domain:greyenlightenment.com
ThenElection
4hr ago
So, similarly, I've also had plenty of people express interest in me. Enthusiastic, plentiful, sometimes even stalkery. Been asked out multiple times on the street in broad daylight, in fact; three months ago someone cold approached me on my way to work and told me I was really attractive. The thing is, they were all men. Which is fine: I'm bisexual.
But that same kind of ease is something I have never once in my life experienced from women. It was always a complicated process to get even the slightest time of day. And I think that's the difference: for some people, they've got to approach the process strategically and analytically, or they will never have any success.
trying to build a relationship on top of a friendship just doesn't work
Which is exactly the issue: many men do want relationships to form through the same process as friendship. Something organic where both people naturally recognize the value of the other person. And, for dating other men, it can and does happen exactly that way (though there are even simpler ways...), simply because baseline attraction is more evenly distributed. But, for dating women, getting over the attraction hurdle is a huge, difficult step, and TRP (at least in its lighter, non-neurodivergent varieties) is useful for understanding how to actually do that, even though the initial dating process remains entirely devoid of pleasure.
(A critical piece of context: I'm also 5'3", which explains why I have such a different experience between the two audiences. In my online dating days, when I as a test listed myself as 5'10", I got all the same enthusiasm from women as I did from men, and so I doubt it'd be necessary to rely on eldritch rituals to find success).
bicameral_mindset
4hr ago
This is a great, if chilling, read. Looking forward to the continuation.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
4hr ago
Suicide is fucking barbaric, and honestly pretty selfish.
By that measure, every kind of death is. Someone always ends up having to deal with the corpse.
Corvos
4hr ago
In London the social dynamics are pretty different. More importantly, though, there's a BIG difference between
'girls should wait for marriage to have sex'
and
'girls should be made to wait for marriage before having sex'.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
4hr ago
My issue is claiming, without precise data, whether or not MSMs should be blanket banned from blood donation. I believe I am qualified to make a decision here, if I were to dive deeper into said numbers and do a principled cost-benefit analysis. However, what would the point be? I'm sure more qualified people have already done so. Blood is always in acute shortage, and everyone is desperate to get as much of it in stock as they can without compromising safety more than it helps.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
4hr ago
I for one didn't. Write like everyone.. something. There's a rule. Sorry, phoneposting.
rae
4hr ago
Of course, there are all kinds of edge cases, what if they didn't know someone was a man? Wiser men than me have ended up in Thailand drunk off their tits, and didn't realize their partner was a lady boy. Or what if they're post-op trans?
If they look like women, and if they don't have a dick (or you're unaware of it due to drunkenness), how is that an edge case? And what about the reverse - a man having a passable trans male partner? Are both scenarios gay/bi?
I think it's easier to just think of it as, if you're a man and only attracted to male characteristics, e.g. penis, body hair, muscles, general masculinity, etc. you're gay, if you're only attracted to female characteristics, e.g. vagina, breasts, small waist/large hips, you're straight. If you're attracted to both, you're bi, past a certain fuzzy point (being attracted to tall women is fine, but being attracted to tall, muscular, hairy women with small hips and deep voices starts getting a bit sus). You're not suddenly gay for being attracted to a drawing of a woman if the artist later goes "ha, I actually intended it to be a male, it just looks like a drawing of a woman!".
I agree with you that retroactively labeling people in the historical sense is a questionable task. Many cultures, particularly the Romans or Greeks, had models of sexuality that don't cleanly match onto our own. Even when it was two men, the question of who was on top versus the bottom was very important. The latter was condemned, the former condemned weaker, tolerated or extolled as virtuous depending on the exact moment in time.
There does seem to be this universal male anxiety over "does liking/doing X make me less of a man?" though. In modern times this seems to have become "am I gay for liking/doing X" which adds an layer of worry over things Romans or Greeks wouldn't have cared about, like being the dominant partner of a younger male of lesser social status. Although the Romans thought having a goatee or touching your head with your finger was effeminate, so maybe it evens out.
Well, women are actively giving Lothario what he wants. It's not like women should be considered incapable of assessing their own risk or bearing the consequences of their own decisions, and it's often trivially easy to identify a cad - they barely even need to hide that fact. Personally I think that if women decide to play with fire, it should come as no surprise once they get burned. You did a stupid thing and had unrealistic expectations of a man you probably already knew wasn't looking for the same thing you were, learn from it and grow.
Perhaps seduction laws make some level of sense within a traditionalist sexual/moral framework, but right now, we don't live in that world. We live under a bizarre marriage of Victorian era morality and female sexual liberation that is the schizophrenic brainchild of modern gender feminism. Most people are somehow still capable of harbouring the traditional idea that female sexuality is a Big Deal and must be guarded closely; that any woman who feels violated (by her own free choices, mind you) is an agency-less victim who should have the ability to shift responsibility onto the man and obtain restitution of some form from the one "responsible", while somehow also holding the liberal idea that women are agents who can freely make whatever sexual choices they want without outside constraint or any personal responsibility to safeguard their own virtue. All the choice, without any of the responsibility.
Men and society have no ability to police women, despite the fact that once the sex they assented to does not result in what they want, it is the responsibility of society - whether that be the men around them, or society as a whole - to intervene on their behalf. Historically this would've been a woman's father beating the daylights out of the man in question and forcing a shotgun wedding, today it comes in the form of public cancellation and blacklisting of the man as a predator and objectifier of women. In effect, this means that men are policed, whereas women aren't even expected to accept the consequences of their own behaviour. Introducing seduction laws into this clusterfuck makes the situation even more unbalanced, not less.
At the very least it should go either way - sexual liberation or sexual traditionalism. But we fall short of even that basic standard at the moment. Right now many people's moral evaluations are incoherently structured around what would be most convenient for women, switching between traditionalism and liberation in a way that allows them to maximise the benefits women extract while minimising judgement and stigma, and that is something I do object to. It needs to be consistent.
Ademonera
5hr ago
Yeah, but people that have listened to cum town will know exactly where it comes from. I genuinely think listening to that podcast helps me contextualize how non-serious this stuff is
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
Having been around de-emancipated women it isn’t a panacea.
Sand wigger white sharia posting tends to fail to realize that sharia- and deeply oppressive traditional cultures more generally- have a lot of supporting social structures which are much harder to generate de novo.
Ademonera
5hr ago
It’s a cumtown reference, whose gay jokes made me more comfortable with my identity
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
Wait for marriage isn’t the coolest opinion, but it’s not offensive, either. More old fashioned.
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
Of course these lotharios are doing something bad, should they not have consequences?
I agree that castration is dumb. But what’s wrong with seduction laws?
Lazuli
5hr ago
I don't like the fact that I have to work a remote job.
I'd like to be more integrated into the local community.
Can't you do both?
My understanding was that gooning is reserved for any particularly degenerate and indulgent forms of masturbation. Like when I think of a gooner, I think of someone for whom cranking it while looking at porn sitting in front of his computer doesn't work anymore, he needs to be watching 10 videos at once for hours on a multiscreen setup laying down in a reclining chair while vaping weed.
Rov_Scam
5hr ago
I don't know that the new charges necessarily obviate the idea that the gun is unsafe. I don't know that the facts have been revealed in enough specificity to have a complete picture, but let's suppose the following happened: The guy threw his holstered gun down on the desk, and contact with the surface caused it to discharge, killing the other guy. The first guy then lied about what happened to investigators, claiming the gun was just sitting on the desk when it went off. Federal law defines involuntary manslaughter as "[T]he commission...without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death".
I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the careless handling of a loaded firearm in the manner described above qualifies as a lawful act which might produce death performed in an incautious manner. But it's also true that a firearm so handled shouldn't go off accidentally. I would suspect that there will be a civil suit stemming from this, and Sig got lucky that it happened in Wyoming, where juries are stingy, giving the case a decent chance at settlement. But now they're on notice like they've never been before, and unless they recall the gun outright or come up with a fix, no matter how clunky, that absolutely prevents that from happening, they run the risk of having to explain to a Philadelphia jury why that was just too expensive and said jury deciding that trebling that amount is a just way of calculating punitive damages. It's still a tough spot to be in.
thejdizzler's comment is pretty extreme, and if I had to bet I'd bet that this is just him coping with his own jealousy and shortcomings while trying to find a "logical" solution to the problems that affect his type the most. It's not rational though. It's an absurd proposal. It seems like he's just grasping for straws in hopes that some others will empathize with his situation. I do empathize with the sort of turmoil he's dealing with right now, because I think it's become a broader societal problem.
Expecting women to regulate their own sexual behaviour, sensibly assess risk and accept the consequences of their bad decisions like adults apparently is not reasonable, and they deserve recompense for their freely-made decision to have sex with obvious players whose intentions would be clear to anyone with an IQ above 20, like children who must perpetually be sheltered from the repercussions of their actions.
It's reasonable in the current moment because current society allows it. The problem is that it has the potential to bring about societal consequences that people no longer seem to think are possible. A group willingly volunteering to scale back the most freedom and opportunity they've ever had for the sake of the other half of the population will not happen. If I were a Western woman in the current environment, I too would not want to willingly give up my position in society.
What's likely to happen though is that after this has run its course for a while, either A) some capable portion of the lower 80% of men, accompanied by a handful of the top 20% of men, will make increasingly harder pushes for men's control than the one that's happening right now, or B) AI will increasingly fill the emptiness these men feel, come up with new methods to prevent human violence, and stave off a chaotic uprising. Plenty of other scenarios could play out, but these two seem the most obvious in the current setting. Any other scenario that trends away from prosperity will be much worse for current women's rights, because ostracism, shaming, and emotional manipulation will take a backseat to the threat of violence.
Right now, warning the population about the possibility of something violent like this happening just rings hollow. Nobody in the lib or progressive camp actually believes that their behavior fuels the fire they most want to put out. Worst of all is that there's nothing to be done about that on a macro level. In my opinion, the only real way this shakes out is people learning the hard way, like we always have.
My predictions are obviously open for criticism. I present two distinct possibilities and a vague third one, when in reality there is an infinite number of possible outcomes.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5hr ago
This all happened in 1938, when Sinatra was 23, so it's interesting to see it predate the sexual revolution by so many decades.
What?
I assure you adultery was a thing for the entirety of human existence. The sexual revolution just ramped it up by saying "it's a good thing, actually".
Hard disagree. Sex has to be really bad before I would prefer to just crank my hog.
Even in that case, you can easily satisfy yourself using hookers. According to quick AI search the prices ranges from $20 per hour for street hookers to around $150 for average escort to $300 plus for high end hooker in USA. For a price of your average car lease, any single male can have a different hooker every week, getting his body count to triple digits easily thus matching any redpilled macho. And we are not even talking about sex tourism, where you are a cheap flight away to some 3rd world country where you can enjoy orgies for really cheap.
The OP's point of course still stands - even if you satisfy your sexual desire, there is still the social aspect that many people fill parasocial relationships. Although even those are not the only options. There are hookers who act more like your lovers where you are something like a sugar daddy. They have stable clientele of multiple men with their own schedule, so you can visit regularly and get not only a sex but also massage or even homecooked meal.
To be frank I find this as highly distasteful and unsatisfying relationship but I used it only as an example. In the end there is not much more difference between people obsessed with sexual conquests or people who obsesses about masturbation or people who just chase hookers. The difference is only in degree.
DelendaEst
5hr ago
I completely agree. I am conservative while strongly disliking MAGA and as a result pretty much everywhere else I go online it is very clear that I am the outsider and there is nothing I hate more than "as we all agree" style posts. Part of why I like the Motte so much is that it is one of the few places I feel closer to the median, like I actually belong, and one of the things I would like for my space is to not replicate the indignities of enemy territory but with the sign reversed.
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
Ah, thé pride flag and the Republican pride flag(although granted the thin blue line/thin red line/etc are usually separate flags). The Protestants who have discovered sacred heart month. The ‘y’all means all’ murals. The ‘in this house we believe’ signs. The maga flags. The bumper stickers saying ‘stand for the flag, kneel for the cross’.
I think a combination. There's rationally no reason for me to hold this opinion, as it's not actionable (unless I want to end up in jail). It also implies that women are not accountable at all for their actions, which I disagree with. It takes two to tango, and most of the time a women knows what she's getting with Lothario (she thinks she can change him however). It would be abhorrent to me if someone advocated FGM or something similar for women in this situation, so my position on castration doesn't make sense.
And then morally it makes me sound like a whiny bitch that is upset he isn't getting any. That's not the kind of person I think I am, and it's certainly not the kind of person I want to be. Although I agree with most of the arguments that @faceh here and in general, I'm starting to wonder what the use of arguing about this on the internet actually is for me. It's not fun like other debates here are, it doesn't help me develop my arguments for the real world, and it doesn't really help me improve my own attitude and life. Think I am going to ban myself from discussing these topics further on here (@Mods feel free to enforce this from now on).
This is like saying "source: I made it up" except you asked a computer to make it up for you.
More options
Context Copy link