Men Like A Challenge? Bullshit! Conventional Dating Wisdom Is Slain

I read a great deal of dating advice, most of it bad. This includes dozens of blogs, countless women’s websites, even the lady magazines like Cosmopolitan. I also talk to every woman I can about dating and relationships. Yes, I know, talk is cheap. When I discuss these issues I’m trying to read between the lines and look for descriptions of actions, not words from the rationalization hamster or aspirational lying. There is one particular and common theme from female dating advice-givers that has perplexed me:

Men want a challenge.

The usual female explanation for this theme is that “men are hunters”. That much is true. Yet when our paleo ancestors went hunting, it was for food. It was for survival. If the men didn’t bring home the animal protein, the tribe withered and died. After spending a few incredibly tough days trying to slay an uncooperative animal, why would a man return to the clan and have to hunt all over again for a compliant female willing to mate? It makes no sense. From an evolutionary psychology point of view, it’s completely counter intuitive.

It took some thought to figure this out. I’m slow, but I eventually get there. Here’s the basic set up:

Women seek the top 20% of men. The women must hunt these men because these men have options and will only select a small percentage of women to whom they will provide DNA and possibly resources. This makes perfect sense. Top paleo providers were in short supply. To hunt and land one of these men, even if for a harem arrangement, was a successful survival strategy for the woman and her offspring.

Let’s fast forward to our modern, industrial culture. Armed with the power of projection and a healthy rationalization hamster, women think because they must pursue men (the top 20%) that men must pursue them. It goes along with the modern projection that because women are attracted to masculine accomplishments, that men must also be attracted to masculine accomplishments in women.

It gets worse. The guys not in the top 20% must do the pursuing of the top 20% of women (attractive and feminine women, not the masculinized career dames). The women’s projection that men must give courtship chase is utterly reinforced by an army of guys without Charisma trying desperately to win these women’s romantic (um, sexual) favor.

Men with Charisma do not want to hunt women. They want compliant (PC word alert!), feminine women who easily recognize the man’s achievements without drama, bitchiness, and demands. Sure, Charisma is required because our recent industrial age requires women to be a bit coquettish. This is the price for not having to worry about a saber tooth tiger eating the women and children while the man is out hunting mastodons.

A woman wants a man without Charisma to hunt them because this is a validation of her desirability, nothing more. The woman doesn’t want the DNA (sex) from that man, she wants the emotional support in addition to the desirability validation. This is manifested in contemporary times as the FriendZone and weaker men being the emotional tampon.

So let’s summarize – Women want beta men to hunt them. They want to hunt Alpha men.

About these ads
  1. #1 by P Ray on April 13, 2012 - 8:41 PM

    Yeah, ok.
    Following that train of logic, women should not ask for child support, since they are naturally nurturing.
    Along with that, no fidelity either – since that never occured in pre-historic time.
    Crazy people talk like that, they should see this wonderful movie “The Clan of the Cave Bear”.
    If they want to live like that, they are welcome, just not be part of contemporary society.
    P.S. If men are also “hunters”, maybe women should not expect emotional support from them either.
    So what I gather is, the requirements are so fluid so that SHE always has a good reason not to be committed.
    And men are the ones called commitment phobes?
    What do the feminists think of this, anyway?
    Since gender is a social construct, why are most women too weak to transcend the idea of asking a guy for a date?
    Equal in every way except for paying for the date, asking for a date, proposing, being in charge of emotions, being held accountable, (mostly) not laying down your life in the line of duty?
    Sounds like somebody is playing the good ole game of “Double Standards”.

    • #2 by Adrian on April 15, 2012 - 2:52 AM

      “Since gender is a social construct,” ….

      No, it’s not. You are basing your argumentation on a flawed premise ..one that neglects Darwin’s theory of evolution.

      • #3 by theprivateman on April 15, 2012 - 2:42 PM

        You missed the facetious nature of his point.

  2. #4 by Candide on April 13, 2012 - 11:33 PM

    To debunk the “women like nice guys who treat them as equals” BS, I point to women’s fantasies i.e “romance” novels where their fantasy men are the exact opposite of nice and are forcefully dominant.

    To debunk the “men like a challenge” BS, I point to men’s fantasies. In porn or action flicks (or any form of entertainment targeting men), do you see the babes playing hard to get? Or are they always seductive and available sexually (i.e DTF)? In male-oriented movies & novels, the only kind of challenge the hero faces is like the hunting challenge you mentioned, and when he’s victorious over the enemies, the babe puts out, no question asked. There is no male flick where the hero has to constantly try to win the affection of his woman. He might have to fight some beasts or bosses to be together with her, but it is never to win her love, for it is already given.

    • #5 by Spacetraveller on April 14, 2012 - 7:04 AM

      Candide,
      You will no doubt agree with me that men are not lining up to marry porn stars.

      @ TPM,
      May I ask: are you referring to the SMP or the MMP in this post?
      If per chance you are refering to the MMP, then I hope you will agree with me that a woman should NOT be compliant to any man unless he is worthy enough for her? (Assuming her standards are good, i.e.she is a classy woman herself). A woman who is ‘compliant’ to all and sundry is …you guessed it, rhyming with ‘rut’.
      Before he achieves said ‘compliance’, she necessarily poses a challenge to him. A challenge he would no doubt prefer not to have. But retrospectively, would be glad he did, because it tells him everything he needs to know about her character.

      But I see what you mean about this bad dating advice: it does not take into account that classless women are not even in a position to understand what ‘challenge’ means. To them, a ‘challenge’ simply means ‘play hard to get’ even if they are hardly ‘hard to get’.

      I get what you are trying to say, but it would be useful to distinguish different categories of woman here.
      Otherwise, even ‘Manosphere-friendly’ types like me will fight you on this :-)

      • #6 by Candide on April 14, 2012 - 7:14 PM

        Geez women always trip up on porn. Okay, check out the non-porn novels, movies or TV shows aim at men and tell me which ones have the hero constantly fighting to win the affection of some babe. Or let me save you the trouble: such male-oriented entertainment always have the hero doing his heroic bizness while babes just fall in love with him quickly. Can you imagine John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Rocky et al wasting time with fighting over and over again for some woman’s affection and letting themselves be distracted from their own adventures? Once is more than enough. And yes there are plenty of marriages in those too.

        Funnily enough, that’s one main reason women always hate female characters in male entertainment. They call them all kinds of things, like “boring” or “lack of personality” yadda yadda only because those female characters aren’t playing hard to get sufficiently for their liking.

      • #7 by Spacetraveller on April 14, 2012 - 7:34 PM

        Candide,
        Actually, it’s not porn per se that I am tripping up on. I would like to know what you and other wise men here believe is the right attitude for a woman to take. On the one hand you say that men don’t want to chase, and yet on the other hand you and other men would not touch a woman who was chasing YOU. Because she will be perceived as ‘cheap’ by you.
        I plead ‘confused’ rather than pronouncing you ‘guily’.
        TPM starts off his post by agreeing that men like to hunt…
        So which is it?
        If men hunt for food, why not mates as well?
        Look, I am a fan of The Manosphere. But if something smells rotten I should fish it out and hold it up to all our proverbial noses, no?
        I trust you gentlemen to be straightforward and kosher on this.
        Pretend I am your little sister or something. What would you say to a female you care about?

      • #8 by Candide on April 14, 2012 - 9:13 PM

        Men’s idea of a challenge in this context is: slay the dragon, get the babe. The challenge here is the dragon. By overcoming that, the hero gets the babe.

        In contrast, women’s idea of a challenge in this context seems to have the dragon and the babe merged into one. She IS the challenge, instead of getting her (i.e fighting the dragon) being the challenge.

        “If men hunt for food, why not mates as well?”

        Exactly what TPM posted in this very blog: men hunt for foods (slay the dragon, or mammoth) and expect mates from said achievement (get the babe). It would be most ungrateful and self-entitled of women to expect men to hunt for both.

        So if you were my little sister? I’d say, give the man a chance to be your hero. Don’t make yourself a dragon, that’s for the ugly witch (i.e feminist) and she didn’t get any marriage proposal. If you’re a dragon, he will slay you (i.e pump & dump :P) then ask the babe in the tower that he just rescued from you to be his wife.

      • #9 by Spacetraveller on April 15, 2012 - 3:32 AM

        Candide,
        Thank you :-)
        This must be one of the clearest explanations I have ever encountered on a Manosphere site.
        So, to summarise, a man goes out to slay a dragon and that action alone is enough or should be enough to signal to a woman that he has performed a challenge already. She can then ease up on him trying to win her.
        So in this regard, if he has not ‘slain a dragon’, she should not even be playing hard to get, with him…she should not even be looking his way at all!
        Is this correct?
        Hey, TPM is not the only ‘slow’ one round here. I can be a little dense sometimes too :-D
        So I need confirmation that I am on the right path in my thinking.

        Thanks Big Bruv :P

      • #10 by Candide on April 15, 2012 - 8:35 AM

        No worries.

        “So, to summarise, a man goes out to slay a dragon and that action alone is enough or should be enough to signal to a woman that he has performed a challenge already. She can then ease up on him trying to win her.”

        That means he’s serious about her, so she should take it easy.

        “So in this regard, if he has not ‘slain a dragon’, she should not even be playing hard to get, with him…she should not even be looking his way at all!”

        Well, that’s not correct.

        I would advise a man not to risk fighting a dragon for any woman who’s not obviously attracted to him. Likewise, I’d advise a woman not to ask a man she’s not attracted to to be her hero. That is cruelty and shall backfire. The attraction has to be there first. The heroic deed is about how serious the relationship could be, not about attraction.

        If you wait around for a man to slay dragons before you make a move, you can be sure that his heroic deeds were done for another smarter woman who beat you to it. Men don’t perform heroics just for kicks, you know.

        As you can see in those hero stories, the Hero always fights the Enemy *knowing* that the Babe loves him. That is never in doubt. A man can do incredible things for a woman given such encouragement. In fact, look around you at the wonders of human civilisations. They are proofs.

        How do you apply this in our world where there aren’t any dragons flying around terrorising fair maidens? Well, if you find a man attractive (trust your own senses and judgements, don’t consult your female friends, they will lead you astray), spend time with him and give him the opportunities to lead you and demonstrate his strength (in whatever field he’s good at). Show appreciation and admiration for what he does. That is how you win a man’s love without putting out. If he’s spending time with you and demonstrating his strengths, he already finds you physically attractive, so panties shall not need to be dropped hastily.

        In contrast, our feminist-witch-dragon would challenge him on his strength and leadership, and make snarky comments on his achievements while feeling entitled to them. Don’t be that ugly witch.

      • #11 by Spacetraveller on April 15, 2012 - 12:23 PM

        Thanks Candide and P Ray,
        I get it now.
        Makes sense :-)

      • #12 by JS on April 16, 2012 - 2:15 PM

        Candide….you wrote: “How do you apply this in our world where there aren’t any dragons flying around terrorising fair maidens? Well, if you find a man attractive (trust your own senses and judgements, don’t consult your female friends, they will lead you astray), spend time with him and give him the opportunities to lead you and demonstrate his strength (in whatever field he’s good at). Show appreciation and admiration for what he does. That is how you win a man’s love without putting out. If he’s spending time with you and demonstrating his strengths, he already finds you physically attractive, so panties shall not need to be dropped hastily.”

        As you said, there arent any dragons for men to slay anymore. But then you go on to say, “spend time with him and give him the opportunities to lead you and demonstrate his strength (in whatever field he’s good at” ….My question: where in the course of dinner and drinks is a man demonstrating a strength? Except maybe financial ability to pay for dinner BUT I constantly read on the manosphere that men shouldnt pay for anything on a date. So, given this dutch-treat culture and no dragons, where is this strength he is demonstrating? Unless he saves me from a mugger outside the restaurant, which is not a frequent enough occurrence in society to be a textbook example….where are his strengths on a dinner date? ….Which is why I have always thought that a woman’s chastity IS the dragon he is trying to slay. By making him wait a few dates or weeks, he feels that he has “won” her over. But again, on the sphere there are lots of conflicting views on waiting vs putting out on the first date. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this: is the “waiting” actually the dragon as I was always taught it is, by my guy friends who warned me “dont put out too soon or a guy wont want anything to do with you long-term” ?????

      • #13 by P Ray on April 16, 2012 - 3:11 PM

        JS:
        I am reminded of this young comedian’s routine:
        “Ladies, you all say that the only thing a man is after is pussy. So what would you do if that went sealed and you wanted to keep your man interested?”
        The women replied:
        “We’ll give him lots of anal and oral”.
        The young comedian was shocked. He replied:
        “You could have said, I’d bake him a pie, I’d read to him, I’d find his favourite band and get some of their CDs. But it seems to me for so many of you women, you only define yourselves by your 3 holes.”
        I thought it summed up perfectly, the idea that women are the biggest misogynists.

      • #14 by JS on April 16, 2012 - 3:25 PM

        P RAY… Lololol LMAO. Yes you / your comedian make a very good point.

        However, I know what I am supposed to do be sweet, feminine, attractive, giving (cooking, cleaning, gift-giving, errand-running, mother/secretarial tasks, etc or as you said: pies and cds)

        But….seriously though, how is my baking him a pie to eat, getting CDs for him to listen to enabling him to slay dragons or demonstrate his strength?

      • #15 by P Ray on April 16, 2012 - 3:56 PM

        The strength of your relationship is not based around hoops you make him go through for you to feel attracted to him.
        It’s about the challenges you BOTH go through to stay together and adapt to each other.
        A man you appreciate with the effort you make for him, is not going to be the man who strays from you unless he has a REALLY good offer AND he doesn’t believe in being loyal.
        On the other hand:
        You have to ask yourself if you want the man you are with to be loyal to you BECAUSE he’s loyal to you … or because he’s attracted to you.
        Some good marriages/relationships get messed up because one or both of the parties think that that should be based around “100% The Notebook/The Vow screenplay” … and not the kind of attitude where one person is feeding the other because THEY want to, and the other person is not feeling well.
        I have no answer for 100% sexual fidelity: men get cheated on, women get cheated on. For me it’s a dealbreaker, others may see different. Seriously consider and hash this over with the person you intend to be with for the long-term.
        It’s not a joke: Values count for more relationship stability THAN EVEN MONEY.
        Remember: the best relationships happen when both people WANT each other … but don’t NEED each other.

      • #16 by JS on April 16, 2012 - 4:30 PM

        “Remember: the best relationships happen when both people WANT each other … but don’t NEED each other” ….I have always said this but I have gotten some resistance from men who fear not being needed for reasons I cannot quite grasp.

        As for men and monogamy….I don’t expect men to be monogamous because quite frankly I dont think they are capable of it, I am not saying this in a cynical way I just firmly believe it is an antiquated and unrealistic expectation given the attitudes of today’s man. However, I do expect them to keep their infidelities discreet and to not let me find out.

        But with regard to the original blog post of Men don’t want a challenge and Candide’s assertion of the lack of dragons/just let him demonstrate his strengths idea, I guess I dont see where the men have the opportunity to demonstrate strengths during the courtship (in a relationship, sure yes).

        But when I hear reference to dragon-slaying I really just think courtship phase….aka, trying to get past her front door or overcoming LMR / ASD….and if she goes to bed with him asap, what has he really won/worked for? Nothing and thusly why would he value it? It’s like the car given to a 16 yr old guy vs the car he worked for mowing lawns, flipping burgers for 2 yrs straight. Which car is going to mean more to him? Which will he value? The one he worked to earn or the one that just fell into his lap? But maybe I thinking too old school, as the title of the post suggests men dont want to work for anything anymore with regard to women. I always thought that men were supposed to work to get laid and women were supposed to work to get a relationship. But I guess men dont feel that way anymore.

      • #17 by Candide on April 16, 2012 - 10:11 PM

        You need to work on your imagination if your idea of a date only consists of dinner and drinks.

      • #18 by JS on April 17, 2012 - 9:26 AM

        It’s not my imagination, it’s my experience….that’s where men take me (and every woman I know) on dates. As the girl, I havent gotten to plan many dates (until I’m in a relationship, then I plan more often). Even when I’ve had a hand in planning it was more like… Him: so you want to go out this weekend? Me: Sure Him: Could you do dinner Friday night? Me: Sure Him: is there anywhere you have in mind or any food preferences, you’re not a vegetarian right? And, then one of us will come up with a restaurant. But most men will say pretty firmly: I’ll pick a place and let you know where to meet. So, the men I’ve dated have almost always planned the dates and in Manhattan…dinner, drinks, theatre/comedyclub/movies/symphony, art museum. That’s pretty much it. And the guys who have taken me to a show or a museum stand out in my memory as the “amazing dates” because 99.9% of the time it’s dinner or drinks. Restaurants are a big part of the social scene here….lots of foodies in NYC trying to get into the newest spots or have the bragging rights of knowing the “best” tapas place or whatever. But seriously, here it’s mostly dinner dates or just drinks, sometimes both.

      • #19 by Candide on April 17, 2012 - 10:02 PM

        Can’t entirely blame you there, sometimes I forget how clueless blue pill guys are. I’m glad they are only taking chicks to dinners and drinks. Makes it so much easier for me to stand out. As you have put it: “And the guys who have taken me to a show or a museum stand out in my memory as the “amazing dates” because 99.9% of the time it’s dinner or drinks.”

        Personally I don’t do dinner dates unless we’re getting somewhat serious. But let’s say I go on a dinner date early in the courtship phase. How do I demonstrate strengths and leadership? I pick the places, I demonstrate my knowledge & good taste in dining and foods in the local area. It won’t be a simple going out to get some food in the belly trip, it will be like a mini-adventure for me and she’s my sidekick. What do I expect from the woman? A sense of adventure, easy going enthusiasm and most importantly, respect for my decisions and appreciation for my effort.

        Keep in mind that it is an area of strength for me as I’m the son of a chef, a decent cook myself and also have a significant amount of knowledge on nutrition. I’d recommend other men to plan their dates around what they are good at. Even then, I don’t do dinner dates simply because it’s so damn counter-productive and I live in a city similar to yours where every bloody SWPL is a food expert. For me, if foods have to be involved, then it’s a team cooking effort at her place or mine.

        What I do is action dates. Very little sitting down and non-stop yapping, a hell lot more…well, actions. More fun & memorable for both. It’s far better to get to know a person when you’re doing things together as a team than sitting down together, eating and talking.

      • #20 by Bellita on April 17, 2012 - 10:33 PM

        @Candide
        Don’t make yourself a dragon, that’s for the ugly witch (i.e feminist) and she didn’t get any marriage proposal. If you’re a dragon, he will slay you (i.e pump & dump :P ) then ask the babe in the tower that he just rescued from you to be his wife.

        This actually happens in one Arthurian legend. The only thing missing is the dragon, but I suppose evil knights will do.

        I think most people who read the story of “Gareth and Lynette” expect Sir Gareth to end up with Lynette. She’s the one he spends most of the story with, after all. She goes to Arthur’s court pleading for a knight to help her rescue her sister and is mortified when her champion is not one of the famous Knights of the Round Table but a newly knighted kitchen boy. So despite the fact that he easily handles every threat on their path, she never stops holding his humble origins against him. To make a long story short . . . he marries her sister Lynors.

      • #21 by P Ray on April 18, 2012 - 12:06 AM

        “Action dates” help a lot with the bonding process, which is why scary movies are in vogue:
        The guy gets to build a closeness with the girl (since you observe for men successful with women, there is a lot of nonsexual touching and long hugs), and the girl gets to feel exclusive with a guy.
        Plus the “action dates” that are venue-packed also play into a psychological flaw in the way time is perceived: as you go from place to place in a day, the girl is likely to feel that she knows the guy for way longer than she actually went out with him.
        Which works great for guys the women will later say “are a mistake” : because the longer a woman goes out with a guy, the less likely she is to admit to having made a mistake being with a guy(as based on her normally stated 463point list) and the more willing she will be to meet him halfway and accommodate.
        And is also another reason why most women who do not want to be attached are going to beg off “action dates”: they have another guy in mind, and it isn’t you.

      • #22 by P Ray on April 18, 2012 - 12:14 AM

        @JS:
        “Which car is going to mean more to him? Which will he value? The one he worked to earn or the one that just fell into his lap?”

        If it’s a new car that he gets, he’ll value it. The chances are the “one he works to earn” is cheap and gets him from place to place. The one that drops into his lap is new. I would also ask if you are after a guy who is very experienced in buying cars, expect him not to stick around with the same one, since he will be more likely to move on to a later, newer model too :)

        “I always thought that men were supposed to work to get laid”
        Maybe the men you consider not desirable to women. The men who are desirable, don’t have to.

        “women were supposed to work to get a relationship” Maybe the women you consider not desirable to men. The women who are desirable, don’t have to.

        “But I guess men dont feel that way anymore.”
        becomes
        “But I guess the men who were not normally considered attractive to women, don’t feel that they have to give blood and treasure to attract a woman who will in all likelihood use their efforts to get close to another guy, so they figure if a woman is demanding, she is calculating her trajectory to wind up in the arms of an alpha male while excusing her behaviour to the guys she used with a double-bind statement”.
        Fixed that for you, no charge.

      • #23 by Candide on April 18, 2012 - 1:10 AM

        @ Bellita: those simple stories offer so much wisdom. I used to be brainwashed by our SWPL elites at one point to think of them as unsophisticated and belonged to an unenlightened time, but after the Red Pill, they now shine in a very different light! You can see so much of this in old movies before the 1960s “cultural revolution” too.

      • #24 by JS on April 19, 2012 - 10:17 AM

        @P Ray Presuming all things are equal (aka same make/model/year of a car) …one the kid has to earn, the other is given to the kid without any effort. The unearned car will likely be crashed within a few weeks. I went to private school for high school but most of my friends were from my public school yrs (k-8) and they were from working class families. And I cannot count the number of kids in my private school who got the fancy, brand-new sports car handed to them and then crashed it and then were bought another brand-new car the next week. I knew at least one kid who did this a few times. My working class friends all earned their cars/were responsible for the payments or paid half (their parent paid the rest) and not one of them crashed their cars and they were very protective/diligent car owners (dont smoke in my car, watch that soda, I dont want it to spill, no you cannot drive my car, etc). We value what we have to earn.

        So if a man has a choice between marrying the hot 9 who went to bed with him on the 1st date or the hot 9 who made him wait a few dates/weeks….I think he would marry the girl who made him wait because he had to earn it and knows that she is not easy to win (aka not an easy lay for other men).

        That’s the challenge most women are referring to when they say “men like a challenge, don’t be easy.” Because being easy will only get you a pump-n-dump.

        Chasity is the dragon (not winning over her resistance over time), not the ability to use a Zagat’s guide.

      • #25 by JS on April 19, 2012 - 10:20 AM

        oops. That was supposed to say “Chasity is the dragon (not being able to bed her immediately, but having to win over her fear/resistance over time), not the ability to use a Zagat’s guide.

      • #26 by P Ray on April 19, 2012 - 10:36 AM

        I had a full-flight private education handed to me on a platter.
        Unlike many of the other people at the university I attended, I didn’t mess up and finished a 3 year degree in 2.5 years. In a course with a 10% graduation rate.
        So your comparison isn’t quite valid. How many of those who banged up their cars (or not) also failed to complete their education in the stipulated time?
        Merely putting it out there because someone can not crash their car, and still leave university with no qualifications: a bad bet? What do you think?
        On the other hand, I’d make sure a woman I wanted to marry was tested for chastity – so I guess I’m not going to be winning any fan mail from most women: which is okay, I suppose it’s only necessary to be in a relationship with one good one. The rest can take their ride on the carousel: fewer men are willing to yoke themselves to someone once she has finished.

    • #27 by P Ray on April 15, 2012 - 11:16 AM

      The snarky words being along the lines of:
      “I could have slayed the dragon myself, I was wondering what took you so long. The other guy I was looking at slew a dragon in half the time you took. And looked better doing it too. He did it more gracefully, and I don’t even know why you think I am only worth one slain dragon, the other guy went off to slay more dragons for his girl, he loves her more than you love me, can you find other dragons to slay so that you show me for sure that you are experienced in slaying dragons since the first kill of yours I think is a fluke…”
      And on and on and on it goes.
      “By all means marry! If she makes you happy, you’ll be happy … if she makes you miserable, you’ll become a philosopher!” – Socrates (I must add he said it in the days before lifetime alimony and divorce theft … plus he didn’t have much to take anyway.)

  3. #28 by gritartisan on April 14, 2012 - 2:13 AM

    feminism has made the top 50% not 20 feel like they need to find their beta ego

    If you really are alpha, why the fuck are you thinking about any woman but the top 5%? Sure you might dump a fck in one or two on the side, but you got to chase the top chick just to maintain your cred with the tribe. Alpha don’t make sense unless ur after the hottest girl.

    Women want that commitment: they just can’t accept that being super hot is a challenge for the alpha to bypass all the sycophant beta dicks. So they have to make do and act a challenge instead of being a challenge.

    God biological reality fucking sucks don’t it.

    • #29 by P Ray on April 14, 2012 - 10:01 AM

      In order for the alpha to get to the top 5% he got to be able to build street cred below.
      Since most women go by herd mentality when it comes to agreeing with a guy to be with him,
      even the votes by the “not conventionally attractive” (NCA) count.
      This is also another reason why even if a girl is NCA, she may have a terrible personality:
      – because she mistakes pumps and dumps for a relationship
      – because she is aware that vouching for any man may make that man confident enough to leave her or trade up
      – because the only guys she is likely to be able to marry are those who can look past her NCA
      – therefore she has to change her personality to be with those guys, who may not be the guys she really wants
      – which is why the guy is going to endure bad behaviour, even from an NCA girl
      – since she thinks being unpleasant is a show that she is as beautiful as a supermodel.
      Protip: A girl is only as attractive as the hottest kind of guy she can regularly turn away.
      A guy is only as attractive as how many other women who want him.
      Therefore: more men are realising that when women don’t meet him halfway, better save his money and do other things: maybe the next batch of eggs will turn out right. Or go player and “make up the notches to reach the top of the ladder”.
      After all … not all girls are beautiful enough to be paid for existing, or beautiful enough to be kept by a single man.
      And for most women, working really sucks too :)
      Since they get involved in work only to meet the higher status man, which only works out if he wants them for the long term. And he has plenty of other choices :)

      • #30 by scottmac56 on April 16, 2012 - 8:53 AM

        “A girl is only as attractive as the hottest kind of guy she can regularly turn away.”

        ding ding ding we have a winn-ah

  4. #31 by Johnycomelately on April 14, 2012 - 8:23 AM

    Challenge used to mean not being easy, now it’s just an axiom used to weed out the betas.

    • #32 by P Ray on April 14, 2012 - 9:51 AM

      That’s the kind of challenge that makes smart betas leave: A woman who does not want you (and there are ways of telling that are elementary), is a woman who does not mind USING you to get to the man she really wants.

      • #33 by Jamie on April 16, 2012 - 11:42 AM

        How is that any different than “spinning plates” to boost a man’s confidence?

      • #34 by P Ray on April 16, 2012 - 3:04 PM

        How much benefit does a man get from interaction from a woman who feigns interest in him (the feign bit comes from the fact that, as an example, she’ll only agree to meet him in an exclusive restaurant)?
        The ONLY 2 sensible choices are
        - not to play the game
        - play the playette

  5. #35 by Richard Cranium on April 14, 2012 - 10:16 AM

    Bang on. This mentality also goes hand in hand with “chick logic” about them playing hard to get. I’ve had several instances in the past that I found out someone was interested but had originally blown me off and I moved on.

    When asked about it they said you weren’t persistant enough. My response was once I hear “no” I move on otherwise you look like you’re grovelling and you want to be in a position of strength. Which is a lesson I learned the hard way.

  6. #38 by betasattva on April 14, 2012 - 12:13 PM

    I actually do like a challenge, but it has to be mixed in with plenty of signs of interest in me — initiating communication, humor, touch, and so on. I think it’s right for a woman to demonstrate higher value by not being easy. If non-committing Alphas move on, that’s a good thing. If you play too hard to get, though, I will move on because I’m looking for a girl who’s gaga over me, not just mildly interested.

    • #39 by Spacetraveller on April 14, 2012 - 2:10 PM

      Betasattva,
      Agreed. I also believe that a man who thinks a girl is not into him should reject her. Because it will end up badly for him if he sticks around regardless. But the challenge thing is still there for the man. Who wants a woman that any man can get?

      • #40 by George Garner on April 15, 2012 - 10:42 PM

        I do.

        (If she’s cute and not a nag.)

    • #41 by Richard Cranium on April 14, 2012 - 8:48 PM

      A challenge is one thing a little playful back and forth but when it’s a blatant “sorry not interested” or “No” then I go away. If she’s interested in you she’ll make it known, or you would think so.

  7. #42 by blogster on April 14, 2012 - 6:28 PM

    good post. generically speaking it points out a valuable lesson about female projection – women project their negative thoughts, qualities and actions onto men and project their assumptions onto men.

    which explains self absorption and a lack of willingness to be accountable.

  8. #43 by Wudang on April 14, 2012 - 7:28 PM

    Men seek challenge, difficulty and excitment outside of relationships in work, in war, in sports etc. and are ok with and often want this to be difficult and challenging. But their personal lives they want to comfortable and not so difficult and challenging. Women are the reverse prefering work to be more comfortable and their love lives to be filled with the challenges. Men like real life risk and dislike relationship risk/emotional risk. Women dislike real life risk and like relationship/emotional risk

  9. #45 by To women, My name is Nemo on April 14, 2012 - 8:41 PM

    A man DOES like a ‘challenge’, but the ‘challenge’ has to be worth his time, trouble, and effort — and modern women have proven (by their total lack of femininity, culture, manners, class, ethics, honesty, or even civility) that they are not worth one second of a man’s time.

    • #46 by Richard Cranium on April 16, 2012 - 2:57 PM

      Exactly it’s a cost/benefit ratio. Is what I’m getting worth the time I’m putting into it and with today’s women it’s a resounding no. Are there exceptions? Sure. I don’t have the time to seek out the one in a billion that’s “not like that”. I prefer to put my time and effort into things that I will benefit from.

  10. #47 by Da man on April 16, 2012 - 12:17 AM

    If i want a challenging quasi bulldike, then id be a fag. Seriously man, its easier to just blow a guy than to put with that BS. And about the endangering a man that they care nothing about, when i was young i smacked my ex on the street after learning she moved in with a guy. Know what she did? She goes to get some Beta admirer to fight her battles, and not her new man. Of course she wouldn’t risk the life of the man she loves, and risk some poor egg to be cracked by a dangerously angry and quasi homicidal man ie moi. fortunately for him, I told him that dying fire another mans woman is the pussy way to go, and he turned to her and asked if that was true. She didn’t say anything and just tried to shame him by telling him that he was using an excuse to not fight me. He then yelled fck you at her and just avoided possible death, or at the very least a very painful Beatdown.

    • #48 by P Ray on April 16, 2012 - 3:01 PM

      That line “dying for another man’s woman is the pussy way to go” says it all.
      “Let’s you and him fight and MAYBE I can show you something later” is a despicable tactic to get a man to put his life and limb on the line, for a woman who supposedly “has his best interests at heart”.
      I wonder how much “man-on-man” violence actually began from cupcake saying “My boyfriend will beat you up”.

      • #49 by JS on April 16, 2012 - 3:16 PM

        I wonder how much “man-on-man” violence actually began from cupcake saying “My boyfriend will beat you up”….. P Ray, did you ever watch Way of the Gun? The opening scene…

        I am a firm believer in a handling my own confrontations and would never drag a man into a fight. I have frequently come to the rescue of many a woman (at least one man)…always verbally but always willing to fight back if someone were to take a swing at me. I would never want a man I was dating (or any future husband) to fight for my protection / honor / safety, etc. I would not want anyone putting their lives or safety on the line for me. If someone is a threat to me, I will handle it verbally or report it to the police (or they turn it into a violent situation by assaulting me, I will do my best to defend myself and escape/survive). If I die in the process, Oh, well. Natural selection. Men should not fight for women. Women should fight for themselves. And if they fail, well, that’s life.

      • #50 by MaMu1977 on April 18, 2012 - 5:03 PM

        During Memorial Day Weekend (2011), 8 men were killed in the Brownsville section of New York City. According to the witnesses to the original shooting, the whole mess began when a woman (who had been rebuffed by a guy who she met at a party) ran to her *real* boyfriend’s best friend and cried rape. By the following Monday

        Her boyfriend was in intensive care
        Her boyfriend’s friend was dead
        Her cousin was dead
        Two of the not-involved partygoers were dead
        The “rapist” who was shot by her boyfriend was dead (mistaken identity)
        The friend of the “rapist” who was killed was dead (remember, mistaken identity)
        Two children who were caught in the crossfire were in intensive care
        One child caught in the next day’s crossfire was dead
        One elderly man was dead (because he lived in the house where the “real” rapist was supposed to have lived.)

        Suffice to say, the guy whose rejection of the “holy vagina” triggered the whole debacle was never actually found. The sole reason for the woman coming forward and recanting the claim was based on potential involvement of her own blood relatives.

        But yeah, *I’m* the self-hating misogynist for not even crossing the border of that side of town…

      • #51 by P Ray on April 19, 2012 - 1:39 AM

        @MaMu1977:
        What did the feminists have to say about that?
        Something along the lines of “Retribution richly deserved for the patriarchal oppression of women who stoically endure horrifying sex without consent or harassment?”
        While completely missing the point that the people who got killed were another womans’ husband, father, brother, son, boyfriend or family breadwinner?
        I’m finding that only women who think men exist to serve her alone and have no responsibilities of their own, are the totally feminist ones.
        Which is why they’re probably better off single or unmarried:
        No man can meet their demands, and no man can afford their wants either.

      • #52 by Candide on April 19, 2012 - 2:33 AM

        “What did the feminists have to say about that?”

        Something like “Not a single woman died, 8 potential rapists eliminated. Yay!!!?”

        Any woman pulling the let’s you and him fight shit on me, even at the very tame level, gets the boot quick smart. I remember my best friend’s older brother getting killed over this bullshit when I was a little kid and it left a big impression on me to say the least.

  11. #53 by Peregrine John on April 16, 2012 - 10:37 AM

    Geez. This isn’t rocket scientist, but you’d never know it from the comments sometimes. Look, it was covered *very* succinctly not long ago at Tao of Dirt. The metaphor works just fine if you don’t try to make a full analogy of it.

  12. #54 by Peregrine John on April 16, 2012 - 10:37 AM

    Rocket *science*. Freakin’ auto-correct…

  13. #55 by freebird on April 16, 2012 - 2:33 PM

    Then her panties got wet for you again due to the show of superior aggression.
    This is what women deny all the time,the desire for aggression.
    (project it onto men and make new laws)

  14. #56 by YOHAMI on April 16, 2012 - 5:37 PM

    100% correct.

  15. #57 by Doe on April 17, 2012 - 4:33 PM

    So are you advocating that women actively pursue men that they want for a relationship or sex a la Mrs. Robinson (“I’m available to you, Benjamin”)? I’ve found that men tend to ignore or refuse to commit if the woman’s attentions are always “free” in terms of effort. Basically, like a reverse Beta Orbiter. How does a man feel like his woman’s hero if 1) she is always compliant regardless of effort he puts in and 2) she chooses him rather than allowing him to designate her a target and pursue her. This is a serious question-elsewhere in the Manosphere it is made clear that women should not pursue men except for IOIs.

    Disclaimer: I am not talking about in a serious relationship or marriage, I can clearly see the need for an effort-independent compliant partner there. I am only referring to the steps leading up to a relationship commitment.

    • #58 by P Ray on April 18, 2012 - 1:46 AM

      “I’ve found that men tend to ignore or refuse to commit if the woman’s attentions are always “free” in terms of effort.”
      What kind of men do you consider worth giving those “free” attentions to? “Tell me who you love, and I’ll tell you who you are”…

      “How does a man feel like his woman’s hero if 1) she is always compliant regardless of effort he puts in and 2) she chooses him rather than allowing him to designate her a target and pursue her.”
      I’ll turn it around for you:
      How does a woman feel she is worth committing to, if 1) she is difficult regardless of the effort he puts in and 2) she refuses to reciprocate pursuit or a relationship? “Keep on pursuing me, and maybe I’ll become interested in you … IN THE END (After some abuse, disease, pregnancy from other guys)”.
      P.S. (What she thinks) You get to pay for my mental treatment and other requisite fallout from my previous bad choices – hey, didn’t you know that you can’t be calculative in love – despite what I did to you? Which is calculated to trick you that I am still worth your loyalty despite being noncommittal for such a long time, and calculating that I always have you to fall back on (You are such a committed loser that you didn’t look elsewhere for the longest time, when you should have).

      “This is a serious question-elsewhere in the Manosphere it is made clear that women should not pursue men except for IOIs.”
      Maybe the people advocating that women should not pursue men except for IOIs are some women who want other women to have unhappy relationships so that they can outbid the previous woman … and maybe some of the men saying that want rebound or no-strings attached sex.

      I answer your question with questions, and can only answer on my behalf, because as I observe … all women think only a few men are attractive (and worth committing to with only the briefest of “courtships” — Tiger Woods kept 13 women off the market to other men … who will have to pay “relationship compensation” to those women), whereas most men think most women are attractive (guess who brings the flowers in most relationships?).
      If you’re in a relationship with a guy you think the best of … everything he does is an expression of his love for you.
      If you’re in a relationship with a guy you think the worst of … everything he does is a compensation for you being with him.
      P.S. It’s a lot easier for a woman to get another guy interested in her, when she can rely on the resources of the current guy she’s with … to be in contact or around the guy she REALLY wants (“Propinquity”).
      Why do you think a woman wants to be joined at the hip with the guy she really wants? (and is careful about where she allows herself to be seen with him and where he’s permitted to go?) ‘Cause she knows he can use … the exact same strategy, ahahahaha…

  16. #59 by Rollo Tomassi on April 19, 2012 - 7:15 AM

    Private Man, as per usual, another well developed, cogent idea supported with factual evidence,…that really has a much simpler answer,…

    “Men want a challenge.”

    The multi-billion dollar international porn industry has vehemently disagreed with this assessment for well over 50 years now. Porn didn’t become the financial / cultural juggernaut it is because men get off on the ‘challenge’ involved in the effort needed to go from “Hello” to “Fuck me harder!” with women.

  17. #60 by jeff on April 20, 2012 - 10:23 AM

    I personally like to think that my girl has to have me. I do not however like to think that she just had to have others prior to me. Fair maybe not but that is it in a nutshell. Kind of similar to how women would want a wall st broker by day and a prize fighter by night.

  18. #61 by jbamai on April 21, 2012 - 5:05 PM

    “So let’s summarize – Women want beta men to hunt them. They want to hunt Alpha men.”

    Gamenomics equivalent – “Corporations want rank and file employees to hunt them for employment. They want to hunt executives and CEOs”

    http://wp.me/p26lRt-i1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,510 other followers

%d bloggers like this: