AFC Social Conventions

A while ago I started a thread that outlined a series of what I defined as feminine Operative Social Conventions. Since then I've gradually become aware of another set of social conventions - those which are commonly practiced and self-reinfoced by AFCs. I realize that more than a few of these conventions are going to get under the skin of, and challenge the ego-invested convictions of, even many regular DJ posters in this forum. As you read this, do try to do so objectively. I'm writing this as an observation; it not intended to be a personal affront to anyone.

You could simply call AFC Social Conventions AFC 'rationalizations', but I think this ignores the socially reinforcing element of these conventions. When I wrote Qualities of the AFC I outlined the characteristic traits, behaviors and core mental schemas of what are commonly believed to be AFC qualities. This was a breif list to sum up a few root elements in identifying and dealing with an AFC mindset and aid in unplugging an AFC from the Matrix. Social conventions are different in that they are socially reinforced (by both genders) rationalizations for behavior. Technically some of the AFC qualities I've outlined previously could be considered social conventions as well, but I was attempting to address the symptoms rather than the disease.

I'm going to define a few more examples of what I'm most commonly noticing as AFC mental schemas that are reinforced socially. A strong part of the internalization process of these conventions is that the reason they are socially reinforcible is because they incontradictable (or at the very least foolish to do so). In other words the common response to them would be to reinforce them, rather than challenge them, and this then becomes an integral part of the internalization process.

The Myth of the "Quality" Woman

It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a "Quality Woman." There's threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a "Quality" woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps - Quality women and Horz, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they're perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best - on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.

I think the term 'Quality' woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they'd like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they'd really had no chance with in the first place, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn't to say that there aren't women who will behvaes maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it's very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than "Quality" when you're unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.

The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then self-limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they'll end up with a "Quality" woman by default because she's the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they'll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.

So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say "Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women." Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.

Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.


The Myth of the Dodged Bullet

In my lifetime I've had sex with over 40 women and I never once caught a venerial disease, nor did I get anyone pregnant. I can also point to men I know who contracted Herpes from the only women they'd ever had sex with. The fact of the matter is that you can equally be a rock star and tap hundreds of women without any consequence and you can be a virginic saint and contract a disease on your wedding night. The myth of the dodged bullet is a social convention that's rooted in the rationalization that monogamy serves the purpose for controlling sexually transmitted diseases and thus fewer partners are more desirable than many. From a statistical standpoint this may seem logical on the surface. Fewer opportunities for sexual intercourse would indeed decrease the risk from a single individual, but unfortunately this isn't a practical estimate. You'll also have to base the numbers not only on how many sex partners you and your monogamous partner have had, but also how many prior partners they've had and how many those partners had as well and so on exponentially. Yet inspite of all this, the odds that you'll die from a form of cancer, heart disease, smoking or obesety related diseases or even an alcohol related traffic fatality far outweigh any risk of dying from a venerial disease in western society. The mortality rate for for contracting gonnerhea, syphilis, clymidia, herpes and even HIV pale in comparison to many - in some cases more easily preventable - diseases.

Of course, since this is a social convention, I would be grossly negligent and severely lambasted by the public at large for even implying that I'm condoning, much less advocating, that a man explore his options and open his experience up to having sex with multiple partners. Again, this social convention is unassailable. But it sounds like it makes good sense, "boy, am I sure glad I got married/shacked up and didn't catch a disease, pffew!" It sounds like conviction, when in fact it's a rationalization for a lack of other realistic options with women or an innability to deal with a fear of rejection from multiple sources.

Location, Location, Location

This is really more of an addendum to the Myth of the Quality Woman, but another common contrivance is the presumption that less than desirable women will necessarily be found in bars & clubs (or other places of "ill repute"). Thus the chump will only too eagerly avoid these places. This is, yet again, another example of the binary logic of an AFC and completely ignores that A.) women with whom they might make a successful connection with do in fact frequent clubs and B.) less than desirable women can also be met in "alternative" meeting places too (coffee house, university campus, library, bible study or any number of other "safe places"). However, making approaches in a club are difficult for the inexperienced DJ and the AFC alike. There's a lot of competition and a LOT of potential for rejection for the unprepared. By masking this deficit in game with condemning such places, the AFC thinks he's killing 2 birds with one stone - he's protecting his ego from very real rejection and he's lauded by "proper" society (see people who go to clubs anyway) for being an upstanding individual for avoid those "dens of iniquity."

The Myth of 'Other Guys'

This is perhaps the most dangerous AFC social convention.

We'd all like to think we're unique and special individuals. It's a comforting thought, but our uniqueness means nothing if it isn't appreciated. We'd all like to be beautiful, talented, intelligent and extrordinary in some way to some degree and have others notice these qualities unequivocally. This is the root for the Not Like Other Guys convention. The idea is that the AFC can and will be appreciated in a greater degree for his personal convictions and/or his greater ability to identify with women's stated prerequisites of a man by comparing himself to the nebulous Other Guys who are perceived not to. The intent is to, in essesence, self-generate social proof for attraction while substituting a real social element with perceived or reported social evidence. The fallacy in this schema is that it's always better to demonstrate social proof than to explicate it, but this is lost on the AFC adherent of this convention. This only becomes more compounded by the reinforcement he receives from other AFCs (and really society at large) sharing his desire to outshine the phantom Other Guys. He's patted on the back and praised by men and women alike for voluntarily molding his personality to better fit a woman's perceived ideal and told in so many words "oh AFC,..I'm so glad you're not like Other Guys."You can't fault the guy. He genuinely believes his Nice Guy personal conviction and everyone applauds him for it.

Interesting. Is there a variant on the Location myth which says that better women can be found in some particular location which is new to the AFC. Or is this just the same myth expressed differently. Somewhat amusingly, in the dreadful movie "Love Actually." the English AFC theorizes that if he went to the USA he would find plenty of great girls. In the movie he returns with 2 girls. Naturally, those of you who live there would strongly dispute this outcome.

The Dodged Bullet myth is a bit odd. Still I think there has to be more risk in having sex with a well travelled woman as opposed to a virgin. You can swim in the ocean a lot and not get attacked by a shark, but you only have to swim once near a seal colony to have an unfortunate accident. Its no use saying that more people die from bee stings, because it depends on a commonsense assessment However, it is well known that people are very poor risk assessors.

I might spark a whole lot of (unpleasant) discussion with this one, but something that I've noticed is The Myth of the BPD girl

So many guys on here (and guys that I know) go through a breakup and convince themselves that she had Borderline Personality Disorder, or some such thing, and hence it's good that she's gone. The list of symptoms would be:

1. Her interest level was sky high and plummeted without warning.

2. She throws tantrums.

3. She remakes her entire identity based on whatever new guy she's with right now.

Sounds eerily like . . . EVERY GIRL ON THE PLANET when her interest level in you drops.

We tell ourselves that "she's crazy" to mollify the fact that we blew it and lost her interest.

The only difference between "Quality Woman" and BPD patient is her interest level. The Quality Woman for you is the one with a very high Interest Level in you. The moment that interest is gone, she will argue, lie, cheat, and make your make your life hell as long as you stick around, regardless of how great she was when you met her.

mr_elor said:

Good stuff, definitely agree with you about the Location, Location Location argument.

I know some great girls, and nearly every one of them goes clubbing, so I fail to see where this view of only finding 'slvts' at clubs comes from. It's simply not true.

Click to expand...

I have always had a problem with people who subscribe to the idea that you aren't going to find a quality woman in a club or similar venue. It's usually the same people who believe that women want nice guys and all that crap.

I've ALWAYS disagreed with this mentality.

My comments on RT's topics:

The Myth of the "Quality" Woman - I'd say this is something I wouldnt worry about if i were single for the plain fact of the matter, that even if there is such a thing, you can still f*** one that isnt (a quality woman). And if the course of dating, girl #34 happens to have a lions share of traits that you'd just love to keep for LTR/marriage, then keep her.

My point is I wouldnt actively search for one, whether she existed or not. Focus on gaming women, and let this take care of itself. If you do that, then it doesnt matter who wins this debate, because its irrelevant.

The Myth of the Dodged Bullet Since you don't know how many men the women you've been with have slept with, you can pretty much drop that variable out of the equation; point being it doesnt either help or hurt RT's "myth". What you do know is how many women you have slept with, especially those whom you had "risky" behavior with. If the known variable is higher (more women slept with, more often), then on average your chance of contracting something will be higher. Lets here it... Duh!

Most STDs will not be life threatening. That being said, i'd be at a loss to think of a weaker point than this one. Call me an outlier if you wish (sarcasm alert), but I personally dont want to live with syphillis for the rest of my life. So all other things being equal, I will consider what i can do to keep my risks low. To me, an STD like syphillis is a bullet i wouldnt want to be hit by.

The fact of the matter is that options besides monogamy are more risky. Eloquent writing wont change this. RT, sometimes people simply consider this as something one has to minimze. There are pros and cons to dating multiple partners and this is simply going to be in the con column.

Also, I think its a bit convinent for someone that's completely healthy to downplay this point. Lets here someone with an incureable STD preach this one instead.

Location, Location, Location - Being human, i cant be in 2 places at one time. So this leaves a dilemna; i'd actually have to choose where i want to meet women and i have a LOT of choices.

I ask readers here a question; if you had to find a genuine drunk, you only had 20 minutes to do it before you died, and you only had 2 places to choose from that you had to go find him/her, which of these 2 would you pick; Barnes and Nobles or the nearest bar?

If i was in a bar getting a drink myself and i saw a woman I liked, i'd go for her. Certainly, forming unfounded stereotypes about a specific person would be ignorance and really should go without saying. But if i was going out specifically game women, i'd probably pick someplace else.

The Myth of 'Other Guys Agreed with that one completely

I will comment on the "Location, Location, Location" part.

I actually met a very nice woman (and ended up marrying her) in a night club. We were married for over a decade and a half and have two wonderful children. As far as I know, she was loyal to me to the point of adoration. ALL these years.

For the same token, I have met my share of cheaters and slu_ts in PTA meetings, church, and even public transportation places. All married...all had sex with me WHILE married.


I think the huge advantage of meeting a woman in an environment that has alcohol and dancing...is that you get to see how she behaves under those conditions PRIOR to meeting you.

If she is rubbing with different men or walking drunk all over the place or taking her clothes off or if she is simply sitting with her friends, talking, having a dance, etc. You can see the "real" her PRIOR to meeting you.

Unfortunatelly...it is hard to gauge the ones in PTA meetings, church, etc. because they will do their best to conceil the "negative" qualities and put forth their "mom" quality. Although, I must admit that I'm good at catching them due to past experiences.

In general...I strongly believe that once a woman has pushed the envelope to the limit and done stuff that degrade her in her past. That same woman won't have a problem reverting to something near that behavior (even a notch or two "lesser degradation") if put under certain emotional stress. And we all know that marriage and LTR have elements of stress (including economical, etc.). Or at least the LIKELIHOOD of reverting back is greater than that of a woman that has never engaged in that kind of behavior.

What do I mean with this?

I strongly believe that if for instance, that woman engaged in group sex. Then that woman is more likely to not have issues, if put under certain emotional stress to revert back, perhaps by toning it down a notch or two (instead of group sex...go into a one night stand with a complete stranger) while in a relationship. More so than a woman that has NEVER engaged in that behavior before.

It is more of the likelihood of doing things. Or the odds. Of course, she could have been a virgin all her life and then turn into a slu_t once she reached her mid 30s. That can happen too.

Of course...there are always exceptions and we cannot label everyone the same. We MUST look at the individual and evaluate that individual. But we also need to understand the odds.

That's my personal opinion on this issue.

Latinoman said:

I strongly believe that if for instance, that woman engaged in group sex. Then that woman is more likely to not have issues, if put under certain emotional stress to revert back, perhaps by toning it down a notch or two (instead of group sex...go into a one night stand with a complete stranger) while in a relationship. More so than a woman that has NEVER engaged in that behavior before.

Click to expand...

Ah, the thought of a woman you're dating having multiple d!cks in her, being violated, and the guys who are protruding her don't give two sh!ts about her. That's something I really couldn't handle. That and porn stars. How the fukk can Jenna Jameson go on TV talking about how she has "criteria" for a man to meet?????????

Sad thing is, men are lined up a mile long to spend money on her. Except Tito Ortiz, he just violates and degrades her. Or used to, until Liddell kicked his ass, now she's blowing him.

Something to think about, for sure.

Bump.

Intersting how this thread is archived yet some other threads with more responses aren't (or quality topics just as good or better then this one)

i'm curious to know what meets the critieria for a thread to become archived, because this thread isn't all that IMO

Phyzzle said:

I might spark a whole lot of (unpleasant) discussion with this one, but something that I've noticed is The Myth of the BPD girl

So many guys on here (and guys that I know) go through a breakup and convince themselves that she had Borderline Personality Disorder, or some such thing, and hence it's good that she's gone. The list of symptoms would be:

1. Her interest level was sky high and plummeted without warning.

2. She throws tantrums.

3. She remakes her entire identity based on whatever new guy she's with right now.

Sounds eerily like . . . EVERY GIRL ON THE PLANET when her interest level in you drops.

We tell ourselves that "she's crazy" to mollify the fact that we blew it and lost her interest.

The only difference between "Quality Woman" and BPD patient is her interest level. The Quality Woman for you is the one with a very high Interest Level in you. The moment that interest is gone, she will argue, lie, cheat, and make your make your life hell as long as you stick around, regardless of how great she was when you met her.

Click to expand...

I have thought about this with my ex, was I thinking she was BPD just because she lost interest in me? However, in my case, she also had a history of cutting herself, threatened suicide on more than one occasion, and she had an on again off again eating disorder. She also had a history of prior sexual abuse(abused as a teenager by her stepdad according to her). Because of these symptoms and some others(she would not only suddenly lose interest, but gain it back again for a few days before losing it suddenly again)I think she really was BPD.

The Myth of 'Other Guys'

This is perhaps the most dangerous AFC social convention.

We'd all like to think we're unique and special individuals. It's a comforting thought, but our uniqueness means nothing if it isn't appreciated. We'd all like to be beautiful, talented, intelligent and extrordinary in some way to some degree and have others notice these qualities unequivocally. This is the root for the Not Like Other Guys convention. The idea is that the AFC can and will be appreciated in a greater degree for his personal convictions and/or his greater ability to identify with women's stated prerequisites of a man by comparing himself to the nebulous Other Guys who are perceived not to. The intent is to, in essesence, self-generate social proof for attraction while substituting a real social element with perceived or reported social evidence. The fallacy in this schema is that it's always better to demonstrate social proof than to explicate it, but this is lost on the AFC adherent of this convention. This only becomes more compounded by the reinforcement he receives from other AFCs (and really society at large) sharing his desire to outshine the phantom Other Guys. He's patted on the back and praised by men and women alike for voluntarily molding his personality to better fit a woman's perceived ideal and told in so many words "oh AFC,..I'm so glad you're not like Other Guys."You can't fault the guy. He genuinely believes his Nice Guy personal conviction and everyone applauds him for it.

Click to expand...

Both my ex and my current girlfriend tell me how much better I am than her ex boyfriends. Especially my current gf, she tells me how great I am compared to, and how we are so much more compatible, than the guys she went out with before, and how great I am that I enjoy doing the same things she does. It makes me wonder why she was even with these other guys if they were such a mismatch for her. Or is she just saying these things in the moment? And did she tell all her ex's the same thing?

StevenR said:

It makes me wonder why she was even with these other guys if they were such a mismatch for her. Or is she just saying these things in the moment? And did she tell all her ex's the same thing?

Click to expand...

Previous things told to me by partners:
- You're the best I've ever had
- Don't put it in all the way

Which one is more believable to be true?

If you still need to be told the 'point', it is this: take what they say based on emotions with a grain of salt; take the things they say which are scientifically reproducible to be meaningful.

This ties in with the 'other guy' -- don't compare yourself to the other guys. Whether you are better than them or not, it doesn't matter because the only thing that matters is whether you get along with the girl.

Relationships between girls are enclosed spheres (and I believe that women operate in much the same fashion). The competition only matters if they actively influence your rapport with the target.

STEVENR, what you're describing is the social reinforcement of the "not like other guys" mentality, whether an AFC subscribes to it makes it a social convention for him.

Good point, Rollo. Girls will almost ALWAYS say sh!t that feeds into the whole hollywood-fairytale/Dr.Phil/Oprah/John Gray "be a nice wussy spineless b!tch" crap that's all over society.

Now I'm not saying ALL women are trying to fool us, but many times girls are EXPERTS in stroking a guy's ego. They WILL say compliments that make you get that warm fuzzy "good little boy" feeling inside. And of course most guys let their guard down and turn to mush, ending up sad and confused when the girl rejects them.

And YES, StevenR, there's a VERY likely possibility your ex and your GF said those things to ALL of their previous partners. And now they APPEAR to hate them and love YOU. Here's WHY:

1. Back when GF/ex/random girl, etc. was with her last partner, she convinced herself he was all that. So when they broke up (for whatever reason; doesn't matter who started it, who cheated, etc.), she began to look back at him AFTER THE FACT and suddenly all these flaws in him started popping up! Know 2 things about women:

(1) They live in the moment and don't really have the temperament for logic and planning things out - they always say things (both good and bad) that they don't really mean.

(2) Every time something goes bad, they sincerely believe NONE of it was their fault, and they backwards-rationalize WHY it was ALL the guy's fault (I'm sure a lot of you already know, but Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance - basically the INSTINCT to avoid or escape any responsibility). So after a breakup... she reasons "OF COURSE he was an @$$hole, he was the Devil himself!"


2. When she's with you now, she will say the same things to stroke your ego. If you show any hint of neediness or a reaction-seeking attitude (i.e. seeing HER as the prize and not yourself) then she will quickly tire of you and leave. You know that old feminist saying that men just want to spread their seed? Well it's actually far more accurate to say that women want to COLLECT the seed from as diverse a field as possible. They don't even see it as cheating or unethical. However, a man with options doesn't care what the fvck they do - he will just charm more girls. Because that's what he WANTS regardless of her fickle whims.

In short, I wouldn't trust these sorts of ego-stroking emotional compliments. UNLESS you either personally KNOW that her last partner truly was a d!ckhead, or if your game is tight and you're not doing sh!t for her and she still thinks you're a saint.

Hot Ice Casanova said:

Now I'm not saying ALL women are trying to fool us

Click to expand...

I'd argue that 95% aren't even aware that they're repeating / reinforcing a social convention at all because the convention is so embedded into social consciousness it's taken for granted. The most effective social conventions are ones in which the subject willingly sublimates his own interests, discourages questioning it, and predisposes that person to encourage and reinforce the convention with others. This is the essence of the Matrix; anything can become normal.

I encounter AFC mentalities all day long in my line of work, and I don't encounter them strictly from men either. More often than not I find myself in some social/work environment where it's women fomenting an AFC attitude and it's men who jokingly play along with them in an attempt to identify with these women in order to qualify for female intimacy. It's this pop-culture 'agreeability' factor that is taken as an unquestioned norm. It's expected that female social conventions should simply be a matter of fact without any need for critical thought.

Nothing annoys me more than when an AFC, whom I've only just met, discreetly says to me, "heheh,..women 'eh? guess we'll never understand them, hur, hur,.." as if any other guy would naturally agree with him out of hand and there ought to be a necessity to whisper this to me in secret.

For a DJ there is no better opportunity to set yourself apart and start to plant the seeds of critcal thought into AFCs than when you're presented with these social situation. I think most men lack the balls to be a firestarter at the risk of being perceived as some caveman.

I'd argue that 95% aren't even aware that they're repeating / reinforcing a social convention at all because the convention is so embedded into social consciousness it's taken for granted. The most effective social conventions are ones in which the subject willingly sublimates his own interests, discourages questioning it, and predisposes that person to encourage and reinforce the convention with others. This is the essence of the Matrix; anything can become normal.

Click to expand...

years ago i feel into depression and around that time i started questioning everything, why this ? why that ? for what ?.
i realized that most of what i believe i did'nt know why i believe in it other than it was reinforced by others "they believe that, um ok i'll believe that also".

It's expected that female social conventions should simply be a matter of fact without any need for
critical thought.

Click to expand...

this is'nt just with social conventions, it's with everything.
i've been criticized for questioning things and not going along with any idea, opinion or midset someone THOUGHT i should have.

the majority of the time what a person has told me sounded word-for-word like someone else was saying it..

one mintue somethings an opinion, the next it's a fact and you better not question it.

The reason some men, myself included, want to avoid women at clubs has nothing to do with being afraid or rationalization. I'm simply not a party guy whatsoever and long term would not be compatible with a woman who is "out with the girls" every Friday and Saturday night misleading guys into thinking she's interested, deliberately or not.

I'm not naive to the fact that most women, even the "relationship quality ones" have been to a club at least once in their life, even I went to a club a few times to see what the fuss was about. But a person who spends their Friday or Saturday nights either home watching old movies, getting dinner with a friend or hanging out over a friend's house isn't going to match longterm with a woman whose routine is to go to clubs every weekend or every other weekend. If she goes out once every two months just to get her groove on, that's different, but if it's a hobby, it's not going to work.

Also keep in mind that the women you USUALLY (I bold "usually" for a reason) see at clubs are women that you probably are lusting after and don't care to get to know. If you want to argue that a lot of guys would like to sleep with these women and don't have the balls to get rejected, that's true, but for a relationship I want the cute girl not the really hot high-maintenance girl.