Last night I sat down with an entertaining young rake and talked about all the very bad things you’re not supposed to say especially if you’re a male (hetero or homo).
Is it common for men who date in the sugar-daddy scene to expect to meet mature, stable women who don’t play games and who essentially react to intimate encounters the same as men?
Possibly the only women who aren’t traumatized by casual encounters are sociopaths, who are numb and cynical enough to see it all as a purely transactional activity. And a sociopathic woman is going to bring a lot of drama and grief into the situation because she’s a sociopath.
Walt, if you’re reading this, please understand that you will never find a satisfactory relationship in the sugar-daddy space. There’s nothing about that structure to attract functional women. There’s nothing about that structure to promote healthy relationships.
nah I found quite a few satisfactory relationships with incredibly normal women; it was mostly me who fucked these relationships up by being easily bored or emotionally erratic
If I'm being honest I'm quite repulsed by the idea of pursuing "healthy" or "functional" relationships--I prioritize meaning and beauty and to that end prefer very intense experiences even if instability etc. is the inevitable tradeoff.
nah I've very thoroughgoingly optimized my life around never having to show restraint, and haven't much time for anyone who wags a finger at me or offers unsolicited advice. It's more I want to be respectful of Josh's space and don't intend to start a flame war in his comments section.
I have a serious observation/question regarding young women's supposed interest in increasingly brutal sexual encounters. Terms like "porn brain" are used and I have heard several talks in which men attempt to psychoanalyze women or uncover some sort of evolutionary reason for this, etc.
Why do none of them men who participate in these conversations ever bring up the effects of girls (many times beginning at the onset of puberty and early teen years) being put on birth control and other sorts of anti-anxiety and depression meds. Their developing brains and hormones get cooked in this chemical soup. And if grown women notice problems with these medications affecting their libidos and abilities to climax, how much worse is it for very young women whose brains and hormones never had the ability to develop normally. To me, it follows that girls who have grown up this way don't feel much arousal or ability to intensely experience anything sexual unless something is so intense it manages to break through the drug haze. I think it is another reason girls and young women are capable of doing incredibly intimate things in only a hook-up setting. They literally don't feel normal emotional or physical reactions to the situation or the acts.
It has always been right to criticize the medication of boys to force them into a feminized form of social conformity. We see the after effects and correctly identify that the problems are social expectations and medications. We don't keep reaching for a mishmash of social and evolutionary theories to make it seem like we are uncovering new insights about male behavior. Why can we not see the same thing in these young women?
It is deeply abnormal for the maternal sex to NEED a form of sexual abuse in order to feel sexual satisfaction from her partner. It is abnormal to not understand the difference between making passionate love and being ravished from being abused and tortured. Women's bodies make and feed their babies. It is normal for women to feel very self-protective of themselves because of this, and to want a man who makes them feel safe and protected BEFORE the passion and fire. When we see this normal behavior being completely erased, why do we not look for the culprit? Why are so many men so eager to ignore what should be obvious and just talk at length about all this pseudo-scientific theories about how women evolved, etc.
To me, it seems to show a lack of concern for girls and young women that is unfair. Especially when one considers how many women try to stick up for little boys and point out how many things in our contemporary society wreck their developing masculinity. Girls' developing feminity is also being destroyed and brutalized. It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it but instead criticize the things that cause it.
>It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it but instead criticize the things that cause it.
If you want young men to stop capitalizing on it you'll need to change the incentive structure so young men no longer feel literally anything is justified to stand a snowball's chance in an increasingly asymmetric dating market where the universally accepted behavioral norm is basically All's Fair.
Zoomer girls will call you an incel and sometimes even publicly shame/blacklist you in their Facebook groups if you complain when they flake on a date. They also harbor vicious sneering contempt for the idea of a courtship etiquette that demands literally anything from the woman prior to the establishment of a formal relationship.
The only way to deal with this behavior is through a performance of extreme outcome independence and exaggerated rakishness. So if you don't want us to act like fuckboys the rest of you need to raise your daughters better. Sorry.
Young men are merely swimming in the waters we find ourselves in, exactly the same as everyone else. And frankly it strikes me as deeply bizarre that people would still feel this uniquely protective instinct toward girls when they already have a massive constituency agitating on their behalf. Young men, meanwhile, are suffering under a rapidly skyrocketing incel rate and basically no one gives a shit about them or their feelings (you mention women defending little boys, but how often will they go to bat for low status men beyond the puberty age?).
Given this why should we expect young men to display even a modicum of sympathy for the other side, or restrain themselves when they do eke out a bit of success? Middle aged men with resources and social clout sure; abundance facilitates magnanimity. But modernity sort of forces young men to adopt a merciless guerrilla mindset, and they've every right to do so.
When I say "It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it," I am taking the position that men are moral agents in this world and human beings capable of rising above our baser impulses. They are not Pavlov's dogs who can only act one or two ways in response to certain stimuli. I think men with some years and experience have a responsibility to help younger men identify destructive behaviors and lies, as well as inspire them to reach beyond base urges towards courage, strength, discernment, willpower, and generosity. However, if those men are not easily found, young men still need to (and are capable of) finding their own way onto that path because they will lose terribly later on in life if they don't. And they will lose knowing that, because they willfully blinded themselves to fellow human pain, they ultimately contributed to a great deal of whatever suffering and chaos they see around them. Young women have to learn to do this to. This responsibility is not unique to men. Role models can be difficult to find. But it is part of taking ownership of your own life.
Changing an incentive structure requires people who participate in it to refuse to participate further. That responsibility lies with everyone. But I don't think we need to be adhering to a Marxist-style framing of incentives and power struggles. Part of overcoming base instincts in order to become a more virtuous person involves eschewing debased incentive structures- not making excuses for them.
I am not familiar with Zoomer girls but I am familiar with the women who likely had a strong hand in their upbringing. So I have no doubt that the things you say are true. I am genuinely not sure what you mean by courtship etiquette demanding anything from the woman. If you mean that the default expectation for women should be good manners, forthright communication, some degree of modesty, and a refusal of most intimate romantic contact outside of a seriously committed loving relationship, AND that women should not sneer at that expectation- then I agree. Men should not engage with women who behave as you described Zoomer girls behaving. The excessive online/public performance of everything that goes awry in the already fraught world of dating has created an environment where almost no one can actually succeed. You want the incentive structure to change- stop performing dating and "romance" for the whole world of social media to see. If men do not give the attention these women crave on these platforms, some of the behavior would likely change. But I don't think a lot of men want this to change. They like the detached, extreme sexual access and the ability to point and say "Don't judge me. Look how mean they are."
I disagree that there is only one way to deal with this problem. There are several but they involve more restraint than most people are willing to place on themselves. People should have raised their daughters better. In many cases they should have loved them better (or loved them at all), taught them better, etc. But they should have also raised better sons. Sons that do not survey a society of trauma, pain, and mental disorders and look for ways to justify getting their rocks off to it. Sons that do not outsource their morality to women or any other group. Sons that can look at a world or society in trouble and desire to find a way to help.
Men who say "if women didn't do this then men would do this" in response to subject matter as serious as was discussed in your podcast are not any better than women who take no responsibility for themselves and go around spouting half-baked theories about the patriarchy. It descends into a scenario of the 2 lowest common denominators scrapping at each other while neither is in the right.
It's not deeply bizarre that anyone feels uniquely protective towards girls. It is normal and good from women to want to look out for and stick up for younger women and girls, just as it is normal for men to want to look out for and stick up for younger men and boys. But older men and women need to listen to each other about one another in order to help those coming up behind them.
Girls do not have a massive constituency agitation on their behalves. They have a bunch of unhappy, neurotic, pseudo-intellectual "feminists" spouting crackpot ideas about patriarchy, family & motherhood, all while medicating them out of their heads and pimping them out to trannies in the locker room so they can gain social justice points. Girls are as abandoned as boys in today's world.
I don't know how you define a low status man but I know of lots of women who stick up for blue collar men who struggle to keep work (despite being hard working men), want to provide for a family, and yet get told they are boorish trash by more effete, bureaucratic-type men (yes, and women).
I do expect men to do more than "merely swim the waters". I do expect them to learn how to be better than whatever situation they find themselves in. I absolutely expect both men and women to feel more than a modicum of sympathy for the troubles of the other "side", i.e. the entire other half of your species. I expect anyone who wants to go through life with a good and noble character to feel tender-hearted (this does not mean doormat) for the vulnerabilities and pain of the other half.
And no one has a right to a merciless guerrilla mindset towards the opposite sex. Whether man or woman- that's a straightforward, hard no.
So close to "what women want", and yet, a miss. Women don't want "a nice guy" (harmless) and they don't want "a fuck boy" (unfaithful). What women want is a man who is totally loyal and treats her well, but not a harmless doormat. Women want to respect their man and feel protected while having justified confidence in his love and loyalty.
Like Walt said, they want to "domesticate" (literally) a man. It's a tale as old as Gilgamesh. The man is happy peeing on trees, and the woman says, "honey, if I bleed in the woods, it will attract wolves and they'll eat the babies". Women benefit more than men from indoor plumbing, but let's thank the most masculine civilization ever for the aqueduct.
A "nice guy" these days is not worth respect. He's so shocked that he gets female attention that he'll let a predatory woman walk all over him. He is incapable of protecting a woman from other men. He's immature and whiny and worthless.
A "fuck boy" is the modern monster. That's better than being harmless. He's immature and volatile and unfaithful. At least there's a chance that she can persuade him to change his ways. That's still not what she wants, but it's a step up.
Let's use a "men are dogs" analogy, since I haven't pissed everyone off already. Do you want a Pomeranian or a pit bull? One's a useless, yappy parasite that's more of a surrogate child than a partner, but at least you have safe companionship. The other might maul you to death while you sleep, but if you play your cards just right, it has the potential to maul your enemies instead. Neither is desirable, but there's a shortage of level-headed family dogs that will play with the kids and eat the burglars, so you pick the lesser evil.
That's the sort of modern man on offer now. Hassan Piker and Destiny or Fresh & Fit. No wonder there are more facultative lesbians than ever before.
I'm not saying that men have better options in modern women, but I thought a female perspective might help you boys out on this point. I had a lot more to say as I was listening to this yesterday, which I take to be the sign of a good conversation, but this'll do. Thanks.
Is it common for men who date in the sugar-daddy scene to expect to meet mature, stable women who don’t play games and who essentially react to intimate encounters the same as men?
Possibly the only women who aren’t traumatized by casual encounters are sociopaths, who are numb and cynical enough to see it all as a purely transactional activity. And a sociopathic woman is going to bring a lot of drama and grief into the situation because she’s a sociopath.
Walt, if you’re reading this, please understand that you will never find a satisfactory relationship in the sugar-daddy space. There’s nothing about that structure to attract functional women. There’s nothing about that structure to promote healthy relationships.
nah I found quite a few satisfactory relationships with incredibly normal women; it was mostly me who fucked these relationships up by being easily bored or emotionally erratic
If I'm being honest I'm quite repulsed by the idea of pursuing "healthy" or "functional" relationships--I prioritize meaning and beauty and to that end prefer very intense experiences even if instability etc. is the inevitable tradeoff.
Go fuck off
gladly.
See I know what you are saying Walt but I think you, having listened to the podcast, a little restraint on your part is needed.
Yeah, In the physical
nah I've very thoroughgoingly optimized my life around never having to show restraint, and haven't much time for anyone who wags a finger at me or offers unsolicited advice. It's more I want to be respectful of Josh's space and don't intend to start a flame war in his comments section.
But you did and it ain't no flame war
Very much looking forward to this!
Well everybody is different.
But hey WHATS SEX GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Seriously, most problems would benifit by addressing deeper issues, emotional, epistimological, underlying, or not.
People are looking to be valued and cared about deep down or just on the surface.
I have a serious observation/question regarding young women's supposed interest in increasingly brutal sexual encounters. Terms like "porn brain" are used and I have heard several talks in which men attempt to psychoanalyze women or uncover some sort of evolutionary reason for this, etc.
Why do none of them men who participate in these conversations ever bring up the effects of girls (many times beginning at the onset of puberty and early teen years) being put on birth control and other sorts of anti-anxiety and depression meds. Their developing brains and hormones get cooked in this chemical soup. And if grown women notice problems with these medications affecting their libidos and abilities to climax, how much worse is it for very young women whose brains and hormones never had the ability to develop normally. To me, it follows that girls who have grown up this way don't feel much arousal or ability to intensely experience anything sexual unless something is so intense it manages to break through the drug haze. I think it is another reason girls and young women are capable of doing incredibly intimate things in only a hook-up setting. They literally don't feel normal emotional or physical reactions to the situation or the acts.
It has always been right to criticize the medication of boys to force them into a feminized form of social conformity. We see the after effects and correctly identify that the problems are social expectations and medications. We don't keep reaching for a mishmash of social and evolutionary theories to make it seem like we are uncovering new insights about male behavior. Why can we not see the same thing in these young women?
It is deeply abnormal for the maternal sex to NEED a form of sexual abuse in order to feel sexual satisfaction from her partner. It is abnormal to not understand the difference between making passionate love and being ravished from being abused and tortured. Women's bodies make and feed their babies. It is normal for women to feel very self-protective of themselves because of this, and to want a man who makes them feel safe and protected BEFORE the passion and fire. When we see this normal behavior being completely erased, why do we not look for the culprit? Why are so many men so eager to ignore what should be obvious and just talk at length about all this pseudo-scientific theories about how women evolved, etc.
To me, it seems to show a lack of concern for girls and young women that is unfair. Especially when one considers how many women try to stick up for little boys and point out how many things in our contemporary society wreck their developing masculinity. Girls' developing feminity is also being destroyed and brutalized. It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it but instead criticize the things that cause it.
>It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it but instead criticize the things that cause it.
If you want young men to stop capitalizing on it you'll need to change the incentive structure so young men no longer feel literally anything is justified to stand a snowball's chance in an increasingly asymmetric dating market where the universally accepted behavioral norm is basically All's Fair.
Zoomer girls will call you an incel and sometimes even publicly shame/blacklist you in their Facebook groups if you complain when they flake on a date. They also harbor vicious sneering contempt for the idea of a courtship etiquette that demands literally anything from the woman prior to the establishment of a formal relationship.
The only way to deal with this behavior is through a performance of extreme outcome independence and exaggerated rakishness. So if you don't want us to act like fuckboys the rest of you need to raise your daughters better. Sorry.
Young men are merely swimming in the waters we find ourselves in, exactly the same as everyone else. And frankly it strikes me as deeply bizarre that people would still feel this uniquely protective instinct toward girls when they already have a massive constituency agitating on their behalf. Young men, meanwhile, are suffering under a rapidly skyrocketing incel rate and basically no one gives a shit about them or their feelings (you mention women defending little boys, but how often will they go to bat for low status men beyond the puberty age?).
Given this why should we expect young men to display even a modicum of sympathy for the other side, or restrain themselves when they do eke out a bit of success? Middle aged men with resources and social clout sure; abundance facilitates magnanimity. But modernity sort of forces young men to adopt a merciless guerrilla mindset, and they've every right to do so.
When I say "It would be helpful if more young men would stop trying to capitalize on it," I am taking the position that men are moral agents in this world and human beings capable of rising above our baser impulses. They are not Pavlov's dogs who can only act one or two ways in response to certain stimuli. I think men with some years and experience have a responsibility to help younger men identify destructive behaviors and lies, as well as inspire them to reach beyond base urges towards courage, strength, discernment, willpower, and generosity. However, if those men are not easily found, young men still need to (and are capable of) finding their own way onto that path because they will lose terribly later on in life if they don't. And they will lose knowing that, because they willfully blinded themselves to fellow human pain, they ultimately contributed to a great deal of whatever suffering and chaos they see around them. Young women have to learn to do this to. This responsibility is not unique to men. Role models can be difficult to find. But it is part of taking ownership of your own life.
Changing an incentive structure requires people who participate in it to refuse to participate further. That responsibility lies with everyone. But I don't think we need to be adhering to a Marxist-style framing of incentives and power struggles. Part of overcoming base instincts in order to become a more virtuous person involves eschewing debased incentive structures- not making excuses for them.
I am not familiar with Zoomer girls but I am familiar with the women who likely had a strong hand in their upbringing. So I have no doubt that the things you say are true. I am genuinely not sure what you mean by courtship etiquette demanding anything from the woman. If you mean that the default expectation for women should be good manners, forthright communication, some degree of modesty, and a refusal of most intimate romantic contact outside of a seriously committed loving relationship, AND that women should not sneer at that expectation- then I agree. Men should not engage with women who behave as you described Zoomer girls behaving. The excessive online/public performance of everything that goes awry in the already fraught world of dating has created an environment where almost no one can actually succeed. You want the incentive structure to change- stop performing dating and "romance" for the whole world of social media to see. If men do not give the attention these women crave on these platforms, some of the behavior would likely change. But I don't think a lot of men want this to change. They like the detached, extreme sexual access and the ability to point and say "Don't judge me. Look how mean they are."
I disagree that there is only one way to deal with this problem. There are several but they involve more restraint than most people are willing to place on themselves. People should have raised their daughters better. In many cases they should have loved them better (or loved them at all), taught them better, etc. But they should have also raised better sons. Sons that do not survey a society of trauma, pain, and mental disorders and look for ways to justify getting their rocks off to it. Sons that do not outsource their morality to women or any other group. Sons that can look at a world or society in trouble and desire to find a way to help.
Men who say "if women didn't do this then men would do this" in response to subject matter as serious as was discussed in your podcast are not any better than women who take no responsibility for themselves and go around spouting half-baked theories about the patriarchy. It descends into a scenario of the 2 lowest common denominators scrapping at each other while neither is in the right.
It's not deeply bizarre that anyone feels uniquely protective towards girls. It is normal and good from women to want to look out for and stick up for younger women and girls, just as it is normal for men to want to look out for and stick up for younger men and boys. But older men and women need to listen to each other about one another in order to help those coming up behind them.
Girls do not have a massive constituency agitation on their behalves. They have a bunch of unhappy, neurotic, pseudo-intellectual "feminists" spouting crackpot ideas about patriarchy, family & motherhood, all while medicating them out of their heads and pimping them out to trannies in the locker room so they can gain social justice points. Girls are as abandoned as boys in today's world.
I don't know how you define a low status man but I know of lots of women who stick up for blue collar men who struggle to keep work (despite being hard working men), want to provide for a family, and yet get told they are boorish trash by more effete, bureaucratic-type men (yes, and women).
I do expect men to do more than "merely swim the waters". I do expect them to learn how to be better than whatever situation they find themselves in. I absolutely expect both men and women to feel more than a modicum of sympathy for the troubles of the other "side", i.e. the entire other half of your species. I expect anyone who wants to go through life with a good and noble character to feel tender-hearted (this does not mean doormat) for the vulnerabilities and pain of the other half.
And no one has a right to a merciless guerrilla mindset towards the opposite sex. Whether man or woman- that's a straightforward, hard no.
One amazing interview. I hung onto every word. Sorry to miss the hang out. I was hiking in Phoenix at the time
great title
So close to "what women want", and yet, a miss. Women don't want "a nice guy" (harmless) and they don't want "a fuck boy" (unfaithful). What women want is a man who is totally loyal and treats her well, but not a harmless doormat. Women want to respect their man and feel protected while having justified confidence in his love and loyalty.
Like Walt said, they want to "domesticate" (literally) a man. It's a tale as old as Gilgamesh. The man is happy peeing on trees, and the woman says, "honey, if I bleed in the woods, it will attract wolves and they'll eat the babies". Women benefit more than men from indoor plumbing, but let's thank the most masculine civilization ever for the aqueduct.
A "nice guy" these days is not worth respect. He's so shocked that he gets female attention that he'll let a predatory woman walk all over him. He is incapable of protecting a woman from other men. He's immature and whiny and worthless.
A "fuck boy" is the modern monster. That's better than being harmless. He's immature and volatile and unfaithful. At least there's a chance that she can persuade him to change his ways. That's still not what she wants, but it's a step up.
Let's use a "men are dogs" analogy, since I haven't pissed everyone off already. Do you want a Pomeranian or a pit bull? One's a useless, yappy parasite that's more of a surrogate child than a partner, but at least you have safe companionship. The other might maul you to death while you sleep, but if you play your cards just right, it has the potential to maul your enemies instead. Neither is desirable, but there's a shortage of level-headed family dogs that will play with the kids and eat the burglars, so you pick the lesser evil.
That's the sort of modern man on offer now. Hassan Piker and Destiny or Fresh & Fit. No wonder there are more facultative lesbians than ever before.
I'm not saying that men have better options in modern women, but I thought a female perspective might help you boys out on this point. I had a lot more to say as I was listening to this yesterday, which I take to be the sign of a good conversation, but this'll do. Thanks.