Twilight Horror

June 30, 2010

I was checking out “casual encounters” on craigslist, more for amusement than anything else- I have found a horny slut on there before, although it didn’t work out too well. Here is what I found. This is not the Twilight Zone, it’s the “Twilight” Zone, or America in the 21st century.

(Begin craigslist ad- copied and pasted verbatim, location removed)

Twi-mom in open realtionship seeks younger(18-25) for NSA (BBW) – w4m – 38

Whew! Alot to put into a title-but I wanted to be upfront with everything. I am a size 22 BBW married woman, and with my husband consent and amusement, am posting this on hopes of finding a younger man to indulge a fantasy of mine (the younger man!); even though he’s not here and on business, I’d prefer if you could host. This is a first time-although I”ve thought about it several times; I’ve just gotten outrageously horny with the Twilight movies (apparently I’m in good company-alot of the other mom’s are lusting after teenagers/younger men too 🙂 and thought I’d just go for it. Today would be ideal, since later this afternoon, I’ll be going to [edit- movie theater] at [edit- middle-class suburban location] to see the new movie (whoo-hoo! no kids, and drinks!) Details: I’m 38, size 22, 38G, a nice booty, but regretably a belly (I just want to be upfront), and I have dark hair;All this has to be STRICTLY SEXUAL-nothing resembling a date. I don’t mind getting to know you/warming up with some wine or beer, but that’s the extent of socializing. Got to run some errands now, hope to hookup soon ! Oh, and location..anywhere from [edit- location of deranged whore and desired range of location of fantasy man]

(End of craigslist ad)

Photo posted with craigslist ad-

Mentally deranged whore, or "Twi-mom"

There is a lot that could be said about this, but what does this mean for the low status male? This woman is married and has kids. Her husband is probably a low status male of some degree. There is no reason they should not be happy. She seems to lead a nice, lower-middle class suburban existence. He has a rather overweight, but otherwise decent-looking woman. She is not obese or gross. She should be enjoying her husband, her children, and her relative good fortune.

But for some reason she is pursuing adultery which can only destroy everything. She says her husband consents- but why? Only because he isn’t strong enough to stop her. If he could, he would, but he probably knows he can’t, and she’ll do it anyway, so he goes along with it. He maybe afraid she’ll initiate a divorce and destroy the family, but that will probably happen in a few years anyway. If she is unable to control her sexual desires and unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality this won’t be the last time. She’ll develop a taste for casual sex and get rid of her husband, whether he is tolerant of her adultery or not.

The lesson is if you can’t control a woman, you can’t have a relationship with her, and certainly not marriage. You can criticize this woman and the culture all you want, but from the standpoint of the man he is unable to prevent her from openly committing adultery.

I am coming to the realization that I can’t control women and no relationship will ever work until I can. All women, as far as I can tell, engage in bad behavior and if you can’t nip it in the bud things rapidly spin out of control.


Blogroll Addition- “Willy Wonka’s Adventures”

June 29, 2010

Willy Wonka comments here on occasion but I didn’t realize until now he had his own blog. I add it for your edification and enjoyment.


Blogroll Addition- “The Real Assanova”

June 29, 2010

I have not read this guy much and it looks like mostly upper-level game stuff not directly relevant to me or my intended readership but it looks interesting and informative and worth reading.


More On “The Dog Whisperer”

June 29, 2010

Ferdinand Bardimu has a guest poster who talks about the Cesar Milan philosophy as it applies to relationships-

http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/06/29/the-wife-whisperer/

This is pretty comprehensive and explains most of what you would need to do to apply this. The fundamental question is existential- what kind of a relationship do y0u want to have with a woman? Do you want to be in control, or do you want to cross your fingers and hope for the best?


Camille Paglia On Modern Victorianism

June 29, 2010

Camille Paglia notes the attempt to create a female version of Viagra, and uses it as a launching point for looking at our desexualized society-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27Paglia.html

Camille Paglia is the one person I can think of who has a really original viewpoint on culture. Anything she writes is well worth reading. She had a monthly column at Salon which she has set aside to write a book, but in any case Drudge links everything she writes.

My delineation of the Victorian ascendancy ended in the 50’s. That was a long time ago, and I’ll go into more detail about what happened in the meantime later, but let me say this about Ward Cleaver, as he is affectionately portrayed, or the Organization Man, in the more skeptical view. He is not a boozing, ass-grabbing alpha. But he is a man. He works in an all-male environment with a distinct hierarchy. If he is diligent he can rise within it. It asks a lot of sacrifices from him- he sacrifices his personal life, he curbs his impulses, he obeys even when it smarts and even when it is humiliating- but it provides him with a position, an income, and an identity, possibly with some prestige. Barring some disaster, whether he is a factory or office worker he will stay there until he receives a pension. The organization then provides for him for life.

This is a social contract as old as the Roman army. This man despite all his repression still plays a masculine role. Ward Cleaver has his June and Ralph Kramden has his Alice.

Men still go to work in offices, not so much factories any more, but the workforce is not all male, in fact it’s getting to be more than half female. The behaviors that men use to cope with boredom such as dirty jokes and roughhousing are taboo. There is a hierarchy but it is very flat and the chances of moving up are pretty slim. Employment is for as long as they need you, which might be a year or two, or three, no more.

Men aren’t men anymore, not even beta providers, and women aren’t women. What camaraderie that had existed is replaced by a barrel of crabs mentality. For the home Paglia mentions the “supermom” phenomenon; whether moms are all that super I question but if two people live together and split expenses, they are basically just roommates, whether or not they have sex or are married. The kids are already taken care of all day by somebody else so dissolving the relationship is little more difficult than dissolving any other roommate relationship.

Paglia mentions that men wear casual clothes until late in life. White people started this in the 60’s; black people started doing it in the 80’s. If guys prefer to keep wearing the same clothes they did as children it may be because they associate them with the last time they felt free and relaxed. It used to be wearing a suit meant you were somebody; even if you weren’t you could put on a suit and feel like one. Now it just means you go to a place you hate and pretend to like people you can’t stand.

As a side issue fat people can’t wear nice clothes. People have been getting fatter all this time, due to the awful diet of Americans, which I’ll save for another time.

One of the things Gregory Clark talks about in “A Farewell To Alms” is how some societies have devolved technologically. In relatively recent times hooking up with and having fun with women was something the average illiterate peasant could do with little effort or self-consciousness. People mate normally and instinctually, you have to crush the ability out of them.

For me dealing better with people, including women, is more a matter of deprogramming than programming. But it’s a combination of the two.


The Rise- And Ongoing Fall- Of Beta Society

June 25, 2010

Paul Gauguin once said “Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?” I got that from a Calvin and Hobbes strip. Wisdom is nonetheless where we find it and it’s a good question. I think looking into it will help us understand where we are today in the sexual marketplace.

The nature of a society might be determined by looking at its elite class, the people who control the culture. In our culture- I speak of North America, and to a lesser extent Britain and western Europe- these people are located mainly in New England and New York. They are mostly of British descent, and they or their parents were Protestants of such genteel denominations as Episcopalian, Presbyterian, maybe Quaker or Christian Scientist. They are investment bankers or lawyers. They might possibly be college professors or physicians. They love genteel sports such as golf and tennis. They are inclined to cutting wit. Their fathers or grandfathers may have been in World War II but no one in the family has been in the military since. They love the countryside but are not farmers.

Picture, if you will, such a person at a party in the Hamptons. We open up a wormhole and transport him back in time to an upper class party in England 200 years ago, in London or in the country. The attendees are mostly landed gentry, people who get their income from renting their farmland. There are some army officers and maybe navy officers. There are no lawyers or investment bankers, who to these people are little more than servants. He tries to talk about the market, but is firmly rebuffed for bringing up such a crude subject. They try to talk to him about hunting, foxes on horses with dogs or birds on foot with shotguns, but he tells them he doesn’t like killing animals, which they find really weird. He tries to talk about golf and tennis, but nobody plays those much as they aren’t really regarded as masculine pursuits. A cavalry officer, regarded as a bit of a rake but a great chap by all, suggests a nice whorehouse they can visit later, and he shudders. He makes a witty, cutting remark and is challenged to a duel at dawn the next day. Does he manage to withdraw his remark, or is he killed? With wormholes you don’t really know. In any case he has a really bad evening.

So obviously the ruling class of one era is not the ruling class of another era, and does not have the same outlook on the world, method of living or morals. How then did we go from the one to the other?

The Protestant Reformation hit England pretty hard. The urban middle class took to Puritanism, which briefly established a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. That didn’t last, and while the hostility towards Puritanism, Calvinism, and the numerous “non-conformist” Protestant sects outside the Church of England subsided, these people were definitely not the ones in power. They continued to beaver away though.

Up to the early 1800’s Britain remained firmly in the control of the aristocracy, people who in our quaint “game” terminology were very alpha. They drank, they screwed prostitutes or their female servants, they fought duels, they went fox hunting and they drank some more. The period of the late 1700’s to the 1830’s or thereabouts is called the Regency period, and was particularly fashionable and dissolute. Women love this period; many romance novels are set in this place and time. Membership in this class was pretty much all hereditary as to have both money and leisure meant you had to have inherited an estate, or some portion of income from one. Note that by “estate” we don’t mean “the financial assets of a deceased person” but an actual estate, that is a big piece of land in the country. Most people were farmers and most wealth came from owning farmland.

Something else was happening though- the Industrial Revolution. The Puritan merchants, bankers and manufacturers were getting richer, more numerous and more powerful. The aristocratic lifestyle of leisure in the country, drinking a lot, screwing whatever you could, duelling, and dangerous sports like fox hunting had little appeal to them as they lived in the city and worked most of the time. Their church membership and reputation for moral conduct was an important part of their credibility as businessmen. They loathed the aristocracy and with their increasing power were in competition with them. They looked to replace the controlling position of that culture with their own.

I’m not a historian and those who have studied this time and place might dispute some aspects of this. I’m not writing a paper here, I’m making a point. At this time dawned the Victorian era, a time associated with personal restraint, strict morality, and various crusades of social improvement. The masculine, alpha culture of the Regency period was excoriated. People were expected to strive for the virtues of Christian morality and charity. Women were thought to be naturally morally superior to men; while men might be dominant in the outside world, the home and relationships were the domains of women, and men should defer to their wives and try to be more like them- more sensitive, more caring, more gentle, more loving, more forgiving.

There was one small snag with this division of woman running the home, man working out in the world. Factories would hire anybody, men, women, children, it didn’t matter to them. Victorian moralists didn’t like the idea of women and children in such a crude environment, and it disrupted their concept of family life. An idea called the family wage was promoted. Factories would only hire men, and they would pay them a wage adequate to support a family. Under pressure manufacturers went along with this. A factory can make money paying people a higher wage, they just higher fewer people and make them more efficient. Obviously this wasn’t society as a whole. Poorer women worked. But the ideal was clear- a woman who stayed at home and worked at maintaining a Christian household and raising Christian children, with a steady, reliable husband who brought home his wages.

Feminists would say this is sexist. On the contrary it was quite feminist, in its own way. Women gained a lot of power and influence they never had before. Nobody before had thought women were morally superior to men, or should control the home, the children, and strongly influence the religious life of the family. But what about women working? Running the home was regarded as the work of a woman, and very noble work at that. Certain professions for women were developing at this time- nursing, teaching, and running various kinds of charitable activities and non-clerical religious activities. But in general women were to stay in the home.

For this to work of course you need the steady, sober, hard-working, humble husband. It was common in those days for men to stop at a pub after work and get very drunk. They might then go home and behave badly, perhaps beating their wives and children. In any case it was not the behavior expected of a good Christian man and involved spending a lot of money, money the wife might be spending as she saw fit. “Temperance” or stopping the use of alcohol was then a big cause in this time.

To review-

-Women are superior to men morally and spiritually and should control the home and relationships.

-Men must control their urges to be violent, aggressive, sexual, and to party for the benefit of their wives and children. They must be humble and submissive to their wives.

-But this only works if most men can get a job that will allow them to support a stay-at-home wife and a few children, and women don’t work.

Sounds great, right? Really “Leave It To Beaver”? Under this system of social organization a woman is going to want a not particularly dominant, humble guy who is gentle, loving, caring, listens to her and does what she says, and comes home after work and does things around the house and doesn’t spend time drinking at bars, going after other women or other masculine pursuits.

This man is the “Beta Provider” of game-o-sphere fame. (did Roissy coin this usage? I’m not sure.) He certainly seemed to rule before; Ward Cleaver and Ozzie Nelson were happy men and thought of as the male ideal in their day. There is the strongly held belief that this is the way it should be, this is the way it has always been and this man is who society should lionize and who men should aspire to be. But it’s not that way any more and probably won’t be again.

This form of social organization, what we tend to think of as “normal”, only lasted about 100 years, from the mid 1800’s to the mid 1900’s. It worked because the Industrial Revolution provided lots of factory and office jobs for this type of man- the “Organization Man” as he was called in the 50’s, close to the end of his reign.

So how does it work now?

-Women are superior to men morally and spiritually and should control the home and relationships.

-Men must control their urges to be violent, aggressive, sexual, and to party for the benefit of their wives and children. They must be humble and submissive to their wives.

-Men should get a job that will allow them to support a stay-at-home wife and a few children. They should also come home and do half of the previously female housework, as well as all the male housework. The wife might work, if she wants, or she might stay at home, it’s up to her. In any case she retains all the privileges women had before and gains part of the ones men had, taking them away from the husband.

-In any case a woman can do any job a man can and get married or not and stay married or not, keeping any children of course, receiving child support, solely at her discretion.

Note that #3 has changed and there is a #4. A woman might want a Beta Provider but she doesn’t need one, and she can discard the one she has if she gets tired. For the period outlined most men could be Beta Providers; now you probably have to be a doctor to qualify, with little guarantee she won’t divorce you or cheat.

I’m all for being Ward Cleaver; I still hope to find my June and live happily ever after. But as you can see, the time when being a nice guy with a decent job would get you a stable relationship with a woman and a decent life was a historical anomaly. We have to deal with what works now, not what worked for Dad or Grandpa.


Dopamine Vs. Oxytocin

June 24, 2010

Susan Walsh talks about seeing Gloria Steinem on Stephen Colbert, and then at the end mentions male and female brain chemistry-

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/24/politics-and-feminism/this-is-feminism-on-life-support/

I left this comment-

“I love dopamine. Dopamine has never let me down. Oxytocin only brings pain and sadness.”

To which she replied-

“Yeah, and you can flip that script for women.”

I thought that was a bit flip of her. I was a little confused about all the brain chemicals she lists, but she has another post where she explains these, with reference to Helen Fisher, whom I have never read but is a popular sociobiological reference on relationships-

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/14/relationshipstrategies/this-is-what-a-good-man-looks-like/

This is a matter of understanding what the other party wants in a relationship. It is critical to understand that what they want is not necessarily, or even likely, what you want.

OneSTDV compares groupies flocking to Joran Van Der Sloot versus a guy writing an advice columnist in Slate who can’t get a girlfriend despite offering emotional and financial support to many women-

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/06/last-night-salon.html

This man believes women want emotional and financial support in a relationship. Why? Probably because that’s what he wants.

Alpha males don’t want support in a relationship because they don’t need it. They are dominant and in control and have comfort and security because of that; they want fun, pleasure and novelty. Women in general do not want much support in a relationship; the world is a much kinder and safer place for women than for men. They get emotional support from their girlfriends and female relatives, and can usually at least get by with the jobs they have. They also want fun, pleasure and novelty. Sounds like a good match right? The one problem with this is that for the alpha male novelty means multiple and new women. Plenty of women won’t even mind the multiple part; they just don’t like the new part, as in being dumped for new women.

Lower status males will to various degrees look for emotional shelter in a relationship, as they are taking more of a beating in the world. Women who would provide emotional support to a female friend or relative might do this to some extent for a male partner, but to a lesser extent. The idea of women as nurturing is pretty oversold in my opinion. Supposedly they are attracted to “nurturing” professions like teaching and nursing. Most of the female teachers I had were sour, burned out bitches. I don’t find nurses to be particularly nurturing either. The idea that providing care of some kind for children or sick people is “nurturing” rather than just traditionally a female function is something women like to promote for their own benefit but doesn’t really hold up.

The last part is important. Women have a vested interest in women being caring, and relationships being about caring. This gives them power in relationships, power which until recent times they have needed. But relationships are not about caring. Relationships are about each party getting something they want from the other party. The relationship lasts as long as that is the case, and when it is not, the relationship ends.

Isn’t that pretty cold? Maybe. But caring is not really a relationship, it is doing something for another person without expectation of reward. I like to donate toys at Christmas. I do it because it makes me happy to think of a little kid who would not otherwise have a toy at Christmas getting one and being happy. I expect nothing, not even gratitude. This meets, I suppose, the Randian definition of selfishness- I am purchasing a feeling for myself but that’s OK.

Robert Ringer talks about this in “Looking Out For Number One.” He says at the end of his discussion about friendship “Am I saying you should buy friendship? I’m not saying you should, I’m saying you must.” People do not want to be around you out of the goodness of their hearts. They want to be around you because you make their lives more enjoyable in some way.

The guy in the advice column is not as many of OneSTDV’s  commenters suggest a fag, an idiot or a complete loser, he is just dense. He would like to get support in a relationship, so he thinks they want it. After some years he is realizing something is wrong.

OneSTDV doesn’t provide a link, but I looked it up. It’s incredibly mean and ugly, but the kind of thing I expect from liberals-

http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked/2010/06/22/true_man_self

Cary Tennis basically says the guy must really be rotten bastard, and not really a nice guy after all. This is a frequent attack on nice guys. “You’re not really nice! There is something seriously wrong with you and that’s why women don’t like you!”

I doubt the guy is especially ugly, has bad breath, or needs a therapist. He wants and expects reciprocity in a relationship, which is perfectly normal and rational. And nice, not evil. But he wants to give nice and get nice in return, which despite the massive social propaganda devoted to it, is not primarily how male-female relationships work.

Women don’t want nice because they are evil, or because they don’t need it, but because that is not primarily what they want from a man.