It’s Not Fear Of Rejection, It’s Fear Of Punishment

I read many different Internet forums that deal with men’s issues as they relate to attraction and dating.  I was over at the A Voice for Men forum and found a devastatingly perceptive observation regarding why so many men don’t approach women. Here’s the post, in italics, that started the thread (in the Relations & Dating section of the forum).  My inline comments are in bold. I have some additional comments are under it.

I have a theory that the notion that “men fear rejection” is horribly misguided.

I was exploring my fears almost a year ago, and I realized: “Wait! I don’t fear rejection. I fear punishment!”

Fear of Rejection:

  • The fear that she might say “no,” and not be interested in having a sexual relationship with me.

Fear of Punishment:

  • The fear that she will express disgust or shaming or laughing towards me. That’s right girls, punish his ego.
  • The fear that she might tell her friends that I am a “creep,” and that the women will start spreading the word amongst themselves. This is good motivation to learn better social skills.
  • The fear that my advance will be felt to be dangerous, or that my interactions with women will be felt as potentially dangerous, because I did not observe some cautionary signal that women are looking for but I don’t happen to know. More motivation to learn better social skills.
  • The fear that I will show up on the radar of white knights, who will then signal that I am “under watch,” warn women of my approach, interrupt future approaches, what have you. I loathe white knights.
  • The fear that I will lose social status, be laughed at, or shamed before the local community. This is huge and I have more comments on this below.

Other Fears:

  • The fear that she will make up in her mind that not only is she not interested now, but that she will decide that she will NEVER be interested. The writer of this thread post doesn’t yet understand that there are few, if any, second chances.

When I inventoried my fears, I realized that by far, the fear of punishment dramatically dwarfs the fear of rejection. Yet, we’re always hearing talk about how men “fear rejection,” and how it’s viewed as almost an insult to women: “You can’t handle that she might say no. You feel entitled to a yes, basically.” But that’s ridiculous.

Imagine that you had telepathic powers, and you could read a woman’s mind, to see if she would say “yes” or “no.” There would be no punishments issued, because she wouldn’t even know that you asked. Would you check to see her interest? I can’t speak for you, but for myself, I’d do it in a heartbeat! I’d be constantly scanning most every woman around me, in order to find out, “Are you interested?” (..!) If I were afraid of the rejection itself, my answer should be “no.” But it’s NOT the rejection I’m afraid of. It’s the punishment.

I don’t hear anybody really talking about this, but I think that we should be talking about this more loudly.

I think we should be talking about all the ways that men are punished for doing the task that is assigned to men ANYWAYS. I am meaning how men are forced to be the ones to initiate, or else nothing’s ever happening for you. What sense does it make to force a person do a job, refuse to tell them how to do it “right,” and then dole out powerful punishments for doing it “wrong” ..? This is the most important paragraph in the thread post. Women won’t correctly tell a man how to approach a woman, that’s the Manosphere’s job.

I want us to be vigilant about making it safe for men to make sexual requests of women. And I want to get the word out that we need to be compassionate for boys and men who are making sexual requests. There’s this whole thing about shaming socially awkward men, especially socially awkward men who are making sexual requests. Yet these are the people who MOST need to make awkward sexual requests, so that they can develop to the point where they can make skilled sexual requests. I somewhat disagree. A man must learn better general social skills before he starts trying to be more assertive with his relationship goals.

My experience from talking with women is that they have simply NO CONCEPT of what the punishments are like for men. Norah Vincent wrote about this in “Self-Made Man,” and trying to explain to women what the situation was. I know a feminist woman who goes to bars in order to compete to make men cry  with her friends. I want men to go out there, and talk about the punishments. (I told several feminist women about this, and they said, “That’s not feminist! That’s not what a feminist would do!”, but… …they were all friends with the feminist who does this. They just weren’t aware that it was her.)

At the very least, whenever you hear the phrase “fear of rejection,” consider replacing the phrase with: “Fear of Punishment,” and think about what exactly are the things you are fearing having happened.

I think men are being made to take on too much crap from women, and I think men are too often serving as the servants of women in dishing out punishment and shame. I want us to push for more sensitive women. Me, too.

Us gents in the world of masculine self-improvement are continually extolling guys to have incredibly thick skins when it comes to approaching women. That makes sense when it’s only a simple rejection. Frankly, I had never considered these various punishments that might accompany a simple, polite rejection. Women – and girls, especially – do judge ferociously should the “wrong” guy approach. The thermonuclear rejection, “ewwww, as if!” is a form of emotional punishment meant to belittle a man’s ego.

For a guy established in the community and re-entering dating without adequate social skills and charisma is running a huge risk when he approaches a woman to see if there is a mutual attraction. She will likely be nice about the rejection but if she’s also part of the community and is social, she very well might assassinate his character to her friends, male and female. To me, this is the biggest punishment because it greatly reduces the man’s future chances to successfully approach other women. Likely, he won’t know why he is presumptively rejected without even a chance.

Fear of punishment is a huge reason for the popularity of online dating. If the approach can be made from the relative safety of the computer, the rejection can have far fewer punishments for the man. There’s a big caveat here. In smaller communities, there is a still the risk of punishment because women will communicate with each other. This applies to small geographical communities and/or online dating niche communities, like JDate (trust me, I know this from personal experience).

The next time a woman mocks men for the fear of rejection, I’ll be the first to speak up so I can say, “It’s not fear of rejection, it’s fear of punishment”. I urge other guys to do the same.

About these ads
  1. #1 by Jeremy on February 25, 2014 - 10:49 AM

    There’s likely something to this. More men approached women on a regular basis when women were taught to be sweet and gracious in fending off men they were not interested in. Women have essentially been taught to treat all male advances as potential criminal activity, even though the percentage chance of that has actually decreased in the past few decades. Some of the more feminist women even delight in taking the opportunity to destroy a man’s ego as best they can.

    Realistically, any rejection of a male advance that is intended to be anything other than polite is punishing a man just for being a man. It’s pure misandry.

  2. #2 by Alice on February 25, 2014 - 11:00 AM

    But the ‘punishment’ is part and parcel. A guy needs to be ‘punished’ in those ways because they are restrictive measures. If he loses status, then he can’t have had much/enough to begin with. If he is mocked, then he should be able to either brush it off or answer back. If he is irreparably hurt by a rejection, then he was weak and unworthy of the status he used to possess and the woman he aimed to attain. What I’m getting at is that it’s nor really a fear of ‘punishment’, as it’s the natural order of things. It’s moreso a fear of consequence, a fear of inadequacy. Women NEED to reject unsuitable men. We need to mock those who try and rise beyond their ranks, warn other women of unsuitable males looking for attention and make it known what we value and don’t value in a man. Perhaps the problem is that there’s no set rules as to what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ in modern society, making it hard to know when you’re in your zone, when you’re treading the line and when you’re out of bounds. Yet, even so, it is a woman’s prerogative, her responsibility, to reject and demoralize weak men. He’s not being punished, he’s being put in his place.

    • #3 by theprivateman on February 25, 2014 - 11:55 AM

      While brutally honest, you’re fundamentally correct. I do disagree with this statement, naturally:

      We need to mock those who try and rise beyond their ranks…

      This is the very reason that the masculine self-improvement area of the Manosphere exists. We fiercely desire that men do rise beyond their ranks and give them the tools to do so. Of, course you could be using some reverse psychology here to actually agree with what we’re doing in the ‘Sphere.

      The rejections are wholesale for 80% of the guys. That leaves precious few men to form committed relationships. Hence, the whole soft harem phenomenon that the 20% of attractive men can happily indulge in. Hello polygamy!

      …it is a woman’s prerogative, her responsibility, to reject and demoralize weak men. He’s not being punished, he’s being put in his place.

      The unintended consequence is that this will create dark triad seducers with a grudge and revenge in their hearts. There’s plenty of solid information presenting the tools to become such a seducer. But again, more reverse psychology on your part? I’ve read some of your blog and your reverse psychology almost makes sense. To make sure you’re not just trolling for your blog’s traffic, I took out the link.

      • #4 by Just visiting on February 25, 2014 - 12:27 PM

        Not a fan of mocking or hard rejections. Though, I understand why it’s done. As a woman, you can’t win either way. Beta orbiters, unwanted attention and even stalkers come about from not being firm. (And even then, sometimes being firm isn’t enough.) I’m a woman who was brought up to be mindful of manners living in a country that gets teased for it’s emphasis on manners. Yet, there are times when I’ve had to be downright rude.

      • #5 by Just visiting on February 25, 2014 - 12:40 PM

        Perhaps the easiest way for a man to see it it is to imagine an obnoxious sales guy who happens to be tipsy or drunk and won”t leave you alone . That’s one end of the spectrum. The other end is the really nice Jehovah Witness who comes to the door. Frequently. And won’t take no for an answer. And is now sitting in your living room.

      • #6 by superslaviswife on February 25, 2014 - 12:44 PM

        I was being tongue-in-cheek to a degree, but, to a degree I also believe that the whole “staying in ranks” was the main reason these behaviours emerged. Females are naturally inclined to reject and hurt men who they deem to be trespassing. This would keep the weakest down, so they can’t seize wealth or reproduce, which would have spelt disaster for the tribe. Then we have the issue of self-improvement. It used to be the case that a man could improve himself and climb through the ranks without trespassing, making my comment entirely true. However, in modern society the natural order is damaged, due to an absence of an actual integrated hierarchy (the massive gap between social alphas, sexual alphas, economic alphas, etc). The best men for a woman to reproduce with are no longer the ones she is socially conditioned to desire. Furthermore, the way men used to help each other build themselves after a female rejection, a failure to obtain resources or a loss in war is now being lost. Modern men are starting to compete between each other not like males but like females. Through the loss of tribal connection, men are starting to view every rival male’s success as a threat to their own and refuse to assist and teach each other. All this means that, whilst women are still behaving in a natural manner, this behaviour becomes dysfunctional within modern society, leading men to become damaged and socially neutered.
        Previous structure: harsh rejection –> male support –> self improvement –> tries the waters –> success (end of cycle) / failure (back to male support).
        New structure: harsh rejection –> male compassion –> whining about women –> tried the waters –> harsh rejection (ad infinitum).

        The result is that in modern society your strongest men will rise as they always have and your weakest will crumble as they always have, but the men in-between are stuck in a sort of limbo and driven down by the very natural order that previously allowed for social, sexual and economic mobility.

      • #7 by Retrenched on February 25, 2014 - 1:27 PM

        From the D’Animal archives…

        The question is, what price does the objectively unattractive man have to pay as he pursues enormous numbers of sexy women to find that one statistical outlier who will have him? The answer is probably: a rather high price. He must find a way to become so emotionally dead that he is not bothered by receiving endlessly unfavorable evaluations from the many women he must hit on before he finds the exception.

        One way to do this is to cultivate a certain lack of respect for women. If you truly do not respect an entire class of people, you will not be as bothered by their rejections of you.

        This is why the jerks get the girls.

      • #8 by iDestroy on February 25, 2014 - 2:15 PM

        Look there are different ways to go about it. There are always options. To this day, I have never heard of one time when a guy approached a random girl and when she said no(I am not interested), he kept going on. Even when drunk. College scene.

        The way I look at this is that we reap what we saw. And if you are willing to be cruel, you have to expect people to be cruel to you. It really is that simple.

        I have been rejected and I just walked away, nothing lost nothing won. But one time I was made fun of, ridiculed and talked of as a creep(to a lot of people) for just asking a girl to dance[hold her hand, wink and then point to the dance floor]… fair enough. Girl applies to research assistant at lab that I help the professor at. Very important job… creating colonies(petri dish) for specific experiments, regulate temperature and all those shenanigans. My opinion, she couldn’t do it but someone else on the board (a female, surprise!) thought that she was more than capable. Write an email just to make sure that I won’t be made of a scapegoat. Once the girl comes in, she plays it off as if nothing happened. I stay neutral. Female on the board for the research keeps pushing for girl to have more and more to do with the research and all I can say is “Ok, mam… yes mam” otherwise I get hung out to dry. Then I know that she is going to mess up big time in a big number of colonies that take about 3 months to develop. Oh boy. The day comes and the colonies give really weird results. Examine the colonies and Oh boy, the colonies had been cut wrong and genes were put in the wrong place. That’s more than $300,000 dollars gone down the drain mainly due to labor not materials. However, I had anticipated this and convinced all the TA’s at the start of the semester to use a similar DNA sample and be really strict about the work. So the experiment takes about one more week(to reintroduce the segment that we were testing in the classes colonies) because BIG BALLS here anticipated all the mess. Let the girl thinks I’ll let her off the hook. Presentation day comes and I say it how it is. Girl gets dropped from research and will never put that in her resume even though that research would have gotten probably any grad school. Had she been a decent human being, I would have been decent back to her and helped her out.

        The female member on the board tried to place the blame on me… I referred to the email and said that it was really disrespectful of her to insult me although I had taken great risk and care to not make everything go to waste. Then I re-forward the email where I talked why the girl should not be given the job and I was spot on. DRUMS… I also say I am withdrawing from the research since I feel my work has not been taken seriously even when I literally saved the research. Next day I receive an email offering me the lead assistant position and letting me know that the female in the board has withdrawn. I say I can be the assistant to lead position. Lead assistant guy is grateful to me and they demote another catty girl that was assistant. Boom, three birds in one shot and I made friends and status.

        You reap what you saw :)

    • #9 by LostSailor on February 25, 2014 - 3:31 PM

      A guy needs to be ‘punished’ in those ways because they are restrictive measures…it’s the natural order of things…it is a woman’s prerogative, her responsibility, to reject and demoralize weak men. He’s not being punished, he’s being put in his place.

      And by doing so, you create what you most fear. Mockery and brutal rejection of “weak, unworthy, and unsuitable” men don’t “make it be know what [you] value and don’t value in a man.” Instead you make known your shallow, self-entitled, vindictive nature. And you create the very sort of woman-hating monster you’re trying to avoid.

      Don’t expect such men to do much for you, especially when you most need him to. Don’t expect him to rescue you from danger, don’t expect him to fight wars or do the hard work of upholding the infrastructure of modern civilization. Don’t expect him to foot the bill when you look to government to pick up the slack.

      With brutal rejection you show that because he is so contemptuously not worth your time, you are not worth his, either. By your treatment of men you teach them how you want to be treated. Until you’re left with only the charming cads and bad-boys who see you for what you are and will gladly use you accordingly.

      Quite a plan you’ve got there. The solipsistic leading the self-deluded…

      • #10 by superslaviswife on February 25, 2014 - 4:15 PM

        Actually, the bad boys and cads aren’t the ones I view as worthy. I was referring to the actual weak males vs the actual worthy ones. Men who are dumb, weak, easily misled, lacking in resources and useless versus men who are intelligent, strong, leaders, in possession of resources and useful. Which, of course, is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek distinction, as the lines are far more blurred today than they would have been in a natural environment.

        Also, I highly value self-sufficiency in every human, so the idea that I would turn to a genuinely weak man who I hardly know in times of need is pretty ridiculous, as I have a strong man to help me if I need help, have built my connections by associating with strong people if I ever need a ‘tribe’ and can manage the rest on my own.

      • #11 by LostSailor on February 25, 2014 - 5:27 PM

        The problem is that most women won’t discern the difference between cads/players and “worthy” men until it’s too late.

        But I suspect your comment was quite as “tongue-in-cheek” as you imagine or would like it to be. Of course, women have and will “reject” men whom they deem unattractive. But your post is indicative of a trend to not just find such men unattractive, but to take the mere suggestion that such men have the temerity to think they have a “right” to talk to a woman who finds them unattractive as an insult and an affront to her superlative status. Which is why your post calling such men weak, unworthy, and essentially without value (to you and by extension to anyone else) is problematic.

        Sure, there are actual dumb, weak men out there, but they are not the norm and usually not the ones to actually approach women in the first place. But the opposite of “intelligent, strong, leaders with resources and useful [telling phrase there] is not necessarily a weak loser. That you see it that way says more about you than it does about them. It’s the result of decade of artificial ego-pumping on behalf of women (you go grrr! you deserve it all!!!). In many, if not most cases, it’s a lie. (I’m sure you’re the special snowflake that is the exception). It leads you to not just reject the advances of men who you find unattractive, but the need to mock, debase, and humiliate them. Fortunately, those tables are turning, and it’s not going to be pretty.

        As to why you should care about how that impacts you and society? Well, I hope you have that strong man with you 24/7, because you shouldn’t expect a stranger to come to your aid if you’re attacked walking home at night. (See recent stories about killings during purse snatchings in Philly and the lament “why aren’t men protecting us?” It may start downtown, but it doesn’t stay there). You should care because as I noted, you teach men how you want to be treated by the way you treat men. If it’s okay to be brutal and humiliating in your rejection, you create feral men out of what are really just average guys. And when the number of feral men without options reaches critical mass, civilization starts to crumble at the foundation. Rome fell to barbarians from without, modern civilization will fall to barbarians from within.

        That you can be “cheeky” about the brutal mockery and humiliation of men you find unattractive is but a symptom that the rot is spreading deep. You are a cause, not a cure…

    • #12 by Omega Man on February 25, 2014 - 3:59 PM

      Alice is most likely a rather young and inexperienced girl. Wait until she reaches her 30s and is suddenly desperate for attention. Anybody’s attention. Well baby, it’ll be too late by then.

      I was once one of those young men who was cruelly rejected by the likes of Alice and others of her ilk, hence my moniker “Omega Man”. Well that young man grew up, lifted weights, learned game and then pumped and dumped a number of club sluts before finding a young 21 year old lady who would become my wife.

      And by the way, my salary, as are the salaries of my other computer nerd friends, is well into the 6 figures.

      So Alice, you just keep on being cruel to those frogs and when those frogs reveal themselves to be the princes they really are, they will not be giving their promise of commitment to you.

      • #13 by superslaviswife on February 25, 2014 - 4:23 PM

        Again, as I said to Lost Sailor, my views on what makes a worthy man aren’t about cads and players. I am soon to be married to a male who is actually an amazing guy and am happy I rejected everyone else before him, even if I hurt some of them in the process, as to so much as consider them would have been my downfall. It is what a woman must do if she wants to get someone worth keeping. After all, the female sexual strategy, if unadulterated by radical feminist philosophy, is to invest, not to sow her oats.

        Also, as I mentioned further down (up? unsure how this commenting system structures itself), the comment itself was a bit tongue-in-cheek because the natural female behaviours I described aren’t wholly compatible with the current lack of defined societal roles and norms, as they exclude suitable mates simply on the basis that they are not socially approved. So modern society has damaged the way the order works by removing the male support element of the self-improvement chain and by making the traits that make you successful (character, intelligence, male-male social skills) sexually undesirable.

    • #14 by Tarnished on February 26, 2014 - 3:47 PM

      Wow, that’s an incredibly cold way of looking at dating interactions. It may be good to tell men that traits X and Y aren’t what most females look for, but women do not…under any circumstance…have to be cruel while doing so. I agree with Jeremy, that’s misandry.

      • #15 by superslaviswife on February 27, 2014 - 2:35 AM

        Not under any circumstance? Considering the types of male I’ve been approached by, it’s sometimes the only way to get the message across.

      • #16 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 9:26 AM

        No, not under any circumstance. There will always be a little pain from the actual rejection, but there’s no need to be malicious. I’m (physically) an attractive gamer woman who works at a comic/hobby store. I am 29, and have worked there for nearly a decade…I get asked out a lot by guys who are socially awkward, have Aspberger’s, are on the autism scale, have no social filter, or are just horrible at speaking to females. But you know what?

        They still *try*. They bundle up their courage, pick themselves up, come over to me and ask for my company as best they can. That takes guts, especially when these guys have hardly any emotional shield to protect them. They took a huge risk. Due to this, I believe they deserve to be let down as non painfully as I’m capable of doing. Yes, sometimes this means being incredibly direct…but you can do that without crushing someone’s ego.

      • #17 by superslaviswife on February 27, 2014 - 11:08 AM

        Humans that weak shouldn’t really have much of an ego to begin with. Those who are capable of improving upon themselves can get over a harsher rejection. Those who are socially aware know not to approach certain people. Those who are crushed by the sort of rejections I give out are the sort of human who’s been sheltered and made to believe life is easy. Weak, sheltered humans don’t need to be mollycoddled and sheltered any more. Really, by being nice you’re doing them a lifelong disservice. By being honest and blunt about my thoughts and feelings I am showing them what humans are actually like on the inside.

        And, as a final note, courage is braving a lion to defend your family. Seeking out a lion is foolishness that should be corrected instantly, lest it harm them more in the future.

      • #18 by greginaurora on February 27, 2014 - 5:55 PM

        There’s maybe something that’s being missed here about defending unnecessarily harsh rejection; where does all of this lead to?

        It’s not an empty question and Men are aware of it right now, and are attempting to correct the path with blogs like this.

        You’re spinning yourself up with the idea that you’re doing good by making men tougher, but the only affect of your actions is making men afraid of talking to women. Feminism has already taught men to be afraid of women, they don’t need non-feminists to harass them too.

        But back to the point: maybe these men are meek. Or maybe they’re just uncertain of tge outcome of their actions. Or maybe they’re trying something new because they’re bold, but have already witnessed ruinous haranguing by poor-mannered harridans of their friends. It’s irrelevant what your opinion is of them. It is relevant what their opinion is of you and of women. Because these men have built and maintain Civilization in order to have access to pussy. They work hard. Our previous culture rewarded them with sweet natured women who understood what it meant to NOT have Civilization around them. Today, they have to suffer through the same amount of work, but with no reward. And the women these otherwise confident hardworkinf men have to tolerate are on average ball shriveling banshees with no kindness to be found anywhere within their beings.

        But more to the point; piss these guys off enough and they’ll do what they have always done and will always do, in every culture, in every locale, throughout all of human history: they’ll stop working as hard and let it all go to shit. Because there’s nothing in it for them.

        So maybe try to think about that the next time you’re self righteously belittling joe blow for coming onto you while not being attractive.

      • #19 by superslaviswife on February 28, 2014 - 3:01 AM

        “Because these men have built and maintain Civilization in order to have access to pussy. They work hard.”
        It seems your impression of a “weak” man is far harsher and more inclusive than mine is. The men I’m talking about don’t build civilizations. They may work hard, but their work is worthless. In a harsher or wilder environment, most of them would be dead and the rest would basically be woman-like or child-like servants to others and would never get a chance at reproduction.

      • #20 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 6:18 PM

        “By being honest and blunt about my thoughts and feelings I am showing them what humans are actually like on the inside.”

        Would it offend you if I said “NAHALT” in response to this assertion?

      • #21 by superslaviswife on February 28, 2014 - 2:58 AM

        All I’m saying is, I’m giving them a dose of the real world. Not all humans are like you either, nor are they meant to be. It’s a disservice to tell an ugly girl she can be Miss America just because she has down’s and you want to protect her feelings. Likewise, it’s a disservice to give a weak male the impression that he has more than a 0.00001% chance of bedding a girl like you, just because you felt he was “brave”. Unless you’re ready to have pity-sex with every weaker male out there, then accept that they don’t stand much of a chance and tell them so.

      • #22 by Tarnished on February 28, 2014 - 7:00 AM

        @superslaviswife

        And I’m not saying you should lie to people or sell them a fairy tale either. But you should still be capable of informing someone they have a slim chance of X happening without completely bulldozing their self-esteem or worth.

        I wish I was capable of having pity sex, but if you read my latest post, I’m actually currently struggling with the idea of having more than 1 sexual partner. Perhaps that’s why I can sympathize so well…I haven’t dated in years, and would probably be awkward about it too.

      • #23 by superslaviswife on February 28, 2014 - 7:11 AM

        In response to the first part, then you’re practising the same habits I am and are just in denial about how much even a simple ‘no’ hurts these people. We’re talking about guys who get it in their heads it’s you or nobody, or guys who’ve been told they’re just as capable of getting a woman as any average guy. Some of them can commit suicide when their little fantasy starts to fall apart. Many of them feel mocked just for being rejected in front of a friend or an audience. You can’t protect them.

        In response to the second part: everyone has awkward stages. They may be rusty, or pretty much undateable, or socially stunted, or even overly eager. A healthy human gets through them without feeling like they’re a victim.

      • #24 by Tarnished on February 28, 2014 - 7:46 AM

        @superslaviswife

        I get that. I’ve known classmates and customers who confessed to me that they felt suicidal when the girl of their dreams crushed their heart. But the answer is not to be even more blunt and cold to them…how would that make someone *less* suicidal anyway?

        No, what needs to be done is the depedestalization of women, getting rid of harmful ideas about men/boys (aka they’re immature, incomplete without women, all potential rapists, have less emotional capability, aren’t motivated to succeed, etc), and building up a more fair/egalitarian society that respects everyone regardless of sex or gender.

        I’d agree with you about the second part, except that there’s more than enough evidence in the manosphere to show that the scales are uneven and women in the dating world tend to have unrealistic expectations of some men. Now, a victim mentality is not healthy, so we are of the same mind there…but even I know I’d have an easier time getting dates since I’m physically female, in spite of any awkwardness I have. It’s an unfair advantage in the dating world, and needs to be changed.

      • #25 by superslaviswife on February 28, 2014 - 8:08 AM

        That I can agree with. As I said somewhere else in the comment thread, modern society has entirely messed-up how women apply their natural drives. Women think that 80% of men are below-average, that they are ‘entitled’ to a prince who also happens to be a bad-boy alpha, that any male from that 80% who expresses any interest is automatically a ‘creep’ and that any male who they fancy who won’t date them is a superficial ‘player’.

        But the problem is with the ignorance, not the behaviour. The former is a societal ill that derails all human interactions, the latter is a natural drive designed to keep women aiming for the best they can realistically get and to keep men continually pursuing self-improvement. Remove the ignorance, even if you shatter a few egos (on both sides, this time) and you’ll find human mate-selection vastly improves. Allow the ignorance and people build walls of pity, compliments, make-up, porn and ONSs to compensate for the fact they don’t know how to go about an actual relationship.

      • #26 by Just visiting on February 27, 2014 - 1:00 PM

        There are times when you have to be incredibly direct and you can do that without crushing someones ego. And times where it just isn’t going to cut it. Your claim of No, under no circumstances is naive and childish. As you’ve pointed out, approaches aren’t always one off’s in a bar. Most women are approached by men who have some knowledge and familiarity with them. And a gentle or even direct rebuff (usually several times) doesn’t always cut it.

        Hell, I had one guy who went so far as to tell my(ex) husband’s family, my husband, his own girlfriend, and his mother that one of my children was his. And, no, nothing like that between us. Did I spare his itty bitty ego? Not effing likely.

      • #27 by Just visiting on February 27, 2014 - 2:11 PM

        Hmn, not the clearest of comments. (I still get angry when thinking about it.) In other words, back when I was married, a family friend made some rather outrageous claims.

      • #28 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 4:29 PM

        @Just Visiting

        No, I understood it the first time, you’re good on that. But why the hell would he do such a thing…what’s the point?

      • #29 by Just visiting on February 27, 2014 - 6:18 PM

        The question is the point.

        Sometimes gentle or direct rebuffs aren’t enough.

      • #30 by LostSailor on February 27, 2014 - 6:36 PM

        Humans that weak shouldn’t really have much of an ego to begin with.

        I’m now convinced that superslaviswife is a troll.

      • #31 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 7:57 PM

        @LostSailor

        I’m wondering about that too…

      • #32 by theprivateman on February 27, 2014 - 8:20 PM

        Her blog is real and she’s put a lot of effort into blogging. I don’t think she’s trolling. I checked out her blog before I approved her initial comment.

      • #33 by Just visiting on February 27, 2014 - 6:39 PM

        Something to consider,

        I wasn’t dealing with a mentally ill or socially awkward individual. Nor is it the only time I’ve had to be “more than firm” with a man. I’m far from the only woman who has had to so.

        As for Superslaviswife, that’s a different situation. Fitness testing on steroids.

      • #34 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 7:56 PM

        @Just Visiting

        It’s my turn to clarify then:
        I’m perfectly capable of being mean to someone who is a purposeful jerkwad. I get a few at my job now and then…I shut them down hard and don’t spare their feelings at all, especially if they’ve made one of my male coworkers mad or one of my female coworkers cry. I’ve no time for assholes.

        But guys who are literally just awkward? Those guys I’m nice to because they can’t help it as much as others.

      • #35 by LostSailor on February 27, 2014 - 10:15 PM

        I checked out her blog before I approved her initial comment.

        Fair enough.I’ll temporarily withdraw “troll” and check out her blog.

        In the meantime, I’ll just go with “I’m now convinced that she is just a bad human being”…

      • #36 by Tarnished on February 27, 2014 - 11:38 PM

        @Lost Sailor

        Maybe she just has an underdeveloped sense of empathy for others? I’ve met many people like this…they’re not necessarily “bad” just perpetually pessimistic about our species ability to be caring and compassionate.

      • #37 by J on February 28, 2014 - 12:14 AM

        Maybe Slavishwife is trying to be facetious but has a poorly calibrated sense of humor. Seems to be in the UK so perhaps something isn’t translating. Or maybe she is trying to drive traffic to her blog, but if so she is going about it in an awfully labor-intensive way.

      • #38 by Tarnished on February 28, 2014 - 7:04 AM

        @J

        Possibly, but I’m tending toward believing the idea of driving traffic more than a mistranslation or odd sense of humor.

      • #39 by J on February 28, 2014 - 9:57 AM

        You’re probably right. “Driving traffic” is the Internet version of Occam’s Razor.

      • #40 by LostSailor on February 28, 2014 - 7:07 PM

        Okay, after checking out her blog, I’ll agree not a troll.

        Parody maybe. Or Nietzschen…

  3. #41 by Kingsley on February 25, 2014 - 11:23 AM

    “I read many different Internet forums that deal with men’s issues as they relate to attraction and dating.”

    My overall take away from years of reading these god send forums is that women are children in adult bodies and treating every last one of them like brats reap favorable rewards.

  4. #42 by Laguna Beach Fogey on February 25, 2014 - 11:56 AM

    The key is to have no fear.

    • #43 by Kingsley on February 25, 2014 - 1:42 PM

      Since the fleeting power they brandish in the SMV is given to them by our “hard ons” which they willingly use maliciously.

  5. #44 by LostSailor on February 25, 2014 - 12:41 PM

    Sorry, TPM, I kinda disagree on some basics here.

    For one thing, I wouldn’t recommend going to AVfM forums for dating and relationship advice. From the short time I’ve spent reading the forums, and from various Game-related posts on the main site, I’ve concluded that most of the guys there are Blue-Pill men who have seen but who have not really accepted the Red Pill reality or are hard-core MGTOW types who firmly advocate having nothing to do with women whatsoever. I got banned on the main site once (was unbanned later) for advancing the opinion that I like women and I like sex and Game helps deal with both on my terms. I was roundly castigated as “pussy-chasing” and pedestalizing women just by showing any interest at all. They also unequivocally equate “Game” with PUA systems and cannot countenance the idea that male self-improvement and practicing better social skill is “Game.” Nope, it’s only artificial tricks that are unworthy of “real” men.

    And I think your quoted post from there bears this out. The salient point of that post isn’t rejection or punishment. The salient point is fear. The writer starts out saying “I was exploring my fears almost a year ago…” and proceeds with a list of items that all start the “The fear…”

    A confident, charismatic man doesn’t have this level of fear. Which comes down to the main point that you rightly note, that the writer and men like him lack the basic social skills to be confident. The problem here isn’t even the fear, but the fact that men like this (and in the AVfM forums) simply don’t want to learn those social skills. They intellectually understand the problem, but resolutely cling to their Blue Pill ways.

    Just look at what he’s fearful of: that a woman might wound is ego, might be considered “creepy” or “dangerous”, that white knight might “interrupt future approaches, or that he might not get a second chance. He fantasizes about telepathic powers to find women who are interested. He laments that women don’t make it easy for him to approach and get laid.

    But this is the money paragraph: I want us to be vigilant about making it safe for men to make sexual requests of women…There’s this whole thing about shaming socially awkward men, especially socially awkward men who are making sexual requests. Yet these are the people who MOST need to make awkward sexual requests.

    I know you disagreed with that, TPM, but I disagree in much stronger terms. That’s not advice or a call to action, it’s a whine, lamenting that women aren’t compassionate toward socially awkward men and don’t make those men feel “safe” when making “sexual requests.” Its a yearning for a fantasy world where women make it easy for men to have sex with them. They miss the point that his was never so.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall ever approaching women and making “sexual requests,” except for the few times in college when I’d sidle up to a woman and say “let’s fuck.” I don’t recall ever asking for sex.

    And that’s the AVfM forum’s general attitude about women and sex: men shouldn’t really have anything to do with women because they’re ball-busting harpies, but if one must use them for sexual release, just go up and ask them for sex and if they turn you down, well, they’re all feminist shrikes, and you’re better off with porn anyway.

    I’ll certainly allow that in smaller communities, a man must exercise greater care and discretion in approaching and dating women, but not out of a sense of fear.

    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

    • #45 by theprivateman on February 25, 2014 - 2:53 PM

      I see your point. And I’m doing a bit of a forehead slap.

    • #46 by Omega Man on February 25, 2014 - 3:33 PM

      I learned Game the hard way, and when I tried to defend the concept on AVfM I was castigated as a peddler of cheap PUA trick books. Despite being honest about my life experiences, my posts were deleted and I was threatened with banishment should I ever dare to defend Game. I’ve long since stopped reading anything on that site since nothing that they write correlates with my experiences with women.

      • #47 by theprivateman on February 25, 2014 - 4:01 PM

        I read AVfM because I seek as much information about the Manosphere as possible. MRAs and PUAs may not get along but both are under the leaky Manosphere umbrella. The whole Red Pill philosophy is a binding force.

      • #48 by LostSailor on February 25, 2014 - 4:32 PM

        Omega:

        Your experience is the same as mine. There is a small but vocal subset of anti-Game men who are nearly rabid about on the main AVfM site. Mostly they are ex-PUA types who now reject PUA philosophy and tactics with a vengeance. I, too, tried to point out the very real differences between PUA systems and tactics and genuine male self-improvement Game but they’ll have none of it. Nor will the brook any dissent.

        I still read sometimes over there, and occasionally comment, because I am generally sympathetic with the general goals: reform of divorce and family court law, anti-rape-culture-hysteria, etc. But I generally don’t consider myself an MRA.

        After I was suddenly and without explanation banned over one of those “anti-Game” comment threads, I had an email exchange with Paul and Dean about it and asked why they would want to antagonize Red Pill/Game type men who could be considered their natural allies. The somewhat vague reply I got was that we’re welcome as long as we don’t try to defend Game. As far as I can tell their philosophy in that regard is that men really shouldn’t have much to do with women, unless women come to them on their own terms. There’s a lot of antipathy to women in general and they’re very serious about the movement. I gather that while they say they welcome discussion, even some disagreement, there is a very fine line between disagreement and dissent, which as far as I can tell is not tolerated.

        So, while I broadly support most of their goals, I’m not usually in favor of groups that aggressively police ideological conformity. But, then, I’m old enough to lay claim to the title of curmudgeon…

  6. #49 by vmunchausen on February 25, 2014 - 12:45 PM

    I think that the trouble is that most men develop “momentary oneitis” where the woman’s response determines the man’s value.
    True outcome independence is a man’s ability to not give a shit.
    If a woman attempts to “punish” you for approaching, it is a guarantee that a self respecting man with a modicum of wit can effectively blow her shit up quickly and easily. There are dozens of directions one can go to put a woman on her back foot.
    Hell, act like it is a game.

    After approach there are three options:
    1) She is receptive: run your game and work on closing
    2) She politely refuses your advances: politely move along.
    3) She tries to punish you: wreck her ego (And I mean Blow her shit up, no aggression just a simple statement to undercut her perceived authority) If you do this well, you will be helping out the next man who approaches her. She might be a bit more human next time.

    A fear of punishment relies on your willingness to allow someone to attack you.
    Screw that.

  7. #50 by Laszlo on February 25, 2014 - 12:55 PM

    Yes Alice, women make the market. Which is why when the arbiters of male value fail to transact with a man of sufficient status and attraction, it is not the fault of any man. And when those women hop the fun track to the marriage track, men like me are more than happy to uphold our end of the market: commitment. We will be happy to accept lotsa sex en route to informing you of your commitment/marriage value – even if you never seem to understand rejection of commitment as an indicator of YOUR value.

    Unfortunately, the narrative still likes to call this male ‘fear of commitment’ because the default setting of our feminized culture is to demonize men in place of any critical analysis or even discourse on female behavior. Women are entitled to – no, they NEED to reject men for the good of all; men don’t reject women, they fear commitment. Subtle.

    But, of course, its not just fear of commitment (though there are reasons to be afraid: family law). Quite the contrary; it is a keen awareness of the value, risks, and exchange rate of our commitment in light of the dearth of commitment worthy women who understand their feminine contributions, what it means to give, and a history of demonstrative behaviors that indicate anything remotely aligned with their stated desires to have a wedding. This keen understanding just happens to be held by most of those men at the top, the 10-20% that most women want. How do you think they came to understand this “value”? Women aren’t pissed that “men” fear commitment, they don’t care about men (hence the punishment), they are pissed that top men won’t commit to them.

    And at 35 women are just not as physically attractive as they think, or as the 27 y/o grad student I’m “dating”. Even if Cosmo says 40 is HOT. If a woman is not married by 30-ish, they either don’t really want it or you have a greatly inflated sense of Self. These are things no man will ever tell a woman because it does not serve him to do so. He will toe the party line because thats what drops her skirt.

    If a woman, who makes the market, can’t exact a favorable position within that very market, thats her problem. Hopefully she enjoyed destroying all those fragile male egos along the way because more and more of those women will have to rely on fond memories of hawt guys climbing all over them in their youth to get them through the cold winters ahead.

    Indeed rejection is a natural part of the process; humiliation or a frontal assault in the ego war is not. The problem is not men approaching out of their league, but rather women holding themselves out of their league and finding ego/validation via casual sexual encounters (or even just plain attention) with men out of their league. Those 20% of men will regularly dip down for a roll or for actionable sexual options aka soft harems. The extent to which this plants a false sense of female options and thus her elevated view of her own attractiveness (not even getting into the marriage value VS sexual value) is greatly underestimated by most people and pretty much all women.

    Men “approaching out of their league” is nothing compared to women’s preference for sharing top men as opposed to garnering commitment from men they (often erroneously) deem beneath them. In the field, I rarely see out-of-league approaches by men, but I see numerous situations evidencing female preference for sharing top men and a lot of women who think they bring far more to the table than they really do.

  8. #51 by greginaurora on February 25, 2014 - 1:00 PM

    I’ve come to a simplified conclusion that has helped me greatly: if she’s polite, she’s not interested. If she’s teasing me, or if she’s coldly turning me away, heck even if she’s mocking me… then she’s talking. There’s a caveat here, I’ll get to that. But if she’s talking, I can spin up her little hamster wheel. Even coldness can be spun into laughter with some proper teasing.

    The caveat is Feminists with other Feminists. Those women are broken inside, and can’t do anything to help themselves enjoy their own lives. When in a group, their social-hatred of Men overrides all other dynamics. In groups they’re psychopathic. So it’s pointless to try and have a fun conversation with a group of Feminists. Bigots will always reinforce their prejudices when grouped with other bigots.

  9. #52 by greginaurora on February 25, 2014 - 1:02 PM

    I’ve come to a simplified conclusion that has helped me greatly: if she’s polite, she’s not interested. If she’s teasing me, or if she’s coldly turning me away, heck even if she’s mocking me… then she’s talking. There’s a caveat here, I’ll get to that. But if she’s talking, I can spin up her little hamster wheel. Even coldness can be spun into laughter with some proper teasing.

    The caveat is Feminists with other Feminists. Those women are broken inside, and can’t do anything to help themselves enjoy their own lives. When in a group, their social-hatred of Men overrides all other dynamics. In groups they’re psychopathic. So it’s pointless to try and have a fun conversation with a group of Feminists. Bigots will always reinforce their prejudices when grouped with other bigots.

  10. #53 by Fred Flange, Der Kommissar on February 25, 2014 - 1:08 PM

    So we keep the thread on track: the shaming rejection of men is Mean Girl behavior, well-honed in the Queen Bee cultures of junior high and high school. They are almost hind-brain default behaviors, which may or may not stop as the woman matures or she learns discipline when called out on it. Meaning, they are semi-conscious actions at best, whimsical in nature. (Meaning for guys: yeah your fear is real but it’s not NECESSARILY you). Leaving aside that rare feminist using as her motto “I Am Trying To Break Your Heart.”

  11. #54 by Retrenched on February 25, 2014 - 1:42 PM

    But the fact is that, unless you’re one of the top 10-20% of guys, rejection is going to be the norm for you. After all, bangably attractive women get hit on quite a bit, and they certainly can’t sleep with every guy who talks to them.

    And most of the rejections you get are going to be fairly polite anyway, because most women are not total cunts who get off on ruining a man’s day.

  12. #55 by Opus on February 25, 2014 - 4:28 PM

    I think that article (from AVFM) highly perceptive, in fact I kick myself for not realising its point before now. What I suspect we have as so often with women is projection: a woman who approaches a man and is brushed aside (very rare), may well fear rejection but she need not fear punishment. She won’t be treated as a social pariah by men or by other women who will always sympathise. It is however very true that men are punished – firstly by women who will see the man as a loser and who tend to regard every last piece of nonsense that they are told about him by another women as having the veracity of Holy Writ – secondly by men only too happy to white-knight and to mock their brothers when they are down as they jockey for position in the male pecking-order. Some women feel the need to punish any man who in any way does not please: all the social skills in the world can not protect from that eventuality.

    • #56 by Just visiting on February 25, 2014 - 5:43 PM

      ……..she need not fear punishment. She won’t be treated as a social pariah by men or other women. Well, not quite. A woman risks social punishment by making the approach in the first place, regardless of rejection or acceptance. Social skills and charm are required to pull off ….

      A) not coming across as DLV
      B) Not coming across as slutty
      C) Deflecting female orbiters who will try to socially punish you with the slut label
      D) Deflecting their male orbiters who will do the same
      E) Deflecting disgruntled males grumbling amongst themselves.

      Far easier to just show interest and be approached.

  13. #57 by Modern Drummer on February 25, 2014 - 6:11 PM

    This is one of the reasons men objectify women: to mitigate the pain.
    Before my self improvement and game the only way to get thru the pain of an approach gone bad,I had to become cold,calculating and objectifying toward the women I approached,being treated cruelly by a human was very painful.

    Since getting my sh$t together,I don’t have to objectify women as much because the failure rate has decreased and even when I don’t get a number,women no longer punish.

    This is why I steer my nephews toward the ‘sphere’ so they don’t have to endure the pain a lot of us former blue-pillers did.

    If a women does try to punish you- make her life a living hell for a few minutes.

  14. #58 by Ricky Vaughn on February 25, 2014 - 11:11 PM

    I find this argument very persuasive. For example, if she is a beautiful woman on an empty train without a camera or soul in sight, even an omega will approach. If there is no one watching men do not fear rejection. This is why it is easier to approach in dark bars than crowded subways.

  15. #59 by Grit on February 26, 2014 - 2:26 AM

    The Pilgrims founded the USA by fleeing fear of punishment.

    These pilgrims were social rejects. Or maybe they chose to be iconoclastic (MGTOW, anyone?)

    Either way, they really feared punishment. They certainly didn’t fear rejection- voluntarily sailing to savage land. The fear of punishment trumped fear of the unknown.

    Imagine sympathetically attempting to reason with a Pilgrim, “We aren’t punishing you. We are just putting you in your place.” More vile words have never been spoken. I would think the Pilgrim would respond with a hearty, “Fuck you! Bring on the savages.” And set sail, never to look back.

  16. #60 by wingman on February 26, 2014 - 8:26 AM

    Agreed punishment is the fear, but don’t we do that to ourselves? Victimhood? How can a stranger ‘punish’ us without our consent? How we frame our interactions with others reflects how we feel about ourselves. By saying punishment is the fear, we declare defeat at the outset.

  17. #61 by Tarnished on February 26, 2014 - 11:12 AM

    Hi there, PM. Just wanted to let you know I included this post of yours in one of my own. I cover the other side of it (aka decent ways to let men down that *don’t* hurt them
    as much).

    https://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/letting-men-down-easy/

  18. #62 by Tarnished on February 26, 2014 - 3:43 PM

    Hello PM.
    Thank you for moderating my comment on your newer post. I also did one at about the same time here, but it might’ve gotten put into your spam since it contains a link. If you approve of the post it links back to, could that comment be moderated as well?

  19. #63 by sestamibi on February 26, 2014 - 5:12 PM

    Good post as far as it goes, but what’s ominous is that if feminists have their way, the punishment will be levied by the state once they make it a criminal offense for any beta male regarded as “creepy” even to make the effort.

    When that happens (and don’t think it won’t), expect to see escalating violence–more Adam Lanzas, Jared Loughners, George Sodinis, etc. The state is not going to tell huge numbers of men that getting laid is a privilege reserved for only dirtbag alphas, and a crime for everyone else. They will think that if they’re going to be put away, it might as well for something that can be objectively measured.

  20. #64 by Meggrz on February 27, 2014 - 5:04 PM

    Gold. Posts like this are why I love your blog despite being so far removed from your core demographic.

    That makes so much more sense than a fear of rejection. I’ve actually had guys approach, rejected them politely, and seen this look of relief wash over them. I’ve even had men relax so much after I’d rejected them, that they made a much better impression – to the point where I questioned my initial reaction.

    Its not the rejection that makes men reluctant to approach, it’s the hateful bile women spew with it.

  21. #65 by Blaster on February 28, 2014 - 8:46 AM

    I made some commentary here: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33562-post-665670.html#pid665670

    To sum up:

    Many of the fears are overblown and unfounded. While possible you will most likely not be laughed at, shamed, or harassed by white knights. Only experience can permanently cure these fears, though willpower, leadership, or context can temporarily alleviate them. Alcohol/drugs can also help temporarily but come with their own drawbacks.

    To overcome the fear of failure and making mistakes you must learn GAME, not just ‘social skills’. You need to learn the specific rules and techniques to attract women, not just general social skills.

    I often use a baseball analogy. Rejection is like a strikeout. It happens. Players aren’t afraid of striking out. But if you don’t know the rules of baseball, don’t know how to hold the bat or execute a swing properly, and don’t even know how to recognize a strikeout when it happens, you’re certain to embarass yousrelf. The umpire will yell at you to get the off the field and others will taunt, “do you even know how to play, asshole?” Shame and embarassment ensues. That’s where the fear comes from.

    • #66 by theprivateman on February 28, 2014 - 10:26 AM

      Understand my perspective on men in general. I deal with re-entry daters and many technology guys. These guys simply don’t have the basic social skills to learn game. I’m not being facile when I state that men must learn those skills so they can deal with the fear of punishment.

      Learning Game without a solid foundation of confidence and social skills makes guys look socially awkward.

  22. #67 by hoellenhund2 on March 1, 2014 - 5:24 PM

    So now we’ve established that the average guy has to establish “a solid foundation of confidence and social skills” before he even BEGINS to learn Game. Lulz. Sounds like a lousy deal.

    • #68 by theprivateman on March 1, 2014 - 5:30 PM

      Yes, it is a lousy deal. It’s also the reality of the social landscape. If’n you want to rail against reality, that’s your business.

  23. #69 by hoellenhund2 on March 3, 2014 - 3:00 AM

    As far as I’m concerned, the social landscape can go sodomize itself.

  1. Letting Men Down Easy | Tarnished Sophia
  2. Do Women See You as a Leader? + MORE Feb 25th |

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 2,501 other followers

%d bloggers like this: