Thanks for the welcome, everyone. This probably won’t be a regular thing.
EmilyQ: I tried to respond to your private message, but I can’t send PMs.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Thanks for the welcome, everyone. This probably won’t be a regular thing.
EmilyQ: I tried to respond to your private message, but I can’t send PMs.[/quote]
It’s always good while it lasts, Neph.
At this point, i’ll take what I can get.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Then you absolutely are talking about it as currency in a token economy (“a system of behavior modification based on the systematic positive reinforcement of target behavior”). Perhaps your relationship views are skewed enough that you don’t realize it, but there is no question that it is so.
[/quote]
No.
I am talking about the fact that if a certain behavior can lead to getting blowjobs at will, it tends to be repeated until it becomes internalized, along with the belief sets that led to that behaviore.
I.e:
Practice game —> get blowjob ----> practice more game ----> get more blow jobs -----> think you no longer need to practice game ----> get left or cheated on, no blow jobs ----> practice game with a vengeance ----> more blowjobs.
See?
It really has nothing to do with any specific relationship.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I’m open to the idea that there is a grain of truth in most lies. The mere presence of horrible women does not inductively prove that all women are horrible.[/quote]
“Horrible” is ultimately a value judgement.
To even be able to make those, you actually do need to have, um, values.
I know that most men are on the level of:
Women made me feel bad, those mean meanies so I hate, hate, hate them pouts"***
Others are the polar opposite:
Women are so nice and fluffy and they smell good, what are you talking about and mine is always nice to me.
Both is highly immature.
I think there are men, having grown beyond that, who apply the rules they use to judge other men and recoil in horror when they look at womens behavior. That is not entirely fair because women are not men, but on the other hand I dont know whether being able to hold several set of rules in your head is a good thing either.
There are men who say no because they are inable to compromise their integrity and I would propose that those are not the worst "man"kind has to offer.
Seen this way the eternal lament “where have all the good men gone” is a sick joke and the answer would be “Poolside”.
[quote]orion wrote:
I think there are men, having grown beyond that, who apply the rules they use to judge other men and recoil in horror when they look at womens behavior. That is not entirely fair because women are not men, but on the other hand I dont know whether being able to hold several set of rules in your head is a good thing either.
There are men who say no because they are inable to compromise their integrity and I would propose that those are not the worst "man"kind has to offer.
[/quote]
Somewhere on the internet or a sleazy bar, a woman is sitting with her friends. She is telling them that men are so predictable and easy to manipulate, and how the ease with which she manipulates these men has caused her to lose all respect for men in general.
What I would settle for is this: would you be willing to agree that just as so-called beta males are not the only type of men available, skanks (your word) are not the only kind of women available?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I have the new job and I seriously have NOTHING TO DO. I’ve already read all the policy manuals and HR “wellness” articles, and tilted my head sideways to view an organizational flow chart from 2004. So I’ve started dragging my laptop around.
In the absence of clients to help, well…here I am. lol[/quote]
Dare I say it?
You’re now in training to work with a new population: Austrian mysogonists![/quote]
If you really want to have some fun, try to look for the opposite of the word “misogyny”.
You will stumble over some interesting perversions.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I think there are men, having grown beyond that, who apply the rules they use to judge other men and recoil in horror when they look at womens behavior. That is not entirely fair because women are not men, but on the other hand I dont know whether being able to hold several set of rules in your head is a good thing either.
There are men who say no because they are inable to compromise their integrity and I would propose that those are not the worst "man"kind has to offer.
[/quote]
Somewhere on the internet or a sleazy bar, a woman is sitting with her friends. She is telling them that men are so predictable and easy to manipulate, and how the ease with which she manipulates these men has caused her to lose all respect for men in general.
What I would settle for is this: would you be willing to agree that just as so-called beta males are not the only type of men available, skanks (your word) are not the only kind of women available? [/quote]
Absolutely.
I dont think that its quite same though.
Every man is (hopefully?) at least semi aware that he can be manipulated through sex, some, maybe most are just to weak to resist it.
I dont think that this is true for women.
There is an awareness gap.
Furthermore, while mens sexuality might want to run wild, it cannot do so, womens choices are a limiting factor.
Womens sexuality however faces no such obstacle, and the result of a high percentage of women slutting it up, excuse me, practicing rotating polyandry, no, living in loving serial monogamous relationships until they think that can get better does have a devastating effect on a society.
[quote]orion wrote:
Every man is (hopefully?) at least semi aware that he can be manipulated through sex, some, maybe most are just to weak to resist it.
[/quote]
Men are certainly capable of that understanding, but the rationalizations they make to justify their behavior in the moment often don’t reflect that understanding.
Some women will admit that they’ve stayed with a man who was otherwise worthless because they enjoyed the sex. I understand the point you are trying to make in a broader sense, but most men are unconscious of the individual responses they make to subtle sexual cues from women, just as women will largely be unconscious of the cues they pick up on from men. Men have been trying to reduce interactions with women into a flow chart for quite a long time - look for her to play with her hair, touch your arm, etc. The difference is that men are socialized to approach women, and women accept or reject advances. Most men do not spend much time analyzing why they find a woman attractive, but they spend inordinate amounts of mental energy trying to figure out how to get women into bed, or dissecting whether or not a woman is interested. Women do not have to perform this kind of analysis because that is not their social role. They do, however, receive all kinds of messages about what is attractive behavior to men and what isn’t.
[quote]
Furthermore, while mens sexuality might want to run wild, it cannot do so, womens choices are a limiting factor.
Womens sexuality however faces no such obstacle, and the result of a high percentage of women slutting it up, excuse me, practicing rotating polyandry, no, living in loving serial monogamous relationships until they think that can get better does have a devastating effect on a society. [/quote]
Not every woman can get any man she desires. So yes, women’s sexuality is bounded. But what is your argument here? “Men are dogs, but that’s OK, because in the presence of chaste women they would not be able to act on their desires. Since women are now freer to have sex when they desire it, society falls apart?” I don’t buy it. Western society could stand to learn a lesson about applying consumer culture to all facets of life, to be sure. Western society has also done a poor job of preparing men and women for the realities of committed romantic relationships. But all the blame does not rest with women, and in spite of cultural influences, many men and women manage to have healthy, happy lives together.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Not every woman can get any man she desires. So yes, women’s sexuality is bounded. But what is your argument here? “Men are dogs, but that’s OK, because in the presence of chaste women they would not be able to act on their desires. Since women are now freer to have sex when they desire it, society falls apart?” I don’t buy it. Western society could stand to learn a lesson about applying consumer culture to all facets of life, to be sure. Western society has also done a poor job of preparing men and women for the realities of committed romantic relationships. But all the blame does not rest with women, and in spite of cultural influences, many men and women manage to have healthy, happy lives together.[/quote]
While its true that women cannot always get who they want, in fact most of them cannot, it is also true that they can bat way above their league if they slut it up.
Also, that most men can get as much sex as they want if women are not chaste is not true, some men can. The rest cannot.
Now as for “blaming women” that is simply not true. Allmost all of them act on their instincts in their prime though, which just so happens to be the formative years for both sexes.
As a result you get spoiled alphas, only loosely invested betas, angry and bitter deltas and omegas who are not pool but WOW side.
The interesting thing is that women often think that they got the raw deal, because if they all try to bed the 20% of the most attractive men and to get them into a committed relationship, most of them must necessarily lose.
They are really and truly blind to the emergent system that they, each acting on her own instincts, create.
As a result, you have men who need to study hard, work hard and save hard just so that they have a shot of getting some alpha leftovers.
It is indeed very, very bad for society if someone who has the brains to study chemistry, engineering or something like that must work his tail off so that he is allowed to pay a very high price for the mere shadow of what the leader of the Iron Maiden tribute band got for free when it was not damaged goods.
As for “society has not prepared”, well no, but I would not know what “society” could do after men have experienced women when they held all the cards, which at least up to the age of 25 they do.
If they get fucked over in their formative years, what is society going to tell them?
Man up? Peter Pan? Committment phobe? Gay, bitter, loser, moms basement?
<----- Poolside, we will just turn up the volume of the radio slightly.
Forced monogamy at a very young age WAS societies answer to that and the main reason was to reign in female sexuality, not because of ebil, ebil, patriarchy, but because therein lay the rub.
That kind of limited the options of the alphas and young women, yes, but it was good for society as a whole because betas were invested in it.
Mormons, orthodox Jews, you name them are still doing that and are doing mighty fine.
And finally, on a personal note:
You have to understand that I would despise myself if I took in a reformed slut after she just happened to have an “ephiphany” that alpha cock is not what its cracked up to be.
No, if you value something, you make sacrifices for it, she did not sacrifice the cock carousel hopping in the days of her youth and beauty but she wants men to sacrifice the days when they could have their party and wonders why nobody is willing to invest in a rapidly depreciating asset with a thousand cock stare.
I do not hate them, I pity them, but I will not jump on a live grenade because society depends on me playing the good little beta drone.
No, our birth rate (Austria) as of now is 1,45 children per woman, let society crumble.
Ill be poolside.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Thanks for the welcome, everyone. This probably won’t be a regular thing.
EmilyQ: I tried to respond to your private message, but I can’t send PMs.[/quote]
It’s always good while it lasts, Neph.
At this point, i’ll take what I can get. [/quote]
Playa!
[quote]orion wrote:
It is indeed very, very bad for society if someone who has the brains to study chemistry, engineering or something like that must work his tail off so that he is allowed to pay a very high price for the mere shadow of what the leader of the Iron Maiden tribute band got for free when it was not damaged goods.
[/quote]
I know women in all of those fields. I even know women in those fields who date men in those fields. They date men who are about matched to them in attractiveness, however you slice attractiveness.
What Nietzsche called “slave morality.” I don’t buy any argument that requires casting weakness as virtue.
Aren’t you just as much of a slut? Or is my inference incorrect, and you have mastered the art of seduction but do not put it into practice?
[quote]
I do not hate them, I pity them, but I will not jump on a live grenade because society depends on me playing the good little beta drone.
No, our birth rate (Austria) as of now is 1,45 children per woman, let society crumble.
Ill be poolside. [/quote]
Again, no one is asking you to get married or have children.
Maybe I just know different types of women than you do.
I thought Angry Chicken won that award…hmm…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I know women in all of those fields. I even know women in those fields who date men in those fields. They date men who are about matched to them in attractiveness, however you slice attractiveness.
What Nietzsche called “slave morality.” I don’t buy any argument that requires casting weakness as virtue.
Aren’t you just as much of a slut? Or is my inference incorrect, and you have mastered the art of seduction but do not put it into practice?
Again, no one is asking you to get married or have children.
Maybe I just know different types of women than you do.[/quote]
As for the women and matched attractivness.
Sure, that works, for a while.
Since lifetime attractivness is unevenly matched however between men and women those men are perfectly within their rights to trade her in for a younger model if the need arises. And a lot of them will.
Then, I never claimed that forced monogamy is “virtuous”. I claim that it was a cornerstone of our civilization, there is a difference. Since the competition between competing models of society is ruthlessly darwinistic, it does not matter if the argument does not jive with your sensibilities.
I cannot be a slut.
I am a man.
I could be the male counterpart, the LJBF cuddle bitch.
The beta orbiter.
The man who committs emotionally without getting sex.
And that I am not.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Again, no one is asking you to get married or have children.
Maybe I just know different types of women than you do.[/quote]
That deserves a reply on its own.
Is it not interesting that men are perfectly willing, be that good or bad, to fight and die for an idea that units them while women, self identified feminists, are not even willing to risk a few stretchmarks by having 2.1 children per woman?
Since the whole illusion that they do not need a man highly depends on massive redistribution from men towards women it is true that they do not need a specific man, but they sure as hell need men to keep the system going.
Who are we going to redistribute from if the population shrinks or is replaced by people who think the welfare state is teh greatest thing since sliced bread?
Self correcting abberation…
Oh Orion. Your world is so dark. My heart hurts for you. I have specific responses to make, but I’m at a coffee shop and running out of battery.
Neph, no big deal. Just wanted to say I was thinking about you, and have along and along. I doubt I would have done more than a quick skim-through when I stumbled onto TN if it hadn’t been for you. Your perspectives continue to offer food for thought as I observe and asses the world around me. I hope you’ll be around long enough for me to see how they’ve changed and evolved in the time you’ve been gone.
I like sex. alot. with wimmenz, of course.
just thought I’d put that out there.
in case anyone is interested.
(sigh)
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Then you absolutely are talking about it as currency in a token economy (“a system of behavior modification based on the systematic positive reinforcement of target behavior”). Perhaps your relationship views are skewed enough that you don’t realize it, but there is no question that it is so.
[/quote]
No.
I am talking about the fact that if a certain behavior can lead to getting blowjobs at will, it tends to be repeated until it becomes internalized, along with the belief sets that led to that behaviore.
I.e:
Practice game —> get blowjob ----> practice more game ----> get more blow jobs -----> think you no longer need to practice game ----> get left or cheated on, no blow jobs ----> practice game with a vengeance ----> more blowjobs.
See?
It really has nothing to do with any specific relationship.
[/quote]
Except that what you were talking about in your original mention of the matter was the benefit to HER of giving regular bjs. Which in my opinion infantilizes HIM. I’ve read a lot of the traditional women’s stuff (Dr. Laura’s book, The Surrendered Wife, to name a couple) and they’re all based on the same operant conditioning system you espouse. The problems come when she can no longer maintain the facade, or worse, realizes that her man is simply subpar or not interested in being manipulated into changing. It’s sad. I read around their websites a lot for the few days or weeks it had my keen interest. Like your ideas, there was stuff in there that has a lot of validity, but mostly it’s round pegs trying to fit themselves into square holes.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Then you absolutely are talking about it as currency in a token economy (“a system of behavior modification based on the systematic positive reinforcement of target behavior”). Perhaps your relationship views are skewed enough that you don’t realize it, but there is no question that it is so.
[/quote]
No.
I am talking about the fact that if a certain behavior can lead to getting blowjobs at will, it tends to be repeated until it becomes internalized, along with the belief sets that led to that behaviore.
I.e:
Practice game —> get blowjob ----> practice more game ----> get more blow jobs -----> think you no longer need to practice game ----> get left or cheated on, no blow jobs ----> practice game with a vengeance ----> more blowjobs.
See?
It really has nothing to do with any specific relationship.
[/quote]
Except that what you were talking about in your original mention of the matter was the benefit to HER of giving regular bjs. Which in my opinion infantilizes HIM. I’ve read a lot of the traditional women’s stuff (Dr. Laura’s book, The Surrendered Wife, to name a couple) and they’re all based on the same operant conditioning system you espouse. The problems come when she can no longer maintain the facade, or worse, realizes that her man is simply subpar or not interested in being manipulated into changing. It’s sad. I read around their websites a lot for the few days or weeks it had my keen interest. Like your ideas, there was stuff in there that has a lot of validity, but mostly it’s round pegs trying to fit themselves into square holes.
[/quote]
Sometimes it’s just that simple…
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Then you absolutely are talking about it as currency in a token economy (“a system of behavior modification based on the systematic positive reinforcement of target behavior”). Perhaps your relationship views are skewed enough that you don’t realize it, but there is no question that it is so.
[/quote]
No.
I am talking about the fact that if a certain behavior can lead to getting blowjobs at will, it tends to be repeated until it becomes internalized, along with the belief sets that led to that behaviore.
I.e:
Practice game —> get blowjob ----> practice more game ----> get more blow jobs -----> think you no longer need to practice game ----> get left or cheated on, no blow jobs ----> practice game with a vengeance ----> more blowjobs.
See?
It really has nothing to do with any specific relationship.
[/quote]
Except that what you were talking about in your original mention of the matter was the benefit to HER of giving regular bjs.
[/quote]
No, I did not.
In fact, if there is one thing I have a zero tolerance policy for it is conditional sex.