Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Rules exist for a reason. Some are written, others, not so much. This is a post about common sense.

We all know, in one shape or form, about the Two Rules, but I will verbalize them:

Rule 1: If you're a lady and you're showing a lot of skin and your ass/boobs/legs looks great in what you're wearing and you, frankly, could be mistaken for a prostitute, you gotta be sexual. You don't necessarily need to go all the way, but you gotta be open to doing something sexy. Unless you're 14 and you don't have a clue about cause and effect. No take-backs.

Rule 2: If you're a dude, and you're telling a woman she's fine, talking about things of a sexual nature, talking about things of a sexual nature that you have or haven't done before, drunkenly or otherwise getting a woman hot, etc., you need to be willing do something about the tension you just made. It doesn't have to be going all the way, but you must at least deliver 1st base. You might as well just have done it at that point anyway. No take-backs.

-No "I'm a changed man/woman"
-No "I think of you as a friend"
-No "I'm trying not to do this as much anymore"

Just do it.

We follow these rules so that stupidness is kept at a minimum. Because nobody has time for this. The End.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,838 Posts
These rules are stupid. Rule 1 objectifies women severely and disgustingly and rule 2 basically entitles women to a man's body. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Don't even care if I get an infraction for speaking my mind here.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I thought this thread was about to turn into a really elaborate roundabout flirting session between Waif and Yoda
If you think it's going to be sexy, divide it by two, give 40% of that to the state, and then most of what's left is commission, so no not sexy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,877 Posts
Rule 1: Be yourself, be honest, follow your heart and do whatever feels right and makes sense to you while respecting the other person's dignity and boundaries. Wear whatever you want to express yourself and if someone judges you for that, they're not worth your time.

Rule 2: No one needs to deliver anything, no one is entitled to another's body, each person seeks different things at their own pace. Sexual tension can be playful or disregarded.

Rule 3: There are no rules. Although you can make up your own based on your personal experience.

Stupidity is dictating rules (that sound like borderline harassment) to regulate other people's sexuality and dating while seeing nothing wrong with it. How about letting people do their own thing?

I don't get 'dating' nor this applies to my own situation but this post is absolutely ridiculous to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,437 Posts
Rule 1: Don't take dating advice from what appears to be a teenage girl who watches too much TV

Rule 2: Don't confuse "flirting" for "pick up artistry." They're complete opposites. If someone wants sex they'll enjoy talking about sex, but if someone wants to flirt they will probably slap you for talking overtly about sex.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Weeeelll, if I learned anything from this thread, it's not the arguments made. It's this:

The Red Pill Room: The Female Social Matrix: An Introduction

"The Female Social Matrix

When women congregate in social groups, the dynamic is very different. Despite clamoring for gender equality, these differences are quite readily apparent to feminist theoreticians and social scientists, as well as casual observers. As one female commentor observed,


I find it odd to realize that most men don't observe something that is obvious to every woman I know: that there is a competitive male dynamic to groups that is completely different from the way female groups act. They don't know, of course, because unless the group is overwhelmingly female, the dynamic of any mixed group always defaults to male, with women fading back into supporting conversational roles. Maybe it's the kind of thing you can only observe by contrast to the extremely anti-competitive nature of female groups.
The easiest way to put it (and this is hardly original) is that men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it — by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves.

While the commentor clearly is trying to tout the advantages of the female-oriented group dynamic, wherein the individual submerges themselves within the group, as opposed to attempting to distinguish herself (and therefore attract unwanted attention and competition) as a male would do in a male-only group.

That doesn't mean that there are no female leaders -- far from it. Indeed, the entire point of the Female Social Matrix is to dominate the group without the appearance of dominating the group. The emphasis is not on gentle competition with words or demonstrations of competence. It is far more a matter of establishing social position through consensus and alliances and then defending it. Meanwhile, the role of the group is to ensure that no one leader gains enough power to dominate the consensus. All-female groupings have traditionally been seen as naturally more democratic . . . but that observation likely misses the subtleties of female group dynamics.



A better conceptualization of all-female group dynamics is the Crab Basket Model (Bischof-Köhler, 1990, 1992). In a basket full of crabs, one does not have to put a lid on the basket to prevent crabs from crawling out because every time one crab tries to crawl higher, another will hold her back by crawling over her. According to this model, women build dominance hierarchies in the same way men do, basically, but those hierarchies are less stable across time and less likely to survive organizational challenges intact. It is telling that despite an overall stability of the rank orders across time, rank position changes occur among low-ranking individuals in all-male groups, whereas in all-female groups, such shifts are far more frequent among middle- and top-ranking females (Savin-Williams, 1979), demonstrating the constantly shifting social alliances determined to re-position a particular individual or group.

While men will decide on a leader and then advance their respect and grant him authority in good faith until he proves his incompetence, once women decide on a leader they immediately begin looking for ways to cast her down, undermine her authority or mitigate her power. . . without looking like that's what they're doing. Female competition is subtle and indirect, a matter of turning group consensus away from the established leaders' desire toward your own. And if you're thinking that's a lousy way to run a company or a non-profit or any organization that wants to actually get something done, well, I can't argue with that. For women all-too-often impose their mating-oriented social ordering on group dynamics in a way which actually rewards inefficiency if it means advancing a particular woman or clique to a dominant position in the Matrix even at the expense of the stated group mission. In other words, it's more important in all-girl groups that things are "fair" that it is that they "get done".


That's why women didn't build the pyramids. Of course, in their defense, women also wouldn't have seen the need to build a huge pile of stones for no particularly good reason.

Female social hierarchies depend upon loyalty, just as male hierarchies do, but rarely is that loyalty paid to the Alpha leader directly. Instead women form smaller cliques much more easily, allying themselves socially with other women for the purpose of advancing their social position.

Women have a facility for easy social connections, based on their superior communication skills, that allows quick alliances to form and break down. A woman will often find one or two social partners within a group and stick with them, using the combined power of the smaller group to attract advantageous allies. In this sense consensus becomes far more important than authority and respect.

Conventional wisdom says that women are far less likely to develop social hierarchies than men. After all, women are also far more likely to prefer a reward system of equal allocations, wherein every member of the group gets an even and equal share regardless of effort expended or success achieved (Dobbins, 1986). But the fact is that women express dominance to each other in very different and more subtle ways than men do (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992) and therefore you cannot measure male-dominance in an all-male group the same way you measure female-dominance in an all-female group. Men will clearly display their dominance through visual or situational cues -- a private saluting a general, for instance, is pretty clear-cut dominance-and-submission.


Women, however, use more subtle tools to socially dominate. In particular, they employ conversational aspects that are strongly related to dominance, such as interrupting another woman talking, a fairly common yet subtle female dominance measure. And it's not only straightforward conversational interruptions that contribute to a woman's dominance in the Matrix. Women gain dominance points by "getting the last word", or adding verbal support to another woman's statement, even if the content of that support is semantically null.

The higher up the Matrix you are, the more you can get away with interrupting your subordinates -- indeed, it is expected for female leaders to interrupt in ways that males would consider rude or challenging. Women, one the other hand, score unofficial "points" of dominance to the group with their ability to interrupt and hold the conversation longer than the woman they interrupted. If you register the number of conversational "wins" and "losses" due to successful and unsuccessful interruptions among participants in an all-female group, then a very telling social matrix can be charted establishing dominance and leadership even in situations without a nominal leader.

It's interesting to note that women interrupt each other in all-female groups FAR more often than all-male groups do, and that the number of interruptions rises with the longevity of the group. Further, because the perception of female group members by other group members profoundly influences the formation of a hierarchy within an all-female group, we can conclude that peer perception serves to externally validate conversational "wins" in interruptive interactions that accurately identify dominant women in the group.

In other words, a woman cannot be a leader of other women unless the consensus has validated her dominance . . . she depends on the consensus for authority, and she gains that authority by garnering verbal support and validation from other women.



In all-female groups winning interruptive competitions is positively related to being perceived as involved in the group discussion . . . and among women, "being involved" in the group is extremely important -- more important than actually accomplishing anything. The perception of involvement is almost always given higher status and credit than achievement. And since women, in general, tend to portion out rewards equitably, that extends to status granted for participation. Regardless of the success or failure of the endeavor, as long as everyone participated, everyone's a winner. Competition is downplayed . . . officially.

Unofficially, the power struggles "behind the scenes" and under the surface can be titanic. Thanks to feminine adeptness at subtle and subtextual communications they are rarely in forms that men can plainly see, and they follow a sophisticated "code" of verbal and physical communication that women generally socialize into with great ease. Viscous verbal sparring may sound like polite, almost meaningless conversation to men who do not appreciate the context of the communication -- which to women is more important than the communication itself. Anyone who grew up in the South will recognize this instantly as the "Church Lady Effect".

Southern churches are notorious hotbeds of the Female Social Matrix in its rawest form. With deft speech and subtle innuendo, "Emily is such a social little dear, bless her heart!" can be translated -- in context -- as "Emily is a social-climbing little slut who will stop at nothing to dominate her sphere of the local Matrix, and she had better watch her step, or she's going to get taken out by the current leaders of the Matrix -- but on the other hand she does show some potential as an ally, so I won't condemn her as much as put her in her place because that is how magnanimous and gracious I am -- for which I should earn status within the Matrix."

Context, you see, is everything for women.

Men, on the other hand, see over-involvement in a group or discussion, too much oratory at the expense of brevity, as an attempt to hijack existing social authority. Unless the competence of the leadership has been commonly called into question, it is often met with disdain and disapproval. A dude who talks too much is almost always demoted in status in an all-male social group. She's promoted, in an all-female group. Where men use order and competence to establish dominance, women use consensus and participation, and that determination is made largely on the basis of who talks the most, the loudest, the most deftly, and to the right people.

If Men form hierarchical structures quickly and easily, all-female groups need more time than all-male groups to form highly hierarchically structured groups. This is in large part on the need to develop consensus and peel back the obscuring layers of subtle discussion to reveal who the real power brokers are within an all-female group . . . until they themselves are challenged and overtaken by lower-ranking members of the Matrix.

Because the moment a crab tries to rise out of the basket, the consensus seeks to balance that by "taking her down a notch" and depriving her of status on pretext. Whereas men celebrate and reward individual achievement as the natural consequence of successful competition, women see such singular achievement as a threat to the consensus that is supposed to sustain them all. Hence the acidic response women often show at the news of their female peers achievements -- even their best, closest friends' laurels almost instantly get trashed with rationalizations about why their success isn't truly deserved.

You see, the Female Social Matrix runs by consensus -- it lives and dies on consensus. And as consensus is the absence of leadership, any time a real leader chances to emerge from the group it threatens to break the consensus, and therefore must be punished by the rest of the group. This consensus is formed by sharing opinion and exchanging information, ceaselessly gathering data on who is who at the global, national, state and (most importantly) local level, and through this constant exchange of information and situational updates, each woman can establish in her mind just where she fits (generally speaking) into the Matrix. But once she establishes that, she accepts her peer-validated position within her self-defined group -- her local Matrix -- and begins to scheme to improve her status. At the same time, by accepting her place in the Matrix she also tacitly agrees to maintain the social discipline the consensus requires of her.

Now this might be vastly different, depending on the nature of the local Matrix. If the girls in question are young, pretty, horny, and obsessed with just how much they can trade on their appearance and sexuality, then the consensus requires that all those within the local Matrix agree to "slut out" with everyone else . . . and so the chick who's still a virgin looses serious status, locally. That same chick gains serious status when the local Matrix emphasizes demure sexuality, saving it for marriage, and places a high value on virginity in a young woman.


So how does a woman know which local Matrix she's in? Again, it's a question of context.

A young unmarried woman in her 20s actually has several overlapping Matrices in her life: her contemporary peers, the women in her family, the women at her job, the women at her church, the women in the neighborhood, the women in her scrapbook club. Her position within any of those local matrices is going to be determined upon the context of the relationship. Her trendy fashion sense and sarcastic comments put her at the top of her peer Matrix . . . but those same advantages actually lose her status when she's around her mother, sister, grandmother, female cousins and aunts, who may see it as wasteful and flamboyant (even as they admire it). The woman hasn't changed, but her position within and relative to the local Matrix has changed with its composition.

When a strange group of women meet, they undergo the same sort of social hierarchies that men do, eventually; but instead of demonstrations of alphatude to establish a pecking order, women take longer to evaluate and portion out their respect and loyalty to other women . . . because first they must establish the context in which they are all related before they can decide who leads the local Matrix. That means a lot of informal communication and careful observation of established social cues before the initial soft alliances -- grouping into cliques -- begins.

In other words, before women can even establish a Matrix consensus they must carefully evaluate the other women in social context first, and then begin making personal assessments that can lead to a decision whether or not to socially ally with them. When the women are strangers and there is no pre-established common point of discussion upon which to base an evaluation, women will defer to the culturally and socially mandated rituals which are acknowledged as socially productive segues into a fuller exchange of information.

In other words, women have to talk about their shoes before they can figure out who's going to lead the Matrix.



Seriously, shoes are a common and socially acceptable, pan-gender safe topic of discussion that will, much to the amazement of men who do not understand, lead to far more meaningful assessments on the part of the women participating in the discussion. Every woman wears shoes. Every woman has shoe stories. Every woman has distinct likes and dislikes about shoes. Due to their universal nature and historical use as a social reference point, the particular shoe selection a woman makes can communicate volumes to her peers subtextually. Shoes are, in a very real way, feminine shorthand that sum up a whole host of informational needs at once.

The shoes a woman wears, once you understand the code, demonstrate her socioeconomic status, her physical appearance, her mood, her personality, her income level, her skill in handling heels, her health concerns, her taste, her bargain-hunting ability, her knowledge of fad and fashion (for which she must use the context of style and fashion magazines, celebrities, and exchanges of information with other women -- "gossip") and her willingness to suffer in the name of beauty. That's a WHOLE lot of information to get with a glance at her shoes . . . but it's all there.

Not that the topic stays on shoes, but they offer a common point of reference and point of departure, as well as an opening for either woman to steer the conversation. It's almost like a lodge ritual, the way they exchange opinions on likes and dislikes. And from shoes they go to hairstyle, make-up, and wardrobe, each step filling their need for data to establish context. The underlying assumption is that all women are equally at odds with their footwear and appearance, and that by sharing common misfortunes and victories with each other, they are establishing the basis for a possibly larger rapport later.


Once the initial positions of the women are established in social context, the real fun begins. Consensus-building starts as a few self-appointed leaders (who almost always insist that they don't have the authority or credentials or patience to lead but will anyway, out of their gracious sense of duty -- status points!) begin forming verbal alliances through persuasive speech, emotional appeals, and invocations of common cause.

Often potential rivals at a particular woman's level are recognized at this stage, and social polarization around the two (or more) factions begins to coalesce. That doesn't signal the beginning of competition -- remember, the goal is consensus. Consensus happens when one perspective is adopted by multiple parties in the furtherance of a goal or belief. Ideally, the consensus of the Matrix is unanimous . . . but the potential for using the action of gaining consensus as a means to break the consensus has great allure for ambitious members of the Matrix.

If unanimity cannot be achieved, then the de facto leaders of the Matrix (who may or may not be the ex officio leaders of the Matrix . . . context, again) begin to press for consensus by enforcing discipline among the Matrix until consensus is reached (or opposition to their perspective is challenged and crushed). That can amount to gentle persuasion, social leverage, personal bullying, threats of social embarrassment and loss of status, and outright ostracization, in extreme cases. But the Matrix leadership has a vested interest in maintaining the consensus that validates their authority and control, and opposition to their domination of the group has to be challenged and dealt with before any progress can be made.

Nowhere is the determination of status within both the local Matrix and the Greater Female Social Matrix more pronounced, nor discipline more rigorously enforced, than on the subjects of sex, marriage and love."

And then it moves on to talk about how the crab bucket effect stems from a need to protect human genetics. A fascinating read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,258 Posts
I thought this thread was about to turn into a really elaborate roundabout flirting session between Waif and Yoda
You expect too much.

If you think it's going to be sexy, divide it by two, give 40% of that to the state, and then most of what's left is commission, so no not sexy.
That sounds like paying taxes to me. Certaintly outrageous to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
TLDR

i am a bit taken aback that a women wrote the OP
It's because I have an opinion that just doesn't flow with the female social matrix. Nay, a persona. Be thankful that your existence isn't one within the realm of ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
so its your persona's opinion that women who dress in revealing clothes should be expected to be accept advances that come towards them, because they are the ones who got the guy all hot and bothered, or is it your opinion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
so its your persona's opinion that women who dress in revealing clothes should be expected to be accept advances that come towards them, because they are the ones who got the guy all hot and bothered, or is it your opinion?
You must be fun at parties.
 
1 - 20 of 101 Posts
Top