[Timoteo]

(11-05-2012 02:01 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(11-05-2012 01:57 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I feel honored. I just got an email from The Daily Mail informing me that my comment was removed due to the amount of complaints they received because of it! I can't imagine my comment getting more downvotes than some of the better "worst rated" comments on this story, but I gladly accept this honor.

What was the comment?

It's odd, because I only posted twice. My first comment was kind of ill, in that I stated that I liked 40-somethings...for sex. And only if they were in good shape, which the author of the piece was not. That one got a few down-votes, but nowhere near some other comments. The other post was me challenging the issue of "settling," and how women have this long list of qualities they want in a man, yet never think about what THEY bring to the table. That they reject plenty of good men in their prime because of their own refusal to commit, yet when they start approaching middle age they demand that MEN settle...for them. I couldn't even find the comment, so I question how it got so many complaints that they felt they had to remove it. The post wasn't mean-spirited at all, though I'm sure it would have gotten nothing but down-votes. Hilarious!

[Caligula]

(11-05-2012 02:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Outstanding breakdown, but we also know that playing the game effectively and achieving their goal doesn't necessarily benefit us as men. Just because she locked down a guy, got the ring, and got him down the aisle doesn't mean she'd actually make a good wife. Many female relationship experts suggested making finding a husband a full-time job with a particular goal in sight - the wedding dress. Women didn't necessarily need a guide to how to hide your worst qualities in order to snag a guy, but it gave them specific rules to follow to make it happen. I fully understood what "The Rules" was about, but it didn't make them better partners - it merely instructed them on how to manipulate to get what THEY wanted.

This is why the Rules is effectively girl game.

The male parallel to Timoteo's example would be the guy who has studied some game, plays it aloof and then goes full beta once he has banged the girl.

The difference is that the latter doesn't lead to marriage. It's way worse to trick someone into marriage than to 'trick' them into bed.

[Timoteo]

I went to my profile to find the comment I posted. Surprisingly, it got 24 UP votes...it was my first comment that got removed, but it only collected 17 down-votes. I guess they thought it was too meanspirited...

"It's interesting how so many women talk about not "settling." They never look at what THEY bring to the table. They all demand that a man meet every item on their extensive checklist, yet make the assumption that they're somehow special, and would bring value to a man's life. They want us to believe that in their whole adult lives they didn't meet one man that was good enough to be with them? That's ridiculous. It's you women that rejected all of the decent men that were interested in you because deep down, it's you that feared commitment. Now you want a man to "settle" for you."

[speakeasy]

The word "schadenfreude" is all that comes to mind when I read these articles.

[Basil Ransom]

The Rules is terrible, evil even. Some of it is basically telling girls to not have sex quickly, because they'll end up fucking a guy who has no long term interest in them while she wants a long term relationship. And that they should make sure that the man makes them a priority, not a haphazard obligation.

That I have no problem with.

But the other component of it is manipulating a man into thinking you're high value and worthy of commitment. If a relationship is conceived in deception, manipulation, disrespect and emotional withdrawal, that is where it will remain. You don't return my calls? You're a disrespectful ****. I'll play your game, bang you on slow days, and that's that. Is that what you call winning honey?

If these sort of gambits work on you, you're a pathetic bitch without a shred of dignity.

I'm still trying to figure out why American women have this antagonistic mindset, that victory lies in 'outflanking' men somehow. You'll never hear a mainstream dating guru telling women to simply please men, regardless of how effective it is. Women DO NOT want to hear that. I remember someone, maybe Speakeasy, posted a Lifehacker post where a sweet American housewife posted dozens of thoughtful ways to please your man. And it was their most controversial post ever! They even retracted it!

I just got my Russian flag, and besides being fucking nuts, she is the most strong willed woman I've ever banged. And she doesn't think twice about trying to please me. She was mad that she didn't get to cook for me on our first date. "My favorite position is sucking dick."

[Wool Suit]

(11-05-2012 10:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Quote:

If I had a family, I wouldn’t have been able to spend a month in Australia earlier this year, or a weekend shopping in Milan, and I would probably have felt too guilty ever to spend £3,000 on a rug (as I have just done).

This quote is a testament to how much damage feminism has done to the Western female psyche.

Her hamster is able to rationalize what is literally nothing less than her complete biological failure as a human being - her inability to find a husband and have a child.

And what did feminism grant her in exchange that made this trade worthwhile?

A shopping spree and a fucking rug.

Pathetic.

[megatron]

Even when she was young, she looked plain at best.

And she used to go out 5x a week during her late 20's/early 30's? Christ, that's a lot. This basically means she's fucked at least 50 guys. At least.

[Tigre]

(11-05-2012 02:11 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

As a guy, what happens when you get a woman throwing herself at you? You'll tap it, of course, if she passes the boner test. Then you'll move on.

Disagree. Broken men do this. Regular men will gladly LTR a hot piece of ass who puts out for them with no issues. Seen it 1000 times.

She might not put out on the first night, but she will within the few two weeks. The average man is more than happy to take whatever scrap he can get.


The best "Rule" I could give to any woman is: Lower your standards until you bang a guy who finds you to be gorgeous.

For sure that would be a good rule for a woman to apply.

I'd also add that part of the system is a "player filter". It keeps out guys that just want a quick notch. Only guys that genuinely like her will stay in the race long enough for the eventual bang.

For a girl it's more optimal to put those hurdles in place. She'll still get the interested guy for an LTR. She only needs to give him a sniff of interest and then let him execute. I agree with you that a guy will let things play out over a week or two in anticipation of nailing her if he thinks she's a high quality girl.

Contrast that to "nodding game", which is what Roosh suggested for the Nordic countries. Stick around and tolerate a girl's shitty attitude until closing time. Be non-controversial. 20 minutes later you're stretching her out.

But no way a guy would endure several nights of that just for a meaningless bang.

So I would argue The Rules allow the girl to filter out the pump and dumps and still keep the LTR guys.

If you browse the Would you hit it? thread, it's full of comments like "Would dump a fuck in her, but only if it required no effort on my part". Those are the kinds of encounters that The Rules are designed to suppress.

[Tigre]

(11-05-2012 02:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I fully understood what "The Rules" was about, but it didn't make them better partners - it merely instructed them on how to manipulate to get what THEY wanted.

16. Don't Tell Him What to Do
17. Let Him Take the Lead
18. Don't Expect a Man to Change or Try to Change Him
19. Don’t Open Up Too Fast
20. Be Honest but Mysterious
32. Don't Break The Rules (<- see what she did there? - yes, Hamster, this means YOU! - a rule designed for women by women)
34. Love Only Those Who Love You

Maybe I'm getting pedantic here. But you don't find anything in those that promotes better relationships?

[Timoteo]

(11-05-2012 03:15 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

The Rules is terrible, evil even. Some of it is basically telling girls to not have sex quickly, because they'll end up fucking a guy who has no long term interest in them while she wants a long term relationship. And that they should make sure that the man makes them a priority, not a haphazard obligation.

That I have no problem with.

But the other component of it is manipulating a man into thinking you're high value and worthy of commitment. If a relationship is conceived in deception, manipulation, disrespect and emotional withdrawal, that is where it will remain. You don't return my calls? You're a disrespectful ****. I'll play your game, bang you on slow days, and that's that. Is that what you call winning honey?

If these sort of gambits work on you, you're a pathetic bitch without a shred of dignity.

I'm still trying to figure out why American women have this antagonistic mindset, that victory lies in 'outflanking' men somehow. You'll never hear a mainstream dating guru telling women to simply please men, regardless of how effective it is. Women DO NOT want to hear that. I remember someone, maybe Speakeasy, posted a Lifehacker post where a sweet American housewife posted dozens of thoughtful ways to please your man. And it was their most controversial post ever! They even retracted it!

I just got my Russian flag, and besides being fucking nuts, she is the most strong willed woman I've ever banged. And she doesn't think twice about trying to please me. She was mad that she didn't get to cook for me on our first date. "My favorite position is sucking dick."

This is the crux of it right here. Women have been taught that men must display their value by subjecting themselves to all forms of tests and manipulations, while they must merely make themselves available (and according to "The Rules," they shouldn't make themselves appear TOO available, thus men must jump through a hoop for the "honor" of being able to show his interest). There's little if any about showing their own value. Nothing to convince a man that he isn't wasting his time, and that ALL you're worth is a nut or two for all the time, energy and money he may have invested. The premise that a man must show his value before a woman lifts a finger always puts a man at a severe disadvantage. We're not in it to take a loss, and women seem to be reluctant to acknowledge this. If women insist on withholding affection and/or other forms of attention, there's nothing in it for us. Personally, I'm done with operating on faith. Show me something off the bat, or I'll ride with the chick that's willing to.

[Timoteo]

(11-05-2012 04:29 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

(11-05-2012 02:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I fully understood what "The Rules" was about, but it didn't make them better partners - it merely instructed them on how to manipulate to get what THEY wanted.

16. Don't Tell Him What to Do
17. Let Him Take the Lead
18. Don't Expect a Man to Change or Try to Change Him
19. Don’t Open Up Too Fast
20. Be Honest but Mysterious
32. Don't Break The Rules (<- see what she did there? - yes, Hamster, this means YOU! - a rule designed for women by women)
34. Love Only Those Who Love You

Maybe I'm getting pedantic here. But you don't find anything in those that promotes better relationships?

These are just words my friend. Women don't follow these principles. They adhere to the maxims that get them what they want, but most are unwilling to truly put the above rules into practice. They may try hard at this to get you down the aisle, but once the deal is sealed...different story. The Rules are more about GETTING married, not STAYING married.

[Divorco]

(11-05-2012 12:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The rules was a book for women who believed that acting like a man, and playing "hard to get", worked in attracting a man.

Exactly, women incorrectly projected their hamster processes onto men. They thought "if I like cool alpha men who are unavailable, then men will like me if I act disinterested and unavailable." They didn't understand that men like responsive, affectionate, appreciative loving women.

I guess men make the same mistake when we act nice and beta towards women.

[SnakeEyes]

With all this talk of "The Rules" and playing hard to get, I think women just misinterpreted playing hard to get.

Playing hard to get is being feminine, not giving sex on the first three dates, but alluding to romance. Playing hard to get and being cold is the worst way to keep my attention.

[Beyond Borders]

(11-05-2012 04:12 PM)megatron Wrote:  

Even when she was young, she looked plain at best.

And she used to go out 5x a week during her late 20's/early 30's? Christ, that's a lot. This basically means she's fucked at least 50 guys. At least.

5 times per week - for roughly a decade...and being a woman?

Shit, even it was half decade I'm sure she's fucked a lot more than 50 people. I've slept with more than that going out less and not having a vagina (not to mention mediocre game).

These types of bitches are slam dunking 100 notches easy, in my honest opinion - plain or not.

[GoodTimer]

[quote='Beyond Borders' pid='301622' dateline='1352136460']
[quote]"In the Nineties, we professional, single women conducted our love-lives according to a best-selling book called The Rules — a dating bible that dictated that we should be aloof and hard to get, that we should not return phone calls, and we should always make a man pay on dates. Any man who didn’t conform was to be kicked to the curb until the next poor sap came along.[/quote]

Interesting - anyone ever hear about this book? I'd consider reading it...

By the late 90's just about all single woman were aware of this book which promoted only dating betas who chased them. Some things I learned about the book...
*Never accept a Friday night date after Wednesday.
*Be the one to end the conversation
*Never call, initiate contact first (phone, online, etc.)

The book was a big fad and lost some respect when one or both authors wound up divorced. Also, woman eventually do what they want and will break their rules for the man their attracted to.

[Timoteo]

(11-06-2012 04:11 PM)GoodTimer Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

"In the Nineties, we professional, single women conducted our love-lives according to a best-selling book called The Rules — a dating bible that dictated that we should be aloof and hard to get, that we should not return phone calls, and we should always make a man pay on dates. Any man who didn’t conform was to be kicked to the curb until the next poor sap came along.

Interesting - anyone ever hear about this book? I'd consider reading it...

By the late 90's just about all single woman were aware of this book which promoted only dating betas who chased them. Some things I learned about the book...
*Never accept a Friday night date after Wednesday.
*Be the one to end the conversation
*Never call, initiate contact first (phone, online, etc.)

The book was a big fad and lost some respect when one or both authors wound up divorced. Also, woman eventually do what they want and will break their rules for the man their attracted to.

This is the thing, as noted on some of the above posts. There were some rules in there that would apply to maintaining a relationship, as well as rules for snagging a guy. Women are simply selfish and lazy, and once the goal has been achieved, they're unwilling/unable to apply the rules that would keep a man happy.

[xmlenigma]

(11-05-2012 04:52 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(11-05-2012 04:29 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

(11-05-2012 02:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I fully understood what "The Rules" was about, but it didn't make them better partners - it merely instructed them on how to manipulate to get what THEY wanted.

16. Don't Tell Him What to Do
17. Let Him Take the Lead
18. Don't Expect a Man to Change or Try to Change Him
19. Don’t Open Up Too Fast
20. Be Honest but Mysterious
32. Don't Break The Rules (<- see what she did there? - yes, Hamster, this means YOU! - a rule designed for women by women)
34. Love Only Those Who Love You

Maybe I'm getting pedantic here. But you don't find anything in those that promotes better relationships?

These are just words my friend. Women don't follow these principles. They adhere to the maxims that get them what they want, but most are unwilling to truly put the above rules into practice. They may try hard at this to get you down the aisle, but once the deal is sealed...different story. The Rules are more about GETTING married, not STAYING married.

Thats large part of the issue.. even with the RULES, they dont follow the program.. they CHEAT.. due to their SELFISHNESS and CHEAT themselves out of the "GOOD RULES" and end up with ineffective half of the program.

Does any of the above in BOLD even compute(d) for them? I doubt it.

Because to follow rules, one has to be DISCIPLINED and LOGICAL.. Not SELF RATIONALIZING and EMOTIONAL. Doubt they followed it all.

LOVE - They do not understand live, they understand EXPECTATIONS.. They do not LOVE the person they LOVE the IDEA of "imagination" of that PERSON. Fantasy land than Reality.

Last line from Wiki Page:
Be Easy to Live With - How many females can do this?

[xmlenigma]

Are there any legitimately GOOD WOMAN books out there in MAINSTREAM even if written by a man or woman.. that we can make more popular to hopefully RED PILL or should I say PINK PILL these Blue blooded Femis back to Old School?

[Paracelsus]

'Red Pill' books are inconsistent with the expression 'Mainstream'.

Never forget, the System wants women like this. Like most things in current Western culture, whatever feminism was to start with, its commercial implications came to eclipse any other facet of the issue that mattered. When women started to get real control of money in their households, Western economies suddenly had double the consumers, which, in order to prevent mass rioting and the end of governments everywhere due to skyrocketing prices, necessitated double the producers to keep the labor costs down.

It is not even a situation that requires an active conspiracy to maintain; the moment that women entered the workforce was also the moment it became necessary for both partners to work in order to maintain a household and bring up a child. Our entire Western lifestyle is now bound to this hamster wheel. The only things that could change it are the onset of a massive economic collapse on the order of the Great Depression or larger - which requires that the US dollar collapses, nothing else would be of sufficient scale - combined with the rise of robots and AI to put both women and men out of work.

A woman whose work cannot be valued in economic terms - that is, the role of wife and mother - is a woman who is a threat to that system because it doesn't know how to price her, and therefore that position will not be pushed by the mainstream until well after it is too late. As I said, this does not require any sort of Jewminati conspiracy to maintain; the mass psychology of women (and men) is enough to keep it self-replicating until the collapse comes. I have had conversations with working, married women who complain about utter exhaustion from their job, but even in the face of that hurriedly pronounce, like a canard of faith, almost like desperation, "But I still want to work, I'd hate to be at home all the time." This from the member of the species who is relentlessly hypergamous and relentlessly concerned about herself first. That almost-fear lies there because of feminism: having indoctrinated the vast majority of women to be worker drones like men, to project that men are fickle and won't stay and will drop a woman like an old hat*, anyone who even contemplates breaking for the treeline now remains inside the System because the alternative is exile from male and female society. The women who run and select books for publishing in our day and age are afraid to even suggest anything else; they are social creatures first and foremost, and therefore simply not up to standing up to their fellow women (let alone men).


* Not without reason, again because of feminism; forums like our own simply could not/would not need to exist in a non-feminist society, because the societal setup would be entirely different. It's only because feminism encourages women to be absolutely free agents, because of the sexual revolution that "freed" women from their "bondage" in marriage, that men as a group now feel free enough to say: "What's in marriage for me?"

[N°6]

spinster woes Wrote:

I grew up in Sussex then moved to London to pursue my job as a journalist, where I threw myself into a heady social life. By the age of 29, I was earning enough to buy my first home — a three bedroom property that I lived in alone, and still do.

‘Why three bedrooms when it’s just you?’ I was often asked.

‘Because I can!’ I’d tell them, cockily.

A man in this exact position would have been married by 30 and a father by 31.

A rich woman hoards material wealth and has pseudopregnancies and spends her life eating her seed crop. Meanwhile down the road, Iqbal's second wife is expecting her third child.

It is like Enya, one of the British Isle's richest musicians. She lives alone in her castle outside Dublin when a man in her position would have sired lots of children.

This is why firms used to pay the married company man a marriage premium on to his salary. It encouraged him to take on the responsibility of fatherhood and more to the point, encouraged young women to marry such a man. Governments wanted more taxable labour in the workforce and the CEOs wanted it to be supplied cheaper and it was scrapped in favour of society eroding hypergamy.

Even at this age, the spinster won't need any game to procure surplus younger men off the internet.

[Sonoma]

Is Honest Anthony a forum member yet?

"................................................................................​................................................................................​............................. The article is specifically about women who never get married. Those women who were married, and then divorced their husband, don't have to worry about being alone, since they will have his children, house, and savings to keep them company."

[TheOllam]

(09-02-2017 01:27 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

spinster woes Wrote:

‘Why three bedrooms when it’s just you?’ I was often asked.

‘Because I can!’ I’d tell them, cockily.

A man in this exact position would have been married by 30 and a father by 31.

RE: Would you date or marry a woman outside of your socioeconomic class?

(03-16-2016 02:03 PM)TheOllam Wrote:  

What I have learned from an America that has been truly blessed with affluence during my time is.....

Successful Men Pull Women Out of Poverty

and

Successful Women Put Men Into Poverty

[polar]

[Easy_C]

Notice the most popular reaction: not to try to directly attack the argument being made, but to deflect from it by making vague, unverified claims that "married women are miserable too!"

It rings true enough that even the most popular comments don't try to directly deny the truth of what she's saying.


The article also reminds me a lot of an older lady friend that I have a lot of respect for. This lady made the same mistake "career" first and when she realized it was too late. She now spends much of her time running a Christian matchmaking service and is very vocal about counseling the women she meets (not just in the organization) that they need to get a move on and meet a man as young as they can.

[Suits]