Thursday, May 8, 2014

Why I've Never Had to "Unplug" or "Take the Red Pill"

"Each generation thinks it invented sex; each generation is totally mistaken. Anything along that line today was commonplace both in Pompeii and in Victorian England." - Robert Heinlein

"A modern woman not firmly under the control of a responsible adult man will tend to devolve into a bonobo-like state." - Sunshine Mary


When I was about 16 years old a friend and I were at a small party when a 15-year-old girl (with huge tits) pretended she was passed-out drunk because she wanted both of us to have sex with her. We looked at each other, then shook our heads, even though we were pretty high and it was tempting. In those days it was called "pulling a train" and we knew girls who did it - six or seven guys in a row.

Even at that age I knew some girls were extraordinarily promiscuous and that their sexual desires could be base and animalistic. Even then I knew that once women got away from the authority of responsible men this is what they'd do. I was beginning to wonder, "Exactly who are the real barbarians here?"

I once had a 13-year-old girl decide to wanted to lose her virginity to me when I was 17. I declined that one, too. I actually had her clothes off when she finally told me she was 13 (at first she said she was 16 - and looked it) I stopped cold when she told me her true age. After that we were friends for a few years, until I moved away to college. To some degree she started to see me as a father figure - which is when I started to figure out that, just possibly, some of these girls had problems with their fathers.

There were other girls that offered. One was 14, three were 15. I had one of those 15-year-olds tell me that when her mother asked where she had been, she answered, "Out fucking."

I've never had to take the "Red Pill" or "Unplug from the Matrix." Not the way I was raised. These guys today babbling their Manosphere lingo...soft and inexperienced, with fantasies of being James Bond and picking up girls with cheesy lines.

This is why I laugh when posters try to scold me when I mock frauds like "Roissy" and "Vox Day". They're fine when they talk about anything but women and sex. Love? They don't know what it is (by the way, I've been in love three times).

"Alpha." "Dark Triad." "Five minutes of Alpha is worth 50 years of Beta." "Shit tests." I laugh some more. Who came up with this simple-minded comic-book crap?

People tell me "things are different today." You think so? My 81-year-old father told me when he and a friend of his were 13 they'd walk down the street and the whores would call to them from their windows. They'd go up there and just talk to them. The girls would tease them. He said it "was fun." (I've known several hookers, too, and used to run them around at night when I owned a taxi.)

By the way, my father was extremely popular with women and he was 5'6" - he just happened to be nearly movie-star handsome. I didn't inherit it.

You really think things have changed? Heinlein was right.

Women are not irresistibly drawn to "Dark Triad Alphas." Some of the more trashy are, the kind you want to stay away from before their ex-con boyfriends break your jaw, the way one did to a friend of mine when we were 18 (I was in a bar when that particular guy shot a guy several times, killing him. He got a bullet in the head, which spun around inside his skull and left him alive.) But the average woman, no.

But you know how it is - there's a sucker born every minute. And a con man, too.

In reality, there is no telling what a woman likes in a man.

"Alpha Fux and Beta Bux." Make me laugh some more. All those girls I knew in high school did get married - to guys like themselves. None of them did the "Alpha Fux/Beta Bux." And none of them got the "provisioning" and "cash and prizes."

When women are allowed to do what they want, many will become promiscuous. They won't be attracted to "Alphas" and then settle for "Betas." The kind of guys they'll be attracted to will be all over the map.

Ever seen a whore who'd only have sex with "Alphas"? A really promiscuous woman? Nope.

I got to know several groupies when I owned a taxi. None of them were attractive, and they were sluts who'd have sex with football players, rock stars, hockey players. Not because they were "Alphas," but because the girls were complete and utter losers, and by being with those famous rich guys for half-an-hour, they actually felt they were recogised, attractive and wanted and alive (the correct term for these women is "narcissistic," not "solipistic," which is a philosophical concept).

As for what the average woman is attracted to, I knew one who was only attracted to tall, slender guys. Another, only blonds. Another, beards (that one told me when she died she wanted to be buried standing up with a glory hole in the headstone). I also had a relative who was attracted to a guy at a bar because of his Lincolnish stove-pipe hat. She ended up marrying him. But "Alphas" only? Never seen it. Neither have my friends. Not once.

No one can define what an "Alpha" is, anyway. The definitions are all over map, which means there isn't one. It's just personal preference, a fantasy projected onto reality.

I've been told they're narcissists, psychopaths, murderers, rapists, bombers who murder little kids, natural leaders, men who are good-looking and naturally popular with women, men who are trying to be the best they can be (the only definition that works)...just all over the map.

And as for woman being greedy, disloyal back-stabbing whores incapable of love... you can say the same thing about a number of men.

When I was in college I took a class, the name of which I don't remember. I was taught that men see woman as Beauty Objects and women see men as Success Objects, and that women were cooperative and men competitive. Even then I was a bit dubious about that (actually, more than once I thought, "What the fuck? Get you head out of your ass!" Experience trumps theory every time.)

Let's put it this way: it's men who try to use the "best genetic material" to have sex with, not women. And it's men who cooperate, which is why we have civilization. Since women don't cooperate with each other, and instead are envious and competitive, it's one of the reasons they destroy everything they touch.

Men do see women as Beauty Objects but it's not as if every idiot goes drooling after the most beautiful women. Couples almost always end up with someone who about the same in looks and intelligence.

And as for Success Objects, when women were not hired as anything except teachers and nurses, they had to make sure a guy could support her and a family. Of course they had to judge them on their material success.

What is a Success Object, anyway? What a woman defines as successful...therefore she's attracted to him. He grows a successful beard...she likes him. He's successfully tall...she likes him. He's successfully funny...she likes him. He fails with cheesy pick-up lines and ridiculous negs...she doesn't like him.

And yes, confidence does go a long way. But "insanely confident"? Be my guest. I'll call the ambulance for you when you get your ass kicked up in-between your shoulder blades.

The Manosphere, in its desperate attempt to hold onto its ideas, claims that when women do want they want, they'll all go after "Alphas" because they "hate Betas" and will even share "Alphas" as a "soft" harem. This belief is what happens to men who have very little experience in life, so they memorize simplistic bad ideas because it makes them think they've got the Keys to the Kingdom. Reality is a lot more complex.

About a year ago, I suppose, I read a book, What Do Women Want? by Daniel Berger. Lo and behold, it confirmed my experience!

In it he wrote this: "Well, I guess the first thing to say is how struck I was by the distance between reality and the fable that we’ve been taught most recently by evolutionary psychology, that is, that men are driven to spread their seed and women, by comparison, are more driven to find one good provider, and that, therefore, while men are very poorly suited to monogamy, women are much better suited to monogamy. But that just really doesn’t stand up when you look at the science. The science behind that is flimsy, circular. And the science, when you look at it clearly, that stands in opposition to that is actually fairly strong — still emergent, but fairly strong. And so, that was the first thing that was so striking to me."

Understand that? Unconstrained female sexuality is ravenous and promiscuous, and such women don't seek "Alpha Fux and Beta Bux." They fuck anyone they like, and I noticed that when I was 16 years old - because I was one of the objects of their wants. And guess what? It was no big deal, because I was just one of many.

How would it make you feel to know you were one of thirty? Who's really the disposable Sex Object here?

How's that for "Alpha"? That is, not at all. I'm not an Alpha. In high school I was, if anything, a long-haired, pot-smoking, science-fiction reading, hippie-nerd who partied a lot. I looked like Garth Algar. Today, I'd be playing video games and programming computers.

For that matter, I will mention again women can't be that naturally promiscuous and "shit-test" men at the same time. They also can't be attracted to Bad Boy bikers and rich, handsome "Alphas" simultaneously, unless there really are wealthy, tattooed, meth-dealing, bike-riding George Clooneys out there.

My experience has been women's sexuality is far more narcissistic than men's. In fact, I have found women in general to be far more narcissistic than men, which is another reason they're a clusterfuck and whack everything they get involved in.

This is dangerous stuff. It's why all societies have repressed women's sexuaity. Because unleashed, it'll bring down society.

That is just about the only thing the Manosphere has gotten right. The rest is fantasies, cherry-picking, fallacies of composition, and misinterpreting studies.

23 comments:

Marko said...

"This is dangerous stuff. It's why all societies have repressed women's sexuaity. Because unleashed, it'll bring down society.

That is just about the only thing the Manosphere has gotten right. The rest is fantasies, cherry-picking and misinterpreting studies."

True dat.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you were one of the guys which girls lusted after, but if you were like me, the bookworm or nerd, who was a virgin until his mid 20s, then the situation is vastly different. In my early 20s I approached a young lady and received a nuclear rejection for my troubles. I never approached another girl for over a year and in essence withdrew from the dating scene altogether. I effectively went MGTOW. I quickly realized that if I didn’t do anything then I would remain celibate for the rest of my life. I started lifting weights, learned how to dress better and then slowly started talking to women, but initially, never with the intent of asking them out. I realize now that they were giving me IOIs, but didn’t recognize them for what they were and thus never acted on them. The result was that I never asked anyone out for another year after that.
I learned what is called “GAME” the hard way, in that I observed for myself what worked and doesn’t work. While you may diss Roissy and others, what I found was that they largely preach the truth. For a natural such as yourself, you may scoff at the advice, but for the bookworm nerd, their advice was a lifesaver.
The misunderstanding comes from what is being taught and at which level. To illustrate, imagine you are just learning how to drive. Moves to help you win the Grand Prix will do the beginner no good at all. You need to build up the basic skills before advancing to the higher levels. Likewise with women. After my epiphany, it still took yet another year before I got laid. After that it was regular until I met my wife. Of course after that it was only with her.
The life stories of men differ widely, and because someone has taken a different path doesn’t invalidate their experience.

Anonymous said...

From immediately above:
"I effectively went MGTOW. I quickly realized that if I didn’t do anything then I would remain celibate for the rest of my life. I started lifting weights, learned how to dress better and..."

"...their advice was a lifesaver."

lol

you go girl!

Gouverneur said...

Bob,

You were obviously a natural, who never got brainwashed like millions of other men.

Good for you.

But bragging about it just makes you a bitch.

You take up a lot of space talking about how dudes like CH aren't 'real men' but that you are. This constant attempt at one-upmanship simply exposes you for the try-hard that you are.

You aren't hard. You aren't intimidating. And you're certainly not the old school real man that you keep talking about. You're just a bitch.

So go eat a dick. And for the love of God, stop menstruating about the 'dark triad' qualities.

de ti said...

Bob:

Believe me when I say that I'm glad you didn't get a different story growing up like many other men did. Because I can tell you straight out that your experience was most definitely NOT mine.

Oh, I saw glimpses of "women behaving badly". But young men are impressionable and have to be taught carefully. I was told that I was NOT seeing those glimpses. No, I was told, "you're not seeing what you think you're seeing." Everyone around me told me they were lies from scumbags, lowlifes and perverts. No, I was to follow the enlightened, progressive "high road". I was not to look at what women did. I was to listen to what they said.

I was to give women whatever they wanted because they deserved it.

Women were more moral, more spiritual, more religious, more naturally pointed to God, more family oriented, more inclined toward love, hearth and home.


That message that women devolve into sexually uncontrollable bonobos in heat? I didn't get that memo. Mom and Dad, teachers, pastors and Scout leaders rewrote it to state that it was MEN, not women, who acted like animals when it came to sex.

And don't tell me "well, all you had to do was look around". Nope. I was kept from all that and carefully taught that anything anyone else said was a lie. If I did see female feral behavior, I was told "nope. That's a lie. You're not seeing what you think you're seeing."

I didn't come out of that until I was much older.

So believe me when I say I'm glad you didn't get those messages and have to spend a few years unlearning decades of falsehoods and lies.

de ti said...

Bob:

Whatever it was that YOU were taught and shown, wasn't what a lot of us men were taught and shown. I certainly didn't learn and see the things you learned and saw. Perhaps you lived in "the real world" and I was given a bubble wrapped, sanitized version of it. But whatever else happened, not all men got to learn what you learned at a young age.

Glen Filthie said...

I like Vox. You saying there is no such thing as alpha and beta males makes me laugh. Vox certainly IS an alpha in every sense of the word; he has the readership to show for it, and he can make feminists foam at the mouth and cream their jeans with a dirty look! HAR HAR HAR! I have a hen pecked beta male father in law too. These people exist; but perhaps not to the extent the boys of the manosphere suggest.

The manosphere got a lot right too, though. Don't take women seriously; care for yourself and your health; go your own way and get your head on straight rather than letting women tear you to ribbons.

My woman selected me and took me off the market as quickly and completely as possible. If that makes me a bitch so be it, but I am well fed, happy and my wife is not the screeching whore that passes for the modern female today.

It all makes for good reading and entertainment. I think a lot of your experiences Bob, are with older ladies too. Your experiences and observations will be quite different from these younger fellas in the game now.

I look at my daughter and simply write her off. I don't like the way she thinks, she is the proof of everything Bob has said, so who knows? We always run into problems when we generalize.

jsl2837 said...

Hi Bob,
Your blog is one of my favs. I got a lot from your recent articles on "inside circles" and public schooling. You're INTJ, I'm INTP.

There's many red flags in this post though. I'm surprised you didn't notice. Your recent posts attacking the red pill also seemed rather biased to me; but I digress.

- You're a natural alpha who claims there are no fixed sexual winners and losers amongst men.

- You agree that women's sexual desires can be "base/animalistic", yet you deny that their sexual desires could be pluralistic and opportunistic, as defined by the red pill i.e. tingles when they're young and hot vs provisioning when they're older.

There is a whole side of the picture ignored by your analysis: Why millions of otherwise kind, intelligent, hardworking, but 'boring/low-SMV/beta' men cannot get laid to save their lives, while millions of not-quite-so-virtuous but 'interesting/high-SMV/alpha' cads have as much sex as they want. Handwaving it away as just "personal preference" on the part of the millions of girls doing the selecting seems like a big cop-out.

Strawman 1: The red pill has never claimed to be a new invention; it does claim to be at least partly a reiteration of the ancient knowledge that you mention.

Strawman 2: The red pill makes it clear that pickup lines are only a beginner's crutch.

Just because I like what the red pill says does not mean I don't believe in love. Rather I think modern culture is setting young men up to fail, just like public schools are setting up the majority of people to become wage slaves and corporate drones.

I've questioned myself before whether it's reasonable to attribute such ammoral behavior/thoughts/instincts to females. I believe it's only a commensurate opposite to the ammorality/evil that men are capable of in their own gender-specific way.

I do very much see the beauty in people whenever I may, but nature has a dark side; I am not so hubristic as to believe human mating is exempted.

-with warm regards

Bob Wallace said...

Day and Roissy are mixing good advice with horrible, and they unfortunately cannot tell the difference.

Anonymous said...

Eh, you conflate the most abused/damaged women with women in general. All your examples are girls with extensive abuse/neglect histories. That's not the norm for women and doesn't at all prove anything about generic womankind.

Bob Wallace said...

I did not know about the history of any of those girls in high school, but I got the impression some of had problems with their fathers, the way they latched onto me. Please don't pretend you know anything about me or my history unless I tell you.

Anonymous said...

Wow Bob, this thread has become very lively.

I found something not related to this topic, but when I read it, I immediately thought of you. You've implied it in the past, but this is the first time I've seen it addressed specifically.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/05/how-personal-relationships-threaten-the-power-of-the-state/

Anonymous said...

has no one noticed bob is a knob ...he posts a lot of shite half mixed with the truth and a lot of shit ...ill bet he just wants the traffic and attention....any man will boycott bobs site cause he is a leftwing liberalpussy ...he must not even read his own blog one minutr he says he is fine with ambiguity the next he posts links to heretical what a stupid man

Bob Wallace said...

I'm not a leftist or a liberal...sheesh.

Cadders said...

I'm a regular reader of your blog Bob and I have always been a little non-plussed at your disdain for the manosphere / red pill.

Like other commentators here it has literally changed my life. What you see as so obvious that it is worthy only of sneers and mockery, is for many, like me, literary a life changer. By any measure my life is hugely improved compared to my pre-red pill days.

So I have been wondering when you would flesh out your perspective; now that you have I can only assume you are a natural. There is nothing here that shakes what I have learned in the last few years.

I try to keep an open mind and enjoy your blog - I'm not having a pop - but it took me 4 decade to 'get' what you understood at 16.

I suspect there are many more men like me than you - a blind spot that perhaps you don't recognise.

Bob Wallace said...

I am not a natural. I was never told to be a nice guy to women - and I saw how horrible how women could be when I was 12. I do not understand how any man could not see how horrible they could be at 12 - and how could anyone be nice to an awful person is beyond me.

As for my disdain for some of the Manosphere, it is only for the bad part. It's clear to me that Roissy, for example, is a hypocrite - he doesn't even follow his own advice he gives to others. And some of his advice is horrible. I once made fun of one of his cheesy pick-up lines and he got very upset. Some "amused mastery," huh?

some random guy said...

Geez, Bob. You're so awesome. Please tell us more about how wonderful you are and how fucked up all us other guys are.

Yours in narcissism,
some random guy who isn't as cool as you

Bob Wallace said...

Cool? You wouldn't want half of my life when I was in high school and college.

Anonymous said...

lol there's a lot of insecure butthurt commenters on this post.

Bob Wallace said...

Some of them don't seem to understand there is no perfection and everything needs criticism. If there is no opposition there can be no advancement. If some found the Manosphere a life-changer, I'm all for it. But not all the advice is good and some of it is very bad indeed.

marlon said...

"The manosphere got a lot right too, though. Don't take women seriously; care for yourself and your health; go your own way and get your head on straight rather than letting women tear you to ribbons."

My conclusion on the manosphere, and aid to sorting sense from nonsense is this:

What's good isn't new and what's new isn't good.

The quoted advice is good but it is ancient. It is good that the manosphere promotes it but it can be found in other places.

Anonymous said...

13yo girls trying to have dudes take their virginity=neglected/abused without even asking them directly. Same for 15yos pretending to be drunk to have a train run on them. The behaviors you described are how girls with those problems act. And it's not normal/typical/usual for teenaged girls. So presenting them as generic is quite misleading.

Bob Wallace said...

I didn't represent them as generic. Not even close. I pointed out that's what happens when they get out from under male authority, that is, their fathers. It's what happens when fathers fail daughters and men fail women in general. Most women are children, anyway.