Norwegian feminists have once more escalated the war on male sexuality. For example, the minimum sentence for rape has been increased by 50%, from two to three years. An overview of all the changes now in effect can be found here, and here is the official document attempting to justify them. Penalties for real violence such as murder have also been toughened somewhat (about 30%), but sentencing guidelines for sexual crimes -- most of them entirely bogus, based on nothing but misandry -- are now even more absurdly out of proportion, conveying the unmistakable moral that as far as Norwegian justice is concerned, the sanctity of a woman's vagina is worth more than her life. Based on possible jail time, it is far less serious to drive drunk and kill a girl (up to 6 years) than to have consensual drunken sex with the same girl which she later regrets (up to 8 years). The latter act would be so-called negligent rape, which Norwegian feminists introduced ten years ago, abolishing mens rea in order to convict more innocent men. This time they have left the definitions alone and merely ramped up sentencing, since rape and other sex crimes are already so loosely and preposterously defined as to be meaningless.
Needless to say, my seething anti-feminist hatred has just increased accordingly. I am now a good 50% more enraged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Needless to say, my seething anti-feminist hatred has just increased accordingly. I am now a good 50% more enraged.
I bet you sound exactly like Elmer Fudd. Am I right?
Elvind:
I actually can feel your pain about some of the changes.
But alas, there's little we can do at this time, and as you said the battle was lost long ago when they got rid of mens rea in your country insofar as rape is concerned.
Just hang in there. Eventually,you should probably emmigrate.
Clarence
Too much anger can cause health problems..
I'm attending the 2010 PUA Summit, and my thought is that the processes of triggering (limited by hypergamy) female desire are so ornate, so arcane, and so obviously the province of healthy "beautiful people" who can party far into the night, that I (not being any of those things) am grudgingly considering the end of my sexuality as I understand it, which is unfortunate because until recently I was a happy kinky poly person. Dry spells are damaging to one's self-esteem.
I don't understand why an increase in the penalty for a crime that I and ca. 92% (given the Lisak figures on recidivist rapists) of straight men are unlikely to commit would be an occasion for rage as such, but not everyone is going to be so placid in the face of "the dying of the light." Then again, the doldrums have always been a part of my relationships.
Eurobra, are you saying you can't score because you are not "beautiful and healthy"? Does PUA method not help?
my thought is that the processes of triggering (limited by hypergamy) female desire are so ornate, so arcane, and so obviously the province of healthy "beautiful people"
What absolute twaddle. There's nothing "ornate" or "arcane" about getting someone of either sex to fancy you, and neither do you need to be "beautiful". But I imagine my methods probably wouldn't work on people who seem to regard women primarily as fuckable and dumpable pieces of meat.
Case in point: Eivind is constantly banging on about vaginas, but I can't find any acknowledgement of the existence of the clitoris anywhere in his posts, or any other evidence that he gives a shit about female pleasure. Which I suspect is why he can't maintain a relationship even when he does manage to coax someone into bed.
Rape does not equal 'male sexuality', retard.
Rape is a part of male sexuality whether you like it or not, Allie. Rape is eminently rational when it is a man's only shot at sex and reproduction, as some rapes certainly do result in pregnancy and birth. Celibacy is not only in theory a fate worse than death; it also intensely feels like walking death, as I am painfully subjectively aware. I am already dead inside. Not raping in my situation as a total omega would be downright akratic, regardless of punishment. You can't deter a man who has literally nothing to lose. Like Eurosabra, I too feel I have reached the end of my sexuality in terms of consensual sex. Pickup is indeed ornate and arcane unless it comes naturally. We are essentially chasing a mirage. Female desire does not exist prima facie. It must be created. This is quite a devastating realization. No matter how many women we approach, none of them will be ready for sex without some sort of game or demonstration of value. And this takes skill. Whatever it takes, I don't have it and don't think I can learn it. Most of the sex I've had (especially here in Norway) was merely a result of preying on women's drunkenness, and now that I don't party and drink anymore, taking advantage of intoxicated girls is exceedingly difficult. Lack of participation in all that wasteful debauchery makes it all too evident that you are only looking for pussy rather than out to have fun like someone who is happy with his life and in possession of the value women seek, and they will freak out and run for the hills, like the fat girl I tried to talk to last night after the Infected Mushroom concert next door which I didn't go to. I should have lied. And even in the past with full participation and trying to be a PUA the results were so meager that it isn't worth it. My true cost per notch was higher that way than the penalty for rape, even after the increased mandatory sentence.
Eivind is constantly banging on about vaginas, but I can't find any acknowledgement of the existence of the clitoris anywhere in his posts, or any other evidence that he gives a shit about female pleasure. Which I suspect is why he can't maintain a relationship even when he does manage to coax someone into bed.
On the contrary, one mistake I've made is to be too attentive to women's pleasure, and also to smother them with too much love and affection after sex because I was so happy to be with them, demonstrating low value. It shows you are needy and she can do better. You don't create attraction by trying too hard to please women. Quite the opposite, as I shall proceed to demonstrate.
I once inadvertently gamed a woman (38-year-old African-American single mom named Melissa back when I was about 25) -- precisely by treating her like nothing but a fuckable and dumpable piece of meat just good enough to take home for a night -- and unlike all the women I've showered with attention, she fell in love. I thought nothing of her pleasure and we didn't even cuddle much after sex. I didn't call her and could scarcely be bothered to answer her calls. She literally chased me. She left notes at my door. When she finally persuaded me to come see her again, I only brought one condom. She bitched about that all night and the next morning while driving me home, and then had her tubes tied without consulting me first (bad move). She wanted me to move in with her immediately and marry her so I could get a green card and stay. She even had an extra car I could use. She was a nurse at Vanderbilt hospital while I was just a poor student, so this was not hypergamy. Just aloof, asshole game. There and then I was almost alpha. It worked so well, she said I was better than Black men and forgot about her boyfriend in Afghanistan.
In retrospect I made a terrible decision. I guess I thought I could do better at the time. She had what seemed like a really bitchy personality (perhaps partly a cultural thing), was rather old, and her sterilization was the final dealbreaker. But she definitely loved me and if I had an offer like that today, I would take it. I felt bad for her, too.
I am well aware of the clitoris and don't deny the importance of pleasing women well physically in long-term relationships. You just don't get there by seeming overeager to please too soon. Women do want to be pleased, but they don't want losers who feel the need to advertise their skill at cunnilingus on a blog. Focusing too much on pleasing women is really bad advice. You must either be a woman who don't realize you are attracted to men primarily due to other qualities than being centered on your clitoris or a man who can get away with that kind of behavior because you have other alpha characteristics.
I am well aware of the clitoris and don't deny the importance of pleasing women well physically in long-term relationships. You just don't get there by seeming overeager to please too soon.
I'm not talking about "seeming overeager to please". I'm talking about doing the right thing without making any effort - which is easy enough to do if you take the trouble to get on your partner's mental and emotional wavelength instead of focusing on the physical.
The trouble with you is that you seem to theorise obsessively about everything, which is a guaranteed recipe for disaster when it comes to issues as messy and complex as human relationships. As your experiences have amply demonstrated.
Actually, PUA got me into "normal relationships" for about 15 years, always somewhat within a dating framework, and I became somewhat adept at Ross Jeffries-style hypnosis, rapport-building, etc. The issue was that I could not do Mystery-style game, 20-50 minutes of carrying a high-energy conversation, and as my chronic illness issues have gotten worse, my inability to fake being a healthy 20-25 year-old has become more problematic. (I'm 37, and like Eivind, have fallen through the cracks in the university humanities faculty recruitment system. Professorship or bust, and hypergamy take the hindmost.)
Unlike Eivind, I spent time as a happy, naive extrovert, and was always surrounded by female friends, some of whom wanted me but never told me and never made a move, such that had I "forced" the issue, I probably would have scored. In retrospect, many have told me so. My number for the year is 3, and this after 9 months, two of whom have disappeared from my life. PUA helps, but I am discouraged.
Sure, women do have physical desires of their own, but they only want to engage with men who they find hot or are in love with. Besides, women tend to want to form a stable relationship before indulging in physical intimacy.
So you're saying that Game doesn't really work? Or works very little.
Eurosabra, it seems that PUA has only helped you to have some flings. There is no way a 37 year old man could “fake” being a vital 20-25 lad. That is simply impossible. Plus, it is immature. Combine that with a lack of career at 37 and you get the ultimate women repellant (the Peter Pan syndrome). So a better mating strategy would have been to settle for a woman of your own stature for the long term while you were still young. Instead of gaming hot chicks who eventually couldn’t offer you a stable long term relationship.
Settle. Right. Rather improve my Game, or "go ghost." Game works very well for conventionally-good-looking men, which is why there is a uniformity of appearance among gamers. I have never hidden my age, which meant that I was "too old" at 25, given my interests--very few women get wet from a good discussion of early vs. late Günter Grass. Thinking that they do is important to the self-image of some of them, but they don't actually do it.
"Peter Pan" syndrome is just a way of reminding men to perform in the kyriarchy. You can have your own job, place, car, and still find game necessary and even that hard.
Til Eivind Berge, hvem du nå egentlig måtte være,
I mellom alle hatpostene finner du tydeligvis en og annen skakk-kjørt støttespiller her på sidene med dine velartikulerte, høyamerikanske tomme vendinger .. Syting høres vel ikke like bra ut på norsk? Jeg har kikket litt på sidene dine nå og kan vanskelig konkludere med annet enn at du til å være en så fullstendig uinteressant person merkelig nok har maktet å gjøre deg en smule interessant med din fullt offentlige selvutslettelseskampanje. Jeg velger å tro at du er deg fullt bevisst at din håpløse, skamløse syting kombinert med den latterlige ideen om å bli en "PUA" er uforenlig i enhver verden, selv en hvor "feminismen" ikke skulle råde? Med den innstillingen har du ikke mange andre valg enn å gå til grunne. Tør jeg spørre om du tør stå for dine opphengte oppfatninger blant levende mennesker, ansikt til ansikt, og møte de motforestillinger du fortjener eller er dette motet noe du primært skryter av på amerikansk, med dataskjermen som dekke? Jeg velger å tro at du i enhver konfrontasjon vil tie, men tviholde for deg selv at du alltid har rett og at alle andre er idioter og ikke forstår noen ting. Du har nok rett. Du er sjanseløs med det rotet som endeløst kverner i ditt hode. Men innse at problemet er ditt og ingen andres. Din hjelpeløse selvmedlidenhet er alene nok til å gi deg opp. Hvilke venner skulle en som deg makte å beholde? Og langt mindre kjærester? Om verden går deg i mot, kan du vel ta det som et oppreist menneske? Slik du fremstår, kan du spørre deg: hvilken kvinne skulle under noen som helst omstendighet velge deg? Du har stilt det spørsmålet, og stiller det antakelig til deg selv hver eneste dag så mye som du synes å være opptatt av dette. Svaret er gitt. Hvis du ikke gjør noe for å forandre ditt utsyn på verden og ditt sted i den, vil du oppfylle din egen forutsagte evolusjonsmessige blindvei. Du er ingenting og vil aldri bli noe heller. Vil vi ha noe å savne hvis du forsvant?
Well, without a job and your own place it will be even harder, that's for sure. Why should it be easy if a woman has to work just as hard to obtain those things?
And intellectual conversation cannot serve as a sexual turn on. It is good, fun and can make you well disposed towards a potential friend/long term partner, but it is cannot be arousing by itself. What can be arousing is the men himself, his body and the way he carries himself.
Var fælt til personfokusert og usaklig skriking her fra An(onymo)us. De fleste som diskuterer på utenlandsk makter hvertfall å basere det de skriver på argumenter og ikke usakligheter og amatørpsykologi. Men det høres kanskje ikke like kult ut å diskutere saklig på norsk, erre sånnå forstå, hæh, HÆH?
Du begynner personutlegningene dine om hatpostene til Arpagus og forsetter umiddelbart med hans skakk-kjørte diskusjonspartnere. Hvis det Arpagus skriver er hatposter og de som er enige med han blir erklært skakk-kjørte som første punkt på agendaen, så er det vel ikke noe særlig rom for diskusjon lenger, synes du vel det du anonyme? Og er det ikke det disse sidene er til, å diskutere? På hvilken måte er jeg skakk-kjørt, forresten? Og kan du bestemme deg om du mener han har noen skakk-kjørte venner eller om han ikke greier å holde på dem? :-)
Siden du ikke har tatt poenget på mer enn et par grunnleggende kjønnsspørsmål kan vi ta det:
kombinert med den latterlige ideen om å bli en "PUA" er uforenlig i enhver verden
Det står at han skulle ønske han var det på forsiden, synes ikke det er så sterkt. Ellers er det bra dokumentert at det å bli bedre med damer om man er mann er noe man kan lære, selv om man er skikkelig dårlig til det (og spesielt om man er dårlig fordi man gjør noe feil, ikke fordi man mangler evner). Det er sånt PUA er til. Da er det vel smart å involvere seg i PUA?
Hvilken kvinne skulle under noen som helst omstendighet velge deg?
Det er nettopp sånne situasjoner som Arpagus sine som er poenget med mye av disse mannsaktivist-greiene. I et vanlig, monogamt samfunn, så ville Eivind vært gift og laget barn og ikke skrevet bitre blogginnlegg. Men fordi Norge ikke er spesielt monogamt lenger, så monopoliserer et lite antall menn som meg de beste damene i de beste årene sine, slik at alle andre får det dårligere, og folk som av en eller annen grunn faller litt utenfor ender opp med ingenting. Altså i motsetning til tradisjonelle monogame samfunn med strenge restriksjoner på utenomekteskapelig sex hvor du blir giftet bort samme hva, med en tilsvarende håpløs person som deg selv om du er skikkelig håpløs. Og da er jo problemet løst så lenge standardene dine er på Arpagus sitt nivå. Så han bruker seg selv som et utmerket eksempel på en viktig trend. Det er en diskusjon jeg synes det er verdt å ta, selv noen prøver å legge lokk på den, av hensyn til sine interesser.
Tør jeg spørre om du tør stå for dine opphengte oppfatninger blant levende mennesker
Hva så om en masse folk er enserettet til å tro noe, gjør det motargumentet noe mindre holdbart? Det er en klassisk feilslutning. Er det bedre ha det sånn som i Norge at nesten alle mener det samme i viktige spørsmål, og at andre meninger ikke representeres eller respekteres?
Du virker som en dame eller veldig femininisert fyr. I bunn og grunn er det ikke uintelligent skrevet, det er bare blottet for skikkelig realitetssans. Du skriver en masse behagelige konvensjoner og dømmer og prøver å rettferdiggjøre deg ved at du tror du greier å få en gjeng folk som er enige som deg til å stirre ned Eivind face to face. Lykke til med det. Men det er ikke der saken ligger. I bunn og grunn er posten din bare et vulgært men bra skrevet "Det er vi som sitter på fittene, så det er vi som har makten", og så stort sett personangrep og forsøk på å overbevise noe om at de resirkulerte hjernesignalene dine har noe for seg. Lykke til med det også. Men hvis du er pen er det greit.
Dr. T
"The trouble with you is that you seem to theorise obsessively about everything, which is a guaranteed recipe for disaster when it comes to issues as messy and complex as human relationships. As your experiences have amply demonstrated."
I'd actually have to agree with that. It seems fairly obvious - and I've also usually not found any libertarian to differ substantially from this intellectualising trend.
However, for us who have no intentions of using Eivind for our own sexual gratification purposes (as we for example may be men), his blog serves as some kind of entertainment. Perhaps even edutainment.
I bet Eivind can't dance, and he may also be less than graceful or humorous as a conversation partner or social acquaintance. However, in a monogamistic society, he'd still be married, and more or less happy, on his own terms.
Anon:: A woman's sexual success requires neither of those things, a man's does. And women do not have to work as hard, due to hiring quotas and schools and universities catering to their learning styles. The spheres are incommensurate. But thank you for mouthing platitudes.
Sure, women work just as hard and even harder. Plus they have kids. Wake up and look at the women around you, many of them work very hard.
Yes, women don't have to work hard to get sex, but that's just nature (men are sex slaves). Then again, for women this is not such a great bonus, as they value other things in men, not just pure sexual intercourse.
It is not just Norway but many other countries that are not strictly monogamous, yet most people are still in couples. Yea, they fuck around, but there are also decent couples with children. And they aren't hunks or alphas, they are just humble people who settle for who they can get.
No, Arpagus would not do well in a traditionalist society, because he is too much of a scholarly type. He is a real geek, with good brains. Which is good, but in combination with "hatposter" it just scares the fuck out of women.
I disagree with Eivind with the whole "Rape is equality" thing and that sort of stuff, but one thing's for sure - the comments from the feminists here, don't make me less of an anti-feminist.
The feminists actually try to make themselves "bigger" than Eivind by talking him into suicide.
That's feminist logic right there.
An anonymous commenter writing in Norwegian accuses me, based purely on speculation, of not being bold enough to stand for my opinions in real life. This is incorrect. I don't supplicate and pretend to be politically correct in face-to-face discussions any more than I do online. There isn't much point in discussing these issues with most people, most of the time, but I am not afraid to speak my mind if they do come up.
I score further minus-points according to her (presumably a she, though it could be a total mangina) for blogging in English. No, it's not because "whining" sounds better in English. Only 12.78% of my readers are from Norway, and I'd like to be comprehensible to the rest as well. Also I'm not just whining, but calling for action. No, I'm not the only one who has a problem with feminism, as is evident from the comments here as you admit, though you try to brush off any supporters as equally deranged as myself. We are not just going to suck it up anymore as you would like. That is a really terrible argument which could be applied to any oppressed group. Why should men simply accept any persecution? There would be no feminism if women believed complaining is wrong. But you might have a point about men's activism being incompatible with being a PUA. PUAs tend to be apolitical, happy-go-lucky types. Or the gurus are, at any rate. That I don't like about them (Roissy is a partial exception). It probably helps to pretend everything is all right when picking up girls, but men wouldn't get into pickup if everything was OK and I'm sick and tired of pretending it is.
It is true that a few alphas monopolize several women.. but most women still want exclusive relationships. The reality is that most women are too proud to share one man with others and will want to have a man for herself. We see actual polygamy only in a few cases and even then those are short flings (besides, there are also women who have a husband and a lover, so we don't really know for sure how people mate). Most women will strive to have one, stable partner, even in their younger years. Maybe not so much in their early 20s when they are busy with themselves, but eventually they start looking. Sure, they are picky (nature), but women are much too proud to share an alpha with others. It's just that alphas stand out and there are women around them. One thing though, is that there are many more singles then before. Many women simply choose not to have a man (if they cannot get the one that satisfies them), as that is more convenient in places like Norway. This is why women have less sex than before, they simply stay single and slowly test the market (dating). They are not forced to be in a monogamous relationship, but this doesn't necessarily mean that they are all monopolized by alphas. Betas still have a chance to win these women, if they really want to.
And do not even bring up things such as suicide. That is a real asshole thing to do.
Happy go lucky must be a PUA tactic, as happy people attract others (unlike hating and aggressive ones).
PUAs are happy-go-lucky because their mainstream targets are party girls, who are happy-go-lucky because the world caters to them in hopes of getting pussy. There is a reason the World PUA Summit is held in Hollywood, California, USA, and why all the guys (and girls) there look the same: usually blond hipster-douchebag, like a million Eric Danes. Ed Hardy shirt, black skinny jeans, sunglasses at night, even inside the club, leather wristbands. Paul Janka does have a more NYC style (dark jeans, leather jacket, gray T-shirt) but his "game" on the streets of NYC consists of asking women to fuck him, which about 1 woman in 10 does because he is so good-looking.
But yes, you do have to be happy, puppy-dog happy, the same way the 19-year-old girl whose hand you're holding is happy. The happiness of someone beautiful who has never suffered in any way. And you have to dance, and chat, and thumb-wrestle, under your big fuzzy hat.
That sounds like your typical youngin in a club.. you don't seem to like them too much. But they are innocent and much better than a bitter older dude.
It's just hard to say why there needs to be a "PUA summit" for that as scoring between such people takes place anyway in the clubs... and what are the girls doing there..
Indeed, Eric Danes and even Paul Janka are much more handsome than your average dude. They don't need Game or PUA.
They are not innocent, they have just been born into and learned to negotiate the slut-culture in a way that those of us before Jahrgang 1980 haven't, because slut-culture was a lot more limited back then, at least in the USA of the Reagan-Bush era. The difference between Eivind & me is that he was in a more feral part of the States and consequently prostitution colored (read that as you like) mainstream sexuality there (in the South) as opposed to the Eastern Seaboard. I am also a (somewhat mediocre, still) PUA and as an Israeli have received a negative web-reception simply for BEING, such that I am not going to transmit my frustrated nature to the world simply to make an ideological point. I can assure you that a Hollywood nightclub, Ibiza, Cap d'Agde and the Ivy League are all the same for men, when it counts, with the death of monogamous Western culture. Eivind is proposing radical men's liberation and to a certain extent I agree with him.
I am just not a particularly "bouncy" person, on whom there is a US-ian cultural premium at the moment, although far from bitter. I've seen what middle-aged women have to deal with, and I doubt that many of them like the prospect of :"ghost years" like my life from 15-25.
Euro, so "slut culture" doesn't really benefit the majority of men and women. Only the alphas (and even they should be relatively young) and a part of very young women. If it benefits only such a small group of people, then why is it so prevalent, one must wonder...
(presumably a she, though it could be a total mangina)
I just love the way you can't resist these snide little sideswipes at people you disagree with.
But something tells me that these so-called "total manginas" are massively, massively more successful than you when it comes to:
(a) getting laid (without the help of alcohol, Rohypnol or a basement dungeon);
(b) establishing a mutually respectful long-term relationship;
(c) having kids
- all of which you claim to be your own primary goals.
So instead of insulting them, why aren't you thinking long and hard about what they're doing right? Though I suspect "treating your partner with as much respect as you'd expect her to show you" is the kind of thing that just doesn't compute with you.
Even if Eivind got more ass than a public toilet seat starting from tomorrow, it still doesn't change the fact that a small number of men monopolize the most attractive women in their best years. And this has a trickle down effect which means that a large number of men will be involuntary celibate. That's the main issue here.
Over 50% of marriages end up in divorce in Norway (not unrepresentative for Western countries). But if you take the feminized beta-men (or manginas if you will) who come running when called after women hit the wall, it's probably more like 80. That means you'll probably have to spend the rest of your days giving most of your left over hard earned money to someone who hates or at least dislikes you until you're old. Is that a rip roaring success to you?
And no, women are not physically attracted to nice guys who respect them unless they have other traits to make up for their femininity. Like sure, attracted no. Besides, women have gay friends for confiding the touchy feely stuff now. And involuntary celibate emo "just friends" gimps.
I'm not sure about this small number of guys monopolizing women in their best age.
Sweeping generalizations rarely gel with a dynamic reality. (Which is why balty keeps making erroneous assessments as well.)
I'm not sure about this small number of men. It seems most women find some sweetheart, then marry him.
If we are talking about the nightlife trash people, however, you may be more on the money. But they are a subculture, not a representation of the whole. And even with them, they sometimes take pity on the less privileged, and give them pussy, just to feel a bit like Robin Hood.
Btw, I don't get why Eivind just doesn't move out of that pious pissing-pot called Bergen, and to some more groovy city. Here in Oslo, I can have pussy any day of the week. No problem at all. And there are 6 or 7 central strip joints, none of which are ever plagued by militant feminists - plus you get free-cards to enter. (Cover charge is only 100,- anyway.)
I'm beginning to suspect that Eivind loves misery, as it's become a habit. If he moved to Oslo and feasted on pussy, ass and tits whenever he wanted to, his blog would have to change tone somehow, or would perhaps even be reduntant through-and-through..
I'm not sure about this small number of guys monopolizing women in their best age.
Statistics - they're made to be read. And what they're saying is most or a lot of women will settle for someone at their own level of attraction, while also having one or several flings with a guy that a lot of girls like to have sex with. So while a lot of girls that sleep around with PUAs are sluts, a lot are just regular girls with a regular number of sex partners. Those guys who get to have sex with a lot of attractive girls in their best years are called alphas.
Dear latest anonymous;
statistics are meant to be read by none other than those who have to do so in their line of work. For instance those who calculate insurance premiums. (We call them "aktuar" in Norway.) Statistics and damn lies, ever heard that one?
You don't achieve sanity or piece of mind by applying statistics to your own life. Your own very unique and individual life. The only thing it will do for you, is discipline your thoughts and your attitude in a way that assimilates you to some kind of perceived conformity.
Also, this need to categorize people as hot, alphas, their best years etc.. It's the one thing almost all writing on this blog have in common: A too strong desire to categorize and systemize life itself.
Where do you all get the need to do this from - and to write in stupid blogs? Clearly most of you are somewhat intelligent. What you lack is wisdom. Anyone who tries to reduce life and society, being very dynamic spheres, into easily handled categories, brackets and labels, will find themselves miserable within not too long. Also, you will have trouble relating to most people socially, as most people *do not do this*. And those who do, would probably not enjoy each other's company, as you'd get into arguments, splitting hairs over categories and "statistics".
And who makes those statistics you talk of anyway? Who decides who are young and hot, for instance? This must be PUA "science".
Either way, I don't care. Never cared for PUA societies, disregarded their pseudo-science at first sight, and am still the envy of my buddies, for how easily I get in touch with women - and score. Some say I'm a natural.
In order to achieve happiness, you have to be a natural. One can't go around with this reductionist attitude and an economists' misanthropy and (warped) maths for social relations - it just doesn't work, and it WILL make you end up miserable. Alpha or not.
(And I do not read any PUA literature, but awkward acquaintances of mine who do, report that most PUAs end up miserable, as all they are able to do with this social engineering pseudo-tool, is to score - not to establish worthwhile, lasting connections/relationships.)
And who makes those statistics you talk of anyway? Who decides who are young and hot, for instance? This must be PUA "science".
These are stupid questions from a particularly dim-witted comment. Biology has decided who are young and hot since time immemorial. PUA merely systematizes the knowledge of how to attract women and makes it accessible to non-naturals. You don't have to be a statistician to realize that a woman's beauty is closely linked to her youth and fertility, and you have to be really willfully ignorant not to notice.
I never asked for a succession of young hot women, and I don't think most PUAs are that unrealistic. Growing old together is expected and love can persist at any age, but it is indeed important to get some of a woman's best years too.
As Devlin famously put it: What were our bachelor’s female contemporaries doing all those years while he was an impoverished, lonely stripling who found them intensely desirable? Fornicating with dashing fellows who mysteriously declined to “commit,” marrying and walking out on their husbands, or holding out for perfection. Now, lo and behold, these women, with their youthful looks gone and rapidly approaching menopause, are willing to go out with him. If they are satisfied with the free meals and entertainment he provides, he may be permitted to fork over a wedding ring. Then they will graciously allow him to support them and the children they had by another man for the rest of his life. (I have seen a woman’s personal ad stating her goal of “achieving financial security for myself and my daughters.”) Why in heaven’s name would any man sign up for this? As one man put it to me: “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.”
That's not good enough. I want the kitten. But currently I can't even get the cat. This very real sexual dystopia is making me miserable, not a warped sense of statistics. It sounds like you fear competition from men learning game.
"These are stupid questions from a particularly dim-witted comment. Biology has decided who are young and hot since time immemorial. PUA merely systematizes the knowledge of how to attract women and makes it accessible to non-naturals. You don't have to be a statistician to realize that a woman's beauty is closely linked to her youth and fertility, and you have to be really willfully ignorant not to notice."
Crap, Eivind - are you taking ME on? Do you wish to challenge me? Why would you want to do such a thing?
You must dislike my comment (and call it "particularly dimwitted") for one reason only:
I am taking away the entire raison d'etre for your blog - how much you love misery.
I can't see anything dimwitted about my comment. What's dimwitted is anyone pretending that they did not understand my point:
How will those who make the statistics in question deem who is young and hot.
Do you fail to realize that that is what I am talking about? You always cling to theoretical concepts and statistics yourself, whining about the hypergamy of women and many other curious complaints. Your three main problems could be:
1) clinging on to misery and misanthropy
2) insisting on intellectualizing (making theories/process mentally, instead of through action) anything, including relying on statistics for statistics sake - even quite possibly bogus statistics
3) taking feminists literally
Again, what I pointed out was a fallacy in the so-called statistics you and anonymous refer to, and use as an excuse to whine, and to nurse your desires to remain misanthropic. I myself have no problems whatsoever identifying hot and attractive women, or young women in general, for that matter. That was not the point. The point was: How do the pseudo-scientists who outline the pseudo-psychology of PUA determine the basis of these so called statistics that we're currently discussing?
Also, another thing I've been curious about regarding yourself, Eivind: If you really are such a gifted kid, why didn't you start studying something which would guarantee that you get laid, at least as soon as you've graduated, or even during your ultimate year on such studies? You live in Bergen, a city that offers the second best law school in Norway, the second or third best medical school, a school for dentists, and even the best academy for business and management (NHH). Why the heck did you not choose to study at one of those places? You'd have no problems getting women.
You are a nerd, and you love misery. End of discussion. (Although I might continue to discuss with you even after I've won - for the heck of it :-)
And no, I don't fear competition from men "learning game". What a strange notion to derive from my text :-) I characterize them as awkward, you take that as myself fearing them? :-))
Also, you never even answered my question about why you don't just move away from Bergen - for instance to Oslo, where you'd easily feast on pussy, like I mentioned. (The west coast, contrary to popular belief, perhaps, is both more materialistic, superficial AND more pious/pietistisk than Oslo. Living there, you get the worst of three worlds (including the dreariness of those weather conditions).
And again, if you must live in Bergen, you could have definitely opted to study something that would've made you a much more eligible bachelor.
You actively seek misery - but perhaps you have not yet the level of enlightenment where you'd be ready and mature enough to acknowledge that ;-)
No, I don't love misery or seek it. Studying what I did was arguably a mistake, but I didn't deem it as useless as it turned out to be and now it is too late.
Women are easier in Oslo? I doubt it. The price of sex is just as high there and throughout Norway, as far as I can tell, driven up by the feminist sexual trade union. This latest escalation of violence against male sexuality will drive the cost of sex even further up, as intended. Norway has the most expensive whores in the world, and this price reflects how difficult women are at any level. It is true that feminists in Bergen won't even tolerate a strip club, but that is beside the point. That just means they are stupid. As strippers have perfected the art of monetizing their sexuality without putting out, feminists should endorse strip clubs, but I guess a small group of militant feminists in Bergen are so retarded they don't grok this. In fact, they do men a favor by getting strip clubs shut down and I have no use for such places. I can't think of a place less conducive to sex. Regular men should avoid strippers like the plague, since they are the most discriminating of all women. It's a good thing we don't have a lot of strippers in Bergen. But we do have the usual party girls just like Oslo, and they are almost as discriminating. The so-called sluts will only sleep with alphas and should be avoided as well. The entire bar scene is a complete waste and I've had the good sense to drop out of it. I don't see how Oslo would be much different.
The point was: How do the pseudo-scientists who outline the pseudo-psychology of PUA determine the basis of these so called statistics that we're currently discussing?
Those statistics are something even the feminist press will admit. Fewer men monopolize more of women's most desirable and fertile years. PUAs didn't make this up. Game is just a reaction to a more brutal sexual marketplace, but does not work well and does not go far enough, in my view. Men ought to employ coercive measures just like women do to get their way.
The problem I have with the statistics, however, as presented earlier in this thread, is that I can't see how it's scientifically possible to define the standards (who's just on the side of hotness, and who's just outside of it, for instance), or to quantify the behaviour. Most of us have a strong sense, from experience, that many people end up with uneven partners the odd night here and there.
Most people also know a quite ugly, short and possibly even fat guy, who is not rich, yet still gets a lot of women.
This leads me to think that it's confidence and experience that attract women. It's all in your mindset. And that is what I hinted to above, when I told that other guy that he's adjusting his own expectations, and conforming to perceived standards, and that that won't help him - especially not when it comes to achieving general happiness in life. (Although he may feel that he wins the odd debate online, here and there - hardly gratification in my book.)
I'm a natural only when I am in "the zone". I can feel it, even before I go out - if I'm likely to get laid that night or not. You have to be on top of your game, you have to have that certain feeling. Otherwise it's mostly useless.
Besides, one thing I want to share with you: I've fucked quite a few young hotties, and almost equally as many mature ladies (from mid-thirties to mid-forties). The latter are much better in bed than the former. They are far less self-conscious, a lot less inhibited, and know exactly what they want. I've also found that up until that age range, the taste and smell of the pussy can be just as great as with the young women (who'll also often be drunk, so there's likely some residue from pee down there, or whatever, and their mouths taste of alcohol and perhaps even puke). Model looking young women are generally not hot fucks - they are way too concerned with how they look, and very self-conscious.
As for the pussy feasting in Oslo, the city is at least three times bigger, and people let more loose. I've lived both places several years..
Hotness in women can indeed largely be quantified. Certainly the decline in fatherhood for average men can be precisely measured, and that is all we need to prove the point that women are getting choosier as they get more empowered by feminism.
This leads me to think that it's confidence and experience that attract women. It's all in your mindset.
Yes, as the study showed there is no consensus among women about male attractiveness based on looks alone. And confidence can be worked on and perhaps faked until you have it, which is the point of PUA. Now in practice a lot of PUA material peddled is snake-oil, but it is stupid, I think, to deny the possibility and usefulness of studying game in principle.
I also disagree with you about older experienced women versus young hot ones. The woman's hotness accounts for at least 99% of the quality of sex, and young women are much more intensely attractive. I fucked a 54-year-old woman once. Still great, but can't compare to a woman at the peak of her beauty.
And youth gets distinctly more important as I get older, I've noticed. This is probably because unfortunately the threshold for arousal deteriorates with age, and young women are more arousing. An old woman will never look as good to you as when you were a teenager. At that time and until I was about 25 I would scarcely have noticed the difference between 18 and 80-year-old pussy because I was just so horny. Now they seem worlds apart, which of course they objectively, reproductively are. A young man's sex drive is overkill, but he can also afford to be so indiscriminate since there seems to be so much time and vigor. Now I don't feel like investing much in a postmenopausal woman, though I will fuck any woman at least once if given a chance no matter how old or ugly.
Your thoughts intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter
"..but he can also afford to be so indiscriminate since there seems to be so much time and vigor."
Just like a young woman can afford to be indiscriminate for a certain while. It is a myth that young women are only focusing on their “careers” and “riding the cock carousel”. This is not the woman's nature. Most women want an exclusive, stable relationship with a desirable guy. Sure, many of them “aim too high”. But the boys aim high too. Exactly because “it seems there is so much time and vigor”. Sure, there is, for some time. But men buy into the stereotype that any man can have it all at any age and that he will never have problem landing a young woman, and have a child even at age 60. Like that Hollywood actor, etc. The whole life stages thing gets too prolonged. Sure, one can start looking for family later on, but it will be much more difficult because the biological traction is simply not as strong anymore (this applies to both men and women). There is a stereotype that a man becomes a “real man” only after 30. Sure, there is some truth to it because he needs to accumulate some resources (it was especially the case in the past). But does he really need such a long time? What is he really doing up until then? The reality is that he is trying to sleep with many women (naturally), having serial monogamous relationships, or enjoying his freedom. A wife and a kid are the last things on his mind. It is similar for the women except that the women always have the thought of stable partnership at the back of their mind. Often people fall in love with the wrong person (they may not be bad for a short fling, but are not suitable for marriage yet a woman is so much in love that she clings to the man, the man in turn doesn't even need to marry her and have kids with her because he already gets all the sex and her feminine companionship. So the woman waits for years for the man to propose or agree to start a family and when she finally realizes that he won't she has to get out and start everything from the beginning, having wasted many precious years, this happens all the time). One cannot form a family if the other party is not up for it. So the question is what are the boys doing before they turn 30-35 or so? My father had me when he was 21 (shortly after he got married to my mother). He was doing everything simultaneously – fell in love (the best years when you get strongly infatuated and are very flexible in forming a relationship), did military service and soon afterwards started working. Alright, 21 is still a puppy, but what about 25 (when your hormones are already getting more peaceful), 26-27... what is the obstacle for the guy to settle at that age? You'd say that he is just accumulating wealth. But this is not an obstacle because the woman has been doing the same by studying and starting work in her early 20s. She is already economically safe! You won't be providing for her anyway. You will both have your money and pool it together. You can easily start a family at age 25-28. By that time you will already have had the degree and your first job and you will have traveled. Plus, you will get help from the Norwegian state. So where is the problem?
"That's not good enough. I want the kitten. But currently I can't even get the cat."
The problem is everyone wants the kitten (women too often prefer a young man as most of them don't want someone 10 years their senior). By the time a guy is 30-35, the competition for the young girl will have risen to the point where only the strongest will be able to get the most desirable. That's the biological reality. Realize that a 33 year old, a 25 year old, a 40 year old and even a 21 year old are all competing for the 23 year old pretty girl. We want many things. But we have to turn it around and ask what we can offer to the object of our desire. What is it that I can offer to that young man who is driving me crazy with his good looks in order for him to even consider me? Or the well established 30 year old man? Why would he be interested in me and what can I offer to him? He has options. The same goes for the man – what do you have and are willing to share that the kitten might want? What is the point of not accepting reality and getting upset over it? You know damn well that no “coercive measures” to force women into having sex with a guy they do not physically desire or love will ever be introduced (because the majority of human population finds that idea repulsive). I know damn well that the 23 year old super hot hunk will not marry and stay faithful to me. I know that the handsome, successful 30 year old man who wants to settle will be very selective, with certain expectations for his future partner and that there are things he will simply not put up with. That is the reality and there is no point in theorizing and getting upset about it. The only thing that is possible is to adjust oneself to the reality, as in the old Stoic teaching.
p.s. And I didn't write those posts that were apparently attributed to me, I just wrote the one about women wanting an exclusive relationship.
Lol, getting pussy in Bergen is easy. Me and all my friends fuck at a regular basis. I'm 30 and every city will offer a man a pussy. C'mon, it's easy, just like that. Unless you're a clumsy loser, like the old village idiot who has never gotten any pussy. If you are that weirdo, then you will never get to fuck, as such people never ever have gotten any pussy. Don't be a loser, go out and man up, or watch porn and masturbate, lolololol. Funny blog, though. O like it:D
Post a Comment