Monthly Archives: January 2016

What’s Your Market Value?

29 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Red Pill

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ladies, have you heard of the terms “sexual market value (SMV)” and “marriage market value (MMV)?” If not, they are red pill terms for how men rank a woman’s (and women rank a man’s) desirability for sex and marriage.

This is a really touchy subject, and one many people get up in arms about. However it is also powerful information you can use to your full advantage after you understand it.

Similar to a 1-10 scale, the higher the number, the more desirable a person is and the more options they will have. SMV and MMV are slightly different, as someone can have a high SMV ranking (they are hot and get lots of attention) but not a high MMV (for some reason they aren’t good marriage material.)

It’s also important to note that women’s SMV and MMV are at their highest in the early to mid 20s while a man’s SMV/MMV peak comes in his mid to late 30s. Why?

Much of a woman’s SMV and MMV is based upon her physical appearance and fertility while a man’s is based upon his material wealth, status, and power.

It’s also important to note that fair or not, a woman is at her physical and fertility peak a full decade younger than a man is at his wealth, status, and power peak.

Now you can say that’s sexist, or unfair, or not true*. But on a biological level, it’s simply reality. It’s the rare woman who looks better at 40 than she did at 22, and no woman is more fertile at 40 than she was at 22.

Unfortunately many women today focus on their SMV in their youth, and don’t consider how the actions she takes in her teens and 20s could either positively or negatively affect her MMV. Or in other words, short term gains in SMV can lead to big losses in MMV.

Perhaps the guys can weigh in here: Is it so? And if it is, when it comes to SMV vs. MMV, what ranks at the top of your list?

[* And remember, men are not immune to this effect either. A man who is naturally good looking, for example, may have a high SMV in his teens and 20s, but if he’s not also building up his MMV factors via education, job experience, financial stability, and status, he may find it harder and harder to attract women with age.]

The Virginity Curse

26 Tuesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Sex and Such

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I don’t know about you, but back when I was a teenager (in the late 80s, egads!) there was this mentality that to be a virgin was some kind of curse or something, and the social pressure from peers was that virginity was something to be ditched at the first possible opportunity.

If you don’t believe me, just watch the teen movies of that era. In almost every one, there is a character on a quest to lose their virginity like it is some rite of passage.  Characters who are virgins are portrayed as dweebs or squares or horribly uncool.

When I talk to teenagers today, it seems not much has changed. There may be some here and there who are taking virginity pledges and such, but for the most part it seems the attitude that to be a virgin is somehow a bad thing remains. That “experience” is preferable to innocence.

Frequent commenter Artisanal Toad raised an interesting point on his blog recently when he brought up an Old Testament passage that says, to paraphrase, when a girl loses her virginity, in God’s eyes the couple is married for life, unless the father objects to the match. In either case the man is required to pay the father the “bride price” in exchange for the daughter’s virginity.

Think about that for a minute. That would mean every girl reading this who is not a virgin is actually still married to the guy she lost her virginity to! Even if he or she went on to marry someone else! Uh oh, if this is the case, that means there are many awkward conversations to be had! (And yes, this rule seems only to be applied to women losing their virginity, not to men, unless the girl is also a virgin and then they are married.)

I hope he won’t mind my reposting the diagram from his site explaining this rather radical idea under today’s sexual norms, for those who are having trouble following this  here:

marriage-chart

Wow. I don’t know about you, but I find that absolutely mind blowing!

Now I am not sure if this is the case post New Testament, and since I cannot ask God directly about the in’s and out’s of the fine print, I don’t want to split hairs over if this is or is not the case anymore. However if nothing else it does make me wonder, if women today operated under that assumption that whoever they choose to lose their virginity to would be their husband from that point on till death do they part, how would that change things? Would women still be in a rush to “get it over with” as soon as possible? Or would they be a lot, lot, lot more thoughtful about the matter?

In our culture, the current assumption by and large is that partners WON’T be virgins when they marry. Or even when they meet. Sadly, this is largely the case even among church going folks. I do in fact know several couples who are each other’s first and only, and who are still together and going strong, but it’s exceedingly rare anymore.

How sad. I know I will be encouraging my own girls to wait, to value their virginity and innocence, to resist silly peer pressure, and to wait for a man who is ready and willing to commit to her for life, someone who will love her, honor her, cherish, and keep her all the days of her life.

I hope other girls/teens/young women will also rethink this idea of the “virginity curse” and buck the trend. Wouldn’t it be great if our society got to a point where it was “cool” to be a virgin until one was married? That it was considered a special and sacred moment once more?

Because it truly is a rite of passage, which is very likely why the tradition of weddings became such a big deal. That ceremony is supposed to signify this Old Testament idea — that to lose one’s virginity = marriage. Yep! That’s what the white gown and the standing up and the father giving away and the vows and the big party after are all about. Believe it or not!

Obviously we as a society are so far from that, the idea almost seems nutty. But if you ask me, it actually makes a whole lot of sense! And if one is a believer, it’s something to ponder very carefully indeed.  I doubt God’s view of the matter has changed all that much.

In the case a believer has already crossed the line, I am not sure what the solution might be. Except to repent and sin no more. Like the bible also advises, if you can’t be celibate, find someone and get married, and spend the rest of your days happily knocking boot with your chosen life mate! Yep, it’s as simple (and complex) as that!

Let those who have ears hear.

 

The Mythical Good-Bad-Boy

25 Monday Jan 2016

Posted by in Relationships

≈ 57 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am often amazed at the choices some of the women I know make when choosing who to date. Time and again some seem drawn to so-called bad boys like a moth to a flame. Then, days, weeks, or months later, they will complain to anyone who will listen how he turned out to be — you guessed it — a bad boy.

What they are really saying, if they are honest with themselves, is that they thought they could domesticate that bad boy and turn him into that mythical bad boy with a heart of gold. A bad boy who was always good to her and only her. Except, it rarely seems to turn out that way. They may as well search for fried ice.

Experts will say perhaps it’s all those Disney movies, or stories of frogs turning into princes, or beasts turning into good guys that are to blame for the bad choices, but I think part of it can be linked to the way our cultural norms have changed in the past forty-plus years.

Today, women pair up with bad boys *because they can.* At one time such a choice would have been considered a disastrous hit to her social status, greatly reducing her odds of marrying well — or at all. Because of this, friends and family would likely have intervened, or simply forbid such a match.

In response to this some might say, “Thank goodness we don’t live in that world, anymore! Down with the patriarchy and oppression!”

But is it really better that women today are free to flirt with the danger of choosing to pair up with bad boys who won’t turn into the magical good guy when she snaps her fingers and wants him to turn into someone she (and their children) can count on?

For example, I know one such girl, a former next door neighbor, who has this bad boy addiction. And guess what? Yep, the bad boy father of her first two kids doesn’t pay child support, because he lives off his current girlfriend rather than work so he has no income to claim. And now the bad boy she left that one for has also turned out to be (surprise!) the frog he always was. Except she didn’t seem to realize that (besides his many, many red flags flying, repeated broken promises, pass out drunken dates, and drama filled relationship with his first child’s mom, among other warning signs over the two-plus years she chased him) until she was expecting his baby, due this coming April.

Yes, she is free today to make her own choices. But is that really such a good thing? Further, rather than see that her choices led her (and her children) into this bad situation, she continues to wail to anyone who will listen how “they did this to her.”

In reality, they are the same bad boys they were right from the start. And while she doesn’t admit it, I think deep down she knew that, but she just didn’t care. She told herself she could change them. But guess what? She couldn’t.

She’s really got nobody to blame but herself, and based on the results I’d wager at least for women like her, the safeguards of patriarchy might not have been such a bad thing after all.

But not to worry, I’m sure another bad boy will be along shortly….maybe this time things will turn out differently?

Let those who have ears hear.

 

 

My Fair Lady?

22 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Sex and Such

≈ 47 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

An offhand comment got me thinking the other day about the somewhat underrated and forgotten value of being “a lady.”

On the way to pick up some supplies, a neighbor who I hire to do occasional handyman type stuff at my place and I stopped at a local spot for lunch.

He started talking about the waitress, basically ranking her smv, but since he is not red pill he was just doing what came natural. As he sat there, speculating out loud about her assets (no pun intended) and liabilities, it was interesting to hear in real time how a guy accesses a gal’s datability and relationship potential.

She was brunette, not fat but perhaps 10-15 pounds overweight, cute face, dressed in black leggings and a tight black t-shirt that didn’t leave much to the imagination. It is hard to guess ages for me, but I would say she was in her mid to upper 30s.

I mentioned something to the effect of how on a 1-10 scale, I felt she and I were about the same, considering I was a few years older than her and otherwise we seemingly had similar but different pros and cons.

“Oh no, ” he said, with a shocked look on his face. “Not even close! You’re way above her.”

“What?” I said in surprise, then jokingly. “Just how do you figure that?”

“Simple,” he said. “Because you are a lady.”

“Awwwww,” I said. And truly, I was flattered. I try to be, anyway, as old fashioned as it seems. I dress modestly but attractively, act demurely, try to behave with decorum, and work to develop my character and personality.

Something I have heard said more than once in the manosphere is that while women will tell each other that nobody cares anymore if a girl cusses, is drama, is brash, aggressive, sleeps around, or dresses and/or acts like a slut.

A lot of women seem to be under the impression that just because for the most part other girls are OK with it, and are even doing the same, guys are OK with a gal being a so-called modern woman, too. If it’s good for the gander, it’s good for the goose.

Well, yes and no. Yes, if he is looking for a short-term or one time sexual experience with her, he’s all for her being “modern!” Bring it on.

But I’ve heard more than several guys, even hardcore players, admit that when it comes to true relationship material, they aren’t looking for a girl who acts like one of the guys or has sowed as many (or more!) wild oats then themselves.

Maybe all things being equal, men still prefer my fair ladies, after all.

Something to ponder, anyway. What do you think?

 

Project Much?

20 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Relationships

≈ 29 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As the commenter quoted in this post reveals, many of the problems women bemoan in relationships aren’t caused so much by men, but by women reading male behavior through a female lens (and yes, in the reverse, too, but this blog is aimed at women so that’s why this post is geared toward women.)

The concept is called projection, and it can be seen causing strife in male/female relationships in all sorts of ways.

The problem with projection is that often it flies under the conscious radar, so the person doing the projecting doesn’t even realize it.

One example could be how women obsess and will endlessly read the tea leaves of male behavior to determine if a guy is truly interested in her, or not.

At the same time guys say it’s as basic as, “if he’s talking to you, he likes you.”

So why the confusion? If they are honest with themselves, women often operate a so-called beta orbiter network. These beta orbiters are within the “let’s just be friends” zone, but girls will often pretend that maybe she likes him or could like him to get him to do boyfriend-like things for her (like take her out when she doesn’t have a “real” date or provide boyfriend-like emotional support.)

Sometimes (or depending on the girl, often) she’ll string them along with romantic gestures or some physical intimacy in order to gain favors or keep him on the hook as part of her “backup plan.” (Note, I am not saying it is good or fair to the guy. It’s not. At the same time it’s just something females do for some reason, so one has to consciously NOT do it. I suspect it is a subconscious safety thing, but again it’s just as unfair to do to a guy as it is for a guy to string a gal along.)

In turn, the beta orbiters may be projecting as well, believing that if she talks to him she likes him holds true for women, too.

As mentioned in the first linked post, women obsessing about whether a guy will leave her after he’s made a commitment or if he really likes her or not is a reflection of the fact that often women can and will leave a guy if a better one comes along or string a guy they don’t like romantically along in that very way. (Note: Yes, sometimes guys also don’t commit, but that’s for different reasons than why women break commitments or have beta orbiters.)

Compounding the issue is that most dating advice for women is rife with projection nonsense. In short, making it pretty worthless advice. Why? It’s usually written by women who are themselves projecting. (If you want relationship advice about guys that is much more helpful, seek it from a guy!)

Next time you find yourself spinning in your relationship, ask yourself if perhaps projection is to blame? The cool thing about recognizing projection is that once you start to be aware of it, you can see it all over!

Can you think of examples of projection? Or do you think it doesn’t exist?

(p.s. The Red Pill is often criticized as misogynistic, and while some commenters, bloggers, and participants on red pill forums may be that, in general it’s really not about saying “all men are evil” or “all women are evil” as much as it is looking at these subconcious/biological drives and behaviors of each gender and how they play out in real life. In fact, I believe being aware of them can help improve relationships, as well as help head off problems. The key thing is to not take these discussions personally.)

Is Sex Always for Sale?

18 Monday Jan 2016

Posted by in Sex and Such

≈ 105 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week we discussed the topic of sugar daddy/baby relationships and what they reveal about gender relations when viewed through a red pill lens.

Today I stumbled across a blog by a former call girl who describes her career choice quite candidly, and in a way that challenges a lot of the commonly held stereotypes about the profession.

In this post she asserts there’s really little difference between a call girl/John relationship and a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend one except call girls are openly and honestly acknowledging it’s an exchange of sex for resources with one key difference — unlike with dating or marriage, with a call girl the exchange is guaranteed.

In fact she hints that’s exactly why “good” women object so strongly to prostitution: because it puts the exchange many such women don’t want to admit right out there in the open where it makes those who want to pretend it’s (and they’re) not like that extremely uncomfortable.

It’s an interesting insight as far as inter-gender relations, even if I am not so sure myself that it always boils down to the simple equation of a woman gives a man what he wants (sex and/or babies) in exchange for what she wants (provision and/or protection.) And actually in this post, she says similar, and goes into the topic of transactional sex and marriage further. Interestingly, she speculates that it is the idea that all sex should be based on true love/feelings and should never, ever be transactional that is behind many a divorce today.

Once again, like with the sugar post,  I am not advocating women choose (or not choose) to become call girls or for this to get into a discussion about morality or virtue.  What I am more interested in is the question — is all male/female sex basically a transaction on some level?

Perhaps this is why, or at least partly why, women’s right activists and feminists advocate for a woman’s right to have sex for free with anyone they choose without “slut shaming” but will in the next breath take a hard line against actual whoring, saying it’s always about oppression and victimization? (Not that it sometimes isn’t.) Is that not a contradiction?

Perhaps they equate free/casual sex with independence and sex in trade for money or provision/protection (like marriage) as dependence? Or do they object because it somehow reveals something about the feminine imperative they would rather not be out in the open?

Are modern women trying to blur the line between sex and resources because they want to be able to exercise their option to get the goodies and NOT make the trade? (For example, in the sexless marriage.) Or to exercise the option to make the trade, when they want to, minus goodies? (For example, to be able to have casual or no strings sex without the social judgement of days gone by.) To have a sort of sliding scale approach, where some guys “pay” nothing while others “pay” dearly, based on how attracted she is to him? (the AFBB model)  Or are they simply trying to get an upper hand in the gender balance, exploiting their options as fully as possible while at the same time trying to limit men’s?

Her argument brings to mind an old saying once commonly said by mothers to daughters, which (in a seemingly opposite but perhaps similar way) feminists rally against because it also hints at this transaction nature of sex. “Why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?”

It’s an interesting topic to ponder, I think. What do you think — is sex between women and men basically always about a transaction? And if so is that a fair exchange, or not?

(And if you did not click on the link and read the post that this post is in response to before, I highly recommend you do so before commenting whether you agree with her or not, just for purposes of discussion.)

 

 

 

 

Why Are Good Guys So Hard to Find?

16 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by in Relationships, Uncategorized

≈ 60 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I often hear women say good guys are hard to find. Interestingly I also know a lot of good guys who say they wish they had a girlfriend or wife, but they don’t have much luck with women. Where is the disconnect?

Women say it’s the men, men say it’s the women. But I think it’s more to blame on how gender relations have been turned upside down over the past 40 plus years than anything. Everything seems to be all backwards these days, and as far as I can see it’s not working out all that great, either!

I have even seen it in person. A former neighbor of mine has been chasing her “bad boy”  for several years now. Meanwhile she on and off dates another guy who is a really great guy — and he thinks the world of her — but she says the attraction just isn’t there. He’s good looking, has a great job, is a devoted father to his kids (he’s divorced), I can’t see what there is NOT to be attracted to! (And of course, when her bad boy is out of the picture or has once again left her in the dust, who does she call?)

One thing I have noticed about good guys is they are often pretty subtle, as in they often act more like a friend than a romantic interest. In fact I myself have had guy friends, great guys, who in retrospect I realize probably were hanging out with me not for company but because they were hoping it would turn into something more. But without them ever “making a move” I truly believed (before the manosphere clued me in) that they actually just wanted to be friends. Apparently from what the guys have told me, single guys rarely hang out with ladies they have no attraction to.

So ladies, if you want a good guy, my advice would be to take a look around at the guy friends in your life who just might be waiting for you to send them the green light while you are clueless that they are interested. Of course we girls are told over and over not to make the first move, but the trouble is the good guys have been told not to be too pushy, or a creeper, or to harass the ladies. And so…usually nothing happens.

And have you ever noticed that bad boys, meanwhile, seem to have no problem harassing the ladies? I mean flat out brazen bold about it. And they are rarely without a female companion –or several at once! (That’s exactly why one of the main concepts of “game” is to teach good guys how to act more like bad boys!)

Anyway not that I have all this figured out myself but I do know this: there are lots of good guys out there who are currently single and completely being overlooked. They may not be the flashiest guys in the crowd, but the best kept secret is good guys make great boyfriends and husbands!

Maybe some of the good guys around here can enlighten us: how does a gal get a good guy to break the ice? Is it bad to make the first move? Do guys really want to be “just friends” with the gals they hang out with most of the time? Have the good guys just given up? What would it take to get them to take the chance and how to do it? I truly do think we ladies are missing something here…

 

 

 

 

Is Everything Old New Again?

10 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Sex and Such

≈ 50 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Somehow I recently stumbled upon information about a growing new market in online dating: sugar daddy/sugar baby websites.

Now for starters don’t get me wrong here, I am not endorsing such an approach, nor advocating women sign up for a sugar daddy website.

But there is something about it that is all very red pill somehow, although I am not sure I can put it into words. Not that it’s stopped me before, lol, so I will try.

Something I find really interesting about it is the outrage from feminists in particular about the idea. Seems it flies smack in the face of the “single independent woman” mantra.

As if somehow it’s OK to have a “sexually positive” relationship with a man, but only if it also contains no expectations of provision or protection in return.

Somehow one night stands and casual hookups are completely ok, without any emotional ties or connections, but God forbid a woman have a more traditional relationship where she is in an exclusive committed relationship with man who cares for her emotionally, physically, and/or financially because that would be akin to oppression, or prostitution, or something.

The almost schizophrenic reasoning behind it can be seen all over in both popular culture and society at large. Young girls are encouraged to explore their sexuality, freely, and for free, no strings attached a la Sex in the City while the young married stay at home mom is seen as some sort of outdated oddity who couldn’t possibly be happy.

In a weird way the sugar baby rules of “no nookie until a financial agreement is struck” seem almost refreshingly Victorian in a casual sex world. Ironically, it’s the gals who sign up for such sites but try to play the game by today’s rules (give up nookie, hope for an arrangement in return) who seem to be the ones complaining of getting “taken advantage of” by sugar daddy’s who then disappear. (Surprise!) Boo hoo. No Louboutin shoes or Gucci bag to show for it, either! Waaa. (BTW: there are much more important things in life, but that’s another post…)

Again, don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a sugar baby lifestyle is the way to go. But a return to a more traditional relationship dynamic where expectations of provisioning and protection proceed physical relations might not be such a bad idea after all.

What do you think, readers? Is it wrong for a woman to expect provision or protection? Old fashioned and outdated? Does that make a woman a victim? A user? Cheapen her? Turn sex into a transaction?

And what about from a male point of view? Is it exploitation if a woman says no agreement, no kitty? Or is it all-in-all a livable deal?

Talk amongst yourselves…

A Red Pill Wedding?

07 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 38 Comments

One of my college roommates approached getting married with what I considered at the time, a very unromantic view. Rather than looking for love or to be swept off her feet, she approached the entire process almost as if it were a job interview.

She’s been raised in a traditional upper middle class family. Her dad was an engineer, her mom had a degree but stayed at home after marriage. She had two biological siblings and two adopted ones. She attended a private Catholic girls school and was just finishing up her Master’s degree when we met. Technically she had finished her classes but was doing her student teaching to gain enough on the job experience to get her certification.

I wouldn’t say I knew her well, and we only lived together about 8 months before she fulfilled her goal of finding someone, getting engaged, and getting married. I lost track of her soon after, so I can’t really say how that all worked out.

Looking back though, with a red pill perspective, I can see she realized then what I myself did not — that at 23 (from a male point of view) she was at the physical prime of her life.  She guarded her virginity closely, and she bragged about it openly. (She had a long term, 3+ years, boyfriend in college who never proposed, so I often wondered exactly how “virgin” she was but…perhaps technically? Who knows!)

She was blonde, with big blue eyes, and a petite figure. She wasn’t drop dead gorgeous, but she certainly wasn’t unattractive either. She knew how to and consciously did make the most of the assets she had.

I can’t remember how she met her fiance, this was before online dating, but I do remember he fit her very detailed criteria. At the time it seemed so calculating to me, the “hopeless romantic” that she would choose her life mate based on such cut and dry things like his education level, current earnings, future earning potential, adequate but not jaw-dropping looks, and appropriate social status.

They went on a few dates, all the while she made it very clear to him that her goal was she was seeking marriage and to be a stay-at-home wife and mother.

At the appropriate 6-month dating mark, he presented her with the appropriate sized ring, in a socially approved “romantic” way (“surprised” her at a local park after going on a hike.) Truth be told, I am sure he knew that if he did not propose, she would cut him loose and continue her search. She was not at all bashful about putting her expectations out there, and she had a solid sense of her MMP “worth.”

The one missing piece, that he was not raised Catholic, was soon addressed when he enrolled in classes that would make him a confirmed Catholic by their wedding date.

They married in a traditional Catholic wedding, white gown, in the church, etc.

As I have said, the whole thing kind of yucked me out at the time, it seemed too calculating, and she seemed kindof shallow to me, so I did not keep in touch. Truth be told I felt for her fiance, who truly was a really nice guy, and worried she was getting the better part of the deal and he was signing up to be the draft horse to make her dreams come true.

Four years or so later I ran across them at a party at our other former roommate’s house, and was surprised they only had one two-year-old daughter by then, with no immediate plans for another child. They lived in the “right” neighborhood, had the “right” friends, were part of the “right” social circles. She had the life she wanted, had planned for, had aimed for. On the surface anyway, they seemed happy.

Looking back on it I suppose at least from her point of view, it was a red pill wedding. She recognized her SMP/MMP market value, protected it, promoted it, and cashed it in at her peak. Whether it was a red pill wedding for her mate, well that is another story I will leave to the guys to discuss.

Personally I still find myself thinking it was all a bit too formulaic and calculating. I would have preferred to see more evidence of “true love” or them being “soul mates” but who am I to judge? Especially after seeing many friends swept up to their doom by such feelings with guys who never offered anything more than a handful of Skittles and an, “I’ll call you…sometime.”

What do you think, reader? Was she wiser than her years, or did she play it all wrong?

Let those who have ears hear.

—————

p.s. And so of course I had to look them up, via social media, and I see they have two children, a teen girl headed off to college and a pre-teen boy, and they are still together posting pictures of the family body boarding in the surf at an exotic location for New Years! To her credit, she pretty much looks the same now as she did then! And they look happy.