Tag: morality

Stay Out Of My Bedroom

Rob Says1 Comment

Originally I wasn’t going to write a post for this Monday, and that’s because I haven’t been on social media much this last week or this last weekend. I’ve been busy working on “remastering” my audio podcasts. And when I got home from hanging out with Teriyaki this morning, I opened Twitter and the above screenshot was one of the first things that I saw, and here we are.

I tweeted about a week ago, and in that tweet I said, “Trads AND the Rainbow Brigade need to stay the fuck out of my bedroom.” That tweet ties into the screenshot as well.

I’ve realized that the “Manosphere” has morphed over the years and it has morphed into something that I think is a waste of time. “Back in the good old days,” the ‘Sphere was something that came about for men to get together to learn from each other about how to get laid. Even at the tender age of 49 years old, I’m not a complete master at getting laid and so I’m always interested in what someone else can teach me when it comes to this particular subject. I’m all for improving my Game and getting better at getting laid more often and faster.

Nowadays the ‘Sphere has morphed into two major factions, that being guys who are still interested in getting pussy, and everybody else. The everybody else is there to primarily shame guys into living a lifestyle that may not be for that guy that is being shamed.

“If you don’t fuck the way I do, you are doing it wrong.”

“If you fuck anyway other than missionary and only for procreational purposes, you are a bad, evil, degenerate man.”

“If you won’t fuck somebody who used to be a man, you are transphobic.”

“If you fuck anybody outside of an approved age group, (MY approved age group) you are a pervert.”

Lots of morality being tossed around as if it has any worth to me.

The whole lot of you need to mind your own business and stay the fuck out of my bedroom. What I do in there and with whom I do it is none of your business. This is my biggest gripe when it comes to both the Trad side of things as well as the Rainbow Brigade. Both sides are basically telling me I’m doing it “wrong,” because I’m not doing it their way.

Learning game, pick up, seduction, whatever you want to call it, is an amoral skill. Seduction itself is amoral. It simply IS. You either learn to seduce or you don’t, and if you don’t do it, someone else will, and you’ll be the one left out in the cold with your dick in your hand. Literally.

Who cares if a “party girl who sleeps around” can become a great housewife or not? Why would you want to get married in today’s day and age anyway? The screenshot is one of morality, not one of skill or ability. What defines a “great housewife” anyways? I’ll go ahead and answer that question for shits and giggles though:

Question: Can a party-girl who “sleeps around a lot” become a great housewife or partner for the right guy?

Simple answer: You already answered the question dude, and that answer is yes. I believe any woman can “change her evil ways” for “the right guy.” But that’s the simple, throwaway answer that looks great in a tweet.

The real answer: It depends. It depends on a whole host of factors that could take volumes to write about, think about, and are going to be fairly complex. I could probably write a 1000 page book on whether a “party girl” turned “good girl” would actually be a “good girl” and in the end she may or may not actually become that said “good girl.” But I’m not going to write that book because it wouldn’t apply to all women, just to one or two particular women that I would have to know in real life, not digital pixels on the internet.

Basically the question being asked is nonsense and nothing more than mental masturbation with a side of morality thrown in. The question doesn’t matter really, because it’s not useful. The question doesn’t teach me anything about getting better with Game or getting laid. It doesn’t teach me anything useful when it comes to dating or relationships. It doesn’t teach me how to have a relationship, if that was what I was looking for, it only asks if you the reader thinks that a hoe can be turned into a housewife.

I have seen a lot of guys masquerading as “players” in the ‘Sphere in recent times. Guys who are claiming that they either want or know how to Game women. Supposed “degenerates” that are turning out to be nothing more than Trad 2.0 when it comes down to it. I’m tired of people shoving their morality down my throat. Stay the fuck out of my bedroom.

Sharpen Your Mind. Weaponize It. Start here and here. Sign up for my newsletter.

It’s An Invitation.

Rob SaysLeave a comment

red envelope with fresh red flowers inside

A guy I follow on Twitter posed an interesting question:

A good-looking (7.5) extremely fit girl in the gym that I see often engage in some dribble of a conversation then tells me her boyfriend has been sent to overseas for an assignment. Is this an opening or a way to keep me away :-)?

I told him: It’s an invitation.

Whether he wants to do anything with that information is totally up to him. I don’t care either way.

Other people chimed in with their two cents, some saying yay, and some saying nay. I’m going to get into that in a minute as well. For right now, I just want to focus on the question or more precisely, the mindset to have in this situation, should it ever arise for you.

Always assume the sale.

If she’s talking to you, she may not want sex, at least at that moment, but she’s interested. If she does more than nod at you or talk to you in one word answers, she interested in you. Women are fantastic at not fucking guys they don’t want to fuck. Women are fantastic at letting you know when they are not interested in you, all you need to do is pay attention.

Most guys fuck this up though because they are stuck in their heads, too busy overanalyzing the situation. When you’re stuck in your head, you aren’t paying attention to what she is saying or how she is saying it. You’re too busy thinking what you’re going to say next. You’re not really listening, you’re just waiting your turn to talk. When you’re stuck in your head, you miss all the little cues and body language and whatnot that she is literally throwing at you. When you are stuck in your head overanalyzing things, odds are that you are overanalyzing the wrong things. You’re worried about if you are coming off as “cool,” or “witty,” or “funny,” or “smart,” or any number of things.

That shit doesn’t matter. You’re focusing on the wrong things. Ideally you should be focusing on her.

It’s always better to assume the sale than to not assume the sale.

I don’t know how many times I see guys fucking it up for themselves and either giving her a reason to not fuck him, or he talks himself out of a damn near sure thing. The 80/20 Rule is big on Twitter yet again, (what is old is new again) and I guess guys want to take it from a guideline to a Law.

Seduction and talking to women is an art, not a science. There are no hard “laws” when it comes to it. This isn’t chemistry or physics, this is talking to women. All the statistics, graphs, data, hypotheses, and logic don’t mean shit when it comes time to walk over and talk to her.

Sure the odds are against you. They are against all men, even “Chad.” Women are the selectors when it comes to sex. Even “Chad” has to work at it to get laid, he may not have to work at it as hard or as much as you or I do, but he still has to work at it.

It’s better to assume the sale and think that she’s interested in you than not. Thinking she’s not interested in you is just a form of defeat. You’ve already lost before you even showed up. Since we are creatures that have confirmation bias, if you think she’s not interested in you, then those are the signs and signals that you will look for. You literally won’t be able to see signs of interest from her. It’s better to assume the sale and see signs of interest, even if they aren’t actually there.

Since seduction isn’t a “hard science,” you can and do affect the outcome of any and every interaction that you have with women. If you assume she’s interested, she may very well be interested from the get-go, or she may become interested in a short period of time while you are conversing with her. But you’ll never know that if you assume she isn’t interested. Not to sound all new agey, but your thoughts and beliefs do affect your outcomes and results. I do think a lot of the “pick up” guys would agree with me on this one. Call it “vibe” or whatever you like.

Another thing I noticed in the interaction with the guy who asked the question I quoted was not only the yay’s and nay’s, but particularly the reasoning behind the nay’s, even though he didn’t ask for it.

The naysayers were mostly coming from a place of morality:

“If she has a bf she has a bf… that should be the end of it.”

“Stay clear either way… If she is signaling that her BF is away and she wants to play, then she has no morals avoid. If she is hedging you…avoid.”

“Who cares? She has a bf, find a single girl to pursue.”

Women who want to fuck will find a way and find someone to fuck. It might be you, it might be me, it may very well be somebody else, but she’ll do it. In my opinion, it might as well be me.

Guys that tend to use morality and shame men into not fucking women, whether those women are “taken” or not, tend to be “low value men” as far as I’m concerned. Why do any of these guys care what the questioner does or not? It’s not their girlfriend is it? So why care?

Scarcity mentality and the fact that the guy doing the shaming and projecting his morality onto others because he isn’t getting any sex or doesn’t have many options is why. I have a feeling that this type of guy would make a horrible wing man if you were to ever go out to meet women. I think he would be the type to either end up cockblocking you or he would throw you under the bus because he wants a stab at the girl that you are talking to in addition to the girl that he may or may not be talking to. He wants them all because there just aren’t “enough to go around.”

I believe it was Rollo who said something to the extent of, “Alpha’s don’t commit to just one woman because they have options. Beta’s commit and invest heavily into one woman because they don’t have options.” I’m paraphrasing heavily here, but you get the idea.

If women “break rules for Alpha’s and make rules for Beta’s,” it’s also Beta men who make “rules” for other men to follow. Especially when it comes to women.

Keep that in mind when you are dealing with another man, whether online or in real life.

Sharpen Your Mind. Weaponize It. Start here and here. Sign up for my newsletter.

Morality and Biology

Rob Says1 Comment

affection art backlit couple

Recently I’ve been listening to Sex at Dawn and Mating in Captivity while I’ve been out and about doing my route. (Hey it rhymes!) Both audio books have given me a lot of food for thought.

A lot of people have decried and discredited Sex at Dawn, saying that the research is biased and that the author’s have their own agenda. I would agree with the agenda part for sure, some of their language that they use and the way that they write (or in this case, the way that it was narrated) makes an agenda very apparent. I’ve seen and heard that there are other books and whatnot that, at the very minimum, refute a lot of what the author’s had to say. (Sex at Dusk comes to mind, as well as Promiscuity.)

There is a “statement” of sorts that the authors of Sex at Dawn mentioned several times throughout the book that got me to thinking though, and it goes something like this:

If monogamy is our “natural” state, if it is our “natural” sexual strategy, then why do we need to enforce it?

We’ve had years of religion and family forcing monogamy down our throats. We’ve enacted laws, both past and present, that either try to curtail “extramarital activities,” or provide punishments for those who get “caught.” We’ve even got tax break incentives for people to get married.

If monogamy is our “natural” sexual state/strategy, then why adultery? Why “cheating?” Why the “cock carousel?” Why do we need to enforce monogamy if that is our natural state? Why is it both men and women usually end up having multiple partners over the years?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe monogamy is our natural state. At least it’s not mine. The idea of being with just one woman for the rest of my life, at least sexually, doesn’t really appeal to me. I’m glad for the experiences that I have had, and intend to have more before I’m done.

My argument, my complaint, is with the fact that bias and morality end up in research when it comes to damn near everything. I know that confirmation bias is a real thing. I know that we as human beings, as people, are not infallible and that we end up usually looking for things to confirm our ideas, our outlooks if you will, instead of actually seeking “the truth.” It just gets so frustrating when you want to learn about a subject and it seems that for every article, or paper, or what-have-you, there is another article, paper, etc., that refutes it.

Sex at Dawn cites a lot of studies and research that points to the notion that we as human beings aren’t naturally inclined to monogamy. Apparently Sex at Dusk (I haven’t read it yet, so I don’t know for certain. It’s on my next to read list) refutes a lot of what Sex at Dawn had to say.

That seems to be the problem with a lot of “research” these days, and maybe it always has been this way. One study or finding points at one thing, and then another points in a totally different direction, refuting the orginal premise. Who is “right?” Who is “wrong?”

I just want to find the truth. That’s all I’m looking for, is the truth. What is, instead of what “ought to be” or what “should be.” This is what I find so frustrating with many things and is why I tend to “go off” on moralists and purists. I don’t want your morality, I just want the facts. I want the truth. Stop selling me your agenda and just show me the information that points to how things are.

This is why I take issue with the “patriarchy” and TradCon crowd. I don’t have a problem with their message as a whole, but I do have a problem when they are offering it up as “the truth” when clearly you can see, on a daily basis, that the only real patriarchy that exists in the United States and in the West today is the State. If monogamy and marriage were the “natural ways” of us being, then why no-fault divorce? If patriarchy really exists in our modern times, then why do men get divorce raped and have no authority in their marriages?

Again I ask, if monogamy is our “natural sexual strategy,” then why all of the laws and whatnot that enforces it? If monogamy was our “natural state,” then wouldn’t we be doing it as a whole? Why would we need laws and social or cultural customs to enforce it? We don’t need laws and codes of enforcement in order to make us take a shit or to eat, so if monogamy is “natural,” why the enforcement, and why do we as a whole seem to be going against what is supposed to be biologically natural for us?

Sharpen Your Mind. Weaponize It. Start here and here. Sign up for my newsletter.