FRIEND ZONE How Women Take Advantage of Men by Hunter Williams
If you ask women if they can just be friends with men, almost 100% of them lie. See short video at http://youtu.be/T_lh5fR4DMA if you don't believe me (1). On the other hand, men, when asked the same question, tell the truth. We discuss these truths below in great detail, however if you don't have time to read this entire article, read the conclusion at the end.
How Women Think:
Women view the world as hostile and dangerous (mostly because of men) and therefore the very first action they must take is to hook up with a "friendly" male that can do their killing and hunting while they sit at home and make babies. This is the natural state of the female mind and body when NOT living in a feminist-infested society.
Men also view the world as hostile and dangerous but this hostility and danger is fun to them. Yes, there's nothing better than killing something dangerous for a good-looking chick who might fuck them as a reward, they reason. So men get great enjoyment out of these challenges and rewards, and even seek to make the world more hostile and dangerous than it actually is so they have a better chance of being a "hero" to some big-boobed chick. This is your mainstream media in its daily routine. But no matter how challenging the environment, real or manufactured, the one challenge that tortures the male like no other is the female mind, as she uses it to evade and exploit with exactitude.
Yes, women are designed by 200,000 years of recursive, evolutionary trial and error to confuse, beniggle and upset men to absolute perfection. And this ability is one of the things that gives the female her greatest pleasure. Plus, this skill often comes in handy for payback time, for the bald fact of the matter is: men are NOT monogamous, and women are. So true is this statement, it's an observable fact that a woman's very identity is tied up with a man, for she will always brandish her male companion, boyfriend or husband within the first 15 minutes of any initial conversation. The male, on the other hand, is always "single" or "recently broken up," "separated," "divorced" or in some non-traditional relationship.
Of course women will NEVER acknowledge that men are polygamous and they monogamous, for, if they did, they could no longer use the male's wandering eye to beat him into endless and merciless submission. Thus, through millions of years of evolution the male and female mind have evolved to contest each other, ad infinitum. Yes, strangely these two very different species co-inhabit the selfsame planet but know how to exploit and milk each other with precise exactitude, and this is why their minds ARE, and MUST BE different.
The female mind thinks ten different thoughts at the same time, easily gliding from one to the other as if every thought had the exact same importance and relevance as all others. The male thinks one thought at a time, sequentially, and in order of priority, if possible. Women can't understand this "plodding mentality" and thus often become frustrated with the male. On the other hand, men ask themselves the question, how can she be so trivial or pedestrian one moment, so mean the next and so deep after that, especially in life and death matters, which women often handle much better than "cry-baby" men.
Sex and the Female Butt-Kissing Male:
Women generally handle pain better than men, and some of them even like it. Men generally like sex more than women, or if women DO like it as much (as studies indicate) they are hiding this fact, which effectively nullifies the statement that "women like sex as much as men." In fact, so little do women ACT on sex or even THINK of sex, it's as if it doesn't even EXIST until a male comes into her presence (literally or metaphorically) and creates it. THEN she remembers that she likes it and after she's warned up, she can easily out-sustain, and out-perform the male. And men respect nothing about a woman MORE than her ability to be a true blue slut, for if she can't be this one simple thing -- a slut -- she is useless to most men after the meal is served, the kids cared for and the house cleaned. Of course, everybody loves a slut BUT a woman's jealous friends, female competitors and bitter, ugly women that have lost their looks -- either through aging, drug abuse or over-attendance in church.
But of course, modern society -- with its female-butt-kissing male police forces everywhere -- has made obsolete the male's general purpose with respect to the female. Since the environment is now less hostile and dangerous, the female can ignore, and even spit on the male more often. She can afford to exploit his polygamy, as if it were a moral disease, by using it as an endless source of forced-submission to her every trivial wish. And the church, institutions of marriage, the political establishment and mass media are all on board with her because they too garner certain advantages while exploiting the average lumpin male. Yes, the female, abetted by sycophant males and low IQ meatheads with under serviced-penises, has re-designed the entire society the past century to support her every whim. In Europe this has gone so far as to have even made females heads of state: the ultimate killing and chopping factory floor.
Make no mistake about it, females now run the world. The illusion that the male runs the world is easily broken when the male realizes that he must have permission for sex otherwise governments categorize it as "rape." And this permission is always part of a deal, some deal, somewhere sometime. In other words, the unspoken quid pro quo between men and women is ALWAYS present. In fact it is so present, the male world has constructed governments in order to pay vagina-homage to the female specie's special addiction to security.
The Workplace - No place for Women:
But deep down males know all this. This is why they refuse to pay women the same as men in the workplace -- their last little jab by what women call "the old boys club." But be assured, women get back at men by keeping their hooker fees, at or above, the fees charged by male lawyers and CEOs. They know that sooner or later that pay check that was 25% less than their male co-worker will be made up -- if not by her, by one of her female co-workers at some other time, place or brothel.
But these aren't the only reasons women don't get paid as much as men. Most men simply don't WANT females in the work place so they under pay them in the hope that they will go back to the kitchen. From a man's point of view, women mostly distract and confuse the flow of civilization's production -- possibly because women don't tend to think sequentially -- but more likely because a productive male gets along wondrously until a sexy, red-sweatered chick comes to the office or factory floor waving her big boobs, or tight little black-dress ass, in the wind. Then all hell breaks out on the factory floor. To make things worse, often she is looking for a husband and/or to fuck her way up the corporate ladder with actual sex, or more likely using the mind-fuck, "friend zone" strategy. And this happens more than any woman will ever admit. So, let's face it: men and women are NOT friends, as men generally do not want to be in a woman's "friend zone" -- that endless limbo where the male is hanging on and kissing female butt in the off-hope that someday he will get to have sex.
MEN AND WOMEN MAY LOVE EACH OTHER, BUT THEY ARE NOT FRIENDS.
They never have been nor ever will be. Women attempt to make men their friends endlessly and men attempt to make women their fuck-buddies endlessly. But neither sex wants to BE what the other sex is covertly and continuously forcing them to be. So this overt or covert stress is another reason men don't really WANT women in the work place.
Remember, the workplace is the forest, the desert, the sea. It's the hunting ground, traditionally the MAN's domain. The home is the woman's domain. That's where she establishes the infrastructure of the family unit, the basic building block of the middle class, the engine of the capitalist society. This is a wondrous and important task, a task men can't do and women's libbers will never understand. None of what is stated here should be construed to mean that sexual discrimination against women is okay or that women don't deserve full legal, economic, vocational, educational, and social rights and opportunities equal to those of men. All that is being stated here is that:
THE HOME IS WHERE MOST WOMEN OPERATE WITH GREATER SKILL AND THE JUNGLE IS WHERE MOST MEN OPERATE WITH GREATER SKILL.
Thus people that try to demean women by stating or implying that the home, and/or the raising of children, are tasks any less difficult or intelligence-demanding than the tasks performed by males in the workplace are sick and twisted psychopaths.
In short, if women aren't producing the next generation and men aren't producing the products that will support the survival of that generation, you get the dysfunctional "civilization" we have today. Various abortions-of-nature, that understand none of what has been stated above -- and who will identify themselves conveniently by reacting violently to this -- have so fucked up society, it can only be said that they have done so, so they can create something uglier than themselves in a desperate attempt to feel BETTER about themselves.
Thus if SAI is to be built, it will have to accommodate all these neat little considerations, games and strategies between the female and male or it will have to select one species and emulate that. It should be interesting to see what male computer programmers come up with, to say the very least. It would also be just as interesting to see what female computer programmers come up, if any.
How Banks Rape Women:
And WHY are so many women in the work place? Because they HAVE to be. Today, the banks and government have so raped and pillaged society it now takes a 2-income "family" just to survive. This has happened because in 1913 the Fed-member banks created an illegal fiat currency in partnership with Congress. This currency constantly looses value because it's not backed by anything of worth -- only debt, rather than gold. Since the people in Washington DC, the military industrial complex and the scum on Wall Street are the only ones that benefit from this Ponzi, WE THE PEOPLE suffer. Thus women HAVE to be in the work force to pay the credit cards, college debt, car payments, mortgages and all the other inflated prices we get hit with daily.
Banks thus rape women because they have removed her primal choice: to be in the workforce or nurture a family, which includes being civil, if not even loving, to men.
THE 2-INCOME FAMILY IS GOOD FOR BANKS AND BAD FOR FAMILIES AND MEN.
THE FINANCIAL TREADMILL THAT FIAT CURRENCY PLACES US ALL ON DESTROYS RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKES MEN NASTY.
ULTIMATELY, THE FRAUDULENT BANKING SCHEME THAT WE ARE ALL UNDER IS ONE OF THE MAJOR CAUSES OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES.
Due to these financial pressures with little or no sexual release for the male, men and women have become antagonistic and manipulative. Men, even more, tend to do endless things to get women in bed --their "game" -- and women, worried about their bills, do endless things to manipulate men into paying for things and caging them in their "friend zone." Bills or not, the very first thing any rational man wants to do is get into bed with a woman he's attracted to and whatever it takes is fair game to his way of thinking.
After that, he'll sit around and chat and be "friends" and all that BUT, if the woman is sweet, and has a nice personality and seems like a good person (and WAS good sexually), he WILL take her very seriously . . . and not only BE her friend for real, but seek to marry and even have babies someday. BUT, men have to test-drive the car before they buy -- and why shouldn't they. There are millions of women all over the Internet demonstrating their sexual talents and skills. Why should a man settle for a woman whose sexual skills and talents are only mediocre? Why should a guy be satisfied with "the girl next doors," "someone from the church," a "virgin" or "good girl" when there are millions of women out there that intensively practice their skills at sexually pleasing men (beyond most people's comprehension) and are not afraid to demonstrate it on video or in photographs?
Thus, the more a woman, in this Internet society of sexual transparency, puts her "date" off, the more she delays the entire qualification process. So these religions, mothers and old wives that tell women to avoid sex on a first date because "if you give a man free milk he will never buy the cow" etc., is a bunch of outdated crap. The smart woman wants to get sex OUT of the way as fast as possible -- experience compatibility or not, demonstrate sexual talent and skill or not -- and get to the heart of the matter as to what kind of a man she has pulled in with all of her butt-wiggling, breast-enlargement, bleached-blond advertising. She should understand that men never reveal their true selves until AFTER sex -- same with women. Thus most of the men and women out there that think they know each other or are "friends" have NO IDEA who each other really is.
THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION OF THE 1960S HAS THUS NOT YET FULLY ARRIVED.
Sure biology drives men want to fuck everything that walks -- and there ARE mean ones out there that over-exploit this urge, like pick-up artists, musicians, Hollywood celebrities, politicians, congressmen, lawyers, policemen, rich guys and meat-head studs -- but what most men really want deep down is to find that special woman they can feel good about, especially AFTER sex. And it's AFTER sex that counts, never BEFORE, thus we get a corollary:
SEX IS WHAT STANDS IN THE WAY OF MALE-FEMALE COMMUNICATION, UNDERSTANDING, AGREEMENT AND LOVE.
It's exactly the opposite of what Society has been telling you.
SOCIETY HAS BEEN USING SEX AS A POWER MANIPULATION TOOL FOR CENTURIES. It started with Kings who wanted the best female specimens in their kingdoms all for themselves. So they partnered with the Church to get as many of the males locked away in sexual quarantine as possible. This sexual quarantine is today known as marriage.
So, of course, this is why 50% get divorced. The don't like being in a sexual box. And, as bad, they have been driven crazy by the vilification, toxification, bastardization and quarantine of natures' most divine gift to humanity. Sex. Instead, the human race is addicted to recreational DRUGS rather than recreational SEX. The drugs -- including state-encouraged alcohol -- then lead to the VIOLENCE and WARS that provide much of the basis of industrial PROFIT, what the above-mentioned banks thrive on. Thus, only the Kings of Industry can really afford the $250 to $2,500 per-hour prostitute fees women of vengeance charge.(2)
A Woman's Liability:
It is said by women that "for women, evolutionary pressure worked to reduce the chances of ending up pregnant by a man who is not truly committed to the relationship. Women make a greater investment in reproduction. They are, after all, the ones who get pregnant, give birth and, in many cases, make the greatest investment in parenting. Women's biases reflect these facts."
This is all true, but men and women have modern birth control technologies these days. Relationships should thus be pretty cut and dry: A. the sex is for reproduction or B. it's for recreation. Seems to me that 80% of women do NOT want to have sex for recreation -- whatever they claim to the contrary. They either want to have it for reproduction, vengeance, potential vengeance or to use it to vice males into relationships because they want a) male protection b), money, c) status or d) to use one male to ward off other males in pursuit. Again, this is why 80% of women will let you know they have a boyfriend or husband within 15 minutes of an initial conversation, they're applying d) to you. So, in this sense, women are using and manipulating men: "I already have a boyfriend, so goodbye ... OR you can be stationed in my friend zone so I can milk you dry in the future with a - c."
And men hate this for they KNOW what women are doing (but are too much of pussies to say it). And hypocritically, women that use this ploy will often hide behind some male shield until they find another guy and then suddenly dump their current male shield for the new one. At least men rarely claim to be in a relationships so they don't have this problem. In fact, they do the opposite; they lie. "I'm not married" or "I just wanted to get to know you because of (add bullshit line here)."
But it's too bad the very thing that women say they want most out of men -- truth and honesty -- many of them can't really handle. Even though I DO think this is the best policy -- given women's' unbelievable perceptions -- I have turned off women with my "honesty." Things like letting them know how I feel. I have also been thrown out of more bars than I can count for "just" verbalizing "honest opinions." Much of the stuff I am writing here, for instance, I have said and argued at social events, bars, parties, et cetera over the past decades -- and I love testing certain things out on women and men as part of my ongoing sociological experiments and for screenplay material.
I might add: bars are mini totalitarian states run by the women. There ARE no First Amendment rights in a bar. Bartenders and Nazi bouncers are the mini police force vengeful and psycho bitches use to target any male that infringes even a molecule of their class structure or assumed "rights" in the apartheid, alcohol-dealing, state.
And it's really sickening how such treasonous meat-head bouncers and bartenders will instantly gang up on a fellow male just because some bimbo, c**t wants to throw her temporary power around.
I have been labeled "angry" for uttering these words like these. In fact, one girl showed up to my party last weekend just to say: "I have been reading your posts and emails for years and I just had to show up and meet you to see what kind of a hostile bastard you are in person." Needless to say, I was as nice as pie to her, as I am probably the LEAST hostile person you will meet because I get all of MY hostilities out on PAPER, not on people's FACES.
Exaggerating and Lying:
I was discussing this subject with an intelligent, on-line, female poster I will call Miss E, and she brought up the following point: "The psychologist, Heselton, shows that the sexes differ in their biases and psychologist Maureen O' Sullivan's studies show that men and women tell different kinds of lies to potential romantic partners. She says that men are more likely to lie about how committed to the relationship they are, whether they are really in love, and how wealthy they are."
My response to this was: first of all, any woman that has to ASK a man if he's "committed to the relationship" or if he's "in love" doesn't deserve to HAVE that relationship. The LAST thing a woman should do is float these kinds of hot-coal questions and considerations because the second she does, she gets a self-fulfilling prophesy: the man is now SCARED of the relationship and thus has to LIE about it because he feels BAD for the woman because he now knows he's going to leave her. So some advice to any woman reading this: just keep your mouth shut on this subject. If you don't KNOW whether you are in love or whether he loves you, and you have to "discuss it," you are most certainly NOT in love. The way to get him to marry you is -- with the mouth always SHUT -- reserve your right to date. This presupposes you didn't do something STUPID like MOVE in together. Never do this unless you are MARRIED. If you live together, you can't DATE without being completely in each other's face, thus blowing up the relationship right then and there. Obviously Maureen O' has never been out on a date, never had sex (with a man) or never had a relationship.
It is not true that women only lie about their partners sexual prowess, they will lie about anything and everything as much as a man. But that said, I DO think women are more truthful than men in the dating game. And the reason for that is obvious: THEY CAN AFFORD TO BE. The dating market is ALWAYS a buyer's market for the female. THUS, the males are in much higher competition with each other to get women, thus they feel they MUST embellish and exaggerate and this often leads them into lying. They feel that if they don't, other guys will do all the scoring and leave them in the sexual dust -- and often exactly this DOES happen. I call this Gresham's Law of Dating: "People with bad dating ethics will drive out people with good dating ethics." Is it any wonder all the women of the world are so pissed off at all the men of the world? But these women all played a part.
Women, in contrast to men, don't have to lie as much -- use Gresham's Dating Ethics -- because they can AFFORD to blow off males more often because there are so many more males of vying for her attention -- especially if she's of genetically average attractiveness. In short: thus the prettier they are, the bitchier they usually have to be. This statement should say it all.
In summary: males tend to exaggerate or lie to women in an effort to out-compete the plethora of other males and women can either be themselves (take it or leave it) or be bitchy to the degree they are in demand -- especially if they have a little sadistic streak in them and most do, at least for the well-deserving male species.
Everyone rationalizes their version of reality. And it's true, men ARE manipulative -- but no more than women. Fortunately or unfortunately, women see right through all our manipulations. If a woman likes you, however, she will tolerate a certain amount of manipulation, lies and crap. Good for them. Women are also more mature than males. I know one of the ONLY reasons I have grown up a little is because of a special women.
But when I came to the realization that women not only have the ability to multi-task, but have a 6th and 7th (maybe even an 8th and 9th) sense, it made me very uncomfortable about trying to bullshit them or be (too) manipulative. BUT as I stated above, I have found that women often blow you off even when you state the whole truth or nothing BUT the truth. I admit you have a better chance of getting somewhere if you are honest, but being brutally honest has its downside because women, in my observation, can't really handle all the honesty they claim to want. And saying things like, "I really like your breasts, but your face isn't that attractive" or "Don't worry honey, your ass more than makes up for your breasts" are not the kinds of honesty I am talking about.
How Women Process Data:
Other than the fact that most women pronounce the word "data" incorrectly, females massively simultaneously process data whereas males process it in a linear fashion.
For instance, if a female is asked to observe a giant cube with features in the middle of a room, she will immediately walk up to it and then all around it, several times, taking as many slivers of its existence into her brain as she can. A male on the other hand, will not walk around it as quickly. He will slowly and methodically take it in but each of his slivers of attention will be longer and more studied. I think both the male and the female will arrive at an "understanding" of what the giant cube is, but the woman's understanding will be a mosaic and the male's a continuum.
Now replace the giant cube with a man sitting at a table on a first date. The woman will be all over him, looking at him from 10 different angles almost simultaneously. Her mind will be processing stuff the male isn't even aware of. Stuff like whether the man would be committed to the relationship (as the on-line female poster went into). The male on the other hand, if he is prudent, will keep his eyes off her breasts and force himself to think about "more" than "just" sex. If he can do this, and actually carry on a conversation, and actually HEAR what the woman is saying, and actually care and get into her life somewhat, she will notice and appreciate the effort. The "effort," in essence, is for the man to process data like she is processing him -- globally, massively, simultaneously -- so that he can discover something more about her than just the one thing he wants to discover. So that's more on how women think -- or don't.
When is the Time To Have Sex:
When I stated to my on-line female poster, Miss E, the following: "fuck these religions, mothers and old wives that tell women to avoid sex on a first date and 'if they give the man free milk he will never buy the cow,' etc. ad nausium. That's all a bunch of crap," she responded with something that I feel was wise, if not brilliant:
Miss E stated, "The time to have sex is when the opportunity is there and you are willing to take it. Does not matter if it is the first date or the fifty-first date. Does not matter if it is with someone who you feel you could commit to for the rest of your life or someone you want to feel pleasure with for one night and not contact again. Conforming to someone else's idea of what sex 'should' be, rather than what feels right for yourself at any moment, is pretty much guaranteed to result in a dissatisfying sex life. (I assume a mentally-healthy person would not feel 'right' about forcing somebody to have sex against their will, so 'what feels right for yourself' entails taking your partner's needs into consideration). I just adore that loved-up feeling you get after sex when your primal urges are satisfied and oxytocin is making you feel cuddly and you are all cozy in your lover's arms. It is bliss. I think it is rather sad that quite a few people do not roll over to their side of the bed, but sleep in separate rooms altogether. Sure, they are in bed together for the sex but they sleep alone."
When I stated that sex is for either A. reproduction or B. recreation, Miss E said:
"The primary purpose for sex is pleasure. Anyone who tells you that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex explaining a moral position rather than a scientific one. It is obvious that sex is primarily engaged in for pleasure because the most popular form of sexual release (masturbation) cannot lead to pregnancy. BTW if you disagree that masturbation is sex you are not alone. There is actually a lot of disagreement about what does (and does not) count as sex. What might seem obviously sexual activity to you may very likely not be viewed as sex to someone else. One study, for instance, showed that while 95% of people agree that fucking is sex, some made exceptions depending on the circumstances of the intercourse. And there was a lot of disagreement over whether giving/ receiving blowjobs counted as 'sex'. Kind of shows Bill Clinton in a different light. He may not have been lying when he said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewenski. Perhaps he was just genuinely confused?"
And as far as the idea that the prettier they are the bitchier they have to be, Miss E stated the following:
"Uhuh. It is a rare woman indeed who is physically very attractive and also has a warm, easygoing personality. Being a beautiful, sexy woman is great on one hand, because you can have any man you like (pretty much). But on the other hand it is a curse because you will be pestered for sex by men you do not like, and believe me there are plenty more of those than the former type. As a result of this constant attention from undesirables, gorgeous women put up defenses that keep inferior men at bay, and it comes across as bitchiness."
Are Women Natural Bigots?
In short, woman are natural bigots, even more than men. Unless looks is the sole criteria used, a woman can't tell what man is desirable or undesirable until AFTER she talks to him for at least a while. It is thus a form of bigotry that a woman would reject -- not tolerate -- a human being because of gender (or species) alone. At the very least it's stereotyping when women consider "all men pigs".
Ironically, some of the most beautiful and sexy women in the world are the least bigoted. Not only that they are surprisingly polite, elegant, educated and communicative. The reason for this is because they are so beautiful -- and/or famous and/or rich -- few men even dare to approach them. These women thus experience a (mild) vacuum of men and actually welcome the courageous approach of a guy who isn't an obvious scuz.
Thus, to the degree women patently reject men -- because they're too lazy to deal with the communication necessary to discover their charms -- they continue to create the very situation they resist and detest. The more women withdraw from men, the more men reactively reach for women, even "pester" them. In today's movies, Hollywood almost exclusively portrays women as hostile aliens. Whether this is art reflecting reality or art stimulating reality is anyone's guess, but I would say it's at least 50-50.
Dressing to Be Pestered:
If a good-looking woman's dilemma is she's pestered for sex, she deserves what pestering she gets if she dresses provocatively in public. A woman dressing provocatively in public and then failing to treat every man she "pulls in" politely and with ample communication is despicable.
Women will argue that they have the right to dress any way they want and not be pestered, but that's not realistic because they're pushing buttons in males that have developed over millions of years. At least women and men in the Muslim world seem to understand this, so the women try not to leave a path of sexual stimulation everywhere they walk in public. Of course, Western "civilization" has taken it way too far and probably the males in Islamic "civilization" have a great part in forcing the women to cover up, so that's just as bad as America, but in the opposite direction. Hey, our two cultures can learn something from each other.
The Friend Zone:
The seeming fact that men and woman can't be, or are not, friends, led to some research on the subject of the "friend zone". Again, the basic idea is that women sometimes, or often, quarantine men into a "zone" of just being "friends" whereby they don't want to have sex but they're perfectly happy to have him as their "friend" -- but only on THEIR terms. And since the man is too cowardly to do anything about it he accepts those terms. Those terms often involve being a confidant for endless griping about other or previous boy friends; doing little fix-it jobs here and there; paying for meals and things; picking up things and running errands; entertaining with endless superficial conversation and/or helping her network or gain career advancement. BUT NO SEX -- because "we're just friends."
Thus the guy, as a FRIEND, gives the girl what she wants, but the girl, as a "friend," does NOT give the guy what HE wants. This is basically what could be termed "a friendship of adhesion" because of the bargaining power of the parties.
This got me to thinking how many "friend zone" relationships I was in. And the more I thought about it, the more irritated I got. Indeed, feminist-dominated society now seems to even condone these unfair relationships as if the female's needs and wants are more important than the male's. Yes the Hollywood-driven, perverted society makes the male guilty for JUST WANTING TO FUCK, rather than JUST WANTING TO BE FRIENDS.
Maybe there would be less rampant drug addiction if society -- lead by religions and governments that disparage SEX and outlaw prostitution for political advantages -- were to acknowledge sex as the primary recreational drug intended by nature -- rather than the products of profit-making pharmaceutical companies and murderous drug cartels.
So if you want to take action, here are some suggested emails or letters you could write to all those that have you quarantined in their "friend zone."
"Diane, Let's get together and have an affair. I don't want to just be in your "friend zone" anymore. I would rather never see you again than be stuck there. We have known each other for 20 years. I don't care if you have boyfriends or girlfriends or are even married. That's all a bunch of crap. Either you want me the same way I want you or you don't. Time is passing. Pretty soon I won't care about you sexually anymore because you will be too ugly or flabby and you won't care about me that way either, if you ever did. To be clear, I just want to fuck you -- see if you have any talent or skills in this area. THEN, if you DO have sexual talent and skills we will become friends, and I mean REAL friends -- not just all this one-sided superficial nonsense. So here are your two choices: ignore this email and you will never hear or see me again, or meet me at the ______ Hotel next Monday at 8 PM, room 214 where I will be waiting."
"Sherry, Let's get together for a drink and talk. I am tired of being in your "friend zone". I am tried of your lies about how busy you are. Don't be elusive, name when and where?"
"Leslie, I knew I would never hear from you because you just want me in your "friend zone." You are a coward. You want a relationship with me on your terms and nothing else. That is selfish. If you want me as a friend, you will have to give me what I want and if you don't know what that is, you're not very bright. But you ARE bright and you DO know, so that just makes you selfish. Over the past 15 years you have quarantined me in your friend zone. Even so I have become attracted to you, what little I actually know of you because you are so insidiously difficult to get to know through all the protective layers crusted around your being. So let me be clear. Now all I want to do is fuck. No friends anymore. Is that simple enough? Then, AFTER we fuck and my mind is clear, can determine if we can be friends. Men and women aren't natural friends, so stop trying to twist the laws of nature. These are my terms, the male's terms. Fuck this female society we have become. I am revolting. And if I never hear from you again, so be it. Yes a friendship is a very delicate thing. Too bad we never had a real one because you have placed up artificial barriers based on religion and who knows what other mental crap for over 15 years. So the only email I want to get back from you is when do you want to meet for sex and where. But believe me, I am not sitting at the computer waiting to hear from you because I know you well enough to know that you will never confront this level of honesty."
"Hi Pam, Sorry you couldn't make it to my party last Friday. I was hoping to see you and the party was great! I have been feeling guilty about how I have treated you from inception on, so let me say this in all honesty. I don't think I am really in need of your public relations services, I just used this to get into communication with you. And on one level I am glad I did, as I was able to talk you a little and I like your intellect and beingness. But what I really would like to do is date you to see if the attraction could be mutual. I don't want to just be in your friend zone. I know you probably already have a boyfriend, etc., -- but I don't really care about things like this any more as I have gone through some philosophical changes with regards to life. So, if you have any interest in me on this level email, call or walk up to me the next time you see me at a club or somewhere and let's talk."
It's almost axiomatic that men and women cannot be just friends -- unless BOTH are NOT sexually attracted to each other at all. This is especially true of young and sexually active men and women. Again, watch the video at http://youtu.be/T_lh5fR4DMA to see how consistently women LIE about this fact of life.
That women insist that they can be friends is an insidious lie designed to either foster a hope in the naive or implement a strategy for the manipulator. Women knowing that they are in a buyers' market for men, use that advantage to manipulate men into all manner of unrequited support in the name of "friendship." "You're my friend aren't you?" they say. "Friendship is a very delicate and valuable thing, therefore you better appreciate me and serve my every whim." This is how women manipulate men once they have them in their "friend zone." And for the promise or hope of sex, men allow themselves to be victimized by women who "want to be friends" and who maintain that this is possible.
Many women are probably just delusional or naive about this. They honestly would like to be just friends, but they just don't understand that the sexual tension between men and women will never permit this without sublimation on the part of the male. This is unfair to men and stupid of them to permit this to continue.
Thus, just as men USE women for SEX, women USE men for FRIENDSHIP. And there's nothing wrong with the sexes USING each other but should they not use each other in a "fair and balanced" way? After all nature created men and women to USE each other and placed them together on a planet to DO just this. BUT, men and women should know the game they're playing and society should not be configured to favor one gender's needs and wants over the others. Women should know that men are aware that they are being USED as "friends," lured on by the promise of sex and women should know that men are NOT generally interested in their minds, intellect or personality until AFTER sex. This is where real friendship starts for the male -- unless, of course, he's just a despicable "pig" out "gaming" women and breaking hearts. But again:
IF WOMEN WITHHOLD SEX AS A POLITICAL OR NEGOTIATING WEAPON MEN WILL CONTINUE TO GAME THEM IN ORDER TO GET SEX AND WOMEN WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THEIR HEARTS BROKEN.
And going bi- or lesbian is NOT a way out of this as so many women have deceived themselves into believing. Men can look at and study the lesbian films on the Internet and educate themselves as to EXACTLY what turns women on and they can -- being the superior sex in the mechanical arts -- thus deliver to women the same or better sexual experiences as any woman. So in the end, all women are doing is depriving themselves of not only sexual pleasure, but real male friendships by failing to confront the realities discussed herein.
In short, the more women deny men sex, the more they deny themselves what they want most: friendship, appreciation, love and meaningful relationships. It's as simple as that.
The world population is approximately 49% male 51% female yet the girl-boy ratio at parties and social events is always 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 men for every woman. Why is this? It's because many women aren't doing their fair share of the socializing. They stay home for all manner of frivolous reasons -- feel sick, hair isn't at best, have period, too tired, not in mood, no new clothes -- while their courageous counterparts are out in the battlefield, forced to handle the onslaught of male attention and demands for copulation. Thus the women that DO go out get bombarded and resentful of men.
IT IS NOT THE MEN'S FAULT. IT IS THE FAULT OF THE WOMEN THAT STAY HOME.
It's no wonder some of the women bearing the burden them treat the men with disdain and/or take advantage of them in the "friend zone." The best of the female species -- those most admired by men -- try to accommodate the social scene, and what do they often get in return: being called a "slut" by their cowardly, stay-at-home, girlfriends.
So clearly women have created much of their own problem by failing to confront men and play a sufficient role in society. Instead of attempting to become "all the woman they can," they attempt to become men or hide in the anti-male revolt of lesbianism. But more than lesbianism androgyny runs rampant in today's society and this fact reveals itself as women seek male jobs in the workplace, much of the time in an attempt to dominate men for pure vengeance. But the "need" for such vengeance is self-created, for again, if more women took responsibility for sharing civilization's socialization functions, men would not have to be as competitive, as aggressive, insecure and "pestering." They would not have to be as aggressive because the boy-girl ratio at social events would be closer to the natural male-female ratio of the world's population. When every woman has 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 men competing for her attention at any given moment, she has the marginal utility -- almost the necessity -- to be curt and insensitive, if not a total bitch. And far too many succumb to exactly this. In fact, the culture has internalized this because the very word "bitch" now appears ubiquitously in the mass media and entertainment industry, almost as a term of endearment or badge of survivorship.
I believe the relationship between men and women can be improved and optimized for both. It all starts with honest communication and granting beingness. This is not always easy, but at the very least men should not try to re-make women. They should try to understand, respect and appreciate them for what they are capable of as part of a unique and indispensable gender, if not species. Women should also not try to re-make men; they too should try to understand, respect and appreciate them for what THEY are capable of as part of a unique and indispensable gender, if not species.
Much of the problem comes when the STATE and the CHURCH attempt to interject their politics and/or philosophies into the 2-billion year old, evolutionary-based, male-female relationship. We have cited above the instance of kings colluding with the church to sequester males into something called "marriage" on the grounds of mitigating STDs, but really to enhance the royal harem. Governments today use church-instigated taboos on sex to condemn or marginalize politicians that don't align with, or threaten the status quo. Eliot Spitzer is a prime example of many examples.(2) The bottom line is:
THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN THE MALE-FEMALE RELATIONSHIP.
THE STATE HAS A LOT OF GALL REQUIRING "MARRIAGE LICENSES" BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES -- OR ANYONE.
What right does Washington DC, or any state or country, have CHARGING fees to "license" men and women getting together as they choose. But this is the daily business of the state - fucking its way into every conceivable human transaction so it can profit from all sides like the mafia. And the justification is always the same: to provide "security" or "protection" for the stupid females that think they NEED to be protected from everything in the universe. This is why GOVERNMENT IS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE FEMALE SPECIES JUST AS RELIGION IS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE MALE SPECIES. Nevertheless, the STATE must be EJECTED from the institution of marriage -- as marriage is a sacred bond of LOVE between a male and a female. For those who have attained this higher state of being, they know that nothing else matters.
More research needs to be done on the entire subject of male-female relationships. The studies by Alfred Kinsey (1948 and 1953) and Masters & Johnson (1957 - 1990) are outdated, largely irrelevant and never addressed the most salient, intimate and realistic aspects of the subject. Their research is grounded mostly in physiology and psychology, two of the most deficient subjects in academia. Psychology understands almost nothing about human behavior and to study sex from a physiological point of view is to miss 80% of the subject, for the relationships between men and women are a GAME -- not DNA. Structure always conforms to function.(3)
Again, if we could all better understand each other, maybe true sex and real loving friendships would blossom on this wilderness world before the post-human era is upon us.
(1) For additional information on this subject see the following videos:
In these videos the women interviewed say that men and women CAN be just friends but every male that is interviewed voices reservations.
(2) Also see SPITZER IS JUST THE MESSENGER -- Sexual Repression in America at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/prostitution.htm
(3) For substantiation of this claim, read a book called BIOCENTRISM by Robert Lanza MD.
Originated: 16 June 2012
Supplemented: 22 June 2012
Revised: 23 June 2012
Revised & Supplemented: 25 June 2012
Supplemented: 13 July 2012
Revised & Supplemented: 14 July 2012
Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.
Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.
Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.
Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm
| FIAT EMPIRE | ORIGINAL INTENT | CULTURAL MARXISM | CORPORATE FASCISM | SPOiLER |
Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute