Game and the Girl: Mystery

A series of events have got me thinking a lot about Game lately.
I mean, more than usual.
:-)


I have never made a secret of liking the concept of Game. Rightly or wrongly, I instinctively understand that there needs to be a redress of the imbalance between the sexes.


What exactly do I mean?


You can be sure that even the stupidest female is well-educated about how to 'get' a man. It is not hard, as biology dictates :-).
At the most basic level, a woman is more equipped than a man, to 'get what she wants'.
But here lies the first problem: 'getting what she wants' may not be in her best interests, but let's stick with this argument for now, because it is an important part of the point I am trying to make.


That many women in this day and age severely lack a certain wisdom that came easily to our grandmothers is self-evident, yes. But there is still a general (in my opinion) level of 'education' that ensures that men are forever at the mercy of women.
This current era is showing the degree to which this can be achieved, without a doubt.
And sadly, men in general are really none the wiser, (except for those who have 'taken the Red Pill' as it were), until it is way too late.


This thought reminds me of a medical analogy. There are some unfortunate individuals whose underlying medical problem (usually heart disease) is only diagnosed at their death. These people, carriers of genes that cause sudden death have no idea what lies ahead. They literally present to their doctor (in this case, a pathologist, of course), with sudden death. This is exactly what should not happen: that one's first symptom of a disease is death.


But (and sorry to be so morbid), this is exactly what is happening to many men who get the shock of their lives when they are hit with an (unexpected) divorce, complete with loss of their children, loss of their earnings, and a rapid decline from the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, to a life they would hardly recognise as theirs in years to come.


This is why I like the concept of Game. Not particularly the ugly 'revenge' type of PUA activity that sees an otherwise good girl get into the kind of trouble that ensures her life is ruined forever, but the type of Inner Game that an older, wiser man can pass on to a younger man (whether it is his son or not, no matter) to ensure that his life is not only more enjoyable, but is congruent with masculine principles that he needs for a more satisfactory life, with or without women in it.


I really respect the latter, and hope more young men get this type of education.


And I daresay, St. Jerome is right with his 'don't marry, until you are ready!' message.


The difference between growing girls and growing boys is that whilst both get educated in the ways of the world equally well, girls get an education about the nature of boys much more than boys get an education about the nature of girls (other than boys finding out that 'they are hot!' lol), the education of boys being more focussed on getting them safely into manhood - and responsibility and the burden of keeping civilisation running smoothly.  Girls are not burdened with this type of responsibility, so have all the time to study men in a way that men simply cannot compete with.


So the education is skewed somewhat.


There are several reasons for this, I think:


1) It is cultural - girls really need the education on boys because this is vital to prevent her making a horrible mistake at the every beginning of her life (and these 'mistakes' are usually irreversible and permanent, if you see what I mean).


(This of course does not eliminate the problem because we hear everyday (nowadays) of horrible life choices by young women. However, the principle remains that vital information for a girl is crucial to her life). This equivalent need in boys is only now becoming apparent. But it has taken a generation or two of misery at the hands of divorcing women for this to become evident.


2) Again - cultural - femininity is shrouded in a certain 'protective veil of mystery' which is present in almost all cultures. This 'privilege' is steadily being worn away by feminism.
One of the (many) reasons feminism has not done women any favours is that this shroud of the perceived 'inherent goodness' of women has been pulled away, for the naked truth to be exposed (warts and all) to men.
:-(
This is a real shame, because although this 'inherent goodness' is not strictly speaking accurate, it was necessary for it to be in place as an 'aesthetic' quality (highlighting femininity in even the least feminine of women) and also as a protection for men who are the 'buyers' of femininity and some of them just don't do well when confronted with shocks :-)


3) Nature: in the absence of corrupting influences, girls do have certain inherent self-preservation traits that biology endows them with. I have noticed this in young girls pre-puberty. They really are more modest (i.e. shy/coy about their bodies, for example), than boys of the same age. They are risk averse (a good thing in a woman, can be unfortunate in a man - within reason).


If a girl is lacking in information, Nature itself will push her to get this information. Exceptions exist, of course, but there are usually grave reasons for these exceptions.


4) Boys are just too busy figuring out the burdens of how to be a man, and are also (unfortunately in this case) too misled by testosterone to fully understand women when young. This is why many advise young men to wait until older before making a commitment to a woman.


Some say it is not wise for a man to be married before the age of 30-35.


I see the sense in this.


But, if he burns with passion as St. Paul says, what to do? (Assuming he is a principled, moral, religious - eg. Christian - person).


Anyway, I digress.


In this and the next few posts about Game, I explore the origins of some Game principles.


One of the stalwarts of Game is the notion of 'mystery'.
Where does it come from?


In fact, where does ALL of Game come from?


Historically, of course, no amount of 'Game' would have worked on the majority of young women pre-marriage. Save for a few who 'fell prey' to 'Don Juans', every woman was 'off limits' to all but one man, who would marry her, if not presently, then eventually.


So any 'Game' a man needed was ....to ensure he was 'marriage material'.
Which in simple terms meant having a sustainable source of income, and a roughly masculine appearance. That's it.
For it was women who were the buyers in the marriage market. It was up to women to attract men for marriage. And they generally did, with great success. Until now.


So to recap, there was no 'action' in the SMP :-)
And in the MMP, only women needed to 'woman up'.
So no need for the type of 'Game' we have today in times past, for most men.


So, it makes sense that the principles of 'Game' as we know it, necessarily had to come from 'Girl Game', because the girls had perfected this skill for decades and centuries...because they needed to!


:-)


Let's take a look at 'mystery'.


In number 2) of my list above, it is clear that 'mystery' was not really something that women 'claimed' for themselves. This was a feature that was accorded women by society at large.
It came with the territory (of being a woman).


This is not to say that it was a right.
Not really.
It came with a great deal of responsibility.
Afterall, it was up to individual women to keep it going, to work hard to maintain this illusion.
Like I allude to above, feminism has caused this illusion to come crashing down - hard.
What a shame. It was good for women, this illusion. But like all good things, we only miss it once it is gone forever.


'Mystery' allowed women to become 'interesting' in the eyes of men. A good thing, if he was to sign his life away for her :-)
'Mystery' allowed women to become alluring to men. A good thing if he was to venture forth to 'get to know her better'.


'Mystery' is something that all old-fashioned dating books speak highly of. From experience (of the authors).


From Helen Andelin's 'The Fascinating Girl' to 'The Rules' - they all mention 'mystery' in one form or another. This is no accident.


So now that the tables have been turned, it is not surprising that men have 'borrowed' this concept.
Even in the 'olden' days, the Casanovas and the Don Juans used this to good effect :-)




Now, paradoxically, whilst women needed to be taught to become 'mysterious' in the dating dance, this trait is actually not a feature of womanhood. I think women, by their feminine, inclusive, bonding, nurturing natures, are prone to 'share' of themselves sooner than men would. Just look at today's 'selfie' culture dominated by women!


Interestingly, 'mystery' is actually a more common feature of masculinity, for men are the ones who by dint of their masculinity 'make themselves scarce' and 'disappear for long periods' whilst they (quite legitimately) get on with the business of being men. And it is we women who lament this feature in men (whilst strangely enough also cannot help but be attracted by it!
(Oh the cruelty of life, lol).


So whilst 'mystery' is a priciple of Game, it strikes me as a little odd that men need to be taught it, my logic being that it should already be an inherent feature of manhood anyway (which takes me right back to the argument that Game is nothing but a tool for men to be ....men!).


Which circular thinking brings me right back to another recent thought of mine.


Which is....even when men and women appear to be diametrically opposite to each other, we are in many ways very similar, which is why 'Boy Game' and 'Girl Game' can so easily 'borrow' principles from each other.


This is the biggest paradox of all - the paradox that refutes the existence of a paradox!
:-)


I need to go to sleep.
:-)

Shall we dance? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!

In other words, Film Review: The King and I.

I never really warmed to this film growing up, at least not like how I did to The Sound of Music.

I don't understand why this is, although I will hazard a guess later on in this post.

For sure, it's a great film, and I think there are lots of lovely lessons buried within it for both men and women.

What's not to like?
There is great scenery!
There is the 'aw factor' in abundance (the king's children)!
There is feminine allure (Anna and the royal wives)!
There is eye candy and a testosterone factory all in one (Yul Brynner)!

:-)

 Speaking of Yul Brynner, I never knew until today that he was actually a Swiss citizen (although born in Russia). I found a compatriot!

The first comment to make about Yul Brynner is that he is the embodiment of why 'Game' works. He is the sort of man who I imagine would have been passed over by many women were it not for his arresting sense of self  and the abundance of confidence which screams 'I am a man'.

This sort of thing is sensed by women in a very visceral way. Add his masculine voice to the mix and to an auditory woman, you have a dangerous situation on your hands :-)

The interaction between the king and Anna is one that is actually fairly unusual among Hollywood type films. It is clearly a dance between the masculine and the feminine, but there is a slight twist to this dance. I shall explain later.

When British teacher Anna Leonowens is asked to come teach the children of the King of Siam english, she accepts, on condition that he keeps his promise to house her and her son Louie in a house of their own, as opposed to his palace, because she does not want to be part of his (already considerable!) harem.

It takes her a long time to get the king to keep his promise. In fact, to get him to keep his promise, she has to keep a promise of her own.

Anna is a tough, no-nonsense widow who is a little bit too 'hard to handle' for the king's liking. I suppose, compared to the docile and sweet wives he already has, Anna is a typical Western harridan of today (but with 19th. century standards, lol).

She is hardly what you would call submissive, but she learns along the way how to be respectful to him. She is also a little too entitled, and goes so far as to demand an audience with the king when the prime minister warns her that the king is in 'bad spirit', i.e. not in a good mood.

But despite Anna's obvious faults, the king likes her. I don't think it is in a conventional romantic way - Anna is far too 'independent' for his liking - but more, in admiration of her education, and perhaps for her 'lively spirit', to put it in the most polite way I can find. :-)

Anna proves useful to the king in many ways other than to teach his children and wives.

He uses her british connections to sweeten up the colonial masters who were getting ideas that he was a 'barbarian', by taking her up on her idea to host a lavish banquet for them.
It was a resounding success, not withstanding a touch of jealousy displayed by the king when he suddenly realises he has competition for Anna's affections from her long-time friend, Edward.


The king's catchphrase of 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' is a hilarious reminder of how a man, enamoured of a woman he finds curious will 'parrot' her in much the same way a child might. I think Anna recognised this when towards the end of the film she lets slip to Louie that she thought the king sometimes acted the same age as him! (She meant 'emotional age' in this sense, of course).

The king was supremely masculine, in an almost 'caveman' sense (and yet he was also bizarrely very refined, and certainly hyper-advanced in his thinking: he was a self-taught scholar, a monk no less, despite having many wives and children - and having your wives and children educated to the level he was demanding of Anna was certainly not a common thing in Siam in his époque)...


The king makes some notable quotes in this film. Some of them are hilarious, others are simply eternal truths.
Like this one:

"A woman was made to please man.
A woman is blossom.
A man is like the honey bee, to fly from blossom to blossom. 
A honey bee must be free, but blossom must not ever fly from bee, to bee, to bee."


When Anna insists that Western men are monogamous, the king dismisses this concept as 'not normal'.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!



Is the King of Siam a Red Pill King???

:-)


Nothing says 'alpha' like him in this scene where he is introducing his children to Anna. Note how his 'mini-me' the crown prince has assimilated his way of walking. The apple did not fall far from the tree in this case, did it? :-)
And how sweet that his daughter presents Anna with a flower...

In fact, this whole scene reminds me of another alpha male presenting his many children to an unattached female, with the same panache and poise of the proud father who is master over his children...
Remember Captain Von Trapp and Maria? The same 'military' operation to get the children presented, the pomp and circumstance, the showmanship...
These two guys could be brothers. In fact, the two women could be sisters too, both being 'hard work' for the men when they first encounter them.
:-)

I really like these scenes with the children, by the way. I think in a home where the children are taught how to show reverence to the father in this way, there is order and harmony. And actually, love too. This is fatherly love at its best, I think!




Believe it or not, this started out as a geography lesson :-)

Despite my going on and on about Anna, I actually do not find her the absolute 'star of the show'.

No.

I think that honour goes to the king's chief wife, Lady Thiang.

I think she represents the absolute peak of ladylike dignity and poise. This woman should have been threatened by Anna's presence. But she wasn't.
She simply wasn't.

The king was at liberty to take on more wives. Which he did on a regular basis, I am sure :-)
In fact, he had just acquired a 'gift' in the form of a young girl (who was miserable in the harem because she had her heart on someone else...).
But had the king fancied Anna in the romantic sense, Lady Thiang's position as 'chief wife' could well have been in danger, purely because of Anna's position and status. So Lady Thiang had plenty to fear. But this classy lady had no fear. She just had warmth and plenty of grace.

She slowly taught Anna how to be the ultimate wife without Anna herself realising this.

Lady Thiang knew she could not influence her husband the way Anna could. So she used Anna to do her dirty work for her, with the aim of helping her husband.

But she taught Anna how to do this dirty work in the most gracious way possible, having had years of experience of how her husband ticks.

'Don't give him advice', she warned. 'Just give him suggestions'.

Anna does this, to great success. The scene where she achieves her goal of steering him to do what he needs to do but without making it look like she is advising him is a classic. Funny but delightfully touching. Helen Andelin would have been proud :-)
In the interim, Anna also learns to acquiesce to his demands to never have her head above his - difficult ask, as he usually insisted on sitting or lying down most of the time when he was in her company.
When she submits to him in this way, he gives her what she wants, her own house.

Is there a lesson in there somewhere?

Anna must have found him difficult.
He certainly did her!
His 'you are a very difficult woman!' rebuke at her made me laugh out loud, especially the way he said it with his index finger pointing exasperatedly at her.

Reminds me of another Westerner being rebuked in a similar manner by an Oriental character:
Sgt. Nagata (points to Jim): Boy, difficult boy!
:-)

Anna and the king have a certain je ne sais quoi thing going on, but we never get to witness it in its fullness. So this film is strictly speaking not a 'romantic' film as such. The closest we get to romance is this scene.

It is more of a face-off between a man and a woman in a way that is a struggle for respect from both sides, rather than a quest for romantic love.
My theory is that this is what prevented me from warming to this film when I was younger.
My younger female self rejected this film because 'where is the romance!' lol.

But now I see the value of a film like this. Full of lessons, teachings about life, and not to talk of  a-laugh-a-minute.
I wouldn't hesitate to nominate the film as one of the best...ever made.

This Caritas business, what it mean?

Happy New Year, everyone!

At Mass today, I was reminded that today is the feast of the Epiphany.
The priest said 'epiphany' means  a 'reveal' or a 'disclosure' and then launched into a long-winded explanation as to the relevance of this to the time around Jesus' birth when he was visited by the Three Wise men.

He lost me shortly after the gold, frankincense and myrrh bit...

Anyhow, I realise that I got me Three Wise men from the East on this very blog!

Yes I do!

Let's see...
I got me John Lord B3 from the East (of the world).
I got me Metak from the East (of Europe).

Um...who else?

If you are a man, and you live in the east of the world, or the east of your continent, or the east of your city, or the east of your street, or your bedroom in your house faces east, let me know and you will get the third 'Wise man' slot - no questions asked.

Hahahahahha!

One of our resident magi sent me this in the last post: This is an excerpt from another wise man commenting on a wise woman's actions.


"..So much in Augustina’s moving post.

Not many people can see the distinction between the types different types of love; conflating, love, lust and affection, yet the problem of love is at the core of our modern malaise.

Clearly, Augustina’s husband did not give her the “tingles” and yet she’s stuck with him through thick and thin, and despite his obvious faults. Indeed, his lack of alpha qualities put a strain on their marriage. Rollo? It wasn’t self interest there, it was concern for her husband.

A point of theological reflection. Does a husband’s failure to cultivate alpha qualities (executive function) put the marriage in danger of divorce? For a different post perhaps?

Secondly, the type of love that Augustina expressed for her husband is not the stuff that you can get from Game. That love, which goes by the theological name of Caritas, is something a person gives, independently of the quality of the other. It’s a supernatural gift from God. In looking for a wife, I’d advise my boys to look for a girl who posses this quality pretty much above all else. Sluts, hot sex and “wuv” come and go, but Caritas stays. Caritas loves you when you are unlovable and gameless.

Rollo Says that a woman can never love a man like he would want her to, but Augustina’s example(and lots of other women I know) proves him wrong. The love/caritas of a good woman is one of God’s gits to man. My wife does not give me everything I want, but it’s not because she doesn’t want to, it’s because she knows that its the wrong thing for me. It’s taken me many years to realise this and that’s why she’s a keeper. She’s looking after me.

That’s the paradox of a happy Christian marriage. The Christian wife, in order to be happy, has to know that her husband has real options but won’t exercise that ability because because her loves her. On the other hand, a good Christian wife can be miserable in a marriage yet still stick to her husband because she possesses Caritas.

God’s peace, Augustina.."

Further down that thread, someone else did what I love to do, which is to do a little philological research on the word 'Caritas'. This definitely brought out my geeky side :-)

I tried this in previous threads when I dissected the roots of the words 'mercy' and 'pity', and 'privacy' and 'intimacy'.
Bellita once alerted me to the relationship between 'curriculum' and the italian verb 'correre' (to run), as in 'curriculum vitae' being a 'run-through' of one's life.

My nerdy side is preparing to go to town on this one :-)

As the commenter downthread explained, 'Caritas' is etymologically related to the word 'charity', and also to the word 'care'.

But what does 'Caritas' mean in English, as related to the SMP?

True love?
Tough love?
Tingles?
Titillation?

Dunno.

There is a word I am familiar with, in another language, which I suspect means something very similar to 'Caritas'. As far as I can tell, it encompasses compassion, affection, tenderness, empathy and love.

From a purely religious viewpoint, the Catholic one to be precise, 'where there is Caritas (i.e. charity) and love, there is God' as the Taizé hymn goes:

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est:

The commenter was talking specifically about the kind of 'Caritas' that a woman can give to her husband, or that a woman can give to a man who is 'unlovable and gameless'.
Men too can be 'Caritas' givers, of course.

Or is male love a different thing from 'Caritas'?
Why do I get this sneaky feeling that 'Caritas' is more a feminine type of love?
Is there a good basis for this 'feeling' of mine?

What does this Caritas look like?

Is this 'self-giving', even 'selfless' love? As opposed to 'selfish' love?
Can it even be described as 'love'?

Can it be induced by Game? Or is it completely independent of both Boy Game and Girl Game?
If you are a man, and there was a choice between a woman being attracted to you, would you rather that, than her giving you 'Caritas' as 'Augustina's love for her husband seems to be?


What does 'Caritas' really mean?

Other than the examples given above in 'Wise man's' comment, could anyone give me good descriptions of 'Caritas'?

The more practical, the better! The more anecdotal, the better!

Grazie!

Stay away from the sailors!

I have been doing some relocating lately, which largely explains my absence from this blog in a while.

Rather fortuitously, I ended up in a city well known for its high content of sailors :-)

I happen to be a fan of sailors. But I do solemnly swear that my relocation to sailor-city was purely accidental :-)
Not at all of my own doing, except that rejection of all other choices may have had something to do with it :-)

As it happens, I now have military personnel as colleagues. And increasingly, so are the clients or their families.
I seem to have come full circle from this era.

But not everyone is a fan of sailors, for some reason.
Hmm.

A delightful 75 year old lady I was talking to (during the course of my work) demonstrates this anti-sailor message quite vividly.


I needed to check up on her lifestyle.
To the question 'do you smoke?' she replied with a mischievous smile:

"I was told by my mother when I was young to avoid three things in life", she said.
"Don't smoke, don't drink, and stay away from the sailors!"

To my "but I am only in this city because I heard there were sailors here!" she gave a naughty grin and shook her head in mock shock :-)

But she was clearly the naughty type :-)

She had married a Naval Officer, lol. So, which part of 'stay away from sailors!' had she not understood, I ponder to this day :-)

Interestingly, she had indeed never smoked nor so much as sipped alcohol in her entire life.
But them sailors, ay, ay, couldn't avoid them :-)

Do sailors have the best Game, I wonder?
(Rhetorical question).


My encounter with that woman made me think for days about what's missing in today's womanhood.

Clearly, this woman's mother was passing on Girl Game to her daughter.
'Avoiding sailors' was just a euphemism for 'Be a good girl'.

And I am sure that she was a good girl, despite eventually marrying a sailor ;-)



Why is  Girl Game not being successfully transmitted between generations in today's SMP?

Is it that....

1. Mothers are not passing this message on. If this is the case, why not?

2. Daughters are not listening. If this is the case, why not?

3. Daughters are listening but not hearing the nessage. If this is the case, what is causing this selective deafness? Do we need government-funded hearing aids for girls ala Sandra Fluke?

4. None of the above. If this is the case, what is the problem?

5. All of the above, and then some.



I am curious.

The above lady has grandchildren. But something tells me they may not be like her.
So, is it her fault or does the fault lie somewhere else?

There is no doubt that there is a fault somewhere...

But where?

Wouldn't it be nice to identify the source of the stench....
Please help me out :-)





In other news, there is one sailor I could never stay away from...
But that's OK, (at least that's what my hamster says) he's everyone's favourite sailor :-)

Film Review: The Sound of Music

Otherwise known as 'Nun Game'.
This is not so much a film review as an exercise in Catholic romanticism. I am sometimes prone to that. My bad. Not sure what the cure is, but I don't want it anyway.

Bellita, this one is for you :-)

Is this the film that spawned millions of 'I wanna be a nun' wishes by Catholic (and even non-Catholic) young women?
Is this the film that could have changed the course of my life?

I make no secret of the fact that like a lot of Catholic women (at least from my generation) at some point in their lives, I did consider religious life as a possible option for me.

It was a serious consideration.
But in the end, I knew it wasn't for me.
But for ever and ever, I shall sing the praises of nuns. I know why I respect these women...

Yes, I sometimes have mini-seizures over nuns who seem to be outside of my little picture-perfect idea of what a nun should be like.

I get all heated up under the collar when Congolese nuns demand The Pill because they are at high risk of rape in war zones, as I think this is as anti-Catholic as one can get.
Right, Bell?
So, sure, we don't let even nuns get away with anything.
But I think that's healthy. It shows we are not biased...

But we give credit where credit is due.

I have grown up with nuns and priests. I still have a lot of contact with nuns and priests. I 'get' them. I know them. I like them.


And for those who think Catholic priests are lucky because they don't have women yapping away in their ears all day (otherwise known as 'nagging'), think again:
I heard this joke a long time ago. I really hope it's not a true story, but I have this sinking feeling that it might be.

A man goes into the confessional at his local church to confess his sins and take the opportunity to complain bitterly about his wife, who he believes is responsible for his sinning in the first place.
He says to the priest: "Father, you are so lucky not to have a woman in your life ruining everything for you".

The priest turns round and says, "Are you kidding me? I am the chaplain of a convent. I get all the trouble from women and none of the good part. At least you get to have sex once in a while!"

:-)



I once joked on this blog that I lived in a convent high in the Swiss Alps.
It was in fact, only a half-joke.
I do know a group of nuns who live in a convent in a location like this, in fact not far from where 'The Sound of music' was shot.

I have said this before, but I really do believe that nuns (in a cruel twist) would make the best wives and mothers. There is a freaky reason why this might be so, but I shan't dwell on this right now. Perhaps others may have their own theories on this?

The ones I know can be incredibly "wife and mother material". Surprisingly so.
I have noticed this all my life.
Maybe this is why I wanted to join them.




I must have watched 'The Sound of Music' a thousand times by now.
But it is only now dawning on me that it is one of the most Red Pill films ever!

A confident older man with seven kids successfully (if accidentally in this case) Games a would-be nun so much that she abandons God in favour of him...

'The Sound of Music' reminds me very much of the film 'Firelight'. An alpha man, a child/children, a woman arriving into the frame to care for said child/children. Love ensues...

Of course Maria never made it to full religious life.
I think I would have had the same complaints made against me as shown below, had I been in her shoes: when you are not cut out for it, you just aren't.

The first encounter between Maria and Captain Von Trapp. It's all there...dominance, negs, aloofness. She didn't stand a chance, poor girl :-)

But the most important question for me is, will I ever outgrow this scene? Some of these creatures bear an uncanny resemblance to one of my cuddle bunnies :-)

And if I ever have a daughter, she is memorising this song from the age of ...sixteen!
This is the ultimate Girl Game, no?
Liesl is sixteen and can't wait to marry Rolf. To her, Rolf is soooo much older and wiser!
How many women can say to a man, 'I will depend on you?'
Exactly. We just don't know how...in this modern age. And yet, many men are dependable. Not all, sure, but the majority still are.
But I accept that a boy of seventeen going on eighteen is the wrong person to say this to, granted!

 

Maria is in love with Captain Von Trapp. She can't handle this, so she runs away back to the convent. Mother Supeior sends her right back to 'face her problems'. A convent is no haven from worldly problems. True. This is good Red Pill advice, for both men and women.

 

 

What a beautiful family anthem!

 

 

 

Bell, this will be you one day, homeschooling your brood :-)

 

 

The convent I know doesn't have a Sister Mary Clarence. But they could sure use one to spice things up a bit :-)

Mass is never this exciting where I am either!

 

 

And even the Pope gives a standing ovation when they sing 'I will follow Him' :-)

 

 

 

Yes, the reality is that some nuns evoke bad memories in some people. Films like 'The Magdalene Sisters' apparently don't even do this subject enough justice.

 

I refer here to 'the good kind'. People I know. And the lessons I can draw from their good example is... priceless.

 

 

 

If anyone wants to watch all of 'The Sound of Music'...

 

 

http://vimeo.com/23877961

 

Gentlemen, recognise yourselves in 00:46:01-00:47:10 and 1:08:00-1:14:00?

:P

1:25:20-1:32:30 is total chick-crack! The men would do well to avoid this bit.

How lovely is the ländler! It is as graceful a dance as the tango is sensual...

 

And out of the mouths of babes...

Kurt says: "Only grown up men are afraid of women!"

And Gretl says: "I think the men look beautiful".

 

Hahahaha!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dash for the foreign woman, good or bad?

Having taken an exceedingly long time to digest the whole MGTOW situation (aherm), I now turn my attention to yet another sore point for Team Woman.


Disclaimer: Whilst I accept that this looks like an attempt at the inflammatory, I hereby declare that it is in fact not as it appears. I just want to understand something. At least that's my (hamster's) story and I am sticking with it :-)

That something is actually rather specific.
For this reason, this post will be brief.


To illustrate my point, it may help to point out that the original title was to be 'The dash for the foreign bride...' but that would not have conveyed the point of this post sufficiently.

A more appropriate title would have included a word which also means 'cat', but in the interests of decorum...


In this post, I am not referring to situations where people of different cultures or races coexist in the same space, aka city or country.

I am specifically referring to the scenario where a man travels to a foreign country in search of a woman.
But not necessarily for a bride, which is my specific gripe :-)
Tourism is great - in general.
But I am referring here to a 'tourism' of a different kind.



Whilst I was thinking about this topic, Metak and JV seemed to be reading my thoughts and started a private duel which somehow started off as a debate about chivalry and ended up as a double rant about men moving abroad to escape Western Feminist TM women. Both Metak and JV make excellent points.


Here are a few relevant excerpts from their discussion by way of 'context':

Metak kicked off with this:
A. Schopenhauer at work here... ;-)
It was an observation of A.S. in his work 'On women' where he compared western Europe with other parts of world and realized that men here were stupid for treating women in that way and that made western men laughing-stock for other societies...
JV:
I suspect that there are regimes far more oppressive to the western man than feminism.
Metak:
Name one... ?
JV:
Take your pick of regimes world wide. The world is not a warm fuzzy blanket for the rest of the world.
Metak:
And yet American men and to large degree men from western European countries are fleeing in such a large numbers in other countries that are not infested with feminist shit...


I understand the 'fleeing' part. I would flee too if I were made to feel like a second class citizen in my own country.
But are their motives towards the women on foreign shores noble when they flee America and Western Europe?
This is my specific question.


I get it.
Women on foreign shores are always more appealing than women under one's nose. Even without the clouding issue of feminism.
For that matter, foreign men...but alas this post is not about women's tastes.

Maybe this whole business is just another manifestation of the Coolidge effect but the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Afterall, what screams 'variety' more than a foreign woman with features that are different?
Especially one who isn't infused with feminist s_______ as Metak explains?




There are some cultures in the world, which to Western men at least, seem to produce more 'feminine' women than in the West.

And I daresay, to other cultures in the world, perhaps Western women are all the rage too? I don't know.

The Manosphere's assertion that 'foreign women' are more feminine, more pleasant, more friendly, more inviting, more attractive...
Are all good... so far.

I think I agree!

But I don't understand one thing.
Maybe my female brain is in the way here...
And I just know Metak is going to call me out on this one :-) He has afterall done it before on this and closely related topics...

These men also seem to revel in the realisation that these foreign women are also easier to...
They pose fewer challenges than the harridan Western feminist TM, precisely because of her femininity.
She is not a 'difficult' woman to get to know, except 'getting to know' this woman is unfortunately not what these men have in mind.

This is a small subset of the brotherhood, I know.

But I am interested in the activities of this small group simply because whatever occurs in the (pure) SMP spills over into the MMP to some degree, wherever the setting, whether it is in Europe, Asia, the moon or Mars.

My specific question is, if the 'foreign woman' is so easy to get, compared with Western Feminist TM, isn't this, um, just a transfer of venue for just another hookup scene?
Just because the venue has moved from California to the Ukraine doesn't change the fact that it is still a hookup culture, no?

Is this a new tactic?
Flatter these women into believing that they are somehow 'better' than Western Feminist TM in order to get them to deliver the goods?

Am I entering a forbodden locker room?

See, if I were assured in no uncertain terms that men going aboroad to seek women were really on the hunt for good feminine potential wives, I swear I wouldn't be penning this post now...

But it seems to me that at least some men are just seeking more docile women with whom to start a whole new cycle of decadence.

And in ten years, rinse and repeat. Western Feminist TM has been replaced by Eastern Feminist TM who got pumped and dumped by Western Man...

And why am I so bothered by this?
Have I got this wrong?

Please indulge me and tell me that I have.
All the while explaining it to me like I am a 6 year old...

This is of no concern to me, of course, but I wonder how the men-folk feel when their women are 'preyed upon' by Western men? Do they care? Do they get some incentive from this activity? (And I don't mean the unscrupulous ones who 'pimp' their sisters to any old stranger. I mean the wider male population of decent standing).

And how do men feel over in the West when there are news reports of Western women being similarly treated?
There have been a few disturbing trends in the UK of late - of a nature which is not exactly identical to the one we discuss here, but nonetheless noteworthy.

Is a foreign woman treated fairly even when she is wifed up? Why are cases of domestic violence against these women headline news? Are these reports 'exaggerated' in the manner of false rape accusations?

I genuinely do not know enough about this. I believe I should.
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...please.

The gourmet meal...of red pills!!!

Occasionally, I notice either on this blog or other blogs hosted by women, a man would ask that Red Pill advice be disseminated to the wider world of women, by women.
Because they (men) can't do it all...
They are doing their bit for their fellow men. They cannot be responsible for educating women too.

I say mais bien sûr! to that. But of course!
These men have a point.

But alas, the logistics are hard to pull off.
For me personally, here are my hang ups: (some might say, excuses!)

1. I am an introverted, quiet woman in real life. That means what I say is often not taken seriously, and I am labelled 'naïve' a lot, mostly by other women. So although I have no problem with that, any message I might have is often lost in the ether.

2. (And this probably explains Reason No.1): I tend to shy away from precisely the kind of women I am tasked with 'educating', i.e. nasty Blue Pill women. They were ousted from my herd the minute I noticed how toxic they were. The few interactions I have with them don't go well. We are effectively 'mutually exclusive'.
In a rather selfish manner, I prefer the company of other Red Pill women, or just women who are not in any way conversant with Manosphere mentality (wouldn't know The Mansophere if it came and sat on their heads) but who are naturally good women to hang out with. I have several of these women around me. The older ones among them are what I call my 'Proverbs 31' or 'Titus 2' women.
Selfish because I learn more from them than they do from me, so I am in fact a parasite to them. It is not exactly a symbiotic relationship I have with these women, but I am sure they don't mind. And I shall return the favour to someone else when I am in their position :-)

3.  I also think that men make good relationship advisors, for both men and women. And this is why no matter how good a female role model a woman has, she also needs a good male one. This is why fathers/big brothers/uncles are gold dust, and this is also why I spend time perusing Manosphere blogs, despite the (sometimes) vitriol :-)

So I am not in any way saying 'you do your own dirty work, fellas!'

It's more, 'sure, I'll do my best, but you could do it better!' So please carry on your good work! Educate us women, and you will be repaid handsomely for your efforts.

:-)



One commenter here is doing just that.
Totally unsolicited by me (I promise!) he offered me this post as a free gift :-)
Bless you Bill, you are a good man for doing this.



This is what Bill sent me. I post it as it was sent to me. No 'doctoring' on my part.
Bill can provide more info as and when required.
On this post, I am a mere bystander. Any questions should be addressed to Bill.

Feeding the Red Pill

I met a young woman at a conference in Las Vegas recently. She was working as an
usher / conference staff assistant. Let's call her Anne.

She looked to be about 30. Tall (6 feet 1 inches), slender, nice facial
features. A pretty young woman in a city full of pretty young women. By Las
Vegas / NYC / Hollywood norms, she was about 80th percentile. In another other
major metro area, probably 90th or better.

I wasn't looking to pick her up. But I wanted to test out my Game. Why not try
it on an attractive young woman in the Heart of Darkness?

I had Anne's phone number in 5 minutes. I saw her a few more times as the
day went by and chatted with her briefly each time. She gave me escalating IOIs
as time passed.

She called me the next morning to meet for coffee before the conference started.
We had lunch together, then made a date for a private dinner that evening. IOIs
continued.

Here's what transpired at dinner:

** I toned down Game. She escalated the IOIs. Rather than respond to her
interest, I started feeding her bits of the Red Pill. **

Anne, l'm not planning in getting into your pants. If I was, we'd be well on our
way right now.

** Her eyes lock on mine, she blushes, then looks down and squirms a bit in her
seat. **

You and I both know that's true. So let's put that behind us, because it isn't
going to happen.

** She looks a bit puzzled, then smiles slightly. **
Anne, today you are 29. This year, you are going to be 30. That's a big
milestone. Your Twenties are about to be over. Where do you want to be in five
years?

"Uh, I don't know. I haven't really thought about it."

On your birthday in 2017, you're going to be 35. Right?"

"Yeah..."

Let's talk about where you see yourself on that day, when you turn 35.

Do you want to still be hustling for day jobs, living day to day, worrying about
whether you can make your next rent payment? Pay the minimum on your credit
cards? Put gas in your car?

"No."

What one thing would make your life more stable? Give you something to plan
around?

"A house. I want a house of my own."

You want a house. One that you own, even if it's with a mortgage. How do you get
from here to there?

** Blank look **

You need a steady job. One that has been paying well for a while, so that you've
been able to save up 5 or 10 percent of the purchase price for a down payment.
In almost any major city in America, a house starts at $100,000 or so. Often a
lot more. So you need to have a steady job long enough to be able to save up at
least $10,000.

Can you do that in your present circumstance?

"No."
If you can save $400 a month, you can have that down payment in two years. If
you can only save $200 every month, you will need over four years. That means
you need to have that job in the next year.

** We go into a small sidebar on why she should switch to Sales or Marketing
from her present modeling gig. **

Anne, you say you want a house by the time you turn 35. There is another route.
Marry a man who has a good, steady job who can buy that house. Or significantly
contribute towards buying that house.

"How did we go from wanting a house to me getting married?!"

Because the odds of you getting that house all by yourself aren't nearly as good
as the odds if you are married. To a good man with a steady job. Earning as much
or more than you. Especially if he is earning more than you. Does that make
sense?

"Yes. I see your point."

Do you want children?

"Huh? I don't know. How did we get to talking about children?"

Because we are talking about where you want to be at 35.

You are at the peak of your fertility right now. In the next few years it will
start to decline, if it hasn't already done so. Lots of doctors will tell you
that, if you are going to have children, you need to be done by 35. Certainly
before 40.

Fertility starts falling fast in your late thirties. Birth defects start rising
by 40. So you want to be done well before then. Age thirty-five is a good
target.

If you decide you want children, you probably want more than one. Spacing them
out by two or three years helps a lot. If for no other reason than having more
than one in diapers at a time is exhausting.

So if you want to have two children and be done by 35, then you need to have
that first baby in the next two or three years. By the time you turn 33. That's
in 2015. By 2014 would be better. That's two years away.

You and I both know that children need a mother and a father. Parents who will
stick together and raise those children to adulthood.

You don't want to end up as some guy's baby-mama, right?

"Oh hell no!"

Marriage takes work. A married couple need two or three years together to settle
into the relationship, before adding the stress of children. So if you are going
to have that first baby by your birthday in 2015, you need to be married by your
birthday in 2013.

That's next year.

** Wide eyes. Swallow hard. **

That means you need to find your future husband and father of your children THIS
YEAR.

"!!!"

Think about what I just said. Did I miss something? Did I say anything that
isn't true? Is my logic, my reasoning, my chain of causality flawed?

"No..."

So let's think about who that man is.

Think back to high school. Twelve years ago. The Year 2000. You are 17 years
old. You are blossoming into beautiful young womanhood.

** Smile. Blush. Far-away look. **

Who are the boys you remember being attracted to? Who did you have a little
tingle inside for?

"The jocks."

Of course. Good looking, self confident, graceful, exciting to be around. Alpha
males.

Did they treat you well? Did any of them offer you some sort of commitment? Or
comfort? Or support when you needed it?

"No."

Who do you remember from that last year of high school who would be suitable
husbands and fathers today? Steady jobs. No addictions to alcohol or drugs or
gambling? No baby-mama drama of their own?

"The quiet guys."

Yeah, the shy quiet guys. If the jocks were the Alphas, these guys are the
Betas. Solid, dependable, kind, supportive.

They were invisible to you. They didn't exist in your world. None of them gave
you the tingle deep inside like the Alpha males, did they?

"No..."

Do you think those guys, a dozen years later, have steady jobs and stable
incomes? Like the kind you need to qualify for a mortgage?

"I guess so. Probably."

What about the guys you had the tingles for? Think most of them are holding
good, steady jobs? are ready to commit to lifelong marriage and raising
children?

"Not many."

Or are they still bouncing from job to job, boozing it up, and chasing skirts?
Do they now have a baby-mama? Or two?

"Probably."

Which one would be there to help you buy that house?

"The quiet guy."

Which one would help you raise children? Be a father and not just a baby-daddy
to your future children?

"The quiet guy."

So why aren't you with one of those quiet guys?

** She goes into an explanation about how she just ended an 18 month
relationship with a dysfunctional Alpha. An alcoholic gambler who was all but
living in a casino. I stop her story after a few minutes. **

You wasted a year and a half of your young life. One-twentieth of your total
time on Earth. On this guy. Why?

"Well, at first he was fun. It was exciting. Then..."

At first, he made you feel special by doing fun, edgy stuff. Then, you felt
special because you thought you were special enough to fix him. Right?

"Yeah..." Eyes downcast.

You aren't that special.

** Her eyes snap open in shock and the beginnings of anger. **

Because no one is special enough to fix somebody like that. Not you. Not me. Not
Mother Theresa. No one.

Are you dating anyone right now?

"I'm on Match and Plenty of Fish."

Are you exclusively dating anyone?

"Well, almost. There is this one guy. He's smart, has a good job. He's a lawyer.
He has a house."

Do you have the tingles for him?

"Not really."

Do you think you could?

"Uh, I don't know."

Then try this: the next time you go on Match or PoF, look at each guy's photo
and profile. Find ONE good thing about him. It might be in his profile. It might
be in his photos.

Maybe his face isn't attractive, but he has a nice haircut. That should tell you
that he wasn't a winner in the genetic lottery (like you), but that he is trying
to make the best of what he has.

In the next week, look for something good in every man you meet, in person or
on-line.

After a week of doing that, take another look at the guy you are seeing. I bet
you'll find several good things about him that you never noticed before. Some of
those things might even spark the tingle.

** And this ended the conversation.  **



What does everyone think?
I am thinking...how lucky was Anne to have met Bill at that precise time in her life...

But what what about Bill's message to Anne?
Fair or foul?
Scary or sane?

Any thoughts?

Metak got Game

Everyone, meet Metak.
He's a seriously funny young guy from Slovenia.
He's single right now, but I don't expect that will last for much longer...
Even though he still harbours thoughts of MGTOW...

Does Metak have what TPM calls 'Charisma'?
What the rest of us irreverently call 'Game'?

Whatever it is, Metak managed to 'Game' me even when I wasn't looking particularly to be Gamed.
I got 'Charisma-ed' by accident :-)
A pleasant accident, I might add :-)


Yes I am quite easily Gamed.
I admit that.
But I am not alone.
Everyone is Gameable, right?
Or do I just see everyone as a potential Gamer?
Afterall, everyone and everything seems to Game me these days - God, The Pope, Danny's dog, random little girl at church, my boss...
Everyone who shouldn't really be 'Gaming' me... :-)


So what happened with Mr. Slick from Slovenia?
Here's the breakdown from my point of view.

I think he started with 'Dread'.
A comment on the MGTOW post about how he's leaving the village, how all women are this, that and the other...how the whole marriage thing is geared against men...
I felt compelled to draw him back into the village, even though I am tired of doing this, or at least I should be :-)
(And knowing of course that it wouldn't change a thing)...

So that was Metak's display of 'alpha' dread.
It worked for me.
Just this once :-)
And then the nail in my coffin was the devastating humour that followed.

Metak was not content with just me though...
Quite the greedy fella this one.
He also managed to pull Bellita and JV into the mix.
He's slick alright...this kid.
He clearly got the full set of the polyamorous genotype.
:-)


Metak may or may not know this, but there is a history of sorts here...
None of this is unprecedented...at least not where I am concerned.

British chicks and Eastern European dudes.
A match made in tabloid heaven?
This woman knows all about it :-)
And the man started out on his 'alpha' journey at 12 years old :-)


Even Margaret Thatcher was not immune to this phenomenon.
Following a visit to Poland in 1988, several newspapers in Britain played on her budding 'attraction' to Polish Prime Minister Jaruzelski with the following headline:
'The Iron Lady and the magnetic Pole'.
:-)
Pure gold.
Who came up with that killer of a headline?
Speaking of Poles, Pope John Paul II had this 'thing' about him that made him very popular with people in general.
I daresay, especially the ladies...(mentioning no names).



I always thought Goran Ivanisevic the tennis player was the hottest thing alive.
When he took his shirt off after winning Wimbledon in 2001 I thought I might finally become acquainted with the term 'spontaneous combustion'.
In an act of unacceptable disloyalty to Queen and Country, I was cheering him on when I should have been cheering on Tim Henman in the preceding semi-final in what might have been Henman's only chance at Wimbledon glory.
But can I be blamed? His ridiculously effortless and flawless serve and bullet aces that sprang forth thereof were something to behold :-)

I particularly loved his voice.
The accent only added to the appeal.
In the best ever test of my auditory 'trigger', I thought if he became Quasimodo, lost all his money and fame, became fatter than a Sumo wrestler, I'd still say 'yes'.
And we would never do what his birth city implies.

And when 'baby Goran' aka Mario Ancic (with exactly the same voice as Goran) burst onto the scene, it was 'rinse and repeat' for me :-)

Somehow it is never been lost on me that Eastern Europe is a bastion of Catholicism, or its Eastern counterpart, Orthodoxy.
Maybe that's the deal with me.
*looks shiftily around *
I am succeeding in convincing nobody, it seems. I sense that somehow :-)

But this whole 'geographical location' thing got me thinking.
After the City/Rural posts, I did wonder if whole countries or regions had any specific traits in common, in terms of its human 'talent'..
There are women who might be into Middle Eastern men, for example. Some men are helplessly putty in the hands of Scandinavian bombshells.
Danny is a sucker for Mexican girls :-)
Bellita is a goner when it comes to British men, well, certainly if he sings and has an association with a certain Scottish insect, in any case :-)
And so on...

And that's just based on looks/cultural behaviour.

There are some Western men who swear that they are done with Western women on the basis of personality/character.
Danny again.
So MGTOW might really mean MGTEEAA (Men Going Towards Eastern Europe And Asia) for some men.
:-)

And some Western women think Western men are way too timid and crave the attentions of the forward Italian and Latino 'macho' types with raw caveman tendencies :-)

It's highly amusing, all this.
And fun to dissect out.

Back to Metak and Slovenia, I know that much (good stuff) has been said about Eastern European women, certainly in The Manosphere. Something about their femininity, beauty, niceness.
I can't disagree at all, if we stick to generalisations.

Uncannily, the latter part of the thread on the MGTOW post on which he started commenting came close to the subject of eloping.

Only one member of my extended family has eloped so far (at least that I know of).
A male cousin of mine.
And his bride?
A Slovenian woman :-)

My cousin was a goofy nerd.
Who fell out with his parents for a while when he was in his late 20s.
And next one knew, he was married with a baby on the way.

But now I get it.
He wasn't stupid, my goofy nerdy cousin.
When I saw his wife, my first (involuntary, if uncharitable) thought was, 'what's a drop-dead gorgeous girl like this doing with my ugly cousin?'

Now of course I recognise my thought as a very silly one indeed.
Because I understand better now the male and female attraction triggers and how different they are from each other, in general.
I don't think she married him for his looks.
But his looks were not required...

Anyhow, why was my cousin not so idiotic afterall?
We have many male cousins his age.
He wanted to (needed to?) lock this girl down before any other male members of the family got any funny ideas about her.
Seeing her, I would imagine she's just the kind of girl to induce an involuntary transgression of the rule 'bros before hos' :-)
Like I said, my cousin knew what he was doing :-)



Which region of the world appeals to you, in terms of its men/women?
And why?

Would you be willing to move there if this was at all possible?
Is your perception of these people accurate, or was it a false illusion that never quite matched reality once you got closer to the country/person of your affections?

Dish it out, please.
Spacetraveller is all ears :-)


The maestro at work...

The voice of the century?
Judge for yourself...

Doubles...or hearing double?
Game, set and ...match this voice with Goran's!

The Contract killers

This post is not about hit-men and gangsters, I promise :-)

A common theme in The Manosphere is that 'the social contract' has been broken.
Meaning that men have always held up their end of the bargain by being men and doing what men do - i.e. building civilisation for both themselves and the collective of women and children.
But the women turned into strange hybrid creatures that aren't recognisable anymore.
And now a man has to go out there to build skyscrapers and then come home and cook his own darn dinner.

Or something to that effect.

It is no joke.
No-one is laughing.
Because the problem is really complicated.
And so the solution, if one will ever be found, will have to be equally complicated.

I tried to  ask this question before in 'Dissidents of the 'Spheres' but I didn't really get clear answers.
This is all I got in answer to the question:
Who or what is the real culprit here? Who is the 'contract killer'?

Men: Well, it's not us, because in fact we are the ones who began asking the question. It can't be us, by definition - our definition.

Women: Actually, we don't have time to answer this question. We are feeding ourselves, killing our own snakes, looking after the kids and caring for 95 year old great-grandma. We are too tired for this discussion. Zzzzzzzzz.

Do women have a point?

It is not a myth that modern woman is one tired daughter of a gun.
Whether she chose it or not, that is her lot.
But she is not lazy. That is not the problem. It is not the work per se which is the problem.
The problem is that she is doing everything.

I mentioned before that the State/Employer is killing the nice girl.
Sometimes this is quite literal.

But I am not going to dwell on this side of things for now.

There is another way the State is killing nice girl.

Danny touched on this in one of his recent posts.
Three women were discussing how one of them could cash in on her ten year marriage if only she would wait it out so that she does get to the ten year barrier. Because after ten years of marriage, she could get X % of husband's earnings, including his retirement money.

No need to discuss how abominable this kind of thinking is.
But the point of this post is, can and should a woman be blamed for accepting low-hanging fruit?
Can an alcoholic be blamed for falling off the wagon if someone accidentally hands him a bottle of gin after he completes the rehab session and was dry for 4 months straight?
Is the state making 'recidivous alcoholics' of women?

If the divorce laws were not as they were, would women be quick to head for the divorce courts?

It is a well-publicised fact that Barbara Felters, ex-wife of tennis star Boris Becker flew to Florida from Germany and filed for divorce from him from Florida, after yet another one of his flings.
Why?
Because the financial reward and the custody laws were more 'woman-friendly' in Florida than in Germany and she was able to sidestep their prenuptial agreement which woud have gotten her considerably less money than what she got from the Florida petition.
She took advantage of the laws in Florida. She took the path of least resistance when she wanted to divorce her cheating husband.
Can one blame her, really? She had two sons to raise. Was she wrong to go for more money?


In any case it is one thing to be disgusted at celebrity divorce settlements because of the colossal amounts of money involved.
But what about average Mrs X? Are the amounts she is awarded in a divorce out of proportion to what is fair too? Even if there are children involved?
Some men accuse women of not using awarded child support money on the kids but on themselves.
Is this verifiable? In all fairness I never heard of a child dying of starvation whilst Mum went on a shopping spree to Rodeo Drive, but if anyone has eveidence to this effect I would be at least willing to hear it. Even if it would make me sick.


There are some people who are so principled that they will never take the easy route no matter how much the easy route is shoved in their faces.
Ramadan is a perid of fasting for Muslims, as we all know, which is daily from dawn to dusk for about a month.
But what if you live in a Nordic country where the sun won't set until close to midnight in the summer months, if at all?
In countries like this, the advice is to follow Saudi Arabian time.
And yet, there are Muslims who will endeavour to fast the entire duration of the Nordic summer day.
These are people who are saying: No-one will be permitted to soften the rules for me. If I live in Sweden, I shall fast from dawn to dusk like I would in Saudi Arabia. No-one will sugarcoat things for me. Nobody will sweeten the deal on my behalf. I feel the full pain of the bitter deal, or I don't accept the deal at all.
Masochist or honourable member of the faithful?

In related news, Muslims are in uproar at the London Olympics right now, because Ramadan coincides with the Games. This will put practising Muslim athletes at a disadvantage.
But I am sure the devout, even in this situation, will find a way.

Resisting the temptation to pick the low-lying fruit is not for everybody though.
Is there something that can be done to stop the trend of truly greedy women who want to line their pockets with the spoils of their broken marriage?

If women are to be the feminine creatures that men want, is it time for men in the mainstream to be the masculine creatures that women want in a much more widely visible way?
I am not asking for the Taliban or anything.
Just a dose of masculine authority.
If the divorce laws are so abhorent to men, why can't something be done to fix it?
There are women who find it equally abhorent that some women are giving all women a bad name, by the way. But do men have a solution that works? Or is this issue way too complicated to be resolved?
Feminism will persist unless men topple it, even if women turn their backs on it.

Here's a video I found on Christian J's blog.
In it, a father is attempting to set his daughter straight after she is disrespectful to him and her mother on Facebook.
I am sure the daughter does not realise this right now (she is 15 or so and is naturally 'challenging'. Hey, it happens :-)
But she is indeed one of the lucky ones.

The future child of this woman may not be so lucky. He or she will get intimately acquainted with the term 'father hunger' and will get the feeling that there is not a man in the world who has his or her back. At least not quite like this man is demonstrating below.



Can we get this man to sort out the divorce laws please?

If he wants to run for President, I'll vote for him*.
Because he is 'a real man'. A real father.
And Patriarchy works.
His daughter will be on the straight and narrow again in no time at all. Because she has a Dad who cares.

Why am I so particular about this issue?
Because women want and need masculine men.
And then of course they will turn around and 'complain' about them :-)
But that is a sign of affection, don't you know? I think Michelle Obama demonstrates this beautifully here.
The not-so-masculine men will simply be avoided or strung along with the LJBF line.
This is important: masculine man=adored but nonetheless complained about, the others=not even worth complaining about.
This is why learning some Game (the good kind - I do not think this includes Tucker Max antics by the way) is important for all boys and men to learn nowadays.
Because the good guys will get a chance to attract a woman who currently is being lured away from them by the alpha bad boys who happen to be kings of Game.

This man below is a good guy. He actually wants his daughter to be an upright citizen with standards.
And he is really masculine too.
Heaven.
He is living proof that sometimes one can indeed have it all :-)

Incidentally, right at the end of the video, one finds reason to laud the mother of the girl in question too. I find it so cool that she is behind Dad in his disciplining of his daughter. She is not standing in his way. Because she knows Dad is right. She knows the value of Dad's input in daughter's life, even if she and Dad are no longer together.
(Note to self: aim to be a mother like this one day).
I am sure she is a sensible woman. I am pretty sure she would not endorse a punishment which far outweighs the crime. I am sure she would be the kind of Mum who would stop Dad from going too far in his disciplinary action, if necessary.
Just a hunch.


I promised at the beginning of this post that it would not be about hit-men and gangsters...
But, with all the shooting going on in the video below, erm...I might have been too hasty with my promises :-)
(Before you watch the video, rest assured that no-one - humans nor animals were actually shot. One innocent little laptop was not so lucky though...)


* Oh wait, can't vote. Not American.
Zut alors.

What is your end-point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As is Bellita's recent post on Masculine women.

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

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

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

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

But where is she?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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