An article for discussion

Marquis

Jack Dawkins
Joined
Jul 9, 2002
Posts
10,462
I almost want to put this on the GB and see what they think, but I'll start here. I'm dying to hear opinions on this article I happened to walk into today.

-- by Mike Pilinski --

© 2003 Kipling Kat Publishing Co. -- All Rights Reserved
http://www.highstatusmale.com/

Contrary to what you see every week on 'Sex and the City', women are the complete opposite of men in that, the more *anonymous* the sexual encounter, the LESS gratifying they find it to be. Unlike the fictional uber-slut Miranda, satisfying sex does not begin and end with the quest to find someone new to have an orgasm with. For the vast majority of women, the MORE connected they feel to their partner, the more overwhelming the total sexual experience is for them.

Just the reverse of typical male thinking, right? Men are intensely turned on by the thought of having sex with a woman for that very FIRST time, or by scoring a one-night stand with a perfect stranger, or perhaps fantasizing about being in a porno movie and having wanton sex with dozens of hot women he hardly knows. The common link between all these scenarios is that there is NO emotional bonding involved. Hell, there's hardly even an exchange of names! For the man, the more anonymous the sex the more *exciting* the idea of the conquest.

How the two genders make use of (and even exploit) this knowledge of each other's romantic weakness, however, is an entirely DIFFERENT story.

Women know exactly how to turn men on by manipulating this hardwired 'quirk' in their character that absolves them of the need to actually know anything about a woman who has triggered his desire to mate. How? Simply by pushing this uniquely male "anonymous sex" button long and often... by acting sexy AND remaining emotionally aloof at the same time. The stripper, the table dancer, the whore. The molten hot stranger. Any persona will do -- and all are quite useful when their design is seduction!

Men, on the other hand, seem mostly clueless about how to turn the tables and pull off the same trick. In fact, the prevailing feeling is that female lust is such a mysterious and unfathomable 'holy grail' so rarely encountered in real life that it's taken on a kind of mythical quality. I guess some women just have it for certain men... and not for others, and there's no understanding the reasons why.

But can female lust be triggered by the deliberate actions of a man? I say absolutely yes. Women get sexually turned on just as men do of course, but -- owing to differences in reproductive biology -- by a completely different set of mental processes. Men go for a VISUAL look that suggests youthfulness and thus fertility. But females aren't interested in a man's age so much because males remain virile well into the later part of their lifespan.

What they look for, instead, are signs of male POWER.

You see, women possess a deeply-rooted pre-intellectual *instinct* which compels them to submit themselves for copulation in the presence of what they sense to be a DOMINANT MALE. They cannot help feeling like this -- despite the fact that the modern woman manages to suppress the urge to act on these feelings most of the time (but, not always...). So when a man learns how to project the most subtlest of gestures, actions and attitudes that suggest he's a "dominant male", he can force a woman's subconscious mating desires to become aroused WHETHER SHE LIKES IT OR NOT.

And some of them won't like it a bit. She may get upset because you've forced her to experience a potent feeling which she may feel compelled to conceal with the workings of her more rational mind. And yet when a woman consents to have sex with a man who has set off these automatic desires in her, she stands to enter into the hottest, most fulfilling sensual experience that it is possible for her to have. And she knows it.

...AND she's also frightened of it -- because once unleashed in this way, it can be difficult to stem the cascade of all-consuming passion. She risks taking the kind of social and romantic chance that only happens a precious few times in her life. Can she allow herself to become addicted to a man who can make her see stars?

By learning to adopt the actions and attitudes of the dominant male, it is possible to create these sort of emotional disturbances in women at will. Almost any girl that you can manage to talk to in a SPECIFIC sort of way can have her "lust triggers" ignited like a blow torch. And when the ability to seduce becomes more a skill than mere luck, your chances of suffering the humiliation of being rejected vanish too. Now you have done more than learned to act the part of a dominant male, you have *become* one. And truthfully, there's no real difference.

Because in this game, acting is BEING.
 
"chances of suffering the humiliation of being rejected vanish "


Hahaha! Good one. Sorry that never really becomes an impossibility for anyone, even me.
 
Netzach said:
"chances of suffering the humiliation of being rejected vanish "


Hahaha! Good one. Sorry that never really becomes an impossibility for anyone, even me.


Oh there's definitely a bit of the old PT Barnum in this article, but do you think the basic premise is true?
 
Marquis said:
Oh there's definitely a bit of the old PT Barnum in this article, but do you think the basic premise is true?
I haven't read the whole thing (too lazy right now and lots of law reading ahead), so I might be wrong, and I just take it this is a general question, so I will answer it.
I always figured that women have (and always had) the risk of pregnancy. Establishing an emotional relationship ensures that there will be a father to support the family. *shrugs* So this part just might be true.
 
Time does not permit me reading it all right now either, but from what I have read, once again I must be outside the box in that in my single days I always found the anonymous and first time with anyone far more fun and interesting in a turn on way than the same ole same ole commitment thing. I wanted to find someone I felt that heavy commitment from and with, but I enjoyed sexual freedom and actually found male fatasies appealed and related to me more than the female ones..and I had a porn collection which surpassed many of my male friends and lovers. I had female fantasies, but not the knight in shining armour rescuing and fair maiden and living happily ever after kind. LOL, come to think of it, even now, my fantasies do not contain the love ever after element. As for being attracted to power in the male form, if talking of money, high end jobs, or over confidence etc., it has never appealed to me and would find me saying 'thanks, but no thanks'. I am more into the man who doesn't need to exhibit those traditional displays of power simply because he knows who he is and what he is capable of and doesn't feel a need to prove it to anyone.

Catalinahttp://www.estudiodesigns.com/emotes/dirty/coldshower.gif
 
That logic always cracks me up.

Why hate on a man with a big job and lots of bucks. Sure, it could've been handed to him, but lots of men have to work their asses off and be very talented to get that good job and those dollars.

I can tell you right now that no matter how much money I have, I will never throw it around at an attempt to appear powerful. But I will drive a phat car, simply because I like phat cars, and if you ride with me, then you get to ride in a phat car too.
 
Marquis said:
That logic always cracks me up.

Why hate on a man with a big job and lots of bucks. Sure, it could've been handed to him, but lots of men have to work their asses off and be very talented to get that good job and those dollars.

I can tell you right now that no matter how much money I have, I will never throw it around at an attempt to appear powerful. But I will drive a phat car, simply because I like phat cars, and if you ride with me, then you get to ride in a phat car too.

LOL, not that I hate them, just don't share their philosophy on what is most important on this earth. I have had a few freinds who are mega rich, but they differ in that they don't use it to try and impress and get what they want, often put it to good use for others, and usually don't mention it. I did meet one Dom who insisted his money should not prevent us meeting......lol, all he could talk about was how much money he had, how many people he had working for him, how many places he could travel, how big his house was, how lucky a sub would be to be with him, and put it in his profile at the very top that he was rich and then complained he kept getting gold diggers responding instead of subs who really wanted to submit. Duh!! http://www.estudiodesigns.com/emotes/crazy/loony.gif

Catalinahttp://www.smilies4u.de/1851.gif
 
Marquis said:
Oh there's definitely a bit of the old PT Barnum in this article, but do you think the basic premise is true?

Whaddaya think I think?

But that's like asking a total lesbian if most women think that Brad Pitt is hot. It may be true for most women, but she doesn't have a dog in that race.

Edited to elaborate:

I think this is probably reasonable advice for how to get a woman to notice you, maybe it and some drinks will get you laid, unless you are totally a repulsive loser, in which case no amount of technique is going to help. If you want anything more than to get laid (once) I think you will need more than a technique and some psych 101 body language to get you through it.
 
Last edited:
I love articles like this, but pity the fool. The premise of this article is fatally flawed. Or else I am ha ha.
 
evesdream said:
I love articles like this, but pity the fool. The premise of this article is fatally flawed. Or else I am ha ha.

And that would be because you want them out of your freaking house after they've cum?

9 times in 10 me too.
 
Netzach said:
And that would be because you want them out of your freaking house after they've cum?

9 times in 10 me too.

"I want a man, just not in my house."

Anonymous encounters are sexy, but the penalties for a woman admitting that are just ridiculous.
 
Netzach said:
Whaddaya think I think?

But that's like asking a total lesbian if most women think that Brad Pitt is hot. It may be true for most women, but she doesn't have a dog in that race.

Edited to elaborate:

I think this is probably reasonable advice for how to get a woman to notice you, maybe it and some drinks will get you laid, unless you are totally a repulsive loser, in which case no amount of technique is going to help. If you want anything more than to get laid (once) I think you will need more than a technique and some psych 101 body language to get you through it.


I was thinking something along those lines. I've seen a lot of people in social situations try to act in a way that they think is dominant and have it completely backfire on them. Usually when they get upset and start to act like a spoiled little bitch boy.

It is a personality trait, it is wrong to force it. If you do you just end up looking like a fool.

Maybe the way to tell a dominant apart from a psychopath or a poser is the laughter. It seems that the dominant one will be having a good time.
 
My first reaction: This guy is selling something.

My second reaction: Stop the Presses! Intrepid reporter discovers why Donald Trump can marry a new 25-year-old model every 5 years!

This article is simply pumping up the obvious, and I am sincere in my belief this guy is trying to sell something--a book, a DVD course, or just his reputation as a "relationship expert." The PT Barnum observation--that was Marquis, right?--is dead on.

Basically, he's pretending that what biologists, psychologists and sociologists have known about general mate-selection patterns in vertebrate animals is big news. It's not. He's not telling you anything you didn't know.

He also isn't covering the exceptions to the rule--which is to say, most of us here. I'm not sure I believe the theory I'm about to put forward, because it's most likely a gross over-simplification, but I'll toss it out for discussion:

F/m D/s relationships represent an inversion of the basic vertebrate mate-selection patterns, while M/f D/s relationships represent a hyper-realized or exaggerated version of those same patterns.

(Sorry, all my gay friends--I can't see how to make this conversation relevant to your lives. :( )

Now that I think about it, though, I realize that I have often thought that I approached romantic relationships a bit more like a woman than a typical man--more interested in quality, rather than quantity, and consistency over conquest. Interestingly, a lot of the women that are most attractive to me take a more classically male attitude toward relationships; this lines up with the comments of a couple of our local Dommes, above.

Interesting--an article that, on first read, seemed as hucksterish as it was obvious, is actually sparking legitimate discussion. Good job, Marquis.
 
I think some of it is generational and nurture though. We're the vertebrates with culture, after all. I don't know many women over the age of 40 who share my "ok, nice fucking you, don't get all sappy" attitude towards men, and I know *precious* few over the age of 50 who can even comprehend such a thing. (yes they exist, and more power to 'em as they didn't have many role models or much validation in that respect) But kids of the 70's were socialized a certain way and girls of the 70's have a few bones to pick with our feminist forebears and their attitudes towards sex as well. There are more women in our culture than ever before, probably, who are not out to marry the first person they fuck or only fuck the first person they will marry.

I can take sex with or without emotional connection. Do I like it better with? Yes. Will I go without in want of emotional connection? Hell no. And forcing an emotional connection where none should be is simply an excercise in stupidiy. It's like a plate of brownies with walnuts and one without, I prefer the walnuts, but I'm not going to turn my nose up at the other ones or run out and buy walnuts before I'd consider eating them.
 
Netzach said:
I think some of it is generational and nurture though. We're the vertebrates with culture, after all. I don't know many women over the age of 40 who share my "ok, nice fucking you, don't get all sappy" attitude towards men, and I know *precious* few over the age of 50 who can even comprehend such a thing. (yes they exist, and more power to 'em as they didn't have many role models or much validation in that respect)

LOL, I am one of your exceptions!!!! I do think though that the sexual revolution began in the 60's and there was quite a lot of support for the free love thought pattern and practice, just had to be in the right place at the right time.

Catalinahttp://www.estudiodesigns.com/emotes/dirty/kiss_butt_girl.gif
 
Last edited:
And now that I've reacted to the theme of the article, I can't help but point out the author's ignorance. It's a sickness, I know, but I can't help myself.

Mike Pilinski said:
Contrary to what you see every week on 'Sex and the City', women are the complete opposite of men in that, the more *anonymous* the sexual encounter, the LESS gratifying they find it to be. Unlike the fictional uber-slut Miranda, satisfying sex does not begin and end with the quest to find someone new to have an orgasm with.
The "uber-slut" character on Sex and the City was Samantha, played by Kim Cattrall, not Miranda, played by Cynthia Nixon. A single google is all he needed to do to check this fact.


Mike Pilinski said:
You see, women possess a deeply-rooted pre-intellectual *instinct* which compels them to submit themselves for copulation in the presence of what they sense to be a DOMINANT MALE.
Of course, we all know that spelling "dominant male" in all capitals clearly establishes the author as one. Naturally.

Mike Pilinski said:
So when a man learns how to project the most subtlest of gestures, actions and attitudes...
"Most subtlest" is redundant. You can say "most subtle" or "subtlest," but to say "most subtlest" is most illiteratest. The Microsoft Word grammar checker would have caught this one.

Mike Pilinski said:
Now you have done more than learned to act the part of a dominant male, you have *become* one. And truthfully, there's no real difference.

Because in this game, acting is BEING.
No. Truthfully, what you've become is a manipulative, artificial asshole. Playing a role long enough to get a vulnerable girl with low self-esteem (and I can't imagine this baloney working on a woman with any self-respect and self-confidence) into bed one time makes you an opportunistic user, not a Dom.

Wow, I really hate guys like this. Who knew?
 
I think women are raised and conditioned in general to feel the way described in the article. I think it's totally crap but I was raised that way myself. I thought the more connected I was with my partner the more I was feeling but since I was forced, it didn't quite work.

When the tossed me aside the first time I found out that the guy I sought for comfort did NOTHING for me. We liked each other but we were in love with others so I thought that was why I felt nothing. The truth was he just didn't know or care to please me. LOL!

The next time I was tossed THAT guy knew how to make me feel good. Sex with little connection for me anyway was GREAT! He felt a connection. He wanted to get married but anyway.

It's all crap I say!

I only wish I had been raised to take what I wanted and not feel guilty!

I"ve been waaaaaay too good! I've passed by sooooo many opportunities! *Grr*

I am a good girl! Damnit!

Fury :rose:
 
"No. Truthfully, what you've become is a manipulative, artificial asshole. Playing a role long enough to get a vulnerable girl with low self-esteem (and I can't imagine this baloney working on a woman with any self-respect and self-confidence) into bed one time makes you an opportunistic user, not a Dom."


The article is how to get laid, not how to be a good Dom.

The world is FILLED with women without self esteem. Women who will start every public statement of opinion with "well this is just my idea and it sucks, but..."

personally, I have trouble thinking of something less attractive to me than the guy who's trying to catch those kind of chicks...then I think of those chicks and I shudder even more. I'm even more likely to boot a girl out of my bed in boredom and revulsion after a screw than I am a guy. (What an asshole I am)
 
Actually, the underlying science behind what he's saying isn't crap. It's valid, and proven empirically in countless studies on everything from fish to chimpanzees and gorillas. It's the default system of mate selection in vertebrate species--males fuck whatever moves, playing a numbers game; females carefully select the single male most capable of protecting and or providing for her offspring, since she has fewer tickets (zygotes) in the grand genetic lottery.

The fact that there is some basis for his argument just makes it that much more...well...pukey.

First off, it assumes that human beings have no higher intelligence or emotion than that of our "lizard brain." This just isn't true, no matter how much money he can make by convincing lonely 37-year-old virgin IT specialists that it is. The fact is, human beings have free will, and can jolly well choose not to have sex, even if they are hard or wet.

Second, it assumes that this basic evolutionary programming can't be over-written by events in our personal development. Again, this is false to the point of silly. Like most adults, my adult sexuality was heavily influenced by events and relationships in my early childhood. Those events were apparently strong enough to over-write the basic lizard-brain programming that the author thinks should make me want to fuck anything in a skirt.

Obviously, Fury, things that happened in your life managed to over-write your evolutionary programming too; and of course now, as an adult, you have the benefit of experience and free will to chart your own course.

Basically, the guy is mis-using valid science to sell a con.
 
Netzach said:
The article is how to get laid, not how to be a good Dom.

Fair enough. I let his usage of "DOMINANT MALE" blur the distinction.

He's still a putz, tho.

Edited to clean up a tag bug.
 
Last edited:
Well actually I still mostly adhere to my lizard brain. LOL! Intellectually I think it's crap that I do but I can't seem to shake the need to be "good." Even though I'd rather be a bad little slut!

LOL!

Fury :rose:
 
Back
Top