Dating in the Double-Bind

The following Blog entry was posted on AVFM forums by one of its members,  jolierouge. ED

The most potent form of female coercive power is by exploiting the essential biological drive of a man and placing him, often implicitly, into a double bind. He is compelled by both biology, and to some degree social conditioning, to seek validation and completion from women. Women then sit like a spider in the center of a web and wait for a man to approach. However women in general both implicitly and explicitly make any man who approaches an unknown woman out to be a harasser, or seducer (both negative stereotypes, and explicitly undesirable, but implicitly desirable in undefined contexts). Furthermore, any person who seeks must be in a negative power relation to the individual who is sought. To approach women, a man should “be himself” so long as “himself” is not any of the negative attributes that women recoil from. He can’t be needy, desperate, creepy, weird, too confident, too weak and so on.

A man is supposed to approach a woman, to get to know her, to ask her out, but she is never alone, or at least very rarely alone. She goes out with friends to protect her from the approach. If a man approaches her, he is likely to be required to not only seduce her but her friends. He is just as likely to be labeled a street harasser.

A man is supposed to approach a woman, but not at work (that’s sexual harassment), not on the street (that’s street harassment), he can’t realistically approach when she’s at a bar with her friends, or at a night club, unless of course he is very skilled or very attractive, and very willing to play a numbers game. Even the best PUAs don’t do as well as one would hope. A man shouldn’t approach when she’s not in the mood to be approached, if she’s busy, or feeling down. Now some feminists even go so far as to claim a man shouldn’t approach a woman unless he has her permission, but one wonders how he is supposed to get permission.

If and when he does make the approach he is told he should possess and display a laundry list of behaviors (sensitive, kind, funny) that are meaningless as he really will have to demonstrate other attributes (indifferent, flippant, excitement seeking) not stated by women, but demonstrably proven to be essential.

The point being that a man who approaches a woman gives her the power of rejection; therefore, he can never be what she wants (powerful, indifferent), and since women almost never approach men, he is caught in a double bind. He doesn’t know what to be because women and society tell him he should be soft, sensitive, affable and kind, but experience teaches him, women, actually only respond to men who are indifferent, self-interested, vain and glib.

He is supposed not to be needy, but generally, he needs sex. Both wanting and craving it, and needs the validation that will come from it. So he is like a hungry man who is made to pretend he doesn’t want to eat to get maybe a meal one time out of 200 tries. If he works on Game and personal excellence, he can trim that down to maybe 1 in 20 if he’s decently good looking. If he’s a fatty or just congenitally ugly: tough fucking luck.

Women delight in the paradoxes they present men with, with casual cruelty they giggle about how difficult they are and how that’s just the way it is. It’s just the way they make it. They are exploiting biology to their benefit, and that is indeed cruel. The argument that men let them do it is only half true. That’s like saying that people let McDonald’s ruin their health as if fast food restaurants have no moral responsibility.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: