make me feel like a woman.
six words.
–
she had been waiting for me.
she lay languorously on her back, her lush, dark tresses released from their professional coiffure and cascading with calculated carelessness across the king-size pillow.
a solitary shaft of soft green neon light penetrated the curtains to her right, limning every curve of her sensuous, fertile physique. as she splayed her arms overhead in a languid, catlike stretch, her beautifully crafted breasts strained against her flimsy camisole, drawing it away from her stomach; the neon light played across the toned contours of her torso, painting them with a mesmerizing, sinewy chiaroscuro.
my gaze alit on her breasts and then meandered lazily downward along the shadowy neon outline of her stomach.
between the lines.
i finally became lost in the hazy sfumato between her legs.
her hips thrust further forward in an instinctive, primal response to my shameless staring; her legs spread just far enough for her sheer panties to divulge the outline of her clit piercing.
“naughty girl.”
i glanced knowingly into her eyes, meeting her lubricious stare with a wry, disarming smile.
her whole body softened, surrendering to the intensity of my piercing gaze, as she drew shortened breath through her softly parted lips.
she fixed me with a prurient glare, her eyes enlivened by defiant expectation as she dared me.
entreated me.
challenged me.
implored me.
six words.
–
make me…
take control of me.
unapologetically.
unhesitatingly.
take the lead.
push me.
make me dance.
subdue me.
overwhelm me.
wrest my stubborn will from me, and enslave me.
one chance.
no missteps.
do whatever you want to me.
as long as you do it now.
i’m a bitch.
tonight, make me your bitch.
…feel…
fuck me.
make my mind, heart, and soul shake as hard as my body.
destroy my illusion of control.
tear away the patina of routine and ennui, and make me breathless again.
read my mind.
ignore everything i say.
take everything from me.
exceed my impossible expectations.
rewrite my memories.
rewrite my fantasies.
be an irresistible, dynamic force.
make me lose myself.
make me forget everything.
burn away the dirty fingerprints on my heart.
make me feel alive.
i’m a slut.
tonight, make me your slut.
…like…
shove me out of reality and into fantasy.
look into my eyes, just long enough for me to see myself as you see me.
stare into me with your icy, black gaze.
pull me into your world with a selfish gravity stronger than my own.
beat me at my own game.
destroy my smug self-importance.
set me alight, and burn me to the ground.
take the ashes in your hands and arrange them however you want.
then blow them away.
make me fall in love.
then push me away.
make me into somebody else.
then send me back to my world.
make me feel again.
then break my heart.
i’m a woman.
tonight, make me your little girl.
…a woman.
know me.
read me.
best me.
lead me.
tame me.
fuck me.
choke me.
hit me.
degrade me.
break me.
own me.
i’m a madonna.
tonight, make me your whore.
–
men describe, women infuse.
men lead, women follow.
men know, women feel.
men extrapolate, women intuit.
men create, women become.
men demand, women insinuate.
men persuade, women seduce.
men bulldoze, women erode.
men plant, women nurture.
men push, women pull.
men catalyze, women react.
men act, women inspire.
what good is either, without the other?
–
make me feel like a woman.
six words.
one challenge.
can you read between the lines?
2010/06/28 at 10:27
Very good, and VERY reminiscent of David Deida.
Just swap new age hokiness for Bladerunner nihil-donism, and add talent.
2010/06/28 at 10:41
thanks.
got any links to relevant content from this deida cat?
–
a man’s reaction to these six words is a nicely distilled test of his true “inner game”.
any hesitation, any uncertainty, any gap allowing her controlling influence to seep in, proves that it’s all fake.
2010/06/28 at 10:54
I just hit the last milestone of my health odyssey. An all meat diet with only lean cuts creates mild protein poisoning… dark eye rings, slight exhaustion, dimmed personality, cravings. Better than being sick but not ideal. I had to go against cultural conditioning and actually buy and eat visible fat.
After a period of deprivation, noshing lard is like mainlining heroin into your brain stem.
Xsplat is another guy whose dedication to game and entire lifestyle is a reaction to civilizational disease. Sometimes the bug’s in the hardware.
I feel stupid happy.
2010/06/28 at 11:02
I had to go against cultural conditioning and actually buy and eat visible fat.
heh.
my blood flows from the confluence of various lineages of poor, scrappy brown people, so i don’t have this problem.
¡fritanga!
but, yeah, not eating enough animal fat won’t just undermine your health; it will actually emasculate you.
not only do you need animal fat to promote the absorption of various vitamins, most notably a, d, e, and k, but you also need it to facilitate the transport of steroid hormones (whether artificial or natural) into your body’s cells.
2010/06/28 at 11:11
Interesting point about emasculation. I did notice my sex drive drop drastically, but it’s hard to disambiguate from the energy drop.
The difficult part of the diagnosis was
1. Cravings would cause cheating which would then appear to be the cause rather than effect, and
2. All-meat diet literature seems to indicate that grocery store meat is already very high fat, even if it’s not visible.
3. All-meat diet is supposed to trigger psychological cravings for a three week period.
If I have had more than one or two days of full energy in my life, prior to childhood, I honestly cannot remember them. But I look forward to many.
2010/06/28 at 11:20
In fact, I clearly recall most hoofed meat cuts having ridiculous fat percentages. Ah, maybe it’s because I was using a pressure cooker, which would tend to drain the fat into the broth. Alas, I’m an idiot.
2010/06/28 at 11:25
All-meat diet literature seems to indicate that grocery store meat is already very high fat, even if it’s not visible.
this depends entirely on the country in which you are going to these grocery stores. if you’re in america, you can easily procure anything from negligible fat (chicken breasts, etc.) to almost pure fat (authentic chorizos and the like).
still, if you are going to go on an all-meat plan, you’ve got to do it right: you have to suck it up and eat organ meats (livers, hearts, brains, etc), or else you will have to take an absolutely insane number of vitamin supplements.
although they taste disgusting to people who are not accustomed to eating them, these are the sole consistent source of most essential vitamins and minerals for people with zero access to vitamin-enriched plants (e.g., the inuit).
this thread has switched topics awfully rapidly.
2010/06/28 at 11:47
Indeed it has, mea culpa.
I thought this as well, but one source contradicts: I found no evidence of organ consumption described among native Inuits, or on Arctic expeditions, or in the 1 year all-meat clinical trial conducted. The source is here.
The chemists agreed insufficient vitamins were present in the food, but the test subjects showed no sign of deficiency. Perhaps daily required levels increase with grain consumption and the like.
2010/06/28 at 12:57
Powerful. You’re an incredibly gripping writer. You either have the soul of a woman, or you have one enslaved to help you write.
What happened in your life to make you spend so much effort and time under the hood, so to speak, instead of just admiring the bodywork?
2010/06/28 at 13:01
Very sexy, J5, but more from the man’s than the woman’s perspective I think, although I can appreciate it from a literary & intellectual point of view, for some reason I can’t seem to get inside the head of the woman in your story, hindbrain penetration, although still greater than that of any other male writer in the Roissysphere, is not reaching maximum capacity here.
Funnily enough, although objectively not as as good a writer, and despite the deplorable vampire obsession, this chick knows how to hit the hindbrain:-
http://www.dynishka.com/
Of course, the difference is probably that she is female.
2010/06/28 at 13:03
Apologies if this seems ungrateful, it is still very well written, it is just there is something missing from the female perspective & I am trying to work out exactly what it is. I will have a think about it.
2010/06/28 at 13:07
sd, my love –
this woman was unusually masculine in spirit, so, even if i haven’t refracted it through too large an angle, her perspective may indeed seem similar to a man’s.
have no fear, i’ll supply you with plenty of diversity. you want it, i got it.
hindbrain penetration, although still greater than that of any other male writer in the Roissysphere
thanks for these kind words.
2010/06/28 at 13:14
have no fear, i’ll supply you with plenty of diversity. you want it, i got it.
Thank you, it is really nice to come across a blogger so committed to his readers’ pleasure.
thanks for these kind words.
You are welcome.
2010/06/28 at 13:18
PS: I think you probably lost me at the clit piercing.
2010/06/28 at 13:21
Thank you, it is really nice to come across a blogger so committed to his readers’ pleasure.
that statement sounds multi-layered.
my heart is not entirely black, it would seem.
2010/06/28 at 13:41
my heart is not entirely black, it would seem.
That depends on what “black” means.
In pure physics terms, it may either be
(1)the lack of all colors of light, or
(2)an exhaustive combination of multiple colors of pigment.
Put another way, is your heart
(1) hollow inside; or
(2) a kaleidoscope?
PS: it would be really nice if you left a substantive comment on my new blog post as opposed to *ahem* a plug for your own post, or, indeed, long-term relationship advice for the Roissysphere’s very own Vicomte de Valmont.
2010/06/28 at 13:47
PS: it would be really nice if you left a substantive comment on my new blog post as opposed to *ahem* a plug for your own post, or, indeed, long-term relationship advice for the Roissysphere’s very own Vicomte de Valmont.
in due time, my darling.
i’ve a longer attention span for writing than for reading, and i certainly can’t do both in one day.
a third, more physically correct, interpretation could be that my heart absorbs all wavelengths of light, all the time, but only gives off perceptible light when heated.
i really should quit while i’m ahead.
2010/06/28 at 20:27
I’ve reread this a couple of times now.
I think the difficulty is you are actually trying to straddle the line of appealing to both genders.
The first part is written for a male audience. Although well written & I like the artistic references, I don’t find this particularly sexy, your woman is a male fantasy, nothing wrong with that if you are a man, but hard for a straight woman to identify with (unless a narcissist, in which case she automatically identifies with every male fantasy).
The second part is written for a female audience. This was a lot sexier for me, particularly when I skipped the first part.
The third part works for me too. It probably also works for men I would expect.
It is interesting how you have broken this down into the three parts as outlined above.
Was this intentional?
Btw I wonder if it is possible to write a single description of sex that appeals strongly to both straight men & straight women.
2010/06/28 at 20:30
Apologies if the criticism is intrusive, I thought you might be interested in getting an honest reaction as to the effect of a particular piece of writing on a random female hindbrain.
I’m not sure if other women feel the same way, they may not. I’m surprised there hasn’t been more commentary from women on this post.
2010/06/28 at 21:59
I must say that I didn’t like the “between the lines” piece so much. Did a search for “love” on the page. Only see it once. No, not good reading for a romantic girl.
This is my preferred style:
http://eyez.gameurb.com/writings/poetry/identity/
Without love, there is no passion. Without passion, it’s just vigorous physical exercise.
2010/06/28 at 22:21
Very talented and I particularly liked the Identity post, yes it did hit a lot of the right buttons.
But, whether he is actually conscious of it or not, I don’t think j5′s view of relationships is in any way inconsistent with your final sentence above.
2010/06/28 at 22:22
PS: do you have a special connection with the author of the blog you link to? just a thought, sometimes things just come to me.
2010/06/28 at 23:22
“I don’t think j5′s view of relationships is in any way inconsistent with your final sentence above”
I am just going by this particular piece of writing. Nowhere is there mention of the man truly loving the woman. Rather it is the woman saying “make me fall in love.”
It is not fierce, powerful and whole-hearted passion unless both are in love with each other (says the romantic). And at least, in this writing, the man is sounding a bit mechanical. No emotion, no heart, no soul. All robotic speech and action.
Amazing men feel, intuit, insinuate, become, and inspire. Part 3 of this writing is guilty of falling into the trap of a male-female dichotomy. Is it intentional bait?
2010/06/28 at 23:29
Hope
Without love, there is no passion. Without passion, it’s just vigorous physical exercise.
oh believe me, i agree completely on that one. in fact, i’m not sure whether you still read roissy’s board; if you do, you’ve probably noticed that, on a couple of the past few threads, i’ve been on somewhat of a mission to spread the gospel of the slow burn: the principle of pacing seduction slowly, making the woman work for it, building up passion to fever pitch by the time the relationship, however fleeting, is consummated.
do note that “slowly” could still be a matter of hours or even minutes, in especially intense cases of instant infatuation, but the point stands.
so i don’t think the chasm between us here is as gaping as you seem to think.
where i think you go wrong, however — or, at least, where i think you’re guilty of the same sort of shortsightedness that almost universally characterizes male conceptions of passion — is in the monolithic, unilateral definition of “passion” implied in your writing.
there are at least two distinct forms of symmetrical passion. one is analogous to the feeling of wonder at the majesty of nature — a passionate appreciation, for both the nature and the genesis of something/someone, that exults in perfection and imperfection alike. the other is analogous to the rush of a powerful psychoactive drug — a feeling of powerful, fleeting perfection, which when inevitably dissipated will drive both men and women to ruin in the desire to recapture it.
your characterization accounts only for the first of these, and ignores the second. in fact, i suspect the omission is quite intentional; i believe that, as a result of whatever past experiences, you’ve come to distrust and even fear the second type of passion, and so you have, inasmuch as possible, constructed a life dominated by the first type, in which the second is at a comfortable remove. (i believe you’ve written that you live a fair amount of your life online and are quite introverted, two characteristics that, while not totally diagnostic, are quite consistent with this hypothesis.)
let’s not also forget the intensely asymmetric type of passion — that which is inseparable from the bittersweet, unrequited feeling that characterizes schoolgirl crushes and groupie love. this passion works its insidious magic on men and women alike, and is the foundation upon which all carrot-and-stick seduction is built.
the encounter described in this post was less than twelve hours after our first (and only) meeting, which was itself only about one minute long, so, needless to say, the omission of the first brand of passion — that which most resonates with you — is inevitable.
2010/06/28 at 23:37
I am so tired, I can hardly keep my eyes open… but in the interest of literary criticism I think you may be right here.
For me too, the first bit is too clinical & detached, it lacks emotion, there is nothing for the second bit (which is fine in itself imo) to work against.
All the passion here is one-sided. Compare with the post about his uncle, there was real feeling there.
The guys seemed to like it though, maybe the detached approach is just the way men work (the contrast, though, with the depth of emotion shown in his other posts on women, is interesting).
I didn’t think that the end bit was too bad, obviously we have seen this trope on Roissy before but it did capture something & I’ve no objection in principle to a male/female dichotomy.
2010/06/28 at 23:46
I take the point on the different types of passion (though I’m not sure they are as separate as you think, it is more a question of different layers or strands.
I also think that Hope’s analysis of love, admirable though it is, is probably a bit too cerebral for most women, we are, mostly, flawed and imperfect creatures rather than celestial beings.
But I’m still not getting a sense, in the first part, of the drug effect of type 2 above working on you as opposed to the person you’re observing.
Is it that you yourself are immune from this at this stage, you can induce it in others but not feel it yourself to the same extent?
2010/06/28 at 23:56
daedalus
I didn’t think that the end bit was too bad, obviously we have seen this trope on Roissy before but it did capture something & I’ve no objection in principle to a male/female dichotomy.
you’re being too literal here.
i meant to present the dichotomy as a sort of lamentation, mourning the huge gap between male and female in most relationships. my point was that the two sexes’ natural approaches are in many ways diametrically opposed, and that men were mostly responsible for bridging the gap.
the mood of those lines, as i wrote them, was analogous to that of a slavic dumka — a melancholy dance that acknowledges, even celebrates, the various deadweight losses of life.
i wrote this whole post in something like 30-45 minutes, so the fault for any miscommunication, or lack of communication, probably lies at my feet.
2010/06/29 at 00:02
daedalus #26
But I’m still not getting a sense, in the first part, of the drug effect of type 2 above working on you as opposed to the person you’re observing.
Is it that you yourself are immune from this at this stage, you can induce it in others but not feel it yourself to the same extent?
yes. precisely.
you are perceptive — few, i’d imagine, would penetrate (heh) this far into the narrative.
although you’ve delved deeply enough into my other writing to give you an unfair advantage, in terms of prior information.
at this juncture i’ve pretty much built a tolerance to this particular drug. i’m not sure how much of this tolerance stems from the desensitization that results from pure repetition and how much stems from an insane desire for control — but the fact remains that the tolerance is there.
therefore, what remains is the rush of creation and transformation.
the rush of taking a woman who is X in her daily life, and transforming her into Y in only a few minutes’ time.
the similar but altogether different rush of taking the already fired clay of a woman in a longer relationship, softening it through sheer power and influence, and molding it into another shape altogether.
the only rush left in my life, at least for now, is analogous the rush of leveling majestic mountains and forests and paving over them with unregulated, white-knuckle, high-speed freeways.
2010/06/29 at 01:12
Well then your writing was absolutely fine to begin with. Why on earth didn’t you say this to me at the beginning?
Rhetorical question; I know quite well. Yes, you are very smart. The question is, are you too smart for most people, will they spot the nuances or judge at face value?
I’m sure this can be easily remedied, though, by a trail of breadcrumbs, if you can bring yourself to drop them along the way.
The trick is to drop a couple of obvious breadcrumbs, success on some small points will build an addiction to finding the right answer.
But of course you know this already too. Sigh, once again I am late to dinner & the kennel door is open, doggy bowl is empty and the chain lying broken on the ground, the beast is one step ahead of me as usual.
Is it lonely, being so clever? It must be, surely.
2010/06/29 at 01:25
to present the dichotomy as a sort of lamentation, mourning the huge gap between male and female in most relationships. my point was that the two sexes’ natural approaches are in many ways diametrically opposed, and that men were mostly responsible for bridging the gap.
Most of the examples used are too complementary for a lamentation, they don’t create the impression of a gap but rather of two things fitting together, the most obvious example being the plant-nurture one.
I’m really not sure the gap is as great as you make out, at the more extreme ends of the spectrum, yes, but not always.
2010/06/29 at 04:36
I don’t think it’s meant to be read more than once.
It’s an experience, a challenge, for the men.
The women don’t like it because it is the moment laid bare, without pretty illusion, seduction’s legwork off screen.
Men find it inspiring for its clarity.
What you’re left with is a neon-tinted resolution to take the madonna-whore.
2010/06/29 at 05:58
sd #30 —
i intended to portray the duality as both of these things, actually:
a display of the complementary roles, AND a mourning of the resulting deadweight loss caused by misunderstanding.
sorta like this:
a key is worthless without a lock to open; a lock is worthless without a key to open it. but, in a sad irony, a key will have an extremely hard time understanding what it’s like to be a lock, and vice versa, for exactly the same reason.
i.e., the more wonderfully complementary the roles — and the more necessary they are to each other — the LESS potential for mutual understanding of each other’s perspectives. and yet, relationships these days, based as they are on more than just economic necessity, require that understanding.
this is the full double entendre that i had intended by
“what good is either, without the other?”
i suppose i could stand to drop a few more crumbs. heh.
2010/06/29 at 06:08
sd at #25
The guys seemed to like it though, maybe the detached approach is just the way men work
heh. just wait until you read some of my stuff about engineering that sort of attachment, from a perspective that is ultimately detached. it’ll break your heart.
and maybe even cause women like hope to wonder whether their ostensibly mutual passion is, in reality, nothing more than the effect of incredibly skilled legerdemain on a trusting audience.
in the poker game called luv, you never know who’s bluffing. and worse yet, you can’t even see how many chips the other player is betting.
girls, you want a mindfuck?
imagine the shit i would do in a poker game where you were all in, and i’d convinced you that i was all in, but i had actually bet the $2 ante.
now, change “poker game” to “relationship”, and add “love” after “all in”.
the masters? they play a whole different game.
a whole different game.
2010/06/29 at 06:18
That is so terrible, the deviousness of men, surely you can no longer claim the high moral ground then so.
I suppose that there is always the option of just folding.
2010/06/29 at 06:56
sd #34 –
if you fold when you’re all in … you lose everything.
two things:
1) re: moral high ground — watch the assumptions there, tiger. for all we know, i’m just an archivist, chronicling the dirty deeds of others. or perhaps a 21st century bartolome de las casas, warning of the evils i once myself advocated.
or just a man who likes to revel in the ultimate uncertainty of certainty itself, and to limn a world in which the certain becomes uncertain, and the only certainty is uncertainty itself.
2) mirages are illusions, too.
so are sunsets.
does understanding them, and seeing through their deception, make them any less beautiful?
i think not.
unless they suddenly leave, and never come back. but even then, would the memories be tarnished?
darling, you’re a woman. if you know women, you’ll admit that women can be made to believe in illusions, so thoroughly that they will maintain their faith in the illusion even as its creator unravels it before their eyes.
No dejar una fe intacta ni un ídolo en su sitio
– Gonzalo Arango
stay tuned, my love.
2010/06/29 at 07:02
Is it lonely, being so clever? It must be, surely
only if you play by the rules.
i’ve had one teacher i truly respected, ever. our wills clashed early and often.
once, he gave a 50-question multiple-choice test, on which we still had to justify our answers.
i worked the first twenty problems, then immediately filled in the next thirty and handed them in. in the space provided for justification, i simply wrote, “here’s the method you used to randomize the answer choices”, and then gave the protocol that i’d reverse-engineered from the first twenty answers.
he awarded me a grade of 101 percent.
this is how i try to live — follow the narrow path, but only for long enough to discover how it is laid out.
2010/06/29 at 08:11
“imagine the shit i would do in a poker game where you were all in, and i’d convinced you that i was all in, but i had actually bet the $2 ante.”
I fell in love twice when younger, but had negative game.
After red pilling, I doubt my capacity to experience the same again. And I KNOW, due to the developmental distance I’ve put between myself and the mean, that I’ll never find a soulmate. The most I could hope for is to create the simulacrum of one, and that’s a distant hope.
2010/06/29 at 08:16
“or just a man who likes to revel in the ultimate uncertainty of certainty itself, and to limn a world in which the certain becomes uncertain, and the only certainty is uncertainty itself.”
If only politicians could defend prevarication so poetically, we might love them better.
2010/06/29 at 08:17
Actually, I thought you’d written, “The curtain becomes uncertain”
2010/06/29 at 08:26
The delicate dance between the man’s sincerity and insincerity, is mirrored by the woman’s resistance and surrender.
2010/06/29 at 08:37
if you fold when you’re all in … you lose everything
Everything one has put in so far. Yes. But human resources are not finite. Sometimes it’s necessary to play the last card. If it doesn’t work, the game wasn’t worth one’s time in the first place.
2010/06/29 at 09:55
but really, though:
i think it’s too simplistic to assume that deception in relationships is automatically unethical.
consider the following premises:
1) many women want to be pampered, entertained, given material possessions, and regularly swept away into fantastic worlds centered around them.
2) the behaviors and desires in #1 are also primary characteristics of children.
3) children’s most treasured memories are often of artificial fantasy entities — lies, to put it bluntly — such as santa claus.
4) when these children discover the deception, they don’t become resentful, nor are the memories tarnished.
exercise for the reader (hi sdaedalus!): combine #1-4 and come to a conclusion about the ethical and utilitarian consequences of constructing completely artificial emotional worlds for women. at the very least, those women who satisfy the description in #1.
see? it’s not as black and white as it seems.
mindfuck of the day:
men : sex :: women : emotional indulgence
boys, think about the best fuck you’ve ever had.
even if she was absolutely psychotic, lied about everything, and completely ruined your life, do you not still fantasize about her body? in weaker moments, do you not still close your eyes and pretend the woman you’re fucking is her? do you trust yourself 100% that you wouldn’t be right back in her bed if she called you and begged you, sucking you right back into the vortex?
the same — exactly the same — is true for women, if “best fuck” is replaced by “best emotional high”.
emotions care not for such trivialities as the male notion of truth.
actions speak louder than words.
and if the actor is good enough, they speak louder than truth, too.
2010/06/29 at 10:08
JB
If only politicians could defend prevarication so poetically, we might love them better.
perhaps in colombia, where politicians are often poets and the thin line between the lyrical and the rhetorical is often invisible, this would be true.
but in america? not a chance.
2010/06/29 at 12:44
exercise for the reader (hi sdaedalus!): combine #1-4 and come to a conclusion about the ethical and utilitarian consequences of constructing completely artificial emotional worlds for women. at the very least, those women who satisfy the description in #1.
see? it’s not as black and white as it seems.
Believe it or not, righteous though I may seem at times, I appreciate that things are not as black & white as they seem, and that sometimes deception (hi johnny!) can be kindest, it can give people a happiness they may never encounter in the cold light of reality.
Speaking personally, however, I never got over the disappointment of finding that the world was not as interesting at it appeared from my childhood reading material, I still feel very bitter every time I pass a tree & it doesn’t talk back to me.
Perhaps for this reason, I think deception is like aspirin, best not taken unless absolutely necessary. And yes, I do appreciate the irony of the fact that taking an aspirin a day is meant to prevent strokes (or is it heart disease?).
On the other hand I am not a fan of Gradgrindism either.
I suppose I am very conflicted on this entire point. I will take it under consideration.
2010/06/29 at 15:18
Yes, America long ago exorcised whatever taint of poetry once imbued her. But I haven’t meant America by “we” in a very long time.
2010/06/29 at 17:21
My definition of passion is somewhere between the first and second. The majesty of mountains inspires me to want to draw it, capture it, and analyze it. The fleeting momentary passion I have experienced as well — but it never lasted as long for me as it does for the man.
I distrust the second type of passion because I know that men are more likely to idealize and idolize than I am. I’ve always been an odd girl, and yes I am introverted and grew up online, but I lived a life that allowed me close into the hearts and souls of young men who have not been jaded as the men here.
Seven men have fallen in love with me, who either proposed to me or might have. Two of them wrote to me years later to tell me that they failed out of college because of me, but that they harbor no ill feelings toward me. Still want to keep in touch. The first still tries to get in my pants and booked flights just to see me twice, under platonic pretenses. The 7th is my husband, and the only one for whom I could return the love in equal intensity.
So you see, I don’t come at this from the standpoint of a forlorn little girl. I was always the one less passionate, and I envied men for their capacity to love. As well I envied those women who could love mediocre men as long as those men had a bit of status or money. It took sometimes months for me to even work up to kiss a guy (and I’ve kissed 8 total in my life).
I went to prestigious schools and mingled with the trust fund kids, but even the guys with “game” (who social proofed and push-pulled and negged and were “bad boys”) interested me for all of a week. I could and did care for all the guys who loved me. I just couldn’t love most of them. Apparently I was the bluffer who said I had all in, but I was always halfway out the door.
The difference is that I genuinely wanted to be all in; it just never happened. You boys want to maintain the upper hand, so you never get your heart broken, but I’ve never truly had my heart broken. Maybe a bit bruised or beaten up, but what’s a little man hurting me when he can never match the pain inflicted on me by my own mother?
I’m not wary of the prospect of a man “holding out” on me. The men who loved me couldn’t have lied, and I know it. I couldn’t not know it. I’m way too intuitive. The only man who ever matched me on intuition is my husband. I talk a good talk about love, and it probably does sound cerebral. It’s because I had to come at it like this.
As “in love” as I had been with my husband, before he became my husband, I still felt disappointment. I still saw through every illusion, cared nothing for the flowers or the going out or even the sex. I wanted to know him as he truly was and delve deep into his past, into his psyche and soul. Without that, he would have been just be like the others. This will sound terrible, but I did go through a time when I considered just dropping him. That’s the expression I would have used, too.
But in the end, it worked out. It may be because of his otherwordly powers. When he meditates with me, he does something to me. I black out from totally wakefulness to unconsciousness, then back again. No idea what he does or how he does it, but he does. This is why I keep going back to the “spirituality” aspect. Whether or not I was meant to be his soulmate, he has made me into his soulmate.
2010/06/29 at 18:39
Way too fucking complicated.
Cut out beta behavior, flowers and presents are for pussies, do not put chase her, protect your heart, be alpha, be aloof, etc.
When and where does it end?
Just read these females going on and on about this topic. Analyzing it to the last atom. And then you, narc, and your genius ass brain with Dr. Manhattan-like attitude and prose.
Help out a Neo being ganged up by Morpheus and Agent Smiths.
2010/06/29 at 19:25
@Lily
Today’s example was a funny one but I get followed home by men in the street sometimes, I guess all women do. I always felt quite threatened by it, now I read PUA blogs I guess it is ‘day game’, not that it helps my feelings of vulnerability.
I can honestly say I have never been followed home by anyone in my life, clearly this is a sign of some personal deficiency on my part. Occasionally my natural optimism surfaces & causes me to look around in the hope that perhaps I might be being followed, however my hopes are always dashed and I am the one left embarrassed & shamefaced at my presumption.
Not only do drivers of cars invariably seek directions rather than distractions but pedestrians accost me only to ask whether or not I have seen the girl they are actually following (probably you, Lily). I suppose it is just about possible that I might attract the really expert type of follower but they must have a cloak of invisibility indeed to evade my sharp eye, most likely they do not exist or perhaps find me unappealing on closer acquaintance.
2010/06/29 at 19:26
Shit. Sorry. Wrong blog. Ignore. I will repost.
2010/06/29 at 19:26
Sorry also about the unladylike language.
2010/06/30 at 12:26
jules:
Way too fucking complicated.
Cut out beta behavior, flowers and presents are for pussies, do not put chase her, protect your heart, be alpha, be aloof, etc.
see, ok, those are basic rules.
here are some other basic rules:
don’t hit hard 17.
always think before you act.
answer the question that is asked of you.
don’t throw a punch across your body.
tell me jules, what makes a player, of any particular game, “advanced”?
that’s right — he knows when to break these rules.
there are times when you should hit hard 17. (hell, there are times when you should hit hard 19.)
there are times when you should act without thinking.
there are times when you should ignore the literal question.
there are times when you should throw punches across the sagittal plane.
jules, i can shower a bitch with presents, give her love from the bottom of my heart, write overwrought poetic lyrics to her, and still have her drooling at the thought of my presence.
you’ll see. i’ll post on “beta sliders” later — the best players are deeply two-tone, their alpha fabric crisscrossed with thick pinstripes of beta.
those rules?
that’s level 1.
if you want to keep playing at level 1, there are a thousand other blogs out there that can lull you into a complacent sense of security with their oh-so-definitive lists of meretricious “hard rules”.
and they’ll even take your money!
you know what? fuck that. i don’t want your money, but i can’t write at level 0 or level 1. sorry man. i just can’t.
those rules are not really rules at all; they are a ROUGH GUIDE to a MINDSET.
once you have the proper mindset, you can throw the rules away. and you can improvise.
and then you can … live. and not be a fucking robot.
good luck. sincerely.
2010/06/30 at 12:29
oh, and this:
Just read these females going on and on about this topic. Analyzing it to the last atom.
if you wanted to learn animal husbandry, wouldn’t you find it valuable to observe animals?
2010/06/30 at 12:33
sd –
Sorry also about the unladylike language.
question: when taboo words cross your lips, do you find that your whole body is suddenly more excited? more on edge?
and, if yes, do you suddenly find yourself much more vulnerable to seduction (in the all-encompassing sense of the term, not just sexually)?
my money is on “yes” and “yes”.
2010/06/30 at 13:03
Possibly. It depends on who I’m using the words to of course, and in what context.
I have to depart again now, but will be back later.
2010/06/30 at 13:28
once you have the proper mindset, you can throw the rules away. and you can improvise.
and then you can … live. and not be a fucking robot
You really are very clever. I am impressed.
2010/06/30 at 14:37
Following on what you’ve been saying recently here and at Roissy’s, re looking at the neon woman or the sluttily dressed girl…
I believe absence of intentionality is key. If you can gaze at her, drink her in, without her sexual power wresting your psyche forward off its stance, that is half of it.
A deep commitment to the present moment. Non-intentionality.
This does not mean reducing the participation of one’s soul and desires in the moment. That would be to retreat wholly from the moment, leaving your stare that of a hollow shell.
In the perfect balance of the man’s unaffected yet affected gaze, seduction begins.
That’s what insight I can offer. For more experientially derived knowledge, such as that slutty girls are easier to make work harder, I must defer to Babaero.
2010/06/30 at 15:31
Valmont. heh.
2010/06/30 at 17:06
BTW, a couple of days of eating fatty meat and my sex drive came right back, along with a force of personality and intellect I have never known.
Unfortunately I had a bit of trouble sleeping after gorging myself like a starving lion.
2010/06/30 at 17:09
Unfortunately I had a bit of trouble sleeping after gorging myself like a starving lion.
I thought sex was supposed to send men to sleep? Of course, maybe “gorging like a starving lion” really does mean over-eating. In which case, I assume that what you are talking about is indigestion.
PS: it’s a shame the force of personality & intellect has not translated into new blog posts.
2010/06/30 at 17:13
Supposedly, a man should not listen to what a woman says she wants, because she will invariably prevaricate.
Women do want the beta gestures, of course. They want them for the same reason that my man loves the free food samples they give out on Saturday mornings at the supermarket. It’s frigging free. Who wouldn’t want it?
Oddly enough, I always hated flowers and presents. I don’t go for the free candy and bagels on the days that the coworkers bring them. I always told men, flowers are pretty, but please, don’t spend the money.
What do women really want from men? Be alpha and aloof, protect your heart, don’t chase her, and keep your distance. That’s not so different from what 99.99999% of the men in her life are doing. What else are they doing? Not blowing her mind with ecstastic, heart-quickening, body-shattering, soul-rending experiences.
This is basically all that needs to be said for a hot-blooded human being to understand. Give her the butterflies, make her fantasize, and just do her properly. Not just physically. It starts up there. In the head. Then it goes downward. Why do women read romance novels? They are more arousing than 99.99999% of flesh and blood guys.
Another thing. Female arousal is elusive and fleeting, and once the moment’s gone, it’s gone forever. You turn your back on her and do your “alpha aloof” thing, and you won’t be the one in her most cherished fantasies. She’s going to be thinking of the man who licked her neck and touched her with fire and almost gave her an orgasm just by whispering into her ear. The one who took her body along with her heart and soul.
You get all cold because you were busy pouting about how women test you and need alphaness and chase bad boys and are a bunch of sluts. Then you wonder why the women get all cold. And you follow the Game Guide about how to handle women who go cold. Cut to the other scene, and the man who is all heat and passion and in the moment takes the girl off into the sunset.
You don’t get there by following rules. You get there by breaking them.
2010/06/30 at 17:17
Hope, have you morphed into Johnny5?
2010/06/30 at 17:17
For what it’s worth, I agree with what you’ve written.
2010/06/30 at 17:29
I get annoyed by the overly alpha talk sometimes.
And I am not going to pretend that people fall in love and gaze into each other’s eyes chastely for an eternity, and that children are brought in white blankets by big birds from the sky.
I am pregnant, after all, with the child of my legally wedded husband whom I find incredibly sexy. Love doesn’t exist only in texts and stories. When you really want a person, you really want to do the thing that makes babies with that person. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Then again, maybe a lot of people haven’t really had that particular urge happen to them.
2010/06/30 at 17:31
I am always writing and reading. My emacs file is at 18mb. But there’s more than one blog. And there’s plenty of time.
2010/06/30 at 17:57
By the way, I can talk about sex. I just don’t usually care to talk about it much publically because men get the wrong idea. The whole madonna/whore deal. Better to speak about airy subjects.
It’s infinitely easier for me to pretend to be a sexless prude entirely uninterested in such filthy and base matters, because then most boring men get bored immediately. Yes, I’m no “fun.” Move along, nothing to see here. The most interesting (and smartest) men like my husband knew that couldn’t be all there is. It’s a good mask.
The contrast between a sweet, pure and loving outward appearance and a really very loving inside is more suitable for a girlfriend and wife, anyway. I regret even writing what I have, but if it’s true that pregnant women are “smug,” then that could explain some of it. I’ve become more social lately even in real life.
It’s also a small crowd here, nice for an introvert. I used to post on Roissy’s back in 2007 or so, before his blog started getting big time exposure. I don’t like the big rowdy places so much. I don’t want “attention,” just good discourse. And I enjoy the SDae J5 dynamic here, with the occasional JB and Gorba addition.
2010/07/02 at 12:18
[...] you don’t even need long checklists. you just need your eyes, your ears, and your ability to read between the lines. the above holds true even for previously cold fish who have become “sluttier” within [...]
2010/07/02 at 12:19
sd #55
You really are very clever. I am impressed.
eh.
i’ve lived.
that’s all, really.
2010/07/02 at 12:23
sd #54
Possibly. It depends on who I’m using the words to of course, and in what context.
the unknown variable here, really, is just how accustomed you are to using such words.
if you are generally ladylike enough that using the taboo words will unsettle you — even a little bit — then that little bit of shakiness will open you up to certain avenues of seduction. again, not just sexual seduction, but the point remains.
on the other hand, this won’t be true for either (a) those few women for whom cuss words come as naturally as to grizzled longshoremen, or (b) women with a history of abuse, who are already by default, in their daily interactions, “unsettled” to the same degree that would be produced by the taboo words in women without such a history.
2010/07/02 at 12:29
JB
Following on what you’ve been saying recently here and at Roissy’s, re looking at the neon woman or the sluttily dressed girl…
I believe absence of intentionality is key. If you can gaze at her, drink her in, without her sexual power wresting your psyche forward off its stance, that is half of it.
A deep commitment to the present moment. Non-intentionality.
This does not mean reducing the participation of one’s soul and desires in the moment. That would be to retreat wholly from the moment, leaving your stare that of a hollow shell.
In the perfect balance of the man’s unaffected yet affected gaze, seduction begins.
i think this is a fairly good first-order approximation, although it’s just that — a first-order approximation. it’s step one.
once the seduction has passed the point of no return, a woman wants nothing more than to overcome all of your barriers of self-control.
all of them.
once you’ve shown that you can control her, and that you are the master of the moment and the interaction, she wants you to be suddenly reduced to your pure animal nature by her feminine charms.
she wants you to completely lose control.
over your body, and your mind, and your self-control, and your future time orientation, and your everything. she doesn’t want to control you; rather, she wants your animal passion to control both of you.
she wants to be caught in a fierce storm that has grown out of either of your power to stop.
and she wants to feel — at least in the moment — as though she’s the only woman who has ever made you feel that way.
but i think your words here are a good place to start.
2010/07/02 at 12:30
JB
BTW, a couple of days of eating fatty meat and my sex drive came right back, along with a force of personality and intellect I have never known.
told you so. nyah nyah.
2010/07/02 at 12:36
Hope
When you really want a person, you really want to do the thing that makes babies with that person. Otherwise, what’s the point?
heh. boy, can i tell you’re telling the truth when you say you’re on the outside of most “girlfriend interactions” between women.
let me be the first to tell you that women have two drives, two ways in which they can “want a [man]“.
the first is wanting to fuck him, wanting him inside them. inside their womb, inside their thoughts, inside their fantasies, inside their erotic dreams that animate their otherwise boring nights.
the second is wanting the security he provides, wanting to be protected by him, tied to him, cared for by him.
many women have taken the proverbial scalpel and cut neatly between the two drives.
if you haven’t, your husband is a lucky man.
–
By the way, I can talk about sex. I just don’t usually care to talk about it much publically because men get the wrong idea. The whole madonna/whore deal.
this isn’t “public”, sweetie. this is the internet. we’re just bunches of electrons, here.
the notion that somebody could “get the wrong idea” on the internet, where face-saving is an idea that is at best irrelevant, doesn’t really compute (heh) with me.
2010/07/02 at 12:38
Hope
The contrast between a sweet, pure and loving outward appearance and a really very loving inside is more suitable for a girlfriend and wife, anyway.
please elaborate on this; i’m not quite sure what you’re trying to imply.
by stating that this is a “contrast”, do you mean that most women who are sweet and loving on the outside are not loving at all when you look under the hood?
2010/07/02 at 15:40
the notion that somebody could “get the wrong idea” on the internet
Somehow I managed to get a lot of men to fall in love with me on the Internet, including my husband. That is, real love which translated to offline interactions.
do you mean that most women who are sweet and loving on the outside are not loving at all when you look under the hood?
Well, no. Usually girls are quite congruent in that way, and those who aren’t congruent will show it to the more intuitive people. What I meant was ladylike in the streets, and not so ladylike between the sheets.
2010/07/02 at 18:14
“she wants you to be suddenly reduced to your pure animal nature by her feminine charms.
she wants you to completely lose control.”
What is control? What is not control? To my way of thinking, the state I am describing is only you. Beyond that, there are just varying stages of elevation, and yes any deliberate intervention becomes unnecessary past a certain point of immersion. It is important to understand that immersion is the point, and never fight back down to a level of exerting deliberate control, when inappropriate. Perhaps that’s what you’re getting at when you say it’s a first order approximation.
2010/07/04 at 10:04
[...] Five – “Under the Influence“, “Between the Lines“, “Coordinated [...]
2010/07/05 at 02:42
JB –
It is important to understand that immersion is the point, and never fight back down to a level of exerting deliberate control, when inappropriate.
“immersion” is a very double-edged sword: it leads to the highest highs, but, when it dissipates, to the lowest lows as well. it creates addiction and withdrawal.
it also creates states of uncertainty with which many of us are uncomfortable.
if you were in a sexual situation — or in a fight — and you truly achieved full immersion:
what would you do?
what would you become?
WHO would you become?
would you become someone would would disgust the self whose values you THINK you have so thoroughly absorbed?
most people don’t want to go there. many of them, with good reasons.
2010/07/05 at 02:53
hope
Somehow I managed to get a lot of men to fall in love with me on the Internet, including my husband. That is, real love which translated to offline interactions.
hmm. ok.
to me, people on the internet are just electrons, although some of them are electrons with cool ideas that i would be unlikely to encounter in real life.
there are just too many layers of the human experience, too many circles of the paseo, missing from the experience for me to consider it authentic.
but, for exactly the same reason, it’s a nice place to exchange ideas.
how could you have “real love” with a person you’ve never met in real life?
what sort of proxy is there for the explosive, addictive chemistry that only exists, in its frustratingly unpredictable way, face to face?
i understand that love is more than just that chemistry, but what is “love”, over a t3 connection, without it?
2010/07/05 at 05:19
Hope, I think Johnny has a point, and what you and your husband are doing is projecting back, in hindsight, the origins of your love as it exists now to a date when it did not actually exist in that form at least, maybe the potential existed, but that was all.
I don’t think an electronic connection is sufficient in this regard, it is too ethereal, you are ignoring the fact
(a) that there is a physical element which cannot come across over the internet, the physical smell & sense of someone else, even photos cannot suffice
(b) the lack of certainty in relation to what one is told about someone else over the internet, we all suspend belief to some extent in accepting people’s internet personae at face value, this is not a bad thing in many ways but no one sensible allows themselves to fall in love in the sense that you mean it while in a state of suspension of belief, this would be a recipe for disaster.
I appreciate that there are different types of love but what you are talking about is the overwhelming and exclusive love of body & soul, I just don’t think that it can come about wholly electronically, I appreciate that electronic means can be relevant in allowing it to happen when it would not otherwise have happened either by permitting parties who would not otherwise have met to make contact or by allowing someone to see aspects of another person that they would never have realised existed in real life but it still requires actual physical contact to come to the boil so to speak.
PS: If it is not too personal I would really like to hear the story about your first rl contact with your husband.
2010/07/05 at 05:47
It is entirely possible to fall in love online. I understand that it’s something that most people believe to be either foolish or impossible, but it does happen.
The addictive and wild neurochemistry of new love can be even more frustrating and explosive online. This is a purer form of communication, and it can be even easier to establish a rapid connection since it transcends the physical.
I suppose it really only works for those who are far more on the Intuitive and less on the Sensing end of the Myers-Briggs personality type.
If I recall correctly, Sofia of Mitsein.org fell for a Kiwi guy in these blog parts earlier this year, and last I hear they are doing well. Sofia is another INFJ like me.
I might write about my experience with my husband one of these days, but it would take a long time and a lot of thought and effort.
2010/07/05 at 06:01
Hope
I did say that there were different types of love. It is certainly possible to develop an online obsession, sometimes with ideas but maybe even with the people who put forward the ideas. I am just making the point that the type of love you have experienced, ending in marriage & pregnancy, requires a face to face meeting before crystallizing.
Even assuming we can believe all we are told on the internet, the type of love you describe is a mixture of the physical, intellectual and spiritual, the two latter categories may come across online (possibly the latter even more strongly than irl) but not the first.
I think it is a bit premature to talk about Sofia and Aaron pending a real-life meeting between the two of them, but I wish them well and I hope it works out. In fairness, it probably often does.
2010/07/08 at 16:13
Music to accompany this writing if you will:
Way to get women johnny, hot stuff and well done.
2010/07/08 at 16:15
also:
2010/07/08 at 16:17
…and especially this song…
2010/07/08 at 16:18
Lay her out. The time is now.