Filed under Linkage is Good for You, Links
Linkage is Good for You: Really Freaking Long Edition
Because I’m far too lazy to keep thinking up puns that involve the word “plug,” I’m sticking with one title from here on out.
New bloggers on the roll include Bob Belvedere, who I introduced in this post. He describes himself as follows:
I like to describe myself as an 18th Century conservative. I am not an ideologue and, therefore, do not subscribe to any ‘ist’ or ’ism’. I want to be left alone. I believe the Federal Government should not be allowed to take any actions not permitted by The Constitution. State and local governments should, likewise, be bound by their constitutions and charters. Life is absurd. Any man who does not have at least one vice should not be trusted. The 17th Amendment should be repealed [and possibly the 19th]. Thomas Jefferson was a blackguard.
Mr. Belvedere’s blog skillfully blends the high and the low, as evidenced by his strict adherence to Rule 5. I dig it.
Another good site, Fishersville Mike, linked me up last Sunday. The blog consists of pithy observations on politics – the best kind.
I’ve also added Sean MacCloud (who I’ve seen commenting on my site and at The Spearhead), Luv(sic) (same), Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart (linked at Chuck’s place), Joe Bageant (forgot where, but I’ve been meaning to read his book Deer Hunting with Jesus for some time – Fred Reed has a good review), Everyday Thoughts on Life (linked at Novaseeker’s), Instapundit (which I’ve started reading again), and The Sartorialist (again, forgot where). I’m generally free and generous when it comes to linkage, so if you’re a blogger who reads and enjoys In Mala Fide, let me know and I’ll add you to my almighty blogroll (and less mighty reader).
Moving on, Cless Alvein introduces a mathematical way to calculate male attractiveness:
Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s difficult to do this, because PUA gimmicks only offer a marginal benefit, but it can certainly be done by improving one’s social skills, learning to tolerate rejection, and developing confidence through experience in all areas of life. A man’s sociosexual confidence also tends to improve over the course of his life. For this reason, although a man’s physical appearance peaks in his late 20s, as it does for women, his overall attractiveness to women is likely to peak in his mid-40s, with his gains in sociosexual confidence sufficient to offset his (mild) physical decline. A man who improves his “game” from a lagging 4 to an average-plus 6, with no changes to his physical appearance, increases his “batting average” by 237 percent. His dry and single spells, if he maintains the same standards, will be three times shorter.
Very cool stuff.
Knack, a Venusian Arts coach, guest-posts at Roissy in DC on gameless PUA instructors teaching useless skills:
That’s one of the things that pisses me off about all these people coming out about “natural game”. 95% of “naturals” are just good looking dudes that girls want to fuck. They have always been good looking and women have been approaching them for sex and dating. Because they have always been approached they have been positively reinforced for sexual aggression (even though they rarely actually start out sexually aggressive). These men can’t teach you anything. Because they never learned anything. It was handed to them. You see, like girls, very good looking men rarely have had to develop an actual personality (the key to pickup).
Also see Assanova’s response.
Whiskey writes on how e-books are changing the media world:
Already e-books are offering fast, and cheaper alternatives to printed books. Project Gutenberg has free, public domain HTML, audio/mp3, and “Plucker” e-books of classics such as Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea” and Mark Twain’s “Roughing It.” Plucker which is software available for both Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs, and runs on Linux, Macintosh OS X, and Windows, can read e-books prepared in that format. [Currently the Plucker site is unavailable, Sourceforge.com has various project files available. I have personally tried this with a Palm Tungsten, while offering limited readability, the software and content are free. Iphone owners have the option of using free application “Stanza” to read public domain books.
Another nail in Old Media’s coffin.
Bhanu Prasad posts on how culture affects sporting prowess:
A Culture that encourages competition and risk taking
In addition to sporting institutions, a nation needs to have a strong competitive culture. Competition ensures quality, and quality ensures the steady supply of champions.
There are few eastern cultures that actively discourage risk taking in favour of family and relationships. Such cultures are a death knell to sports. As sporting involves an unlimited success or a spectacular failure, and hence fraught with risk. The classic example is my own culture. Here men prefer stability to glory, wrapping nappies to war etc., No wonder we do not have a single explorer/conqueror on the lines of Zheng He or Belisarius.
He makes a number of compelling points.
Al Fin reports that the rate of evolution has exploded in the past 5,000 years:
One of the greatest intellectual curses of modern day humans is “groupthink”, which includes “political correctness” and excessive deference to authority. Mass incompetence provides groupthink with its power over populations. Mass incompetence is fed by poor childraising, perverse educational practises, a self-destructive popular culture, and the mass indoctrination into the groupthink cult by media and higher academia.
I look forward to the smashing of egalitarian shibboleths in the years to come.
anoukange tells the story of her life in descriptive prose:
If you were my man I would stand before you as an offer. I would work to know you and dream your dreams with you. I would vacuum in lace, I would time release my secrets and my desires to extend the ride of intrigue, I would be elegant on your arm and never question you in public, I would whisper dirty deeds into your ear and leave your thoughts to wander, I would keep my wrists skinny through out the years so that you may always pin them down with one hand only, I would give you the pillow you preferred, I will keep my skin firm, my muscles toned, my mind flexible, I would go deep, I would go down, I would cook your favorite foods, I would water your roots and iron your shirts, I would carry myself with class, I would fill your cupboard with Jack, I would kiss you with my hands on your face, I would sneak my foot up your leg under the table at dinner, I would steal glimpses of you in movie theaters and memorize your profile, I would keep my hair long and lush so you could pull it, I would absorb your stress and melt it, I would desire your brain, your ways and your pauses, I would trim your hair with precision, I would never stand in the way of your spirit, I would listen to your stories, I would digest you in inches, I would allow you your space and freedom, I would love you, hold you, fuck you, know you, believe in you, travel with you, stay in with you, drink with you, sleep beside you and live beside you.
Beautiful.
Alex Birch explains what differentiates CORRUPT from other anti-modern groups:
Our positive psychology sets us apart from the rest, because if you think like we do, you can achieve so much more good in life. Think about the whiners who always complain about how violent society is, how corrupt our leaders are, how NWO is controlling us, and how unfair life is. What do they really get done? Not much. Then think about the people who are aware of the problems around them, but believe they at least can change their daily environment. Who do you want to be? What do you want to be–bitter and angry or positive and successful?
The world is fucked. Now get over it and enjoy your life.
Φ reports on divorce statistics:
Taken at face value, the survey shows that either the common belief that women only initiate divorce for really good reasons is far from the reality, or the standard of what constitutes a “really good reason” has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Conservative commentators have almost certainly fallen victim to the first delusion; however, the latter explanation appears to account for the behavior among women in the broader society.
Talk about confirming everything that the MRAs have been saying for years.
FeministX inveighs against the gay male influence and insistence on excessive thinness in the fashion industry (NSFW image):
But I don’t buy this anymore. These excuses are repeated so often that people don’t stop to think about the baseless nature of these claims. If designers want clothes on hangers, why don’t they just put them on hangers and mechanically lift them onto the runway? And why exactly are the clothes supposed to be on human hangers? In the 80s, fashion models were attractive to normal people and the concept of fashion didn’t collapse because of this. The idea is supposed to be that the clothing becomes fashionable, which means that some real women will wear them. And why do men with no interest in female bodies insist on making careers out of designing/presenting/marketing etc clothing for the female body?
It always amuses me when feminists rant about how starvation chic in the fashion industry is a product of the Evil White Heterosexual Patriarchy, when in fact it’s the fags who are making those girls stay thin.
Aoefe argues a controversial point – women are naturally submissive:
I believe the desire for a woman to be submissive to her man is innate, plus I believe women are wired to be submissive to proper authority in general. Submissive, as I see it, is described as agreement, respect, duty, or deference. I don’t personally view it as meek, passive or tameness. I believe submissiveness is a feminine trait and I believe women have lost touch with this inborn need.
Alias Clio has also prepped a interesting response on her blog.
Chuck asks whether single men or married men are better at sex:
Having relations with a variety of women allows a man to know how to respond to the various sexual tastes of women. Some prefer the long game, some the short. Having the dexterity to handle both facets allows a man to quickly adapt to the given situation. Being with the same woman only lets the man adapt to the facet that the woman prefers. Being with a variety of women lets a man learn different techniques for pleasing women in general. If something doesn’t seem to push the buttons, a man can respond by digging deep into his bag of tricks. He adds to his tool-belt – if you will.
The answer will hopefully not shock anyone.
Gunslingergregi posts a picture of himself with his girl and this note:
Fuck thats hot shit god dang.
Go look at that picture, now. Gunslingergregi is a model of alphatude. He just oozes badass from every pore. Congrats to him and his woman.
Trumwill tells us why it’s not easy being a tall woman:
One of the things that some of the taller guys didn’t get is that it’s different when a tall guy is joshed around with because of his height and when a taller girl is. Tall guys, unless they’re freakishly tall, do not generally have reason to be self-conscious about their height. None of the bullies I ever had made fun of me because I was tall. Maybe it’s because my width was a more obvious point of criticism, but I also think because there’s no percentage in going after a guy because he’s tall. Notably, some people made fun of Clint for being short. But he wasn’t short. He was just standing next to me a lot. For girls, though, it’s different. Being tall is considered unfeminine by some. Some guys do discriminate against them. They are likely to have an even more difficult time finding clothes that fit than a tall guy is and the clothes they purchase matter more. So even lighthearted ribbing on a woman’s height that would be perfectly acceptable on a guy can be more problematic with a woman.
As an aside, the Justin that Trumwill mentions as claiming women prefer men fatter then they are is the same Justin who denounces game as “soul killing poison” (despite not knowing what it is), the same Justin who claims “feminism is a weak force,” and the same Justin who thinks picking up strippers is easy. Just saying.
Kamal S. posts on ways of dealing with penis injuries:
Injuries involving extreme bends – by whatever embarrassing means through which they occur – are best iced down immediately. Medical care should be sought at once. It is possible to, well, break the thing in such a way that it’s shape is permanently affected.
Yeah yeah, I know some of you are laughing, but this is important information.
MarkyMark masterfully tears apart a blog posting by a feminist harpy who presumes that all men are potential rapists:
The reason why guys fail to respect what women say is because what women say is bullshit. For example, they say that they want good, decent guys, yet they take up with the worst jerks imaginable. If your actions are going to constantly go against what you say, then you cannot expect guys to take your words seriously. It’s cause & effect, not that women have a grasp of something so hopelessly obvious.
A great takedown of a terrible piece.
Rake goes out with some seduction community guys and comes to a terrible realization:
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that this sort of an outing is simply an exercise in the blind leading the blind. None of these guys really have any clue what they’re doing. They don’t know what they want to open with, how to transition, how to build attraction, establish comfort, etc. I don’t think any of them really understand how to escalate. I believe I mentioned in a previous post that there are just a handful of guys connected to the Seattle Lair that have any real game.
Yep, that’s the seduction community to a tee.
Talleyrand educates readers on the ways of sociopathy:
Antisocial really is a nonsense term that psychologists use. It is a catch-all for people that behave the way society does not want them to. There are hundreds of ways (perhaps thousands) of getting this diagnosis, and it is entirely circular.
Not to mention that women find sociopaths sexy.
Coldequation reminds us that the Axis leadership was completely and totally nuts:
Hitler’s decision to declare war on the US was even worse. He had already bitten off more than he could chew by fighting a two-front war which, as had already become apparent, would be a long slog rather than the quick Blitzkrieg knockout he had expected. What do you do in that situation? Declare war on the country with the largest economy in the world with little tactical benefit when you have no way to even strike at them, of course (there was a minor benefit in that the U-Boats could then engage in unrestricted warfare against American ships that were supplying the Allies, but that didn’t amount to much).
This is a good opportunity to pull out Gary Brecher’s classic column “Why I Hate WWII,” in which he makes a similar point.
Marquis posits an experiment you can run that will both improve your game and allow you to experience what’s like to be a chick:
In going to a gay bar as a male who is good looking or even simply not ugly, you will immediately notice something: eye contact. Guys will invariably stare you down like a piece of meat. These are not the furtive glances by females, particularly hot ones at that, but rather the looks of those who want you to know that they are viewing/checking out your goods. You will also probably have at least a couple guys offer to buy your drinks. Of those offering, the more overbearing, direct, and “won’t take no for an answer” types will be older men and/or less attractive/or drunk. It is so obvious, yet strange to see this in action. All the basic principles of being a woman are in effect, but to experience it firsthand is truly eye opening/perspective changing.
When you think about it, a lot of what comprises game is using women’s own tactics against them.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Jack Donovan, The Spearhead’s newest contributor, Chip Smith interviewed him over at The Hoover Hog:
Can you be more specific — about these “highly questionable assumptions?”
The pursuit of knowledge isn’t the primary goal of any “study” program grounded in feminism. There is an obvious political agenda there. That’s the only reason why these programs even exist. While superficial debate occurs over doctrine and details, if you don’t buy into the primary goal and service the central idea, you are not “with the program.” It’s like arguing with someone who studies theology. God is the ultimate justification for every path of study, for every argument. The theologian’s claim to authority comes from God. If you pull God out of the equation, the whole thing falls apart.
If you don’t agree that creating a gender-neutral society is possible or desirable, then “feminist scholars” and “gender studies scholars” wield no real intellectual authority. If you aren’t prepared to accept on faith alone that sex is just a skin-deep costume, or that human societies have some sort of moral imperative to collectively wish-away or blind themselves to any meaningful differences between the sexes and do away with all gender roles, these people’s criticisms can be evaluated more realistically. They are priestesses and priests, propagandists, political operatives, interested parties. I’d no sooner expect objectivity from Karl Rove or a Jehovah’s witness knocking on my door. I’m familiar with their racket and I don’t find their arguments to be especially convincing based on my own first hand observation of human behavior.
A great read that’s gotten me more interested in Jack’s work. (And Chip, thanks for adding me to your blogroll.)
J dismantles the popular “cold climate adaptation” argument for white racial supremacy:
Polar people, like the Lapps, Nenet, etc. live several hundred kilometers to the North, in much harsher climates, and they are always tested as having one sigma lower IQ than Northern Europeans. Cold climate increases head size but not IQ. There is no correlation between latitude and IQ.
Pithy and accurate.
Robert Stacy McCain has two final postings on his brain-damaged cousin. From The American Spectator:
Meghan McCain would be well advised to stop exercising her First Amendment rights and instead invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as determined under Miranda v. Arizona. Everything she says can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.
If it seems like I’ve been linking Stacy a lot lately, it’s because he’s just that good.
Assanova offers advice on how to avoid seduction scamsters:
And when you’re looking at testimonials, don’t trust testimonials for the company, look for testimonials about that individual instructor. If no one is mentioning that instructor’s name in the seduction community, then you can bet that he is either a rookie instructor, or he just sucks and isn’t worth a mention. An instructor for a company can be amazing, and get a great testimonial, but that doesn’t mean that the other instructors are also amazing. Don’t make the mistake of reading a testimonial and assuming that it applies to every instructor within that company.
I’d estimate that most so-called “seduction gurus” are con artists. There’s little you can get from them that you can’t get online for free.
Slumlord has two great posts in which he evaluates game from an Aristotelean and Thomistic perspective, respectively. From the second post:
Now a Christian man is supposed to possess Charity. In the Aristotlean sense, Charity is directed toward the perfection of things. Charity seeks to “un-private” the thing to which it is directed. Now Charity in a man is not only directed to things outside himself but to himself as well. Therefore a Charitable man will seek the ridding of his imperfections.. Hence it would imply that activities directed towards finding a mate are a good, since the remedy of a privation is a good.
It also follows that the “goodness” of a remedy is in proportion to the degree in which it is restorative of the privation. Now as traditional dating advice has pretty much been a dismal failure when it comes to finding a mate, whilst Game has been enourmously successfull, the Christian interpretation of Game is that it is a moral good.
Yes, you read that right – God wants you to have game.
Dylan Sauders identifies the types of women who go to nightclubs:
I met an intelligent, attractive, emotionally healthy college graduate with a propensity for long term loving relationships. To be fair, she doesn’t usually go out, but I’ve found that most people you meet in clubs don’t usually go out – they just happened to that night for a special occasion like a roommates birthday.
There is no such thing as a “club girl.” There is no such thing as a “bar girl.” Those are just false distinctions thrown up by lameasses who can’t cut it in those places.
Agnostic writes on the best way to discipline girls who are acting up:
I paced slowly over to her, set my hand down on her shoulder, and said, “Don’t… Do that… Anymore…” I didn’t have a scowl on my face, nor a coddling or reassuring expression. Just that look like, you’re being annoying and need to knock it off. She stopped horsing around at that point, and when she was about to leave the area 10 minutes later, she tugged at my jeans from the floor and reached up to shake my hand and say i’m sorryyyyy with an honest worried look in her eyes. I took her hand but merely half-smiled and waved her off as though she were overreacting and being weird, which must have fucked with her mind a little more.
Always remember to never take shit from a girl.
emach dissects a blog post in which feminists talk about how to go about dating:
At one point in the history of your genetic lineage, your ancestor was the result of a man exercising his right to be with a woman bceause he’s bigger and stronger. You exist because a man’s right to have a woman trumps a woman’s right to turn him down. Men invented rape laws because we are better people than feminists who, if the shoe were on the other foot, would not enact the same laws. I know this for certain because feminists wrote divorce laws and the no-fault divorce is the closest thing to male-victim rape in this country and the feminists actively sought it and successfully made it legal.
Much comedy ensues.
Finally, here’s something I grabbed from Eolake Stobblehouse’s joint. It explains itself.
There is no correlation between latitude and IQ.
This is wrong. Except for Europeans and NE Asians, peoples such as the Eskimo/Inuit have the highest IQs in the world. Clearly something more than lattitude is required to increase IQs to European/NE Asian levels, but there is at least some link between northerliness and intelligence.
anoukange: Wow.
That is all I need to say.
his overall attractiveness to women is likely to peak in his mid-40s, with his gains in sociosexual confidence sufficient to offset his (mild) physical decline.
No, by your 40s there is enough physical decline that you will have a significantly harder time dating 7+ women in their early 20s (i.e. their peak).
As an aside, the Justin that Trumwill mentions as claiming women prefer men fatter then they are is the same Justin who denounces game as “soul killing poison” (despite not knowing what it is), the same Justin who claims “feminism is a weak force,”
I could accept the idea that feminism is a “weak force”. However, the guns of the state backing feminism is definitely NOT a weak force.
Thursday: Most men in their 40s don’t want to date women in their early 20s. If they’re single and never-married, they generally want to date women in their late 20s. If they’re divorced or have been in a lot of relationships, they’re interested in women in their mid-30s.
Most mens’ perceptions of a woman’s peak change as they get older and more experienced. What my dad tells me is that women in their 20s never stop being attractive, but the difference between 25 and 55 diminishes.
That’s a bastardization of feminism. Womens’ political, social, and economic equality = good thing (although men and women will always be different, necessitating gender norms). Womens’ rights = good thing. That sort of “feminism” I can get behind. Man-hating I cannot.
most people you meet in clubs don’t usually go out
I’ve been out to the clubs a lot over the past year or so (though I’ve quit over that last 2 months) and this is outright false. When a girl tells you they hardly go out, you learn to take that with a grain of salt.
Those are just false distinctions thrown up by lameasses who can’t cut it in those places.
I’ve had pretty decent success getting girls from bars and clubs out and I say bullshit. Are you seriously going to argue that the demographic of people in a nightclub on any given night isn’t massively lower quality than what you will find in the general population? Someone at Roissy’s once wisely said, that if you want to meet someone good you don’t go where the hot ones are and game the quality women, you go where the quality women are and game the hot ones.
Most mens’ perceptions of a woman’s peak change as they get older and more experienced.
Nah, this is just what old men tell themselves. Girls in their early 20s are always the most attractive.
Thursday:
“Are you seriously going to argue that the demographic of people in a nightclub on any given night isn’t massively lower quality than what you will find in the general population?”
Yes. I am.
In areas that are socially conservative and where religion is a powerful cultural force, the “bar/club girl” distinction is probably accurate. But in blue states and other socially liberal areas, nuh-uh. The people I see dancing in the clubs on Friday night are the same ones I see slogging to work on Monday morning. In these regions, bars, clubs, and other nightlife venues are the primary hubs of social life, and the only people who don’t go to them at least some of the time are strictly religious, ludicrously shy, married with children, or old – and all of those demographics are small. I’ll concede that the nightclub demographic is slightly lower in quality then the general population, but “massively lower” – that’s ridiculous. In Sodom, everyone is a sinner.
There is no such thing as a “club girl.” There is no such thing as a “bar girl.” Those are just false distinctions thrown up by lameasses who can’t cut it in those places.
I’m well known as a the human freak in this portion of the blogosphere, but I suspect it’s a certain degree of labeling on the part of unsuccessful males to provide excuses for avoiding women. My Wellesley Queen and Athena (non-date) are both girls who take visit clubs and bars, but I label the unattainable Wellesley Queen as superior to me, while Athena, the girl who showed active interest in me, as a fucked up prole. The mantra of “only skanks go to bars” is really a proxy for “only girls who turn me down go to bars”.
the only people who don’t go to them at least some of the time are…ludicrously shy
I don’t go to clubs because I’m shy and apprehensive, downright lazy, and well aware of my ability to attract women without methods that I prefer not to use.
Ferdinand Bardamu:
Yes, but you’re forgetting about another important factor: how does a girl behave when she goes to a club, and is there a realistic chance that she’ll be open to approaches by strange men? The mere fact that a girl goes to clubs doesn’t say much about her character, I’ll grant you that — but if she is open to cold-approaching and willing to date random men she met in clubs, that definitely says something, if only statistically.
The negative selection you’ll experience when meeting girls in clubs is not because there are no good girls there, but because the really good ones are, as a rule, not open to approaches by random men. Of course, if you’re one of those few godlike super-alphas who drive women insane by their mere appearance, you might have some chance even with the best girls in a club, but even highly skilled PUAs will get shot down by them and end up converging on easier targets.
The official Cless Alvein verdict on women at bars and clubs: everyone goes to them, but the damaged and bad people go a lot more often, and go specifically to meet sexual partners, so there’s adverse weighting.
I know some great people who have met in bars, but anyone who spends more than 40 hours per year on the “bar scene” is to be avoided at all costs. I only go to bars to drink with friends, and if I meet people, that’s fine, but it’s not what I’m looking to do. (Also, I can’t binge drink for medical reasons.)
Online dating is also notorious for its adverse weighting. Good people use those sites, but the defects spend their lives on them like it’s World of Warcraft while the normal people check their profiles occasionally.
I’ve met great women through Craigslist. Seems ridiculous, no? There are a lot of weird and defective people on it, but a lot of normal people “lurk” because there’s almost no effort required (you don’t have to create an account or fork over money). Also, by being an articulate and normal man, I’m ahead of 95+% of the competition. CL is one place where a “nice guy” can stand out.
The poster on “isms” is absolutely brilliant!
MarkyMark masterfully tears apart a blog posting by a feminist harpy who presumes that all men are potential rapists:
Actually, debating with a feminist is useless.
A better tactic is to claim that ‘all women are extortionists’, which is a lot closer to the truth than the claim that all men are potential rapists.
The best defense is a strong offense.
Doesn’t Belvedere mean he’s a classical liberal (or libertarian)? I know that’s a dirty word in all, but the meaning of words change over time. Modern liberalism retains it’s support of civil liberties but has a watered down stance when it comes to personal freedoms (see: nanny state). It’s also taken on a strong socialist flavor.
If he’s for vices and not for traditional, religious values, he’s no conservative, even in the Burkean sense.
The Fifth Horseman:
“Actually, debating with a feminist is useless.”
Ripping apart an article isn’t debate – it’s catharsis.
And I’m shocked you don’t have anything to say in regards to my compilation of game-hater Justin’s foolishness. You’re getting soft, dude.
synthesis:
“If he’s for vices and not for traditional, religious values, he’s no conservative, even in the Burkean sense.”
Acknowledging that it’s normal for people to have vices (which is my interpretation of “Any man who does not have at least one vice should not be trusted.”) isn’t the same as being for them.
That’s a bastardization of feminism.
Not really because most women aren’t interested in real freedom the same way most men are.
And I’m shocked you don’t have anything to say in regards to my compilation of game-hater Justin’s foolishness. You’re getting soft, dude.
Well, he isn’t actually commenting here. If he was, it would be another story.
Justin is the perfect example of how socialcons and manginas have merged. His writings could easily fit in either.
He could be called Justin/Justine, like Victor/Victoria.
Thanks for the plug! Yep, it’s really, really hard to find good wings in Seattle. Super tough.
Cless:
Bang on about bars.
Ferds wrote :
Yes, you read that right – God wants you to have game.
That sentence would give the Betacons vein-popping strokes.
I think there is something to the comments about the quality of women in bars and clubs being lower, especially in a place like Seattle. Actually though, it isn’t so much that the quality of women is so bad, but it has more to do with the fact that the high quality women in the bars and clubs are less likely to take a guy seriously that they meet there, and this has something to do with the fact that, aside from community guys, most people here don’t go to bars and clubs every weekend. In other words, when you meet a high quality woman at a bar or club in Seattle, you can be pretty sure she has a strong social circle and a vibrant non-club social life. If she’s going out to one of the trendy bars or clubs on a Friday night, there’s a very good chance she only does this a few times a year.
There are some answers to this:
1) Tight Game
2) Social Circle
3) Day Game
4) Match.com
#1 pretty much says it all when it comes to cold approaching at night in Seattle. If you want to pull high quality women out of the bars and clubs here, you better have some tight motherfucking game. You basically need to blow them away.
Thanks for the link.
I’m not too harsh on “Hitler’s Stupidity.” The US was basically disarmed in December 11th, 1945. The Japanese had sunk a good part of our Pacific Fleet, and would go on to sink two of our four Pacific Fleet carriers in six months.
Hitler bet he could U-boat his way into sinking our shipping of material to the UK, while the Japanese occupied us and forced us into a negotiated surrender. He nearly got his bet paid off. He nearly won the Battle of the Atlantic, and the Japanese nearly won at Coral Sea and Midway. The US at the time had a tiny navy, a non-existent Army, and no real appreciable air arm.
Anoukange, also goes on to say this in her next paragraph:
“For those out there that are hurting or searching or lonely, contact me. I will save you. It is what I do. I have been a girlfriend to three men over a span of twelve years and when I left each of them they were better off financially, higher in their careers, at peace within themselves and at rest with their demons. I nurture and give and invest. I am sculptor of the clay of men.”
Hmmm, call me a cynic , but , would being number 4 in line make you feel that special, knowing somewhere down the track that number 5 is waiting there in the wings?
I dunno, just can’t go for that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vouDK-LELEU
Well yes Kathy, then I would dare to say you are a cynic. Only a cynic could twist an offering into a taking from. You could always lay on your back for a player and be number 105 and know that number 106, 107, 108…and so on are “waiting in the wings” or possibly being pursued and bedded right along beside you by that same player. Three boyfriends in a span of twelve years is something to view negatively? Really? When there could have easily been so many more..? I dicipline myself to make sure that who I’m with IS special and you go against that? May I inquire into your personal life and ask how many men you have had as boyfriends or lovers? Would anyone’s “next” ever not have to deal with their partner’s past? I offer up quality to help any one particualr guy who has lost faith in women to find a reason to believe in their goodness again. Besides, who’s to say there would ever be a number five? Please do get back to us with a desciption of your innocent, unslutty past of sexual involvements. I want to make sure you’re worthy of the pedestal you’re writing from. What number is the guy that sleeps with you next? Number 3 or less by chance? It has been my experience that most cynics are sluts. I can only hope you simply mis-understood the post and commented a bit out of line. Also, If you are too insecure to handle that whoever you may date has actually had sex or been in love with others prior to meeting you then you may want to stick to dating 19 year old boys. I guarantee that who I date feels and is special, that was the entire point to my post.
40 hours per year at bars and clubs is too much? If you went out one night a week; that would add up to going out less than once a month.
Most people have routines. If that routine involves clubbing or bar hopping; it’s something they are going to do pretty much every week (or at the very least once a month). I see a lot of the same faces in the crowd week in and week out. If clubs and bars didn’t have regulars, and they were only filled up on people’s birthdays, they would go out of business. They are packed. People in the community are just looking for new faces every week. This is confirmation bias in action.
I also don’t think the ‘quality’ of ‘club girls’ is less (what are we even looking at in terms of ‘quality’; LTRs, looks?).
Heh; terrible editing on my part. This sentence makes no sense at all obviously.
You get the gist though. If you are going out to a club you are probably going from 10pm to last call. A 3-4 hour outing. That adds up to 40 hours a year pretty damn quick.
” Three boyfriends in a span of twelve years is something to view negatively”
In my personal opinion, yes. (you asked)
” I dicipline myself to make sure that who I’m with IS special and you go against that.”
I have a real problem with that anoukange.
How does one dicipline oneself to make sure that their partner is special? Sounds all too forced and psychoanalytical for me.
If a woman is deeply in love with a man she will make him feel truly special.It all comes naturally.
” May I inquire into your personal life and ask how many men you have had as boyfriends or lovers”
“Please do get back to us with a desciption of your innocent, unslutty past of sexual involvements”
“I want to make sure you’re worthy of the pedestal you’re writing from.What number is the guy that sleeps with you next? Number 3 or less by chance? It has been my experience that most cynics are sluts”
Sheesh, anoukange, you sure are rankled, mate.I just commented on your post. I never at all refered to you as a slut. In my opinion it would be hard for someone to feel truly special under the circumstances which you describe. Okay, you say that you are doing the guy a favour..But.. would he feel truly secure in the relationship? Perhaps he is looking for a permanent commitment and children?
Now, in your comments above you ask how many lovers I have had. But it seems that you have made up your mind already. “most cynics are sluts” . So I guess there is no point going into the details of my sordid past. :)
I did have a good laugh over that one.. though.
” I guarantee that who I date feels and is special, that was the entire point to my post.”
Sorry, anoukange, I just find that one of the most important ingredients “love” is missing from your post.Too clinical for me.
Please do not be offended, but a man can go to Thailand and be made to feel very “special” with the services of a high class Thai prostitute.
As for my pedestal, well, I was knocked off that some years ago, by my wonderful husband whom I love so very dearly, and, who IS truly a special man!
Kathy:
Thanks for getting back. I do not wish to go back and forth with you and the risk of posting anything on any blog always allows for misunderstandings.
I have not concluded that you are a slut. If you are not in the majority of cynics then you are not a slut.
Love is emotion. I diciplined myself in NOT sleeping around. That’s how I meant the use of the word dicipline. I am arguing your same point. Don’t you see? I argue that the use of “games” can, at times, kill natural, emotional, human to human romance and connection. I argued that I will pedestal my man. I believe in love. The post and my comments were analytical but the source of the words were emotional. As would be my feelings towards my man. A blend of both would be ideal in my opinion, but to each his own. You must take my word here and know that I was addressing something in particular with that post and that you tagged on without properly being aware of it’s context. I spent twelve years in long-term live-in relationships…out of the past fifteen years. You have amazingly harsh and strict standards if you think that three guys is a lot of guys and I do not believe it is a fair or relevent assessement. They were all successful relationships and I’m still friends with all three guys. The irony is that my last relationship of six years ended because the guy doesn’t want kids. If you care to chat furthur please e-mail me so we don’t tie up this thread. You have chimmed in on something in which you do not have all the background. Please accept this as the truth and know that it was a bit out of line on your part. But that’s ok, I explain that here and now. Thanks for your thoughts however. cheers, truly.
Ferdinand: I’m very sorry for this on your thread. I felt the need to defend myself against the misunderstanding of the original point of the post.
@Whiskey’s response to my post
It’s true that the US was militarily weak in 1941, but it’s also true that the US had by far the strongest economy in the world, so it could and did go from nothing to having a huge military in a year or two. There was nothing the Axis could do to change that. If Japan had won at Midway and Coral, that probably would not have delayed their unconditional surrender by even a single day.
It’s a myth that Hitler was ever close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic, made up by people who want to tell an exciting story. He would have needed to sink maybe 5-6 times as many ships as he did before Britain would have even thought about giving up.
Anoukange: three men isn’t very many, but I would argue that a few serious relationships can be more damaging to one’s sense of personal wholeness (i.e. integrity) than a series of one-night stands. I never use words like “slut” and I’m not calling you one, so no need to defend yourself against that charge. But the tone of your comment is such that I think your 3 relationships have cost you more than you know. In the passage cited by Kathy (“For those out there that are hurting or searching or lonely, contact me. I will save you. It is what I do. I have been a girlfriend to three men over a span of twelve years and when I left each of them they were better off financially, higher in their careers, at peace within themselves and at rest with their demons. I nurture and give and invest. I am sculptor of the clay of men”) you make yourself – unintentionally, I’m sure – sound like a prostitute. For it is prostitutes, not wives, girlfriends, or even casual lovers, who boast of what they can do for men in general, as opposed to boasting of what they will do for one man in particular. I do not mean to suggest that I think you are a prostitute, or that you are a “slut”, only that your past seems to have made you deaf to the sound and meaning of your own words.
aliasclio:
One again, the passge is taken out of context. It was written to address the men who have lost faith and sight of their own integrity due to the misfortunes suffered from women treating them unfairly and unkindly. It was not meant in the literal sense, more in the phsychological healing sense. It was meant to illustrate that friendship and respect shared and given to a man could possibly teach him to unlearn his biast, often angry view of women.
Also: If we are all (well some) looking for love and wholeness shared with someone, how could my three realtionships possibly be more damaging than having to face someone with a past of fifty lovers or more? If one has slept around to that extent, doesn’t that make them more capable to detach themselves from love more easily, therefore more likely to jettison a relationship (or person) more easily?
That particular part of the post was loosely based off of the belief and practice of Giesha, who are not prostitues. If one is to date and possibly meet someone else and both parties are in their late twenties to late thirties, three “loves” would be more than acceptable at that point. Otherwise I would question one’s capacity to feel and show love. I can take the heat of coming under scrutiny for posting any words on a public platform, but you all are very twisted in your thinking if I am coming under attack for having the ability to love someone, and through trial and error have had three boyfriends. I would much rather meet and date a guy who has experienced love than one who has not. I am not threatned by past relationships but I would be a little unsettled (on a personal level) to have to handle an extensive, casual sex past of a guy I date. That’s tough on any ego, regardless of how healthy it may be. I am good to the men I am with, I have never been criticized for this before. Strange days, these times if that is the mentallity.
I don’t really think that three long-term relationships is that many, though I do think that many more, however long-term, would be emotionally costly. It is after all harder to lose someone with whom you have a long intimacy than someone with whom you have a d short fling. That’s what I was getting at.
I was also worried by your geishas’ motto. Geishas were not prostitutes, but they were courtesans. They were, in other words, high-class “kept women”, who worked for a “house” and could also receive presents from their clients, to whom they offered, in return, beauty, intelligent conversation, and sexual favours, though some clients might choose not to seek the latter . Their love was never called for, though I don’t doubt they sometimes fell in love with their clients, and vice versa. They were the ultimate professionals – and what is a professional lover but a kind of prostitute? (There is a reason it’s called the “oldest profession”, and that reason is money.)
You are of course nothing of the sort, I’m sure, but you describe yourself as though you were no more than a servant of the needs of your men, whom you do not apparently expect to provide you with much in return, which is disconcerting to this reader. What’s more, a man in such a relationship as you describe is not so much an alpha as a child guided and directed by a teacher. Perhaps this is not what you intended to convey, but I don’t think I’m the only person who would read your comment in that way.
aliasclio:
you know your Giesha, well said. I AM a servant to the needs of my man. But let it be very clear, only one man. And I don’t expect much in return because he would be such a man that his intellect, humor, touch and company would be fulfilling enough.
Any one thing, act or experience could be argued to be damanging to an individual, whether it be a few serious commitments or several hundred screws. The key to a healthy, non-damaged person is self-awareness and processing of said things, acts and experiences. The art of love sleeps closely to the art of loss. One can make the choice to be destroyed by either of these. Or they can choose not to be.
I was not aware of this post until just now [October was an out-of-control month for me], so please except the delayed thanks for the kind words and the placement. I’ve added you to my version of the blogroll.