the following was promised here, and is an outgrowth of some discussion on the sibling of daedalus blog.
—
the notion that purity, or chastity, is among the best cards a woman can hold when she’s on the make is as old as the corresponding notion of monogamy itself. put bluntly, the operative principle is that women should hold themselves out as virginal madonnas** — an idea that has been shaped and cultivated by religious tradition, but that stems from the realities of paternity and is thus probably as old as human biology itself.
however, like all other simple models, this one is an oversimplification.
it attempts to model all pegs, however round or square, as round — i.e., it describes apparent purity as the best possible image for any woman searching for a long-term relationship.
more to the point of the current discussion, though, the model also attempts to model all holes as round — i.e., it assumes that all men would prefer sexual purity over “sluttiness” in a long-term partner, an assumption that is simply not true. so, in the interest of clarification, as well as to stimulate discussion, i propose the following visual model:
imagine an x-y coordinate system.
the x-axis is the man’s desire for control over a woman; the y-axis is the man’s ideal on the madonna/whore axis.
let’s arbitrarily designate
negative x = men who, either by design or by inability to do otherwise, allow the woman and her desires to control the relationship (approximately, roissy’s betas)
positive x = men with both the desire and the ability to control women (approximately, roissy’s alphas)
negative y = men whose ideal woman is a perfect madonna (very sexually inhibited)
positive y = men whose ideal woman is a perfect slut (very sexually uninhibited)
the definitions on the y-axis (the madonna/whore axis) are somewhat simplistic, in that they conflate a woman’s public and private behavior. in particular, many men will object to this axis altogether, claiming that their ideal woman is a perfect madonna in the street and a perfect slut — magically, only for them, never for any other man — in the bedroom.
while i agree that a single axis is a bit on the simple side, i don’t buy this objection, for at least two reasons.
first, it’s quixotic to deny the strong correlation between public and private behavior. most highly sexual women — whether available or happily committed (or, in certain arrangements, both) — constantly radiate their sensuality to every observant eye and ear, to such an extent that their every movement, utterance, and gesture is irresistibly, drivingly provocative. conversely, women known for their public modesty, retiring personalities, and aversion to the spotlight are unlikely to be tigresses whose stripes are, curiously, visible only within the confines of their (long-term partner’s) bedroom. put another way, it’s easy to identify a slut — and 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 the context of a single long-term relationship; the differences are palpable, and redound to every dusty corner of their actions, attitudes, and body language in the presence of the opposite sex.
second, the objection is simply a cop-out, a knee-jerk response designed to avoid difficult, realistic, and unpleasantly honest consideration of certain tradeoffs. most men would like to relax with a boyish insouciance in their imaginary world, in which they’ll one day find the aforementioned public madonna/private slut/unicorn, but that attitude is as naïve and starry-eyed as that of the woman who hopes to land a suave, sexually dominant alpha with beta eyes that focus exclusively on her. the reality is that You Can’t Have It Both Ways; the y-axis is a nice, uncomplicated way of modeling this sobering fact.
most PUA types will do everything in their power to convince themselves and the world that they are in the fourth quadrant.
according to some chapters of the roissysphere canon, a woman’s value — even the remaining fraction of her very soul — decreases in direct relation to her sexual experience. also, the stated preference (note the significance of the word “stated”) for “good girls” is deeply entrenched in upper- and upper-middle-class culture, another obstacle in the path of honesty for men in the first and second quadrants.
almost no second-quadrant men will report their preference honestly; likewise, many men who belong in the first quadrant — especially those from the upper social classes, unless they are uncommonly introspective, self-aware, and unshackled by class shibboleths — will mistakenly place themselves in the fourth.
the problem here — a problem that is very underappreciated indeed, given men’s oft-undeserved reputation for frankness in this area — is that most men simply aren’t terribly aware of their preferences along the y-axis.
specifically:
with a few exceptions for those truly to the left on the bell curve of self-awareness, both men and women are generally aware of their physical preferences in the opposite sex, although both also routinely underappreciate the role played by social conditioning in the same. however — and this is a big “however” — when it comes to the alpha/beta and madonna/whore dichotomies, the score is quite different: most men are absolutely clueless in regard to their true preferences along the madonna/whore continuum.
this difference, which is obvious and universal, tends to be explained — incorrectly — as a special case of “women’s intuition”. occam’s razor begs to differ, though: it’s simply a matter of experience. to wit, almost all decently desirable women are approached (though perhaps not boldly, in the case of less obviously sexual women) by various and sundry men, with a frequency unattainable by any man short of mtv’s latest darling. from the overall data produced by these approaches (and from whatever intercourse results), the women — even the ones with lower-than-average self-awareness — will eventually construct some sort of first-order approximation of their alpha/beta preferences. the vast majority of men, though, have a sample size so small that they simply can’t build up enough direct experience to suss out their own madonna/whore preferences, a situation rife with tragicomedy when these men choose long-term exclusive partners. worse yet, what works in fantasy often fails spectacularly in reality, so men who have constructed their preferences hypothetically rather than empirically are often in for some rude surprises when their perfect madonna leads them to perfect ennui, or when their perfect slut leads them to uncontrollable jealousy.
imagine a porn-drenched virgin asked about his favorite sexual positions. he would almost certainly just list the positions in his favorite adult distractions, in decreasing order of the frequency with which they appear in the films; he couldn’t be expected to know what will actually feel good firsthand (heh, hand). it’s just as ridiculous to expect most men to have any sort of honest understanding of their preferences along the madonna/whore continuum. as if that weren’t bad enough, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that almost all men who are “natural alphas” are also extremely low in self-awareness, as there is an inveterate correlation among reckless confidence, social dominance, and lack of introspection. so, in an irony worthy of kierkegaard, the few men blessed with large sample sizes tend to be the very same men who are least equipped to analyze those samples.
so, men, which quadrant are you in?
if you’ve had enough women, you’re probably in the first quadrant by now, or at least closer to it than you’d like to think.
—
**with a lowercase “m”, since a certain performance artist has sullied the capitalized version.
2010/07/02 at 13:01
“the stated preference (note the significance of the word “stated”) for “good girls” is deeply entrenched in upper- and upper-middle-class culture, another obstacle in the path of honesty for men in the first and fourth quadrants.”
Shouldn’t this be “first and second quadrants”?
[ed: yeah. fixed. thanks.]
My quadrant location depends on condition at purchase. The sluttier the girl before I knew her, the more aesthetic disappointment and disgust colors my enjoyment of her. But if acquired pure, the sluttification process is erotically enthralling, transforming a humble girl into an idol of diamantine celodurismo.
The disappointment and disgust aforementioned crescendoes with time, creating a propensity for fling sex with prior sluts. In other words, for a girl who starts out slutty, I want her to move into madonna territory, but absent a fervent religious conversion independent of her emotional dependence on me, this is impossible.
With a pure at purchase girl, I begin in quadrant one, intoxicated by purity and innocence captured, and then the experience becomes about corrupting her, as we move together into quadrant four.
So I guess my true preference is for a woman to show y-axis dynamism in an LTR, or else I lose interest.
2010/07/02 at 13:03
Isn’t this the heart of female sexuality? Every famous female sexpot has exploited both madonna innocence and whore brazenness. One balances the other.
2010/07/02 at 13:05
I know I am not giving sluts enough credit for their bonding ability here. Under intense game they become very loyal and deeply converted. But somehow I will feel disappointed if they never show the full range.
2010/07/02 at 13:13
But if acquired pure, the sluttification process is erotically enthralling, transforming a humble girl into an idol of diamantine celodurismo.
yeah. that’s the whole stretching-the-elastic thing.
that process takes a good long time, though — well beyond the time horizons of many who are just entering the game.
but, mmhmm. yes.
2010/07/02 at 13:16
I know I am not giving sluts enough credit for their bonding ability here. Under intense game they become very loyal and deeply converted. But somehow I will feel disappointed if they never show the full range.
you’re also giving too much credit to the madonnas, a significant percentage of whom are just naturally low-drive women.
those are the worst — you don’t want to get stuck with one of them. since they really have dulled sexual instincts, for whatever reason, they are the few, the proud, the truly immune to sexually charged game.
they are out there.
selecting for at least somewhat “slutty” girls may activate your visceral disgust at first (a reaction that will probably be attenuated somewhat as you age — i don’t know how old you are, but i can make some conjectures there), but doing so will at least rule out the frigid cold-fish power trippers.
2010/07/02 at 13:31
Aw Johnny, thanks for this & for the linkage. I will read with interest. I think you are absolutely right about the class distinction issue.
I still maintain though, that the slut/madonna distinction is a male construct, most women, no matter how they appear outwardly, are a bit of both, I am sure someone of your experience knows this much better than you are letting on here.
The difficulty here is really not so much that women are two different groups but that the men you are talking about put them into two different groups, it is running two fantasies in parallel, the fantasy of the ideal woman & one of the fuckable woman, as far as they are concerned, for someone to step out of one fantasy & into another would be heresy.
I will think about this further & do a proper reply later.
PS: I wonder how much this all goes back to the courtly love thing?
2010/07/02 at 13:35
Where is David Alexander when we need him?
2010/07/02 at 14:13
“selecting for at least somewhat “slutty” girls may activate your visceral disgust at first (a reaction that will probably be attenuated somewhat as you age — i don’t know how old you are, but i can make some conjectures there), but doing so will at least rule out the frigid cold-fish power trippers.”
As far as I am concerned, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is the ultimate work on love in the canon. My second strongest romantic imprint is The Count of Monte Cristo, which ends with the protagonist eloping with his ward Haydee, after a lengthy tragedy separates him from first love.
That is the root of my demand for a madonna. I don’t think the impression made by those works will dim with age, whatever experience and cynicism may bring.
I also instinctively feel that there is a palpable difference between an innocent girl whose sensuousness remains potential, and a flatly affected cold fish. I’ve never been attracted to the latter. I hope I am correct and that I never inadvertently land one.
I’m 26 but inexperienced for my age for several reasons.
2010/07/02 at 16:48
My husband is 26, as am I, and we’re both in the single digits as far as sexual partners are concerned.
Number of partners doesn’t mean everything. There are no absolutes. My ex had a long-term, live-in experience prior to me. My husband never had a LTR. Who was more harmonious to live with? Who was better able to be a good mate? For that matter, who was better in bed? Not the man with more “experience,” that’s for sure.
My ex prefers women who had nails done, dressed in revealing clothing, short skirts and heels. I tried to do some of it, but it wasn’t really something I liked doing. My husband prefers women who dress modestly, with longer skirts and looser-fitting clothes. He dislikes makeup, plastic surgery, and dark leather on women. In other words, the exact oppsite of David Alexander.
Taste has another, deeper dimension to it. If anyone has played D&D (proving my nerd cred here), they’d know the good neutral evil / lawful neutral chaotic personality grid. I have always been drawn toward lawful / neutral good, and lawful neutral / true neutral. Likewise with my husband (we consider ourselves neutral good). My ex was into chaotic evil, chaotic neutral or chaotic good, in that order.
Map chaotic evil onto perfect whore and lawful good into ideal madonna, and you begin to get an idea of the general preference. It’s almost instinctive. Given what j5 has said, I can predict with 90% confidence he would prefer the black-winged, demonic girl (with cleavage) in this post I made:
http://www.rosehope.com/aesthetic-appeals-of-light-vs-dark/
My husband and I prefer the pure, light angelic beings with a golden or white aura. That is not to say we are somehow more “moral” or “good.” We are just attracted to that which appears this way. My ex and I never really got along on this subject, and he always tried to get me to be “darker.” I often resisted, but every now and then I resigned myself to following (being submissive and pliant that I am).
My ex pretended to be the “chaotic” knight (paladin in D&D terms), but it turns out he was much more fond of darkness and evil, demons and undead. This did translate to actual behavior and thought processes that diverged dramatically from what I found personally attractive.
Along those lines, some “dark” vampire (ugh, Twilight) or the cad with “dark triad” of sociopathic traits never piques my interest. The honorable, valorous, knight-in-shining-armor kind of man (like my husband) makes me just melt. It’s a genuine turn-on when he is loving, kind, protective and knightly.
2010/07/02 at 18:28
I’d prefer to avoid conjecture and allusion so here are the weesh numbers:
girls i’ve fucked
8 LTR
5 MTR
4 2NS
6 MTR
3 ONS
6 STR
6 MTR
9 2NS
5 MTR
8 LTR to present
7 MTR
6 ONS
6.5 MTR
13 count
6.1 mean
1.7 stdev
6 mode
Ratings are based on how hard they can get me from physical appearance alone when they’re naked in bed. My taste is idiosyncratic and most guys would rate most of these girls one point lower, some girls one point higher. All Asian, the first in the US, the rest in China and HK over 3 years. The type of white girl I’m attracted to is rare in America now, and I usually have too much respect to attempt a seduction. All of these were racked up while trying to practice PUA as a solution to a problem that I eventually discovered was mainly biological, with inner game and personal info management playing a minor role. The 8s were LTRs, bookends to the flings in the middle. I’m not happy about the low numbers. What can I say… All is not always as lovely as it can be made to appear. Plus I just plain sucked. And my heart was far from into it. Having solved my problem by other means, I’ve halted PUA until I can afford a two woman harem.
2010/07/02 at 18:44
Hope, you sound like the kind of girl that I wanted before the “fall” and the red pill. They exist, but they’re rare in America, and you do still need game. Not that I’m saying you would’ve met my standards back then, just it’s a similar archetype.
2010/07/02 at 19:48
What? That’s not “inexperienced” for 26. Inexperienced is more like having actual sex under a total of 10 times with less than 3 people. Or even virgin. I wish I was a virgin for my husband, but at least we were each other’s “first” in a very real sexual bonding way.
If “game” is defined as being manly, strong and not supplicating, then yeah it’s “necessary.” But every guy knows about it these days. I read reddit, digg, and other nerdy male sites. It’s old news. I suppose one’s reaction to taking the “red pill” counts for a lot with me. Getting all selfish and wanting to have the knowledge to simply use women for sex… that’s a major turn off. Kind of gross, really.
My husband, by the way, knows about game, had known people who followed game in college, and when we first met we had discussed it as well — as in, “no need for games.” He rejected game, did not become a player, and chose instead to be celibate. For years! Hot-blooded male in 20s. No kissing or physical touch or anything (and he loves to touch). I find him that much more amazing for having been able to have become a player (there were plenty of opportunities for him), but not.
It shows character — that he was fine with being a “loser” even in his father’s eyes, just to stand up for his personal principles. The man does not want to have sex without love. So he doesn’t. He doesn’t want to take advantage of people for his own gain. So he doesn’t. Most girls apparently find this off-putting, but when he told me these things about himself I was struggling not to tell him that I’d worship him right then and there.
He likes to say, we’re two peas in a pod. Truly amazing we found each other. Honestly, he’s ruined me for other men. I have so much respect for him.
2010/07/02 at 22:09
Dispatch from upstate NY, within view of Niagara Fall, on the way to Canada —
Great piece. I used most of my break and a good bit of bandwidth reading this.
Some of us know ourselves a little better than others, and I’m comfy admitting: I like sluttier women. I like uninhibited women.
As far as being sure is concerned, I’m not sure I want numbers made semi-public, but I have a very solid scientific sampling of my own preferences. No new studies need be performed.
I know where I fall:
Top right (positive x, y)
Lower right (negative x, y).
Assume range of -5 to 5 on both axes, …
I’m X=2.5; Y=-1 to 3.0
selecting for at least somewhat “slutty” girls may activate your visceral disgust at first (a reaction that will probably be attenuated somewhat as you age — i don’t know how old you are, but i can make some conjectures there), but doing so will at least rule out the frigid cold-fish power trippers.
I hate the latter: I like women who know themselves, have powerful but open sexuality, and aren’t inhibited.
Lots of men are like this, too.
I’m not generally afraid of being able to control a woman’s sexuality any more.
But being with a frigid woman – nah.
2010/07/03 at 07:45
@ Hope
Was it a Faustian bargain? Yes. Was it rational? Yes.
Given the same information but my present conscience, would I make the same choice? Yes.
Was it the only or fastest path available? Absolutely not.
So, should I have held out on faith? I’d like to be so idealistic, but I’m not anymore. The brightness of “In Male Fide”‘s results exceeds my faith’s eyelid opacity.
Since you two are, relatively speaking, innocent as doves, you should strive to become crafty as serpents, or else the culture will strip you of your children. I’ve seen it happen up close.
Let’s keep in mind that your husband acquired you as a woman “once burned twice shy.” That’s a snapped elastic band; now he needs far less alpha game, because you want static beta-dom. Before my “fall,” I was not willing to accept this handicap. You will be poorly positioned to understand your daughters unsnapped and deliciously stretching elastic, should that day ever come – and I hope it doesn’t.
Nor am I unaware of my own snapped elastic that I self inflicted over three years.
[ed: these are good, and strong, points.]
2010/07/03 at 10:04
Interestingly, if the diagnosis of the underlying problem had been correct, the PUA strategy would’ve worked. A while after I’d acquired the 8 current LTR and was also getting laid by other girls, my personality began to shift towards confidence and happiness and productivity despite the ball and chain of the biological condition. I couldn’t maintain the energy output however. If I’d been able to keep going on that trajectory I probably would’ve seared over my conscience, and be a different person.
I may have forgotten 1 or 2 in there.
2010/07/03 at 21:04
Hi Johnny
Firstly, you are a genius. But you know that already.
Secondly, I think your categorisation of women as madonnas or whores is too simplistic if you are talking about what they actually are, as opposed to what men perceive them to be.
Most men suffer from a dissonance between perception & reality, equating outward presentation in women with their inner preferences. It appears that you are not immune from this.
I accept that there is some correlation between public & private behaviour but I think you are overrating it, and in fact there is an inconsistency here with another post of yours in which you discuss the joys of creating a slut.
This necessarily implies that you took someone, whose behaviour was not outwardly slutty to begin with, and turned her into someone sufficient to satisfy any self-acknowledged First Quadranter. In this regard, outward appearances, to begin with at least, belied reality.
Also, in relation to “creating” a slut don’t really think that creating from scratch was exactly what you did, what you in fact did was to bring out something that was already there, most women are neither madonna nor whore but a bit of both.
I suppose it is possible that shy and retiring women may be more likely to be frigid (quite frankly, I suspect a lot of whores are frigid as well), but I wouldn’t agree with it as an absolute rule. There are lots of reasons why women may not necessarily want their outward presentation to reflect reality.
So I wouldn’t say that the women whom the men you refer to pick are necessarily unable to satisfy them, what I would actually say is that they are never allowed to satisfy them.
Firstly, either the man in question can’t bear the idea of turning the woman into a private slut because he feels that this will unleash the beast and the next step will be public sluttitude.
Alternatively, private sluttitude may not be enough for the man in question, a public element is required in order to turn him on.
Consequently these men are unable to find sexual happiness with the woman they have chosen, sometimes, but not always, this is because they have chosen a woman who is not able to make them happy, more often I would say that it is because they have chosen a woman who they cannot allow to make them happy because this either requires or risks something that they cannot contemplate – public sluttitude.
So I agree with you about the net result, although we differ on the reasons, you say it is because they choose women who cannot give them what they want and I say it is because they will not allow the women in question to give them what they want.
But I do think you need to get rid of this idea that perception = reality when it comes to women. It may be that you are unusually perceptive and can spot the modestly dressed slut a mile away but most men are not so perceptive and what they consider a madonna (and indeed what may have been deliberately packaged and marketed as such) may be different in reality. I am constantly suprised at what I find out about the private lives of women I know irl who on the face of it appear to be even far more demure than me.
2010/07/03 at 21:08
And obviously there are differences of degreee on the madonna-whore thing, if we think in terms of alcoholic drinks with the madonna as the watery base and the whore as the alcohol you would have differences in degrees of proof.
2010/07/03 at 21:10
For example some women might be rum or vodka and others beer, ale or porter.
Of course, subsequent fermenting may also be possible.
2010/07/04 at 05:06
[…] Narciso Barbaero: Under the Influence and Coordinated Efforts […]
2010/07/04 at 10:15
[…] Johnny Five – “Under the Influence“, “Between the Lines“, “Coordinated Efforts” […]
2010/07/04 at 23:22
sd #6
I still maintain though, that the slut/madonna distinction is a male construct, most women, no matter how they appear outwardly, are a bit of both, I am sure someone of your experience knows this much better than you are letting on here.
while you have a point, my experience tells me that there is still, to first approximation, a continuum along which women can be placed.
a good analogy, which applies to both sexes, would be a person’s openness to experimentation with chemicals.
on the “madonna” end of that particular spectrum, you have the people who are extremely uncomfortable with any sort of chemical indulgence. these people won’t necessarily abstain under all circumstances; they’ll partake of alcohol, for example, as part of certain rites or ceremonies, sometimes with reservations, and they’ll use drugs as appropriate to maintain their health or prevent catastrophic consequences — but that’s it.
on the “slut” end of that particular spectrum, you have the people who will try anything at least once (or twice, or six times), addictions and other nefarious consequences be damned.
the weakness in this analogy is that most people’s attitudes toward drug use are substantially more objective than their attitudes toward sexuality — i.e., their drug use is unlikely to be as hugely changeable by intense personal relationships as are their sexual preferences.
however, even that particular weakness is not total; many people who are otherwise completely resistant to certain drugs will use them with a partner whom they hold in high enough esteem, whether at that partner’s urging or as a form of mutual exploration. the analogies to sex are obvious.
i’ll have to explore this analogy further, because some interesting questions are raised:
* how vastly can someone’s preferences be changed? can you take a total “madonna” who is enough of a cold fish to use sexuality only as needed, usually for her own mercenary purposes — or is even disgusted by aggressive sexuality altogether, possibly as a result of revolting experiences in her past — and ignite that sort of openness?
* it seems that there are two variables here: (a) current position along the madonna/slut spectrum, AND (b) tractability — how far along the spectrum could she be moved? this tractability variable is like the rigidity of an elastic band: some bands, even though they are very tight at first, can easily be stretched to an astonishing length, while others are so rigid that it’s a chore to expand them even by an additional inch.
hmm.
food for thought.
2010/07/04 at 23:37
Hi Johnny, nice to see you back.
I appreciate the fact that you’ve modified your views to include tractability, and yes, I would agree that some people have greater capacity to stretch and be stretched than others, but I think my point was also: does it have to show outwardly when the elastic has been stretched?
This brings me back to the definition of slut. Does slut (which you seem to be now equating with the degree of stretching in the elastic) equate with (
i) polygamy (I originally thought it did, but you have said that someone can be a slut w/i a monogamous relationship)
(ii) no. of sexual partners (given the fact that you regard a slut as being capable of being moulded, and monogamy as not incompatible, I suppose it is possible to satisfy your definition with a limited no. of sexual partners?)
(iii) variety of sexual experiences
(iv) level of enjoyment of sex
I know you gave a very witty definition of slut earlier but I might need you to be a bit more specific on the above points so that we are not talking at cross-purposes or at least, no more than is usual.
Also, a couple of commenters above (one male, one female) have referred to the elastic having been broken in their case. What happens in such event?
As someone who wore elastic ponytail bands above each ear for most of her childhood (occasionally taken off and used for catapult purposes, my favorite ones had multicolored shells on them) I know that sometimes if elastic bands are broken it is possible to put a knot in the elastic, and fix them up that way, but the band is shorter as a result.
2010/07/04 at 23:38
JB #8 —
I also instinctively feel that there is a palpable difference between an innocent girl whose sensuousness remains potential, and a flatly affected cold fish. I’ve never been attracted to the latter. I hope I am correct and that I never inadvertently land one.
yeah.
of course.
the problem with the former is that you’re going to have an extremely hard time finding one of those, unless you are dipping into the realm of very young women. you’re only 26 now, but, at least in western cultures, that particular iron is only going to be hot for you for a few more years.
alternatively, you could try to find “an innocent girl whose sensuousness [still] remains potential” even once she has reached her early to mid-twenties.
such women are out there, but, if you find one, you are going to have to get to the root of WHY she hasn’t caved in to her relentless primal urges by that point. in these cases, there is going to be some incredibly strong force of friction, some indefatigable source of self-control that far surpasses what most other women can muster — and it’s not going to be enough for you merely to identify it. you’re going to have to harness that stubborn force, and use it for your own purposes.
* perhaps the woman is simply less self-aware than most others her age (a common situation in women who have grown up in upper-class milieux, especially in other countries, where everything is shrouded in thick layers of decorum, tradition, and dogma).
the good thing, in this case, is that you’ll be able to help her peel off those layers and discover her vibrant sexuality. the bad thing — once those layers come off, you may find yourself with a completely different woman on your hands, unrecognizable as the one you first fell for. hell, you may even want to put the layers back.
caveat emptor.
i speak from experience here.
* perhaps the woman is just incredibly, incredibly stubborn, and combines that stubbornness with an extreme aversion to emotional vulnerability.
in this case, the bad thing is that, obviously, you are going to have to work 100 times as hard to build the same sort of rapport and emotional bonding that you could achieve more easily with a more tractable woman.
the other bad thing is that you are going to have to be an absolute master, making very few if any missteps, to successfully harness this sort of woman’s loyalty and devotion anywhere beneath the surface.
the good thing is that, if you’re good enough to get under her skin and into her heart, this is the kind of woman who will be just as stubborn in sticking up for you.
she’ll go through hell and back for you.
she’ll die for you.
she’ll do anything, for the rare man who knows how to slip inside her defenses.
* finally, perhaps the woman was born and raised in a strong religious tradition — strong enough to subsume her otherwise tumultuous desires.
good luck with this one, if you aren’t willing to join that community yourself.
it’s very possible to take these girls and, with a powerful enough influence, rip them away from the community in question, but that’s going to become a case of “you break it, you buy it”. if you do that, you’re going to become responsible for that girl in more ways than you’d probably like.
2010/07/05 at 00:52
Hope #9 —
“D&D”?
—
Given what j5 has said, I can predict with 90% confidence he would prefer the black-winged, demonic girl (with cleavage) in this post I made:
they both strike me in exactly the same way — as fantastic, gynomorphic creatures with wings.
for me to even give a preference is a stretch; to me, the two creatures depicted there are in the same league as dragons, alebrijes, basilisks, etc. interesting, but only from a purely detached standpoint.
if i were forced to conjure real-life equivalents of both of them, i would hypothesize that, of the two, the redheaded woman in white would have considerably more hidden baggage, and perhaps even more “darkness” on balance. generally, the real-life equivalents of the dark character that i’ve met — the ones who wear a dark exterior for all to see, to the point where they are clearly being try-hard about it — are generally much “lighter”, more naive, less experienced, and more tractable, and are simply trying to use affectation to bring a little more “excitement” into their lives.
sometimes, to their own ultimate dismay, they get just that.
when i deal with real-life women:
the more carefully and elaborately constructed the exterior, the more attention to superficial detail, the LESS emphasis i place on whatever is thereby manifested.
first, sometimes this is all that’s necessary to create an unusually deep connection with these women — to be one of the few who immediately looks past the dazzling superficial exterior, and beholds and interacts with them as normal women, no more special, glittery, goddesslike, or fallen than any others.
second, the more elaborate the exterior, the easier to locate and pinpoint the gears and engines within.
ah, the wonders beneath the hood of dolled-up club girls.
2010/07/05 at 00:54
hope —
My husband, by the way, knows about game, had known people who followed game in college, and when we first met we had discussed it as well — as in, “no need for games.” He rejected game, did not become a player, and chose instead to be celibate. For years! Hot-blooded male in 20s. No kissing or physical touch or anything (and he loves to touch). I find him that much more amazing for having been able to have become a player (there were plenty of opportunities for him), but not.
i’m going to take one guess here, hope, and conjecture that this guy is angling for a career in academia.
am i right?
2010/07/05 at 01:29
hope —
The honorable, valorous, knight-in-shining-armor kind of man (like my husband) makes me just melt. It’s a genuine turn-on when he is loving, kind, protective and knightly.
curious:
was this the case before your first marriage, or has this preference mostly been constructed using your first marriage as a foil?
2010/07/05 at 01:30
JB
Having solved my problem by other means, I’ve halted PUA until I can afford a two woman harem.
“afford”?
2010/07/05 at 01:33
gorbachev:
I hate the latter: I like women who know themselves, have powerful but open sexuality, and aren’t inhibited.
you’ll find that your relationships will be much more satisfying when you go into them armed with this sort of basic knowledge.
what was the catalyst in your making this realization?
did you first realize this when you were staring into the ashes of a failed relationship with the type you thought you had wanted (an all-too-common tragicomedy), or was it simply the outgrowth of learning more about yourself through your own empirical experience?
2010/07/05 at 01:53
oh, and, hope —
If “game” is defined as being manly, strong and not supplicating, then yeah it’s “necessary.” But every guy knows about it these days. I read reddit, digg, and other nerdy male sites. It’s old news.
oh, darling.
the world is not the internet, and the internet is not the world.
first, “every guy”? heh. uh-uh.
there may be, at best, a slowly growing awareness of the anomie that exists in the modern world of dating and marriage.
but if you think that the majority of men — hell, even a sizable plurality of men — out there in the real world know about game, or have even considered the idea that men need to reassume the mantle of principal authority in relationships, then you should go out there and talk to some of them.
or just watch the way in which the vast majority of upper- and upper-middle-class males interact with their women.
let’s not forget that the regulars on any internet site are going to be an extremely nonrepresentative, self-selected group.
i mean, should i say “sure everyone knows that high-carb, low-fat diets are bullshit, everyone at my boxing gym is well aware of this”?
second, most people on the sites you’ve mentioned are big talkers, but not big walkers. a lot of the voices out there on the internet are people who are using words to express their idealized selves/lives — the platonic ideal to which they aspire — but are far from reaching that apex in real life.
do you really think everyone who spits the basics of “game” on the internet is a smooth, dominant ladykiller?
heh.
third, the understanding of “game” on the internet — even in the corners of the internet that have largely condensed around game-related grains — is laughably incomplete, and sometimes so distorted as to be unrecognizable.
most people out there, if they are indeed familiar with “game” at all, conceptualize it only as a set of isolated techniques that can be used to get young women from the barroom to the bedroom.
negs, dhv, kino, etc. — (1) most people don’t even know what these are, (2) most people are not intelligent enough to understand them in the abstract under such nomenclature, even though they may well put them into practice unconsciously, (3) most people never stop to think about stringing these concepts together to make a unified whole, AND (4) most people don’t stop to think about the MINDSET behind these things.
so, a highly self-selected bunch of high-IQ ADD nerds on the internet may be almost universally familiar with the approximate notion of game, sure.
but, do they really know what they’re talking about?
nope.
and do most of the great unwashed masses have any idea about any of this, at all?
nope.
2010/07/05 at 02:22
sd #16
Firstly, you are a genius. But you know that already
eh.
a more meaningless label has probably never been forged (in both senses of “forged”).
i think you’re underestimating the impact of the differences between my background — both socioeconomic/cultural and in terms of preexisting knowledge — and the backgrounds of most people here.
my life has been “different” enough, by the standards of the average blogger/blog reader, that what are to me everyday conclusions will strike many here as novel, original ideas. also, i haven’t read any PUA or relationship literature, apart from the game (in spanish translation — El método) and a brief synopsis of the steps of the mystery method, so there’s no framework to guide, and yet to hamper, my thinking about these things.
sometimes, if you pull up the sidewalk, people will tread more efficient paths along the untouched grass — but, until you do so, they’ll just follow the sidewalk.
—
Secondly, I think your categorisation of women as madonnas or whores is too simplistic if you are talking about what they actually are, as opposed to what men perceive them to be.
one, the current discussion is limited to men’s preferences in women, so, ironically, this inaccuracy (i’ll acknowledge that it’s an inaccuracy) may ultimately make the analysis more accurate.
clever women can easily figure out many ways to exploit the gap between the appearance and the reality, although whether it’s in their own long-term interests to do so is another question entirely.
two, it’s unwise to introduce excess complexity when one is just introducing a new model.
or:
first you turn the coarse adjustment knob, then you turn the fine adjustment knob.
It may be that you are unusually perceptive and can spot the modestly dressed slut a mile away but most men are not so perceptive and what they consider a madonna (and indeed what may have been deliberately packaged and marketed as such) may be different in reality. I am constantly suprised at what I find out about the private lives of women I know irl who on the face of it appear to be even far more demure than me.
i’m good at reading women, sure.
your point here, that i should not automatically attribute similar skills of perception to other men, is well taken.
re: your being constantly surprised, i think this is a universal constant among women.
number one, most women are surprised even by their own capacity for private debauchery (“it just happened, i swear!”), and generally do not bother to square their self-image with the sum total of their actions and intents.
number two, the tight, surprisingly resilient social networks of females could not bear an inordinate amount of sunshine shed upon the dirty misadventures of their individual members. put another way, the feeling of “sisterhood” shared by women with their frenemies/girlfriends, and even with strange women with whom they still feel inexplicably close bonds, would become impossible if women were too acutely aware of each other’s seamy underbellies. so i suspect that the female mind is deeply evolved, culturally, biologically, or both, toward not only lack of awareness, but also active denial, of the sordid lives of other females — and even of the self.
2010/07/05 at 05:27
I specialize in socializing with high IQ nerds because I find them much more tolerable than “most people.” I never said my sample size was… representative. I also did say that knowledge about game doesn’t always translate to action. Most nerds are too busy gaming / coding / trolling websites to do much about women.
Some exceptions exist. Actually reddit was where I got my start in exercising in my early 20s. I train with weights at least 3x a week (even now while pregnant). From being a totally flabby nerd with aversion to all physical activities, to doing squats and lifts and 50 sit-ups regularly. People can and do take internet advice.
Maybe for the over 30 crowd, the internet is not as popular. But just about everyone under 30 these days is online, reading, posting, tweeting, facebooking and/or downloading music/tv shows/movies/games. Even the non-nerdy ones. Unless they’re in an area that’s extremely rural and have no access. But that’s besides the point — I agree nerds have a disadvantage in the romance arena and are often all talk (anonymously online). But they are increasingly, shall we say, “waking up.”
2010/07/05 at 06:18
“i’m going to take one guess here, hope, and conjecture that this guy is angling for a career in academia.”
He was. He had started on a PhD program in applied mathematics when we first met. Now he’s planning to get out with a master’s because he wants to be making money soon (starting a family). He also enjoys teaching (and is great at it) but dislikes the way academia tends to be stifling.
“was this the case before your first marriage, or has this preference mostly been constructed using your first marriage as a foil?”
Old, old preference. As a little girl my favorite male characters were all the good, valiant types. Never liked the evil characters in stories, unless they redeemed themselves and turned good. My favorite character in the Arthurian legends (I was 15 years old at the time) was Arthur himself. I found Lancelot to be a dishonorable fallen knight.
My ex told me a story, which turned out to be one of the numerous lies he had told. He said that he had been in love with a girl who was with an abusive man, and one day he saw the girl beaten and bruised. He put the abusive man in the hospital, and told the girl to not go back to the abuser. The girl went back regardless.
I was absolutely smitten when I first heard this story — what a deed! It was one of the reasons I allowed myself to believe that he was great. Quite dumb of me. First for thinking that a guy was good, when he would brag about beating up another guy over a girl. Second for thinking that his supposed love excused acts of violence.
At any rate, old habits die hard, I suppose. I still go for the “knight” type.
2010/07/05 at 07:00
JB:I’ve halted PUA until I can afford a two woman harem.
J5: “afford”?
JB, In J5’s world, a good harem should preferably turn a profit unshared with the tax authorities.
In your world, this probably means that the harem should pay for itself.
2010/07/05 at 07:16
i suspect that the female mind is deeply evolved, culturally, biologically, or both, toward not only lack of awareness, but also active denial, of the sordid lives of other females — and even of the self.
This is interesting, in fact we do tend to presume the worst about most women, just not the ones who remind us of ourselves.
I know the obvious answer is that this is because we are in denial of our own sordidity, but I don’t really think this is always the case, in fact most of the time the discovery comes as a relief. For those of us fully aware of our own potential for weakness in this regard, it is reassuring to know that others are not perfect either.
Perhaps what we are in denial of is not so much the fact that we are sordid, but that others might be aware of this fact, by accepting the defences others put up against discovery we are effectively trying to convince ourselves that our own defences will not be found out?
2010/07/05 at 07:18
Also, if we admitted to ourselves how venal women were we would never have any female friends, and women have always traditionally needed female support networks to survive (if only to get through the process of pregnancy & childbirth, not to mention caring for the children). So I suppose maybe what it really is is denial for the purposes of survival.
2010/07/05 at 07:47
“the problem with the former is that you’re going to have an extremely hard time finding one of those”
All this talk of rareness only makes me want the type more. True the mid-20s madonna presents a cultural enigma, but if her character has withstood the test of time and chance, the possibility of discovering a truly virtuous yet non-frigid woman increases. As I said, I have seen it once or twice, and it is captivating. But if anything, the situation to me calls for higher, tighter game than ordinary circumstances.
“it’s very possible to take these girls and, with a powerful enough influence, rip them away from the community in question,”
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Madonnas on holy fire, waiting through their fertile years. I saw church betas sap the joy from wives’ glittering eyes. And a pervading, giant, general cockblock, filled with flowers wilting, some escaping. [pause] Time for game.
For me, personally reintroducing polygamy to Western church culture is like Montresor’s revenge, Sade’s 120 days and Game neurosurgery all at once.
“afford”?
I have a moral commitment to harem stability and to having the capacity, if not the actual practice, of beta provision. Adding another woman would require more time and attention than I currently want to spend on women, which is very near zero at the moment while I take care of matters long delayed by illness. Mainly I use Game to keep the woman I’ve got complaisant and out of my hair. And yes SD, our last few fiscal quarters have been great, thanks.
“would you become someone would would disgust the self whose values you THINK you have so thoroughly absorbed?”
This statement alarmed me somewhat for a few seconds as I considered it. However, I realized I have a superego uniquely entertwined with subconscious identity, and would not be vulnerable to personality erosion, even under rapid depravity stretching.
2010/07/05 at 08:00
Thanks JD, I was worried from something you said earlier that you might have been unwell, I hope you are getting better now. I am also glad to hear that your woman is earning her keep, if you are unwell the last thing you need is fiscal pressure. I would agree with you about the superego.
This book on polygamy & church culture might perhaps be of interest?
http://www.christianpatriarchy.com/
2010/07/05 at 08:13
fyi, the bottom of JB’s comment #36 is a response to this, from another thread.
—
sdaedalus, apropos of nothing:
on your own blog, a commenter mentioned a discussion at roissy’s site advocating the role of cuckolding in the evolution of the human personality.
my response to that discussion is here; you can certainly use your google-fu to find the rest of the discussion.
2010/07/05 at 10:00
Yeah, I’m doing great now. I’m even a decent (one dish) cook.
That site was interesting. Thanks.
2010/07/05 at 15:16
sdaedalus, apropos of nothing:
on your own blog, a commenter mentioned a discussion at roissy’s site advocating the role of cuckolding in the evolution of the human personality.
my response to that discussion is here; you can certainly use your google-fu to find the rest of the discussion.
Thank you. I don’t agree with cuckolding, even where it is consensual, it slowly eats away at all three parties involved. It is much worse for a man when a woman cheats on him than vice versa and not just because of the paternity thing. Possibly there are men out there who are only happy when cuckolded, but they are a very very small category of outliers in my view.
I don’t really think violence is the solution to cuckolding, particularly when an innocent child is involved, my immediate reaction is one of disgust. But that is not to say that it should not be taken into account to some extent as a mitigating circumstance, though whatever about bashing in the head of the cuckolding spouse it is terrible to think that anyone could punish the child in that situation, usually, to give people credit, they don’t.
What is so good about reading your writing, even your comments, is that you think for yourself and are not afraid to question the prevailing orthdoxy. The other good thing is that you do not feel threatened when other people ask you questions or even disagree with your thinking.
2010/07/05 at 18:53
finally, perhaps the woman was born and raised in a strong religious tradition — strong enough to subsume her otherwise tumultuous desires.
good luck with this one, if you aren’t willing to join that community yourself.
it’s very possible to take these girls and, with a powerful enough influence, rip them away from the community in question, but that’s going to become a case of “you break it, you buy it”. if you do that, you’re going to become responsible for that girl in more ways than you’d probably like.
I’ll go with this. Drag a woman like that out, and you have some moral obligations to her as well as the standard ones. Could be bad if you just want to get laid.
Best leave those to later, when they’re out and recovering. Or never.
2010/07/05 at 19:10
@gorbachev:
I hate the latter: I like women who know themselves, have powerful but open sexuality, and aren’t inhibited.
@NB
you’ll find that your relationships will be much more satisfying when you go into them armed with this sort of basic knowledge.
what was the catalyst in your making this realization?
did you first realize this when you were staring into the ashes of a failed relationship with the type you thought you had wanted (an all-too-common tragicomedy), or was it simply the outgrowth of learning more about yourself through your own empirical experience?
My third GF was hugely slutt. I was in my early 20’s. That was long before my marriage. She fucked like a monster, taught me most of what I learned at first, and had no compunction about complaining or expressing her desires. It set the tone for what I expected. It wasn’t the best I’ve ever had (it was a long time ago), but it was tone-setting.
Not that she was the most attractive: just that she was a completely unapologetic slut. She was always horny. She differentiated between sex and love-making, and I don’t think we ever did the second. I don’t make that distinction, but she did.
I had to admit that this was what I liked most about her: the fact that she was unapologetic.
After her, a virginal woman just seemed, … like someone who needed to be let loose.
Many more girlfriends and a wife and a lifetime later, my tastes have altered. I’m more than confident enough in the bedroom to be able to sluttify a situation with a woman, especially given enough time. And when everything else is added to this – it’s exquisite.
Who wants prim and proper when you can have a slut in the bedroom? I have no interest in that.
Admitting it completely freed me from the limitations of my own erroneous personal expectations. If I like a woman, I let it go and we should just enjoy whatever we want to.
Much better attitude.
2010/07/13 at 19:40
[…] others black) and placing them into fancy boxes. Even such an astute and charming blogger as Johnny5/Narciso (number 1 Daedalian favorite at present; no selective editing on his blog) is inclined to be guilty […]
2010/07/22 at 21:07
Johnny Five / narciso
It you replaced you “slut” on you Y axis with “high sex drive” this would be a whole lot true.
There’s still the issue of many betas not having enough control over a high sex drive LTR or wife, in part because of the challenge for them of that much drive.
There was a time when the vast majority of American girls were virgins at marriage, or until engaged formally or informally, or at most had had one sexual partner. This was particularly true in the middle and upper classes. (This is still true of Middle Eastern girls and more true of Latin American girls of good families.) A good lot of these girls had /have high sex drives, which might well be unleashed by their husbands in marriage.
There are three things which tend to keep good girls from becoming sluts: 1) their beliefs; 2) their desire to only have sex with someone they deeply love, which is partly an instinct for them and partly a belief; and 3) not having the reputation of being a slut for both social standing reasons and as well so as to be better able to attract and especially attractive and suitable man, of the sort that is likely to make a good long term love partner.
Not all sluts have high sex drives. Sometimes they do it as a follow through on being attention whores. Esp. now that there’s a feminist meme about that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with it and that all “with it” “progressive” guys will agree even come husband hunting time.
However in general high T high sex drive type girls are a good lot more likely to become sluts in these feminist times than more feminine girls. The nature of their sex drive is more push and male like than their more feminine sisters. Such later girls may not have as high an unpulled sex drive, but it can usually be awakened and supercharged by really good male playfully but seriously dominant sex, and mind f*cking.
The trouble with slutty girls is that they are definitely more likely to cheat. It’s also much, much less likely that they’ll fall into truly adoring love. Oh they’ll say they’re in love with their LTR, but it generally won’t be nearly as strong a bond — not after the initial rush stage is over especially.
2010/07/22 at 21:16
I agree.
Slut is a judgment. High sex drive is a statement.
I think it’s much better, all-around.
2010/07/22 at 21:37
Hi guys. Doug put a link to this comment on my blog.
I have a query on ring/index finger length if you would like to come over to my blog to answer it.