You are currently browsing all posts tagged with 'dating'

What Is Game for Girls?

  • Posted on December 7, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Recent comments have reminded me that I never did actually define game for girls or “girl game”.  I’ll give it a shot.  Mind you, it’s a work in progress.  Some of this comes from thoughts provoked by Obsidian.  Comments are welcome.

Girl Game Is…

…a strategy for securing the sort of mate and/or sexual experiences one desires.

In order to do this one must:

1.  Be aware of the mate and sexual market (which are not the same for non sex workers anymore), and one’s place in it.

This is difficult these days because most of us have an unreal view of our worth, so we’re going to have trouble placing ourselves in the social hierarchy.  Most people allow others to place them, which isn’t such a bad thing for the majority in a functional society because empathy is necessary for human relationships.  When the society becomes dysfunctional and unreal though, one has to become a social outlier in order to be functionally “normal”.

2.  As of the new millenium, one must understand how societal changes made in the past, affect one’s prospects today.

These changes include, but are not limited to:

Women becoming recognized as part of the workforce and citizenry.  We always were, just that after slavery was no longer a legal institution, women demanded that their role be upgraded along with their male counterparts who were once slaves or near slaves.  This, in part, led to the over romanticization of the working woman (outside the home or family sphere), to the point that it became an ideal.  Women in the west now generally strive to be good employees rather than a more realistic contractor or family based entrepreneur.  So it was good to be recognized as part of the workforce, but bad that for some reason this became held in higher value than being a mother who could work at or closer to home.

Equal right to education for women.  Again, good thing, but because of the above, instead of working as a programmer at home or part time as a nurse at the local clinic while the kids are in school making around a grand a month, we commute for an hour to make 3K a month, only to spend 2K of it on the expenses involved with working that far from home.  Smrt duh-hee?

Wider availability of birth control.  Another good thing that didn’t quite do what it should have.  Smart women use it, but throngs of stupid women are still churning out babies they’re incapable of raising well, and their stupid male counterparts unwilling to support.  So now we have an overabundance of excess people who can’t really function in relationships.  They’ve never seen a stable relationship, and are therefore very unlikely to have one.

Well, actually about that, we’re already entering the implosion phase.  Many men are beginning to opt out.  So I guess you can make casual sex trendy, but you can’t make people have it if they don’t want to.  It’s a cost vs. benefit thing.

Divorce and custody laws favoring the ex wife or girlfriend regardless of whether or not they’re the most fitting parent, or even mentally stable.  Gender shouldn’t even be a factor when talking about parental suitability, but it is.  For all the so-called equality, courts still treat mothers as if they’re by default, the better parent.  Sad.

3.  Accept these changes, and learn to successfully survive and thrive despite the majority.

One must turn the situation to their advantage.  It will take strength to do it, but Nature is on your side…and She always wins.

Well, that’s the basics.  Any thoughts?

Continue reading What Is Game for Girls?

Care to leave a comment?

The New Rules

  • Posted on October 7, 2009 at 12:17 am

A.J. Travis, an exasperated Roissy commenter has set his hand to spelling out a straightforward and updated set of “rules” for the modern woman who isn’t a hoe.  He’s doing pretty good so far, but could use some feedback.  It’s always helpful for us advice dispensers to get alternate points of view, so please click here to read the Rules post and share your thoughts.  Please be gentle though, because he’s a good guy trying to do a good thing for good girls, not a cad just looking for the next shag.

Continue reading The New Rules

Care to leave a comment?

Unspoken Rule: Look Sexy, not Available

  • Posted on June 20, 2009 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.

Continue reading Unspoken Rule: Look Sexy, not Available

Care to leave a comment?

Why the Rules are Unspoken

  • Posted on June 16, 2009 at 1:01 am

The reason many of the most important “rules” in dating are unspoken is that men don’t often talk about their feelings.  Even when they do, they’re often so out of touch with their feelings that they don’t know how to articulate them well.  The vast majority are living behind a veil of masculine pretense, a.k.a. men’s emotional straitjacket.  Far too many men are so disjointed that they’re basically living someone else’s life.

It’s like there’s a “left brained” person and a “right brained” person living inside their heads, who are neighbors but not on speaking terms.  That there is such a cold war going on inside is the reason that despite claiming to be nice guys, so many just wear a cloak of civility so tightly that they think it is a part of them.  It is also the reason that despite most claiming to want a loyal faithful woman, they give the priority of attention and affection to disloyal women who are likely to be unfaithful.

In fact, physical features and behavior that signal disloyalty are considered attractive by most western men today.  Features and behavior that signal loyalty, honesty, and trustworthiness are interpreted as more masculine than callous cruelty, and are now unattractive and repellant.

How did things get this bad?  Well, as women we only have ourselves to blame.  We are the ones who mistook equality for sameness, and raised our sons to be irresponsible spoiled little girly men who all think they are entitled to the same things for merely existing.  We took the femininity out of representations of feminine beauty because we didn’t want them finding anything sexy about dependency.  We shamed them for finding teenage girls attractive, and scared them into thinking that they would become pedophiles en masse for doing so.  We didn’t trust that if we raised them to be responsible men, they’d naturally choose age/life phase appropriate relationships.

We put their emotions at war with their logic because we don’t see the day that a young man can plausibly kick his mom’s butt, as the same as the day a young woman begins to menstruate.  By that age, even though they aren’t legally adults, they should be prepared for adult level responsibilities.  This is crucially important as their brains enter the final stages of complete development.  Quite often, the catch-up later on is too little too late.

Add that to many boys being basically raised by the television, and there you have your scorpion tailed locust babe of Revelations.  Everyone suffers and feels the sting once those are let loose.

Now, we have hordes of men who are basically sexually screwed up, and think that decent women are ugly and repellant.  Their left brain, which still has the natural template for long term suitability engraved in a tiny corner somewhere, is making their mouths say, “I don’t like whores or sluts,” but their shrill right brain is directing them straight towards the girls in the butt crack jeans and tube tops, and not just for sex.  I’ve seen with my own eyes, guys actually telling themselves that such women look like nice girls.

To date, I’ve only seen this turn out to be true in one case, and she seemed to at least be wearing the jeans and tube top properly.  She took the time to talk to a local mentally ill man we both knew and cheered up occasionally, on her way to the cafe I was sitting in.  Strangely, her apparent kindness triggered criticism of her looks by some of the guys sitting with my friends and I.  Her companion with the disgusted sneer remained hot in their view.

Many males seem addicted to rejection even though they claim not to enjoy it.  They complain about how hard it is for a “nice guy” to get any attention.  The attention they get, they complain is from women who are somehow below their standards in looks.  Usually what makes these women substandard in their view is some pop culture measure like weight well below mobility or hygeine or even athletic concerns, or ethnicity.  As a side note, one thing I’ve found very telling is that most guys I’ve met who have said such things will end up with an exploitive woman who is physically ugly in the same way as women they’ve rejected.

So what does a woman who isn’t looking for a victim do to find a man who truly isn’t looking to be a victim?  What does one do if they’re already involved with a guy who is pulling away because he wants to be a victim even though he says he doesn’t?

All of us who’ve been out there in the dating scene, have one time or another, had this gutt feeling we couldn’t put our finger on, that maybe the guy needs us to be more of a bitch.  Some of us have given in to that, only to find that once we do it, we have to keep that up in order to keep the guy interested.

I have no correct answer for this.  Some people are broken.  Some guys will never break down their internal Berlin wall that allows their logic and emotions to cooperate.  It happens whether they like it or not, usually in their 40′s.  Some realize that they’ve wasted their lives and start trying to have a life.  Some never grow up but at least become more tolerant and tolerable.

My personal solution is to stick with guys who don’t have this problem.  This means that I seldom date anyone under 45 or more than one generation from a country/culture where men are supposed to grow up on time.

I also made a personal vow to myself long ago that I would never have a child outside of marriage or “common law” type marriage.  My kids will all have a dad who grew up on time.  I’m not a feminist but I do have a lot of care for my gender.  I do not wish to inflict on any woman (or Gay man if it turns out that way), an irresponsible child who is looking to be a victim of the crop of anti femininity (read anti female) pseudo feminists who are equally spoiled and irresponsible.

Men’s rules are unspoken because they haven’t been allowed to speak on them for going on thirty years now.  Their masculinity has become cosmetic…something to wow the onlooker and draw attention, rather than an indicator of strength and dependability.  This is why thuggishness is so popular.  It is cosmetic masculinity…the display of competitiveness taken to extremes, and as far away from the protective arm of dad fending off rivals and bandits, as lipgloss is from the blush of aroused lips.

The rules are unspoken because they have been silenced.  They have been silenced so effectively that men state them, but do not themselves adhere to or enforce them with their option to give or remove attention.

To be fair, this isn’t the case with all men.  Some men’s logic and emotions are very well integrated.  The thing you ladies out there must remember though, is that you will not attract an integrated man unless you are an integrated woman.

You do your job, so he can do his.

Continue reading Why the Rules are Unspoken

Care to leave a comment?

The Unspoken Rules

  • Posted on June 14, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Browsing around my usual relationship site haunts, I’ve noticed something.  Women, and not even always young women, seem to be completely oblivious to the unspoken rules of dating.  Most of the rules and advice seem to be focussed on strategy for “getting your man”.  I too am guilty on some levels of being a bit results focussed, and not giving enough attention to the natural flow, even though natural is how I roll.

What seems to be the problem is the difference between the standard male and female way of thinking.  Women who want to date men should understand that no matter how sensitive and understanding a man is, he’s still a man.  His logic is a bit more cold, and even if he is very emotional and gives way to that more often than the average macho dude, his left brain is still screaming facts, history, and statistics at him whether or not he acts on it.

Much like people who eat pseudofoods who still manage to stay slim, women who don’t understand the logic of heterosexual relationships often fail to realize that any good that comes of attempting to trump nature is an exception.  One cannot, in fact, conquer nature, and this includes the basics of bonding and sexuality.  Women today have been sold a bill of goods that will ultimately leave them alone or settled for as lesser evils.

Men have fallen for the same scam, but they are still unable to live well against the truth.  So no matter what a guy says or does to tow the party line or because he hasn’t been exposed to nature comfortable ideas and doesn’t know how to articulate them, he is still a man.  Men, just as women, have needs that if they are not met, they will be unable to function well.

So on the one hand, freedom is a wonderful thing.  It’s good that today at least in the west, people have more than the traditional relationship styles to choose from.  People are more free to be freaky without as much inappropriate judgement.  However, with more rights comes more responsibility.  We are all still responsible for our own behavior, whether or not we accept this.  We will all pay for the consequences of our actions, and those we love may suffer or benefit from them as well.

So for practical purposes, some level of promiscuity may be customary and just “part of the game” these days, one still has to consider the consequences.  The unspoken rule that gets broken the most by women has to do with sex before a commitment has been explicitly established.

Sex without a commitment is casual sex.  Period.  If you do it, whether or not the guy is legitimately tolerant, you will be known to him and whoever else you share this information with as someone who is okay with casual sex.  Whether or not he is tolerant and just sees it as mutual fun, or judgemental and brands you a slut unfit for a long term relationship, the facts are the same.  You’ve risked your health, and allowed access to your reproductively related bonding organs (or bonding related reproductive organs, depending on your level of cynicism) to someone who has not expressed willingness to stick around and deal with whatever physical or emotional results may occur.

One of the things women often fail to grasp in this is that he has done the same.  He’s shared his body with someone who isn’t obviously willing to stick with him either.  He may not want a particular woman to bond with him beyond the encounter, but unless he is absolutely only interested in casual sex for the rest of his life, this is a compromise for him.

You have both basically risked your health for a bit of stimulation and an ego boost.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  It is however, less than the preferred situation, which is sex within a relationship that has some kind of future.

Whether you or he are monogamous or polyamorous, if what you want is sex as an expression of love, then sex as an expression of desperate neediness for any kind of attention that comes along is a cheap imitation.  A person with the option to have what they really want, does not settle for scraps.

So casual sex, whether or not it has any effect on your value to the other person, makes them believe that you believe that you are not worth committing to.  It is a roll of the dice whether or not they will agree, but don’t bank on anyone seeing you as better than you see yourself.

In some places and situations (such as your average university campus) casual sex is normal, and folks don’t consciously down each other for experimenting and enjoying their youth.  Commitments often develop from what were hookups.  This is the exception though, not the norm.  In my experience, and that of other nurturing type people whose shoulders were cried on alot, most casual sex encounters resulted in indifference, awkwardness, or heartbreak for both men and women who participated.

The best case scenario was usually indifference.  Each had fun and went their separate ways, or hooked up occasionally when they were bored.  I noticed though, that many people who would have suited each other quite well, had they not approached each other genitals first, never got past that.  It was as if the women had steeled themselves against having any kind of deeper relationship with a guy because they were overcompensating in reducing the connection to only sexual.  Men do it too, but not usually as rigidly as most of the women I’ve observed.

For women who are more practically independent, and not whore-like, it’s like there’s a friend zone, a sexual zone, and a romantic zone.  Since we’re talking smart, educated, self supporting women who don’t really need a man to support them financially, or are on their way towards that, they’re not looking for someone to be dependent on…at least not beyond the kids’ early years.  So they’re coping with the freedom and choice in the way that they perceive men to be coping, but they’re not men, so they don’t understand what is really going on, and how they’re messing up/messing around with nature.

A straight man is attracted to you or he’s not.  If he is, then just about the only thing you can do to mess that up is be grossly incompatible or terribly socially inconvenient.  Social inconvenience won’t necessarily make you less sexually attractive to him, just sort of off limits.  There are however, many romantic stories of guys crossing social and geographic boundaries for the woman they love…far too many instances of this for it to be solely the domain of the most independent thinkers.  Love makes fools and sheep of us all anyway.

Now, just because a guy wants to shag you doesn’t really mean he’s attracted to you.  Most guys get erections from waking up.  All it really takes to do the job in that department is for him to have a surplus of sperm, and the presence of vaginas.  This is another good reason to avoid casual sex, but not the point of this article.

If you’re actually seeing a guy, as in dating out in public for awhile, then he’s attracted to you and you’re socially convenient enough to be seen with.  This is the phase during which most non whorelike women break down and start having sex.  It’s difficult not to get carried away when you’re a person who enjoys bonding.

The problem with having sex at any point before a commitment has been discussed is that it brings issues into the relationship that he is not ready for, and dramatically changes the context.  He wants to have sex with you, and you want to have sex with him, and it’s 2009 already, but he’s still a man, and you’re still a woman.  The man needs to be the one directing the relationship…that is directing, not getting carried away with his passions.

Back in the day, the folks who were living too close to the edge of survival to be able to affort too much formality, understood that this passionate mutual wanting is a phase.  It’s a phase where even though the thing both of you may want the most at the moment is hot sweaty monkey sex, this is totally the worst time to start having it.  For people who want to be committed/married someday, this is a test of how well the two of you can control your passions in order to direct your family to a positive place.

Yes, I said the F word: family.  The couple is the basic unit of the family.

Until you are actually a couple, you’re just two people having sex.  As the natural director of a heterosexual relationship, the man is the one who decides if you’re going to become that.  Most men do alot of heavy thinking and some praying before they make the decision that this is what they want from a particular woman.  By throwing sex in there before he has had the chance to do that, you’ve basically taken the decision away from him.

Things may not end badly, but they usually do.  Most women don’t understand why, and think that the guy had bad intentions all along, or that “he’s not that into you”.  This is not how men think though.  If you think about it, throwing away women who actually love them would be stupid, and as stupid as many are, most guys are not that stupid.

The reason you get distance after you’ve jumped the gun and had sex before a commitment is that you have suddenly changed his perspective of you.  Up until then, you were either someone he was considering a long term relationship with, or someone whose pants he was trying to get into.  Either way, if he doesn’t get sex until he explicitly forms a commitment, nothing is lost.  He will either receive it as a yellow light to slow down, or as a rejection and move on, but he will understand that you are not interested in casual (read emotionally detached) sex.  It’s all good either way.  You come away from the making out with your dignity, and his respect.

If you go on and do it then you are telling him that the emotional aspect of sex is not that important to you.  You’re horny and want to get laid, and who cares about emotions?

This is a bad sign.  This is a bad sign even to a polyamorous Dom with a harem of four already.

Heck, this is a bad sign to a Lesbian.

It’s even a bad sign to a submissive gunning to be your fourth.

How bad it is depends mainly on their level of tolerance or desperation.  If they understand how messed up things are today, maybe they’ll cut you some slack and take it as a kind of an unspoken beginning to commitment.  They’ll let it slide because it takes two…and shortly thereafter, start doing some explicit negotiation.  Hey, people get wrapped up in the moment.

Still, though a guy’s fuzzy mushy side may be guiding his decisions, his left brain is telling him, “Dude, if she’s screwing you without a commitment, how many other dudes is she doing the same thing with?”  He needs facts, not guesses.  Until he gets them, he’s playing it safe.  He has a heart too.

The reason why many of the rules are unspoken is that the fact that men have hearts is unspoken.  In order to seem manly and in control, the overt expression of emotion and passion is something men keep under wraps.  They wear an invisible veil under which all manner of good and evil are writhing in a constant wrestling match.  Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there…and just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense.

More to come on the unspoken rules…

Continue reading The Unspoken Rules

2 Comments on The Unspoken Rules