A local DC girl wrote a post about withholding sex in an effort to strong arm her boyfriend to marry her. (Note: The original post has been taken down by the author but you can google cache to find it.)
Let’s start this off with a patented maxim:
Maxim #25: Withholding sex is the tactic of a woman who has already lost. It is mutually assured destruction.
If a woman is withholding sex, she may win a few battles with a beta boyfriend but she has lost the war. It’s a scorched earth strategy that fails on two levels.
One, it only works on guys who can’t score elsewhere. That is to say, undesirable guys. Pissant betas with no alternative options will step right in line yapping yes-dears like spineless whimpering curs once the snatch spigot is turned off. I have seen it with my own eyes… friends who suddenly have to spend Saturdays at Pier 1 or Crate & Barrel pawing through throw pillow bins because the girlfriend pouted and clamped her legs shut. Using sex as a weapon WILL work if the enemy (and that’s what he is if the relationship has gotten to this point) is weak and defenseless. Like “The Rules”, there is a certain amount of tried and true cynicism that will get a woman what she wants… superficially.
I say “superficially” because the seed of a scheming woman’s own unhappiness is contained in the success of her manipulative strategy. A woman who breaks her man by withholding sex is a woman who will never truly respect that man. She will come to resent him for letting her get her way through such devious means. And she will see him as weak, not to be trusted. How can you trust a man who would sacrifice his dignity just to keep the vagina flowing?
An alpha who knows how to pick up women will simply walk away from any girlfriend trying to pull the “my pussy is GOLD!” routine on him. Her selfishness will have backfired.
Two, if it works it merely extends a relationship — sometimes into marriage — that is built on a shallow foundation which is guaranteed to eventually give out. If the love is more than a one-way street, she will never view sex as a bargaining chip and he will never make her so unhappy that she would seriously entertain the idea of commoditizing her cunt. So let’s say this chick gets her way — she locks up her pussy for a few weeks and he caves, buying her an expensive engagement ring. Sounds romantic, eh? If I were a betting man, I’d short sell this marriage.
Practically speaking, the withholding sex strategy is a maneuver that has lost much of its effectiveness as a means to corral a foot-dragger into proposing marriage thanks to all-access, all-the-time, all-you-can-want internet porn. A lot of men can wait out a girl playing these games by resorting to porn. And men who have been with many women, the ones who don’t need porn, the ones all women want, won’t wait long at all. They’ll wander off in search of fresh meat the moment she’s strapped on the chastity belt.
Men can play this game, too. I’ve “withheld” sex from women, not intentionally, because I was tired or sated from sex with other women. Let me tell you, turning the tables like this will REALLY fuck with a girl’s head. They take it personally, like you just left a turd in every one of her shoes.
Girls must be hardwired to completely freak out if their sexual favors are rejected. That is because they have little experience dealing with direct sexual rejection. Men are built to handle sexual rejection better. Therefore, men’s egos are stronger than women’s egos.
Update:
VK made a good point in the comments about how withholding sex can become a habit if the woman sees it is working on her man. Capitulating even once to such a woman can lead down a dangerous slippery slope.
It starts with roping the guy into marriage, then the next thing you know she’s making an impenetrable crotch fortress out of the bedsheets because you didn’t spread the cream cheese on her bagel the way she likes it.
My advice to any man who senses he is being victimized by a sex withholder — run away as fast as you can and stay away. If she wins, she wins for life. You’ll wind up begging for sex every freaking day you and her are together.
9:12PM – is it me or does no one speak grammatical english anymore? sometimes i have to remind myself how overflowing with the bounty of stupidity most of humanity is.
9:14PM – girl in pink dress looks 10 years older than her age. plunging neckline ineffective on such a small bosom. next!
9:16PM – interesting how the judges listen to the auditioners with their left ears turned towards them. i’ve read that the left ear picks up musical tones better than the right ear, which is better at spoken words.
9:18PM – old bald queen singing. at least, he better hope he’s a queen cause no woman will have him.
9:20PM – whoa. super smoking hot little minx. you’re going to my bedroom! decent voice. -5 points for the dopey extra long sleeves covering her hands. like beauty, a good singing voice is mostly a genetic blessing. this girl is a walking billboard for low mutational load.
9:28PM – retarded nerdboy dresses as sci-fi nerdgirl. over to you, triumph!
9:30PM – creepy love song for paula dude. it’s a put-on. i like it. “peter faulk her”. haha! what a goob.
9:33PM – another cute girl. looks like a slender scarlett johansson. nice rack. put her through.
9:39PM – commercial for ‘moment of truth’ tv show. i’d be unstoppable on that show. “do you think fat people are repuls…” “yes.”
9:40PM – when the background music changes to melodic acoustic guitar that means a good singer is coming up.
9:41PM – 9:40PM observation confirmed.
9:49PM – bitter star wars girl is up. proof that being 24 and thin is not a guaranteed golden ticket to hotness. of course at age 44 she’s gonna be a chieftain warpig. she’s from CT. figures. in general girls from new england are uglier than girls from other parts of the country.
9:54PM – hot blonde. you’re going to hollywood!
9:54:30PM – oh wait, two kids? hollywood rescinded.
You’ve met a girl, hit it off, and banged her. A week later, you bang her again, but this time she says she has to go for good because, and though she feels bad about covering it up, she’s actually in a relationship. You, being the intrepid pussy hound you are, understand that her “relationship” is creaking like an old attic. With the right words you have a chance of stealing her away.
After she mentions the boyfriend, replying with which of the following will give you the best odds of banging her again:
a) “It’s good that you’ve found your one true love. People can sometimes search forever and never find that person who opens them up to explore all the possibilities. I’m sure when you see him your heart still races… he sparks your passion… you feel electricity every time he touches you… that is a great feeling… to know you have that with someone who really REALLY loves you… and you really love in return.”
b) “I can tell by the look in your eyes and the tone of your voice you’re not into this guy. This is crazy, I know, but I’m going to guess that you feel you should be with someone else… now, with me… I never stay in relationships for convenience. Do you know what I mean? There is too little time in this world to waste it on someone you don’t love. You can do better. Forget about him and just be here with me.”
c) “Boyfriend?? Drop the zero and get with the hero, babe!”
d) “Boyfriend? That’s cool. Bring him along! He can buy us drinks.”
This article lays out pretty thoroughly just what a raw deal marriage is for men. Divorce is twice as likely to catch husbands by surprise as it is wives.
In a 2004 poll by the AARP, one in four men who were divorces in the previous year said they “never saw it coming.” (Only 14 percent of divorced women said they experienced the same unexpected broadside.)
In divorce, it’s men who suffer more financially:
The divorce system tends to award wives custody of the children, substantial child support, the marital home, half the couple’s assets, and, often, heavy alimony payments.
This may come as startling news to a public that has been led to believe that women are the ones who suffer financially postdivorce, not men. But the data show otherwise, according to an exhaustive study of the subject by Sanford L. Braver, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University and author of Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.
[…] social scientists ignored men’s expenses — the tab for replacing everything from the bed to the TV to the house — as well as the routine costs of helping to raise the children, beyond child support. Even the tax code favors women: Not only is child support not tax deductible for fathers, but a custodial mother can take a $1,000 per child tax credit; the father cannot, even if he’s paying. As “head of the household,” the mother gets a lower tax rate and can claim the children as exemptions. If the ex-wife remarries, she is still entitled to child support, even if she marries a billionaire. Indeed, every year men are actually thrown in jail for failing to meet their child-support obligations. In the state of Michigan alone, nearly 3,000 men were locked up for that offense in 2005.
The stark realities of divorce paint a picture overwhelmingly tilted against a man’s interests. Here’s an example of just how bad it can get for a beta provider who thought if he was the good man the gods of fairness would reward him with steady sex, a faithful and loving wife, and a stable family:
They’d started going on expensive vacations in Europe and Hawaii, and he figured she’d be pleased at the prospect of taking more trips together, or at least at the prospect of seeing him around the house a little more, and not buried in his basement office. He had met her in graduate school over a quarter century ago, and they’d had their ups and downs, but he was still crazy about her. And he thought that, with a little more time together, she’d be crazy about him again too.
But no. She scarcely listened to any talk of retirement, or of vacations, or of anything he had to say. She had plans of her own.
“I want a divorce,” she said.
Paul was so stunned that he thought he must have misheard her. But her face told him otherwise. “She looked like the enemy,” he says. He started to think about everything he’d built: the thriving business, the wonderful family, the nice life in the suburbs. And he thought of her, and how much he still loved her. And then, right in front of her, he started to cry.
That night, he found a bottle of whiskey, and he didn’t stop drinking it until he nearly passed out.
Things turned sh—- very fast. His wife took out a temporary restraining order, accusing him of attempting to kidnap their youngest son. The claim was never proved in court. Then, with the aid of some high-priced lawyers, she extracted from him a whopping $50,000 a month — a full 75 percent of his monthly income. Barred from the house, he was not allowed regular access to the office he used to generate that income. (On the few times he was permitted inside, his wife did not let him use the bathroom. She insisted that he go outside in the woods.)
Paul is a very wealthy man, an “alpha” by most men’s definitions (though not by my definition) — he earns over $65,000 per month — yet his high financial status ultimately did not shield him from his wife’s dr. jekyll mrs. hyde act. In fact, it may have hastened her merciless decision. Paul is a classic beta provider, and after his wife had extracted the last penny of tribute from him to raise the kids to a self-sufficient age and live the life of a bon bon eating oprah watcher, she disposed of him with the cold-hearted cruelty of a despot dispatching his enemies by firing squad. His wife is likely a Hillary supporter.
Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
If that isn’t enough to convince you of the high risk gamble that is marriage, here’s another horror story:
Long before his wife came along, a frame-store owner named Jordan Appel, 55, had built a fine house for himself atop West Newton Hill in one of the fancier Boston suburbs. He loved bringing in a wife and then adding two children. “It felt so wonderful to say ‘my wife’ and ‘my children’ and feel part of a community.” He volunteered for the preschool’s yard sale; his wife took up with a lover. Sometimes she slept with him in Appel’s own house; in time, she decided to divorce Appel. As these things go, he was obliged to leave the house, and, as it happened, the community too. Money was so tight that he ended up sleeping in a storage room above his frame shop two towns away. His ex-wife works part-time on the strength of Appel’s child custody and alimony payments, and spends time with her boyfriend in Appel’s former house. She lives rather well, and he has to make $100,000 a year to support her and the children, which amounts to 70-hour workweeks. One day, he went back to his house and discovered many of his belongings out on the sidewalk with the trash. “My body feels like it’s dissolving in anger,” he says. “I’m in an absolute rage every single day.”
Now of course, many of you will say “but this guy Jordan is a total beta letting his wife take advantage of him like that!” and you’d be right. But regardless of his personal failings, his congenital betatude is no reason to accede to injustice codified by a discriminatory legal system. Either the laws change (and I personally favor elimination of no fault divorce as a start) or men should heed my advice and stay clear of the altar. Since I am not going to lift a finger to agitate for new laws that have a zero percent chance of happening in my lifetime, I follow the second option.
Maxim #8: Marriage is a social mechanism designed to exchange sex for indentured servitude.
So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.
Listen to me — skip all that shit and learn to get the sex for free if you don’t already. All the positive loving benefits you can get out of marriage can also be had within an unmarried relationship.
Later in the article, the question is asked what can men do to avoid divorce?
One way, of course, is to avoid marriage.
The CH method. So elegant, so simple. So effective!
[…]husbands might be wise to pay attention to the essential ratio that — according to John Gottman, PhD, a world-renowned researcher of marriage stability — governs marital success or failure: five to one. That means husbands (and wives) should direct at least five positive remarks or actions to their spouses for every negative one. Any less and the marriage is in trouble.
Dr. John Gottman, five to one you are a dumbfuck. Glorifying their wives and putting them on pedestals is exactly what cost these hopeless betas their marriages. What they need to do is challenge their wives, not kiss their expanding asses with a stream of compliments. Cockiness, humor, turning the tables, not taking her shit, flirting with other women while wifey is watching… these are the improvements in character that will keep a wife’s love for her husband strong. As long as men are following the advice of these “social scientists” they will never unlock the mystery of what attracts women to men and they will suffer the consequences.
Here is an excellent quote from the article which vividly illustrates how badly the system is rigged in favor of women:
“A father could be sitting in his own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to his marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing he knows, the court has taken his house, his children, and a lot of his money, and then forced him to pay his wife’s legal fees and even her psychologist’s fees. And he can be threatened with jail time if he resists.”
It was a late night at a new grimy club in the too-cool-for-school section of DC. I was chatting up an OK-looking chick made cuter by her sexy accent, youth, perfectly round ass, and the strong possibility of pulling a same night lay. But not a girl I’d consider long-term material.
An hour later I made the requisite bounce with her to another nearby dimly lit hipster hole in the wall (venue changes = compressed dates into one night engendering false feeling of intimacy). Couples were going into the bathrooms to do bumps off keys and grope against piss-splattered walls. On the “dance”floor (more like swayfloor) I saw a girl I knew. She was shitfaced and way too happy to see me. My mind started to race. Switch targets? Make the other girl jealous? Attempt threesome?
As I’m ignoring my first girl, my wingman leans in and barks “Focus!”
I focused. Back to the original plan. With renewed purpose, I felt myself entering the zone. The Zone is when you are taking the lead on everything, being the man, enveloping the girl in the musky shroud of your masculinity, and you are not apologizing for any of it. You are a stalking leopard about to pounce. And she is following without hassle and you can see the deep attraction in her eyes. She will put up token resistance, sure, but you’ve been here before… you know it means nothing. It is the resistance of a woman who is secretly happy to surrender to forces beyond her control. The outcome is preordained.
It is the second-best feeling in the world.
The next morning all I could think was how to hustle her off without hurting her feelings. She roused herself from sleep early and, after a blowjob reveille, looked at me with a serious face.
“I’m leaving to go back home to [insert faraway foreign country here] this afternoon.”
Godsend!
“Wow. Wow. Well, that kinda sucks. I’ll walk you to the Metro.”
One more flag added to my flag count, and 90% of them were gotten within five blocks of my place in DC.
Polling is becoming an amazingly accurate science. The Rasmussen exit polls in New Hampshire were within 1-2% of the actual final numbers for all the candidates… except two. Hillary and Obama. The exit polls there were off by 10%, and some polling companies had those two wrong by up to 15%. Rasmussen predicted an Obama win by 7% that ended up being a Hillary win by 3%. It’s very revealing what this major polling discrepancy says about human nature and the conflict between what we secretly want for ourselves and how we’d like others to see us.
The fact that the polls were amiss in only the match-up between the Bitchcunt Queen of Cuntery and the guy who has an interesting Kenyan family connection that includes a Stanford educated half-brother he cut out of his life and a polygamous father the mainstream media don’t want to talk about suggests that it was not the polling science at fault but the answers given by the polled voters.
Basically, people lied.
But why? I have a couple theories.
A bunch of guilty white liberals getting hard ons from flagellating themselves before the High PC Priests lied to the pollsters about voting for Obama when they had voted for Her Holy Cuntiness. They said what they thought polite company wanted to hear (and probably what they themselves wanted to believe).
The problem with this theory is that white males voted for Obama over Hillary by almost the same wide margin that white women voted for Hillary over Obama. If it was solely the case of a bunch of closeted liberal racists getting cold feet at the last second, then we would see more white males joining the Hillary camp.
Aging white women flocked to Her Raging Id of Misandry not because she’s white, but because she’s a woman they could relate to. And a woman that is publicly reviled by the majority of men, including a lot of these women’s husbands and male family members. Women being what they are, they didn’t want to be seen in public as crassly voting based on gender, so they voted for the Galactic OverCunt in stealth.
I like the second theory better. Middle-aged dumpy hausfraus came out in force for the Ballcutting Cuntbag of Desiccated DykeCunts because they understood that a Hillary presidency would serve their interests.
Maxim #328: Underneath the veneer of civilized discourse we act in ways that are brazenly self-interested in the short term.
Addendum #328a: Seeking short term status is a matter of self-interest.
Washed up white women were propelled toward Hillary emotionally as well as calculatingly. While a Commander in Cunt would surely be a net negative for men (and Camille Paglia agrees with me) and a net positive for women in matters of policy, it was Hillary’s focus group-tested crocodile tears that sealed the deal. Women past their sexual prime felt Hillary’s pain. That moment of faux emotion was like a lighthouse beam beckoning them to shore. In evolutionary terms, people tolerate the suffering of a woman a lot less than the suffering of a man, and the beating Hillary was taking by the press up until the primary endeared her to her natural constituency. If Hillary were fertile-age and attractive, more men would have rallied to her side as well. But because she is long past hitting the wall, men did not feel the pull of chivalry like they normally do to an attractive woman in distress.
Hillary’s choking up before the cameras, fake or real, produced a rallying effect that would never work for a man. Any male candidate who got misty-eyed when asked about the toughness of campaigning would have paid a price at the polls as men, and women!, rightly pegged him as a pantywaist unworthy of leading a nation.
Women can be bad lays too, but when it’s the man’s fault there are two possible reasons for it. One, he was inexperienced. Women usually blame all bad sex on the inexperience and ineptitude of the man. This is a comforting thought for them, but the reality is that virginal incompetence accounts for very few poor sexual encounters. For every virgin clumsily popping his cherry there are 10,000 men with extensive sexual histories enjoying a romp in the sack. The second, and by far more frequent, reason for bad sex is that the woman wasn’t pretty enough to stimulate the man to answer the call of duty with enthusiasm. This reason — uninspired sex caused by female ugliness — is understandably disturbing for women to contemplate. There will never be a situation where one girl says to the other “He’s horrible in bed because you’re kinda gross-looking.”
If a woman wants an attentive lover she has to learn to settle so that whichever man she sleeps with is grateful to be there. Only this will guarantee lavish devotion to her sexual needs.
Betas who have managed the trick of getting laid regularly never veer off the path of least resistance. They are satisfied with subpar sex from girls who don’t push their limits. A man of discerning taste should make it a rule to pursue the choicest ass. He knows that phoning in unexciting sex with marginal girls will have a negative effect on his bedroom skills. His thrusting muscles will atrophy and his staying power will grow weak. His tepid loads will barely reach escape velocity. His knack for finding the location of the G spot will disappear. Soon, he will forget what it takes to drive a woman into ecstasy.
Then when the time comes to perform with a quality babe, he’ll stumble into his role unprepared and unsure of his abilities, like a declawed house cat abandoned to the wild.
Easy sex with mediocre girls also risks damaging a man’s self-confidence (though not as badly as involuntary celibacy would). He will begin to wonder if this is the best he can do. As an analogy, if you spend a few hours learning to play one simple song on a guitar and then play only that song over and over for months, you’ll slowly lose pride in your accomplishment.
Seducing a beautiful woman ensures you’ll give her maximum attention to detail in bed. The way to be a sex god is to have sex with women who motivate you to be a sex god. You’d be surprised at the depravity you’re capable of with the right girl. The hottest girl I ever slept with couldn’t stand up for an hour afterwards.
Keep yourself in fighting form. Let the betas hunt wounded prey. Alphas hunt the hunters.
If you are a pussywhipped beta whose girlfriend will get tired of having you as a girlfriend… if you stop mid-wipe after taking a shit to do her bidding… if your balls climb up into your chest cavity every time she chews you out… if the thought of her being displeased with you gives you a full diaper, then you need to make it your life mission to haul into orbit the one thing that tells her you love her and will never ever not let her get her way.
For two billion lifetimes’ salary and undiscovered advances in physics, you can impress her with a diamond star. At a diameter of 4,000 km you can virtually lock in that she’ll never cheat on you in front of your face, because she’ll be too busy angling it in the light to show off to her yenta friends.
Planet-sized diamonds are forever.
if this is cubic zirconia i’m dumping your ass!
On my entitlement scale, a woman who would want, or need, such a diamond would be a 10+ American living in Manhattan who mainlines Cosmo and Jimmy Choo.
Not to be deterred, the forces of light have gone on the attack with a class action lawsuit against De Beers for unlawfully monopolizing the sale of diamonds. A proposed settlement is in the works. Now it’s your turn, betaboys. Since women will never willingly give up their prerogative to drain a man’s finances on a useless rock for the privilege of giving him access to the same pussy once a month, it’s up to you to grow a hairy pair and take a stand. There are two ways you can do this:
1. Just say no. If she walks, then at least you’ll know your company was worth less to her than a piece of jewelry. End result: keep your dignity intact.
2. Buy her a “fake” (AKA unmined) diamond and don’t tell her it’s not a De Beers-approved product. She’ll never know and you’ll be able to spend more of your money on worthwhile consumer goods, like sexy lingerie for your mistress. If she even asks if the ring is real, then you will have proof that her priorities are out of whack.
I predict this will never happen. The world is just too bottom-heavy with lickspittle betas.
The engagement ring is meant as a symbol of love and commitment. It is cheapened when a gargantuan price tag is put on it. A colorful piece of string tied around her wrist would work better.
I had this friend who was a money-chasing alpha in the financial sector. He kept a framed crisp dollar bill and a magazine photo of a random hot blonde hung side by side on the wall in his room. If you asked him why, he’d say, pointing to the girl and then the dollar, “She’s there to remind me why I’m working 15 hour days earning THAT.”
He viewed life like it was a giant business transaction, which means he was closer to the truth than all of history’s great philosophers. He’d usually start off making a point by saying:
“I’ve been in the business 5 YEARS and lemme tell you…”
Ocassionally he was in the business 10 years, but when he got on a roll he was too funny to correct.
In his view, love was the same as stocks; you bought low when she was still young and more interested in you than 401Ks, held on while her stock (firm ass) continued to pay good dividends, and sold high when her P/E ratio began to droop and you could afford to diversify in high risk international stocks and start-ups.
“You gotta remember to allocate your resources! Don’t invest everything in one pussy.”
Whenever conversation got around to cars, he would always give us this dire warning: “Don’t buy a new car, it’s a depreciating asset!”
“Depreciating asset!” “Depreciating asset!”
Then his former friend-turned-cutthroat-enemy coworker bought a new BMW and one month later he was pulling out of the dealership in a brand new SUV, telling us he could blow red lights now because he got the optional invisibility package.
His idea of romance was to buy one giant scented candle and put it on a cutting board in the middle of the living room.
