Sunday, April 27, 2014

"Shit Tests," Sure, Whatever

There is a friend of mine, married, good job he likes (how rare that is these days), two kids, nice house - the middle-class American dream, now dying.

He told me in college he met a woman he realized could be the One (incidentally there is more than one One for every guy out there). After about two days he realized he was getting very interested in her.

He told me, "I felt like I had known her for a long time." He even told her that, to which she responded, "Well, we haven't known each other a long time. We're strangers."

You know what he told her? "Sometimes our feelings are wrong, especially when they're not reciprocated by the other person." He told me he was stunned by what she said, because it came out of the blue and he was expecting the opposite answer.

Didn't she have any idea at all that she gave one of the worst answers possible?

He never saw her again. Not with that attitude.

You think that's one of those nonsensical concepts so prevalent in the "Manosphere" - "shit testing"?

He mentioned to me a few days ago she called him out of the blue, wanting to know what he was doing. He told her about his life. She was unmarried, no children, an apartment, a cat, a meaningless make-work "career." She clearly wanted to know if he was available. He's not.

I wonder how she felt? Disappointed? Full of hate and envy? Bitter? Perhaps feeling a bit like he felt?

(As an aside, in college it was "I have a boyfriend." Now it's "I don't have a boyfriend." Amusing, since the first is rejection and the second is an offer. Same woman, 20 years apart. Which reminds me - why is rejection and teasing supposed to both be a "shit test"? Can't these guys tell one from the other? Oh wait, of course they can't - shit tests don't exist.)

Some "shit test." What they do, if they exist, is drive men away. It drove him away, permanently, and he ended up with a better woman.

Here's another "shit test," which only exposed how dumb the woman was. And is.

In a casual date she started to defend "gay rights," and he pointed out that a substantial number of them were promiscuous, predatory, child-molesting drug addicts, with high incidences of murder and suicide - and that the portrayal of them on television was the exact opposite of their behavior in real life. That was it - she got hysterical and clearly considered him a raging bigot. Too much TV had warped her brains, not that she had much brains anyway, being a confused liberal ruled by her childish feelings.

Another "shit test"? Well, it drove him away. If she ends up with anybody, who's it going to be? Some liberal/wimp mangina? Sounds great.

I have mentioned this before, but once in college, when I was 21, I was sitting in a study room, sitting in a chair with a woman I vaguely knew sitting in a chair on my right side. A male student starting talking to her and was way too complimentary to her, told her how much he liked her. Even then I knew he was doing it all wrong. He was really pouring it on like I had never seen before and I was starting to get embarrassed for him.

After he left she sighed, "Thank God!" meaning Thank God he was gone. No one was around except us, so she obviously said it for my benefit. So what the heck was it? A shit test for me?

No, she was just an unpleasant woman (I didn't find her attractive at all) who just happened to be showing off for me. Did she expect me to agree with her? Instead I said something very nasty to her (she sure didn't expect that!) and she got up and left.

I have run across several nasty women in my life. None of them were "shit testing" me. They were just unpleasant women who were hostile to men because they weren't getting what they wanted.

Who in the world wants a nasty, unpleasant woman? For that matter, all the nasty, unpleasant women I've met have been overweight/unattractive/too old, not-married-and-blaming-all-their-problems-on-men. I've never seen a good-looking woman who was unpleasant. Not once.

This ridiculous concept is how some guys pretend they're "Alphas" when they are nothing of the sort. "Golly gee, she's shit-testing me! She must think I'm one of those superior Alphas with superior sperm and superior Alpha genes!"

The whole concept just needs to disappear.

"Testing for genetic fitness." Good Lord, what kind of rank amateur came up with that concept?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

I feel the same way about a lot of "shit tests." When I realize I want nothing to do with a girl, that's it. I don't care what she thinks of me.

Some guys are intent on showing how cool they can be handling the response. But why do you want to? You really want to put your dick in that?

Anonymous said...

Great answer to the second "Shit Test" question.

Antonio From Spain said...

I got one of these out-of-the-blue calls just a few weeks ago. Same story.
Excellent post.

Bob Wallace said...

My father told me he used to get calls like that once a year. Their husbands had died and they called him 50 years later wanting to know if he was available. And he certainly was some "Alpha" - 5'6" and 135 pounds soaking wet.

Anders said...

I disagree, Bob. I think you don't get out enough if you have never met an unpleasant yet physically attractive woman ever. I have met quite a few in my experience.

Unpleasant women as you well know, beautiful or not, are generally all infected by feminist materialist cultural Marxism. They are all unreported domestic violence incidences just waiting to happen. All these women think the world revolves around them. They have all forgotten what it feels like to be stricken by the heavy hand of a man that stands up for himself against them.

Bob Wallace said...

I have never in my life met an attractive woman who was unpleasant. I've met more than one who had been attractive in the past, but now had become hostile because they lost their looks. I've met some who were moderately attractive when younger (and somewhat unpleasant at times) and not surprisingly they screwed up their lives. It's amazing these women think they're going to find a guy with that attitude, no matter how young they are.

AAB said...

At last! Someone with some grey matter that's actually working! The concept of the 'shit test' was probably conjured up by PUAs who want to justify all kind of female behaviour as valid in evolutionary terms no matter how diabolical their behaviour really is.

Here's a short post on the subject of 'shit tests' from a few months back:
http://anotherandrosphereblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/shit-tests-are-for-shit.html

Bob Wallace said...

It cracks me up that these clowns would have never noticed a "shit test" their entire lives (because they don't exist) but when they read semi-incompetents like Roissy, all of a sudden they suddenly are seeing "shit tests" everywhere. It reminds me of those silly girls who "suddenly realized" they had been raped three months before.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. A "shit test" is an accurate term but has the wrong definition. When a woman gives you anything resembling a "shit test", she is demonstrating to you that she is shitty. The test is whether you sit there and entertain her shitty self, or get up & leave the shit where it sits.

Shit test = woman demonstrating bad behavior. Regardless of the test subject matter, the correct answer is refusal to partake in the "test" and to move on with life. Period.

etype said...

I like what you are doing here, but respectfully I must disagree. I have seen the proverbial 'shit test' in action many times, and observed the results... it is real and the results claimed by the PUA’s is correct. Also the opposite effect they claim is also true.... if you give in to a woman on any point, which although you may not notice it as important, they do... they will not only have contempt for you but conspire to do you further harm...for the crime of appeasing them.The PUA’s maybe a bunch of assholes, but even a blind pig finds a acorn now and again, and the idea of using evolutionary psychology is valid no matter your feelings on the psychological status of it’s adherents...(a relevant anecdote from only a week or so ago....) The other week two women at a business meeting got up to babble about something, I nodded off but woke and became annoyed when... probably to engage the feminine section of the crowd one of the women speakers starts to go on about the "mother instinct' and Grizzley bears (something to the effect of cross a woman and she will tear you limb from limb as you activate her 'mother instinct' if it's something she cares deeply about.. ect.)
Personally I don’t believe in the ‘Mother instinct’, I believe it is a human instinct and women evoke it simply to use children as pawns and property... so I said so, these women pulsated with malicious glee that they were being challenged on such a commonly held truism....I stayed calm yet still annoyed my time was being wasted... I cited various studies of war and societies under duress etc. (mothers commonly throw their children in the ditch under duress with no qualms or perceived ill effect, only to create a fantasy where animals or mysterious figures stole their babies....to the degree researchers wondered if it is innate (various studies across cultures retrieved results so similar as to invite speculation) - b) Julian Huxleys letter to Thomas Wasson that the myth of the Grizzley Bear and her cub was the antidote to the problem of removing Christianity and it’s myths from the family.... and replacing it with empiricism or whatever.....etc.
This left her gobsmacked... she said ‘I was talking to a zoologist the other day and he said... (regarding Grizzleys and their cubs). Now I was really annoyed, and I cut her off saying “We are talking about human females, not Grizzleys... maybe you never heard of free, unlimited abortion on demand? Where does that leave your ‘Mother instinct’.
Try to get the gist here with this ragged summary... what happened was I not only completely shut her down, I shut her up, and turned the crowd against them. There isn’t much more to say about the argument, I completely ignored those women and went about my business - but in the week since then both women mentioned have been expressing almost an uncontrollable lust for me (which I do not return)... that it so noticeable it is a risk on their part.
Anyway, one anecdote does not prove a theory. I will tell you I’ve seen this so-called ‘shit-test’ in action many, many times in my life.... despite the fact I was in no way trying to consciously illicit a sexual reaction, I was actually just being shitty to stuck up women - and the response is always excessively sexual.
Of course you will choose to believe what you want, but the fact remains you should not condemn the ideas because of the personal conduct to those expressing them.... they may be true and you could increase your personal knowledge. I for one know and have repeatedly seen that the ‘shit-test’ is a a fairly accurate description of a surprisingly consistent reaction of human females.

FellowMan said...

I agree with etype. Putting women in their place gets them wet and sometimes they act like cunts so you have an opening. I've experienced this so many times in my life that it's boring. And there are millions of unpleasant hot women. What are you talking about?

Is it possible you're wrong? No wait, you have a blog.

Actually, I like your thinking on most things. But you need to get out more.

ryan said...

I agree with etype as well.

Not only do red-pill men know that women shit test, women will admit that women shit test.

Water is wet.

Anonymous said...

Denying shit tests exist is like claiming men don't find younger women attractive.

Bob Wallace said...

Non sequitur.

Anonymous said...

"I've never seen a good-looking woman who was unpleasant. Not once."

Dude - are you friggin kiddng? If not you're deluding yourself and anyone reading this. My hunch is that you are, consciously or not, rude to the former and solicitous to the latter.

Bob Wallace said...

Your "hunch" is as wrong as can be.