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?

Anti-social or just a normal male?

Welcome to The JV show!

Each time JV comments, a new post is born :-)
I could retire my post-finding hemisphere and just depend on her for ideas :-)

So thank you, JV.
For your gems.

Here is something JV said, which I was starting to ponder about anyway. PVW also made a similar comment that made me think.
The background to my thoughts on this is perhaps a little selfish, in a longwinded sort of way.

I mean, if I am going to somehow produce ten children, the names of which are already entered into the old cerebral database, to be dished out at appropriate intervals :-), it is statistically reasonable to expect a good number to be boys.
Sure, I could end up with ten girls.
But that would be (statistically) improbable.

It follows that I have to think about one day being in charge of a man's early life.
By being his mother.

Why do I need to think about this?
Because I imagine I already know how to raise a woman. Because I am one.
I have to prepare myself specially to (co-)raise a man.

Is this overthinking things a tad?
Indeed.
But that's what I do best :-)

On a side note, I am currently wary of both genders when they are still under the age of reason and still under three foot.
The girls game me and the boys show me things I am not expecting to see.
:-)
I think I am going to need all the help I can get.


Back to the topic in hand, PVW said this in the context of educating girls:

"...when I heard about the Oprah Winfrey situation, I thought that in South Africa, can it be a matter of young men in such a more patriarchal society, young men are deemed empowered merely by their existence, while for young girls, they need extra efforts for their empowerment."

I know any future daughters I have will get an education.
That's a given.
First wave feminism achieved this for already at least three or four generations of modern families.
No problem there.

But I am not so sure about my future sons now.
Because it is no longer about leveling a playing field anymore.
It is now about some sort of retribution against manhood.
I didn't sign up for that.
But it might be what my future son will get.
And now I am starting to feel queasy for him before he is born.
Neurotic motherhood at its best :-)


This is what JV said, to further fuel my neuroticism:
This, in the context of 'ball-busting' women:

"It's funny, but your post idea was something that I was thinking about the other day. A friend of mine who is a single mother has a son who was goofing around with my teenager. The insults were fast and furious, and my friend was horrified. She turned to me and said, "I just can't get him to stop doing that." I told her to not worry about it. It's how boys socialize.

But it got me to thinking how varying degrees of teasing insult is a part of male social skills, whether it's among their friends, or the teasing neg with women. Training that out of a boy could cause a lot of problems."


The problem with a feminised society is that it can produce two types of men:

1. In the majority group will be those who just feel isolated and want to run fast from that society, because there is nothing in it that they can identify with.

2. In the minority, the men who are 'feminised' and as a result become unattractive to the vast majority of women.

Neither category is desirable.
I am sure there are 'matriarchies' that worked in ancient times.
But our attempt at 'matriarchy' in the current clime is not working.
Because it is a false and confused kind of matriarchy, precisely because it is borne out of dissent at patriarchy, without a prior negotiation.
It is a funcional matriarchy rebelling at an actual patriarchy.

If more and more households with children are consisting of mostly single mothers, then in thirty years we will have more of the above categories.


But I think I spot an unseen fiend (no typo).
Even in a 'normal' family setting of both parents who are in 'traditional' roles (for want of a better expression), early childhood is going to be spent in the majotity of the time with Mother.
This is not just practical, it is also natural.

A father's 'input' grows with the child's age. That's not to say that he is unnecessary at Day 1 of course.
All I am saying is that the needs of a baby are overwhelmingly at the door of Mother from Day 1 and the direct interaction with father comes later.

If Mother is clueless as to the specific needs of boys, even the most 'advantaged' boys in society, i.e. those who have both parents living under the same roof by age sixteen will lack something they really ought not to do without.

I am reliably informed (by the men of The Manosphere) that boys are singled out at school for ridicule and punishment much harsher than befits their 'crimes'. The problem is said to (partly at least) stem from the fact that the majority of teachers in schools are female.
If this is true (that boys are being singled out in this way), then I don't think the problem is that their teachers are female at all. There has to be an unseen force at play here. In this sense, the female teacher might just be a puppet on a string in a macabre 'Punch and Judy' show where Judy is made to punch Punch more times than is necessary to keep the show funny.

One of the tools at a school's disposal may be the accusation that a boy is 'violent'.
Is this criminalising 'normal' little boy behaviour or is this indeed the start of the long road to 'Her Majesty's pleasure' aka prison for young Tommy?

Was JV right to be nonchalant about her friend's son's behaviour or is she aiding and abeting a future outlaw?
In Britain, around 10 years ago, a new trend started: Handing out ASBOs (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) to 'unruly' teenagers  like smarties. Guess which gender got the majority of these?

And what about the adult men?
Apparently not much changes between ages 5 and 50 :-)

I was once went on a road trip in a party of four, with a married couple in their 50s and a friend in his 40s.
The two men frequently had each other's heads in an underarm head lock whilst I and the other woman looked on in sheer embarrassment whenever this was done in full view of polite company.
To me it was like kindergarten all over again but my female friend assures me this is normal behaviour even for a 50-something year old man :-)



As we celebrate the diamond Jubilee of our dear Queen Elizabeth, my thoughts veer towards two astounding realisations:
1. She has effectively been 'married' to Britain and the Commonwealth for 60 years.
She took vows of loyalty and alliance to the nation, and she has kept them.
2. If she has been Queen for 60 years, she has been married (in the normal sense of the word) for longer than that, because she was already married (and Prince Charles was already a toddler) by the time her father died and she became Queen.

For any woman whose eternal lament is 'he has no social skills, he does and says whatever he wants whenever he wants', spare a thought for our dear old Queen Liz.

Prince Philip has never been known for his social graces and tact.
In fact he is so well-known as 'HRH Prince of Gaffes' that diplomatic relations with certain countries of the world have only been maintained because of the love and respect that the inhabitants have for our dear Reina Elizabeth.
In lesser circles, Prince Philip would have been branded as downright antisocial. He may even have earned himself an ASBO.

And yet, he managed to avoid being thrown out of Buckingham Palace all these years.
He managed to evade being thrown out of the country the literal way.

He escaped the grasp of the guillotine executioner at The Tower of London.
Other spouses of the reigning monarch of England have heard the words 'off with their heads' for much less than the 'crimes' of the impossible Prince P :-)

Does Prince Philip get away with it because he is a man and therefore his tactless jibes at the unsuspecting public (foreign or otherwise) are considered a variant of normal?

Here are some goodies from the national treasure chest of HRH Prince P's gaffes, for your entertainment.
Please note that these were all said to high-ranking people who formed part of a welcoming committe for the royal party:

On a tour of Canada: "We don't come here for our health. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves."

During the recession he mused: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."

When accepting a figurine from a woman during a visit to Kenya he asked: "You are a woman aren't you?"

He asked a Scottish driving instructor in Oban: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"

The Duke asked a British student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

At a Buckingham Palace drinks party, he told a group of female Labour MPs: "Ah, so this is the feminist corner then."

On being offered fine Italian wines by Giuliano Amato, the former Prime Minister, at a dinner in Rome, he is said to have uttered: "Get me a beer. I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer!"

In Cardiff he told children from the British Deaf Association, who were standing by a Caribbean steel band: "If you're near that music it's no wonder you're deaf".

He told a World Wildlife Fund meeting that "if it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

“You look like you’re ready for bed!”
- To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes.

Said to black dance troupe Diversity at the Royal Variety Performance: "Are you all one family?"

To Australian Aborigines during a visit to Australia with the Queen he asked: "Do you still throw spears at each other?"

To the Aircraft Research Association, he said: "If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort, provided you don't travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly."

While touring a factory near Edinburgh he said a fuse box was so crude it "looked as though it had been put in by an Indian".


It seems no group, clan or nation has managed to escape Prince Philip's sharp wit.
And yet, the most celebrated woman in the world thinks the world of him.
So much so that she has been his loving and faithful wife for over 60 years.

Is he a strutting, rebellious and feckless alpha with an unusual sense of humour?
Or a witless, embarrassing and antisocial sigma?
Or...just a normal male?


Are we in danger of making manhood extinct by the time my sons get born?
Or are we going to let men be men?

And for that matter, let women be women?

Defiant as ever...

But still the best royal consort to date...

Preselection: A different take

Addendum:
The day after I drafted this post, Charming Disarray made a comment in 'The lovable rogue' which made me wonder if she comes under this category of woman described here, at least in part?
Here's (an excerpt of) her comment:

"Concerning men whose mothers and sisters adore them which in turn influences other women to see him the same way, there's a guy I know who fits that description perfectly. And I totally fell for it at first. And then.....there were a few occasions where he showed he couldn't be counted on, and I now grow increasingly impatient with the worship he gets from his womenfolk. But maybe that's me being an "outlier" again. :P "

Hm...I think when it comes to 'preselection', our CD really is an outlier.

Here's why I think so.




There is one popular mantra I have never quite reconciled with.
And I am someone who actually does agree with much of the wisdom of The Manosphere.
So I am by no means a foe of The Manosphere.

But this one issue bugs me. Or rather it did for a long time - until I figured out what my problem was.

My 'stumbling block' to complete reconciliation with The Manosphere lies in the phenomeon of 'preselection'.

I completely agree that women are hypergamous.
I even think it is necessary.
I completely agree that men need Game to 'win' in the current dating milieu.
I completely agree that women need to be more feminine.
I completely agree that women should be submissive to their husbands (note I did not say 'subservient').

But I was fiercely opposed to the idea that women only want men who are wanted by other women.
Because I knew of the existence of many women for whom this is patently false.

I have figured out, I think, what the 'problem' is.
These women are on the whole, 'masculine women'.
And they are by no means the majority.
But they are what one would call ' a significant minority'.

And in fact, The Manosphere is not wrong about these women's preselection.
They do like 'preselected' men.

The only difference when it comes to preselection between these women and other women is...
Preselection ...by whom?

The Manosphere claims that women want men who other women have previously (or have currently!) chosen.
So a man who surrounds himself with lots of beautiful women will have a better chance of attracting a woman than one who is obviously a loner.
A man who is married will often report a higher interest in him by other women when he is wearing his wedding band, and indeed when he is in the company of his wife than when he is alone.
A man whose online profile includes photos with women will often get more responses.
A man who is recommended to a woman by another woman is more likely to attract the woman than one who is recommended to her by a man.

In all these cases, I believe it is not just that the man has previously 'got' other women, because afterall, some or most of these women he surrounds himself with will be relatives or platonic friends.
I think what's more important for the woman who may be interested in this man is, is he safe to be around? If he is around other women, even if they are his own sisters, he is somehow 'safer' than if he is never to be found in the company of women.
Nevermind that he may be a serial killer and his sisters will lie through their teeth to cover for him: the important thing here is that another woman deems this man lovable enough to 'cover for'. If he is someone's 'lovable rogue', that's all a woman needs to know.
Somewhat illogical, but true :-)
Very few women will feel brave enough to approach a true loner without any evidence of this 'social proof' by another woman. There would have to be an overwhelmingly valid reason why this lack of 'social proof' would be overridden by a woman.
Like there are bizarre externuating circumstances - like in a war.
Like he is 'special' enough that her hypergamy (whch is the highest instinct in a woman) is sufficiently satisfied and she is no longer looking for other 'qualifiers'.
In other words, he is supremely alpha and has short-circuited his way into her heart straightaway :)

I get that.

But there are women, believe it or not for whom none of the above apply in even a remotely abstract way, let alone a tangible way.

Because these women are looking at a man not by his relationship to other women, but to how he measures up to other men.

These are the women who are wired to be unimpressed when their elderly female neighbour says with a sly wink: "You know, I have a son who is a doctor in New York. Maybe you should meet him."
Because to this woman, a 'recommendation' by a man's mother is too easy.
Because she knows that every mother loves her son. No matter how much of a 'rogue' he is :-)

This same woman will sit up and show interest if her married male co-worker says to her, "My old college room-mate is coming to town from New York to go to the game /go hunting /spend time at The Hamptons with me. He is single and 'looking'."

Why?

Because the man of interest has been endorsed by another man. Who is the best judge of men.
Because these women want to know how much a man squares up to his peers, i.e. other men. They don't care how many women a man has beddded (in fact they are put off by a man who has a high 'number'), but instead want to know how many men he has beaten in competition, whatever that competition my be.
These women are judging a man by his higher functions rather than his baser achievements.

These are the same women who will use words like 'honour' and 'respect' in their everyday vocabulary.
And they are certainly judging men as a man would judge a man.

And so when the guy they are dating drops the bombshell that he is married, or is in a relationship, hoping this will make the woman more interested in him, he is blindsided by the fact that she can't leave his presence fast enough, never to return.

For these women, (current) preselection by other women, i.e. anything other than strict monogamy is an automatic deal-breaker, their 'non-negotiable'. Past preselection is negotiable, but only if it was kept at a minimal level. They won't be part of any harem, soft or hard, for sure.
And they never listen to 'the herd' unless 'the herd' has something sensible to say about a man.
They will happily date the geek no-one wants, as long as the geek has the respect of his fellow geeks.

There is always a silver lining :-)

So... I don't really know if CD falls squarely into this category or not, i.e. I don't know if she was never ever going to be impressed by the man's female entourage's pedestalisation of him at all anyway, or if she really 'joined the herd' in the sense of agreeing with them about how great this guy was, and only backtracked when she discovered the herd's analysis of the situation was 'inaccurate'.
I dunno.
Perhaps CD could clarify, in light of what I have discussed in this post?


Any other woman feel this way about how they 'assess' men?
Any man notice this phenomenon play out in a woman he knows?

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily think that this alternative 'preselection' pattern by a minority of women is superior to the usual preselection one. I just find it interesting enough to write about :-)