You are currently browsing the archives for June 2009

Unspoken Rule: Fidelity and Respect

  • Posted on June 30, 2009 at 12:51 pm

No man truly respects a cheater.  By cheater, I don’t mean honestly polygamous men.  I mean men who live a lie to their wives or girlfriends and family, and sneak around for sex.

They will claim to with their mouths, and often cheaters and “players” will try to take others down with them.  They will call a man a wuss if they go out to a strip club, and one declines an “after party”.  Behind their taunts though, is jealousy for the man who is not desperate enough to be line for sloppy tenths, or who has a woman at home who satisfies his soul and body.

There is a double standard in how most view the sexual escapades of single men and women, but committed people are supposed to be faithful to each other.  Whether or not they do it themselves, men consider cheating a dishonorable thing to do.  A man who continually dishonors himself; lowers himself for a paltry reward, is considered weaker than a man who stands by his word.

What this means for women is that a man’s sexual policy is more important than his sexual history.   A cheater in sex is likely to be a cheater in business, among other things.

Many if not most powerful alpha type men have an understanding with their wives or girlfriends, and have no need for deception.  They’re able to do this because their standards are very high, and their primary partner trusts that they will not purposefully or through negligence, bring drama to the family.  Only men with low standards and bad judgement need to be deceitful to their spouses in this.

You may not be explicitly looking for a polyamorous man, and may prefer monogamy, but just in case things don’t work out that way, you’ll do well to be aware of the types of women and relationships your potential partner has pursued in the past.  How many is somewhat important, but how and who is more important.

If your potential partner has slept with many women, but they were all or the vast majority were decent women who he cared for and at least hoped he would have a romantic relationship with, then you can be pretty sure that the worst case would be an affair with a decent woman.  A man’s tastes in women are fairly stable, and if he wasn’t into hoes when he was single, that’s probably not going to change.

If, on the other hand, his confessions of his past include a string of women who used, abused, and mistreated him, beware.  What he’s telling you is that he has bad taste.  Some guys reform if the problem was only availability.  Some cultures and areas have an overabundance of dishonest, whore-like women who believe they’re entitled to exploit men for fun and profit.  You may be the diamond in the pile of broken glass.

However, it’s not a good idea to bank on this even so.  Inquire as to his reactions to being used or mistreated.  If he stayed with these women after the games began, and doesn’t have any stories of vindication, this is a problem.  Each assault to his manhood or crossing of his stated or implied boundaries should have been responded to with decisive cruelty or punishment.

A man who facilitated and tolerated deceptive, exploitive women before you, will continue during and after you.  In case I haven’t said this enough, like goes to like.  So you may think that the pushover who let women walk all over him is the least likely to cheat, but this is not so.  The man least likely to cheat is the one who will not accept less than the best for him.

African Proverb: The Chicken and the Eagle

  • Posted on June 23, 2009 at 7:07 am

When you go to steal a chicken’s eggs, they will make alot of noise.  You can see and hear them coming, flapping their wings and bawking up a storm.  It’s easy to basically kick them to the side, take the eggs, and go.

If you go to try to steal an eagle’s eggs, you hear nothing but a swoosh the millisecond before your eyes are removed, and/or you’re knocked to the ground.

Unspoken Rule: Things Better Left Unsaid

  • Posted on June 20, 2009 at 6:15 am

This is one that strong women with experience break often.  When a man fails you in some way, he already knows it.  You don’t need to remind him or nag him about it.  If he cares about you at all, he knows and is already ashamed of himself.  Having a verbal confrontation about it is not necessary.

You don’t have to pretend like you weren’t hurt.  Just don’t talk about it.  Actions speak louder than words.

Talking about it puts him in an automatically defensive mode.  He won’t be able to help himself.  There’s nothing rational about whatever will come out of his mouth at that point.  He just wants you off his case so that he can either move on with his life or bear his shame and pay the consequences.

If whatever he has done is a dealbreaker, and he has no good excuse, he already knows that you’re gone or that you should be.  Talk about your feelings with your female friends, because he obviously doesn’t care about them.  If he did care about them, he wouldn’t have done what he did.  You’re just providing unnecessary drama and annoyance.

If it wasn’t a dealbreaker, simply don’t trust him with whatever it was that he failed at.  Don’t mention it unless he asks why you don’t trust him with that anymore.

The reason to avoid verbal confrontation in this case is that, as I’ve said, the man is the one who directs the relationship.  If you gave him a responsibility that he is not ready to accept, there is really not much you can say that will do any good.  He may not be conscious at the time of the failure that he wasn’t ready, and if you take the direction duty away from him, you can look forward to dragging him through a relationship he may not want to be in, or at least into phases that he is not ready for.

For example, if you are used to short notice meetings, and agree to meet one day, and he stands you up or doesn’t call to tell you not to wait for him, that’s the end.  There is no need to tell him how disappointed you were.  He knows.  This doesn’t mean he did it on purpose.  He may have been unconsciously trying to get rid of you.  Maybe it was a “shit test” that some guys do to see how much of a pushover you are.

Rather than talking to him about it, simply do not accept any more short notice meetings.  If he doesn’t make a date a day or two in advance, and pick you up at your residence, he doesn’t see you.  He will understand why you no longer go out to meet him anywhere or jump when he calls.  If he cares for you, he will value your time, and honor the more formal dating schedule.  If not, then since you hopefully haven’t had sex with him at the time when this kind of thing would be a worry at all, then nothing is injured but your pride.  Move on.

This is how to preserve your dignity as a woman when the man fails.  You refuse to be the man in the relationship, resist the urge to burn bridges, and offer him the opportunity regain your trust and respect.  You also don’t drag along a guy you don’t trust or respect, out of desperation.

Behaving desperately and making drama reduces your value to a man.  It can make a man who cares about you pull away, and one who doesn’t care about you, view you as more worthless than he already deemed you were from the beginning.

So don’t be so quick to unload on a guy.  He doesn’t want to hear it.

Unspoken Rule: Look Sexy, not Available

  • Posted on at 12:44 am

Dating a guy with some degree of pull, status, or “street cred” may cause you to feel safer and more confident.  Nobody would blame you for taking those little extra steps to look nice and dress better.  You’re the female representative in his social sphere, and when you look good, it makes him look good.  Problem is, it is possible to look too good but in the bad way.

The men with the highest social status’s wives and girlfriends may wear the most expensive bling, and look as if they never have to walk more than two steps on bare pavement, but unless their partner is there to reap the immediate benefits of their appearance, they are dressed modestly.  The idea is that her sexiness is at his disposal.  If he has no say in her appearance, then he has no say in the consequences.  It is a signal that he has no say in her conduct.

When a man has a woman, this social proof is and should be attractive to other women because he is at little or no physical risk from female attention.  When a woman is taken, the men around her should be warned away from her.  In fact, they should be warned that she is not for sale even before she is taken.  After she is taken, she should look as if she is not available.

What this means exactly, depends on what is customary in one’s culture or subculture, and the man’s personal preferences.  Some can have alot of cleavage and a miniskirt on so long as they are wearing a ring, and other men will stay away.  In some places, that and unavailable behavior will do the job.  Most guys I know who have some “rank” though, would prefer their woman be covered at least from the chest to the knees, meaning no cleavage and no minis.

Unfortunately, many women get into trouble by thinking that how they were dressed when they got the man is how they should dress when they have him.  They also confuse the freedom of nudism with the idea that revealing clothing is okay in normal situations.  It’s not the same thing.

Clothing is a uniform or a costume.  One should dress for the role they intend to play.  Dressing as if you are in the market for easy sex will attract men who are looking for that.  The fact that you have a boyfriend or husband, but are dressed as if you are still looking, makes him look weak.

Your man should not have to tell you this.  Wearing your ”taken” costume is something you should do on your own.  If he has had to tell you this, then your relationship is already on borrowed time.  You’re running around acting as if you don’t have a partner, or as if the one you have isn’t good enough.

When you dress nicely but modestly, you increase his social standing or stabilize it rather than reducing it.  You show people that you respect your man, so maybe they should too.  Someone in this world thinks he’s worth being loyal to.

So when you have a boyfriend, suit up.

Unspoken Rule: Two Men Talking

  • Posted on June 18, 2009 at 1:09 pm

As a non “hottie” type who is reasonably independent, you may have many male friends.  You may be used to being treated like “one of the guys”.  In a potentially romantic relationship though, the context is different.  Your boyfriend or potential is not your bro, and chances are that he’s not even in quite the same league as the guys you normally hang out with.  You are not trying to be like a sister to him, so it’s best to avoid any kind of plays for social dominance.

This is not to say that you should be a pushover.  It’s just that once you’re together, then socially you are like a team in which there is a male and a female member.  In a group of men, even if these guys have known you all your life, your man is your male representative.

Viewing things this way accomplishes two goals when incorporating your partner into your social sphere as your partner.  It allows him to establish his own place, and also allows him to prove his value to the other men.  Initially, it gives them the opportunity to get to know him without your interrupting the process or possibly obscuring any crucial flaws that they would need to know about in order to protect you.  In time, they see him as a part of you, and unless they are Gay, he may even serve as your replacement when womanly responsibilities prevent you from doing the guy stuff you used to.  Hey, it’s the least he can do since it would be his fault that you’re someone’s girlfriend or wife, and perhaps later, someone’s mom.

For those involved with alpha type or “alpha enough” (non executive/business owning, but in charge of their own lives) guys, there’s another reason for letting your man be the man socially.  There’s a world of men that many women think they know, but don’t.  If you’re a polite and ladylike woman, it doesn’t really matter how strong you are.  Your presence makes a social situation “polite company”, and there are certain things men don’t discuss in polite company.  Even if they have told you the dirty details of sexual encounters with scores of hoes and ex wives, and feel comfortable enough to ask you about a rash on their groin, one thing they will almost never discuss with you is specifics of money problems or certain aspects of business.  If they do in private, they don’t want anyone else to know that they have because it’s something that is fairly unique.  You may be a kind of ace in the hole or lucky charm in that regard, and not everybody should know that you can tell a guy is a snitch from his smell or something.

So in practice, when two men are talking, either be someplace else, or go to the happy place in your mind.  Unless they are actively including you in the conversation, tune it out.

It takes some practice to learn exactly when to do this, but if you know your friends and your man fairly well, it won’t take long to understand the cues.  Sometimes it’s a rub of the chin, or a shift in posture.  As an example, my current boyfriend has a “game face” when he’s about to talk about business or some kind of man thing.  That’s when I know to adjust napkins, bring more snacks, check for dust somewhere, or become enthralled with his ponytail.  I purposefully become part of the background until I’m invited back into the conversation or situation.

You can practice this skill with your male friends.  It will make them even more comfortable around you because it will reduce your already hopefully low attention whore quotient, and let them know that you respect their manhood despite the value equalizing aspect of friendship.  Respect builds trust.

When two men are talking, consider it a private conversation.