“Females in general don’t convince me that they own more than a rudimentary form of self-awareness.”
And that, my friends, feels a lot like loneliness. Despite the ball-draining orgasms.
I hear you.
While the disappointment that comes along with realization eventually wears off, the loneliness of being unable to commune on all levels requires a different antidote.
For me I like to mix a pragmatic approach of not expecting to get certain needs met from the girl, along with getting those needs met elsewhere. Conversation gets done on the blog, or if I’ve been lucky enough to find and cultivate them, with male meat-space friends. I use the girl as best she can be used, and try not to demand more of her that is reasonable. I put her to work fulfilling the needs she can fulfill, in compensation for the ones she can’t.
And sometimes it gets down to this. If the woman is unfulfilling, it’s not her fault for sucking so bad. Its mine for not moving on. And then it’s time to pack the bags and go to the airport, and start a next life phase.
I forget which commenter here takes the view that the reason women are incapable of introspection is that in order to cuckold or to pursue dual mating strategy, they have to believe their own lies. Myself I think that in order to be a master manipulator, it helps if you believe your own projections and can’t face realities about your own makeup. Of course a person could be a master manipulator while being truthful and introspective, but that’s a much higher level cognitive ability. It’s much simpler and easier to simply believe your own lies, at all costs. And/or to not give a shit about truth, and just believe your own emotions, at all costs.
This is why women are always trying to ferret out what you REALLY feel. Because they never ever ever tell you what they really feel. They rarely know. It’s all subterfuge, towards the ends of manipulation.
Women can’t believe that a person could be habitually blunt and to the point. Straightforward.
Because every word a woman says is calculated for effect. She is built and born and bred to manipulate – therefore she is opaque. Her intentions must never be known. She is mysterious. No man could ever possibly understand.
The jokes on them. Women are simple.
Which one has higher value, a bracelet with one single diamond or the same bracelet with a dozen more look-alike fake diamonds added to the chain (and there is no way to tell, by eye, which stone is the real one)?
Whichever one made your belly feel more bonded to the belly of the presenter. That can’t be predicted by women – because they know they’ll get the biggest initial kick out of an expensive present.
No woman would ever know that skittles would make her more bonded than diamonds.
You underestimate (some) women.
You think? Show me the woman then who will say she’ll prefer to receive a skittles present over a diamond present.
I estimate that there are none. Women will back rationalize their desires and immediate emotions and assume those desire and immediate rewards will associate with the longer term reward of bonding.
Do I underestimate? Or is it that I don’t esteem women as they self esteem.
So far even the very smart snowflakes that I’ve loved have been incapable of any meaningful level of introspection. Smart as a whip, great writers, well read. Makes no difference. Women don’t know themselves – they know what they want to be.
You might be interested in the skittles post on the Roissy site. Skittles is a candy, and long time commentors here use that word as shorthand for giving a gift of low monetary value. The theory is that giving a low quality gift will make the woman more attracted than the same man in the same circumstances giving a high monetary value gift. So the theory goes that all things being equal, treating a woman relatively poorly with gifts will make her love you more.
I’ve read the skittles post and I think I know what it is saying, oh dear.
I think there is a core of truth there but there are a couple of things that are not quite right as far as I am concerned
Daed, you were expected to disagree with the premise of the skittles post, or at least come up with the usual female arguments against it. The chief one being, of course, “but not ALL girls are like that”.
Which brings us to another major premise of game. Another major premise on the science of seduction, of pushing women’s attraction buttons. That premise is that women are not capable of knowing what their own buttons are.
Not just that they are unaware. That they have an inability to be aware of it.
There are scientific experiments which prove this. You can show women pictures and ask them to explain how turned on they are getting by the pictures. They will be wrong, as measured by vaginal moisture. They not only won’t know for what reasons what pictures turn them on, they won’t even know when they are being turned on.
Women are not capable of self knowledge.
Is this question meant to imply something? Or not? Sounds like it is meant to imply something.
In case you are interested in the science of introspection and the relative different abilities between men and women for self knowledge, men are perfectly capable of knowing when they are turned on. And by what. In sharp contrast to women.
This may inform you as to why, on this blog, women’s opinions about what they like in terms of relationship and lust are mostly ignored. Sometimes even ridiculed.
I’ll go a step further, Daed. Not only do women not have conscious awareness of their inner workings, they avoid it.
Women have all sorts of strategies of deliberately avoiding self knowledge.
Self knowledge pains them. They get all uppity and up in arms against it. As a sisterhood.
I have no idea whether I was first to say it anywhere but I know I said it before I heard it from someone else. – That human females have a horribly restricted awareness of their true gina-tingles because having such awareness would complicate and burden down their traditional mission of sucking resources out of a trusting, non-tingly beta while fucking an alpha.
Lately, I have been conducting experiments on the matter. The scheme is to say out loud to some adult females some version of, “Females want to fuck one kind of guy yet build a nest with and to be supported by an all-together different sort of guy. Guys just have to expect it”
So far, all I have gotten in response have been blank stares, as if they had heard a sound in a language their brains were forbidden to hear.
Research is on-going.
But you all can help its progress. Just repeat some version of this Grand Assertion and see if their brains can even consciously hear it, much less come up with a thoughtful relpy.
Ya, Rum, as I recall you are the proponent of the no-introspection due to dual sexual strategy. I suppose we should name it the Rum theory, for easy reference.
It’s a theory that goes far. I think there are extra advantages to the lack of introspection. Women tend to socially construct their societies, and if they had to but up against science, their anthropological assertions would lose power. If measurable reality intruded on their social hierarchies, they could not create the hierarchies through brute gossip.
It would be a disadvantage to a woman, not only in relation to men, but in relation to other women, to know what her own motivations are. If all she is capable of believing is what her emotions are telling her to believe, she will always act in her own best interest. Truth be damned.
If she can figure out her own vile ways, shame would lead her to be unselfish.
In the interest of brazen self promotion, I’ll label the theory that women actively and stridently avoid self knowledge as the x principle. No, xx principle, for the double chromosome.
So now we have the Rum theory, and the xx principle.
And it is this fact that women actively and stridently avoid self knowledge that I believe the war of the sexes must be fought by men on men’s turf. Through our frame.
Trying to get women to understand won’t much help. We need economic power over them. Physical power. We need to dominate in the areas in which we actually do dominate. In the physical realms of controlling resources. And, for the elite amongst us, in the psychological realms of being a father figure for the permanently less mature female.
Going at a woman and explaining that feminism is not in her best interest won’t be the most effective strategy. It might help a bit, but ultimately women can not hear that message. Not won’t, can’t. They can’t because they can only hear their emotions, and if feminism is in their short term best interest, that is all they will be able to see or know.
No woman will tell you she would prefer a skittle over a diamond. Don’t expect her to. Manipulate them and win, but never expect them to play fair. Or to even regard reality as anything other than a temporary inconvenience.
As for how to dominate a woman economically, that won’t always be easy. What i prefer to do is make the mate into a secretary for my entrepreneurial enterprises, while maintaining full control of all my financial gains.
My last girl complained that she wanted her own money, and I told her that I want to keep her down, and keep her poor, because I didn’t want her to have any options.
She didn’t like that, but she understood it. She stubbornly fought against it, but I kept the status quo. It was to my advantage to limit her options, to make her dependant on me, to have her work towards OUR financial wellbeing, and to have her lose that wellbeing if she were to leave me.
That kind of thing makes a woman LOVE you more. Yes, real love. You must brazenly manipulate love out of and into a girl. It doesn’t matter if you explain to her in detail all the steps you use. You can be honest. But manipulate.
It’s a skittles thing. She’ll fight you tooth and nail for the diamond, but will ultimately respect you more for the skittle.
Women understand in their bellies when a man is taking charge and owning a woman. They respect that, in their bellies.
And along those same lines, it’s important to keep your woman down in many other ways. Keep her always slightly jealous. But balanced with comfort and deep bonds. Keep her always with a slight edge of guilt for not doing enough. But balance that with genuine and frequent praise. Keep her on edge about her appearance, but balance that with praise for how well she dressses up. Keeping a woman down and on edge is a major part of keeping a woman in love with you. It’s a matter of balance. Never let her get uppity, for if she does, she’ll think she could aim higher than you.
And you can tell her straight up exactly what you are doing. You can tell her that you like to keep her down.
It doesn’t matter.
Speak to the lower half of her being. What goes on upstairs is not important, in regards to what goes on downstairs.
As science has proven.
A lot of the feminist aims need to be directly fought against by men. Don’t let your woman associate with whore minded friends.
Don’t let her pursue a dual strategy of financial independence and romantic dependence. If you want to live together, it’s in your interest that she is financially dependent upon you and is incapable of profiting from divorce. Otherwise, keep separate abodes and don’t let her visit at her whim – date others and use your time as you see fit. There is no “us” if she needs options. There is two people with options. That’s fine. You can set her up with financial rewards and security in a way that you are in control – such as she can run a small business that you own, or manage rental property. Having a boss other than you means she is not your property. And you are not hers. Money and romance are inextricable – use that to advantage. She works for you, or she doesn’t. No dual strategy. You are the boss, or you aren’t. If you are not her boss, she is not your charge – not even romantically.
Don’t give her equal say. You are the final say.
Never have any discussion about what is fair. Life isn’t fair. A discussion can be about what is helpful for who. If she doesn’t like it, she can leave. That’s fair.
Your woman is not your partner. She is not your equal. She is your charge.
If this attitude strikes you as unfair, if you equate being manipulative with being oppressive, then you misjudge the nature of women. A woman can not be happy unless her man has hand over her, and she has submitted. Once she does, those will be the happiest times of her life. The best times.
If you want to be good to your woman, you must dominate her. Must win her submission. Must have her dependent on you for her happiness, for approval, for sex, for security, for comfort, for all that is good in life.
Don’t give her the freedom she will demand. It will only make her miserable in the end. Treat her like a dog. Make her obedient and treat her as a cherished and irreplaceable part of your family.
Update: I’m told that this link http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/ has the research mentioned in this post about measuring pussy moisture while showing various pictures to girls.