Reader Mailbag – Soft Harem Conundrum

A reader writes:

I’ve never been happier as a man since acquiring the “soft harem” of three gals (I leave one slot for bench substitutions/one nighters) from which I am getting regular sex and entertainment.  Am I going to become spoiled and destroyed such that I will never commit 100% to a single woman again.  I was faithful to my wife of fourteen years.  I fear that I won’t ever be satisfied with a single gal to grow old with.

Ah, the benefits of Red Pill wisdom and Charisma. To have such a problem, oy vey. Let this be a lesson to any scoffers out there.

This reader is in his 40s and asks a very legitimate question for guys of a certain age. While I’m older than the reader, I’ve not hit my “silver years” so I can’t answer the question based on personal experience. I’ll have to speculate in order to provide an answer. As this reader gets older – and I’m talking a couple of decades down the road – he will eventually find himself spending more and more time with just one woman. My step-father went this route a few years after my mother died but he did it more quickly (link below).

While bodies age, and libidos cool, the need for the warm embrace of feminine companionship should never wane. Men have the privilege of time and our reader should use that time to allow just one woman to be the one who holds his hand as he shuffles off that mortal coil. Fortunately, he’s got quite a few years of soft harem management ahead of him. There is one caveat to this. The reader lives in a community that I know quite well having lived there for several years. In fact, my first ex-wife still lives there. It’s not a big city so he runs the risk of his harem girls crossing paths with each other.

Red Pill, gentlemen… it’s all about the Red Pill.

My Step-Father’s Wall Calendar

About these ads
  1. #1 by NMH on May 26, 2012 - 11:41 AM

    As much as I like to generally support my gender, my opinion is that the act of men keeping soft harems does more damage than good when all the votes are tallied. The “good” is the guy gets several partners ala Ted Turner (he has three blondes half his age in different cities) and the man’s the Coolidge affect is satisfied, raising him to a level of personal satisfaction that few men ever obtain. The negative is if a girl in the harem doesn’t know and finds out, then there is a good chance that she becomes bitter. I assume the women in his harem are attractive and so the bitterness may send a woman to the dark side (ie, she becomes an obese virago) where she is irretrievable. Hence, less decent women for men like me to chose from. So when all the votes are tallied, I think men keeping soft harems does more damage than good. Its sort of an example of a guy persuing his own selfish needs despite the destructive affects it has on society, IMO.

    All actions have consequences. If he cannot escape the rumors that will develop about him they may haunt him as he grows old and then limit his supply of willing women. Inevitably, keeping a soft harem now may lessen the chances of a steady gf. I am aware of the affect of pre-selection has on women but this, in my experience, applies to only a fraction of the women. Once a woman gets burned, she often becomes turned off to the smooth guy who is good with women who could potentially include her in his harem. Of course, the more alpha you are, the more you can get away with (Ted Turner) but few of us are true alpha.

    These are some practical considerations. One could write about the ideological aspects of harem forming–many would argue it is immortal. But since the acceptance of this has already been decided upon on this site, its not worth going over.

    • #2 by just visiting on May 26, 2012 - 1:20 PM

      Harems masculinize women. From a pua standpoint, it wouldn’t be alpha to care about the consequences. Women at some point will have to decide how masculinized they’re willing to become in pursuit of relationship.

      • #3 by theprivateman on May 26, 2012 - 1:38 PM

        Perhaps. It could go either way. A woman seeking a relationship becomes more feminine only to find herself as part of the harem but she’s unaware of her standing and so continues to hope. A woman who knows her standing is free to remain masculine.

      • #4 by just visiting on May 26, 2012 - 2:13 PM

        Women know. Eventually. A lot of it is from subconscious cues, things that don’t add up. That’s when rationalization starts.

        Female sexual competition stems from hypergamy, not cultivated femininity. And these aspects aren’t equal in women. It’s very, almost too easy, to default to sexual competition. But a switch takes place in thinking. Vulnerability , as in all competition, gets guarded. Openness to vulnerability is a part of femininity, and by extension,sensuality and deeper love.

        It’s possible to push through that, and still maintain openness and vulnerability, but I’m not seeing that level of courage in women. Not sure if it’s worth it either in a harem situation.

        As in all things related to the human condition, there are exceptions.

    • #5 by P Ray on May 26, 2012 - 2:00 PM

      She may become bitter, but she chose that guy. Most probably after high school too, so she has plenty of past experience with seeing players up close.
      In sum: it’s her choice.
      Restricting guys being alpha, only means even fewer men will be winning big.
      A woman complaining about cheaters has 2 options:
      – Date the guys she previously wouldn’t have considered
      – Be alone.

  2. #6 by 36 on May 26, 2012 - 11:50 AM

    I think the best way to keep a woman from becoming bitter is to be honest with her.

    You have to accept that eventually you will see her less as she decides wants more or less. Some people might call your honesty cruelty, but every time she tries to increase the pressure toward a standard relationship, you have to pull back, remind her that’s not what you want, and see if she’s willing to proceed. As long as you aren’t afraid of losing her (knowing that you very well could) you are being honest and have nothing to feel bad about.

    There are plenty of women today who don’t want standard relationships. Assuming they all want a relationship, or will hate you or become bitter because you don’t, is what can lead you to be dishonest. It’s the wrong frame altogether.

    Of course, I live in a part of the country with a larger population of “non-standard” people. Trying to do this in the bible-belt can be harder, but I think honesty is always the way to go. Tell her what you want, and you’ll be surprised by how she responds.

  3. #7 by 36 on May 26, 2012 - 11:54 AM

    To add: you also have to remember that if you’re fucking multiple women, assume she’s got several men on the “casual thing.” The biggest two lessons I’ve learned from casual dating are be honest, and always always always wear a condom. Sitting at the clinic and making phone “you should know” phone calls are no fun.

    • #8 by NMH on May 26, 2012 - 12:01 PM

      Condoms dont fully prevent the passage of STD’s, and you can get Herpes by giving or receiving oral sex. If one of the women in your harem has a harem of her own, you are pretty much fucking (not in a literal sense) all of the guys in her harem, with all the STD risks involved.

      • #9 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 7:55 PM

        If a nice guy gives a woman with STDs a chance,
        he is basically approving of her, and you can bet other women will take notice.
        I’m sure that in the relationships you’ve either been in or observed, how women compare their boyfriend/husbands to what other men are supposed to have done to other women.
        “He bought her this fantastic ring, do you love me as much as him?”
        Again, nice guys become part of the problem when they “save” such women.
        They turn traitor to their own gender when they say the women had no choice in choosing who to be in a relationship with (womens’ mouths don’t open and form words to the effect of “I want to jump your bones and make beautiful love” unless they’re conscious and willing).

        How about being nice to your parents, who don’t want you to marry a girl with STDs?
        How about being nice to your future kid, that may inherit the STD?
        Not that “nice” when seen in that context.

        If women have a nice guy they can count on… you can bet they’ll cat around with players.
        Them what pays no penalty, can dare anything.

      • #10 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 7:59 PM

        Oh, I should also add:
        A nice guy with a girl who is not nice …
        is denying a nice girl a marriage.
        How nice is that? How many girls will be nice knowing that situation comes up?
        When women do not talk about such a situation …
        means they are perfectly willing to throw good girls under a bus
        “I got mine, y’all can go to hell”. Doesn’t seem to reflect very well on women.

  4. #11 by Wet Willy on May 27, 2012 - 7:40 AM

    Monogamy, like so much of our social “norms” is a female imperative that is not a historical norm. I think women are more capable of tolerating it than you think. That said if you are selling yourself as committed to her and only her than feelings will be hurt.

    But really what would readers have men otherwise do? The whole commit, marry, watch her get fat, bitch, take your kids, take your wealth jig is up. Fuck them if they don’t like it. Do something to change it. What I see are women continuing to rally behind slanted laws that give them all the resources from their marriages while they dynamite the family through divorce. They defend it like a natural born right.

  5. #12 by SarajMgmt on May 27, 2012 - 4:18 PM

    As a guy who has managed a harem of high-quality women for several years without a single major compromise or COPS-like incident, let me say it’s not rocket science. Keep it simple and all will be fine.

    1. Don’t ever bring a girl into the harem if she lives in your town (or your ‘hood if you’re in a city), that’s just asking for bad things to happen; no cooch is worth a public scene.

    2. Don’t lie, just artfully dodge things. Women, unless they are stupid – and who wants a harem filled with morons? – don’t really want to know the truth they suspect and, deep down, sorta know. So brush things off with a wry smile and move on. She won’t ask many things directly if she wants to keep her harem position. But don’t put it in her face either, ie no overt leaving of another gal’s thong on the nightstand. Apply common sense.

    3. No man can really handle (logistically, sexually, et al) more than 5 harem members – and for most men 3 is max load to do it right. In every harem there is the “real” (ie public) GF, a couple floaters, and developmentals hanging around. Plus the occasional one-night plaything, on the road if possible.

    4. If you’re a true alpha, the gals don’t have their own stable of studs. Period. They would rather have the proverbial one night of alpha a week than seven nights of beta. Really.

    5. Tolerate zero typical American woman BS. Have no harem member you’re not willing to terminate at once, without looking back, if she shows your disrespect. And don’t let any one gal take down the whole harem.

    6. Who needs to get used to just one woman? I tried that, it’s called “marriage” – a singularly costly disaster – in cash, kind, body, and soul. I understand the initial query, but I don’t share the concern. Then again, I’m only in my early 40s, so who knows?

  6. #13 by Anon on May 27, 2012 - 10:21 PM

    When does the harem start? I’m 31 years old with a good job, and no matter how hard I try, women aren’t giving me the time of day. Neither young nor old nor my age. Too many guys around, and the women are never long without a boyfriend, from what I can tell.

    • #14 by theprivateman on May 28, 2012 - 8:36 AM

      Here’s the zen-like thing – your harem starts when you stop caring about if women are interacting with you or not. Yeah, I know that sounds ass-backward. Women are intuitive to the ways and desires of the men they interact with. If they sense you don’t care, then they will start caring. The massively frustrating thing is the time required to implement this sense of outcome independence.

      Look, just keep doing awesome things for yourself. Your confidence and frame will change and the women will sense that. Also, work on your physique and your style. Again, do it for you, not women.

    • #15 by NMH on May 28, 2012 - 10:52 AM

      Early 30’s can be a very difficult time for some men. You are no longer in school so there are not women in your immediate vicinity. A lot of the good ones get snapped up, and it seems like the single women left all have something wrong with them. In those years, I had short relationships with two cougars and then pretty much “stole” another woman in an LTR (not married) from a man. I don’t quite know how it happened but I mustered just enough charm and DHV to convince her that she might be happier with me (I still question the morality of what I did).

      In short, at early 30’s you may have very few options to get a girl in the standard legit way (calling normal, modest, attractive, slender single girl for date, go out on sever dates, get in LTR). In retrospect what I should have done is learn some serious game, get a wing, and practice in clubs as much as possible. And developed a thick skin.

      • #16 by Anon on May 28, 2012 - 5:14 PM

        Thanks for the comments.

        Bars/Nightclubs – been there, done that, have the scars to prove it. Many long years of going out, only to have to compete in horrendous sausage fests. The ratio is always 2:1 week in week out, which is bad enough, but in terms of single/available girls, it’s as high as 5:1. That’s why I stopped — I have the experience in clubs, but there’s never enough females to go around, which severely limits what you can do.

        Classes/School – I was actually in school from 26-30 for my graduate degree, but the problem is, my classes were STEM/Engineering/IT, no women there. I tried spending more time on campus, but that got me nowhere. If you’re an engineer or IT kind of guy you’re really stuck.

        Online Dating – women in their 20s aren’t finding me because of my age, women in their 40s and late 30s reply that I’m “too young” for them.

        In short, you’re right, options for early-30s men are extremely limited, there are simply no women around. It’s a very bad age range. Even in my early 20s I had more opportunities.

      • #17 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 2:49 PM

        Anon:
        – Why would you be dating in bars and clubs where the people know you? The relational aggression from the women who want to limit you will drag you down.
        – STEM/Engineering/IT is in demand worldwide.
        – Options for any men are limited if they think they should only date women their age or older (please slay the hamsters where you can, and that means not giving carousel riders a spin)

  7. #18 by SarajMgmt on May 28, 2012 - 8:36 AM

    Anon: Since you’ve said really nothing about yourself (looks, alphaness, mastery of Game or whatever you wanna call it), I can’t assess what your problem is.

    Assembling a harem is easy if you’re good with women … this is obvious, but perhaps it’s not. Deprogramming yourself from all the misandrist nonsense all men have rammed down their throats all day, every day of their lives is step one, AKA taking the Red Pill. It starts there. That said, understanding the realities of gender relations doesn’t add six inches to your height, take 30 lbs off your waist, give you the personality transplant you need, whatever is holding you back.

    Good luck …

  8. #19 by John on May 28, 2012 - 9:54 AM

    As mid 40s guy getting back to dating after a divorce, I have thought of this issue many times. My solution is to only have a harem of women you know you will not fall in love with. I know I wont seriously date a single Mom, a heavy chick or a chick with financial issues. So thats the type I would attempt to keep in my harem. This way, I can have lots of sex and not have my heart broken if they move on because I would never have strong feelings for them in the first place. Keep up the charade that you really do want a relationship with them (so as to get a lot of sex and comapnionship) for as long as you can. Once the jig is up (and if they are smart they can figure it out after a couple of months) then replace her.

    Once I have had my fill of meaningless realtionships (but with lots of sex to make up for lost time), then try to only date women who you can fall in love with. I think having a harem is good for a short period of time to fulfill some short term needs. For me it wont be a lifestyle but rather a stepping stone until I feel I want to meet that one woman who I will fall in love with again. But coming out of a divorce, I think wanting to fall back in love again can take a back seat to easy sex for a couple of years.

  9. #21 by SarajMgmt on May 28, 2012 - 7:40 PM

    John: That’s an interesting approach that could work. However, I would counter that a true harem, at least its core members, consists of MLTR (Multiple Long Term Relationship) women, ie gals you’re bonded to, and may even be in love with (optional).

    Anon: I feel your pain, bro, but you’ve still said very little about what you bring to the table. And I emphatically reject the notion of some sort of demographic curse, ie the early 30s suck for getting tail. I call BS. It can vary with age, but women are ALWAYS lusting after alphas and willing to enter their harems, at any age. Sounds like you’re striking out in the usual venues. My off the cuff estimate would be to learn Day Game, master the skill of just meeting women on the fly, at the corner store, at the coffee house, etc. It’s a much easier venue than any club (I’d even say that no accomplished player does much pick-up in clubs, it’s terrible for that). Learn some Game, get in the best physical and emotional shape you can, and have at it. I’ve run a harem (MLTRs, the real kind) in my 20s, 30s, and now 40s, it doesn’t change that much. And while I’m an attractive, successful and charming guy, I’m not Brad Pitt. Experience teaches much. Read Roosh and Roissy to get some hints. Above all, don’t give up that easily.

  10. #22 by Wet Willy on May 29, 2012 - 1:38 AM

    Saraj knows the deal. Except for a 5-deep bench! I had 4 for 8 weeks and I had to back off. If you’re not hitting it twice a week they start to grow cold or they ramp up the drama. You can get away with once a week occasionally but not indefinitely, at least in my experience. Sex becomes a chore big time too. Plus you start mixing them up allot more – i.e. “remember that time when we…. (we never did that together)” .

    Anon, start working out. Initiate impromptu conversations with 3-5 people per day with two of them women minimum. Go to bars to socialize, NOT (necessarily) to meet women. Start measuring your success with whether you saw someone you like and found a away to initiate a conversation with them. Failure to initiate is the only the only measure to focus on.

    And one more thing Anon, 30 is your peak. There was never a better time or place then now. You’re fucking up.

  11. #23 by SarajMgmt on May 29, 2012 - 8:37 AM

    Wet Willy has the moves, do what he says. Sterling advice. Become the guy you want to be. Go out more, just casually, work the room. Talk to people, get them to open up. Don’t do it to meet women, do it because you’re That Kind of Guy. Women are drawn to him, without fail. Guys with good social skills yet a tad withdrawn, with the aura of mystery, are total catnip to women of all ages. Promise.

    I should add that I’m able to manage the 5-gal harem because I’m in the military
    and I travel a lot, often to far-away sexy (or at least mysterious) places, so I have plausible cover for being unavailable – gals don’t ask questions, I hint it’s all Bondian 007 type stuff; they love it. Plus I get tail on the road all the time, no complications.

  12. #24 by NMH on May 29, 2012 - 9:13 AM

    If you are a young guy and you are going to have a harem, then please get a vascectemy. What our society does not need is more unwed single mom’s whose fathers are not in the picture, or only part way. Its destructive on the children and my tax dollars have to support these people. That really pisses me off–being financially cuckolded by sleazy, libertine men. If your going to be sleazy, dont have bastard children.

    • #25 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 2:45 PM

      It’s a truth to be universally acknowledged that it’s the women who choose to have those children.
      Some of them even retrieve the condoms and apply the cream with a dildo.
      Those same women are the ones with their hands in the taxpayers’ wallets.
      Read “Promises I can Keep”

    • #26 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 3:04 PM

      A “cheaper” solution to this is Tabasco in the used condom.
      Hot sauce makes many activities more enjoyable.
      I am betting it will spice up the life of any woman planning an “oops” pregnancy through the use of a used condom.

  13. #27 by SarajMgmt on May 29, 2012 - 6:03 PM

    NHM: Wow, envious much? I want to note how you have made women powerless in the reproduction game, just as they want men to believe. Nice white-knighting there. No wonder you don’t get laid. Don’t blame the men who do get laid, blame the women who do the choosing.

    Relations between men and women are really very simple: Women decide if there will be sex, men decide if there will be a reltionship. Period.

    Don’t like it? Tood bad.

    As Roissy has pointed out countless times – go with F. Roger Devlin if you want the PhD variant – women NOT MEN have fundamentally changed the expectations between genders since the 1960s. The old beta-centric model is dead, which got most men laid and married, might as well have been 10,000 years ago. But men did not do this, women did. Is the new paradigm good for society, or even sustainable for more than a few decades? Hell no. But nobody asked me, I’m stuck in the place and time which I am, and I intend to enjoy it, not whine about it. I’ll be at poolside with Roissy and a few drinks, seeking new tail.

  14. #28 by NMH on May 29, 2012 - 7:02 PM

    You, Sara, appear to be a nihlist: which means, its all about you, and you dont give a rats ass of the consequences, because the consequences have no meaning. You will have your way no matter what damage it may cause, because you question whether there is damage at all. Or maybe you can see the damage you cause, but you dont care, because have a lot of sociopathic tendancies.

    If you are not a nihlist, then you may have a smidgen of guilt about what you are doing…deep down you know you are doing wrong. Then you use Roissy to feed your rationalization hamster, using his screed to release you from your conscience. If Roissy gives you a rationalization for it, you are free of responsibility and guilt. Spin wheel spin.

    In either case, you have appear to have little integrity when it comes to women. Sure, I havent had a lot of sex partners in my life. Earlier on, yes, I would have been envious of cads. Now that Im older I can clearly see that cads are equally to blame along with poorly behaved women, both leading a race to the bottom. I dont envy anyone who does that.

    • #29 by P Ray on May 29, 2012 - 7:45 PM

      Save some of the scorn for the guys who choose to be married to these women.
      If it wasn’t for the traditionalists asking the regular guys to take the “bad boy’s” leavings,
      would this situation happen?
      “Bad boys” in quotes since they don’t do anything that is classified under the legal code of conduct as an offence.
      Nice guys … are enablers of jerks and the women who want them,
      by choosing to be in relationships with women who previously chose jerks.
      If women pay no penalty for being with cads since there is a safety net of dads for them later …
      seriously, do you think they’ll pick dads first?

  15. #30 by Wet Willy on May 29, 2012 - 7:35 PM

    You, NHM are a puss. As Saraj pointed out the dating scene has changed in the last 50 years due to a change in women’s behavior. Women have ramped the divorce rate, ramped their infidelity rates and enforced vag-laws. EVERY SINGLE marriage tradition benefiting a man has been eviscerated. No virginity, no honor and obey, till death do you part is a joke. Women want to sport-fuck their best years away then offer their tired ass to some shleb sponsor like you.

    You are having a hard time with this cause and effect because you’re the dude who wants everyone’s approval. Weak sauce.

    • #31 by NMH on May 29, 2012 - 8:07 PM

      You dont have to use women’s bad behavior, in agreggate, as an excuse to act badly yourself. That’s pretty weak willed. Men are better than this–we lead by example.

      • #32 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 6:11 AM

        Leading by example …
        a good example to make is “Don’t pay for somebody else’s mistake. Be responsible for yourself. Make good choices”
        I don’t think wifing up a slut is a good choice, but others may disagree.

  16. #33 by Wet Willy on May 29, 2012 - 7:36 PM

    To Add: The “consequences” are precisely the pill needed to rein in this slut-o-rama epidemic.

  17. #34 by SarajMgmt on May 29, 2012 - 8:15 PM

    NHM: I’m not a nihilist – actually I’m a closet traditionalist who ruefully accepted that I cannot change what has happened to the Western world over the last 50 years so why fret about it? – but you are most definitely a Church Lady.

    Your lack of experience with actual live women does not amaze.

    You are either a woman posting as a man or a or a very feminized guy. You certainly have internalized the post-modern feminist worldview, which is pathetic if you really are biologically male.

    Get a life. Stop jerking off so much to online porn and meet some real women if you want any respect, above all self-respect – which your transparent projection here shows you have none of.

    PS I have given current-day women the exact amount of integrity they show men.

  18. #35 by NMH on May 29, 2012 - 8:30 PM

    If I had internalized the post-modern feminist view, I would be saying women are not doing anything wrong. In fact, I completely agree with what you and what wet frilly have said: women have led the way in breaking the social contract. I’m in complete agreement with this.

    But here is the deal: we, as men, don’t have to act badly in return.

    If you are a closet-traditionalist, then you do know what you are doing is wrong. Your hamster, Sara, is as powerful as any self-denying women’s: use use Roissy as rationalization for your poor behavior toward women. You are not morally better than them—you are at their level.

  19. #36 by SarajMgmt on May 29, 2012 - 8:56 PM

    I sleep perfectly well at night, thanks.

    There are really only two options at present: Play by women’s rules or don’t. The best part, and the one most revealing about women’s real views and intentions, is that if you play by the rules men are “supposed” to you wind up an embittered masturbator like you. Be a self-centered alpha and you reap the vaginal whirlwind. I know that bothers you; get over it.

    Stop moralizing like a girl. Men make their choices. We don’t need other men to crap on us, women do that plenty already. You are objectively in the enemy camp, be man and own it.

    BTW it’s Saraj, learn to read.

    • #37 by NMH on May 30, 2012 - 7:11 AM

      My moralizing is consistent with my rejection of relativism, which is one of the central tenets of post-modernism.

      • #38 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 8:15 AM

        Shielding people from the consequences of their actions is also a sin, and promotes the bad behaviour.
        You get more of what you reward (or do not punish) and less of what you punish (or do not reward).

      • #39 by NMH on May 30, 2012 - 8:59 AM

        I dont think we should shield women from the reprecussions of their bad behavior, so this means we should not be the beta that the former single party girl marries, or be the beta that the MILF cuckolds to support her bastard children. Let these women suffer the consequences by being alone.

        But men should not add to their misery by forming soft harems and alienating decent women from regular dating. One might argue that disreputable women deserve this. But I dont think this i a good excuse for behaving badly yourself.

        So I think disengagement from sluts is not shielding them.

      • #40 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 9:11 AM

        http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/truths-seen-in-the-mud/

        Game is okay, according to these “traditional Christian” women.
        Whoops, they removed that. Something to hide?
        It’s okay, you can find the article here then:

        http://curmudgeonloner.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/truths-seen-in-the-mud-part-1/

        and

        http://curmudgeonloner.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/truths-seen-in-the-mud-part-2/

        The web doesn’t forget :)

      • #41 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:08 PM

        I just stand back and let the women who want the players have them.
        They’re old enough to make their own decisions, and I’d never want to be a fallback choice of such a woman.
        A good cutoff age is 25.
        Most women doing hymen reconstruction have their first then.
        “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst”, is a good maxim.

  20. #42 by SarajMgmt on May 30, 2012 - 8:41 AM

    NHM: Thank you, Sister – enjoy the convent. Keep the batteries in supply for the wascally wabbit, and don’t forget to confess regularly!

  21. #43 by Wet Willy on May 30, 2012 - 9:24 AM

    NMH, like so many “closet traditionalists” wants to make the “cock carousel” a kinder, gentler more pleasurable experience for Wimminz. The idea that men should uphold the moral high ground in the midst of a bumper crop of rudderless, exploitative women-sluts is akin to a married dude, upon finding his wife blowing the bartender, waiting outside to give her a ride hope lest she get a DUI. After-all, for better of for worse, don’t drag yourself down to her level, etc, etc, lol.

    Dalrock wrote a great piece on “The quest for a kinder, gentler carousel”: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-quest-for-a-kinder-gentler-carousel/ . It’s a common theme repeated by Pastors, Women, Traditional Conservatives and White Knights everywhere.

    Monogamy is relatively new in the human experience. Human history and genetics testify undeniably for male polygamy as the preferred mating arrangement. Women today are inclined toward monogamy, men polygyny. Monogamy and/or marriage is an arrangement that can benefit both men and women, but only when it’s precepts are honored and incentives remain. Remove these and it crumbles.

    So when NMH decries serial monogamy or polygyny as “wrong” he upholds the female imperative. A modern female desires and benefits the most from the promise of exclusivity, resources and dedication of a singular man. In her world view it is the only “right” and moral model. Polygyny, despite it’s ancestral predominance, is considered abnormal and hold no place in the fem-centric dialog.

    On an instinctive level though, NMH’s perspective is punished harshly. Puppy-dog, compliant men are both a dime a dozen and less preferred.

  22. #44 by Wet Willy on May 30, 2012 - 9:42 AM

    To add: (after reading NHM’s post) Distinguishing “party sluts” from decent women is a fools bargain.

    A “decent woman” will still carry a double digit notch count to the alter, diminishing her ability to bond long term (as born out by marital studies)

    A “decent woman” will argue IN FAVOR of the child and wealth stripping apparatus now in place.

    A “decent woman” initiate 70% of all divorces.

    A “decent woman” has no problem rationalizing her increased infidelity rates.

    And on and on.

    I think your idea of a “decent woman” would quite easily fit into the slut catagory only a generation ago (when, btw, the divorce rate was ~10%)

    Exactly how many of these are you seeing these days NMH?

    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/olympian-lolo-jones-29-is-staying-a-virgin-until-marriage-2012235

    • #45 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:00 PM

      If she has not found a single decent man to be with:
      1. she has either very high expectations for a decent man
      2. the only men she “allows” to approach are the ones who are “not decent”.
      We have no idea about what her character is off the track.
      Remember, Britney Spears said she was a virgin while dating Justin Timberlake.

    • #46 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:22 PM

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html

      I’m betting all women have read a romance novel too. “Twilight” anyone?

  23. #47 by NMH on May 30, 2012 - 9:49 AM

    Free Willy: you have misinterpreted my position (which I suspect was purposefully done to make your self appear more moral). I am NOT saying we men should support a carousel-light: instead, I say we men should have absolutely no tolerance for carousel riders. Meaning, if a man were to find his wife sucking off the bartender, he should NOT forgive her, and divorce her immediately. Women should suffer the consequences of their bad behavior. I know, I know, the laws dont punish women for doing this, but a goals of the men’s movement should be to change the laws.

    You and Saraj, as self-proclaimed members of the carousel, are simply enablers of women’s bad behavior. Saraj feels some guilt if he is a closet-moralist, but how does he continue? By rationalizing his bad deeds away, just like any intellectually dishonest woman who sucks off a man that is other than his husband would. Because you quote Roissy so much I suspect you use this as justification to be the carousel than enables the crappy behavior of women.

    What Im saying to you is this: dont be an enabler for shitty women. When you are, you are at that moral level, which is the gutter.

    I, as well, know something of the evolutionary history of man. Ernst Mayr has pointed out that there was a transition from a likely male-polygomous human society to the present monogamous one, and has speculated, in essence, that beta’s rose and killed off the alphas who practiced polygamy. It could happen again.

    • #48 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:20 PM

      If the betas got the wives that nagged them for not being the man that the alphas were,
      I’m guessing they paid a heavy price for their killing.
      In the modern day, winning a woman who complains all day about how the guy who dumped her is a better man than you…
      that’s an interesting perspective to take on “winning”.

  24. #49 by SarajMgmt on May 30, 2012 - 10:19 AM

    NHM: You are officially more feminized than most women, intellectually speaking (an impressive feat in a uniquely self-hating sort of way), so there’s no point in engaging you. I began politely with you, but you’re just doing the Church Lady act on higher volume so, officially: Fuck You.

    Since you are entirely sure that I am deeply morally troubled by my dealings with women – which is the most absurdly femme thing you say (hard to choose but that’s win, place, and show; you’re cattier than Susan Walsh on her worst day), I hate to tell you – this will kill you – I’m not.

    At all.

    Ever.

    You know why?

    Moscow does not believe in tears, and neither do I.

    Moreover, were I ever tempted in a weak, low-T moment to worry about some silly girl and her hypergamous, vaginally-derived “issues”, I simply remind myself of how it felt when I got back from deployment and discovered that my lovely, adoring wife had skipped town, but not before emptying bank accounts, and taking my wonderful, beautiful sons with her.

    Every month, when I have to pay an assload of money to her as a reward for her treachery, is a nice reminder.

    All better! Back to deflowering virgins, marauding with my charm, and being a huge pleasure to women the world over.

    I have a rigid code of ethnics about my harem and whoremongering. I never, ever lie. I never misrepresent my intentions. I am honest, even when it would be far easier and less painful, to all involved, to lie. I leave every woman a lot happier, and more sexually satisfied, than when we met.

    And – this is what will really bother a girly-man like you – they stay around KNOWING FULL WELL that they are part of an alpha’s harem. They respect that I don’t lie. I seldom sleep alone, and I never wash my own clothes or clean my house – that is all outsourced to the harem.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

    • #50 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:04 PM

      That’s one thing I’ve observed,
      the guys who become the best players have had a fantastic relationship die because of the woman.
      So in a very real sense, women create the players they claim to “hate”.
      Why should I be concerned about the choices of a woman who does not think my feelings matter until hers(and her body) have been ploughed over by many men previously?
      Hearing shaming language from them is funny too. It’s like a person trying to shame me to buy a Hyundai at BMW prices. Makes no sense.

      • #51 by NMH on May 30, 2012 - 12:09 PM

        I agree– women tend to create the players. Yes, women are causal here—no doubt about it. But you still dont have to become one.

        One way to help stop this dating madness is to disassemble the carousel. If there is no carousel there cannot be any riders.

      • #52 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 12:17 PM

        You can’t disassemble the carousel.
        Women have to make that choice.
        The idea that I am a player is funny.
        I … simply DO NOT CARE for women who choose players.
        Go ahead, is all I say.
        But don’t come crying to me. Own your choices, you strong, independent, decisive woman, so schooled in the ways of knowing.
        There will be others who see what she does as a warning. Those I will interact with.
        P.S. Stopping a woman from getting on the carousel, reinforces their belief that you are a loser who does not want them to find happiness.
        They can chase the horizon.
        Just don’t expect me to be waiting when they come back in the condition of “rode hard and put away wet”.
        As the saying goes “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat”.

  25. #53 by NMH on May 30, 2012 - 10:33 AM

    Saraj: I am sorry about what happened to you about your marriage, that would be horrible.

    But you are still a slimy guy.

  26. #54 by Mark on May 30, 2012 - 2:23 PM

    “But you are still a slimy guy.”

    If I understand correctly, you seem to be concerned that women are trying for exclusive committed relationships with alpha males and then, when they fail to get them, are becoming disillusioned and totally leaving the dating market. He seems to be saying, though, that the women he’s involved with are totally aware that they are just part of his harem. I wouldn’t condemn that too much. In a case where some guy is making false promises to women or hiding his harem and misleading them, in that case it might not be admirable on his part and could be called a little slimy. Some women could conceivably give up men totally after a number of failed attempts in snaring an alpha for a committed relationship. The only reason, though, she was in those failed relationships with the alpha to begin with was because she had an unrealistically high self-evaluation of herself and thought she was the equal of someone who was actually out of her league. She was a little like the female equivalent of the average looking beta male orbiter who hangs around really cute girls for years being nice to them and doing things for them hoping someday one will actually have sex with him. For someone to get what they want from the opposite sex, either male or female, they need to just learn to have a realistic self-appraisal and seek someone at their own level. Otherwise, they open themselves to being exploited by members of the opposite sex.

  27. #55 by SarajMgmt on May 30, 2012 - 2:42 PM

    Thanks, Mark, I could not have said that better myself. It is simply not my problem if women decide to forgo a “better” (ie more committed) relationship with a beta in favor of a more irregular relationship with an alpha. A lot of women do make this choice, however, which I know just kills NHM, hence his verbal aggression towards men who do well with women.

    As for NHM: “One way to help stop this dating madness is to disassemble the carousel. If there is no carousel there cannot be any riders.” The carousel has been going on, in one form or another, since the Garden of Eden, basically – short of mass chemical neutering of all men and women, there’s no stopping this.

    • #56 by P Ray on May 30, 2012 - 10:06 PM

      I fail to see why women not strong enough to overcome their instincts,
      means men are to blame for what the women do wrong. (Oh yes, the women do wrong with those men … but if those men were not around the women could go overseas – Negril anyone?…)
      Alphas adapt to get what they want.
      Most women adapt to get the alphas, because they suffer no penalty for choosing a non-committed relationship.
      The situation will continue until the other men do not wife up such sluts.
      Seems to be something hard for those other men to understand.
      Blame the person making the bad choice … not the person they choose to be with, since that means women are infantile and unable of making their own decisions.
      Last I checked … men and women are equal. Which means women are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their own bad choices.
      If those other men did not notice that the women who choose alphas over them are … “disrespecting”(by virtue of women expecting to be compensated their previous unproductive relationship decisions from the current guy they’re with) good men,
      means they are in agreement that men are slaves to women.
      That’s extremely disturbing. and really brings to mind the phrase “pussy-beggar”.

  28. #57 by Wet Willy on May 31, 2012 - 8:40 AM

    NMH, before continuing (and it may be a dead issue at this point) why don’t you clarify the basis of these statements:

    “You don’t have to … act badly yourself.”
    “we, as men, don’t have to act badly in return”
    “you do know what you are doing is wrong.”
    “you are at that moral level, which is the gutter.”

    You decry multiple relationships as morally bad, but do so without stating the basis. Your indignation appears stem from a prescribed view of morality. Why do you repeatedly decry no monogamous behavior as morally inferior? While answering the “why” please also include where you derive this from. Please resist the tenancy to allege it is a universal truth while masking a doctrinal origin.

    Question: Do you believe the basis for a moral relationship stems from the Christian tradition of marriage and monogamy?

    A cultures morals typically stem from only three places:
    Culture or Tradition
    Human nature
    Religious conviction

    From where do you derive your moral views?

    • #58 by NMH on May 31, 2012 - 10:58 AM

      These are excellent points. The question is, how should we define morality? Is there a context that universally applies?

      I would argue that the modern Judeo/Christian perspective of morality is the correct one, which (I think) can be summarized with the old aphorism “do unto others as you would have them do to you.” This aphorism needs to be applied on both a personal level and at the level of an entire population (society). When this is applied, the most people have the most freedom and happiness.

      I think this should be universal, because modern men of all cultures have approximately the same sensibilities. We are entirely different than primates or early homo sapiens that may have practiced polygamy. In support of this idea, homo sapiens underwent a huge leap in evolution about 20,000 years ago (are sophistication in tools jumped dramatically) suggesting we got a lot smarter then, and corersponding, the development of monogamy arose. Additionally, modern polygamous socities tend to be somewhat unstable (note all of the angry muslims in Islamic countries who are not being laid).

      I suggest systems of rules/laws/behaviors that do not maximize happiness/freedom for as many people as possible are more immoral. For example, I think that polygamous systems of morality (eg fundamental islamic) are more immoral than the modern J/C system of morality, because, in this system, fewer people have happiness/freedom than the J/C system, as I will explain with some examples that apply to harem-forming.

      Question #1) Is it moral to not tell women they are in a harem? I would say this is immoral because you fail the aphorism at the personal level. Most men would want to know if they are a part of a woman’s harem, and the science backs me up here as men tend to be more posessive a woman’s reproductive faculties.

      But lets say for a moment that you dont care if you are part of a woman’s harem, I still think that having a harem, at all, is immoral, as described below:

      Question #2) Is it moral to have a harem even if a woman knows they are in the harem? I would say this is immoral because it fails the morality test (above) at the population level. On earth there is one woman for one man, in general. Sexual satisfaction is VERY, and about equally important for all individual men, alpha to omega. When you form a harem, you are depriving other men of something that is important to them in their life. So you have broken the aphorism:You would not want to be a sexually-deprived man who lost his opportunity to some alpha holding women in a harem.

      So I think that harem forming is immoral.

      • #59 by P Ray on May 31, 2012 - 12:55 PM

        Some points:
        – there is not one man for every woman. Men are doing the dirty, dangerous, demeaning, demanding, difficult work. If women died in the numbers of men, you can bet primary industry workplaces would be bastions of safety.
        How many women were on that oil rig that exploded, anyway?
        How many female miners died in Chile?

        – not every woman in a harem is a fit partner for a single man whether alpha or omega or anything in between. For a woman, where it’s been amply proven “5 minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of beta” …
        why would/could any man sincerely want to be with her after? She’s still pining for the guy who had her in her harem.
        It’s fraud towards any man after.

        – as for only Islam having harems, go back and read about that guy called Solomon.

        If that’s Jennifer wssp giving the upvotes… poor showing, you’re not contributing to the conversation…

      • #60 by P Ray on May 31, 2012 - 1:01 PM

        - not every woman in a harem is a fit partner for a single man whether alpha or omega or anything in between. For a woman, where it’s been amply proven “5 minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of beta” …
        why would/could any man sincerely want to be with her after? She’s still pining for the guy who had her in HIS harem.
        It’s fraud towards any man after.
        corrected the typo.

  29. #61 by Mark on May 31, 2012 - 1:45 PM

    I think monogamy became the dominant system because it was the best compromise. Men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally hypergamous. Men want multiple women but, since there is a one to one ratio between men and women, men found that means that if some men have more than one female then others will have none. Women want the best available male but there is only one available best male. They can all only have the best available male if they share him but most women aren’t willing to do this. Monogamy is an arrangement where men give up the possibility of having multiple women in exchange for having the guarantee of one. Women give up having the best male but the male they do get they don’t have to share. Monogamy evolved naturally as the best compromise that men and women have come up with. If it wasn’t what most people wanted, no amount of government force could have maintained it. As the gatekeepers to sex, there have always been some women who preferred not to be in monogamous relationships. Even at the peak of monogamy, probably around 1940 when ninety percent of adults were married, there were some women who wanted to be in a male harem. Do you think Clark Gable or Gary Cooper ever had a shortage of women wanting to sleep with them? There were also women back then who didn’t want to be in a relationship at all. These were all outliers from the norm, though, and most men and women were in a monogamous relationship because they wanted to be and not because it would be in some sense “immoral” for women to be in a harem and men to have a harem instead. Now an interesting question is, how did society change so that monogamy declined so much over a short period of time?

    • #62 by just visiting on May 31, 2012 - 2:06 PM

      Divorce, the pill and the rise of feminism. Of the three, the pill was the biggest factor. Young good girl types who couldn’t have cared less about feminism or bitter divorced women had a conundrum of their own. Impending spinsterhood if they weren’t willing to put out just to buy a ticket in the relationship lottery.

      • #63 by P Ray on May 31, 2012 - 3:51 PM

        If the good girl types were virgins, I’d agree with you,
        otherwise it’s “5 minutes of alpha beats a lifetime of beta”.
        Titanic is a GREAT example of that.

      • #64 by just visiting on May 31, 2012 - 4:55 PM

        I think a fair number of them would have been virgins. There’s a theory that I have where I think that there are quite a few things going on in modern life that are messing with women’s limbic systems and masculinizing them. Multiple sexual partners being just part of that, but careers as well. Violence could do it as well. I don’t think that it’s just cultural socialization, but an actual physical rewiring. And that spooks me.

    • #65 by NMH on May 31, 2012 - 2:35 PM

      “Monogamy evolved naturally as the best compromise that men and women have come up with.” Yes. And our ethics are derived from what serves the greater good. So monogamy is moral and polygamy is immoral.

  30. #66 by Mark on May 31, 2012 - 3:22 PM

    Food and medical care are very important needs. If it’s immoral for one man to have more women than another man, then is it immoral for one man to have more or better medical care or food than another man? If you are talking about the greatest good for the greatest number, aren’t you talking about sacrificing the individual for the collective? Couldn’t that lead to a government that ignores individual rights and becomes oppressive if you have the government deciding what serves the greater good?

    • #67 by NMH on May 31, 2012 - 3:48 PM

      IMO, yes, it is immoral for one man to have access to more food or medical care than another man, since there is no life that has more value than anothers. If lives had different value, then we could set up death panels to decide who lives and dies, based on a individuals relative value.

      However, I think government should not regulate access to medical care, food, or sex. Instead, we should have universally established “moral values” that drive people to act in a moral way, which, with some exceptions (that I cant think of right now), favor the collective over the individual. Certainly the individual has rights (freedom for example) but we should use mores so that individual rights dont impinge on the collective good.

  31. #68 by SarajMgmt on June 1, 2012 - 7:55 AM

    “Instead, we should have universally established “moral values” that drive people to act in a moral way, which, with some exceptions (that I cant think of right now), favor the collective over the individual. Certainly the individual has rights (freedom for example) but we should use mores so that individual rights dont impinge on the collective good.”

    Something like that was tried in Russia between 1917 and 1991, it wasn’t a great success, I seem to recall.

    The notion of “universally established moral values” is a totalitarian fantasy.

    You’re not just a sexless prig, you’re a monster – and you think alpha playas are immoral, that’s special – as well as an idiot.

    • #69 by NMH on June 1, 2012 - 8:32 AM

      Note I didnt say universal laws. I dont want the law to dictate how we should behave. I want universal mores. Therefore, you have the right/freedom to have your harem, but I want a culture that shames you to stop for the common good. You just have to suffer the consequences of that shame, similar to a slut has to suffer the consequences of societal acceptance for having a high partner count.

  32. #70 by Mark on June 1, 2012 - 11:02 AM

    You do have the right to morally disapprove of someone. But if they don’t have the same moral standards as you, they aren’t going to feel shame if you morally disapprove of them. They’ll just ignore you and go ahead and do what they want. People form romantic relationships that make them the happiest. If I didn’t have a girlfriend, it might make me happier if some female left an alpha male harem for me but she’s in the harem because she wants to be and if she left it for me she would be less happy. I don’t think it would be moral for me to ask someone else to sacrifice their happiness to make my life better. I don’t think the problem is that we have too much freedom but that we’ve severed the link between freedom and responsibility. You have women being sexually promiscuous, getting pregnant and then expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill. In the absence of a welfare state safety net, the beta male provider type would look better to more women and they would eagerly jump into monogamous unions. No shaming would be needed. In a free society, a few women joining alpha male harems wouldn’t harm me.

  33. #71 by SarajMgmt on June 1, 2012 - 11:49 AM

    Mark makes some excellent points, especially about the decoupling of freedom and responsibility. If we treat people like children, they will act accordingly. No mystery, unless you’re a liberal.

    The rather amusing thing about all this back and forth, and NHM’s sad-sack moral protestations, is that it’s all utterly irrelevant. Women will do what they want, and men will act accordingly.

    The poetic justice in the havoc wrought on all of us beginning in the 1960s by the feminists and their white-knight fellow-travelers, is that while the current system was established by women to meet their desire for hypergamy, it’s really helped alpha males with their desire for harem-based promiscuity. Surely the biggest losers have been beta males, but most women have lost out too, they’re just too stupid and self-centered to put two and two together. For guys like me, however, it’s been pussy nirvana. Karma is indeed a bitch, ladies.

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 2,454 other followers

%d bloggers like this: