The Loyalty of a Random Dog versus the Loyalty of a Woman

In my neighborhood there is an elderly woman with a small female dog — yup, a bitch — who, for whatever reason, has taken a liking to me. The first time that dog saw me, it came up to me right away, wagging its tail. Consequently, that elderly lady and I are now on greeting terms with each other. Her dog is indeed quite something. Once it came running to me for a few meters when I happened to walk past. That lovely little dog tolerates my girlfriend patting it, but I am the one it is overly happy to see.

I recently returned from a month-long vacation. Yet, while taking a walk the other day, I bumped into that elderly lady. I did not even notice her dog at first because it had been sniffing some tree a few meters away. The moment it noticed me, it rushed towards me, happy to see me again. I found this quite remarkable. It’s not as if that dog gets anything from me. It’s just happy to see me, and even after many weeks it still remembers me.

Dogs are loyal to their owner. Apparently, they are also friendly towards people they know, once they have made up their mind that they like you. This may very well be an immediate response, i.e. they like you or they do not. On the other hand, remember how well women treated you in your life. Have you ever had a female “friend” who cut off all contact once you were no longer useful to her? Probably you have had more than one until you have learned your lesson. Some blue-pilled beta soy-boy simps who happily help women with their homework or their assignments at work never learn that lesson, though. In short, a lot of women view you as little more than a resource to exploit, and once they have decided they no longer need you, they ignore you.

Relationships are not necessarily any different. Do you think your girlfriend would stick around if your dick was two-inches long or if your finances mirrored hers? I find it rather amusing when women talk about how they would “chip in” if needed. It’s all nonsense. Due to female hypergamy, she is with you because your socio-economic status is higher than hers. If your money was gone, so would she. Guys routinely pay off the debts of their girlfriend or wife. The few guys who have their debts paid off are rather rare, if those cases even exist.

Women dropping their friends from one day to the next may be a surprise to guys who have never experienced it. If that is you, you may find it even more surprising that women also move on extremely quickly from relationships. A friend of mine once sardonically joked that it seems to take women one hour for every month they spend with you to get over you. You may find that witty. In reality, once a woman decides to move on, you are toast, regardless of how long the relationship has lasted. She does not even need to “get over you.” Before Joe Beta has gotten to the point where reality has sunken in, namely that the relationship with his sweetie-pie whose student loans he just paid off, is over, his former girlfriend may very well be taking some fresh dick already, and into a hole he was never allowed to even tough.

If you are sexually very active, you have probably, and happily, served as the “rebound guy” for a girl after she left her boyfriend. On that front, I have had the most absurd encounters. There are women who tell you at 1 a.m. that they are currently going through a breakup. Yet, they somehow end up with your dick in her mouth an hour later. Of course, there are also all those girls who “break up” with their boyfriend for a day or two, just so that their cheating is not technically cheating, at least in their mind, but that is a different case.

The relations between men and women in the West must be at an all-time low these days, thanks to gynocentric laws, #metoo, and all the other b.s. Probably plenty of you have sworn off women for the purpose of a long-term relationship anyway. Some of you may still have female friends. (I do not.) I do not think that genuine friendship between men and women are possible. If you want a female friend, maybe take regular walks in your neighborhood. Chances are that some random bitch, er, female dog will just come up to you and be perfectly happy if you only acknowledge her existence by patting her, which is a win-win situation as long as you enjoy patting a well-groomed dog.

Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II and Meditation Without Bullshit or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.

27 thoughts on “The Loyalty of a Random Dog versus the Loyalty of a Woman

  1. ” I do not think that genuine friendship between men and women are possible.”
    Maybe if she is not your type physically and you are not her type either.
    Rather rare though. I got one such friend. What certainly helps is that she’s overweight and has not very dense blond hair, so… big no-no.
    But I guess what mostly helps is that we only speak very infrequently as she’s traveling around a lot due to her job. She’s funny and a good listener and I appreciate her perspective. It would complicate things a lot if she looked like my target group though…

    1. Other factors that help:
      – Either one or both of you are in a serious, committed relationship with somebody else (which carries a lot of weight in Singapore). So there’s a firm understanding that there’s a boundary not to cross. On top of that, if the both of you have a mutual group of friends you hang out with it’s even better.
      – Your friendship has a long history rooted in childhood or grade school.

      I’ve thought about this a lot as it seemed like Singaporeans form genuine friendships with the opposite sex quite easily in comparison to the West, where it’s much more sexualised. It was only after I reflected further on my own experiences that I realised a couple of my guy friends probably had other intentions at one point in time.

    2. “It was only after I reflected further on my own experiences that I realised a couple of my guy friends probably had other intentions at one point in time.”

      I’m not surprised. While I used to accuse women of intentionally seeking to be mean and putting me into the friendzone, nowadays I think that women genuinly enjoy the male attention and are so blinded by it that they (almost subconciously) put men in the friendzone and carry on without second thoughts.
      The problem is twofold: Women get too high on their own supply and just enjoy too much being the center of male attention, be it with the intent of friendship or more. Second, men don’t escalate aggressively enough for the situation to be unmistakable. In light #metoo and other modern day BS, escalation is increadingly problematic though.
      With all due respect, but if SG men had more testosterone, then there would be less opposite sex friendships in your country. Sex is always on my mind, and if other men were 100% honest, they’d say the same. A nice pair of tits is a nice pair of tits, no matter if it’s your fitness instructor or your childhood female friend. That’s just what it is, and it is OK.

    3. About not escalating aggressively enough, I’m not sure it’s an effective approach for Singaporean men. Definitely not Sleazy-style escalation or even a few notches below that, if that’s what you have in mind. Because the perception is aggressive escalation -> must be a player/womaniser -> therefore not boyfriend material as his commitment to you is suspect. “Male-slut” shaming is done by both Singaporean women *and* men, by the way.

      I think an approach that is semi-assertive, semi-nice guy would be more effective here. Not that it concerns readers of this blog…haha.

    4. ” semi-assertive, semi-nice guy would be more effective here.”
      I’ve been doing that in Europe and it works well.
      I just can’t see an Asian guy convey to a woman that “there’s a realistic danger of her getting fucked” (to put it in old RSD terms).
      The nice guy part they seem to play well, I just think that assertivness means different thinks around the globe.
      I’m nobody to judge though.

  2. sounds like all my female relations. I get asked to lend them money constantly despite being poor, but god forbid I need a ride somewhere half a mile away. actually had one my sisters berate me the entire trip about how I needed to man up and how I don’t do enough for myself (again, because of one car ride), and when I rebuked every one of her faulty points she then declared she would never do anything for me ever again. all I could think was, just imagine if she ever needs something from me later in life.

    does anyone think she would allow me to browbeat her for an hour just because I did her a favor?

  3. Loyalty is a abstract concept. Women always seem to have problems with those. And they are not biologically programmed to have loyalty. Men have a sacrificial way of loving a woman. Women are opportunistic in their relationships. She provides the eggs. That’s all. That’s her only job. Breed and nursing babies. It’s the man’s job to fight off the wolfs. He must be sacrificial in nature. Otherwise he would just run and let the women and kids be eaten. Dogs are programmed differently. They are all about the pack. Male and female are hunting together. That’s why they are so loyal. They will always protect everyone they see as a pack member. Human females have always parasited on men. She’s not programmed to sacrifice herself. Nor put herself in harms way. She’s simply a breeder. Totally different programming. Loyalty isn’t in her programming. She’s programmed to mate with the alpha male. In nature that’s often the murderer of her former mate. Women only respect strength.

  4. As far as loyalty from dogs goes, I’ve seen staged break-ins to assess what the dogs would do in the event that their owners were attacked inside their own homes. All the bigger breeds tucked their tails and escape from the ‘burglar’. The only dogs that stayed and fought for their master during this experiment were the useless small, yappy breeds. I know this comment is off subject, but I just wanted to point out that seemingly many dogs seem to care more about self-preservation.

    1. that’s a not very useful generalization.
      A Labrador and a German shepherd are of the same size, both rather big.
      In above described situation they’ll behave very differently without any training though.

    2. Not true for german shepherds, in my experience.
      Once many years ago my dad hired a guy to come home and play Santa for my little brothers on Christmas eve… thankfully i had had the good sense of chaining our german shepherd to a tree in the back, i had rarely seen her so aggressive.

      My aunt and her husband live in a somewhat dangerous area and have 3 of them. Every time they have visitors over they must lock them in a pen, otherwise they will tear you to shreds.

    3. @Yarara: that was my point actually.
      If you don’t train neither German shepherd, nor a Labrador, they’ll react differently. A Lab will show the intruder around and be best friends, the German shepherd will “tear you to shreds.”

      Size is not a good indicator for protective spirit within a dog. It’s all about race and then about training.

    4. @ Neutral… Yes, my reply was directed at Pickernanny.

      I trained her not to seek out other dogs to fight. Other dogs very rarely attempted to attack her because of her size.

      Now she is too old to go out walking anymore… :'(

  5. Loyalty can be socially conditioned. Women from more conservative countries might be more loyal to her man due to societal punishment or penalty.
    The current social conditioning in the West encourages women to grow promiscuous. That is the problem.

  6. Horny hunchbacks will save th West, I’m sure! Add to that my four inch dick, proneness to being overweight, and you are ACTIVELY SUPPORTING DYSGENICS if you think sacks of genetoc scum like myself should improve themselves and have children (which is the likely outcome anyway).

    Look, imbeciles: I have parents, which means my hunchbacked gamma father had sexual intercourse. Female eugenics my ass! If that did exist, I would not.

  7. Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560.
    The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous.

    Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

    No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

    Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

    The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
    Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

    Christianity is an impudence which we must not disguise as kindness.

    Our last hope lies in the injustice of God.

    The modern world will not be punished.
    It is the punishment.

    Progress is the scourge God has chosen for us.

    — Nicolás Gómez Dávila


    1. This is a very interesting point. I do agree that we are suffering from a significant number of people who add no value to the world and who do not advance humanity in any way, shape, or form. Calling them a “surplus” would put it mildly because their contribution to society is a negative as we still need to house and feed them.

    2. @Aaron
      And the impact of that is multiplied by the fact that literally everybody can vote.
      They say socialism doesn’t work in large societies. No, it’s the current form of democracy that doesn’t work in larger societies. Too uncontrollable is the effect of any dumbass idiot of legal age being able to vote.
      So it’s either idiots voting, or dependence on a ruler doing the right things.
      We’re fucked. Until we do what was being attempted less then 100 years ago: Accept that people are not equal and therefore have not the same mental capabilities and hence some should not be allowed to vote. For their own good, for the good of society.
      Alternatively tie the voting rights to work in the public sector.
      But yeah, I’m dreaming. Too deep is the brainwashing. Everybody’s gotta save themselves. Get money, get guns, get out of the big cities.

    3. @Neutral
      “dependence on a ruler doing the right things”

      That’s the model we have in Singapore. A benevolent dictatorship with some semblance of democratic mechanisms. The ruling political party is the only one the country has ever known, and they have taken it upon themselves to be the stewards of the people who do what is right, not what is popular. Does what they deem to be “right” benefit them politically? Of course! In so many ways and through all this time. The playing field is so uneven it’s not even funny. Even if by a miracle the strongest opposition party wins an election and gets to form the government, I foresee that we won’t have a smooth transition. The PAP’s tentacles are far-reaching and deeply nestled into wide swathes of society. Two such examples would be the trade unions/labour movement as well as the neighbourhood grassroots communities.

      The grievances we have with this model largely revolve around the concern that no one can check the benevolent dictatorship if it’s making questionable decisions and perceivably steering off-course. Perhaps this model is the lesser of the evils? I can see how saner Europeans would appreciate some authoritarian pragmatism in the current moment but I just want to point out that it will give rise to some of these other issues that we in Singapore are facing at the moment.

    4. @Sleazy Gal
      I’m against dictatorship precisely because of what you kindly elaboratd on.
      I’m for a direct democracy like in Switzerland, with referendums and with the people being the sovereign.
      But: We cannot allow this incredible vonflict of interest of state paid workers being able to vote, because they’ll always vote for whomever promises them continous work.
      You want something radical? Don’t ask for dictatorship. Ask for voting rights tied to a minimum IQ, a minimum age of 30, being employed in the private sector, no drug offenses, no criminal offenses. After age of 35 for women, voting rights are tied to having kids, same for men above 40. No voting rights for people currently receiving any form of public money, or having received such for the last 24months. Teachers and professors have no right to vote.
      That would be just FAIR.
      If you want to ramp it up, tie women’s right to vote to having done military service.

    5. Neutralrandomthoughts: Voting rights only for net tax payers. Only people who payed more in taxes than received in benefits will have voting rights. It’s gender neutral, race neutral, age neutral. And will have the same effect. Most men who studied in Western Europe become net tax payers in their 30s. Most women will never become net tax payers. Most migrants will never become net tax payers. The hood rats and getto scum will never become net tax payers. Special snowflakes never become net tax payers. And it’s only fair that the one paying the bill decides about spending. Productive people have a say in politics. Unproductive people dont. Maybe make some exceptions for veterans who got disabled within their service. As they already payed for their country in blood. But otherwise, Those who pay the bill decide. It’s not right when people can vote themselves free stuff while another pays the bill.

    6. ben
      I like your suggestion and it certainly sounds much simpler and less aggressive than my proposal.
      Stupid question, but how do you define “net tax payer”? Taxes paid by you exceed public money consumed by you (costs), right? Defining the “cost” part is difficult though.
      The street lights in front of your apartment are installed and run on tax money. So that’s an expense. How much of it is to be attributed to you?
      Do we take all expenses the state has and divide it by the number of inhabitants? Is this fair? Shall we take into account where someone lives? Other considerations? What about economically weaker places that maybe due to geographical features do not attract as much business and receive contributions? Think of Swiss cantons like Uri. There is a public interest in keeping the region populated and the state sponsors the local agricultural industry, because it is somewhat considered cultural heritage. They’ll never be a net tax payer if we look at contributions vs. expenses. But are they a drag on society the same way some 4th generation immigrant living off welfare is? Certainly not. Do we want to orient everything along the lines of “is it profitable?” How large is our scope?
      Questions, questions… 🙂

    7. @Neutralrandomthoughts: (how do you define “net tax payer”? Taxes paid by you exceed public money consumed by you) That’s about right. I wouldn’t go as far as street lights. That’s common interest. But keeping a personal score from birth. Educational subsidies, subsidised health care, subsidised housing, welfare, subsidised daycare. Any and all cost the taxpayer has to make for your personal benefit. That means any subsidies for studies and any amount of student debt with the government would disqualify someone. Until the balance is positive. Any single mum who receives financial help. Any long term welfare sucker. Someone using subsidised health care. Just keep score. If the amount of received benefits is higher than your taxes payed. You’ll lose your voting rights until the budget is positive again. It will take massive tax reforms. But it will help balance the budget. As people voting for free stuff will never be able to do it for long. Because they would be disqualified for voting in the future.

    8. Neutralrandomthoughts: Even the software already exists for such a system. It’s just basic bookkeeping. Every business is using a balance like that. Income vs expenses. Those who balance the budget thrive. Those who don’t go bankrupt. The only problem is getting it passed. As the majority of people are not net tax payers. And promising free stuff is the lefts bread and butter. The left would never give any ground on this. So it would take a armed conflict to put such system in place.

    9. “The only problem is getting it passed. As the majority of people are not net tax payers. And promising free stuff is the lefts bread and butter. The left would never give any ground on this. So it would take a armed conflict to put such system in place.”

      There are solutions to everything. If such ideas were played the same long term way like leftists have played the marxist cultural revolution it can be done as well.
      Remember the frog and the slowly heating water vs. the boiling water?

      I’m sure it can be sold somehow to leftist voters, just needs good rhetoric and the occasional omission of critical details that then later open doors to ever stricter rules. Gotta beat them at their game.

  8. It’s sad that the dynamics between men and women are so fucked now that we simply looks at women as meat socks to fuck and men as a temporary pay day/month/year.

    How will things every go back to the way they were? I don’t think a war would even reverse this shit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.