can be salvaged, then using them to benefit the self. It's less about "punishing" women, and more of an explicit withdrawal.

In reviewing the quote, I should have made it more clear that either condition may cause a woman to look at MGTOW as a threat, seeing a loss of a potential roll in the hay or brand name purse as something horrible.

The reason why I don't think MGTOW is the right move for men is encased in my quote from your comment above. In our culture, women don't reproduce in a rational manner. They require romance to pique their feelings, then, and only then, see to the details. Women can only be threatened en masse by something explicit and pointed, otherwise solipsism will obscure the message. In order to threaten, MGTOW must command a significant number of attractive (attractive enough) men, or a significant amount of money.

Any statement about the quality or finances of these people can be viewed in terms of this bias. Negative statements by women can certainly be dismissed as ad hominem attacks to diminish the credibility of MGTOW to threaten.

Another reason why I am not MGTOW philosophically is that it falls into the same trap that feminism does. It is a philosophy based on the advancement of one gender. No thought is given to the other gender as an end in itself. To me, a culture that wants to endure for long must focus the majority of its people into traditional marriages, therefore, I find both MGTOW and feminism unlivable in the long term. This is what shapes my opinion of feminists as selfish, foolhardy, and hateful women. The MGTOW, I have more sympathy for because it operates as a defense.

Among the two contemporary options of PUA and MGTOW, I suppose you could say that I'm in neither camp. Nor can you say I'm blue pill, I've certainly seen too much. As much as there is a third way, that is what I am. My philosophy is informed by the morality of the past. I look to the future based on both reason and faith.

On a side note, you speak of women grabbing power back, this is wrong. The only rough analogues to the current situation occurred in late classical Sparta and the late Roman Empire. Using the terminology "grab power back" only serves to legitimize a power grab that has no recent precedent.

Anonymous said...

ST said "Fifty years ago, men did not NEED to learn about women, because women were taught to compensate for men's lack of understanding. Nowadays men do, because women as a whole lack this 'training'. Perhaps because we are all busy getting careers??"

As much as anything else, I think it's because the State has replaced the husband and father. Many women believe men are no longer necessary, and have said so publicly.

Re: education of women as a factor.
During my own schooling in the 1990s, the boys were made to feel second rate to the girls. Even at a young age I refused to take the brainwashing on board. Strongly defined masculine and feminine roles in my extended family prevented this happening, as I've mentioned before. I knew girls are no more special than boys. However it did affect the girls at school and my young male friends. The system influenced their young minds to believe women do not need men. Husbands and fathers are unnecessary.

Education of women is good in and of itself. Biased education is bad. Thanks to feminist ideology, education has been a negative influence in the relationship between the sexes.

"Will MGTOW really make an impact on women's attitudes towards men if these same women believe (or are made to believe) that MGTOWs are men they need to avoid anyway because they are all losers? I think not."

Agreed. Men will continue to be unnecessary to women as long as the Great Alpha (the state) can afford to support solo mums. However, the herbivores of Japan and the "single and not looking for a woman" men of the West do not have to earn as much to get by on their own. Many of them will themselves become a burden on the State. Men will cease to be the net contributors that they were before. Currently men pay 75% of the taxes. When women are themselves paying 50% of the taxes they might start to resent carrying the burden of the solo mums.

Reason men become MGTOW:
Not many men become MGTOW to teach women a lesson. The overwhelming reason for MGTOW is that modern women are not worth the huge risk that marriage and LTR present to men. First marriages have 1 chance in 15 of surviving 10 years (http://www.statisticbrain.com/marriage-statistics/). A father has a more than 99% chance of losing his children after 10 years. It's just not worth the risk. Meanwhile sex for a single man has never been easier. "Why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free".

Anonymous said...

April 16, 2015 at 10:11 PM was Glissando BTW ;)

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

Good luck with your studies! I presume you may have exams coming up? I bet you would be top of the class! :)

"Women can only be threatened en masse by something explicit and pointed, otherwise solipsism will obscure the message."

Incredibly accurate, this. I don't really believe that 'solipsism' is a 'woman-only' problem, but for sure, it is a huge factor in this particular case. In matters of the heart, so to speak, we women take things much more personally than men. So I have to agree with you on this!

"In order to threaten, MGTOW must command a significant number of attractive (attractive enough) men, or a significant amount of money."

Yes, and this will be an instant and effective response to the 'you are all losers' argument.

I certainly get that.

The rest of your comment about MGTOW exposes also my own ambivalent thoughts about this movement and what it actually means in terms of an individual's life. I like to think of SMP issues in terms of individuals for this very reason: Once you start lumping everyone together, a lot of issues get confounded and good people get confused with the not so good. There is no doubt that some MGTOWs behave exactly as feminists do, and ironically, they themselves do not see the similarity...

On balance, I think that if I were a man, I would have your attitude to the SMP, i.e. that I would not associate myself with MGTOW necessarily, beyond a general solidarity I would have with men in general (what you are calling 'sympathise with them') but be always open to a woman who I could see had a 'best-fit' to my life, which may involve 'training' her to my tastes, using Game. Difficult of course to be that confident that I would do this, as it is not so straightforward to interpose the sexes, so my assertion can perhaps only be taken with a pinch of salt...

The other thing is that perhaps a lot of MGTOWs actually share your exact same views and STILL call themselves MGTOW, which is confusing to 'bystanders' like me. Perhaps the bystanders like me need to realise that retaining the title of 'MGTOW' is somehow comforting/shows solidarity/is even mildly 'therapeutic' to these men even if they are not as ardent in their avoidance of women as true MGTOWs? I can certainly see how a sense of 'brotherhood' may be playing a part in all this.

Thank you for your very clear thoughts on this. It is very helpful for those who want to understand more and indeed for those who are looking for ways to negotiate the SMP today.

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Agree with you 100%. This whole situation with the State funding a woman's life where she has CHOSEN to proceed with family formation in the absence of a man is fraught with difficulty, yes, in the sense that in this sort of scenario, indeed, who needs a man?

This alone, if tackled, would solve a lot of the problems we face today. Get rid of State-funded fatherlessness.

"When women are themselves paying 50% of the taxes they might start to resent carrying the burden of the solo mums."

Do you know, I have NEVER thought of this scenario!
Far more than the immediate absence of large numbers of men in the marriage market, it is THIS which I think might hurt women en masse more.
We have already established that a woman might say (about MGTOW): I don't need him anyway, he's just a bitter loser...

But THIS, what you describe above, this would force an issue bewtween single mothers and other women, be they married or single.

I think you are onto something here...
Frightening prospect for women who are not themselves single mothers...

Society doesn't care too much about bachelors funding the single mother. But where you all of a sudden have other mothers or single women funding single mothers, Houston we have a problem!

Interesting huh?

This is a real gem from you. I shall ponder this possibility for a while longer...

Unknown said...

I was browsing the Internet searching for help when I came across a testimony shared by someone on how she was cured from Herpes Disease. I quickly contacted him to get the cure. I bought the herbal medicine from the herbal doctor [Robinson Buckler]. I took the herbal medicine for 2 weeks as instructed and i went for a medical checkup and to my greatest surprise i was cured from Herpes virus. My heart is so filled with joy. If you are suffering from Herpes or any other disease you can contact this herbal doctor today on this Email address_________________robinsonbuckler@[[yahoo.com]].....Thank you Doctor