Compelled to Give
It’s February again. This can mean only one thing: the dreaded, compulsory Valentine’s Day is just around the corner. If you forgot, fear not: the onslaught of TV and radio commercials will remind you and remind you and remind you. There is no escaping them, and they all share a common theme: women are entitled to receive; men are compelled to give. Nothing quite captures the essence of love like female entitlement.
Ask the typical woman to define romance. I’ll lay odds that she’ll describe a man buying and/or doing something for her, without a word about spoiling him. Why such narcissism? Simple. Most women are raised to be self-absorbed takers, and insecure men continue to tolerate and enable them.
Are men worthless? Only if they never demand fairness and reciprocity from women — and many men don’t. Valentine’s Day, and all of its pathetic rituals, represents the failure of men to stand up to women — who, ironically, don’t respect these eunuchs and don’t sexually crave them, either.
Visualize the annual V-Day ritual: women clucking around their office water coolers and late-morning Pilates classes in anticipation of receiving Vermont Teddy Bears or long-stem roses, while men are wringing their hands, dreading this day, resenting the pressure, wondering what, if anything, would please their wives and girlfriends. Why such anxiety? No man wants to end up in the proverbial doghouse without sex.
What a pathetic picture: women using sex as a weapon; men living in fear. The evidence of “romance heaven” is clear: alimony and child-support cash registers are ringing nonstop, the marriage rate is falling, infidelity is rampant, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing, and children — society’s future parents — are more dysfunctional and immature than ever.
Tribute to Legal Prostitution
What is Valentine’s Day, really? An annual tribute to legal prostitution. After all, traditional dating and marriage are the chief platforms of an age-old prostitutional bartering system through which women receive gifts, cash, bling, stock, cars, meals, homes, vacations, clothes, college tuition, business partnerships, and spa memberships in exchange for sex.
Accordingly, Valentine’s Day is the capstone of legal prostitution — its epitome — because of the inescapable, pervasive societal and commercial pressure to perform that it imposes on men. Think I’m crazy? On February 14th, will your woman withhold sex if you don’t roll out the red carpet for her? Think about it.
Men humiliate and emasculate themselves by worshipping women throughout the year. And, it’s totally unnecessary: women are more sexual than men, and men must learn how to turn the tables. But, the groveling is never so acute as on Valentine’s Day, when men pay premiums for flowers and dinners and baubles. For what? To avoid a fight? To get laid?
What’s worse is that women continue to crave and demand these gifts that they know, by definition, are given insincerely and begrudgingly. Nothing quite defines romance like perfunctory obligation, as men told me in a survey I conducted in 2005 (read “Why Men Dread Valentine’s Day”). Expected generosity, the crux of Valentine’s Day, is oxymoronic and moronic!
NoNonsense Bottom Line
Never, ever allow your woman to be the center of your relationship, as is too often the case. If that’s your unfortunate situation, you have no balls and no relationship. Valentine’s Day is the least of your troubles.
My solution to cure your Valentine’s Day blues is this: boycott it. That’s right, stay home. If February 13th and February 15th aren’t happy days for you, why would February 14th be an exception? If she insists on wasting money on February 14th, she’s a selfish, immature golddigger.
Here are three, quick rules to gauge your relationship’s temperature on Valentine’s Day:
- If she’s a selfish taker who expects you to entertain her, dump her. Valentine’s Day is the perfect day to do that.
- If your woman threatens to break up or withhold sex if you don’t take her out on this commercial occasion, end it with her on February 13th. Imagine what she’ll tell the girls at the office the next day!
- If your “relationship” is so utterly boring and empty that you use February 14th as an excuse to pretend that all is well, break up ASAP — do yourselves a big favor.
Real romance is about spontaneity, choice, and reciprocity. Valentine’s Day, on the other hand, is contrived, commercial, unilateral nonsense. If you want to do something special and genuine, choose her birthday and other times when she least expects it. Anything done on Valentine’s Day is a joke.
Parting words: If you kiss a woman’s ass, at any time and for any reason, especially on Valentine’s Day, you can kiss your own ass — and the wallet attached to it — goodbye.
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 40 articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper CablesTM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
mdkn said,
February 5, 2007 at 5:25 am
TheManOnTheStreet said,
TMOTS
February 5, 2007 at 6:34 am
donnieboy57 said,
February 5, 2007 at 8:18 am
CaptDMO said,
I never bought the grade school indoctorination for in the first place?
By the way, flowers are CHEAP the day after, and nothing says “yeah, yeah, ’til death do us part,..whatever….” like trans-fat
laced chocolate.
February 5, 2007 at 8:18 am
roger said,
perhaps initially.
then the sex stops, and then there is no longer a trade involved.
February 5, 2007 at 9:00 am
badger said,
You must be meeting different women or better in bed than I am. lol
February 5, 2007 at 10:18 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
Perhaps yes to both. Actually, I explain all of this in Under the Clitoral Hood.
February 5, 2007 at 10:23 am
conservativation said,
I agree w/ Roger who said the sex stops and there is no longer a trade involved. Emasculate at will Marc.
February 5, 2007 at 10:26 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
I also could explain the differences between a fuel injector and a carburetor, but, unless you look under the hood, you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about.
February 5, 2007 at 10:30 am
conservativation said,
February 5, 2007 at 10:34 am
John Dias said,
Men, step up and demand equality in your relationships. What do you have to lose? If you do have something to lose (such as sex, or female approval), wouldn’t you be better off if you had lost it? You’re a man! Live it.
John Dias
February 5, 2007 at 11:31 am
roger said,
that depends.
take a traditional marriage, where man works to make money and woman works in the home.
he demands equality.
she says, ‘fine, I want a divorce’.
now man must foot extremely high cost. loses kids, house, 401k, car….but gains the doing of his own laundry and the cooking of his own meal.
big price to pay for demanding that SHE give him a valentines day give purchased with HIS own money.
February 5, 2007 at 11:36 am
conservativation said,
Is this the first time you’ve seen the comments veer off topic from the article? Besides I was responding to the article and one of the tenants of Marc’s dogma, that being that women are more interested sexually then men, veritable insatiable love machines, just that we haven’t learned how to tap the latent desire (and we haven’t read the book)
Its subjective but nonetheless interesting to see folks perspective on the matter of womens desire, but when framed in such a way that by disagreeing you by default admit your ineptness (and the fact you have not read the book) it makes even an academic curiosity framed discussion of the topic a dangerous mine field.
Besides John, even you are taking these contentions to task when you admit the potential to lose “sex and female approval” by demanding equality. Marc says you can have equality and not lose anything, just read the book.
February 5, 2007 at 11:56 am
conservativation said,
February 5, 2007 at 11:57 am
melissaTX said,
We are both equally too tired to mess with Valentines Day.
We take the kids out to eat and everyone tells each other what they love about them. That is the best way FOR US to celebrate.
February 5, 2007 at 11:57 am
KateM said,
February 5, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
Nothing happens through hope — only action. If you want the mechanic who wrote the book, I think you know where to find him and how to ask for what you want.
February 5, 2007 at 12:37 pm
fourthwire said,
Those entitled women out there love the day, BECAUSE men must pay homage, or be subjected to further manipulation.
Jewelers, florists, restaurants, and other retailers of high-value goods and services love the day as well, doing their best to spin women’s sense of entitlement into men’s obligation.
To hell with them all………
Any man who feels obligated to give his wife or girlfriend gifts in returnfor sexual favors, or merely freedom from bitching, nagging, and fights has lost his testicles.
To those poor saps who have relationships with entitled women: dump her RIGHT NOW!
February 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
Leykis and I don’t agree on everything, but we agree on most things. In this piece, I do conclude with a suggestion about how to address romance — something Tom never would do.
Romance with a woman — someone who understands GIVE and take — is possible and enjoyable. Romance with a little girl in a woman’s body — someone who understands only TAKE and TAKE — is impossible and eviscerating.
February 5, 2007 at 12:48 pm
KateM said,
February 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm
El Cid said,
For women, sex is about power.
February 5, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
What a bunch of crap. You know nothing about women.
February 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm
fourthwire said,
Leykis makes far less effort to advise men and women about romance than you do.
As you know, Leykis teaches men how to get more sex for less money…. and teaches women how men think.
And he generally gives relatively less “relationship advice” than you do (except with respect to ending bad ones).
You provide a much more useful perspective on how to build healthy relationships than he does.
I consider both your perspective and his to be valuable to men and women alike.
February 5, 2007 at 2:45 pm
oneShef said,
February 5, 2007 at 5:23 pm
badger said,
February 5, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
You can disagree with me about the stronger female sex drive, but you would be wrong. Women are more sexual than men. Period. Every man who disagrees with me does so because he doesn’t understand this — and that is OK.
That is why I wrote a book — Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables — to explain why women are more sexual than men, and how that benefits men. You can get it to see for yourself.
You can keep arguing with me, or you can learn the truth and change your life. Your choice.
February 5, 2007 at 6:11 pm
KVolz said,
I can’t say that women are more sexual then men, but I know that they (or at least some) are very sexual, more than some may realize. But for most it is not about power, but about desire.
February 5, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Roxtar said,
1. Women have a body part that’s “100% dedicated to sexual arousal,” as I’ve heard Marc say on the radio before. That part is the clitoris. We men have no such body part.
2. Women can have more orgasms in one night than men can. (I can have only 2 at the most, & even then only rarely.)
Once we realize this, we can start unlearning gender myths, just as we started unlearning racial myths 40+ years ago when M.L. King Jr declared he had a dream. And if the mission of Emily (on whose show “Sex with Emily” Marc has appeared twice) is “changing the world one orgasm at a time,” I suppose Marc’s mission could be “eradicating entitlement one woman at a time.”
Or it could be the mission of those of us who read his books & follow the tenets (not to be confused with tenants who rent apartments) therein. I eradicate entitlement one woman at a time by calling off any date for which the woman refuses to pay her way.
Part of growing up is learning to stand alone & to refuse to sacrifice our dignity, our principles or our money on the altar of sex–on Valentines Day or any other day!
February 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm
ringle said,
February 5, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
It is refreshing to hear from men who know women. Thanx for your postings.
February 5, 2007 at 8:04 pm
MartianBachelor said,
Otherwise, your assertion that “women are more sexual than men” doesn’t make it so. Neither do your jabs at those who take issue with your claim. Saying they “don’t understand women”, and that you do, is merely a circular argument from authority which could just as easily be turned on you. After all, this isn’t exactly a subject which hasn’t been studied before.
Maybe you’d have a more credible case if you weren’t trying to sell something. Just because something’s in print don’t make it true.
Perhaps if you’d said “women are more corporeal than men”… Is that what you were driving at?
February 5, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
When I say that a woman is more sexual than a man, that is what I mean. A woman is more sexual than a man. I speak plain English. A woman is more sexual than a man.
If you find my words less credible because I am running a business, you’ll have to feel the same way about a lot of other experts, too. Tell Dr. Ruth the same thing. Tell Thomas Friedman the same thing.
If women aren’t sexual with YOU, there’s a reason for that. I guess it will remain a mystery.
February 5, 2007 at 10:37 pm
fixanything1 said,
Interestingly, in Japan, Valentine’s Day works in reverse, with women giving men Valentine’s gifts. The holiday is equally commercialized with a high percentage of chocolate sold annually sold on that day. It is so institutionalized that women feel obligated to give their boss chocolate at the office. In this case, it is called “giri” or obligation chocolate. If a man does not have a box (or stack of boxes) of chocolate sitting on his desk at the office on Valentine’s Day, he is embarrassed. Of course, there are romantic chocolate gifts as well, with many women making their own chocolate candies for their loved ones.
I say give your single friends and relatives a Singelringen. The Swedish ring that reflects how good you feel about being single. I am making sure that my special singleton friends get their Singelringen soon so they can face the holdiay with the spirit of independence instead of dread.
February 5, 2007 at 10:38 pm
chas said,
February 6, 2007 at 7:47 am
El Cid said,
Prove that, quit asserting it.
Why is it that men are willing pay women to have sex with them and women are usually not willing to pay men to have sex with them?
Also, I did not say it was not “about pleasure.”
It can be. It’s simply my observation that women will use sex to get whatever they can and men will give whatever they can to get sex.
Men don’t necessarily like that, which is why there’s an audience for books like yours. Sex can certainly be about pleasure, and ideally it is, but it can also be about power–and women know that. Now if you’re going to tell me women never use sex to manipulate men, well, you’re welcome to your opinion. And if you want to sell books, you might take a more positive approach.
February 6, 2007 at 8:52 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
I am not asserting anything — just reporting the facts. Every time you argue with me, you prove your inexperience. OK with me.
Men are willing to pay for sex because they lack the same knowledge you lack.
Women WILL and DO use sex all the time to get whatever they want, and foolish, vaginized men will oblige them. Did you even look at my homepage at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com? Have you read anything I’ve ever written? Have you ever heard me on the radio? Obviously, the answer is no to all of the above.
Knowledge is power. If you know the basic facts about women, you have power. If you are ignorant about women, you will lose every time. If you are ignorant about anti-male laws, you will lose every time.
My record speaks for itself. I have customers in 51 countries … because I know what I’m talking about.
February 6, 2007 at 8:59 am
El Cid said,
I think we are very much arguing at cross-purposes. My point is that men need to understand what women are up to–and that women will use men’s desire for sex to get whatever they can. Men will go along until they realize what the game is.
February 6, 2007 at 10:09 am
conservativation said,
February 6, 2007 at 10:33 am
conservativation said,
Didn’t you realize I was renting a place in Marc’s dogma?
Correct you are in observing my mistake, is it a peeve of yours, that, or like the folks on the left leaning boards you find it helps refute anothers contentions if you can prove grammatical and lexicon superiority? Geez.
February 6, 2007 at 10:36 am
KateM said,
I can easily figure out if a man wants to purchase me. Men who think they can buy women are as offensive as the manipulative, self-serving women you speak of. I have no doubt the women who will use your desire for sex to get whatever they can are, at least, giving clues they will do so before you reach the bedroom with them.
February 6, 2007 at 11:25 am
Felicia Benamon said,
Couples should be reminding each other that they love, appreciate, and care about each other on other days besides Valentine’s Day. Say it often. Be romantic as much as possible. In this day and age, with so many people splitting up, there is a negative light cast on couples or marriages. Couples at times, neglect each other. It’s a give and take situation in a relationship and it can’t be one sided. Make time for each other, make sure the other person knows he/she is appreciated daily.
February 6, 2007 at 1:34 pm
El Cid said,
“Men who think they can buy women are as offensive as the manipulative, self-serving women you speak of.”
Absolutely.
“I have no doubt the women who will use your desire for sex to get whatever they can are, at least, giving clues they will do so before you reach the bedroom with them.”
True, but look at Paul McCartney/Heather Mills. And then there’s that old man who married Anna Nicol Smith. He knew what he was doing and so did she. And I don’t necessarily fault either–he was gonna be dead soon, he couldn’t take the money with him, so why not spend the rest of his life having great sex? It was a business deal for both.
February 6, 2007 at 1:54 pm
donnieboy57 said,
February 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Roxtar said,
As for Paul McCartney, J Howard Marshall, Donald Trump, et al, those who have a lot of gold are sure to attract golddiggers. One advantage I have in not being anywhere near as rich as those guys: I weed out the golddiggers.
As Elvis used to sing, “A hard-headed woman, a soft-hearted man, been the cause of trouble since the world began.” We guys need to keep our hearts just soft enough not to hate women, yet hard enough to say no to their little-girl demands.
Those who have lived in darkness all their lives tend to run from the blinding light of truth. In matters of gender, just as in matters of religion, for believers no proof is necessary, while for nonbelievers no proof is sufficient.
February 6, 2007 at 8:06 pm
darren said,
I’ve been reading dating tips via email for many months… I thank you for the advise on reciprocal financial dealings with women. I’ve taken it to heart and amended my ways. However, my experience has shown that women are equally as sexual as men. Most are more repressed than others.
February 7, 2007 at 1:23 am
KateM said,
Although I can’t be certain, I’d bet money Paul McCartney saw signs of what was to come. Even his daughter reportedly begged him to get a prenuptial agreement.
I think we all are responsible for our decisions and, personally, when I look back at my life I see every wrong step I fought… my gut was right and I simply chose to ignore it.
Donnieboy57,
Not all men are short-sighted in their decisionmaking with regard to women because some are smart enough to not be. We are each responsible to choose well and decide to not purchase or allow ourselves to be bought, on Valentine’s Day or any other day of the year.
I wonder what might happen for you if you were to speak to women without riddles and spin. I think you could learn a lot from Marc Rudov. I have.
February 7, 2007 at 1:24 am
donnieboy57 said,
February 7, 2007 at 9:00 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
Glad to know you are benefiting from my NoNonsense Dating Tips. They only scratch the surface of what I cover in my books.
If you keep amending your ways, you will begin to see that women are MORE sexual than you are — not equally sexual. It all depends on your ability to get under her clitoral hood and crank her engine.
The more you kiss a woman’s ass, the more money you spend on her, the LESS sexual she will be. This is the OPPOSITE of what you learned growing up.
The reason so many men complain that women are bored with or uninterested in sex is that they are approaching women in the wrong way. Deferring to a woman is the quickest way to boring sex AND bankruptcy.
February 7, 2007 at 10:15 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
Consumers are expected to spend $16.9B this year on Valentine’s Day gifts for their loved ones, but men in particular are the big spenders. According to a National Retail Federation study, men on average spend $156, compared to $85 for women. Popular gift items that men purchase for their special someone include the following:
— 58 percent will purchase flowers
— 56 percent will give her a card
— 53 percent will take her to dinner
— 43 percent will purchase candy
— 28 percent will shower her with jewelry.
Advertising is targeted specifically toward men, urging them to spend big dollars this Valentine’s Day. On the radio, in print, and on television there are countless advertisements for diamond earrings, candy, and other romantic items.
Men who go along with this nonsense are eunuchs.
February 7, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
(Hint: it begins in childhood)
And what is the result of deferring to your woman? Click one of the video links below to watch the monster you’ve created:
Windows Media Player | Everything Else
February 7, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Charles Fockaert said,
Now that I’m not buying flowers for the ladies anymore, I’m buying them for myself.
[url]http://www.eurofiori.it/foto/rosa_rossam.jpg[/url]
February 9, 2007 at 2:53 am
Charles Fockaert said,
February 9, 2007 at 2:53 am
Charles Fockaert said,
February 9, 2007 at 3:02 am
HaroldZoid said,
“Women are hard to understand”
“Women like to be pampered”
“Buying product X will get her to take off her clothing”
…and so on.
Not surprising of course, we’re all out to earn a buck. Will you be appearing in person on “Your World” w/ Cavuto? He’s always struck me as a more old-fashioned ‘chivalrous’ guy. It will be an interesting exchange, I’m sure.
February 10, 2007 at 12:27 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
It turns out that Neil, like The NoNonsense Man™, believes in relationships that have equality and are fair and balanced. That’s why he wanted me on his show.
I hope you can watch.
To see all my media gigs, CLICK HERE.
February 10, 2007 at 12:48 am
HaroldZoid said,
February 10, 2007 at 1:26 am
amfortas said,
Kate has an ingenuous take. “I can easily figure out if a man wants to purchase me. Men who think they can buy women are as offensive as the manipulative, self-serving women you speak of.”
But men, Kate, are taught from around the age of thirteen, by girls, that being purchased is the name of the game. You are blaming the victims by blaming men. Offensive indeed! They are taught that ‘if you wanna play, you gotta pay’. It is the manipulative, self-serving women who teach the girls and create many more. The message in these posts is ’stop playing the game’.
February 10, 2007 at 2:35 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
KateM is right on target. It matters not what you learned at 13. You know TODAY that female entitlement is NONSENSE.
If you CHOOSE to comply with female nonsense, knowing full well its destructive properties, then live with the consequences.
You must take responsibility for your choices and stop thinking of yourself as a victim. If you wine & dine any chick, it’s YOUR fault. The way to stop playing the game is not to play it. That is precisely what KateM is telling you.
February 10, 2007 at 9:54 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
Lindt & Sprüngli, notable Swiss chocolatier, did a Valentine’s Day survey of men and women — presumably in the US, where the so-called holiday is prevalent. What did it find?
What I expected, that’s what. According to Lindt & Sprüngli:
That says it all for me. American men — vaginized eunuchs — are the reason women feel entitled. Until men start acting like men, demanding reciprocity from women, women will continue to treat them like ATM machines.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lindt & Sprüngli is recognized as a leader in the market for premium quality chocolate, offering a large selection of products in more than 80 countries around the world. During the nearly 160 years of Lindt & Sprüngli’s existence, it has become known as one of the most innovative and creative companies making premium chocolate.
February 11, 2007 at 11:52 am
roger said,
Keep it up.
Here is a nice comment from earlier:
“We guys need to keep our hearts just soft enough not to hate women, yet hard enough to say no to their little-girl demands.”
I believe this.
February 11, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
“WEDNESDAY — IT’S EASY TO SAY I L-O-V-E YOU. In case you forgot, Romeo, it’s Valentine’s Day. Find ideas by clicking on the events calendar at mercurynews.com.”
More proof that Valentine’s Day is officially and institutionally devoted to women. Men can stop this any time they want. But, they won’t. Too chicken.
February 12, 2007 at 11:07 am
El Cid said,
Not sure how your question relates to anything I’ve said. Perhaps you can clarify…
February 12, 2007 at 11:46 am
Marc H. Rudov said,
Emphasis on BUSINESS. Read it now!
February 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Ed said,
Buy them for yourself. She’ll steal your home, your kids and your pension for ?????? And please, spare me and everyone else the “you just don’t get love there Ed” look at the divorce rate and who is initiating the overwhelming number of divorces.
And hey, hows about that Astro-nut. Now, how long before they spin this till it’s a man’s fault for what she did. The Astro hunk she was gonna shoot the Air Force “Other Woman” for, the ex-husband, daddy, the dog (male of course). Then she’s on Oprey Windbag crying and sobbing as Oprey and Dr. Silly tell the all female audience how valuble they all are and how, if only Ms. Astro-nut’s husband had attended his “husband camp” her “needs” wouldn’t have been neglected and “Dang, what wuz he thinkin”.
Then we’ll hear about the brand new “BREAKTHROUGH FEMALE ASTRONAUT DIET PLAN: EAT EVERYTHING IN SIGHT AND LOSE WEIGHT”. For only $699.
The movie rights to her “victimized” life will be sold and a new line of female “impowerment” clothing will hit the mall.
Later, gotta get back out on the ledge.
February 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm
emarel said,
They’re choosier than we men. A man wants to have sex and will accept it from a wide variety of women: her personality or character often doesn’t matter. A woman can look at a man, find him extremely attractive, yet not find him sexually desirable. A woman wants to have sex with a man she wants to have sex with. Their sexuality is deeper. It’s beyond looks and attractiveness. But when she meets that man who flips her switch, she can’t get enough of him…
Now if this doesn’t help, in the past three years I’ve been blown away by how many women I’ve met who have confessed to having or have had vibrators, dildos, “rabbits”, etc. They love to orgasm, but, in lieu of the right man, most will use the substite.
Just my thoughts.
February 12, 2007 at 6:36 pm
HaroldZoid said,
Author Michelle Langley said the following on the Leykis program some time ago: (paraphrasing)
“Men spread the seed, but women GATHER it”
What do you think? Thanks,
February 12, 2007 at 8:17 pm
amfortas said,
If you know anything about anything about the message I constantly give you could not possibly come up with - ‘The way to stop playing the game is not to play it. That is precisely what KateM is telling you’. As though this was news! As though Kate actually said that.
I have been saying ’stop playing the game’ for years, cloth ears. And lots of other ‘games’ women wanna play.
As for this - “It matters not what you learned at 13″ - so what do you say to the 14, 15, 18 year old who has the ‘no pay, no play’ reinforced every ten minutes? Don’t play? Good idea. So get thee to the school playground and give your lessons there and don’t be so patronising to grown men here.
Not a good idea to proposition your married female correspondents either.
How about this sage advice - “You must take responsibility for your choices and stop thinking of yourself as a victim”. Wow, Dr Phil. Reminds me of the hippy, hit by a truck. He looks up at his friend and says “call me an ambulance, man’, and his friend replies, ‘OK man, you’re an ambulance, cool’.
Frankly, if women were the sex fiends that you describe, they would not sabotage themselves so readily by playing stupid games. But let’s be realistic. The average woman is pretty thick when it comes to sex. To her it is a game to win and the prize isn’t an orgasm. She will take ‘one of those that she’s having’ of course like a dog with a piece of string but her objective is to lure Marc in and tell her friends after. “The jerk actually thought he gave me an orgasm, hahahaha”
On here you may get the occasional woman appluading your books, but what do the woman you have actually been with say afterwards, Marc, when you are out of earshot and your sex-shooter has been fired out of ammo?
Perhaps you are amongst the most fortunate men who have only ever met adult women. Most women however are children, They never get beyond the schoolyard where they taught the 13 year olds to ‘pay before you play’. They keep doing it all thir lives. Instead of lecturing men, maybe you should turn your talent to writing ABOUT women instead of for them. You don’t seem to write for men except to call them jerks.
February 12, 2007 at 9:07 pm
John Dias said,
amfortas, I don’t see what is so objectionable about Marc’s message. It’s quite simple, actually. Men benefit in relationships when they reject double standards, and reject the idea of female privilege. Men also benefit when they make themselves more sexually appealing to women, rather than more financially appealing. It would seem, based on your last comment, that you believe women simply are incapable of enjoying the sexual company of men without resorting to pretense. If she’s faking it sexually, and not getting financial goodies either, what is her incentive for being in the relationship? Even the proverbial girlfriends you mentioned might call her on that one. Perhaps it is true that women are the less rational, more emotional gender. But I highly doubt that women would seek out a relationship with absolutely no benefits to themselves. Marc is merely saying that their primary benefit ought to be sexual and emotional. Any financial goodies (bestowed by the man, not earned on her own) are completely the prerogative of the man — and the less entitled she feels to these financial goodies, the better.
What could be simpler?
Marc: Good luck on Fox News channel tomorrow!
February 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm
HaroldZoid said,
February 12, 2007 at 11:24 pm
donnieboy57 said,
February 13, 2007 at 7:31 am
Roxtar said,
I have made my own odyssey from date-hungry teenager to self-confident 30-year-old. With the help of various books, including Marc’s, I came to realize what spoiled princesses most women are, & how much better it is to be alone than to even try to relate to them on an intimate level. On a just-friends level they’re fine, but once dating enters the mix they turn into Ms. Hyde. Neither the feminist left (who incessantly advocate laws like VAWA) nor the religious right (who incessantly tout marriage as the bedrock of society) are any friends of mine.
The mate selection process is a 2-way street. Just as women mercilessly analyze our intentions toward them, WE must read between the lines in THEIR motives toward us–on V-day or any other day.
February 13, 2007 at 7:38 pm
HaroldZoid said,
February 13, 2007 at 10:25 pm
win said,
When she brought up the valentines day subject I told her I don’t do that and she accepted it without question.
Marc, you make it so much easier. Thanks.
February 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
For those of you who missed me on Cavuto, here’s the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?021307/021307_yahoo_valentine&Yahoo_Cavuto&Valentine%26%2392%3B%26%2339%3Bs%20Day%20Boycott%3F&Valentine%26%2392%3B%26%2339%3Bs%20Day%20Boycott%3F&FOX%20Business%20Now&-1&Business&221&&&exp
February 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm
MND/BlogWonks: Your Alternate Daily » Celebrating Male Irrelevance said,
February 25, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The No Nonsense Man » Blog Archive » Celebrating Male Irrelevance said,
March 3, 2007 at 6:40 pm
steven deluca said,
I am looking foward to Valentines day to give my wife a nice gift, she deserves it. She is a good woman, a good partner, and I have meet other women who are good women and good partners too. She works harder than I do, earns more money, initiates sex, and we are not young.
I expect some readers to think, ya, sure, … the problem with most men and women is that the want to go up a level or two for a partner. Ask a man or woman what they want from the other gender and you get this impressive list: fun, kind, smart, exciting, beautiful, sexy, on and on. And you look at them and they are a f*&$^ troll. They are not in shape, the are not funny or kind themselves, they are not half of what they are looking for yet they are too lazy to go to the gym, read about enough topics in a well-rounded way to be interesting, they talk to f&#^# much (like I do) on and on, and then, so sad, they can’t fet the beauty queen.
October 15, 2007 at 10:42 pm