Sudden touch

Having been a man of the world for over a decade now, I have spent some time observing the sleeping habits of American and European females.

Over time, a few notes have been etched in the back of my brain. For example, modern women must maintain the illusion of control at all times, so let them tell you what to do and then do what you must. They will test you in public to see if you’ve caught on. Pretend you haven’t for five minutes.

Then there are the common sense methods of staying in control. Never show up on time. Never apologize unless you were mistaken. Don’t argue; work around them. Always ask them what they want to do, so they don’t put the onus on you. If they make a suggestion, make both of you do it no matter how stupid, so they can’t criticize you later for not having acted on the “obvious.”

Toward the most recent end of my career as an observer of the modern woman, another truism has emerged. Beware of sudden touch. Modern women like to retreat into their happy places, which usually have degradingly immature symbols like stuffed animals and kitty pictures, because the grim reality of the meat market is too much for their minds. This means that much of the time they’re not here in reality with you. Be careful when you touch them, or you may jolt them back.

When they are asleep this is most obvious. Modern women don’t sleep well. Not only are they drugged on caffeine and brain-warping food additives, but they are extremely unsettled. They live with more doubt than certainty and tell themselves comforting lies. When they sleep, they are restless, but if you touch them before they are prepared, be ready for a freaked-out and possibly violent female.

A modern woman asleep is both resting and escaping. She is in her happy place, she thinks. In her dreams, teddy bears and fluffy kittens cavort under inexhaustible sunny blue skies. But to have a happy place, you first need to have something to run away from. She is running away from so much that a sudden touch may launch her into panic.

I don’t think this is the result of sexual abuse. For one thing, the touches don’t need to be sexual. If a girlfriend touches her, a woman may freak out just as much as if a man does. What seems more obvious is that women are expecting interruption by a reality that they fundamentally do not like and want to keep away from as long as possible.

Many of us know why modern society is hell, an equal combination of permissiveness empowering only the lowest common denominator, and a nanny-state enforcing a paint-by-numbers version of work and culture that dumbs everything down to the meaningless and boring. We know that its roots in egalitarian altruism make it a social control mechanism, replacing governmental control. We know not to trust its motivations since it is in the hands of the merchant classes of international origins. And finally, we’re cynical because democracy is a farce since the largest section of any population isn’t bright enough to be anything but narcissistic, self-deluding and thus easily manipulated by dollars or temporary popularity points.

Most people are aware of this on some level, but can’t face it head-on. Instead, they create hiding spaces for themselves. Their default behavior is to go to their happy space when they’re not required to do something, like go to class, or work, or figure out their income tax or go shopping. They just withdraw.

Most American and European women had parents like this, and the parents treated them like expensive dogs as a result. Parents did not want to be interrupted from their happy space, so they started to see their kids as interruptions who needed to be managed. Put in front of televisions, distracted with toys, forced into activities. This made another generation of people who are reality-averse.

The result is that people are basically constantly watching a television tuned to their own channel. When you touch them and interrupt this, it upsets them because you have violated their “right” to be in their happy place whenever they can. In their view, it’s just not fair.

The guiding principle of modern society, equality, quickly becomes “my needs come first and no one can tell me no.” This leads to us each becoming islands of our own selves, isolated exchange when we need to engage in some transaction. Sex, which is a surrogate for love, is one of those transactions.

Women raised in this time are used to other people having a my-needs-first outlook and so have adopted it for themselves. The result is that when they’re in a relationship with you, they’re using you and expect you to be using them. When you touch them outside that script, it’s like a shocking confrontation with reality.

That shock makes them feel ashamed, ignorant, foolish and delusional because suddenly their happy place just isn’t as real as the rest of reality anymore. It has been revealed as a facade. When they get angry at you, the source of the anger is in having lost their facade, not any actual sin you have committed.

19 Comments

  1. Colleen says:

    Interesting. I don’t think these claims apply only to women, though. Men consume just as many stimulants and were subjected to just as much TV and other reality-evading activity growing up–including male-centric forms of entertainment such as video games and porn. Everybody sleeps worse now, for lots of reasons –electricity, stimulants, hyperactive night life in cities, high-calorie diets combined with lack of exercise, the change of the traditional 9-5 job to the kind of job where you’re always on call, endlessly available virtual stimulation, the technology of screens that fool our bodies into thinking it’s still daytime. Women in the meat market may have a tougher time sleeping because on some level they don’t feel safe with the men they’re sleeping with.

    As far as women’s dislike of sudden touching is concerned, a simpler explanation is that they like to have a certain amount of control over their own bodies. They tend to interpret any sudden touch as potentially sexual because that reflex is just part of the armor that one develops after years of being bombarded with sexual attention, which is the experience of most women. It’s not about evading reality–it’s about having the power to shape one’s reality. And women have been wary of sudden touching long before the corrupting influence of TV and other forms of reality evasion, cf. any 19th C British novel written by a woman.

    1. Esotericist says:

      “I don’t think these claims apply only to women, though.”

      Probably true. I think it’s hardest on women. There’s a lot of abuse going around.

  2. Karyl says:

    “The result is that people are basically constantly watching a television tuned to their own channel. When you touch them and interrupt this, it upsets them because you have violated their “right” to be in their happy place whenever they can. In their view, it’s just not fair.”

    I can relate. I’m one of those “men going their own way”. Realizing that the reality surrounding me is way beyond repair and thus not worthy of my attention nor effort, I retreated to my personal, cozy man-cave. I don’t have a family, kids nor a girlfriend, so 100% of my income goes to me and it’s entirely spent on solipsistic activities: books, computers, videogames, internet, traveling, mercenary sex.

    When I’m home, I don’t even answer the phone or the door anymore. I boarded my windows. I wear earphones 24/7 so I can drown out even ambient noise. I buy food in bulk every 6 months so I don’t even have to go out. I don’t like to be wrested from my little reality. I simply dropped out.

    And I’ve never been happier.

    My prediction is that in the coming years, more and more people will do exactly what I’m doing. Having a stake in society isn’t worth it anymore. Very possibly some entrepreneur will come up with some “cubicle hotel” idea where people will be able to purchase very small, very cheap, insulated micro-apartments furnished with basic necessities and isolate themselves from the world while being entertained by internet, videogames and so forth.

    Maybe I’ll be that guy, who knows.

    Great blog.

    1. Joe Coffee says:

      Karyl, it’s funny the way you describe happiness. I remember reading a blog some months ago that displayed two pictures: one of the mansion, women and fast cars and the other picture of a skinny guy sitting in the corner of a dirty room. The skinny guy was wearing goggles hooked up to some sort of gaming or virtual reality machine. And the blogger said of the two pictures, “the first picture is what you think happiness is like, but the second picture is probably a lot closer to what happiness really is.”

      But I drink a good amount of coffee and play some Call of Duty. And I lift weights and get out regularly.

      I understand that life around me is not so healthy, but I manage to make the best of it.

      I will never tear myself apart from the world around me in favor of an isolated cubicle. It is better to keep going.

      1. Karyl says:

        Of course people have their own idea of happiness. Some people would wither and die with a lifestyle like mine. It would feel like imprisonment, especially if they are already invested in society: family, friends, girlfriends, 9-5 jobs, mortgages, obligations. To me it’s the opposite.

        I don’t advocate doing what I do nor I proselytize; it simply works for me, I’m happy, and that’s it. I’ve always been a total loner and I never had any particular stake in society, so the transition was extremely easy. I’m also very lucky because I don’t have any debts, own my house, and I have a modest but sufficient source of income.

        Oh, of course I don’t vegetate all day, by the way; I also work out (I have a home gym, squat rack and all) and I do take care of myself, namely showering and cleaning.

        I know I’m not alone, though. More and more people are withdrawing from the mainstream for various reasons: unbridled female hypergamy coupled with feminism left them without suitable mates; their humanities degrees are worthless; feeling of powerlessness; general melancholy. And of course some are just plain nuts, but hey.

        Those people look around them and see a gelid void. Then they look at their computer screen and see vast, lush virtual worlds; a feeling of connection and belonging, virtual but still better than the non-virtual anomie of the external world; and so on. Some even find love.

    2. Missy says:

      What is your source of income? Just curious!

      1. Karyl says:

        It’s a combination of freelancing (computer programming), copywriting, translations (I speak a few languages) and a big chunk comes from semi-passive income from internet marketing. I clear about $2,000/2,500 a month on average, 70-80% of which goes to savings, since I own my house free and clear and that’s a HUGE load off any budget.

    3. Esotericist says:

      “Realizing that the reality surrounding me is way beyond repair and thus not worthy of my attention nor effort, I retreated to my personal, cozy man-cave. I don’t have a family, kids nor a girlfriend, so 100% of my income goes to me and it’s entirely spent on solipsistic activities: books, computers, videogames, internet, traveling, mercenary sex.”

      I think this is all that’s left for men, until they realize that they’re not alone in realizing that the world is beyond repair, and thus there can be more for them. Decisions like wife and family are completely pointless until you can see that there is the possibility of them being successful, not failures like we see around us every day. There is a better life out there, but most people are afraid to admit there’s problems with how most people live, or that we need to change to achieve that better life.

  3. ferret says:

    “And finally, we’re cynical because democracy is a farce since the largest section of any population isn’t bright enough to be anything but narcissistic, self-deluding and thus easily manipulated by dollars or temporary popularity points.”

    If the majority isn’t bright enough, we dont want their participation in the decision making. Thus, manipulating the majority might be a right thing, if properly performed.

    The questions are:
    1. Who manipulates?
    2. What is the purpose of this manipulating?
    3. Why we blame only those who are manipulated without mentioning the smart guys who is conducting the process?

    By avoiding these questions we also withdraw from reality.

    1. Karyl says:

      The manipulators are those who own the media, of course. Although I’ll admit that’s too simplistic: it’s in fact an informal cabal, with the media owners at the top, and then a rag-tag hierarchy of enablers of various stripes below them, some trying to sell stuff we don’t really need and whose value is artificially created and inflated through propaganda, some trying to rile us up engineering fear and anxiety to sell more copies or to justify illegal wars, and so on.

      I don’t blame the manipulated. They don’t know any better, and when exposed to the truth, they’re more likely to lash out in rage rather than be thankful.

      I hate to refer to pop culture too much, but the Matrix offers a lot of examples. Remember that mustachioed guy, the traitor, Cypher? He hated Morpheus with a passion because by removing him from the “fake” Matrix he relegated him to a “true” life in a dreary and dank place, eating a flavorless gumbo for sustenance and staring at a screen basically 24/7. No wonder he wants to go back – the lie feels better than the truth!

      How can you blame them?

      1. ferret says:

        “the media owners at the top”

        Not clear who owns the media and for what purpose. Do they have a name other than “the media owners”? Are they rich, or it’s not necessary?

        Why they are interested in making us buying a stuff we don’t need?
        For glory, or money, or something else?

        1. Karyl says:

          “Do they have a name other than “the media owners”? Are they rich, or it’s not necessary?”

          Oh, yes they do. There are many sites and charts on the net showing how the multitude of channels and newspapers and media outlets are ultimately in the hands of a handful of corporations, and by extension people.

          For example:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

          http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart#charts_tv-radio

          http://libreria.sourceforge.net/library/Free_Culture/images/media-concentration-cl.png

          Of course the owners are rich, and they use the media either to get richer, or gain political power to further their own interests.

          “Why they are interested in making us buying a stuff we don’t need?
          For glory, or money, or something else?”

          Profits, of course. And glory, for some.

          1. ferret says:

            Thanks for the links: good articles. All in one place.

            What I don’t understand, it is why people accept all this brainwashing that creates somebody else’s profit?

            Why people don’t talk about the socio economic formation and instead are blaming the corporations or liberals or even teenagers for all social problems?

            Ask people what is capitalism and what its target function is, nobody could answer. Though they have heard something about profit.

            You are right, the lie feels better. Let’s go Matrix. Or, better, let’s place an electrode into the brain and start stimulating the septal pleasure area.

            1. Esotericist says:

              “Why people don’t talk about the socio economic formation and instead are blaming the corporations or liberals or even teenagers for all social problems?”

              Or just the Bell Curve itself?

              It’s a mistake to expect people to work beyond their limits. Most people can’t figure out politics or brain surgery. Don’t trust them with either, I say.

              “Ask people what is capitalism and what its target function is, nobody could answer.”

              Social Darwinism through money as a proxy.

              They’ll hate that one too.

  4. Missy says:

    “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.” – John Adams.

  5. I don’t think the gynocentric slant of this article is really necessary. In my experience it’s a nearly universal thing to anyone who’s not inherently immune to it. My repeated attempts at trying to engage with others around me, both online and off, have taught me that the population isn’t interested and will only reciprocate if and when it’s convenient and immediately beneficial for them. Naturally pointing this rudeness is to invite a barrage of abuse.

    I’m surrounded by people who have lost their fighting spirit. It’s saddening.

  6. unamused says:

    bunny bunny bunny bunny bunny!

  7. MAIDEN RULZ 4LYFE says:

    Steve, as always, your retrograde socio-political screeds are second only to your impeccable fingerstyle bass guitar playing, rock on!

  8. TAllagash says:

    i’m borrowing some of the above, thanks in advance.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.380 seconds