The more I witness as a young man, the nuances of female behavior, the more I'm both disgusted...and oddly fascinated by them.(A short rant)

Still new to living in an urban area outside of my small town experiences. But man has this been eye opening.

Not going to lie, some things I've learned outright depress me. Some of them fascinate me, and some do both.

Like last night's debacle. I know these two women. For the sake of privacy I won't mention their names.

One's a lesbian The other's straight...one's a little older, the other is much younger...and both are the poster childs for hypergamy.

I've hung with these two. Granted, I don't buy into their bullshit, but just watching them, I got a full on crash course in females in general.

Let's start with the lesbian. Young, attractive woman in her 20s. About a 7.5 generally in looks. Acts very manly but still has a weird feminine charm about her. Is both naïve and very selfish but isn't very good at it. Always comes to me when she needs something but never actually reciprocates the favors. I'm used to it so I don't ask. I'll help out of my free will.

The woman has a legion of followers, mostly men who are desperately trying to get in her pants, at her beck and call. I notice this shit. She's surprised I don't get with her. Why? I may like pussy but damn, I'm not fucking someone who clearly isn't into guys, and who seems to be kinda...well.....dumb.

Despite her beauty, she calls herself naïve. In a way, she is. But what she doesn't realize, or maybe she does and doesn't want to admit it, is that she's so damn manipulative that it makes people HATE HER.

Especially other women.

Then there's this older woman in her late 30s. I've seen her old videos and I won't lie.

100 percent certified knockout beauty. Relatively speaking. This woman, from what I can tell, has had almost everything handed to her by men on a silver platter because of her previous beauty. But then drugs got to her.

She went from a 9 to a 4 in 5 years.

And it made her age like a mofo. Suddenly most of those high status guys aren't looking her way, and I can tell it frustrates her. Instead she finds random guys to feed her addiction. And in my unfortunate case, she will sink to some dark depths to get what she wants, including theft.

She tends to cling to me like glue, making claims that she loves me and that we're best friends. I'm civil about it, but I know it's all bullshit. Shame it is. Only acts that way when she wants something and ignores me when she doesn't.

Once her beauty faded and she got fatter, she turned into a bitter person who spends every waking moment of her life getting drunk and high at the same time.

These two ladies, who already made claims to me that they hate each other, converged and acted like best buddies.

The subject of men came up. The older one was accused to having a boyfriend. So said lesbian asked

"Do you love this guy?"

Then a bomb of truth hit me in the face like a 180 kiloton nuclear bomb. The radiation still affects me a day after.

Her exact words

"I don't love men. I love their money."

Straight from the horse's mouth, ladies and gentlemen.

Now, I'm not in a good financial spot. To be perfectly honest, I'm struggling, but it's only temporary so I'll ride out the storm.

But seeing that go down...I could just shake my head while herds of other woman sat there in unison, laughing.

The men just cringed.

Disney lied to us folks. Society lied to us. It's still pretty damn painful to see no matter how many clues are in front of your face.

What I learned is with those two. I'm their friend, but they sure as hell aren't mine.

Anyone who still feels weak for women here, it's perfectly natural. Just don't illusion yourself.

Nature doesn't care about your feelings. But you still have the free will to live your life however you please.

Don't let the drug control you. You control the drug.

Woman are not your salvation. If anything, if you're not careful, they will be your downfall. (see Helen of Troy)

^Learn this, and enjoy them for what they are...aesthetically pleasing distractions from the mundane bullshit...just don't fall for them or let them use you up.

Rant over.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am craving some pizza.

Natsu, out!

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Natsume21[S] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greetings15 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Natsume21[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Aspergers here as well. My senior year of college when I was dating my ex she stated she didn't mind my lacking social skills because I was "smart and will make a lot of money". Im not boasting. This is what she said. Now a blue pill retard will say "wow a girl loves me regardless of condition I'm so lucky I have a unicorn". I on the other hand thought to myself "wow so if I wasn't making a lot of money suddenly my aspergers is a problem? "

The universe makes sense now.

Yup. You could probably LITERALLY be a short, squat, fat, lecherous "leper" (we're talking like crusty, oozing, puss filled sores on your face or parts of your body)...

But so long as you were also actual "royalty" (social status) -- say a real "Prince" from some oil-rich shiekdom/sandpit -- and/or you otherwise (say son of a Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs level capitalist) AND so you had sufficient wealth (ready to hand millions, and potentially heir to even more) -- you would nevertheless have more than "plenty" of women (of every description) who would be quickly capable of completely overlooking any and all of those conditions.

Of course the instant any of the money or status disappeared... "poof" they'd be gone too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

friends repeat the same cycle over and over again.

I saw that as early as junior high school (when having a "girlfriend" was mostly just vapid posturing, passing notes, and other assorted BS) -- but then the same basic cycles happened again in high school, college & early career; and into marriage.

About the only things that changed as they got older were: 1) the level of actual intimate "activity"; 2) the length of each iteration of the cycle (days to weeks, then to months, then years); 3) the level of cash/resources squandered, and the depth of the betrayal/despondency.

What remained essentially the same -- pretty much regardless of age, whether 10~12 years old or 30~40+ years old (and in some cases even people in their 50's & 60's) -- was the superficiality of the attraction/reasons for liking or pursuing the girl/guy in the first place; and conversely the vanity (not haaaaapy) and/or hypergamy (cheating) as the basis for the breakup; oh and of course the sheer viciousness of at least one of the parties (usually the female, but sometimes both) during the period of the breakup.

Oh, and one other thing remained the same -- the clueless line of "didn't see it coming" from the guys -- even though it had usually been obvious as all hell to everyone else from the get-go.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I also can't stand the brainwashing that appears to happen, whenever I hear someone talk about something and they say "we" or "us" I automatically assume that they are whipped and codependent.

LOL... don't know that it's necessarily "brainwashing", but there certainly is a "manipulation" attempt going on.

And it's an entirely normal, "natural" one.

Whenever someone is pushing some agenda and tries the inclusive "we" or "us", whether they fully realize it in the abstract sense or not, what they are effectively doing is trying to get you to believe you are becoming part of some "inner circle" or group/tribe; there's an implication that IF you will simply "bend" or adopt or even just not object to things the other person is proposing or advocating that this (rather amorphous) group, this collective "we/us" (which may be quite small or quite large) will somehow "have your back"...

Of course said group (gang) may very well -- and just as easily -- turn on/against you if or when you ever step out of line with the people who actually "run" the group.

Human group dynamics are a REALLY interesting thing to observe.

What is perhaps most astounding is to see how SMALL of a "core" is necessary to manipulate & control a larger group.

Most people these days have heard of Dunbar's number, aka the so called "monkeysphere" -- that most humans really only have the cognitive capacity (although some argue that it's just as much a matter of available time) to maintain a limited total number of "relationships" -- and that number is generally pegged at around 150 people (plus or minus ~50).

That's an important number when it comes to group dynamics as well -- get beyond that number of people, and you end up with essentially a "herd" or "mob"; and the method of managing it (controlling its behavior if you want to take the cynical view -- or if you take the beneficial view of preventing it from "stampeding") typically has to become more formalized & hierarchical... a "flat" structure (or single layer of management) really no longer works, in part because everyone CANNOT personally know or even identify all of the other members of the group on sight (hence the use of emblems, uniforms, etc -- which often then not only serve to identify members of the group versus non-members, but also as a method of conveying "rank" or status within the group {most crudely the officers versus NCO's versus the enlisted, etc}.)

But few people are AS aware of the "lesser" critical numbers (which granted are a bit more theoretical/dubious, and even more of a "rule of thumb" kind of thing)... and those are the group of 11, and the core of 3.

Because that Dunbar group size is the limit of how many people you can "more or less" know on a familiar basis -- virtually no one can actually maintain close "control" over such a large group; at least not without the 11 and the 3.

And this is an interesting thing to watch happen... any community gathering or other "thrown-together" group of up to 150 people, can be EASILY "dominated" and controlled by a "group" of 3 individuals. All three of them don't even have to be some "alpha" type -- they just have to "have each others backs" and be in pretty solid general agreement. (Now there ARE some caveats there, the 3 people actually HAVE to be "individuals", that is they cannot be closely related {a husband + wife + son triad for example seldom works as a "core} -- and ideally while they are "aligned" and in agreement with each other, they ought to be otherwise perceived as "independent".)

That core group of three can, by the way, obviously "dominate" any official board of 5, and even easily control boards of 7, or 9 people that they are members of -- the chief aspect of such control is simply that the core group of 3 makes certain it is ALWAYS present (i.e. never skipping/missing a meeting) because it's a piece of cake for a clique of 3 to get 1 or 2 others from the remaining members to "side" with them on any issue (assuming it is even necessary to get others to side with them, given that very often other "board members" will be absent and "3" will in and of itself likely represent a majority)... and it is irrelevant which of the remaining members does or doesn't side with them on any issue (at least unless there is a "block" of another "3" that is equally committed to opposing and/or pushing their own agenda).

But what is to my mind REALLY interesting to observe is that IN a larger group -- even absent any formal structure -- that a core group of "3" people can easily dominate a group of 100+.

One of the reasons is that around that core of three there will invariably form a larger circle -- generally around 8 or 9 more people (which with the core 3 = 11 to 12)... ALL that really requires is that the core 3 people form strong "connections" with 2 to 3 others (it's even possible that 1 of the 3 core members is somewhat "weak", provided that another is unusually "strong" or charismatic, the weak one then only needs to bring an additional 1 other member, because the stronger one will bring in 3, 4, 5 others).

Of course it HELPS if the core group + its wider circle appear to be a "DYNAMIC" one... that is a group that others (among the otherwise far less organized remaining "mass" of people) want to themselves either associate with, or else NOT oppose.

That then forms ANOTHER (albeit less loyal, less tightly bonded) circle around the 11... which too can easily bring in another 30+ people onto the "side". Against that is the remainder of the large group -- which while it SEEMS to be a "majority" (probably 60+ even 100+ individuals), it is really nothing of the kind -- it's just an ambiguous mixture of individuals all with (at most) very weak "bonds" to each other (generally there will be lots of "pair" bonds -- that is 2 individuals, but without a strong bond to or loyalty from a third, who likewise probably has some single "pair" bond they are a part of.)

And one should note that women and "couples" by definition are a big part of limiting that: the "wife" typically demands such a strong bond/devotion from hubby, that he is prevented from forming any actual "strong" bonds with even one other "independent" person; and any while it might seem that two couples would form a stronger 4-some core group, it really DOESN'T work that way.

It's also why single men (and strong, pushy single women) can end up being -- whether they realize it or not -- MAJOR influences over such groups... simply because by NOT being part of some "couple" single guys are able to more easily form a "triad" group. (And then that of course leads to a reason why groups that mainly consist of couples so often seek to either EXCLUDE single males, or else to get them to "pair off" with a woman, because the latter effectively eliminates/weakens those men's ability to form a loyal "strong bond" triad.)

Sorry, I know that's all like a hugely tangential digression away from your point; but really... it's more or less at the center of what you were talking about.

Because the point of the "we/us" is usually someone who is seeking to at least TRY to build one of those "core triad (3) groups" -- or to add you onto some surrounding circle -- and most often they fail (usually because they haven't yet build a "core of 3" but instead are trying to craft a circle around a core "pair" which is inherently weaker).

Just some odd insights & observations that I thought others might find interesting/fascinating.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That was an interesting read! Do you have any resources for more information on this subject?

Alas, nothing handy that I can give you a link to.

The "eleven" number is sort of my own distillation of various readings on the dynamics of groups of people in organizations (including churches, hobby groups, local community associations, etc.) -- and of course how the "politics" work out within them -- but the core "triad" is something I picked up from someone else, and of course the fact that their is a slightly larger "circle" around that core is a given.

There's a generally accepted norm that in any given organization less than 10% of the membership is truly "ACTIVE", and only 10% of that (i.e. 1%) actually ends up "running" things -- though exactly which 1% varies over time, as people get burned out, die off, move away, leave the organization etc. (Again, alas no link though I'll see if I can dig some up for you -- because by asking, you've reminded me that I probably OUGHT to have some references, and of course the subject IS interesting).

I guess off the cuff I'd suggest looking into C.S. Lewis' writings -- his essay on "inner circle" for example (and various tidbits within other works, especially within his essay on "philia" or brotherly-affection with the "Four Loves" book), or likewise several of the essay by C. Northcote Parkinson (his classic "Parkinson's Law" and "Parkinson's Law of Triviality" are -- while generally taken {as intended} as more than somewhat satirical/sarcastic, are also "spot on" in terms of their basis in reality, the fact that he writes/relates them in a tongue-in-cheek manner doesn't {shouldn't} lessen the fact that they are largely true).

Of course you can go back to the works from, by and about the Ancient Greek; though it's a bit tough to chew some of that down to what I've mentioned, nevertheless they noted similar things, especially around the various "demos" ponderings and the prior Archons (most particular the Athenian leadership system of "nine" concurrent leaders or "Archons" -- very similar to modern "boards of directors" [or trustees, governors, regents, etc] -- and within that group the "core" three designated leaders, the Eponymous "Archon", the Polemarch, Basileus, etc).

And then there's the later examples of the various Roman era triumvirates, etc.

One should note that these are all DYNAMIC things -- just as the larger communities and/or body politic that they operate within -- they are essentially "unstable" and go through (almost predictable) stages of formation, rise to prominence, then dominance over the larger group... stability & growth for a while (could be months, could be a decade)... then something generally occurs to breakup the core (death or other loss of one of the core 3 the most significant), and either a new ally is brought into the core (usual from the surrounding circle, though that itself especially can cause problems), or else the remaining two split apart and each attempt (and both sometimes succeed) in forming new "core" triads, one or the other taking over, occasionally creating a virtual "civil war" and fight for control... but occasionally the core just implodes and an entirely new "triad" rises up from the outer group.

It's actually rather FASCINATING to watch this kind of thing play out (and I assure you that it does -- it is repeated in EVERY church, EVERY local community association, every 'non-profit' or 'hobby' organization, LOCAL political parties, etc.) -- of course probably the EASIEST place to see this kind of thing is in the sort of "artificial" organizations or communities where by definition there is a regular turnover of an inordinate and MAJOR portion of members/constituents (things like student councils or other orgs at 4 year schools, where at least 25% of the "body" changes each year, and where generally a system of "seniority" is present that prevents leaders from remaining in office for more than 1 or 2 years).

But of course even in just general boring everyday community associations, you can expect that somewhere around 10% of the membership will change each year (deaths, people moving in/out of the area, etc)... so that by the end of a decade the constituency is probably at least 50% and possibly as high as 90% different than it was a decade earlier.

The funny thing is that MOST people switch groups and yet remain in the same "outer" circles; afraid to speak up, reticent to take on any duties or responsibility (and so generally remaining "powerless" at least in terms of that org) -- and conversely the "leaders" who move, also invariably end up (once again) in a leadership position in the new group (often even when they don't actually WANT to be -- it just sort of inevitably happens, not so much for the reasons that are outwardly apparent {i.e. that they've served as a President, or Secretary, or Treasurer in some previous orgs} but rather because they are just the KIND of people that form those "triads" and garner {either via charisma, or character} the kind of "inner circle of 11" around that core).

As I've said... it's a fascinating thing to observe -- and I say that as one of the people who has (normally, alas often more frequently than I want) been one of those "triad" people -- I'm fairly certain that the people who are generally in the (outer) "inner circle of 11" are only vaguely aware -- and that the people who make up the lion's share of the membership are entirely oblivious to how it all works... beyond them often repeating (as if it were a mantra) "Oh I could NEVER do that kind of thing." etc.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If I were you, I would immediately cut both of them out of my life and be brutal about it. Tell them both what's wrong with them and why you want nothing to do with them anymore.

I had to weed out 90% of females from my life (excluding some family members) when I swallowed the red pill and saw past their sweet façade. Coming from a culture where sex before marriage is frowned upon by society, nothing you can do will ever get you in her pants unless you marry her, so the women can be as slutty and manipulative as they want without any repercussions, while the men are raised to be blue pill suck-ups that cater to the needs of every woman with the increased help of sexual frustration.

On the tip of my tongue I can only remember one girl I speak to right now, I see her in uni once or twice a week and we only talk to pass time between lectures, no dates, no favours, no nothing, we just talk about things we like in common (science, technology and sports). She does have some fascinating male hobbies and I admire that, but I'd be far out of my head if I classified her as a NAWALT.

[–]csehszlovakzeThe Hungarian1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cariboo_j2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]csehszlovakzeThe Hungarian0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]csehszlovakzeThe Hungarian0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cariboo_j0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kaihau3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Natsume21[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1337Gandalf1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oldredder1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scaur0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cariboo_j0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments