A rather long and mostly retard-filled thread on SG about the FSSH prompted an equally long and almost as fruitless conversation with an actual autist, that nevertheless made a few things clear to me concerning why people seemed a bit confused or autistically stuck on some point I specifically stated could not and would not form part of the FSSH because… I didn’t include it.
Once again, I think a giant statue to Professor Cipolla needs to be built. Him and Tesla may have been the greatest men the world has produced; but leaving that aside for the moment, let me try and make things even clearer for the autists out there, and those challenged by lack of reading comprehension, or logic capability, or abstract thought… oh you get it, the vast numbers of NPCs.
So my original (rather long in a vain attempt at clarity, where I now realise less is probably more) is here, for reference, but in any case, the FSSH is encapsulated in TL;DR at the end.
Let me start by explaining, as simply as I can, and using short words, what the FSSH is NOT.
It is NOT A static list of “types” of what women are like —and likely to behave as— most of the time, with a rank that is at least partially based on the number of sexual partners she has had.
That is what Vox’s Male SSH is. He has a nice list of “types” and in the original he also had, linked to each one, a somewhat less relevant statistic that was based on a multiple of the number of lifetime sexual partners that each type had compared to the “average” man (which number is around 10, globally, in case you were wondering). I say this was a somewhat less relevant statistic because, firstly the math was a bit off, at least by my experiential reckoning, and also global averages. His numbers would tend to skew the various sizes of population types in a direction that observable reality does not support very well, but, that could be a locality factor. Maybe he was reflecting mostly American numbers and I was referencing lived experience in other countries around the world and/or global numbers. So howsoever much it may be off by (between 10-50% by my global estimation, and even worse if you include the “Lambdas” into the equation) mathematically, it remains relatively irrelevant, more of an indicator than a hard number, which is fine. But that aside, for me that statistic was mostly irrelevant because… well… to be blunt, like a fish doesn’t worry about how much water he has around him, I wasn’t short of female company. My specific circumstances aside though, most men, latched on to that number as if their very existence in the Universe depended on it. Which is understandable, if a little sad, and in any case, Alpha Game was also to some extent or other part of the zeitgeist created by PUAs at the time, and the overwhelmingly “important” point for men was (has always been?) the number of women they can have sex with. So men naturally understand and appreciate such a list with statistics attached. So let me say it again:
The FSSH is NOT:
- A static (almost completely so) list of behavioural traits attributable to a specific “class” of female.
- Related (for the most part) to the number of sexual partners she had, or will have.
In short it is NOT a parallel to the Male SSH Vox came up with. And in fairness, my naming my predictive methodology as the Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is somewhat badly named. The point was mostly to have people understand that there is a way to predict female behaviour that is at least analogous to the Male SSH, in the sense that it can be used to PREDICT female behaviour before it happens, which is useful and in that respect does parallel the Male SSH quite well, but not in METHODOLOGY, only in predictive ability (which remains lower than the Male SSH predictability, but is still a VAST improvement over the general floundering of the average male when it comes to reliably predicting female behaviour).
It has proven helpful to compare the MSSH with the FSSH for men to begin to understand how to use my model, though, in my defence, I really thought I explained all this quite clearly in my original post, but… the unwashed masses have made it clear that my model is a lot more useful for them once they understand the difference from the MSSH better, so… I bow to the masses.
The MSSH describes a mostly static type of behaviour and relates it to the ability/prowess of each type to have sexual relations with women.
Most men get caught in the idea of “what they should be like to get more sex” and then obsess about wanting/needing or fooling themselves that they are or should be, or will be, an Alpha or a Sigma and star in their own James Bond themed all-female (except for them) orgy. Which frankly, is mostly pointless.
Predictability is the Point!
The usefulness of the MSSH, at least as far as I am concerned, has always been it’s rather detailed and quite accurate ability to predict the behaviour of men, based on the type or class or category they fall into. Alphas will behave in ways that a Gamma simply does not understand and can’t replicate, and when he tries to usually end in sexual assault charges being levied against them.
The usefulness of my FSSH is its ability to predict how pretty much almost ANY woman will behave in pretty much almost ANY setting. So in that sense it is analogous to the MSSH, but the methodology used is of a completely different nature, and if you need another analogy, the MSSH might be like doing trigonometry. Once you have figured out the angles and variables, you can locate the needed points and they are stable and predictable.
The FSSH is like doing calculus on the fly to discover the volume or area of a constantly changing shape. It is far more dynamic, requires more intelligence and observation, and women don’t have “classes” as such other than in the broadest sense, because their “rank” best described as a pecking order really, is fluid and dependant on context from minute to minute.
A Male’s rank, once established tends to broadly apply to many aspects of his life.
A Female’s rank on the other hand is mostly contextual and changes with time and place and group one is in, to an extent that is orders of magnitude faster and more dynamic than any male counterpart.
So perhaps I should not call it a Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, but rather, the Kurgan’s Magic Orb of Predicting Female Activity Before it Happens.
You’ll agree that it is a tad less elegant a name though.
How Does the Magic Orb Work?
Let me try and simply list the operating mechanisms of this method and then I will break them down in turn.
You can predict a woman’s behaviour and rank (which rank is almost always temporary or specific to location, timeline, and composition of other people present at any given time) by being aware of:
- The situation itself.
- The relative 1-10 attractiveness of each woman in the interaction.
- The fact women process the world mostly according to their emotions and most important of all:
- Women are essentially solipsistic to the point of their believing the universe is there to please them!
So let’s first explain what is meant by rank in the FSSH
Rank Explained
Rank for men is mostly static. Which is why all civilisations, since the dawn of time, have been, and will continue to be built, by men. Stability in rank is absolutely required for anything involving military action (defence of the tribe) construction projects beyond the individualistic (the workers need to work, the planner to plan, the store keepers to guard the material, the managers to direct work more efficiently, and so on), the application of anything resembling justice (consistency in laws regardless of emotions, applicability to all equally (as much as possible)) and so on.
Women’s rank is temporal and specific to the event, time, place and people present at any give time. This is why they are essentially incapable of building a huge bridge, or a skyscraper, or design a rocketship. Their hierarchy of rank is constantly changing and in an ebb and flow that can mutate severely in minutes at times, and certainly is never stable enough to achieve anything on a scale that goes beyond the immediate, individualistic, or at most family orientated (yes, yes, you screaming harpies, one woman in ten million or so might be the exception, blah, blah, we don’t care, pay attention!).
So what is meant by ‘Rank” for the FSSH? It means the woman in any given group, at any given time, that is in pole position for getting what she wants. And that’s it. Because remember point number 4, the most important one of the FSSH: Women are solipsistic, so everything and everyone, is all about her or relates to her or is going to.
While male rank is generally an indication of not just what he specifically wants to achieve, but rather of how his actions are perceived by other men, not just in relation to themselves alone, but in relation to all sorts of things, from his ideas on leadership, politics, industry, or his physical and mental achievements in various fields, or even his ability to influence events and people.
Female rank, instead, is based on being the one that gets the most, of what she wants the most, at any given time, without looking like a greedy monkey snatching at peanuts more than is absolutely necessary, because a naked display of goldigging or its equivalent, is one of the few things that can alter her overall generic “rank” that is hard to overcome, especially among other females (and eventually, most non-sex-starved men too). It can be a fine balance, so it is naturally more dynamic, because the conditions under which many of the variables play out is almost always dependant on the situation at hand and the participants involved. So, at any given situation, a female’s rank is determined by the other women in the group as being higher for whoever is the woman that gets most of what she wants most. If that is male attention in one context, then it is that, if it is the respect of her church group, then it is that, and so on.
The ability to predict what actions or tactics a specific woman will use in any given situation depends on your ability to observe and evaluate the points I explained above, which in turn are:
Reading the Situation
In any given context where women are involved, you can generally make a good guess at what her primary aim is by observing her behaviour while keeping in mind these three factors:
- Her brain works predominantly based on her emotions (in general terms overall, and in the situation specifically) keeping in mind that stronger emotions overwhelm any tenuous grasp on logic, rationality or common sense she may have, but these emotions are not completely chaotic and wildly unpredictable, they are regulated by two other factors, which are:
- Her attractiveness, which you can use the standard scale of 1 to 10 for, and even more importantly,
- her solipsism. So let’s understand these two factors in the context of her emotions, remember.
2. Her attractiveness would seem to most people to be relevant only in relation to men, and there is some truth to that, but the reality is that women notice each other’s attractiveness and compete with it to spectacular levels even if these are mostly hidden from obvious displays of naked envy. The result is that a woman’s physical attractiveness is an intrinsic part of her own self-identity and it sets a number of parameters for her that are for the most part static. But it is also viewed in this way by other women (and men) so it is both an internal as well as an external reality that they can do little to change but can “weaponise” in various ways when required to get what they want. An obese woman with poor clothing choices, is automatically ranked lower than a sexy one dressed well in almost every setting, but, if the setting is one that specifically has negative connotations with sexiness (a dignified or puritanical church, the funeral of a close relative, grandma’s 95th Birthday, and so on) then the attractiveness, especially if accentuated by actual sexiness in behaviour or clothing choices can be a temporary negative score in that situation, and the matronly and obese woman, with kindness, plentiful food for the grieving family members and effective support for the afflicted, becomes the “star” in that specific context and outranks even the supermodel with the miniskirt. And all other women present would notice and act accordingly. They may still resent the attractive supermodel even if she is dressed appropriately and behaves well, in fact, more so the obese woman, because then, even in this context, the hottie wins again, since she is not only beautiful and appropriately dressed, but she also acts kindly and supportively in a practical way). Generally speaking then, almost always (but not actually always) the physical attractiveness of a woman is about the only statistic you can count on as being mostly somewhat static with relation to her rank in any given situation or group. it forms part of the total weight that is most reliable anyway. Her baseline staring level if you prefer.
3. He solipsism is how she will mix her attractiveness, emotions and wished for outcome that makes her behaviour predictable. Gauging the degree of solipsisms takes some observation, but usually not necessarily long periods of it. One can fairly quickly establish how much or in which aspect a woman’s solipsism is most evident. Does she want to be the centre of attention by her looks, her supposed relevance to the situation or topic at hand, or some other metric? Is she the only doctor in the room and that matters to her? Is she the best skier at the mountain lodge, or just the prettiest? Or sluttiest? etcetera. And the other aspect of it is, what matters to her in this context and situation? Does she want to get the attention of all the good looking men? Of just that ONE man? Or detract the attention a rival is getting from others (on some level ALL other women are rivals, regardless of if it makes any sense or not)? In short, what is she after the most in the context. Does she want to appear to be the most interesting, or kind, or whatever it is? If you can figure that out, which a few minutes of observation in a social setting should do it, you can then begin to understand how the circumstances may affect her emotions and based on the level and direction of solipsism, be able to predict how those emotions and her brand of solipsism, in THAT specific situation, is likely to play out.
As I said, this can take a little practice and requires the ability to NOT be solipsistic yourself, because you literally have to observe another person and how they interact with the world to begin to notice certain intrinsic traits they have as well as how they get affected by the specifics of the ongoing situation.
It is easier to do in groups than one on one. Especially if you are very attracted to the woman in question. Sometimes, the misreading of a woman’s solipsism by a man, because her attractiveness confuses his calibration of it, can border on the comical. When one is in a group, it is far easier to detach somewhat and note the dynamics.
One on One at the Start can be Deceptive
I will provide a somewhat less than flattering example to make the point. There was a time when I briefly met a very attractive woman that turned out to be a stripper. I had met her in a large gathering of people and she was literally supermodel pretty without the anorexia. She was also well-read and witty and definitely above average intelligence. Seeing her in a group also made it obvious she was not only absolutely aware of her looks, but was almost annoyed at them and the reaction it had on pretty much any man with line of sight. She had no interest in any of the attempts men made to make a connection with her, however subtle, and it was clear that any attempt at direct flirtation would go nowhere. So, I stopped thinking about her that way and simply interacted with her and her friend as if they were male colleagues at a seminar or something. She then tentatively brought up rather odd topics that I was actually knowledgeable of and I responded and as a result we made a connection which meant that from then on, we very occasionally remained in touch, I saw her, always in company of other people a couple of times and whatever she was going through in life, I noticed that although she seemed still uninterested in men in general, she did act genuinely friendly towards me. Then time passed and I forgot about her and then one day out of the blue she got in touch and asked me to meet her and made it quite clear she was thinking about us getting together, yet, when we did meet up, her tendency to be stand-offish was again in full effect. Polite and friendly, but certainly not open to the usual flirting I would otherwise have engaged in, which has always been fairly direct in my case. And at this point I was really not often confused by a woman, but her behaviour seemed a little bizarre. By text she made clear references to us becoming a couple, but in person she was far from approachable.
Me being the shy wallflower type I am, I think lasted about one coffee before I told her something along the lines of, well, ok, so let’s find out, at which point she did explain certain things in her life that gave me pause. I am not going to explain here what those things were, because it’s not relevant, but at least I understood that she had valid reasons for not wanting to just end up in bed without knowing about certain other parameters. And they were serious enough that despite her looks and even the possible imagining of living to old age in blissful harmony with her, they made me realise that thinking with any kind of little head here was not going to be worth it. So we went out a couple more times with a view to getting to know each other beyond the physical, which it was clear we both were happy it ticked whatever boxes we might want ticked in that department. We spoke directly and quite brutally, if kindly about ourselves, our lives and expectations and the situations we had, and I came to the conclusion that if she was willing to chance it, I would too, and I told her as much. We finished dinner and I walked her to her car and told her I wanted to kiss her. She smiled and walked on until her car, then she stopped and stood near me waiting, and we kissed. Then she got in her car and left.
Good result right? Great. And then the next time we met she acted like we were just friends again and I was again confused and thought, okay maybe she changed her mind, whatever. But then she called again and asked to see me again, and when we met up she was kind of enthusiastic, but I just gave her a peck on the cheek, which was the usual way we greeted, and not a kiss and she kind of froze. And I realised in that instant she’d wanted to be kissed, and I had not. And this was absolutely due to my having been unable to properly read her solipsism. From her perspective, her having been a stripper made her a kind of slut, and in her mind, the last thing she wanted was a guy that was with her purely because of her body and supposed “sluttiness”, because she literally was surrounded by guys like that for years, salivating at her while they threw money at her like a pack of drooling morons. And that makes perfect sense, in retrospect, which I realised only in that moment of the missed kiss. But for me, her having been a stripper posed precisely zero issues. I had observed her enough to know that yes, of course she was very beautiful, and I could even make a very well-educated guess at the fact that I am sure she was good in bed too, but more importantly, by having spent that time with her, I liked her general sense of values and intelligence. And if you think “what values?!? She’s almost a common whore!” I’ll have you know that aside from the fact that back then I really had no concern regarding a woman’s sexual past, aside her being healthy that is, strippers are not quite as sexually promiscuous as most men think, and common whores are still generally far more moral, reliable, and trustworthy human beings than anyone that works in finance, journalism, the media, or entertainment.
The point is that by not wanting to appear slutty, she had made some assumptions about me initially and when she realised I was, yes a man (so attracted to her), but also able to curb my basest instincts and act according to some higher principles, and in doing so reached out a bit towards me, I was still thinking she was in another space and rejected her. Mild as that rejection-interaction might seem, and easy to correct, I realised that she was quite a different person to what had been presented until then. We met up once more and we both realised that while we were attracted, and that attraction would certainly go a long way to keeping us together for a time, the intrinsic way in which we were internally would eventually clash. She explained it best in words, which I did not have, just a sense of it, that yes, we would love each other, but we would also end up wanting to kill each other, and neither of us was likely to bend, so something would break.
So, from the point of view of “wanting to get with the girl” sexually, you could say I failed, and I would be dishonest if I said that at the time I did not wonder what it would have felt like, not just for me, but for her too, if we had gotten together sexually, but I also know that the end-result would not have led anywhere good, whether it was after a week or a year.
The reality was that her internal world, her specific brand of solipsism if you like, was extremely stark. Almost pure black and white, which presents superficially as almost the perfect woman, direct, able to articulate herself well and intelligently, and with humour. Simple, direct and entertaining, what more could a guy want, right?
But, for whatever reason, perhaps the reactions she got from men all her life, she was also absolutely convinced that ultimately she knew the Way, or a Way anyway, without compromise or “give” in it. And that, to me, is the certain death-knell of a relationship between a man and woman. Or really anyone and anyone. And I had spent hours with her in polite one on one company, and totally missed this aspect of her until that moment.
Had I seen that specific type of Solipsism as she had it to begin with, I would likely not even have felt the attraction. But the attraction tends to blind men, easily and often. Which is why you need to be aware of her attractiveness, on the scale of 1 to 10, and consider it when observing her to figure out her specific solipsism and what it mostly shows up as. In what ways does it manifest? Because if she is a 7 and you are very familiar with women in general and you are also a 7 or even an 8, there will be little this woman can do to surprise you. If however, she is a 9.8 and you’re a 7, it is likely that the light blinds you, and like ea moth to a flame, you will keep going closer and closer to her, until you burn like a rat soaked in petrol and shot at with tracers.
Conclusions
Hopefully this explains how to use the FSSH to predict their behaviour, but there are a few points that the autists among you may want even further clarification on:
No there is not a “class” for women – I mean there are some broad general descriptors, but if we use the RPG analogy, these are more like ethnicities rather than classes. A woman may be an orc, or an elf, in general terms, but not an orc archer with thief abilities. So for example a woman might be more generally considered in terms of her overall looks, (beautiful or gargoyle-like) sexual availability (slutty) or lack thereof, (puritanical) but there isn’t an “Alpha” woman or an “Omega” woman other than in extremely broad categories. This is also tied to their sexual “score”, because unlike men, woman do not struggle to get sex. Even paraplegics of low quality looks, if female, can get regular sex (if not perhaps lasting love and affection), so as a metric for measuring rank among women it is functionally useless.
Body Count counts only for men – The number of lifetime sexual partners a woman has, or will have, informs what “class” she is almost not at all for women, and is “curated” by women, mostly for the benefit of men. Whether she had 2 men or 2,000 other women will tend to “chastise” or “weaponise” this information, not because they intrinsically care about the other woman’s proclivities in that regard (remember women only pretty much care about themselves and what affects them, after all) but because weaponising, in either direction by the way, serves some ulterior purpose of increasing her own rank. Sluts can be shamed for being sluts today, and virgins for being virgins tomorrow, as the situation demands. Women don’t actually care what another woman’s body count is other than in relation to how it can make her look in comparison with the other woman. Men tend to care about body count though, so women will pretend to (sometimes even convincing themselves that they do care) for the sake of men. If you have ever been present, like a fly on the wall, or in a room full of women that for whatever reason you are in no way perceived as being either available or worth competing for their attentions for, you will know what I mean. Whether in a coma or because you’re their pimp, any group of women that speaks with each other openly, will make you instantly aware that all their shyness and timid behaviour is as real as their make up and silicone implants. The reality is that other than contextually (which is nowhere near as many times as you’re likely to think) the number of lifetime partners doesn’t really feature in the FSSH as far as the majority of women are concerned. As such, it cannot be a feature by which one measures the rank or pecking order of a female with anything like the same level of authority that one can do with the MSSH.
A Woman’s SSH Can change both in the wider general sense as well as in the specific moment with far greater ease than any male SSH – It is far easier for a woman to go from being a nymphomaniac that does pornography, (General SSH: She is a porn actress) to a married housewife that has children (She’s a housewife that has children now, she used to do porn) and is accepted by the community she lives in (Oh leave her alone! She was a whore in another life! Look, she is a devoted mother! And she has more money than us, why don’t you get a better job, anyway, loser!), than it is for a man to go from an Omega to an Alpha (already mostly impossible, but even if it were…) and do so (the community itself would try to keep this guy down. Damn creeper, who does he think he is all of a sudden?)
The sexy girl on the arm of the boss at the Christmas party can suddenly drop from being THE one the middle managers’ wives want to befriend, to one they will shun like the plague if it turns out she is an escort for hire for the evening. While the boss himself, if he is a brash Alpha, will remain pretty much the guy all the guys want to chum up to, regardless of if the hottie on his arm is his wife of two decades, or an escort from the local fetish themed escort agency paid by the hour.
In short, the magic orb has constant moving parts – While the Male SSH is mostly fixed and reliable, the Female SSH is only “fixed” in the most general of terms, such as:
- The Whore
- The Slut (not quite the same as the Whore)
- The Gold Digger (also not the same as either of the two above)
- The Nag
- The Nun
- The Grandma
- The Housewife
- The Shrew
- The Feminist
- The Career Woman (almost interchangeable with the shrew or feminist)
- The Lesbian
- The Bisexual (almost interchangeable with the slut)
…and on and on and on. If you notice, many of the somewhat ephemeral “categories” are pejoratives and often with a sexual component to it, that is because most of these categories are produced by women, as labels to attach to other women.
The Final Point
The ultimate point of the Female SSH is to evaluate the ever-fluid “rank” or pecking order of a woman at a given time, place and context, when compared to the other women in the group.
It is not used to append a perennial label to a woman with regard to what “class” she may be, but simply so as to be able to predict her behaviour, which is usually (but not always) imminent, and thus anticipate your next move with respect to whatever she is about to begin doing.
Trying to use it for much of anything beyond that is almost certainly futile.
Good luck, and I hope I have now explained this topic ad nauseam for everyone.
UPDATE: A female reader of Vox’s site added a rather insightful explanation of the FSSH. It verifies my own explanation above in pretty much every respect but I think does a better job of explaining it from a bird’s eye view. My comment on it was thus:
I would say that this is generally a good take and the concept of wheel and hub are what I termed the “generic” status or “type” that is rather tenuous when compared to the male hierarchy. I would also add that while the writer is clearly more self-aware than the average woman by… a LOT, most of the behaviour she describes, insofar as it fits observable reality, is done by women mostly unconsciously, similarly to how men too for the most part, fall into their hierarchy structures by instinct.
I found it interesting that she also indirectly confirmed that the attractiveness scale, which I mention explicitly in my model, is a factor, as well as the point that amongst themselves women could not care less about body-count or the perception of them men have. They only care about it insofar as it affects them directly. The writer mentions the need to protect the wheel, and that is true, but that need is driven primarily by the fact that if the wheel suffers, so does the individual woman within it. If she did not suffer, she would not really care either, and if it would propel her into a new wheel that is higher up the social ladder and that includes more resources, or even makes her the hub of a more prosperous wheel, she will do it in a heartbeat and all her previous “good friends” will become overtaken acquaintances.
So while the writer makes some very good points and a valid argument for the “positive” aspects of female solipsism, do not be fooled into thinking that it lacks the usual scorpion sting in the tail if and when a woman feels the need to do so. And more often than you’d like, that use of the poisonous tail is very much along the lines of the story of the frog and the scorpion. Which is why I say that women really need to begin to learn to evolve themselves consciously, as they have quite a bit of catching up to do in that respect when compared to men.
The Male Quest for Woman
And the Incidendal Drawing and Quartering of Rollo Tommasi.
Adam has recently posted a couple of somewhat interesting articles that consider the prospect of sex before marriage, fornication, and the PUA mindset in general.
The key message I personally see as most relevant in the first one is the partial quote that derives from the reading of Goldwin Smith (a 19th Century historian) by the author of the piece Adam links to, JM Smith, which he however presents only in part, and I think deserves a fuller version of it:
He [Goldwin Smith] was appalled by the prospect of women’s suffrage, correctly foreseeing that it would make democratic politics even more emotional, and that Anglo Saxon men would be to soft, silly and spineless to stop it. He explained this as the dolorous result of gynæmania, a “disease” of the Anglo Saxon male that was characterized by a morbidly excessive craving for the good opinion of women. The word gynæmania was first coined as a scientific name for satyriasis, or a morbidly excessive craving for carnal knowledge of women, but Smith saw that slavery to sex was becoming slavery to the female sex.
The emphasis on Anglo-Saxon is mine, and I maintain it remains the key point of the article, as it was indeed in the post by JM Smith, and indeed Golden Smith’s original work, even if Adam did not seem to focus on it particularly. So keep this point about the Anglos in mind for later, we shall return to it.
The second article can be summed up as a strong and unequivocal advice —almost an order, really— to men, to not indulge in sex before marriage; and he takes a post by Rollo Tommasi as his jumping off point. Tommasi is somewhat “revered” in PUA circles as being one of the grandfathers of the PUA movement. Personally, though I have weird hobbies, and looking at PUAs and their thirst for raping incels’ wallets was one of many such entertainments, I have never found Tommasi to be especially insightful of much of anything. And the article Adam links to is definitely of the stupidly degenerate category, although my take on things is considerably different from Adam’s in many respects.
Rollo’s post is a car-crash of bullshit and lies and simply illogical nonsense and deserves a point by point take-down even just on its own (non-existent) supposed merits. And… because… you know how I said I have weird hobbies? And typing doesn’t hurt me, I’m going to do just that right here below, between the fancy page breaks. If you don’t care (which is absolutely fine), or if you can’t hold a key point in your mind for more than 3 minutes, or are particularly pious and find vulgarity distatesful, then avert your eyes and skip the Rollo Tommasi take-down below, and scroll to the second fancy page break.
The key points by the way, so far are:
Rollo in fog-fart grey background your friendly host in standard text.
Rollo, do you think “Body Count” matters?
Absolutely. And the higher, the better. I need a girl who’s DTF (down to fuck) from the jump. For guys after 50, all that pretentious bullshit about long-term commitment should melt away to sexual expediency. It’s not about experience or some contrived want for a virgin bride. It all comes down to guys who fuck and guys who don’t. If we’re talking from the perspective of evolutionary effectiveness, women (and men) with higher body counts are effectively proven commodities in a sexual economy.
The sexually unfulfilled and deprived Rollo tells us several things right in the first paragraph:
UPDATE: I stand corrected! He’s been married since he was 28, which means I was completely correct about his being a fraud with regard to his “experience” with bedding women, it’s literally all made up theory. And since I did not “correct” any of the subsequent points after this point, you can verify immediately that I really did not know anything about this guy besides read maybe 10 lines of his stuff over the last decade and concluding he was irrelevant, and secondly, that my dissection of his nonsense post is spot on, despite this.
“Oh, oh! but you say he is sexually unfulfilled and deprived, when he clearly has (or had) sex with a lot of women, you’re just bitter!”
No, young Padawan, pay attention now:
Firstly: PUAs LIE. And Lie spectacularly about their “body count” trust me on this, I looked into the subspecies of “male” that labels themselves as PUAs in some depth. Feel free to use the Search Me button on the right there. (heh… in light of my not bothering to research Rollo at all and then it turns out he was married the whole time he pretended to be a “player” this is kind of hilarious.)
Secondly: Let’s in any case ass-u-me Rollo does indeed still have regular sex with random hotties every week. Even if that were the case, considering by his own supposed “reality” he has been doing that for 30 years or so, you have to wonder… what can he possibly still be chasing? As regular readers of this blog will know, I am no stranger to the female form myself, and went through a lot of women in a short period of time after I gave up essentially on long-term relationships. And after a few years of it, I tell you, I was essentially bored of it. And no, I am not a guy with low T or lack of energy or any difficulty in securing a regular flow of pretty, usually above average intelligence, women to my bed. I assure you, my pointing this out comes from having lived that way and not any kind of misplaced envy, lack of understanding, or inexperience at the “thrill” of a new woman under me. The fact is that only a man that has yet to fill the hole in his soul can continue to behave this way, in the erroneous belief that if he just beds enough women, somehow, at some point, he will feel fulfilled. Don’t get me wrong, there is some truth to the fact that if you become able to essentially pick up women for sex almost at will, it does give you a certain… I am not even sure what to call it, but I guess… level of general life confidence would be it. But in reality it has little to do with how many women you take to bed and more with your attitude when with a woman. There are men that have this sense of confidence innate to them and only marry and stay with one woman for their entire lives, and there are men that may go through some women to realise they have it already. It’s a little like martial arts. There are guys who never take a class but in a certain circumstance will not hesitate to fight back, and there are guys who need to go training for a while to feel strong in their sense of justice, or whatever. The reality is that a man who forever chases sex with an ever growing number of women, is simply a malformed man. He is not, I assure you a self-actualised man, to borrow a Maslowian term. He is like the perennial teenager, still trying to be “cool” at 70. Or if you prefer, he’s like the Boomers, who keep insisting 80 is the new 40, or whatever. And that is no way for a grown man to be.
Third: Remember that point about the Anglos being far more desperate in general for female approval than say, well, your average dago, spic, South American, Greek… oh look… it’s a divide between Protestant and Catholic or Orthodox religions… again. Things that make you go hmmmm, eh?
Are you starting to understand what I mean by deprived and unfulfilled yet? (It seems clear he wishes he was a “player” which he clearly is not, and never was so…)
Guys who don’t fuck spend lifetimes consoling themselves with moral high-ground narratives to explain why they don’t fuck. At least 80% of guys don’t fuck, so there’s a lot of narrative inbreeding and self-congratulatory bullshit passed around among them. This bullshit has been de rigueur for millennia, but in the social media age, it’s an obvious cope. We’re just more aware of it now.
Of course, the best narratives are the ones that make guys who don’t fuck feel good about not fucking while simultaneously making guys who do fuck feel bad about fucking. This disqualification tactic is one of the many forms of bloodless intrasexual competition tactics that 80%er men have consoled themselves with since the Middle Ages. If you can make your intrasexual rival feel guilty about fucking – because God hates fucking for any reason besides making babies – then you have a tactical advantage in the sexual economy. It works even better if you can gaslight a superior sexual rival to believe he (or she) is going to Hell if he pursues his biological imperative to his fullest potential.
Good God. Talk about gaslighting. If you take him at his word, Rollo is saying that fucking, just that, fucking, not procreating, not making children, just fucking, as many women as possible, is what makes life worthwhile. I have met men like this. Several PUAs are like this, and let me tell you, they are absolutely pathetic. They are a kind of Gollum about pussy in general. My Preciousssss they say, obsessed, salivating, masturbating furiously, whether alone or inside someone else, and that is all that their lives revolve around.
He also further blurts out obvious absolute lies, imputing 80% of men in the Middle Ages did this thing: which was about telling you that way to live (that he thinks is the epitome of existence) is a shallow, discivilisational, unfulfilling, unhealthy way to exist, and not live at all, and they did it to prevent other men from having sex with lots of women. This is complete nonsense, since most men in the middle ages got married, did not have lots of partners, and raised children with their wives, and in the Catholic world at least (which was the ONLY Christianity), most marriages lasted literally until death parted them.
According to him, the entire structure of the Catholic Church was set up so the celibate priests could get all the poonani. It’s ridiculous on its face, ahistorical, and frankly smacks of Gollum-like backward rationalisation that would make a crack whore trying to justify her habit blush with shame.
Generally, lesser men cannot openly challenge greater men (men who fuck) in physical prowess. So, more intelligent men who don’t fuck contrived forms of social gaslighting to improve their chances of reproducing. Smarter lesser men have always devised workarounds to solve their reproductive problems. It’s actually one of the strengths of our species. Nothing sparks innovation quite like a man solving his proximate need for sex and his ultimate need to reproduce. And nothing has been more expedient a tactic than convincing a greater man that he ought to disqualify himself from the sexual economy.
According to Rollo, the Gammas have been “successful” throughout the ages at getting Alpha men to not reproduce. Oh, no, sorry, to fuck, for the sake of fucking alone; reproduction be damned. Once again, anyone who has actually been successful with women over a period of some years, can tell you this is absolute bullshit, and it makes me suspect Rollo, like so many PUAs after him, is likely also full of shit about his supposed sexual prowess with women. It doesn’t matter what the Gammas do. Alphas and Sigmas (that are that way inclined, some Sigmas are not) will be with women sexually even if you imposed the death penalty for doing so. And they would still find ways to get away with it. Gammas have never been very successful at anything really, except being annoying, redundant, and getting women to avoid them like radioactive plague. And notice also that for Rollo the sole qualifier of what makes a man “great” is how high his body count is. Truly it is so pathetically ridiculous that it makes me laugh at both the stupidity of it, and Rollo’s own intrinsic amoeba-like existence. And while he wants very much to paint my view of this as some sort of “envy”, there really is absolutely zero of any such intent or reality in my perspective. It is genuinely the somewhat ironic mild amusement one gets from watching a complete fuckwit trying to be clever and spectacularly showing his ass to the world for the fuckwit he really is.
The problem is, guys who fuck are usually too preoccupied with the logistics of fucking to be bothered by the self-loathing moralism of guys who don’t fuck. At least, that’s how it’s been in a post-Sexual Revolution sexual economy. If it ain’t broke, fixing it isn’t even an afterthought. When you watched the now infamous AMOGing scene in The Wolf Of Wall Street where Leonardo Di Caprio swoops Margot Robbie from a trust fund yuppie, you’re really watching the intrasexual combat between a guy who fucks and a guy who doesn’t. It’s how human males lock horns over sexual access in rutting season. The only thing a guy who doesn’t fuck has in his arsenal is his cunning and nerve.
The emphasis is added by me to point out yet again another logical fallacy. The men who are successful with women do not preoccupy themselves with the logistics of fucking at all, beyond possibly getting their maid, sister, or slutty FWB, to change their semen-stained bedsheets from the night before, because they have a new girl coming over. Literally every man I have known that was… well… a “guy who fucks” like Rollo wants to put it, gave his interactions with women less consideration than he did his enjoyment of a film with a good friend, or his sport of choice, or reading a book he was into. The fact Rollo does not know this, again, makes me suspect he is not quite the lady-killer he presents himself as.
This is why body count only matters to guys who don’t fuck. Their moral crisis isn’t about their inability to find a virgin bride. Guys who don’t fuck couldn’t give two shits about whether a woman’s ability to pair bond with him is impaired by her body count. All they really want is the kind of sex women give to guys who do fuck but never need the ‘value added’ benefits he had to qualify for to get her to fuck him. You see, the gaslighting goes both ways – outwardly towards a sexual rival and inwardly to convince himself that his purpose is righteous. Moralizing over body count is as much about the guy wagging his finger at women as it is about their indiscriminate fucking. There’s actually nothing indiscriminate about it, but sour grapes and making your necessity a virtue are necessary to make Strategic Pluralism an unfalsifiable sexual strategy.
There is a hint of truth to this paragraph, but it is presented as the only absolute, which, as usual, is nonsense. Most men in general actually do care about body-count for any woman they would consider as a long term partner, and at times even for ones they would consider only for a temporary fling. The fact Rollo does not know this, is a clear indication that he is still at the teenager level of sexual immaturity.
Strategic Pluralism Theory
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value in the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring (guys who fuck).
In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities (guys who don’t fuck), is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits (true hypergamy). Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues (guys who fuck). Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
from Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis
Guys who fuck are usually typified by physique. Usually.
All that theory says is what has been known since the dawn of time. Women want the fittest and most successful male to breed with, and those types of men have unlimited options so tend to make use of them. Also, water is wet.
Much as I despise Destiny, the guy DOES fuck. Maybe not like Justin Waller, Jason Momoa, or Mike Sartain, but he certainly ruts like a feral animal compared to Ben Shapiro. Guys who fuck don’t sit around comparing dick sizes or bask in the glow of the imaginings of the third-party validation they get from filling a void in their souls/egos by fucking. These are tropes that guys who don’t fuck tell themselves to explain why guys who do fuck are fucking the women they’ll eventually fuck because those women ran out of options. The concept of fucking for some ephemeral form of validation is part of that gaslighting I mentioned above.
Here we see a rather convoluted bit of chaff-firing, self-delusion and gaslighting in order to justify and rationalise both to himself and the world, his ultimately meaningless way of existing.
He says guys who have his (supposed) lifestyle do not worry about their image which can be “true” to the extent that some men do not care how their womanising makes them look to other men (or in some cases to women too) or society in general, but they tend to be the exceptions, most Alpha types do care about the way they are perceived, and in any case, they all care at least about what women, or at least any given woman in particular, at a point in time, thinks of them, if only to get them in bed. It is also generally true that men who are successful with women do not tend to over-analyse themselves (unless they are PUAs) but the fact remains there is a deeply unfulfilled part of them, whether they realise it or not consciously, that has quite a lot to do with needing to feel loved, and paradoxically, their womanising tends to almost ensure they are ostracised from that very sensation they crave (consciously or not).
But ultimately he ends with yet another nihilist absolute. According to him, such men (as he presents himself to supposedly be) fuck for… just the orgasm I guess. They don’t do it for any self-validation, they don’t do it for love, they don’t do it for procreation, they don’t do it for long term companionship… right Rollo, nice of you to finally admit (if passively aggressively like a whiny bitch) that all people like you do, is really masturbate themselves to death, and it really makes little difference if you do it alone or with a human you empathise with about the same as you do with your no-doubt well-used fleshlight.
It’s intended to get your genetic superior to disqualify himself by contemplating his filling the void of existence with meaningless sex. Meaning plays another big role in the game of guys who don’t fuck. “Meaning” is a container word. It’s a term you can subjectively fill with anything you like. Even fucking if you’re clever about it. Meaning is intentionally ambiguous, and that’s what makes it so effective in being unfalsifiable. As a rule, gaslighting depends on unfalsifiable concepts, but meaning is one of the capstones. Any time you listen to some child on the Fresh & Fit podcast prattle on about how she’s living her truth, you’re listening to a variation of the meaningfulness horseshit.
And here Rollo doubles down on the idea that his life has no meaning. None whatsoever. All there is, is the fuck, for the sake of the fuck, the ultimately masturbationary orgasm for the sake of the orgasm itself, not any other reason. Not self-validation, not self-improvement, not marriage, not reproduction, nope, nope, nope, just the ever omnipresent “fuck”.
Do you see why I compared him, and people like him, to Gollum?
Guys who don’t fuck, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, are actually the ones who need validation. Because soul-void fulfillment means confronting the reality that they’ll never enjoy the uninhibited feral lust their wives reserved for the men in their past who fucked. Men who never had to prove their value-added bona fides to fuck the women who would become their wives. Men who don’t fuck live lives of ceaselessly qualifying for a desire they know their wives were capable of with other men but can’t seem to provoke themselves. This is why validation is a thing for guys who don’t fuck – and women who need a Jungian term to explain why guys who do fuck won’t fuck them.
And now he takes the doubled down absolute idiocy to truly stupefying levels. According to him, the men who “fuck” are the be-all and end-all of life, the utter epitome of manly manness. Yes, there is some truth to the self-soothing half-truths and lies men and women tell themselves for not being as successful in the sexual marketplace, but what Rollo tries desperately to shove under the carpet with his tracer-firing barrage at what he considers “inferior” men is the question: What, exactly, are the men who “fuck” better for, or at, in life? And the ONLY thing Rollo keeps coming up with is the purpose of “the fuck” itself. Which is, of course, either ridiculous or nihilistic and pathetic to a suicidal degree. And we know more than one PUA has gone the suicide route too. (And as it happens, Rollo himself turns out to be one of the guys who “does not fuck”, in his own terminology, which according to him, makes him the same as Ben Shapiro. Well… I got nothing, the man is entirely a fraud whichever way you look at it.)
Guys who don’t fuck are the dutiful, loyal, supportive, and nameless husband who Rosehad children and grandchildren with, yet pined for Jack (a guy who fucks) and dropped a priceless diamond to the bottom of the sea in the final moments of her life at the end of Titanic. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the moral crises and ethical concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Validation and body count are just two heads of a conjoined twin. They haven’t gotten the memo that their 20th-century moralism-as-strategy is meaningless in a 21st-century sexual marketplace.
Ah yes. Using Titanic as the masterpiece of philosophy that it clearly was, and making the vapid, stupid, callous, utterly self-absorbed narcissist Rose, the “heroine” of the piece, because she throws away a fortune she could have given to her progeny, in quintessential, wicked, super-boomer format, is indeed, a bold strategy, Rollo! Not a good one, valid or sensible one, but certainly “bold”. As in the same kind of “bold” that would stick his dick in a bar-cutting industrial machinery to “prove his manliness”.
Body count only matters to nameless husbands who don’t fuck. It doesn’t matter to anywoman because they would rather fuck a lot of Jacks on a sinking ship than be bothered by the purity (paternity) concerns of guys who don’t fuck. Guys who fuck don’t care about body count because they know women hate guys who don’t fuck, and those guys care about body count.
Again, it is quite obvious that Rollo protesteth too much here, as he has throughout the entire vapid, ageing PUA post.
Rollo is the male equivalent of a post-wall woman who has ridden the cock-carousel so long she is now left on the shelf. And Rollo is the post-wall “bad-boy” (assuming he ever really actually was one at all) who is left with spent cigarettes, a ruggerised fleshlight, wrinkles, and increasingly creeping despair, at the beginning of the end of a life wasted on ephemera.
FINAL UPDATE: As I said right from the start, PUAs lie, and as it happens Rollo lied about pretty much everything concerning his supposed “ability” concerning women, and he advises men to do the exact opposite of what he himself has done, which is to stay married to one woman for 26 years. If he had been the ladykiller he presented himself as, the above vivisection would be absolutely correct, and as it happens, remains so, regarding the fictional would-be Rollo. And since he is an absolute fraud that advises others to go down a path he knows nothing about and leads to nothing good long term, one can hardly imagine anything he has to say is relevant or worthwhile. Even by his own (retarded) “measuring stick” Rollo himself is the exact guy who “does not fuck” that he so denigrates in his post. And yet he also advises against being married. So… what exactly is Rollo, what does he actually have to say that is relevant, or true, or valid?
Right, now after that vivisection, let us return to the original points, which are that:
And seeing what that says about men who chase after women for sex and so on in general terms and in spiritual terms.
First of all, I think the point about Anglos being afflicted by gynæmania is a real thing. The English speaking world of the Anglos is indeed, culturally, regardless of whether British (though these are the epicentre of it) Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, or even the more Anglecised parts of America, tends to be irrelevant, as a people, they tend to be grossly united by the Protestant Zeitgeist and a kind of fear/intimidation/shyness of women in general.
Certainly none of the Catholic countries suffer from this to anywhere near the extent the English people do. And it has been this way for centuries. The writings of Italian travellers to England recounts the same view of things that we Southern European tend to have even today of the English men and the English women.
I believe in part it is due to the nefarious influence of Protestantism, as it is an invariably mechanising of humanity and the minute you do that, the first errors will be with your understanding/handling/appreciation of women, because human females are in a way the very embodiment of the chaos of humanity at its best and its worst, and any reduction at binarium pensierum (binary thinking) will invariably produce vast errors in your model of reality with respect to women. And as such they will become only more mystifying, unpredictable and dangerous for you. The other part is due to the fact that as a rule, the Anglos tend to be a logical and shy people, neither of which quality lends itself particularly well to being easy-going in relation to women, who as a rule are not logical and only pretend to be shy in the company of men, if at all.
For such men, the eventual “ability” to bed a lot of women does in fact begin to become a form of validation for them. It remains essentially a false one, but one they believe in and buy into as much as the people they try to convince around them.
These are the men that despite having slept with a hundred or even a few hundred women or more, remain nevertheless prey to their own desire for women and susceptible to how they are perceived by the women they are attracted to. They invariably appear as what the Zoomers call “cringe” to men who have the self-assuredness internally that these Anglo types seek perennially, and hardly ever find. I have known men that only had two women as sexual partners, the first was their wife and the second also their wife, after the first one died, and yet these men would have zero problem genuinely attracting almost any woman they set their eyes on, and they would do so free of the anxiety and self-doubt that plagues the supposed ladies men with hundreds of notches on their belts.
For me, discovering I was able to get women to have sex with me successfully, was not self-actualising in any way. It was more like discovering I had a natural aptitude for fencing, or skiing. A kind of pleasant surprise about something I never really gave much thought to one way or the other. And a good part of why I was successful has very much to do with the fact that that is pretty much how I treated it, not because I wanted to pose as such a person, but because I am such a person. And I cannot with certainty say what makes a man that way or not. I think at least some of it is genetic, but life experiences probably formed in childhood also has something to do with it.
And if I had to give it my best guess, I would say it is probably mostly due to whether your relationship with your parents, and primarily your father, was honest and direct and loving or not. The English sense of “logical detachment” I think is ultimately damaging to children, which is why the entire Anglosphere is a fucking mess of feral youfs with no sense, no honour, no dignity, or discipline to speak of, and increasingly illiterate at that.
The more instinctual and visceral love of an Italian father, who may well kick your ass, literally, for some small or even wrong reason, but who would unquestioningly jump into a harvesting combine to save you, is a far healthier way to be raised than the cold logic of the Anglo-Saxons. And instills in you a profound sense of self-assuredness that I think nothing else does. And that sense comes through to women like a lighthouse in the dark, whether they are aware of it or not consciously (mostly not).
I hope this explains the reason why some men, regardless of how many women they have slept with, ultimately remain on some level… uncertain. Doubtful. Unfinished. And women can in fact sense that.
Now, let us get to the concept of fornication in general and so on, which in fairness, was the topic that Adam was trying to cover, and to which, my extremely long preamble above is merely introduction to give you my context.
On Fornication
First of all, let me state unambiguously that yes, in an ideal world, the way that the Catholic Church says we should behave, both as men and women is indeed, the best and ideal way. No question. I unreseveredly agree.
That said, being as I am Catholic, and being as I lived like a heathen for at least 43 years of my time on Earth, and given that I made no attempt to resist temptations of the flesh in that time, I think I can say with some authority that:
So, if unmitigated fornication is the equivalent of a blind and deaf man walking towards a cliff-face, how can I possibly begin to even make him aware of this truth? The temptations of the flesh after all are not a fairy tale. They are very much real, and they certainly never felt bad or sinful to me when I indulged deeply in them, nor, do I expect they feel that way to the average 20-something or even 30-something year old male that is “finally getting some!”
And while Adam and people like him, including Catholic Priests and Bishops are absolutely correct that it is a damaging thing, it’s not as if I had not heard that sort of preaching when I was indulging deeply in fornication and then some.
And my reaction to it all was usually, something like, Eh, poor bastard isn’t getting any and he either doesn’t know what he’s missing, or maybe would like, much as the feminists, everyone to be as miserable as him.
And I expect any young man that has got this far (if any have) in this long post, is probably thinking the same thing, and they also do not have a counter-example as a reference frame. Not one they have lived certainly, because that counter example you only get once you are married, and fully committed to one woman, and she is to you too.
It sort of feels like a lie. Oh, don’t you have any fun now, boy, you just wait and just take the ONE sweet, and only that one, for the rest of your life, and trust us, it’s better this way. With all the bullshit you have ingested by age 20, and your at least seeing some of it (if you are not completely retarded) one can hardly be blamed for thinking this too is a massive lie.
And because I am Catholic, and because I have also the example of my own life, and the awesomeness of a real priest that Baptised, Confirmed and presided over my Marriage, and had the benefit of his wisdom and kindness, I also understand that fallen as we are, erroneous as we are, mistaken as we are, we are not necessarily evil or shunning God. We are just wrong. Badly, desperately, tragically, sadly, wrong, but mostly just wrong, not intentionally evil. And we are sad, weak, feel unloved and uncared for by anyone and we try, like drowning rats, to scrabble some sense of worth and love and kindness, wherever there is any illusion we might find some. And so we make mistakes.
And most of you reading this who are unmarried will be in the midst of those mistakes, and I am not here to chastise you, or rain thunder and fire and brimstone and judgement from God on your weighted and desperate heads. Far from it.
I was one of you. I walked your path deeper and longer in the swamp of godless life than most. So, young man, if you will, after this very long set of words, take a seat near my camp-fire and let me tell you a story and may it help you navigate your own swamp, and may it be shallow and brief.
So you are fornicating. So you may even like a girl you are with and be boyfriend and girlfriend, and you may even be thinking how it would be nice if it will last. Or maybe you’re so infatuated with the sensations of sex that a new girl every week or every day or two, or whatever, is intoxicating and draining all your thoughts and actions, wallet and testicles. Whatever the case may be, listen to this and think it over:
What do you want for your life? What do you want to think about your life when you are 99 years old and on your rocking chair and you can see the grim reaper finally walking towards you? And you’re fine with it and smile at him even, recognising that this supposedly terrible and fearful boogeyman is nothing more than a tired and misunderstood boatman, taking you across the veil (or the river Styx if you prefer).
Do you think you will be pleased reminiscing over your 287 sexual conquests, aided by your printed out spreadsheet in large letter format, because your eyes are no longer what they used to be? Playing out the sex tapes on the projector of your study to remember better what you did or felt or what they did? Or who they even were? Do you think that will warm your heart as you face the final journey?
Or your sporting achievements?
Or your financial ones, absent children and grandchildren to leave it to?
Tell me, young man, what do you think will make you able to face the final boatman with serenity and peace?
I’ll tell you what it is for me now and what I hope it will be for me at 105, but I say only 105 because I started late, otherwise 99 would be perfectly acceptable to me too. And yes, I know I’d be lucky to get there.
It is the idea of my children grown up and married and with children of their own, and doing well, and if God grants me the energy and the fortune to do so, the idea of leaving them as much as I possibly can, to make their lives and those of their children good ones.
It is the idea of watching my grandchildren and possibly even my great-grandchildren (hence 105!) running around nearby, screaming and making noise and playing joyfully and laughing full belly-laughs and thinking my sons and daughters and their wives and husbands are good women and men who will be with them to the end of their days and help them raise the next lot of joyous Crusaders for God, Truth and Justice, as my family line has done since the literal original First Crusade.
Now you may have a different religion from me (because you’re still young and stupid, heh, heh, heh) but I don’t think it changes the equation. I don’t think it changes it at all.
And here is what else I think. I think if what I just told you is NOT what inspires you, is abhorrent to you in some way, then I hope very much it’s only because, as I said, you’re young, and really fucking stupid, and you have bought in to a lot of Boomer-era lies, And I sincerely hope you grow out of your mental retardation.
And if not, if that is who you really are, then fuck you. I hope you die young and rid the world of another noxious creature that only spoils the Earth and everything on it. And I’m not talking about climate change, you fuckwit.
Now, if you get the impression that I am a kind of bastard for an old man, I would say, fuck you at the “old man” I can probably still kick your ass at 54 if you are in your twenties, depending on some factors, but that aside, yeah, I am not the most pleasant human being. I don’t like humans much because mostly they are weak, and because they are weak they lie. And they lie a lot. They lie to themselves first and then to everyone else around them. And the lies cause the harm. They cause ALL the harm. Which is as the god of this world wants it. Because this Earth is under the dominion of Satan. And no, young man, I don’t give a shit if you think “The Devil” is a superstition. He is more real than the heart-attack all the poor imbeciles that took the genetic serum are probably facing in the not too distant future.
Oh, and this is just a side note, but listen up: The Earth is NOT Flat!
And if you think it is you are a stupid bastard and I really don’t care what happens to you and with a level of stupidity that high it is definitely a better thing if you do not pass on those retarded genes at all.
Back to my story, now.
So, if you agree with me so far, then you also must realise that you get that kind of old-age satisfaction only if you make children and raise them well. And this means finding and marrying a woman that will also want to be with you until one or both of you die and raise children together. No matter what difficulties you will both face. No matter if you are so fucking stupid one day to fuck your secretary, or hire a prostitute, or become a heavy drinker, or make a bad business decision and lose your shirt. And conversely, no matter if she is so fucking stupid to spread her legs for the sexy postman, or her co-worker, or the neighbour, or she becomes a heavy drinker, or more worried about what the neighbours think of you and her than looking after her husband and children, or she splashes out on stupid shit and drives you to the brink of bankruptcy.
So is it easy to find such a woman? No.
Is it easy to stay married to such a woman, delightful as she might be? No.
Will you come across things in life that will hurt you in ways you never imagined, and that would seem to make leaving her a better option? Yes.
More than once? In all likelihood, yes.
And will she come across such things? Yes, without shadow of a doubt, and probably even more often than you.
And if you are thinking right now, Well Old Man, this is a really rosy picture you’re painting for me, what the fuck do you want me to do, and is the light at then of the tunnel also an oncoming train?
I say this to you:
Firstly fuck you twice for the Old Man again, you wet behind the ears know-nothing. Secondly, it’s not rosy. It’s just how it is, so you know what you’re facing. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. What I want you to do is immaterial. It’s what you want to do, or not do, that matters. Realise whether you pick something, or pick nothing, you’re still picking something. So choose, and choose consciously, because at least then you got no one to blame but yourself.
Oh, and yeah, in the end, the light at the end of the tunnel is always an oncoming train. Sometimes it’s got a boatman riding up front. Smile and run at it, because fuck the train. Live like a man and die like one too if need be.
So now you might be thinking, Ok Old Man, so how do I find such a woman?
And I say to you, firstly, fuck you three times for the Old man. Secondly, unless you have uncommon good luck, unless God for some reason decides to send you an Angel in disguise as a human woman, most likely, you cannot find such a woman walking the Earth today.
Young man stares blankly at me.
You have to build her.
Young man says: What?
You have to build her, boy. You find one that is as close as you can find to a finished product, and I sincerely advise you to find one that is in your category of looks. If you are a 7 don’t try and stay with a 9. You’ll be so worried about keeping her that you will fuck up a myriad things and she will end up fucking your “best friend”, the neighbour, your boss, her boss, and if you did marry her, she will take the kids and your house too when she inevitably divorces you.
Take your time in your courtship. Learn who she is and pay attention to what she does and how she acts in various situations and feel free to almost totally ignore whatever she says she is like. You can really only go badly wrong if you believe her when she describes all her good qualities. Pay her words no mind. Observe her actions instead.
If you feel you have enough to work with (at least 51% good is a minimum) then begin to go about leading by example. Do NOT request of her efforts or sacrifices you are not willing to exceed. And yes, some things are not comparable on a like for like basis, because she is a woman and you are a man, you can no more give birth or breastfeed your child than she can write the alphabet in the snow when urinating, and don’t think the one is equivalent in value to the other, but realise that as a general rule, women can provide three things to a man:
And a man generally provides three things for a woman:
So do your part and gently show her the way, so she feels better about herself, as women invariably do when they begin to act in accordance with their God-given, biological imperatives, that have been subverted by lies for the last hundred plus years or so.
That’s about it, boy.
And if you are still wondering where this puts you in the fornication scale, well, to not put too fine a point on it, according to the Church, until you marry and commit, your fornication is going to send you to Hell. So I would hurry up and get to finding that woman as quick, yet also as careful, as you can. And try not to get hit by a bus until you get married to her and repent and foreswear your heathen and fornicating ways, you miserable sinner.
And if you have any brains at all, about now, young man, you might be having a little smile at the apparently hypocritical, arrogant, bastard, old man in front of you.
And fuck you four times for the Old Man.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 4 February 2024 | Posted in Agnostic Christianity, Brain-Mind Functionality, Catholicism, Christianity, Increasing Happiness, Relationships, Relationships, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, Stupid PUAs