The epitome of inner Game

I recently mentioned how men can get transfixed by a beautiful woman in my post on appreciating female beauty.

Female beauty is very powerful for men.

Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women. Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be. This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'.

A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local  social 'norm'.

All the above are excellent proxies of masculinity. Essential for female attraction.
But even these have their limitations.

Women can be 'transfixed' by something else where men are concerned.

It is difficult to explain in words.

It has to be felt.


I was reminded of this phenomenon when I saw an interview with actor Mark Wahlberg recently.
.
Now, this man was previously known very much as a 'bad boy'.
In the 80's he was known as 'Marky Mark', a rapper with a tendency to violence.
He had had a rough childhood and admits to being a coke-head by age 14.
He went to prison for an unprovoked racially-motivated attack when he was 16.

Today, Mark Wahlberg is a respectable husband and father of four.

That last statement is not that important in relation to what I saw in this man during the course of the interview.

It was his 'stillness' during the interview that grabbed my attention.

He seemed somehow 'untouchable'. Almost spiritual.
Watching and hearing him speak, you got the distinct impression that you would believe anything he told you. Because he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like he had been through something.

He kept saying he was happy. Blessed even.

I believe it. It shows.

There was something about his eyes. They had an intense quality to them, as if he was trying to penetrate the psyche of his interviewer.

And yet he was strangely detached.

He seemed perfectly at ease with himself. It was like he was in some kind of impenetrable 'zone'.

I don't know if Mr Wahlberg's story that when he was in prison, a priest took him in hand and pulled him back from the brink, is what has done it for him.
I don't know if his assertion that his family give him new meaning in his life is what makes him so outstanding .

But something happened to Mark Wahlberg.
And it shows.

I have come to realise that this is in fact what Danny was referring to when he described Game thus:

"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence.

Confidence. Outcome-independence.

Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits.


I am sure Mark Wahlberg wouldn't care to know that someone was struck by his interview on CNN.
The guy is just living his life.

But this 'thing' he exudes is a powerful force indeed.
It is the male equivalent of female beauty.

This 'thing' which I now come to recognise as 'inner Game'.
The right kind of Game.

The kind of Game a worthy woman would respect. Not just 'outer Game', (including the concepts of 'Peacocking', escalation, etc.) which is of course important because it is what gets a man's foot in the door) but the whole package of  both 'outer' and 'inner' Game.

Bellita summed it up well when she commented here:

" I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak. "

The 'steak' is inner Game.


It is totally hypnotic to a woman.
It commands instant respect. Acute disorientation, similar to how a man might react to a seductively beautiful woman.
It is a wonderful thing for a woman to encounter.


Because it reeks of raw, unbridled, unwavering masculinity.

Tango the dance of love

A colleague of mine is very much into the Argentine Tango. She loves the sensuality and the freedom of this dance.


But alas she has a problem. It seems that some of the men in her dance class are definitely all too happy to be there, Mae West fashion.
But alas, this does not spoil her fun. She continues on her journey to master the Argentine Tango.
Good girl.

I was born with two left feet. Figuratively speaking, that is. Or should that be two right ones? 

I got the rhythm an' all, but it just doesn't translate well on the dance floor, particularly in a 'classical' dance like Tango. I couldn't dance Tango to save my life. It is however on my list of 'to do' things. I thought about joining my colleague at her Argentine Tango class. I just might, one day soon.

Someone tried to teach me the Tango once. I was no good. My teacher did give up after about ten minutes. I am actually surprised the lesson lasted that long.

It was not so much the dancing itself I remember, but the lessons it taught me about the dynamics of a relationship. I am not sure if this was the intention of my teacher. Whether it was or not does not matter. What matters to me is that a lesson was handed to me free on a plate. And I took it on board.

"One step forward, one step back".
"Two steps to the side, two steps back".
"One step forward, two steps to the side and... sweep".

(For those who are unfamiliar with Tango, the sweep is where the man or the woman uses their foot to literally drag the other's foot in a direction of their choosing. It is a highly sensual move).

Each time one partner in Tango moves forward, the other has to go backwards. If one goes backwards, the other has to move forward, for the dance to go smoothly and be enjoyable.

This lesson consolidates what I know about successful relationships.


Another important rule of Tango is that the man always leads. Even if the woman is to go forward, it is because the man has indicated to her that he is about to go backwards.

In Tango, you are never alone.
There is always some contact between the dancers. Usually at shoulder level, but this can vary during the course of a dance.

It is a true dance of life.

The sins of the Mother

This is arguably the most painful post I shall ever write. Because this subject delves into the greatest fears of both men and women. It is almost taboo to 'go there.'

We have all heard of the sins of the father.
Deut 5:9. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

I am not sure the bible ever touches on the 'sins of the mother'. If it does, I stand corrected.
However, I would be surprised.

It is said that the only reason that lesbianism was never a crime in Britain (as opposed to male homosexuality) during Victorian times was that Queen Victoria simply did not believe that women could be homosexual. She did not therefore feel the need to outlaw something which did not exist.

During the Iraq war, the British press went crazy on the topic of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Several comedians picked up on this, some of them making jokes about a certain part (or two) of a woman's anatomy being 'weapons of mass destruction'.

A woman's breasts can never really be her best or worst (whichever way you look at it!) weapons of mass destruction.
In a tragic twist, it could be her motherhood.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Of herself and her children. As a lot of single mothers would testify to, it is incredibly hard to raise children alone.

So a woman who finds herself in this position has to survive somehow. No matter how she got to this state of affairs.
She may have been unlucky. The man she trusted with her body betrayed that trust. She may have been irresponsible. The man she should never have gone near, she defied her innate intuition and did. She may be divorced. She may actually have conceived with another man to break up her marriage. She may have been widowed. She may have been a 'reluctant bride' and chosen 'anyone' because she wanted a child, but not the man. She may have decided to 'go it alone' right from the start and naturally or 'artificially' became a mother with a known or unknown man.

For some women, motherhood is a noble art.
Unfortunately, for some, it is a chance to have a bargaining tool at one's disposal. 
Ugly.

For others, it is totally subconscious what plays out. And for yet others, it is a conscious choice to have a child, a "mini-me" to groom into the role of helper and future provider.


A man's greatest fear is betrayal by a woman. Whilst this often means betrayal by a 'mate' in the form of cuckoldry, consider this:
What if the traitor is his own mother?

The post on MGTOW produced a lively debate on the various reasons for MGTOW. Some of them were due to a man just wishing to live his own life with no disturbances from female influences, some were as a direct result of previous bad experiences with women, some were to do with the anti-male and prohibitive laws regarding fatherhood, child custody, alimony, etc.
All valid reasons.

This comment from BeijaFlor* stood out:

I'm very familiar with women's fear of abandonment. I saw it in my (single) mother's eyes, heard it in her voice, when I grew to manhood and could have struck out on my own. I stayed with her instead, but picked up the load of "breadwinner" and even bought a house for the two of us ... she died in that house, died of cancer, with her hand in mine, ten years ago. I was 48 that day, with friends that age who were grandparents. So I believe I know what it is to "man up."

No-one else had touched on this particular issue.

A lone mother sometimes depends on her child(ren) to shoulder the burden. That's to be expected to some degree. I would even argue that it is good for the child(ren) to understand how hard life can be.

But when a son is forced to take on an absent father's role, sometimes before he is emotionally ready, I find that criminal. Because it reveals a certain selfishness in the mother (which, tragically she may not even be aware of).

A son like this will pedestalise his mother. He wants to help a woman, as his male nature dictates. Especially if that woman is the one who gave him life. It may follow on from his natural Oedipus complex.
But if this woman denies him what is rightfully his, i.e. the right to make his own choices in life, follow his own dreams, live his own life, then she is doing him a great disservice.
This man will pedestalise women until one day he will wake up and realise that he was betrayed. His whole life up to that point was a lie.

And worse, the traitor is also the one he loves the most.

This is one of the rare sources of cognitive dissonance in a man. He understands women so well because he was around one a lot, more than was necessary in fact, but at the same time he is seething with rage at a wrong that was done him. Especially if there was no other man around to take him on the road to manhood. Psychologists believe that the Oedipus complex is finally resolved in a boy when, instead of childishly competing with his father for his mother, resolves to become a man, like Father.  But what if there is no Father figure to allow this to happen?

This man often seeks out women, because on principle he loves women. He wants a fulfilling relationship with a woman, just as much as the next guy. But he will struggle to form meaningful relationships with them. Until that is, he finds the key to the riddle in his heart. By himself.

For him, it is not so much a mistrust of women, but an unresolved, sometimes subconscious fear.

A fear that can be entangled with an anger, tangled further with his love for Mother and his shame at feeling such rage. It may remain sealed away, bubbling inwardly like a pressure-cooker. And his efforts to seal it away could leave him sealing away his emotions - or it could erupt inside him, doing who-knows-what greater damage to his own soul.

Outwardly, this man may appear to be a 'principled mangina'. Or the worst woman-hating PUA there is. Or both. At the same time. Which will be confusing, even to him. Until he works out for himself what is going on in his soul.


And there is no guarantee that he ever will ... which could leave him endlessly wandering that dark wilderness, stripped of inward mercy, that is finally all that is left in his scarred, cankered heart.
In the end, that road can be both excruciatingly painful and at the same time headily redeeming. A man who can bounce back from this kind of trauma is the ultimate hero, because, to face one's worst fear and win is the ultimate test of life.


The daughter of a mother like this also suffers.

This woman is usually on one of two trajectories:
On the one hand, she becomes a 'son' in her drive to please Mother. She loses out on her femininity because she is 'replacing' an absent man. She is acting out the role of 'husband' without her express knowledge or consent. This woman will usually have a deep love for men, because she will have lived most of her life as one, but will struggle to form a relationship with (a masculine) one because she is, at least in her head, not feminine enough. She has been too busy playing 'husband' to another woman to know what it is to be 'wife' to a man.

On the other hand, a daughter of a lone mother could also be 'trained' by Mother to become 'strong and independent'. Never need a man! would be all she hears from infancy. They are bad for you. They will break your heart. Earn your own money, kill your own snakes, buy your own jewellery.

Mother thinks she is helping. She wants to 'save' daughter from a fate similar to hers. But she is in fact doing the opposite. Because in this mindset, daughter's worst fear will be realised.

Both these daughters have a saving grace though. Like Mother, they are also women. So they can recover more easily from the sins of Mother than their male counterparts.
One day they will wake up and reject Mother's brand of womanhood as they come into their own.
What they may suffer more from, is the absence of the mitigating influence of Father.

We all know the effects of fatherlessness, in both sexes.

Motherhood is a powerful force.
Rarely, it can be devastatingly destructive.
Strangely enough, I do not believe that this form of destructive motherhood is connected to feminism per se. Although of course it can have a perjorative effect on it.
Because feminism, with its core of rage against men and manhood, is fighting to make single motherhood the norm, and thus multiplying not only the victimisation of the children, but also the power of destructive motherhood.

Let us minimise the risk of destructive motherhood.

And let us bring back Father into the home.


*A massive humongous 'Thank You' to BeijaFlor for his help with this post.

Appreciating female beauty

Code: I am doing it again: I am translating from the french 'apprécier', in the sense of 'to enjoy' or 'to like' and not in the sense of 'to be grateful for'.

I read with great interest Roissy's recent post imploring men not to let a woman's beauty affect them. At first I was alarmed. Even appalled.
I thought this was surely bad advice for men.

Because the whole point of female beauty was that it was the signal men picked up on to suggest to them her youth and therefore fertility and therefore eligibility for the mating game (unless of course, the man concerned is MGHOW).
So, if men were to find a way to ignore or lessen the impact of female beauty, they would be eliminating one of their own very important attraction triggers.
Counterproductive!
This was my initial thought.

Then after a while, I calmed down.

Here's why.

A while ago, Bellita's post What would Frankie do? touched on femininity. What was interesting about this post is that it quickly morphed into a discussion about female beauty.
Someone mentioned the french singer Alizée.

Whilst I had never heard of Alizée before, I was suitably impressed with her when I saw this video.

The first comment on the video is from a man who says, and I quote word for word, "This chick is so HOT my girlfriend just got a boner!!!!"

Whilst this was not quite my reaction, I kind of get it.
First of all, I was asking myself, "how does she do that?"
The very fluid arm and body movements are essentially feminine, and she executes them exceedingly well.
She is also a naturally beautiful woman, there is no doubt.
She is stupefying. At least at first.

(Sadly for you, gentlemen, this woman is off the market, by the way. She got married at age 19. Let's hope her husband agrees she is a 'nice girl' according to my previous criteria, and that she remains that way for life).

Even as a woman, I was struck by her beauty.

There was a time I used to compliment women who I noticed were very beautiful. Out and about, on the streets, in the shops, at college, whenever I saw an extremely beautiful woman, I would go up to her and say it. I usually got one of two reactions:

Some would be very gracious and even compliment me back.
Some would be visibly perturbed that another woman was telling them this. I could see the unease on their faces, and the suspicion of my 'orientation'.

Because of the latter reaction, I stopped doing this.
Because it felt like I was unnecesarily putting these women in a position of superiority over me. And I was not being rewarded for it.

I guess this was what Roissy was alluding to. If even I as a woman can be reduced to a virtual statue for a while, how much more a man?

Appreciating a woman's beauty can lead men to over-pedestalise a woman. A certain amount is fine, because it causes a positive feedback loop in a woman's mind when she knows a man finds her attrractive. But too much, and the attraction she has for him can be killed off.

Also, a man who can retain his composure when faced with a beautiful woman, particularly if she is used to men drooling all over her, will be seen as 'unusual' by her. As per this post, this is good for the man, because that alone gets him in her good books. Especially as his composure prevents him from being lewd.

Nothing more unpleasant for a woman, especially if she is 'well endowed' than to have a strange man stare at her chest (assuming her 'friends' are not out on open display, that is).

The man who achieves this can go to near the top of the list, if not right at the very top.
But if a longterm relationship is to come of this initial encounter, there will have to be a time when he goes through a 'beta' phase, which essentially includes some degree of pedestalisation.

The problem with being stupefied by a beautiful woman on first seeing her is that it makes a man 'beta' straight away.
It is crucial that the whole 'alpha/beta' thing starts off in the right order. It has to start with 'alpha'.

Does complimenting a woman on her beauty increase her entitlement complex?
I think this depends on the woman. For some women, that's all they have going for them, so their self-worth may be entirely based on their beauty. So for these women, perhaps it is a necessary tool.

Others know that beauty is skin-deep and fleeting, and so understand its place in their value/worth and don't over-rely on it. Such women would not have an inflated sense of self based on their beauty alone.

So Roissy is right afterall. It is surprising sometimes who ends up as an 'ally' on the journey into the unknown.

Appreciate a woman's beauty. But don't let it go to your head.

As Dannyfrom504 says, his approach to pretty women is somewhat like this:
"I often tell women, "ok, you're pretty...now what?"
That's some serious Game right there.
Even the prettiest woman will stop in her tracks with this.

The Quiet Man

The following is a typical scenario:

During a divorce or separation, a woman rallies round her friends.
She tends to be very vocal, even if she is usually not very talkative. This is good for her in many ways. As in, 'a problem shared is a problem halved'. Sometimes it may not be so good for her, as in, the collective rationalisation hamster of a group of provoked women can get unbelievably out of control and become destructive rather than constructive.

The man stays 'shtumm' and goes about the cold business of sorting out the logistics. The legal proceedings, the financial paperwork. The moving of personal belongings from one residence to another.
At least on the surface.
He says nothing. He does nothing. He just ignores and avoids.

Away from absolutely everyone.
Until he can work out something in his head.
Until he rejoins his social setting as a returnee from wherever he went, or he becomes The Angry Man and then The Indifferent Man.
That's how things are. Both men and women revert to their respective natures especially during times of stress.

Neither party is 'wrong'.

But no-one is enjoying this party, so something has to change.

Otherwise men and women will drive each other literally insane.

Albert Einstein said this: 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results'.

So what can de done differently?

In general, it is clear that women tend to get more sympathy, from both men and women, during situations like divorce.
There are at least 3 reasons for this:

1. Women are physically and emotionally more vulnerable, at least on the face of it. To this effect, I believe it is right that support in the shape of sympathy is accorded to women.

2. Women are simply more vocal in a social setting. They advertise their needs more. Unlike a man, who is bound by concepts like 'pride' and 'stoicism' and 'honour', a woman has free rein to vent her frustrations in public for all to see. She is also an exceptional spin-doctor, because she is a great rationaliser.

Here's the crossover line between 'nice girl' and 'not so nice girl':
Even when 'not so nice' is in the wrong, and knows it, she can spin it to look like the other party is the culprit.
'Nice girl' will get all emotional too and make a scene. But it will not be as venomous and as far-reaching as the damage done by 'not so nice'. There is a big difference in attitude.

The 'nice girl' will calm down after a 'cooling down' period. She will be civil to the man again. Even if the marriage is irreparable, she will be pleasant again whether or not there are children involved. She might even 'chase' him a bit.
The 'not so nice' will go for the jugular and in fact get the carotid. She doesn't want the man back in the village ever again. She wants him dead.

Most women need a 'cooling off' period after an emotinal outburst, same as most men need  'peace time' after coming home from work.
Some will use this time well. Some will not.

3. The post-feminist world encourages mindless male-bashing.
This is a sticking point for many men, and the women who care about men.

Reasons 1 and 2 can be to some extent explained away as 'female nature'.

Reason 3 is a social 'add-on' and does not reflect female nature.
It is why men are demonised unnecessarily.

Here are examples of specific male behaviours that may be interpreted wrongly by women:

1. A beautiful woman passes by a couple and the man of the couple stares at her for 3 seconds. The woman of the couple gets offended.
This is a natural biological response, like a woman's response to a newborn baby. It need not escalate into an affair. If it does, I agree the man has crossed a line.

2. A man in a longterm marriage is denied sex on a longterm basis outside of reasonable circumstances such as illness, pregnancy, extreme life-changing events like grief and physical separation from partner . He resorts to porn, affairs or prostitution.
No need for explanation.

3. A man takes a good two minutes to answer what to a woman is a simple question.
This I agree is frustratingly difficult on a day-to-day basis. But there is actually a scientific basis for this. Rather than label as 'slow' or 'inattentive' and interrupt his thought processes, a woman would do so much better to wait for the answer.

And so on...

The point of this post is that, in keeping with human nature, we tend to hear and see what's thrown 'out there' much more than what's hidden.
That's the whole point of advertising. If you have a great product to sell, you make sure it is highly visible to your target market.

40+ years of feminism have 'advertised' the 'sins' of men to women. Even to women who weren't looking to buy.
 We now know it was a case of 'false advertising' because feminism was not such a great product afterall. It has made life worse rather than better for everyone concerned.

Women can bridge the gap by taking time to gently probe and try to understand The Quiet Man instead of following the herd and beating him down.

But will the Quiet Man pipe up sometimes and tell 'his side of the story' at the time it is happening and not retreat? Is this an admission of guilt? Is this a way of getting away from a source of stress? Is this because he is being gallant? Is he simply giving a woman her 'cooling off' time? Or is it simply his Nature?'

Whatever it is, the Quiet Man appears not to help his cause. At a time he really needs to.
Self-preservation or wilful self-destruction?

Tim Tebow and the Peacock effect

Continuing on the sporting theme, a female friend was waxing lyrical about Tim Tebow the other day. She especially liked his 'Tebowing'. I suggested to her that she only liked him because he was a famous athlete.

She said this:
"There are lots of famous athletes. Big deal. I like this one because he is different."

I said "yeah, sure" and we left it at that as there was no time to continue our conversation.

I think I now understand what she meant.

Peacocks are magnificent birds to watch. I think they are second only to the King of the jungle himself, the Lion, when it comes to the whole "strutting" thing.
The preening is spectacularly over the top.

Some men might see the peacock as the "dandy" of the animal kingdom, the gay guy.
Some might see him as a true alpha.
I am with the latter group.
A peacock will kill, and I repeat, kill another competitor for a peahen. He ain't gay.

Some studies suggest that the plumage of a peacock is actually nothing to do with attracting the peahen - it is more a case of warding off or intimidating other males.
In any case, a Japanese study concluded, after seven years of watching free-living peacocks, that the female is actually indifferent (read: unimpressed) to the often excessive display by the peacock.
An example of hypergamy if ever there was one!

Male sparrows and other birds are Nature's serenaders. What we know as 'birdsong' is actually a full-on male choir in action. All doing their bit to attract a female.
Although not detectable by human ears, not all birdsong is the same. I have seen phonograms proving beyond any doubt that the frequency of each birdsong is different.

Each male bird is trying to be unique.
The female birds are just there, passive. They all look alike. If they like the sound of a particular male bird, they pick him.

Same story in human terms if each gender is to follow Nature's way.

A woman does not have to be überspecial, to attract a man. She does have to be visible to him, and the better her 'assets' the better. Thereafter, he needs to know that she will keep his home, bear his children and keep him company, never betraying him (read: cuckoldry/divorce rape, etc).

Some men believe that women just like the 'bad boys'. Whilst I see this happening sometimes, it is by no means the only story.

A woman's attraction triggers are different from a man's, because they have to be. Otherwise we would all be gay. That wouldn't work for the purposes of propagating the species.
She needs to look at a man and see a king. He needs to stand out because there are many men on the parade, usually.
He has to be unique, to her.

For a woman, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man really is king.
And in the land of the one-eyed man, the two-eyed man is king. And so is the blind man.

It's the difference that counts. In the purely biological sense.
In the land of good boys, a bad boy will become 'alpha' (read: extraordinary) by default.
In the land of bad boys, Tim Tebow is king.

But alas, human beings have higher functions too, as some of you keep reminding me. Social factors do come into play too. I know that.

A woman can go wrong in two ways:
1. She is not yet mature when she makes her 'choice'. So she does choose Mr Top Spot, but her criteria for choosing him are all wrong because they are riddled with adolescent thinking. Next you know, she is on the hypergamy train to the next station.

In the old days, a woman's maturity was nailed earlier in her life.
Feminism has increased the age at which this happens in modern women. Counterproductively.

2. She is mature, but chooses someone who is not Top Spot for a variety of reasons outlined under 'The Reluctant bride'.
So a man's job in this case is to find out where he is on 'the list' if this is a woman he does care enough about that he wants to commit to. Game (the right kind, as explained by Lost and Danny) can help in this regard. This is why I personally respect Game.

The happiest woman is one who is mature and chooses Mr Top Spot as a result of her physical attraction for him combined with the clear thinking her maturity accords her.

So, if many women are being accused of choosing 'the bad boy', consider that she is most likely immature and that that bad boy made himself stand out to her immature mind. In this regard, neither that woman nor the bad boy are appealing.

What's the best strategy for the immature woman with regards to the 'bad boy'?
Avoidance.
There is a good reason girls and boys were largely 'segregated' in ancient times, until a certain age. It is also why I am in accordance with same sex education until a certain age. The goal here is to achieve the necessary maturity in both sexes, but particularly in a girl before she is exposed to the big bad world. By then, her ideas on who is worthy or not are firmly formed in her mind.

For mature women, their default position is that 'there are no good men out there' i.e. every man is a bad boy. So a 'good boy' to a mature good woman is actually a true alpha.  because he stands out. The Private Man has a series of posts advising women to 'see' the good in men. I think this is good advice because it helps this process along nicely.

I think this is what my friend was talking about when she was referring to Tim Tebow as 'different'.
This is why I also think that a 'principled mangina' can be gold dust to a good mature woman if he has enough Game.

Special Request

This is not a real post.

I just wanted to make a general point or two.

The first is, I am still getting a few 'you don't know what you are talking about' comments.

Whilst it does not and should not bother me (because in fact it's true to a large extent), I just wish to draw attention to the fact that it is not really helping me or anyone to get to the point where we really know what we are talking about.
Besides I never made any such bold claims in the first place. Even if I seem sure about something, it is still just an opinion.
I am no expert, just someone who wants to figure out if there is a path to a better way forward.

Because, the 'experts' (read: 'officials') are still standing around scratching their heads, so I figured it's time for the inmates to run the asylum, so to speak. I am right behind the bolder inmates before me who started this process.

Second, every other comment seems to be from an 'Anonymous'.
Again, no problem.

The special request is this:
Like many people, I am still unsure what the relative proportions of the movers and shakers in the game are.
At the last unofficial count it seems the MGTOW and the 'not so nice women' far outnumber everyone else.
It might be helpful to see, at least in our own small population sample if this is verifiable.

Would you mind adding at the end of your comment what category best describes you, (in your own opinion or that of others who know you, if you have access to that information) from the description given in the last post? Or you could make up your own category if it is missing in the last post. Sometimes it is glaringly obvious what category you are in! but sometimes I am unsure.

No matter if you are not so inclined to indulge in this little exercise. Just a suggestion. Please comment anyway.
Thanks.

I'll start:

I am Spacetraveller, and I am in category 3: 'nice girl'.
 (Own opinion. Closest friends agree, others unsure).


(PS: Self-identification does not prove anything. But that's all we've got for now)