Negotiable?


Deti regularly states that attraction is not negotiable.  There is plenty evidence to support this notion here in the modern world.  But is it the entire story?  I think not.

In today’s world, women are bombarded with implicit and explicit messages pointing them toward the importance of tingles.  Explicitly in seemingly every movie, television show, and magazine that emphasizes men’s “sexiness”.  Implicitly in the fact that the same media outlets depict little else of value or virtue in men.  Furthermore, many modern women suffer from an ancient disease — hubris.  So women are taught that they want tingles and deserve tingles, and that the world should provide.  And tingles only come from attractive sexy men.

But is/was this always the case?  I think not.  There once was a time when women (and men also) were raised with humility.  When one is truly humble, then one is appreciative of the good things that come your way.  A humble woman can appreciative that she can attract a man, and that a man can like her.  She can appreciate the myriad of good, but perhaps not great attributes that he has.  And if she does this, then many men can be attractive.

This can happen.  I have seen it many times.  The most prominent case in my life was my Mom.

Advertisements
Posted in FarmBoy, Feminism, Hypergamy
286 comments on “Negotiable?
  1. SFC Ton says:

    Humility is the death of masculinity

    Like

  2. Farm Boy says:

    Humility in women is an endearing trait.
    In men, there should to be a balance between humility and confidence.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Sumo says:

    I don’t believe in humility/modesty. I have a stock response to anyone who tries to shame me into being more modest – Modesty is only for people who don’t know how great they really are. I don’t have that problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. SFC Ton says:

    http://i.word.com/idictionary/hubris

    Hubris is a lie and to shunned as such

    But humility is the club they use to beat boys into broken betas

    Like

  5. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    You do keep bringing up your mother. I hat to say it but, prior to feminism, women were encouraged to have and develop virtues that aren’t valued much anymore like loyalty, fidelity, and all the rest. She may not have been “head over heels” for your father but, they had a good and virtuous life.
    Could this be why Dalrock and others warn men to make sure that prospective spouses are “head over heels” becuase these virtues are no longer promoted?

    Like

  6. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    About humility, there is true and false. Perhaps we should consider the difference.

    Like

  7. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Karen Straughan has a new one.

    It is curious how feminists are so entusiastic to alienate and remove men from their lives and society and yet, they demand the same level of provision and protection. They must not be so strong and independent.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Cill says:

    FB is “humility” the best word for the third paragraph of your post? would “realistic” be better?

    There once was a time when women (and men also) were raised to be realistic. When one is realistic, then one is appreciative of the good things that come your way. A realistic woman can appreciative that she can attract a man, and that a man can like her.” etc.

    Humility is too often used as a coward’s weapon by feminism and the SJWs.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Farm Boy says:

    Cill,

    Perhaps “realistic” would work. But my Mom was raised as a Catholic, so in her case it was humility.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Cill says:

    “my Mom was raised as a Catholic, so in her case it was humility.”
    You’ve lost me there, FB. I’m ignorant re religion.

    Like

  11. Farm Boy says:

    Catholics are taught to be humble before God

    Like

  12. I would bet farm boys mom got butterflies over his dad, I doubt she would have married him otherwise, or been a good and faithful wife, and loved his children. I bet he was a good man. Farm boy, was your dad a good man? Was he good to your mom? We’re they “happy” or as happy as two can be despite the trials life throws at us? Is this really so hard to believe it is possible?

    Let’s say even if she didn’t, and she was a saint, and never felt tingles, or loved farm boys dad (which I don’t buy for a minute) is even that so hard to believe? That people can have personal integrity in an imperfect world?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Cill says:

    I see, and boys are taught to be humble before Women.

    Like

  14. Why the insists ce on believing the worst? That Liz doesn’t love her husband, or if so then he doesn’t love her? Just for example. I know lots of couples who may struggle here and there but are working it out. And yes I also know those who don’t. But if I only focused on the negative then I might miss all the possible positives.

    And the reality is, there is always both!

    Peace!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Cill says:

    “We’re they “happy” or as happy as two can be despite the trials life throws at us? Is this really so hard to believe it is possible?”

    It’s possible. My great grandparents have been married for 76 years, in a marriage that manifestly works well.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Farm Boy says:

    and boys are taught to be humble before Women

    No, they are not.

    The Bible says that men should lead in the marriage. When the world says no to this, then the trouble starts.

    Like

  17. Sorry if I seem frustrated, it is not directed at anyone personally, it’s more cries to the wilderness.

    Does it really have to be so f’ing hard??? Really?

    Like

  18. Farm Boy says:

    Does it really have to be so f’ing hard??? Really?

    The rules of the modern world make it difficult.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Farm Boy says:

    Why the insists ce on believing the worst?

    Can you clarify?

    Like

  20. Farm Boy says:

    Farm boy, was your dad a good man? Was he good to your mom? We’re they “happy” or as happy as two can be despite the trials life throws at us?

    Yes

    Like

  21. Cill says:

    Feminism has made it hard. Feminism is a crime against nature. As I see it, an unholy alliance of feminism and leftism (possibly church as well) is the direct reason why I can’t consider marriage and children.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    It shouldn’t be that hard but, it’s like a card game. All the cards face up on the table are one thing. Cards up the sleeve are quite another. That’s when it gets hard.

    Like

  23. * Insistance on believing the worst (red pill not anyone in particular

    Like

  24. So we all sit out the game? Heck look at me. I have out in all the chips only to find it a fixed game. But damn if I am going to give up that it’s possible, miss it just because I haven’t found it yet…I choose to believe, risky as that is….I believe that I can learn and grow, that I can learn to recognize it when it’s not…and to recognize when it actually is.

    My recent “failure” is in many ways proof… I trusted my gut that said “no” and doing so protected me from the same old path.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Or maybe I have not had enough cookies of betrayal and regret yet, but I am not throwing in the towel… Bring on the cookies! Time will tell if they are the real deal, or more of the same. And if so I will become so attuned to the difference, eventually I will just know by sniffing.

    Pffffft. Go on now, get! Pfffft!

    (Bloom howls at the moon aaaaah woooooooooooo)

    Like

  26. (Bloom goes off the red pill rails….again… Put your dollar in the hat and move along, show’s over folks, nothing more to see here…till next time)

    I hope I at least provide comic relief!

    Pfffft-scat! (Broom flies into the yard)

    Like

  27. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    You are at an advantage. You are a girl. It is going to be a lot easier for you to find an honest and motivated guy that for me to find the female equivilent. I have been accused of being a “terrified bear” and not without cause. This was the video that Karen Straughan responded to and it scares me. A woman can make a case for sexual assault that was a clumsy pass. It’s getting absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Poseidon says:

    @ rpg or rpc (redpillchick)

    Go score yourself a half gallon of high quality chocolate ice cream. One of my favorites is Private Selection. I’m a man and I binge of chocolate ice cream at times. But I exercise like a total nut, so I can get away with it.

    Deti is one who says that women have Hagen Daz and men have video games. Must be my Y chromosome that leads me to the ice cream. Can’t escape that omnipotent Y in any form. (hahahaha)

    Liked by 2 people

  29. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    I was thinking along the lines of a tuna salad sandwich with lots of pickles. If you put that together with Poseiden’s suggestion, does that mean that I am pregnant?

    Another thing that bothers me about Bree. She has more than two and half times as many subscribers as Karen. Karen has deptha nd Bree doesn’t. Hmmmm….?

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Cill says:

    Howling at the moon is the new cure-all for everything short of blueballs.

    Steps:

    1. Buy a hand-crank air raid siren and mount it on a post outside (optional: aim the siren at the neighbor you like least)
    2. Get a dog friend if you ain’t got one already. Must not be a toy dog.
    3. Listen to some clips of howling wolves, to familiarize yourself with the sounds you must strive to emulate.
    4. Crank the siren and howl. The dog will join in so follow his lead.

    Here’s my favorite that Dog and me came up with so far:

    waaa-ooooooo… waaaa… waaa-oooOOO! wow! wow! Dike-dike-dike!
    waaa-ooooooo… waaaa… waaa-oooooooooo… (fade)

    If that don’t give you a titanium b0ner I don’t know what will.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Practical applications

    Liked by 3 people

  32. Spawny Get says:

    Vote the dream, kids!
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/09/report-hillary-will-officially-enter-16-race-this-weekend/

    Clinton will enter the race at a time when her favorability ratings are plummeting in key swing states like Iowa and Colorado. As details about her private email scandal and shady foreign donations to her family’s foundations come to light, voters are increasingly believing that Clinton is “not honest and trustworthy,” according to Quinnipiac polls that found that Clinton now trails Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in states like Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

    Bwahaha, dem voters am dumb, but maybe, maybe, maybe not quite dumb enough.

    No idea about who might be worth voting for though.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Cill says:

    ‘voters are increasingly believing that Clinton is “not honest and trustworthy”‘
    No shit Sherlock.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    It does seem as if Democratic candidates who declare early put themselves at a grave disadvantage. Bothe Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barak Obama in 2008 came to the party late as relative unkowns. Hillary declared early in 2008 and she will fizzle again.

    Spawny Get,
    That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard in a replacement host. I have a better one, what about injured race car drivers? They may get too technical but, they would be genuine.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. SFC Ton says:

    Hillary will be potus if the string pullers decide she is the most useful tool.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Liz says:

    I think there are certain behaviors to avoid if you’re a man or woman (these behaviors aren’t the same, but the spere has gone into what to avoid/what to do many times). Outside of very unattractive behaviors that are highly avoidable with practiced habit (female bitch-face or male sheepishness for instance) I think attraction for a woman is so nuanced it CAN be negotiated to a large extent. Women in the past fell in love with their husbands AFTER marriage quite often. Women see pictures of men and make assessments on their attractiveness based on numerous factors and then quite often decide that are attractive based on a number of variables. That unattractive guy in a dominoes delivery outfit suddently becomes VERY attractive in a suit/bdu’s/doctor’s scrubs, and so forth. It’s not the money, it’s the other traits that are associated with the skillset. And they’ll do it on a dime.

    I dont’ believe in falling ‘out’ of love. I’m not the person I was when I married. If I met that girl, I’d think she was a silly awkward and neurotic thing. Her conversation would bore me. My husband isn’t the person he was either. We’ve grown together and I think that’s the only way to do it (again, avoiding the big unattractive stuff and maintaining attraction).

    Humility and realism are important, but I don’t think a marriage will work if you think of it that way. That sounds a bit more like saying, “I’ll just hold my nose through this life and wait for it to be over”. I know that Catholics have a different view on suffering but from what Farm boy describes I dont’ think this is the view his mother took of her relationship with her dad. I think she found him attractive.

    Liked by 4 people

  37. Liz says:

    Oops…should’ve said, “her relationship with HIS dad” up dar…

    Like

  38. Liz says:

    I was never a hospice nurse, but I did some hospice clinicals when I going through nursing school years ago. There was one man with alzheimer’s. He was in his eighties or so (I don’t remember a lot of details). His bed was in the living room of their home so she could get to him easily. She had to make sure to turn him every couple of hours so he wouldn’t get bedsores. She weighed no more than 90 pounds and was about the same age. The home was modest, but very clean and smelled good (unusual, to say the least, for an eighty year old couple with a alzheimer’s patient in the house). I’ve never seen a patient that far gone and completely bedridden with such good skin. She took very very good care of this man who had ceased to know who she was long long before. And the way she looked at him you know she was still attracted to him after all those years….even though he was now unable to even care for his own body functions. I’ve seldom seen that level of love in life outside my own marriage. There were pictures on the wall from WWII and he was in the navy and had big tattoos on his arms….undiscernable after all those years.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. jf13 says:

    re: “I think attraction for a woman is so nuanced it CAN be negotiated to a large extent.”

    The necessity of actually reproducing at least a little bit, leads to some interesting effects when 80% do not arouse interest in women. Path 1 attraction is not nuanced in any way whatsoever; alphas experience the same ease of attractiveness to women that women experience with men. But this fallback biological Path 2 attraction is nuanced and therefore definitely manipulable (I wouldn’t say negotiable per se for reasons Rollo has laid out).

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Farm Boy says:

    That sounds a bit more like saying, “I’ll just hold my nose through this life and wait for it to be over”.

    It wasn’t that way at all. The above would be a modern attitude.

    Like

  41. thedeti says:

    Farm Boy:

    Interesting post, and interesting take on an age old debate and problem we’ve taken on in this corner of the web.

    First, a quibble. I’m not sure I’ve said attraction isn’t negotiable. What I have done is riffed off the old Athol Kay saying that “attraction is not a choice” and Rollo’s maxim that “you cannot negotiate desire”.

    IOW, a woman cannot choose to be attracted to a man or men or certain types of men. She either is attracted (i.e. sexually aroused), or she isn’t. I’m not sure about this, but I think arousal is a spectrum and isn’t binary. She is more sexually aroused by one man than by another. One man arouses her a little; but another arouses her A LOT. Examples: most women marry men who arouse them to varying degrees, but don’t arouse them a lot. By contrast, consider Sunshine Mary and Elspeth. Both have written about how they are so damn sexually aroused by their husbands that they can barely stand it. Also consider Sunshine Mary’s writing about LunchLine Man, a man she saw in school or some other place. She wrote of feeling an instant, animalistic sexual attraction to this man.

    When a woman is with a man she finds very sexually arousing, it is a sight to behold. Her sexual appetite is insatiable; her drive to have sex with him is unstoppable. Her desire for sex with him is voracious and ravenous. And it’s not love, or mutual affection, or affinity — it’s about SEX. It’s about raw fucking. I know, because I’ve seen it from both sides. I’ve been the object of desire, and I can tell you I’ve never seen anything like it. The heaving chest, the flushed face, the sweat, the narrowed eyes, the flared nostrils, the spontaneous vagina moistening, the dirty talk, the screaming. And I’ve been the Plan B guy, the “well, I guess you’ll haffta do” guy. The eye rolls, the sighs of frustration, the boredom, the refusals, the “I just want to go to sleep” harrumphs.

    As for Rollo’s statement, it’s true: You cannot negotiate desire. You cannot “sell” a woman on the idea of having sex with you. If she doesn’t want to have sex with you, there’s nothing you can do to talk her into it. There’s nothing you can do to convince a woman who doesn’t want sex with you, that she SHOULD want sex with you. Her desire is either there, or it isn’t. She either wants sex with you, or she doesn’t. Again, I think this exists on a continuum. But, if she doesn’t want sex with you, there is NOTHING you can do to convince her that she should want sex with you.

    Like

  42. thedeti says:

    Liz, April 10, 11:35 am:

    You’re not talking about sexual attraction or arousal. You’re talking about grownup, mature women who consciously decide to honor the commitments they’ve made, for good or for ill. That’s not about sexual arousal. That’s about women who made the conscious decision to live with their choices, to slog through the shit, to do what had to be done, and to be content, even happy, in the midst of it. You’re talking about women who actually came to like and love the men they chose.

    Like

  43. thedeti says:

    In short, Liz, that’s not about sexual attraction or arousal. That’s about mutual affection, mutual affinity, and love.

    Like

  44. Yoda says:

    Good “Deti Bait” this post was.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. thedeti says:

    “And the way she looked at him you know she was still attracted to him after all those years….even though he was now unable to even care for his own body functions. I’ve seldom seen that level of love in life outside my own marriage.”

    These are people who did it the right way. Wife probably had, oh, maybe one serious boyfriend before she married her husband. She was probably N=0 or N=1 when she married him. She married a man she was probably very sexually attracted to (WWII vet, tattooed, real “man’s man” kind of guy in his younger days).

    She married a man who was a MAN. He came of age in a completely different era, where men came up rough, worked rough jobs, unwound at the corner tavern with a beer or a shot, came home to a decent meal, belted his kids when need be and didn’t worry about the Department of Children and Families or some cop second guessing his disciplinary decisions. There was no Department; and the cop had his back. He had sex when he wanted (within reason) and wife was happy to give it to him. He understood his role, she understood hers, and they both carried them out.

    So OF COURSE she was still attracted to him after all those years. Because she was attracted to him and aroused by him FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. thedeti says:

    “I think attraction for a woman is so nuanced it CAN be negotiated to a large extent. Women in the past fell in love with their husbands AFTER marriage quite often.”

    Liz, you just contradicted yourself literally in the same breath. Love is NOT the same thing as sexual attraction/arousal. How many times have we heard “I love my husband, but I’m not “in love” with him” (translation: I care about my husband and have great affection and affinity for him; but I just don’t want to have sex with him [anymore])?

    One CAN negotiate for commitment. One CAN negotiate for love. One CANNOT negotiate for sexual attraction.

    Like

  47. thedeti says:

    Master Yoda:

    I was mentioned in the OP as source material. And also — this is interesting to me.

    Like

  48. jf13 says:

    re: “But, if she doesn’t want sex with you, there is NOTHING you can do to convince her that she should want sex with you.”

    Except this is false, taken literally. It is almost too easy to gin up (temporary) interest in an initially unaroused woman. Seduction. Moreover, almost all honest marriage therapists have just recently moved over into the camp of “foreplay is needed before desire, not vice versa” despite browbeating husbands with the opposite advice for decades.

    Like

  49. jf13 says:

    re: “One CANNOT negotiate for sexual attraction.”

    One cannot negotiate the unnuanced ab initio animal lust in a woman. But I think almost everything else is manipulable, and with extra help (chemicals, etc) even the ab initio can be mechanized.

    re: “I’ve been the object of desire” + “And I’ve been the Plan B guy”

    And you’re telling us you’ve never MOVED from being seemingly obviously undesired/overlooked by a woman to being totally obviously desired/focus of undivided sexual attention?

    Liked by 1 person

  50. jf13 says:

    re: “boys are taught to be humble before Women”

    When all the officers are women, and all the women are officers, then we shall have peace …

    Like

  51. jf13 says:

    re: ILYBINILWY

    Liz specifically said that women, in trying to be humble, fell “in love” afterwards instead of beforehand.

    As I’ve said, we all agree that animal lust from women is rare enough, and I believe it has always been that way. *Therefore*, biology came up with workarounds.

    Like

  52. thedeti says:

    deti: “But, if she doesn’t want sex with you, there is NOTHING you can do to convince her that she should want sex with you.”

    jf13: “Except this is false, taken literally. It is almost too easy to gin up (temporary) interest in an initially unaroused woman. Seduction.”

    PUAs and others aren’t doing anything other than putting themselves out there for interested and aroused women to select them. A woman gets with a PUA because she wants to; not because the PUA talked her into it. That woman is getting with that hot guy because she wants sex with him; not because he convinced her she should want that which she initially didn’t want. He was a sexual prospect. She figures this out in the first 10 seconds of seeing him. He arouses her. She figures this out in the first minute or so. She decides to have sex with him. This happens in the first few hours or days.

    “Moreover, almost all honest marriage therapists have just recently moved over into the camp of “foreplay is needed before desire, not vice versa” despite browbeating husbands with the opposite advice for decades.”

    I see. So this just means husbands have to put in more and more work just to get what’s rightfully theirs? What work are the wives willing to put in?

    Like

  53. thedeti says:

    “One cannot negotiate the unnuanced ab initio animal lust in a woman. But I think almost everything else is manipulable, and with extra help (chemicals, etc) even the ab initio can be mechanized.”

    In today’s day and age, that animal lust is the only thing that induces a woman to stay with a man. Why should she stay with a man she doesn’t feel that raw sexual attraction for? She doesn’t have to. She can divorce him and keep an income stream from him for a decade or so while the kids from the marriage reside with her. Everything in our culture, from government to employment to church, will facilitate and encourage her leaving any man she doesn’t feel that hard, raw sexual arousal for.

    So why should a man do that work to manipulate, negotiate and cajole attraction, affinity and love? If they can be manipulated and negotiated in his favor, they can just as easily be manipulated and negotiated against him. It’s constant work and fraught with risk and odds of failure and loss. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze now.

    Like

  54. jf13 says:

    re; “A woman gets with a PUA because she wants to; not because the PUA talked her into it.”

    I have no experience with night game, but that’s not the topic. A horny and seeking girl needs no effort, but that’s probably like 1% or less of the female population at any given time.

    re: “What work are the wives willing to put in?”

    The paradigm is that the wives are supposed to allow the husband to get busy instead of shutting him down from the get go. Apparently this is difficult for most women.

    I note that you didn’t dispute that RealDesire™ could be chemically induced in a woman. An obvious example is a big inject of testosterone, but there are others. So why *couldn’t* there be a series of activities that could induce internal production of desire chemicals, in a longer and necessarily more complicated and effortful process?

    Like

  55. thedeti says:

    “And you’re telling us you’ve never MOVED from being seemingly obviously undesired/overlooked by a woman to being totally obviously desired/focus of undivided sexual attention?”

    Not to my knowledge, anyway. Any woman who was interested in me came across as “like you, love you, gotta have you, need sex with you NOW NOW NOW”. And any woman who was “meh” about me in the beginning was still “meh” about me later.

    Like

  56. Yoda says:

    Juice ain’t worth the squeeze now

    Hand it to you I do.

    Like

  57. jf13 says:

    re: “Why should she stay with a man she doesn’t feel that raw sexual attraction for?”

    The honeymoon period exists for alphas, too. That’s why so many alphas refuse to let any woman stay long. But with alphas, even after the honeymoon period there is a baseline attraction which requires no effort on his part.

    Like

  58. Yoda says:

    My Sexual Assault Story

    A modern rite of passage this is.
    Victims they all must be.

    Like

  59. thedeti says:

    “I note that you didn’t dispute that RealDesire™ could be chemically induced in a woman. An obvious example is a big inject of testosterone, but there are others. So why *couldn’t* there be a series of activities that could induce internal production of desire chemicals, in a longer and necessarily more complicated and effortful process?”

    Sure, a woman can get testosterone injections. But that will just cause her to be attracted to, and seek sex with, the sexiest men — not to direct her sexual attention to her husband, for whom she has lost attraction.

    “longer and necessarily more complicated and effortful process”? To me this just means Hubs has to do more and more work to obtain that which rightfully belongs to him anyway. He has to cajole, persuade, beg, plead, supplicate, and pedestalize. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Liz says:

    Deti: “Liz, you just contradicted yourself literally in the same breath. Love is NOT the same thing as sexual attraction/arousal. How many times have we heard “I love my husband, but I’m not “in love” with him” (translation: I care about my husband and have great affection and affinity for him; but I just don’t want to have sex with him [anymore])?”

    You know why you’ve heard that? Because there are a lot of women who try to rationalize why they’ve (“fallen out of love”) with men. It’s not because it’s true.

    People don’t fall in and out of love. You know why women require those stupid romance novels? They read an entire 100 pages of drivel to “get to the good stuff”…Because their sexuality is nuanced. I enjoy the show (and book) “The Outlander”…Mike couldn’t sit through the first episode and found it to be far, far too “slow”. I need a build-up story to assess the character of the man before I can find the plot of the romance to be believable enough to be hot.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. jf13 says:

    re; “So why should a man do that work to manipulate, negotiate and cajole attraction, affinity and love?”

    That is the question. THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

    Like

  62. thedeti says:

    “You know why you’ve heard that? Because there are a lot of women who try to rationalize why they’ve (“fallen out of love”) with men. It’s not because it’s true.
    “People don’t fall in and out of love.”

    Liz, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m reading you as saying that women who claim ILYBINILWY didn’t “fall out of love”. Rather, they were never in love with their husbands to begin with. They never loved those men from the very get go. Is this what you’re saying?

    And bringing it around full circle to the sexual attraction part (a completely and wholly different inquiry from “love”) — they were never sexually attracted to their husbands from the get go; or they were attracted at least a little at one time, but now are not attracted and no longer want sex from their husbands. Am I correct here, or is there something else you’re trying to say?

    With the part about the romance novels, are you saying it’s because the husbands aren’t putting effort into foreplay?

    And what’s meant by “foreplay”? Dinner and a movie? Witty banter? Him patting her on the ass every now and then? Him chopping firewood? Changing a car battery? Doing manly/masculine chores like lawn mowing or plumbing repair? Cunnilingus?

    Like

  63. jf13 says:

    re: “But that will just cause her to be attracted to, and seek sex with, the sexiest men — not to direct her sexual attention to her husband, for whom she has lost attraction.”

    False. Female libido drugs have proven to be monogamy drugs.
    http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/05/female-viagra-will-save-monogamy-unfortunately.html

    Like

  64. jf13 says:

    re: “They read an entire 100 pages of drivel to “get to the good stuff””

    Yep. It can take a while to get their motors warned up enough to start revving.

    The very idea that every man should wait for spontaneous heat from a woman is akin to telling cavemen to not bother rubbing sticks together.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. jf13 says:

    re: “Not to my knowledge, anyway.”

    I’m truly surprised. It’s always been instant love at first sight or get out of town, eh?

    Like

  66. Deti’s example brings up an interesting point, same guy. Two different women whose perceptions of him differ greatly!

    Like

  67. thedeti says:

    “That is the question. THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.”

    So in today’s SMP and MMP, married men should take their chances on “insufficient data for a meaningful answer”?

    Married men should stake their material fortunes and children’s future mental health on “insufficient data” and “not a meaningful answer”?

    Men should learn how to get better at “foreplay” (whatever that means) on the off chance and hopes that it’ll persuade an unattracted wife who hates him to “be attracted”?

    That’s the answer? Really?

    Like

  68. Liz says:

    Deti: “Liz, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m reading you as saying that women who claim ILYBINILWY didn’t “fall out of love”. Rather, they were never in love with their husbands to begin with. They never loved those men from the very get go. Is this what you’re saying?”

    That’s one possibility.
    The other is that they were attracted to their men and aren’t anymore. For whatever reason.
    No woman who says she “loves her man but isn’t in love with her man” actually loves her man. She might even believe this, when she says it (I’m not calling these women liars, I believe wholeheartedly that they believe this), but it isn’t true.

    Per the rest…dinners? romance? You’re kidding me, right? No. Admiration/respect is a big one. I think this is a Rollo topic right now. Go back to what I said about supplicating behavior. Not sure how I’ve contradicted myself, though I do believe you when you say that you think I have.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. jf13 says:

    To my knowledge, what desire I have garnered from women, which I do not count as negligible and neither would the women, has come specifically from my efforts after simply not getting pre-turned-down.

    Yeah, maybe “take me now! whoever you are”, is a hypothetical goal for maybe 3% of men to try for consistently. For the rest of us, that hypothetical goal is irrelevant.

    Look, any advice geared to convincing most men to give up and die is wrong advice.

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Liz says:

    To put it simply, women’s attraction (imo) is a character/fitness assessment. That’s why romance novels are chickporn.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. jf13 says:

    re; “Men should learn how to get better at “foreplay””

    Nope. The male technique, I’ve learned (mad mad skillz included specifically) are irrelevant compared to the female’s willingness to try to enjoy foreplay.For the exact same reason, the “technique” of the quality of 100 pages of drivel is totally irrelevant compared to the female’s wanting to be warmed up.

    Like

  72. thedeti says:

    “Yep. It can take a while to get their motors warned up enough to start revving.

    “The very idea that every man should wait for spontaneous heat from a woman is akin to telling cavemen to not bother rubbing sticks together.”

    So…. women are “slow cookers”?

    Sorry, Liz and jf13. I’m not going there with you. This is the same advice I’ve heard from my pastors and from Christian marriage sex self-help books. This is Focus on the Family/Family Life advice bullshit.

    The problem is that she isn’t sexually attracted to her husband, and that’s usually because she is less attracted to her husband than she was/is to men she had sex with before she met and married her husband.

    The problem is her baggage and inability to get past it. Telling the husband to supplicate to her and pedestalize her and idolize her baggage is not the solution. Him getting better at licking pussy is not going to help. Dinner and a movie is not going to help. Him losing weight is not going to help.

    The solution is for her to sort through her shit and toss out her baggage. The solution is on HER, not him. And the only thing he can do to help with this process is force her to make a clear choice:

    “Figure this shit out, or we’re done. Decide what is more important to you: your baggage and your past shit that keeps you from me; or this marriage. You have ________ days/weeks/months. Let me know what you have decided.”

    Liked by 1 person

  73. jf13 says:

    re; supplicating

    The big behavioral diff between Martin and Lewis was that Lewis supplicated.

    Like

  74. jf13 says:

    re: “The solution is for her to sort through her shit and toss out her baggage. The solution is on HER, not him.”

    That is my position. You are not permitted to argue against it.

    Like

  75. Liz says:

    Deti: ” Telling the husband to supplicate to her and pedestalize her and idolize her baggage is not the solution. Him getting better at licking pussy is not going to help. Dinner and a movie is not going to help. Him losing weight is not going to help.”

    Where did this even come from and why are you asserting that I’ve asserted it when I’ve stated EXACTLY the opposite?

    Like

  76. jf13 says:

    re: women

    I can suppose a random woman experiences RealDesire™ about 10% of the time, e.g. 3 days around ovulation, but DURING which time she is merely more attracted to the 20% of men. Therefore “strive to be part of the 20% to get more RealDesire™” is never a good primary strategy for 80% of men 90% of the time.

    Like

  77. thedeti says:

    “The other is that they were attracted to their men and aren’t anymore. For whatever reason.”

    I agree with this. In fact, I think this is much more common than complete and total lack of attraction. I very much doubt that most women marry men they feel absolutely NO attraction for whatsoever.

    “No woman who says she “loves her man but isn’t in love with her man” actually loves her man. She might even believe this, when she says it (I’m not calling these women liars, I believe wholeheartedly that they believe this), but it isn’t true.”

    Then what ARE her emotions/feelings/viewpoints toward her man when she says this?

    “Per the rest…dinners? romance? You’re kidding me, right? No. Admiration/respect is a big one. I think this is a Rollo topic right now. Go back to what I said about supplicating behavior.”

    Liz, I’m honestly not trying to talk past you here. I’m trying to get what you’re saying here. If those things aren’t what’s meant by “foreplay”, then what IS meant by “foreplay”? He’s supposed to be admirable and command respect? OK, but if he’s not done that before, what does he need to do in order to do that and get there?

    You tell me. You think I’m not getting it. Help me understand it. Help me see it. What is he supposed to do/be/not do/not be?

    Like

  78. jf13 says:

    I can’t see the reason for head-in-sand denialism that a man can get some success through putting forth some effort. The only real question is whether it’s worth it. I’m pretty sure non-catladies agree they are worth the effort.

    Liked by 1 person

  79. Yoda says:

    To put it simply, women’s attraction (imo) is a character/fitness assessment. That’s why romance novels are chickporn.

    If so, choose poorly they do.

    Like

  80. jf13 says:

    I have long contended, even long pre-manosphere, that the whole reason for women pre-deselecting and acting unfeminine etc is to dissuade men from even trying. But the question I have now is to what extent a woman knows that her simply letting a random man try will *probably* lead to his success in arousing her.

    I’m torn between knowing how a woman’s brain blocks out knowledge she has of what works on herself, and how much knowledge she has from what works on other women “those sluts!”

    Like

  81. Liz says:

    Seems we’re posting at the same time.
    Deti: “Then what ARE her emotions/feelings/viewpoints toward her man when she says this?”

    She has some affection for him, very much like a nice, patient friend.

    Deti: “Liz, I’m honestly not trying to talk past you here. I’m trying to get what you’re saying here. If those things aren’t what’s meant by “foreplay”, then what IS meant by “foreplay”? He’s supposed to be admirable and command respect? OK, but if he’s not done that before, what does he need to do in order to do that and get there?

    You tell me. You think I’m not getting it. Help me understand it. Help me see it. What is he supposed to do/be/not do/not be?”

    I don’t know, deti. I only know that a woman needs to look up to the man to feel hot for him. A woman doesn’t look up to her man from things like dinners or even great orgasms (though that’s very nice, and helps with hysteria on the day-to-day).

    Liked by 1 person

  82. thedeti says:

    @ Liz:

    “Where did this even come from and why are you asserting that I’ve asserted it when I’ve stated EXACTLY the opposite?”

    This is a response to jf13’s points, not yours.

    Liz, I honestly have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’m struggling to understand your points. The best I’ve been able to devise is that you’re saying:

    1. Women are lying when they say ILYBINILWY because they don’t love their men.

    2. Women take a while to get revved up sexually (I disagree with this)

    3. Women’s sexual attraction to men is malleable and manipulable

    4. Men should do “foreplay” to get women interested in them sexually.

    I disagree with the notion that women’s sexual attraction is malleable and manipulable. I think that in those instances you’re not seeing “sexual attraction. You’re seeing a woman who loves her husband and is willing to do what he wants out of love and genuine concern for him and his well-being. I think what happens here is that a woman’s affinity to and love for and commitment to a man manifests in her sexual conduct to him because she cares about him and his needs; not because of sexual arousal/attraction per se.

    I don’t agree that a woman takes time to get revved up sexually. I’ve seen a woman go from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds flat in the presence of a man she’s really sexually aroused by. I’ve seen women go from “Hi” to “let’s fuck” in less than 2 hours.

    Like

  83. jf13 says:

    Is “negotiated desire is at best a poor shadow of real desire” as equivalent as it seems to “a bored housewife shouldn’t need 100 pages of drivel to lead up to the good part”?

    Like

  84. jf13 says:

    re; “This is a response to jf13’s points”

    No it’s not. It’s a response to other’s points on others’ sites, presumably.

    Like

  85. jf13 says:

    re; “I’ve seen a woman go from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds flat in the presence of a man she’s really sexually aroused by.”

    Rarely, and not by me anyway. So I refuse to take your advice to give up.

    Liked by 1 person

  86. jf13 says:

    I’m at a place that I can confidently assert with actual knowledge that the *reason* that pickup stuff is so morally wrong is that it works so well and AWALT. And you don’t have to wait to pounce on a girl who has emerged for her once-a-month trek to the local disco.

    Like

  87. jf13 says:

    Is’s vs oughts’s about in deti today.

    Like

  88. thedeti says:

    “But the question I have now is to what extent a woman knows that her simply letting a random man try will *probably* lead to his success in arousing her.

    “I’m torn between knowing how a woman’s brain blocks out knowledge she has of what works on herself, and how much knowledge she has from what works on other women “those sluts!””

    These are good questions. We know that so-called “arranged marriages” haven’t all been total failures, because the women stayed with the men and professed at the very least that they loved and cared about these men, or got there eventually.

    I have to think the issue is alpha widowhood. It’s the comparison of current husband (who isn’t all that bad, really) to the REALLY hot men she used to have sex with before. It’s the feeling of being shortchanged. It’s the sense of failure that she couldn’t get one of those hot men to commit. It’s the hard knowledge that she settled, that she HAD to settle, that it was this less attractive man, or that she’d do even worse if she waits longer.

    And the sex part is important here. She has hard (heh) knowledge of these past men. She knows them, their bodies, and the sexual bonding. She gets to compare penises. She knows what she likes sexually because she’s gotten to experience it in all its glory. And most of the time, husband doesn’t measure up (heh again).

    That’s what’s going on here, in my view.

    Like

  89. jf13 says:

    I do wonder at struggles with night game, though. Without any personal experience in it, and little enough observation, it seems like it ought to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe even the girls who go to pickup places are still locked into enjoying turning down.

    Liked by 1 person

  90. jf13 says:

    re: “I have to think the issue is alpha widowhood.”

    That makes some more sense. Although you might be surprised, or maybe not surprised, how susceptible to sneaky f-er tactics are the current nonwidows of so many alphas.

    Like

  91. thedeti says:

    “So I refuse to take your advice to give up.”

    I’m not advising anyone to “give up”. I’m describing what I see. I’m describing what men are up against.

    Your prescription is to do “more work” (what work that is hasn’t been laid out here) and to take their chances on “insufficient data” and lack of a “meaningful answer”. Sorry. I need a bit more than that before I break out the elbow grease (yet again).

    Like

  92. Yoda says:

    Summary of above discussion — The alpha widowhood is strong in these women.

    Like

  93. Liz says:

    “I disagree with the notion that women’s sexual attraction is malleable and manipulable. I think that in those instances you’re not seeing “sexual attraction. You’re seeing a woman who loves her husband and is willing to do what he wants out of love and genuine concern for him and his well-being.
    I think what happens here is that a woman’s affinity to and love for and commitment to a man manifests in her sexual conduct to him because she cares about him and his needs; not because of sexual arousal/attraction per se.”

    We’ll just have to disagree. I dont’ have a lot of experience, but I’ve used the “no longer in love” line once…and I DID believe it wholeheartedly at the time (nice guy, on paper, though he turned out to be a fag that is irrelevant to the example I didn’t know it then) it wasn’t true. I doubt you’ve ever said, “I love that girl, but I’m no longer in love with her…”
    Men and women are different in this way.
    But if, in this vein, I’m not truly hot for my man and do so out of duty and have convinced myself I’m still hot for him after two decades…well, I’m doing something really right.
    I do wish I could verbalize this in a better, more understandable way. I’m not sure I will ever be able to since I’ve attempted to in a few times in the past couple of years and it doesn’t seem to register.

    “I don’t agree that a woman takes time to get revved up sexually. I’ve seen a woman go from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds flat in the presence of a man she’s really sexually aroused by. I’ve seen women go from “Hi” to “let’s fuck” in less than 2 hours.

    And I’ve known women to go from never meeting a guy to “let’s fuck” even before meeting the guy. Based on certain variables. That doesn’t mean the “attraction” wasn’t nuanced. Humans aren’t really goats, and female humans don’t really go from zero to 10 in 2 seconds flat, but I’m absolutely certain it came across that way. How long did that awesome attraction last, I wonder? Sounds super fab.

    Like

  94. jf13 says:

    “Does it really have to be so f’ing hard???”

    That’s what she said. I held off as long as I could, btw (and that’s what HE said).

    Liked by 1 person

  95. jf13 says:

    “How long did that awesome attraction last, I wonder?”

    10 minutes would be plenty, I presume.

    Liked by 2 people

  96. thedeti says:

    “I only know that a woman needs to look up to the man to feel hot for him.”

    That’s ultimately a function of her choice. If she chooses not to look up to her husband, chooses to disrespect him, chooses unhappiness and discontent, that’s on HER, not him.

    No amount of Billy Graham/Brad Pitt/Paul Bunyan/Warren Buffett is going to help if she doesn’t choose it. She has to CHOOSE it.

    That’s on HER.

    So this idea that men have to do “more work” and take their chances on “insufficient data” and lack of “meaningful answers” isn’t all that helpful for men in their attempts to have lasting marriages, save their marriages, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  97. jf13 says:

    re: “Your prescription is to do “more work” ”

    Nope. My prescription is for women to cease making it more difficult, thereby making for LESS effort, thereby making that effort worth it.

    Liked by 2 people

  98. Yoda says:

    I doubt you’ve ever said, “I love that girl, but I’m no longer in love with her…”

    No LJBF analog for men there would be.
    Benefit him it would not.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. jf13 says:

    re: “That’s ultimately a function of her choice.”

    Yes. So far. I do note it doesn’t technically HAVE to be by her choice, although these are not nuanced moral waters then.

    Like

  100. Yoda says:

    If she chooses not to look up to her husband, chooses to disrespect him, chooses unhappiness and discontent, that’s on HER, not him.

    Once again, choose poorly women do.
    Better mentoring they need.

    Liked by 1 person

  101. jf13 says:

    re: “No LJBF analog for men there would be.
    Benefit him it would not.”

    Amen. The measure of whether a woman is truly a single (hetero) man’s friend is the effort she exerts to set him up with hot women.

    “Uggawa, you must give me a share of your deer haunch, since we are friends.”
    “Me too, Uggawa!”
    And me!”

    Liked by 1 person

  102. jf13 says:

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a wife pounced naked on her husband as soon as he walked in the door?

    Wouldn’t it be almost as good if she went out of her way to greet him warmly even if she wasn’t really feeling it initially, and they were in bed within 15 minutes?

    Liked by 2 people

  103. Liz says:

    Deti: ““I only know that a woman needs to look up to the man to feel hot for him.”

    That’s ultimately a function of her choice. If she chooses not to look up to her husband, chooses to disrespect him, chooses unhappiness and discontent, that’s on HER, not him.

    No amount of Billy Graham/Brad Pitt/Paul Bunyan/Warren Buffett is going to help if she doesn’t choose it. She has to CHOOSE it.”

    Okay…but is that entirely true? If the guy jumps up on a chair when a mouse runs in the room and shrieks and pleads for her to do something, and she dispenses with the rodent on her own and then the male comes down from the chair and says, “whew!” wiping his brow….can she really help thinking she might be the one in charge?

    There are supplicating behaviors that are avoidable. I don’t think the false dichotomy on this is terribly helpful or correct.

    Liked by 1 person

  104. jf13 says:

    re: “can she really help thinking she might be the one in charge?”

    Sure, if he’s a billionaire with lots of other girfriends.

    Like

  105. jf13 says:

    If the male kills the mouse as a service to the woman, then she’s in charge.

    Like

  106. thedeti says:

    “but is that entirely true?”

    “There are supplicating behaviors that are avoidable.”

    Aha. So it IS about the man doing “more work”. So it IS about the man putting forth “more effort”.

    How much “more effort”? What “effort” does he need to put forth? And if he does put forth said “effort”, can the wife also be expected to reciprocate?

    Like

  107. jf13 says:

    Jerry Lewis was a couple inches bigger than Dean Martin, where it counts. Lewis was also a LOT more physical, highly fit, and much healthier. But it wasn’t really all about the face; the supplicating behavior is what was unattractive about the characters he played.

    Like

  108. Liz says:

    I actually like rodents. It’s okay, Jf13 they aren’t scary. Really.

    Liked by 1 person

  109. Liz says:

    Deti: “Aha. So it IS about the man doing “more work”. So it IS about the man putting forth “more effort”.

    How much “more effort”? What “effort” does he need to put forth? And if he does put forth said “effort”, can the wife also be expected to reciprocate?”

    Uh, okay….being a guy I guess? Behaving like a guy? If that’s a whole lot of effort (like it was in my ex boyfriend’s case), attraction might be difficult. Of course, if I sat on the couch and got fat and told my husband to pound sand I don’t care what I look like or act like he might lose attraction for me too. Life hard.

    Like

  110. jf13 says:

    The RealDesire™ way for a male to kill a mouse is for him to use the opportunity to demonstrate his ruthlessness to the female “You see how this will go, don’t you?” while she pleads with him not to. “Stop! I beg you!”

    Like

  111. Yoda says:

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a wife pounced naked on her husband as soon as he walked in the door?

    If Andrea Dworkin it would be.
    Crush me she would.

    Like

  112. Yoda says:

    Force not strong enough to handle Andrea it would be.
    X-Wing — yes
    Andrea — no

    Like

  113. jf13 says:

    It is extremely debatable (e.g. witness) whether the desire to be pleased can be negotiated. “I’ll give you another cookie, if you eat this one.” One thing that certainly can’t be negotiated is the desire to be pleasing. But, again, the willingness to be pleasing can be manipulated, and can be forced.

    Like

  114. Yoda says:

    Silly you all are.
    Use a cat to kill the mouse one should.

    Liked by 1 person

  115. Yoda says:

    This is why cat-ladies cats they have.
    Because they have man not.

    Liked by 1 person

  116. thedeti says:

    “Uh, okay….being a guy I guess? Behaving like a guy? If that’s a whole lot of effort (like it was in my ex boyfriend’s case), attraction might be difficult.”

    I guess mockery is apropos on this one. “Man up.”

    Ok. Let’s say hubs kills the mouse while wife hops on the chair. Is that butch enough for wife?

    Let’s say hubs outearns wife by a factor of 5. Butch enough?

    How about if hubs can change a battery, pays the bills and knows how to field dress a moose. Butch enough?

    Or maybe he comes home at the end of a long work day at his sedentary office job, eats, watches a little TV, plays with his son a little, and works some before getting to bed. Butch enough?

    Or does he need to do other things like get a “butch” hobby like fishing or hunting or skeet shooting? NOW is he butch enough?

    Like

  117. thedeti says:

    It’s funny. Whenever I hear women say “act like a guy”, it always comes back to “man up”.

    I’d like to know what quantum of “man up” will satisfy. How much more “butch” does he have to be before she can be expected to choose to be satisfied and let go of her shit? How much ‘manning up’ does he have to do before he can expect her to, oh, I don’t know, LIVE UP TO HER PROMISES and DO THE GODDAMN SHIT SHE SAID SHE WOULD DO WHEN SHE SAID “I DO”?

    Liked by 2 people

  118. Yoda says:

    Butch enough?

    Be pleasant and non-fat is all a woman must do.
    Not so high bar this is.

    Liked by 2 people

  119. Yoda says:

    Though Andrea failed to clear that bar she did.

    Like

  120. Liz says:

    I have a very good life. I have a very good husband and we have a great relationship.

    I’ll offer my personal observations as honestly as I can but I don’t really see any reason to continue with this now.

    Liked by 1 person

  121. Liz says:

    Commence mockery as to why my example is so very very entitled and “bad”.

    Liked by 1 person

  122. thedeti says:

    It’s not “bad”, Liz. It just comes back to “man up”, which isn’t really helpful for men.

    Like

  123. Cill says:

    I said Liz is a good sort. I meant, she is of the type that has a lot of value to offer to a man.

    I was brought up by this type. I grew up with girls who became this type. Those girls in turn were raised by mothers of this type, and I know those mothers as well as I know those girls.

    These are women who love their husbands with passion, notwithstanding the fact that they took great care in selecting him. I’ve seen indirect evidence of their passion and I’ve heard direct evidence of it through bedroom walls.

    Any one of those women could have made these comments by Liz here:
    ” I need a build-up story to assess the character of the man before I can find the plot of the romance to be believable enough to be hot.”

    “women’s attraction (imo) is a character/fitness assessment. ”

    “a woman needs to look up to the man to feel hot for him”

    I for one will take heed, because the common denominator for Liz and each of these women is a long passionate relationship with one man.

    Liked by 1 person

  124. Liz says:

    “Silly you all are.
    Use a cat to kill the mouse one should.”

    Lol Yoda. 🙂

    Like

  125. Liz says:

    Aw, thanks Cill
    ((hugs))

    Liked by 2 people

  126. thedeti says:

    Cill:

    Fair enough. I’ve seen a few of those relationships you’re talking about. Nearly all were punctuated by instant sexual attraction, not by “friends first” or by lengthy character assessments.

    I’ve seen plenty of the worse relationships too — ones in which nothing the man does is ever good enough, ones in which the man works himself literally to death to care for a woman who doesn’t love him; ones in which he is lied to and defrauded to keep him on the treadmill; ones in which he loves her but she cares little for him. I’m saying that there are many relationships in which the man believes he was being assessed for his character and he believes she loves him because she came across that way; but she was in fact assessing his Beta Bux credentials and using him, not loving or caring about him.

    I’m not saying Liz is like this — she evidently is not — but I am saying that there are many, many instances of relationships which are not like the ones Liz describes.

    Like

  127. Cill says:

    “Nearly all were punctuated by instant sexual attraction, not by “friends first” or by lengthy character assessments. ”

    In the cases I’m talking about, *all* began with the assessment process by her, as per the comments by Liz that I quoted at 6:33 pm.

    “women’s attraction (imo) is a character/fitness assessment. ” (Liz, above)

    The passionate love followed the assessment. Each of the women (including my sisters) was taught to do this by her mother from an early age and for generations. These are real cases that I’ve known all my life.

    Liked by 2 people

  128. Cill says:

    “there are many, many instances of relationships which are not like the ones Liz describes”

    True. I can identify value in a long relationship between people I’ve known all my life, but I have so far failed to identify it elsewhere… although I might be coming close.

    It’s a nearly impossible task to identify those sincere, valuable women. The risk of trusting them is so great, trust might well be a fool’s game in the feminist world.

    Liked by 1 person

  129. I agree, it should not all be on the man, the woman can choose to love her man, treat him right. It’s in her own best interest, really. A sexually deprived marriage is worse than being single by far. It is abusive to deny one’s spouse love, affection, regular and good sex. I agree w Deti, such spouses should get called on their bad behavior and if it doesn’t improve, I can’t believe I am saying this but they should either divorce or the deprived spouse should be free to seek what they aren’t getting outside the marriage.

    Like

  130. Cill says:

    But good women take heart. There are plenty good men who are prepared to trust. I think they are fools, but they do trust. If you’re a good woman, you won’t trample on their trust.

    Like

  131. Cill says:

    I meant to say, There are plenty good men who trust women per se. I think they are fools…
    etc

    Liked by 2 people

  132. jf13 says:

    Let me throw out the idea that what we’re talking about is NOT whether nonsexually desirable characteristics are *sexually* fungible for sexually desirable characteristics “He is such an awesomely holy monk! It makes me want to, I dunno, kneel down and pray.” Because the answer is of course they aren’t fungible.

    What we’re really talking about is whether women’s desire can be analyzed, broken down, and pieced back togther. And, empirically, it CAN. For some reason this fact really upsets women, and some men.

    Like

  133. How both parties are behaving wi the relationship can also build or decrease attraction and desire. Those things should be considered, too. Not what the mate could or should do, but what oneself could do. If one can say they have done their best and there is still no boom boom, then the advice above implies. If there is a anti-attraction behavior they could eliminate in themself they should do so and make efforts to repair the relationship.

    Like

  134. P.s. Healthy happy couples rarely want no boom boom. Functional!

    Unhappy, unhealthy couples rarely want boom boom. Dysfunctional!

    Liked by 2 people

  135. If one person is nice but the other is not, this also usually means no boom boom. Dysfunctional!

    Like

  136. jf13 says:

    re: butching up

    In what I think is the most productive order, here are some concrete steps (not to be confused with concrete shoes) a man can take in order to be more instantly sexually desirable to a woman.
    1. Work on being far more *aggressively* dominant, personality-wise, towards the woman. Direct it at her whilst fending off other women. Do not just err on the side of demanding and overbearing, err on the side of brutality.
    2. Simultaneously work on being far more physically dominant, taking as a baseline goal being able to toss her in the air and catch her several times in a row. If you can’t already do that then plan on adding at least 10 lbs of shoulder muscle each side, but don’t wait.
    3. Get a better haircut.
    4. Get a better shirt.

    Like

  137. Cill says:

    I think before I put my trust in a woman I’ll go out with Dog and howl at the moon one last time. It is after all the heavenly body from which the word “lunatic” derives.

    Liked by 2 people

  138. Not that I am getting any boom boom, bc I am single but hopefully someday! (I could go get boom boom I am sure but I am not into casual boom boom. Casual boom boom can be found on Craigslist and other various locations. I’ll pass.)

    Liz, you will have to help rebalance the boom boom universe by doubling up on your boom boom since i have none. It’s for the good of the order! : D

    Liked by 2 people

  139. Liz says:

    Funny Bloom. 🙂

    Can’t ‘like’ your post about not trusting, Cill.
    I have high hopes for M! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  140. @ Cill does that mean…??? You and M are… (gleefull clapping!!!)

    Liked by 1 person

  141. Padawan says:

    boom (by Padawan, Blog Laureate 2014 – ?)

    Bloom,
    What is Boom?
    Can it survive on its own or
    Only as boom boom?

    😀

    Liked by 1 person

  142. jf13 says:

    I think I am correct in saying that all the men here correctly believe in the 80/20 rule, in which women make 80% of men work a whole lot harder than necessary and the other 20% hardly any if any work.

    But of us men, is there a particular man among us who believes that the *majority* of desirable-enough women are literally too hard to arouse sexual desire in, sexual desire for that particular man? Not for ever, not even for a long honeymoon, but at least for a short relationship, i.e. long enough to get her pregnant? Assuming you had the resources to waste, i.e. didn’t have to waste time at a job or with another family, just focusing on (presumably deceptively) seducing a certainly hot-enough woman, would it really take so much effort as to be described as literally too hard?

    Like

  143. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Cill, AWHoooo!!!!

    Upthread Jf13 said something about giving up. I have been call a “terrified bear” by an illustrious married woman blogger. It’s that I am a single boy bear that lends itself to me being “terrified” It seems to me that once a woman locks down commitment from a man, he’s all the way in. For women, atrraction is fickle. Think Jenny Erickson.
    It’s not the alpha widows. What frosts my pumpkin are the bad actresses who wnt to be married as a social merit badge or for resoucrces.
    The woods are a scary place for single boy bears.

    Deti, Liz is a straight player.

    Like

  144. Boom One and Boom Two
    (By Bloom, sometimes poetrress when the mood strikes)

    Can one go boom
    without the boom boom?

    Or does the boom boom
    Put the boom in boom?

    I have heard one can boom
    Alone in their room

    And in that case a boom
    is better than no boom boom

    But beware of you boom
    instead of boom boom

    For it is said, just so you know
    On the palms of your hands hair might grow

    Is this possibly what happened to Mo?
    Oh dear, say it’s not so!

    Liked by 4 people

  145. Padawan says:

    A new Blog Laureate we have, MmmmH?

    Liked by 2 people

  146. p.s. I am available for non-casual boom boom with someone who would like to boom boom with me, just so that’s clear. Lol! Giving up boom is not a requirement.

    Like

  147. Moehau Man says:

    Yes, well, it’s not so.

    Liked by 1 person

  148. I wonder what would happen if I used that as my profile on an online dating site? Hummm…

    Like

  149. thedeti says:

    Fuzzie:

    I know Liz is on the up and up. I’ve interacted with her enough at J4G to know that. That doesn’t mean I won’t press my points, nor probe others’ points for weakness.

    Like

  150. jf13 says:

    @Fuzzie, re: negotiable commitment

    If you were magically given the ability to transcend yourself and be bad, do you think it would be all that difficult to sexually seduce any of the *majority* of women? I’m not talking about you pretending to offer commitment, I mean getting them to want to have sex without any promises of commitment (although they would be free to perceive the potential for commitment, e.g. if they were good enough in bed). If not, then without magic would it really be all that difficult to *act* bad enough to sexually seduce any of the *majority* of women?

    Whatever gloom I spread isn’t about women being difficult per se, but strictly them being difficult to non-bad men.

    Like

  151. Moehau Man says:

    Um, exactly how non-casual does non-casual have to be there, young Bloom? Mrs Moehau Man (my straight-laced old mum) said

    Liked by 1 person

  152. jf13 says:

    By majority I do mean majority of women who consider themselves at all available. The merely difficult we can do immediately. The impossible take a little longer

    Because it would make things easier for men if women had an overt availability cue, for example an exposed area that gets swollen and red, that is the reason that women do not have an overt availability cue. To maintain whatever advantage, women have to have plausible deniability.

    Like

  153. Cill says:

    “I wonder what would happen if I used that as my profile on an online dating site?”

    I believe the expression “non-casual” would kill it, Bloom.

    Liked by 1 person

  154. jf13 says:

    re: “Um, exactly how” much effort are we negotiating about here, sweetie?

    Like

  155. SFC Ton says:

    The notion women are slow cookers and men microwaves is false

    She is only a slow cooker of she isn’t into. The girls “complain” about soaked panties all the time

    Next on my list is…. are they into me or my job? For me, I am not sure there is a difference, but I get where that can be an issue, and it very much seems like path two kind of thing.

    To take a swing at JF 13 question, I walk if the seduction is difficult. Why bother? If chick A does not want to fuck me, chick B or C does. Probably for the same reason chick A doesn’t

    To address Liz’s point, yes darling butching up is to much effort for many men. They have bought into the just be yourself life vs the old Army slogan be all you can be.

    Gamer I owe you an answer but I cannot recall which thread….help brother out?

    Like

  156. Gloom and No Boom Boom
    (By Bloom, sometimes rhyme prankster)

    In marriage one should do their best to avoid gloom
    for it is known to squash boom boom

    Even the birds and the bees I assume
    Bring a joyful heart into the boom boom

    The world is less fun without some boom boom
    And it gets old, all alone in a room

    Too much all alone in a room
    Can lead to some serious gloom

    But those who can be seen whistling a happy tune
    Are surely at home those getting regular boom boom

    (Married folks, get to it!)

    Like

  157. jf13 says:

    Indulge me a little bit of grandiosity. Question for all th’ ladies. If you happened to be available, and you suddenly noticed a random not-initially-very attractive man being attracted to you and he approached and told you he would have you soon and very soon, would you be worth the effort he would expend in a whirlwind romance?

    Like

  158. jf13 says:

    re; “I walk if the seduction is difficult. Why bother?”

    Correct. The question is whether the effort is worth it, not whether the effort works.

    Like

  159. I am not sure I understand the question jf13. If a guy I initially found not very attractive was attracted to me and approached me and said he would have me and very soon, would I be worth the effort he would expend on a whirlwind romance? Hypothetically?

    He’d probably be better off showing his attraction but not possibly scaring me off by saying he was “going to have be and soon.” That would be a little over the top, that bit. For me. If he left that part out and just started in with the whirlwind romance, yes I would be worth it.

    But I am not seeing any whirlwinds at the moment! Recovering from the last whirl wind as well. False whirlwinds are worse than no whirlwind at all.

    Like

  160. And I should probably stop talking now….shhhhhh…going to say impulsive things…..shhhhh

    Like

  161. jf13 says:

    If grown men experience full blown spontaneous erections infrequently enough, as we have agreed in previous discussions, I think it logical to presume that grown women experience full blown spontaneous lady equivalents, soaked panties and all, even *less* frequently. As before, again, and always, is the effort required to make the full-blown non-spontaneous arousal worth it?

    Like

  162. SFC Ton says:

    I think the is the effort worth it questions shows a lack of frame but I’m not 100% committed to that idea. Something I haven’t given much thought

    Women are basically interchangeable units of consumption etc and doing anything to target one specific wommen seems ineffectivinefficient so I am going to stick with no

    However there may be other factors. A dumpy 40 year old thinks he beach condo and mountain cabin should be value added factors to her sex appeal. Maybe they would for another dude. Or enough money etc

    That’s the only way I can see the effort worth the investment ( this is excluding trying to save a marriage/ spare kids the agony of.divorce etc

    Like

  163. jf13 says:

    re: “yes I would be worth it” + “False whirlwinds are worse than no whirlwind at all”

    ’tis better to have something than something. Would it have been worse during the whirlwind?

    Like

  164. la la la la…saying nothing….la la la la

    Like

  165. jf13 says:

    re: “this is excluding trying to save a marriage/ spare kids the agony of.divorce etc”

    Yes, certainly. Since wer’re discussing desire qua desire, I thought it good to exclude definite commitment issues which always cloud things. Is a woman worth the effort it takes for a man to make her another notch on his belt? (if it takes effort)

    Like

  166. jf13 says:

    Waitaminnit. Notch on his belt? Is that how the saying goes?

    Like

  167. re better to have something than something? As in better false whirlwind than none at all? No. False whirlwinds are painful and damaging. Real whirlwinds are exciting and invigorating!

    Getting swept up in true, real, lasting love, that there is the good stuff!

    @ Cill by kill it do you mean “non-casual” would get results in a dating profile, or not?

    Like

  168. Ok I think ya’ll have lost me, or I never was following in the first place, either is entirely possible….

    la la la…will refrain from making a rude joke about belts…la la la…

    Liked by 1 person

  169. Cill says:

    Why Bloom I believe I meant both 😈

    Like

  170. SFC Ton says:

    Ok question fully defined

    Answer is no.

    Now that’s me. People have pretty strong reactions to me and through trial and error I know there is no getting over certain obstacles.

    Make sense?

    Like

  171. jf13 says:

    re: “lack of frame”

    Certainly, making the woman the prize for the man. But even with interchangability and abundance, it is still a real question whether the man thinks bothering to exert himself to pluck an apple is worth the effort compared to picking one off the ground, assuming the apples aren’t falling into his hands by themselves fast enough.

    Like

  172. jf13 says:

    re: “Answer is no.”

    And for those slow ones who need a map, the question was “Is a woman worth the effort it takes for a man to make her another notch on his belt?”

    And there you have it, from an abundance mentality, same “no” answer as from an mgtow, for the same reason.

    Like

  173. jf13 says:

    See, we gets somewheres. So, from which men can women expect them thinking that women are worth even a Skittles effort even just for casual sex?

    Like

  174. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom want boom???
    Thought you might get a kick out of this.

    And no, do not put that in your online profile.

    Liked by 1 person

  175. @jf13 and apples, huh? Totally lost. So I will add what I know about apples. Newton figured out gravity supposedly when an apple fell on his head. There was also supposedly an apple involved in another famous fall. My apple trees are currently in full bloom and the sun is out and the bees are working them over so I should have lots of apples this year. Apples are good. Apples make me happy. La la la…

    Like

  176. SFC Ton says:

    But here’s the thing JF 13, other guys may require a smaller amount of effort to turn her around

    For me, she wants a man like me or no way in hell. I am not sure how universal that is

    Like

  177. Cill says:

    Bloom, if your question was serious, if you offer non-casual you’ll get responses from “casual” men.

    Liked by 1 person

  178. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    UJf13 at 8:24pm,
    I can’t offer afirst hand account but, there was an original manosphere blogger who did just that. As “Nice Guy” he became “Evil Guy”. Before he was getting nowhere. Afterwards, he would order delivery pizza and she would pay at his house. It didn’t stick. H moved to Japan and I think he is married now.

    Like

  179. Great video Fuzzie. I even know why wine from the $4 bottle made a much larger boom than the $$$ one. The first is injected with Co2gas then bottled, a process that can be done in as little as 30 minutes. The second is made by starting a controlled secondary fermentation of the wine inside the bottle and turning the bottle 1/4 turn every so often during the process. The trapped C02 gas generated by the yeast eating the sugar in a bottle with a stout cork that is wired on (or more often a crown cap like a beer bottle, the real cork comes later) has nowhere to go but into suspension. One then flash freezes the resulting “gunk” in the neck of the bottle, pops out the plug, quickly tops the liquid, then recorks it. The first method does the trick but creates larger, more foamy bubbly. Mass produced, good for mimosas. The second produces fine small bubbles, which inspired the famous tune…tiny bubbles….And that’s why the second bottle is so much more expensive, the natural process can take two years or more and is very labor intensive, high touch, and fraught with all sorts of potential things going wrong… That guy clearly sacrificed the wrong bottle, he should have saved the $$$ for the clean decorking. What a shame…cheers!

    Liked by 1 person

  180. The same processes above can also be used to make sparkling hard cider, getting back to apples…

    Liked by 1 person

  181. Poseidon says:

    “p.s. I am available for non-casual boom boom with someone who would like to boom boom with me, just so that’s clear. Lol! Giving up boom is not a requirement.”

    1. What is your detailed definition of non-casual?

    2. Is the giving up of mere boom a non requirement for both parties or just one. If one, then which?

    Like

  182. Non-casual boom boom means for ever after to me, Poseidon. Not exclusive “for now” boom boom, which is not non-casual in my mind. “For now” boom boom is casual, by definition, I think?

    Giving up Boom is not required by either party. To boom or not to boom is a personal decision, not one someone else can decide or impose.

    Like

  183. jf13 says:

    re: “smaller amount of effort to turn her [out]”

    Yes. Even in the class of pimps and pros, the question is whether a woman is worth the effort from a man for him to get her to do what he wants.

    Like

  184. Poseidon says:

    I agree with your response. Is marriage necessary, or is there a point at which the relationship would be deemed, “BLOOMED” so the boom boom could commence?

    Like

  185. Oh yeah, I was going to be quiet before I embarrassed myself wasn’t I? Ooops. Dang it!

    Like

  186. Is marriage necessary…….hummm…well there’s this Book that says if one cannot refrain from boom boom, to marry is better than to burn in lust. And that frequent and plentiful boom boom will not result in lightning strikes and should be encouraged. I am paraphrasing.

    But it is a loaded question today, what is “marriage?” It’s obviously come to also mean “for now” far too often. So does marriage create the bond, or does commitment create the bond? Or both?

    It’s kinda splitting hairs anymore in an era of drive thru divorce…

    Liked by 1 person

  187. jf13 says:

    @Fuzzie, re: “It didn’t stick”

    I understand completely. I’m quite certain that if I chose to go hog wild then I could sustain it as long as I felt like it, but even though it’s sheer extrapolation for me I think I would burn out in a couple of years. To avoid misunderstanding I’m not talking about intermittent success which could probably go on indefinitely; I’m talking about having several women and new ones constantly in rotation. I think I would be jaded with the lifestyle within a couple of years, and begin having to kick women out to do more important things.

    Like

  188. Poseidon says:

    hahahaha

    didn’t mean to cause embarrassment. just my impulsive sense of humor……….

    Like

  189. btw: My weekend is wide open, no dates on the calendar 😉 Major airport 30 minutes away. 😉

    Like

  190. Or there is a Star wars themed wedding chapel in Vegas?

    Like

  191. Me too Poseidon, I have a very sick dry sense of humor at times, I am in a prankster type mood today (if that’s not obvious). Typing things on the Internet that will be there forever more (or at least in the blink of time the Internet exists) is probably unwise… lol

    Like

  192. jf13 says:

    re: cider

    A friend makes sparkling hard cider by adding extra apple molasses (basically, apple syrup) right before bottling. Supposedly it’s great stuff, but I don’t drink.

    Liked by 1 person

  193. Yoda says:

    Or there is a Star wars themed wedding chapel in Vegas?

    In two weeks to Vegas I will go.
    Determine this I will

    Liked by 1 person

  194. Yoda, what a perfect place for you and Mrs. Yoda to retie the knot!

    Like

  195. jf13 says:

    re: “My weekend is wide open”

    I’ve got a school function tonight, fishing tomorrow early, a sort of bachelor party later, and I’ve got to be at church Sunday four different times.

    Liked by 1 person

  196. Liz says:

    Deti: “It’s not “bad”, Liz. It just comes back to “man up”, which isn’t really helpful for men.”
    Well, I mentioned the bit about supplication/sheepishness being unattractive, and I mentioned the squeeling at a mouse example but you claimed to not understand. I’m not sure how else to phrase it. You didn’t do much better yourself. In fact, you essentially said the same thing you railed on me for and I agree with everything you said here (bolding for emphasis):

    She married a man who was a MAN. He came of age in a completely different era, where men came up rough, worked rough jobs, unwound at the corner tavern with a beer or a shot, came home to a decent meal, belted his kids when need be and didn’t worry about the Department of Children and Families or some cop second guessing his disciplinary decisions. There was no Department; and the cop had his back. He had sex when he wanted (within reason) and wife was happy to give it to him. He understood his role, she understood hers, and they both carried them out.”

    Now this bit:
    “So OF COURSE she was still attracted to him after all those years. Because she was attracted to him and aroused by him FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.”

    From the very beginning…maybe maybe not. I suspect it was more like my experience of going from zero to 60 which wasn’t zero to 60 in 2 seconds flat (but exceptionally hot and heavy as soon as it got hot and heavy).

    Like

  197. @ jf13 I actually have plans this weekend too of the non-date sort, I was kinda (more than kinda) implying my date nights are free! And I really should be quiet now…or soon…or maybe it is too late. Ah well…if so….so be it!

    If nothing else I have a bar of Toblerone chocolate to enjoy this weekend! (Milk with honey almond nougat! I guess I get the WHOLE thing to myself…sigh…)

    Like

  198. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    That Yoda has offered to do reconnaissance is high praie of your virtue.

    About “boom boom” with Bloom, once commenced, why shop anywhere else?
    Unles there is no Louis Roeder Cristal.

    Excellent definition for the difference between Charmat and Methode Champonoise.

    Liked by 1 person

  199. jf13 says:

    re: “a bar of Toblerone chocolate to enjoy this weekend”

    Well there went five enjoyable minutes. Is all your Easter stuff gone already too?

    Liked by 2 people

  200. Liz says:

    One more thing…of course she has to do her bit, too. This isn’t a one sided equation. But if we’re discussing how to keep attraction just signing the papers and a sense of duty isn’t going to keep things hot.

    Liked by 2 people

  201. “Why shop anywhere else!”

    EXACTLY Fuzzie! 😀

    “Excellent definition for the difference between Charmat and Methode Champonoise.” These things fascinate me, I have done both, the first on purpose, the second on accident (oops! Pop!) I would like to learn how to make the second one happen on purpose without bottles exploding, but it is hard to find people who are willing to teach one these secrets these days, few know…

    Like

  202. @ Liz indeed. She can’t just put on the mu mu and sit around in curlers and expect that boom boom to be booming! Lol. Takes two, for sure.

    Liked by 2 people

  203. @Wrt to the debate between Liz and Deti, based on my experience, I agree with some of Liz’s main points. Deti at 4:42pm, u mentioned 2 points u attributed to Liz:

    “2. Women take a while to get revved up sexually (I disagree with this)

    3. Women’s sexual attraction to men is malleable and manipulable”

    This does match my experiences. I think women can grow more sexually attracted to men, but not generally to men they disliked from the start.

    When I first met my bf, I was mildly attracted to him. 6+ months later, we can barely keep our hands off each other. (I think those feelings started around the 3rd or 4th date). We took time to find out more about each other, to fall in love, and the sexual attraction seems to have grown from there. He’s got great character and a great heart.

    Btw he is really quite alpha–eg he rides a motorbike apart from his car, he used to sing in a rock band, very masculine, toned bod etc. But on the 1st 2 dates, I wasn’t thinking of ripping his clothes off or anything. I kinda liked him, that’s it.

    In a very different eg, I once met a guy by chance thru another friend one night, and within like an hr of chatting, there was lots of sparks flying and flirting especially since we drank alcohol. Embarrassing to admit but we had a make-out session like 4 hrs after meeting, before heading home. *turns red*

    We went on a few dates after that, but despite him being hot and there being lots of chemistry and fun conversations, and even genuinely liking each other romantically, I quickly realised there wasn’t enough to sustain a rship. When my parents told me to stop dating him because he came from a culture that they thought didn’t respect women, I acquiesced without much protest. Rationality won over emotions, in fact the emotions faded quite quickly once I looked at things rationally.

    So to conclude my long-winded post, I mostly agree with what Liz said on attraction being malleable 🙂 P.S. I’m not saying women are entitled to men who are impressive enough to create attraction, that’s a slightly-different topic.

    Liked by 2 people

  204. Deti “How much ‘manning up’ does he have to do before he can expect her to, oh, I don’t know, LIVE UP TO HER PROMISES and DO THE GODDAMN SHIT SHE SAID SHE WOULD DO WHEN SHE SAID “I DO”?”

    That’s true Deti, and I don’t think the women here would disagree on this point. Both parties made a commitment.

    Liked by 1 person

  205. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Toblerone, milk with honey almond nougat…
    That hurts!

    Liked by 1 person

  206. jf13 says:

    re: “I’m not saying women are entitled to men who are impressive enough to create attraction, that’s a slightly-different topic.”

    Well, I think that IS this topic. Is a man’s efforts better allocated into building himself into a bigger badder dude who attracts women’s libidinous desires in an entitled way like women feel entitled to be sexually attractive to men? Or is it “better” for him to focus on seducing some woman who he thinks might be worth his effort?

    Like

  207. jf13 says:

    Deep Strength posits that respect is not negotiable either.
    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/understanding-the-friend-zone-and-escaping-it/

    Totally aside, there and elsewhere women gush about how it’s a man’s “protective” strength that really gets women revved up. Hee hee.

    Like

  208. Cill says:

    Talking about apples, how about this classic from He with MSGL (https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/toil/comment-page-1/#comment-17910)

    “can’t have a hog roast without inviting Big Red. Ideally she can bring her own apple…a big one given the size of her bloody great gob.”

    Hell if Padawan catches wind of this he’ll go into raptures.

    Liked by 2 people

  209. Liz says:

    Here’s another anecdote, from Dragonfly girl. She reminds me a lot of myself at her age, and she was married very young also. Unsurprisingly, her experience of meeting and growing attracted to her husband was very very much like mine. Bolding for emphasis:

    “My husband is another story altogether 😉 He was a sexy older Junior (another rule of mine was to try to stay out of relationships with older guys that first year – granted he really was the perfect age). He saw me at a BBQ at the beginning of the semester at an event we both went to, he said he watched me there – watched me play volleyball, interact with the other people, and was extremely attracted to me. He said I met him, but I didn’t remember.

    He was great at teasing and soon became one of my favorite guys to be around – not only was he older, incredibly handsome, he was also hilarious and teased the crap out of me. He would walk me to one class (since his was in the same building and down the same hallway), and I remember him talking to me and getting distracted from what he was saying because of how handsome he was.

    And I’ll bet they are still hot for each other, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  210. jf13 “Well, I think that IS this topic. Is a man’s efforts better allocated into building himself into a bigger badder dude who attracts women’s libidinous desires in an entitled way like women feel entitled to be sexually attractive to men? Or is it “better” for him to focus on seducing some woman who he thinks might be worth his effort?”

    Jf13, that’s a bit like asking if a woman who wants a rship should work on being pretty and slim and smart and having a job so she can meet and attract men, or if she should put time and effort into being nice to the men she likes/dates. Why can’t she do both? I’d say she has to do both, if she wants a good man. Or maybe I haven’t understood your question?

    Liked by 1 person

  211. jf13 says:

    (to the guys) Note none of the women have asked what my grandiosity had to do with my question “would you be worth the effort he would expend in a whirlwind romance?”

    Yes, you understand me correctly. I’m fearlessly, and I think quite ably, pushing past the hedges of thought processes. The women know that I, even I, could do so with the *majority* of women.

    What is it that keeps men in bounds?

    Liked by 1 person

  212. jf13 says:

    re; “Or maybe I haven’t understood your question?”

    You understood the question fine, but not the reason for it. Remember, alphas are much more like women in having choices, then alphas are like regular men.

    The reason a woman doesn’t treat a man nice is because the woman is assured of the man’s sexual desire (reflexively if nothing else) and she wants to dissuade it. In contrast, the reason an alpha doesn’t bother exerting himself to seduce is because he doesn’t need to in order to be assured the woman’s sexual desire. It’s all quite clear if you try to get beyond projections.

    Liked by 1 person

  213. To Boom or Not to Boom?
    (By Bloom, apparently unable to repress verse or verbosity today)

    To boom or not to boom
    That is a question

    Boom boom???
    Is another question.

    Or Boom then Boom-Boom then Boom???
    An even better question

    All judgement and damnation pardoned, soially sanctioned, and legit
    After the question

    But presently to boom or not to boom
    ‘Tis the only question

    Liked by 2 people

  214. jf13 says:

    More succinctly, and you can thank me later: women have to exert themselves to be mean in order to deflect sexual attention. Betas have to exert themselves to be mean in order to get sexual attention.

    Like

  215. Btw, Jf13, if forced to pick either a or b of the 2 choices u mentioned, I’ll honestly say that I’ve fallen in love with a man who satisfied criteria 2 but not criteria 1 (i.e. he was good to me, but wasn’t a big bad dude, as u put it), but never with a man who met criteria 1 and not criteria 2.

    However I can acknowledge that on a more macro scale, men can have more dating/romantic/sexual success with women by focusing on criteria 1. Especially if a man doesn’t want to get married and have kids, I think he’d be better off focusing on criteria 1, and the women who respond to that.

    Signing off for now 🙂

    Like

  216. Poseidon says:

    @ RPC:

    Your fun to fun with. My weekends are always almost completely open. Other than my three days with my son each week, I keep pretty much to myself. I do most of my brilliant commenting on blogs when I am riding my stationary bike, which I will mount in about 2 minutes.
    In 2 hours me and my son set that time to watch 2 more episodes of Game of Thrones. Tomorrow we will watch another couple of episodes if we do nothing else. Then he goes back to him mother’s and I read and work out almost continuously. And I like to eat.

    If you fly out here as you postulated, let me know what type of sammich items to purchase. Sounds like a mutual fun time for you to prepare some yummy sammiches while I work out. Do you like chocolate cheese cake? Of course only high quality; never cheap chocolate or any cheap quality food.

    Liked by 2 people

  217. jf13 says:

    re: “I’ll honestly say that I’ve fallen in love with a man who satisfied criteria 2 but not criteria 1”

    I believe you. The beta strategy is the majority strategy after all, because it is better for the woman.

    Liked by 1 person

  218. @ fuzzie “speaks highly of your virtue”

    (Dang it, I probably shouldn’t have posted that last poem then…. Dang nab it! Quiet yourself women!)

    La la la….

    Liked by 1 person

  219. “Betas have to exert themselves to be mean in order to get sexual attention.”

    I think there was a discussion on this recently on this blog; betas can be more attractive by being manlier and more dominant, without being mean.

    I believe many women would be discouraged if the men they were dating were mean to them, and they would eventually pull away and, at some point, give up.

    Liked by 1 person

  220. Ok I’m really going off now 🙂 I was supposed to be doing research on the topic of creativity and mental illness…

    Liked by 1 person

  221. Jf13 ” I’m fearlessly, and I think quite ably, pushing past the hedges of thought processes.”

    You forget to add “modestly”. 😉

    Like

  222. jf13 says:

    re: “eventually pull away and, at some point, give up”

    Yes, but if it works to get a beta an endless series of ultimately meaningless sexual encounters, then it works.

    Like

  223. Poseidon sounds like a fun weekend. Two hours on a stationary bike? Why not outdoors? Or is that not possible where you are? How many miles would that be, 2 hours?

    I am fun to fun with? Thanks! 🙂 I am having too much fun perhaps. Lol.

    Like

  224. Poseidon says:

    The attraction conversation seems to eventually attract the “inner beauty” perspective of the female cementers on various blogs. Anybody going to bring up “inner beauty”?

    Like

  225. jf13 says:

    re: “betas can be more attractive by being manlier and more dominant, without being mean”

    Of course we know that this is the precise point that women cannot speak correctly about. Probably mostly because of self-protective brain process that won’t let women see it properly, but also because it (rightly) sounds insane that women would more like the more unlikable. But the fact remains that, especially for a beta, “manlier and more dominant” is NOTHING but meaner.

    Like

  226. Padawan says:

    Big on a Spit (by Padawan, Blog Laureate 2014 – ?)

    So it was to Big Red that Padawan fled
    To make her his “Big on a Spit”
    With an apple bung ‘tween her lips so red,
    She’d no longer give him the lip

    Liked by 1 person

  227. Poseidon says:

    Indoors I have all the amenities; bathroom, kitchen, computer next to me, T.V., etc.

    Don’t know the mileage. I’m past logging mileage, just amount of time while keeping the difficulty level at close to the highest or at the highest.

    Your icon is pretty. I am attracted to slender women with pretty faces. The skinny neck evidences a slender physique.

    Like

  228. jf13 says:

    Having inner beauty merely means she makes more sammiches. Ow! Ow! Ok, ok, not “merely”. Having inner beauty means her sammiches taste better. And these gals all tend to be sammich-makers.

    Like

  229. I swear, THERE IS A F-CKING MOUSE IN MY KITCHEN!!! Thank goodness I closed the glass sliding door separating the dining area from the kitchen a while ago…

    Liz, I can’t believe u don’t mind rodents!! AAAHHH

    Like

  230. jf13 says:

    Sammiches being expressions of desire, and not merely negotiating for commitment.

    To what extent is RealCommitment™ negotiable?

    Like

  231. Poseidon says:

    Boar’s Head horseradish is the best horseradish. French bread that is not too hard and crusty, unless you are preparing veal parmesan sammiches, then a harder crustier french bread would be more apropo.

    Like

  232. I like a cheese and pastrami toasted on focaccia, or a chunky chicken salad on a soft roll, or even a pita pocket stuffed with humus, cucumbers, with sweet peppers and feta, or a fried oyster po boy, bay shrimp with lettuce and some thousand island, brioche with German bologna and munster cheese…mmmmm. Sammiches… So many possibilities…

    Like

  233. jf13 says:

    The best classification scheme for human alpha vs beta is same as for other primates: females bring alphas bananas and groom bugs out of their hair without reciprocity, while betas have to bring bananas to females and groom them instead. Female primates are extremely extremely extremely lousy at reciprocity, which we can call negotiableness, to males.

    But the “scope of effort” is another measure, although related. Alphas’ efforts are exerted on themselves, and they are highly rewarded by females for doing so. Betas’ efforts are exerted on females, and they are not really rewarded at all for doing so.

    Like

  234. jf13 says:

    Negotiable? No. Mechanizable i.e. programmable? Yes.
    http://thoughtcatalog.com/chris-backley/2015/04/man-from-la-documents-the-trials-and-errors-of-his-first-week-on-okcupid/
    “In other words, it’s just like real life.”

    lol’d (lolled looks wrong) at “Santa Claus-like levels of mail”.

    Like

  235. jf13 says:

    Dear ____(insert woman’s name)
    Hi, how are you? That being said, here’s what I would like from our date on the 25th. I will leave you some lowfat milk and sugarfree cookies!

    Like

  236. Cill says:

    My god Padawan you have something to answer for!
    Did you have to launch Bloom into her new hobby of poetry with boom-boom couplets?

    Liked by 1 person

  237. Poseidon says:

    These days, now that I’m a bit older and subsequently my metabolism is slower, I prepare most of my food at home instead of eating at restaurants. (I’m trying to get back down to 200 lbs, which would be lean for me.)

    I buy most of my food at Costco. Their chicken salad is good and fresh and made with a minimal of mayo. Every once is a while I’ll purchase some provolone cheese, but it has so much fat. I like to munch down on chicken salad melts.

    I actually eat mostly fresh vegetables these days. For the past 18 months I cut way down on my red meat consumption and began the raw veggie onslaught. I work out more for health then bodybuilding these days. I use lighter weight, more reps, and a crazy amount of aerobics on both my bike and rower.

    My red blood cells are like microscopic Arnold Schwarzeneggers providing oxygen to my skeletal musculature and other bodily organs.

    Liked by 1 person

  238. Sounds pretty darn good Poseidon!

    Cill, I will TRY to refrain from more boom-boom refrains…but no promises! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  239. Poseidon says:

    @ RPC:

    You seem to have slowed down posting at your own blog. Watz up?

    Other blogs I jump around to also seem to have slowed down. Hence my increased presence here.

    Write up a funny, thought provoking post……….

    Like

  240. Ok one more…

    When I get her in my sights…

    BOOM BOOM

    Out go the lights!

    Lol. Ok, I will try to stop now.

    Like

  241. Poseidon says:

    Better:

    When I get her in my sights

    On go the spotlights

    Like

  242. Yeah my blog…I am kinda on a semi hiatus there for now. I do need to come up with something new but have not been all that inspired. Perhaps I should repost my Boom Boom poetry trilogy? Lol!

    OMG what was I thinking, delete, delete, delete….ak I can’t delete comments on someone else’s blog….eeep!

    Like

  243. Moehau Man says:

    New post up.
    (heh heh)
    Yeah

    Liked by 1 person

  244. La la la la la la

    (girl talking, blah, bah I am sure they just skip over it mostly, right? Right? Nobody reads this, right? Hyper ventilating into a paper bag…)

    Where is that Toblerone bar? Ooooh, milk! Yes!

    Like

  245. Cill says:

    Bloom, if you want some inspiration for a post, take a look at Moe’s new post here. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  246. Liz says:

    Lol Alana, I love rodents. My mom didn’t let me have any pets though when I was a kid, except for mice and gerbils. I love animals so I think the affinity started there.

    “I buy most of my food at Costco”

    Costco is my second favorite food store, Poseidon!
    My favorite is Trader Joe’s. 🙂

    (haven’t lived near either in many years) 😦

    Liked by 2 people

  247. Poseidon says:

    Trader Joes has the best deal on chocolate. Their large dark chocolate bars are 70% cocoa and over 1.5 lbs and only $4.99 each.

    Liked by 1 person

  248. Liz says:

    I went out on our boat tonight with Mike. It was fun, and we saw some tarpon and went to a restaurant. His plan had been to go fishing with two (very masculine) guys. Both of them cancelled and both said, “My wife won’t let me”.

    Now, consider how odd gender relations are when no married woman I have ever met in my life has said, “My husband won’t let me” to me. Gentlemen, women often want to take your balls and put them in their purse. Do NOT let them take your balls and put them in their purse. Just say no. You don’t even have to be mean about it. Once they take your balls they will be sad and highly displeased.

    If you find an actual adult rather than a child, you won’t even have to worry about this…but, apparently, that seems unlikely.

    Liked by 2 people

  249. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bloom,
    All for you!

    Liked by 1 person

  250. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Liz,
    Please tell me why any wife, in her right mind, would object to her husband going out fishing with Mike. Especially after his last sortie resulted in enough bonito to feast a family of bears.

    Liked by 3 people

  251. Liz says:

    Lol! Exactly so.
    I have no idea, Fuzzie. 🙂

    It was sad for him. He has to work all weekend and was hoping to fish. 😦

    Like

  252. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Liz,
    Well, he did and with his best girl.
    You have pointed out something significant. Men have to cooperate and women can’t display that they do.
    Sum Ting Wong.

    Liked by 2 people

  253. Padawan says:

    GIDDAY (by Padawan, Blog Laureate 2014 – ?)

    Like

  254. Liz says:

    “re: “betas can be more attractive by being manlier and more dominant, without being mean”

    Of course we know that this is the precise point that women cannot speak correctly about. Probably mostly because of self-protective brain process that won’t let women see it properly, but also because it (rightly) sounds insane that women would more like the more unlikable. But the fact remains that, especially for a beta, “manlier and more dominant” is NOTHING but meaner.”

    I don’t think women get it wrong, Jf13 seems a lot of men agree that a person can be masculine and have a backbone without being either a jerk or mean. That’s generally the way they interact with each other isn’t it?

    Here are some direct examples, just from last night. One guy we know was going to fish with Mike, then called and said, “my wife won’t let me go”. No man should ever say this, btw, it makes it sound like this woman is his mom…in the relation dynamic around the house, he has to ask her before he can do anything. If he wants to purchase a 100 dollar item, he has to ask. His truck is old and he wanted a new one but his wife said no. To put it into context, this man is very affluent, worth at least 5 million and his income is over 300k per year…and he has to ask his wife to buy something that’s worth 100 dollars. That isn’t nice. That’s more like fear.

    Here’s how adults handle finances in a family: One idea is the budget. In our case, there’s a set amount of discretionary spending every month for each of us and if Mike wants to go over it we discuss it after looking at the finances and decide to either budget more the next fews/ or he works more to make up the difference since I no longer have a source of income/ or he doesn’t buy it. But the decision isn’t based on “what I will allow Mike to do”.

    Here’s how adults handle ‘outings’: Plan them. Let the spouse know the date and ask if there are any conflicts/ reasonable objections.
    “Hey honey, I’m planning on going fishing Monday night is there anything going on then?”
    A: “That’s the night the kids have the award ceremony.”
    “Okay, I’ll pick another day….”

    Liked by 1 person

  255. Liz says:

    Just to add….
    The way NOT to schedule things, for non-adults:

    “Can I go fishing on Monday?”
    A: “I’m not sure, I’ll let you know.”
    “Okay.”
    (later)
    “Can I go fishing on Monday?”
    A: “Maybe…it depends. I’ll let you know.”
    (Monday)
    “Er…can I go fishing today?”
    A: “Maybe…we’ll have to see what’s going on.”
    “Mike’s heading out in two hours. Can I go?”
    A: “No! I was planning on going out to eat sushi and you’re coming!”

    Liked by 2 people

  256. Liz says:

    Probably just my “self-protective brain process not allowing me to see things properly” above. Obviously most “sane people” would prefer the relationship dynamics above that I refer to as childish and/or fearful.

    Liked by 1 person

  257. Spawny Get says:

    Ure a ebul wimminz, Liz. Mike has been cursed…obviously…

    Liked by 1 person

  258. Farm Boy says:

    men agree that a person can be masculine and have a backbone without being either a jerk or mean

    Yes. But it is easier to be a mean jerk.

    Much less work

    Liked by 2 people

  259. Farm Boy says:

    Please tell me why any wife, in her right mind, would object to her husband going out fishing with Mike

    That is easy. She does not provide value. His friends provide value.

    Liked by 1 person

  260. Liz says:

    “Yes. But it is easier to be a mean jerk.”

    That is true. But if the goal is longevity and attraction over time, just being a jerk isn’t going to pull that off. Might get a quick piece of ass (from an…obviously stellar sort of person, or people) that way, definitely.

    Liked by 1 person

  261. Farm Boy says:

    But if the goal is longevity and attraction over time

    In age of frivorce, is this a realistic goal?

    Liked by 1 person

  262. Liz says:

    “In age of frivorce, is this a realistic goal?”

    From my perspective (obviously, it’s a lifestyle) I think the answer is yes. It’s kind of the context of thread too, isn’t it?
    The “negotiability” of continued attraction. Whether it’s worth it or not would depend on the individual and his assessment. Just like having children is also a cost to gains assessment. I think a lot of potential problems can be resolved early on with some knowledge of how the dynamics work.

    Liked by 1 person

  263. Farm Boy says:

    I think a lot of potential problems can be resolved early on with some knowledge of how the dynamics work.

    That is one reason that we are here.

    Liked by 2 people

  264. Farm Boy says:

    From my perspective (obviously, it’s a lifestyle) I think the answer is yes.

    But you are a chick. You control the frivorce lever. What about guys who have no such control?

    Like

  265. Liz says:

    “But you are a chick. You control the frivorce lever. What about guys who have no such control?”

    I think they’d have to consider the costs to gains very carefully and decide what they want out of life. From my vantage point, I might “control the frivorce lever” but I’d be completely and totally fucked if we divorced. I’ve spent my life moving and taking care of the family. I have job skills I can fall back on, but my life would be very diminished without my man, not just emotionally (obviously) but monetarily. I don’t know any divorcees who are living large and happy.

    Liked by 1 person

  266. Liz says:

    There’s a movie I watched recently with Bill Murray (sp?) I thought was good. It’s called, ‘Saint Vincent’. I don’t know anyone else’s impression of the movie, but I thought it was pretty well-balanced and realistic (in a humorous way) with the portrayal of the single mom. She left her husband not exactly for frivorcing reasons, but infidelity. But it didn’t portray her exactly sympathetically…it realistically explained the choices she had to make to leave her child’s father, and eventually the father was granted joint custody. When she objected her son said, “He is my father mom.” Regarding the father’s infidelity he said, “Yeah, I know all about that…you tell everyone. It’s on your facebook page.”

    And she feels chastened. It’s a pretty even-handed film, IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  267. Farm Boy says:

    So, to sum up this thread.

    A man needs to be awesome and stay awesome,

    A woman needs to be pleasant and non-fat.

    Like

  268. Liz says:

    I’d say more to the effect of:
    If a person wants to maintain attraction in the relationship:

    A man should never hand his wife his balls.

    A woman needs to be pleasant and non-fat.

    Liked by 3 people

  269. jf13 says:

    re: “seems a lot of men agree that a person can be masculine and have a backbone without being either a jerk or mean. That’s generally the way they interact with each other isn’t it?”

    Yes. Men react properly. But women do not react properly.

    Liked by 2 people

  270. jf13 says:

    re: “Hi, how are you? That being said, ”

    It is amazing how so many men’s que sera sera approach to not negotiating desire manifests in interactions. Believe it or not, a lot of men believe that any effort expended in seduction or raising interest is wasted effort.

    Like

  271. theasdgamer says:

    It’s a pretty even-handed film, IMO.

    You’re a Bible girl, right? The Bible’s standard is even-handedness, not Truth, right? Bitchiness, coldness, and using sex-deprivation to manipulate the man commonly occur prior to and are the chief causes of infidelity. None of that 5h1t matters as long as the film is even-handed.

    Cheating begins when a woman uses deprivation of sex to manipulate a man. Promises to have and to hold don’t mean 5h1t to her. She doesn’t need to be faithful to her promises. Only his infidelity matters to her. It’s all about the woman. She’s more important than the man–more important than God, even. That’s how churchianity portrays it.

    In order for the woman to respect the man, the Bible says that the man needs to be respectable–to have balls. Oh wait, it doesn’t say that.

    The fact of the matter is that most women are 5h1t–whether it’s sluttery or not keeping their vows in marriage.

    NAWALT maybe.

    Like

  272. theasdgamer says:

    A woman needs to be pleasant and non-fat.

    Lololololz Ditch the broad if she’s merely pleasant. She better be warm, sweet, affectionate, and enthusiastic about sex and willing to learn and contribute to making the house a pleasant place to live and rearing the kids.

    Liked by 1 person

  273. jf13 says:

    re: “A man should never hand his wife his balls.”

    So as long as he struggles and cries while she yanks them off, then he’s good. Right?

    Liked by 1 person

  274. Liz says:

    Hm. Thought this thread asked if attraction “can be negotiated”.
    Asked and answered, to the best of my ability. Vitriol moon out tonight?

    Liked by 1 person

  275. theasdgamer says:

    Vitriol moon out tonight?

    More like a dramamoon. Doesn’t relieve nausea. Might cause some.

    Like

  276. theasdgamer says:

    …worked rough jobs…

    Lemmetink…grinding fiberglass shells was irritating as h311 due to the dust…sanitation plant worker (a really crappy job)…dump truck driver (was actually fun)…stacking hay bales on a moving truck (hard work, yet satisfying)…post-hole digger and rail-splitter (hard work, yet satisfying)…pizza cook…dishwasher

    Like

  277. theasdgamer says:

    I think that a woman can instill desire simply by consciously submitting to a man. The Hamster will see to it that the submission was justified, in a back-rationalization kind of way. She can’t rationalize her way to desire, but she can rationalize after the fact that the man is desirable.

    Liked by 1 person

  278. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf13

    Believe it or not, a lot of men believe that any effort expended in seduction or raising interest is wasted effort.

    Is it a wasted effort to develop salesmanship? And is there a lot of effort in honing that skill on a daily basis?

    Liked by 1 person

  279. jf13 says:

    re: “I think that a woman can instill desire simply by consciously submitting to a man.”

    I think so too, but moreover I think that is why women won’t do it!

    Like

  280. jf13 says:

    re: “Is it a wasted effort to develop salesmanship? And is there a lot of effort in honing that skill on a daily basis?”

    You can’t argue with success, or rather I’m not going to argue with success. But it amazes me that so many men, especially unsuccesful young men maybe, think “Hi, how are you?” ought to be considered the distilled essence of the 100 pages of romance drivel.

    Liked by 1 person

  281. Liz says:

    George Bailey, doin’ it right. 😛

    Like

  282. SFC Ton says:

    How much effort is worth the return? Only the individual man can determine that

    I have a buddy who is infuckingsane for Latin’s who are nerdy/ wear glasses. He invests pretty much all he has into them, when he finds them. To him it’s worth the effort. I wouldn’t do 10% of the shit he would do to bang the same woman/ any woman

    I invest in my life and not to much in seduction, however the things I enjoy pay dividends in the SMP and I can usually tell within a few minutes if she is lubed up or not.

    Like

  283. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf13

    But it amazes me that so many men, especially unsuccesful young men maybe, think “Hi, how are you?” ought to be considered the distilled essence of the 100 pages of romance drivel.

    Romance drivel? Like the Song of Solomon? :-]

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: