Alpha Mail: the case of the reluctant spinster

PS writes on behalf of a female relative:

I wonder if you'd do a post on a conundrum I have, to get your take and the readers input. I'm sure other women have this predicament. I have a relative that is a 37 year old female virgin who has finally begrudgingly and tearfully admitted that she would like to be married, problem is she is overweight (though not ugly, SMV 4-5 and has flattering curves) and lacks any understanding of how to deal with the opposite sex.

She is a primary school teacher and has primarily associated with older women and overweight female friends her entire life. The family has left that part of her life alone and was pretty much resigned to her being a spinster.

Thanks to game blogs I probed her constantly and eventually she cracked and admitted the truth, she has preserved a stoic exterior but deep down there is a massive well of disappointment, sadness and regret. She isn't a feminist but the older women in her life (mother, aunts and family friends) failed her miserably (they basically avoided the topic) and she imbibed the independent lifestyle (travel, expensive trinkets etc).

What advice would you give to help her find a husband? I'm willing to pound the pavement and introduce her to guys.

First, I would inform her that all hope is not lost, not yet. Many men value a lack of a carousel history, and some place particular value on virginity. She is in much better POTENTIAL shape than the average 40 year-old with an N over 20 and a pair of ill-behaved brats.

Second, I would go over her diet and lack of exercise with her. Get her to the gym! She should be lifting free weights as well as doing cardio; let her know that she can be in good and relatively slender shape by Halloween next year if she is willing to work at it. It won't be easy, but it is entirely doable.

Third, get her away from the den of sloth that is her social circle. All peer groups tend to influence their members for either good or evil, but few are as pernicious as the slovenly coven of the sort PS describes here. The moment she starts showing signs of raising her SMV, and concomitantly, her status within the social circle, her friends are going to turn on her with a fury that will have to be seen to be believed. Fat women HATE slender women, particularly slender women who used to be fat women. She needs to be prepared for that and reminded that "friends" who oppose her self-improvement are no true friends.

Fourth, encourage her to be looking for men who are 45+. I don't think she'll be inclined to any alpha-chasing, but as we know from our early teenage years, sexual power in the hands of women who have never had it before tends to go to their heads. She should cast aside any notion of making up for lost time and focus on the mission of finding the right man to marry. She has time, but she doesn't have a lot of time.

Fifth, protect her as she transforms and gradually becomes desirable to the deltas and bangable to the betas and lesser alphas. She likely has no means of discerning the predators from the potential husbands, so PS must get her to accept the idea of using him as a filter to separate the wheat from the chaff before she appears on their radar.

Susan Walsh was entirely wrong when she posited that men want women to lose their SMV. Quite the opposite, we want to see all women maximize it. It is women who aren't always so keen on the idea that other women might rise in value. So, I'm sure that all the men here will wish PS and his relative good luck in their mutual project, assuming they both decide to embark on Operation Ring-on-the-Finger.

Read More

Even old women hate gammas

What we have here is a failure of observation:

The single women I know often seem better equipped than their male peers to lead a fulfilling solo life.... single middle-aged men often seem to lack the va-va-voom of female peers. I told Saturday’s audience that, as far as I could see, the main reason so many middle-aged women remained solo was that they’d rather be on their own than bed down with males so unkempt their jumpers had their own ecosystems. I also recounted how a beautiful, talented friend of mine – then in her late fifties – once had a date with a man who bought a sandwich from Boots for lunch and offered her half.

I thought (and rather hoped) that the men in the audience would stage a rebellion and protest. Instead, they all nodded. A chap in his late forties said that at his lonely hearts dining society the women were sexy and savvy, while the men lacked social graces and were inclined to be “a bit odd”. Bridget Jones’s famous fear of dying alone and being found three weeks later, “half-eaten by an Alsatian”, has begun to seem more applicable to male singletons.

Note that "the men in the audience" refers to the 7 men in an audience of over 200 at a discussion panel entitled "How to be a Single Woman in 2013". And we know exactly what sort of scalzied manboobs attend that kind of event.

The reason that all the aging single men who socialize with her aging single friends are so unkempt and undesirable is because older single men who keep up with their appearances don't date women their own age. They date and marry women who are younger, usually between 5 to 15 years younger. This is the result of the sexual difference in declining SMV and MMV.

And it's fascinating to observe that whether they are young women in college or old women approaching retirement age, most women would rather be alone than settle for a gamma or low delta. What this means in practical terms is that playing a long game, being yourself, and expecting post-Wall women to settle for you once they descend from the carousel or end their marriages and belatedly discover their lack of options will not necessarily work for those who are omegas and lower gammas.

Read More

"Rape" is often post-sex regret

It appears the feminist meme of "women never lie about rape" has been put to rest for good:

A young mother has been jailed for making two false rape claims within hours of drunkenly sleeping with a friend’s partner. Ashleigh Loder, 25, wasted at least 100 hours of police time by inventing the assaults. She first told officers she had been attacked by two strangers in an alley before changing her story to say a man she knew had forced her to have sex in her home.

However the friend she had accused was able to prove his innocence because he had filmed the sexual encounter on his mobile phone.

The footage showed Loder, a mother-of-two from Bideford, Devon, was a willing and active sexual participant. She was drunk on vodka and invented her story because the partner of the man with whom she’d had sex was a friend. She feared the consequences of the other woman finding out what they had done.

This incident underlines what I noted last week, which is that most reported rape is nothing more than post-sex regret. It doesn't matter if the encounter is described "date rape" or "acquaintance rape" or "marital rape" or "near rape", if there is an adjective before the noun, it transforms the noun. Just as "social justice" is not justice, "date rape" is not rape.

In fact, it is readily apparent that if alcohol is involved in any way, that should be considered an important indicator that regret, and not rape, is involved. Many women intentionally get drunk in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for their subsequent actions, and in certain mixed-sex environments, one could make a very strong case for the mere fact of getting drunk equating to consent, given the fact that implicit consent is the controlling factor in the complete absence of formal written and notarized consent.

Read More

Fresh sheets are HOT

Let this be a lesson to you. Don't listen to scientists. Listen to rock stars and athletes. Seriously, why on Earth would anyone pay any heed to what scientists, or worse, social quasi-scientists, have to say about what turns women on? Like they know! Here is what they believe to be women's top ten sexual turn-ons on the basis of their methodology:

TOP TEN TURN-ONS FOR WOMEN

1. Losing weight
2. Fresh bed sheets    
3. Winning a sum of money       
4. Night out with the girls  
5. Hot bath
6. Work night out or work Christmas party
7. A new hair do 
8. Having makeup applied 
9. Workout at the gym       
10. Closing a deal or completing a major task at work

Here is a good test for if you are an instinctive BETA: if you read this list and thought, "you know, I could change the bed sheets and draw her a hot bath!" And conversely, a good test for if you are an ALPHA: if you read this list and thought "I don't see how that's possible, since I had sex with three women here since the last time I washed the sheets."

(Women know to be dubious of satin sheets, but the ones that should really set off alarm bells are black cotton ones. You can just about slaughter a pig on black sheets and it won't show.)

The Masters of Game know what turns women on. First, the chemical cocktail of ovulation. Second, displays of fame, power, and money. Third, arrogance and social dominance. Fourth, height and a strong, fit, male body. Fifth, good hair and handsome facial features.

Notice that sensitivity, respect, and fresh bed sheets are nowhere to be found on that list.

Read More

The Buyer's Market

Game continues to break into the mainstream, as evidenced by this piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, entitled Why women lose the dating game. It even features citations from Dalrock as well as Susan Walsh:

He barely had a date through much of his 20s and gave up on women. But then he spent time overseas, gained more confidence, learnt how to dress well and hit his early 30s. ''I suddenly started to get asked out by women, aged 19 through to 40. The floodgates burst open for me. I actually dated five women at once, amazing my flatmates by often bedding three to four of my casual dates each week. It is a great time as a male in your 30s, when you start getting more female attention and sex than you could ever have dreamt of in your 20s.''

That's when some men start behaving very badly - as the manosphere clearly shows. These internet sites are not for the faint-hearted. The voices are often crude and misogynist. But they tell it as they see it. There is Greenlander, an apparently successful engineer in his late 30s. In his early adult life, he was unable to ''get the time of day from women''. Now he's interested only in women under 27.

''The women I know in their early 30s are just delusional,'' he says. ''I sometimes seduce them and sleep with them just because I know how to play them so well. It's just too easy. They're tired of the cock carousel and they see a guy like me as the perfect beta to settle down with before their eggs dry out … when I get tired of them I just delete their numbers from my cell phone and stop taking their calls … It doesn't really hurt them that much: at this point they're used to pump & dump!''

It's easy to dismiss such bile but Greenlander's analysis is echoed by many Australian singles, both male and female.

''It's wall-to-wall arseholes out there,'' reports Penny, a 31-year-old lawyer. She is stunned by how hard it is to meet suitable men willing to commit. ''I'm horrified by the number of gorgeous, independent and successful women my age who can't meet a decent man.''

Penny acknowledges part of the problem is her own expectations - that her generation of women was brought up wanting too much. ''We were told we were special, we could do anything and the world was our oyster.'' And having spent her 20s dating alpha males, she expected them to be still around when she finally decided to get serious.

But these men go fast, many fishing outside their pond. The most attractive, successful men can take their pick from women their own age or from the Naomis, the younger women who are happy to settle early. Almost one in three degree-educated 35-year-old men marries or lives with women aged 30 or under, according to income, housing and marriage surveys by the Bureau of Statistics.

''I can't believe how many men my age are only interested in younger women,'' wails Gail, a 34-year-old advertising executive as she describes her first search through men's profiles on the RSVP internet dating site. She is shocked to find many mid-30s men have set up their profiles to refuse mail from women their own age.

Talking to many women like her, it's intriguing how many look back on past relationships where they let good men get away because they weren't ready. American journalist Kate Bolick wrote recently in The Atlantic about breaking off her three-year relationship with a man she described as ''intelligent, good-looking, loyal and kind''. She acknowledged ''there was no good reason to end things'', yet, at the time, she was convinced something was missing in the relationship. That was 11 years ago. She's is now 39 and facing grim choices.

''We arrived at the top of the staircase,'' Bolick wrote, ''finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up - and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don't want to go out with.''

So, many women are missing out on their fairytale ending - their assumption that when the time was right the dream man would be waiting. The 30s are worrying years for high-achieving women who long for marriage and children - of course, not all do - as they face their rapidly closing reproductive window surrounded by men who see no rush to settle down.

One thing that tends to confuse those looking superficially at the matter is that most women, even in their late 30s, are able to find partners. But what tends to escape the attention of those superficial observers is that the men for whom the women are settling in their 30s and 40s tend to be of distinctly lower quality than the men that were pursuing them in their middle and late 20s. If you see a high caliber married man in his 40s or 50s who is married to a woman within a few years of his age, in most cases you will learn that they married when he was in his 20s. One seldom sees a high caliber married man that age who is engaged to a woman who is within five years of his age, as the statistics increasingly demonstrate.

This is why divorced men tend to do well among women approaching the Beauty Wall. Since divorce downgrades their MMV, they still have many of the SMV characteristics that women find attractive, but they possess lower marital value due to the greater baggage and higher relationship risk they represent. So, the older women retain access to the men their age the younger women find less interesting from the relationship perspective.

Read More

Why gammas deny SMV

It's not hard to understand why women, especially aging women, deny the existence of SMV. As PJ O'Rourke once described, they dwell in "the lonely Hell of the formerly cute" and the reality is simply too painful for them to acknowledge. But why do men deny it, especially when it is supposedly so favorable to them that it has even been theorized that older, sexually disfavored men concocted it in order to make them feel better about themselves... well, that does smack of psychological projection, doesn't it.

There are several reasons. One gentleman on Twitter pointed out that PZ Myers's inability to understand that the units of Rollo's graph were nothing more than percentages of an individual's maximal SMV smacked of mild autism. And that surely plays a part, since Myers falls right in the middle between neurotypical and Asperger's Syndrome.

"I’ll have you know, though, that I took the test and scored a 24, an “average math contest winner.” You need a 32 to suggest Asperger’s, and a 15 is the average. So there. I don’t have Asperger’s, I’m just cruel and insensitive."

And, as the SMV discussion has shown, handicapped when it comes to understanding fairly simple concepts that everyone else has no trouble grasping. When you see a man who is otherwise intelligent getting lost in the irrelevant details and completely failing to see the obvious, and that man happens to be an atheist, you can be reasonably confident that he is not neurotypical.

But that's not the only reason. SMV is painful to low-ranking men who have not come to terms with their low status. The more delusional the Gamma, the less he is able to accept the reality that his intelligence, his sensitivity, and his willingess to place women on pedestals do not make him more attractive to the opposite sex. And no amount of logic or observation will suffice to make him admit that a five year-old girl has a lower SMV than a 25 year-old woman, that a Victoria's Secret model has a higher SMV than the average woman, or that he is not, in fact, as desirable as the high school quarterback, the college frat guy, or the corporate vice-president, all of whom he sees as idiots who aren't half the man he believes himself to be.

Notice how they reliably attempt to denigrate the attractiveness of men who are observably much more successful with women than they are.  This is the Gamma male's version of women threatening not to have sex with men whose views they dislike. PZ writes: "Let’s not even start on the ethics of judging people’s worth by the sole parameter of their sexual attractiveness. By that criterion, the author of that graph is a negative ten, and should be shoved in the hole beneath the outhouse and ignored for the rest of his days."

Perhaps PZ is right. However, the fact is that women don't decide who will, and who will not, be having sex with them on the basis of that criterion. They actually make their decisions based on the criteria that PZ describes as "spinning around in circles chasing your own tail until you fall over and vomit".

However, the reality is that the tails "these pick-up artists" are chasing are not their own. And no one would listen to Roissy, or Roosh, or Rollo, or me, if our advice didn't work. There is a vast amount of empirical evidence in support of our hypotheses, and it is remarkably unscientific of Mr. Myers to ignore it.

The rejection of the SMV concept is simply one aspect of the Gamma Delusion Bubble in which most gammas dwell. Because he's good enough just the way he is, and if the world doesn't recognize that, well, it's the world's loss!

Read More

Raging against reality

I occasionally find myself wondering if Dr. PZ Myers made his PhD out of crayons and an old newspaper. I mean, I know he's not actually stupid, but he so often puts his metaphorical pen to paper before stopping and thinking through what he's writing that he may as well be.

SMV? What’s that, you’re wondering. It stands for “Sexual Market Value”. It purports to show the worth of men and women over a range of ages. Hold off on your rage for just a moment, and let’s look at it objectively.

First, the SMV axis. What are the units? There aren’t any. Why? Because he doesn’t actually measure anything. Get that? All of the values in this chart are arbitrary inventions that he totally made up. The entire thing is a fiction.

Second, the whole concept of “Sexual Market Value”. What does that even mean? It’s dimensionless. He doesn’t have a way to look at any person and say, “Your market value is X”. It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart; my sexual appeal to my wife is huge, but negligible to everyone else. Scarlett Johansen may have a reputation as a very sexy woman, but her sexual “market value” to me is zero, and not only is it offensive to propose that her sex is purchasable for some imaginary sum of a million quatloos or whatever, it probably isn’t even a real commodity.

Except, and here’s the scientifically repugnant part, he has no way to assess the SMV of an individual, except to look them up on the chart. Which he made up. The circularity is so perfect, it’s practically Biblical.

And then in his post he chastises critics for their inferior understanding of statistics, and unironically titles his post “Sex, Lies and Statistics”. Gaaaaah. Let’s not even start on the ethics of judging people’s worth by the sole parameter of their sexual attractiveness. By that criterion, the author of that graph is a negative ten, and should be shoved in the hole beneath the outhouse and ignored for the rest of his days.

One last tip: don’t read the comments. Don’t read the comments. Don’t read the comments. In between totting up the scores on all the women they’ve had sex with, they’re laughing at the critics for not appreciating the science of the graph.

Actually, what we're laughing at is the fact that the critics, like PZ, have clearly failed to understand what they're looking at.  As one commenter noted of PZ and his commenters: "It reads like some sci-fi robot trying to process illogical statements. "What are the units? There aren’t any." "What does that even mean? It’s dimensionless." "It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart [Warning CPU overload]". 

Of course there are no units! It is a graphic representation of a variable! 10 does not represent, (as PZ somehow manages to erroneously theorize despite it being explained right in my post), one's actual SMV at any given age, but rather one's MAXIMAL SMV at any given age. And as for the idea that varying subjective values cannot be utilized by the market to produce an average net, well, this betrays an ignorance of basic economics that borders on the complete.

Having been overweight, lonely, and unattractive throughout his adolescence and young adulthood, PZ is entirely familiar with the concept of Sexual Market Value. What does it mean? It means why the pretty girls in high school and college never had any interest in him. And he knows that perfectly well, otherwise he wouldn't be complaining about the ethics of judging people's worth by something that is a meaningless fiction. No one cares about meaningless fictions, but most people care a great deal about how others judge their SMV.

As for the "scientific repugnance", PZ is remarkably unobservant if he is going to stand by his insistence that there is no way to assess the SMV of an individual except to look up their age on the chart. Does he truly find it hard to assess the changing SMV of the same individual pictured at 5, at 25, and at 85?  Does he really believe anyone needs a chart to determine which of the three individuals pictured has the lower SMV?

The fact of the matter is that PZ has no understanding whatsoever of Game. He is a fairly typical Gamma male, constantly trying to make sense of a universe that strikes him as unfair by viewing it through a reality-warping Gamma delusion filter.

All Rollo's chart is meant to be is a graphic representation of the observable and the obvious. The average woman's maximal SMV peaks at a younger age than the average man's and subsequently declines faster. This means that women are advised to make different decisions on a different timescale than men if they wish to take maximum advantage of their attractiveness to the opposite sex.

Read More

Savaged by Statistical Sheep II

As I mentioned in my previous post, Susan Walsh was determined to prove that Rollo's illustrative graphic showing how women's sexual value peaks sooner than men's, something that is both intuitively obvious and empirically observable, is a based on a myth of plummeting female sexual value.

Susan first tried using logic, but her inept attempts at utilizing it turned out to be either incorrect or irrelevant. But futile though they were, those attempts weren't anywhere nearly as embarrassing as her attempt to appeal to the mathematical authority of a random commenter whose claims to be a "PhD statistician" are, to say the least, more than a little dubious.

Susan wrote: "These sorts of graphs reflect aging male fantasy – a sort of 50 Shades of Bray. Enter Kelly, a PhD statistician who takes the top chart apart with math."

This is never going to make an impact, but as a PhD statistician I am going to tell you why all this red pill crap is wrong. Women peak sooner, but men have a broader peak.

    1. Those graphs are wrong because, with a fixed number of people in the world, equal between the sexes, you have to scale the curves so that the area under each one is the same.

    2. The top valued man is not a “10,” ever…He is downgraded by competition in the market.

    He’s some relatively lower value scaled by the fact that men’s sexual prime lasts longer. Why is this, for the non math geniuses out there? Because if there are 50 men who are 7.5′s, and there are only 30 women, then men’s actual score and actual value on the dating market is downgraded because he can’t just choose a 7.5 and take her.

    3. There are even more men competing for the same women.

         a. Not only does the male curve have a broader prime, and therefore more area, there is another factor at play – women hit menopause around 55, but most men want to keep having sex into their 70′s.

         b. Consider that “alpha” males often have several girlfriends, taking more off the market. And women are out of the game for longer to recover from being dumped.

         c. Women are more likely to focus on their kids after divorce and stay out of the dating market.

         d. There is even less area under the female curve because the super attractive part up until age 18 is not even legal for sex.

    This all serves to downgrade men’s real value on the dating market.

    So take that blue curve, and shrink it until the area underneath is the same as the area underneath the women’s curve. This is why women tend to date men 5 years or so older, rather than 16 years older. A lot of this red pill stuff is wishful thinking. There is a little truth to it, but the relative lesser availability of women overall makes it a weaker effect.

    If you looked at the curve and said to yourself, “I am going to be a 10 at age 36!” you are probably only going to be a 7.5 because your whole curve has shrunk, due to you competing with a whole lot of men. There is a giant tranche of men who are 6′s and 7′s who are going to be competing for a much smaller tranche of 6-7 level of sexual attractiveness in women. Many will have to either settle or be alone.

The first, and obvious, response is: what math? This attempted refutation isn't based on statistics or math, it is nothing more than nonsensical babbling and Susan should be mortified at taking it seriously, let alone thinking that it "takes the chart" apart in any way.  Shall we begin?

1. The SMV chart is not the entirety of "the red pill".
2. It is unclear what she means by "women peak sooner but men have a broader peak". Is she making a statement or falsely describing the chart? The chart shows women peaking sooner AND having a broader peak.
3. It is very clear that Kelly has not understood that 10 does not represent "the perfect 10", but rather, the individual male's peak. It is impossible for a man to never reach his own peak sexual market value. And worse, if the mere existence of competition in the market intrinsically degrades one's sexual rank, how can there be female 10s? Kelly's statement assumes that there is no competition in the market for women, which is obviously false.
4. We finally reach "the math".  First, note that it is a hypothetical if-then statement and there is no reason to believe it is applicable to the real world. Second, it is incorrect: she is still confusing individual peak SMV with overall SMV rating. Third, even if we utilize the latter, a 7.5 paired with a 6 does not reduce his sexual market value, it merely means he has Hand in the relationship. Fourth, she again forgets that what she asserts about men would apply to the female curve as well.  And fifth, I note that the only "math" presented here is the controversial notion that 50 is more than 30.
5. The assertion that there are more men competing for the same women as they get older would be indicative of plummeting female sexual market value for most women, not disproof of it. In such a situation, the demand may remain high for some women due to the supply-demand curve, but the overall supply has dwindled. And even that is dubious, for the obvious reason that men can simply date younger women... as we observe them to do.
6. There is absolutely no reason for there to be the same area underneath both curves. This is begging the question, it is not a refutation. She might as credibly have insisted on coloring the blue area yellow and claimed to have refuted the chart on that basis.
7. Again, "the lesser availability of women" presumes declining female attractiveness.
8. Kelly leaves out an obvious option. Men who are 6s and 7s who cannot find women of similar sexual market value their own age are not doomed to either settle or be alone, as they can also pair up with the more plentiful younger women of similar sexual market value.

Notice that no math was required for this refutation, because there was no math involved in the first place. Argumentum ab auctoritate is usually fallacious, but an appeal to an observably incompetent non-authority is so bizarre that I don't see any need to further beat the dead horse. I don't go in for much pop psychology, so rather than speculate why Susan would elect to put forth such an inept argument, I would simply encourage her to critique them more thoroughly before making them public.

Read More

Savaged by statistical sheep

Well, that certainly didn't take long. After successfully detaching herself from the androsphere, Susan Walsh appears to have been unfortunately and unduly influenced by her lack of contact with the rigors of male criticism.  She attempts to attack what she describes as "male wishful thinking" with a combination of conventional female shaming, ad hominem, illogic, and an appeal to authority.

Below is the target of her criticism, Rollo's sexual market value over lifetime chart.

Now let's look at the flaws in her critique, which she titles "The Myth of Plummeting Female Sexual Market Value".  Susan begins right away by begging the question and demonstrating her own personal bias with regards to the matter.

A. "A reader shared this bit of male wishful thinking about female sexual market value. It was apparently cooked up by a typically disgruntled and sexually frustrated older male licking his mating wounds."

In addition to begging the question, Susan commits failure of logic known as "the genetic fallacy". Her problem is that "The Godfather" is a great movie regardless of whether Al Pacino says it is or not. In like manner, women observably decline in sexual value regardless of whether it is "a frustrated older male licking his mating wounds" or "a hot young man who turns up his nose at overweight matrons due to his preference for 18 year-old swimsuit models" who mentions the fact.

1. "Since, male attraction cues are directly tied to female fertility and define female beauty, a female’s sexual value should not decline at all before her fertility does."

Provably false assumption.  If this were true, the average age of a Playboy Playmate would not be 22, it would be the mid-point of menarche (12) and menopause (51), or 31.5. Even if we assume that male attraction cues are tied to female fertility, it should not need to be pointed out that a woman who can have many children will be valued considerably more for her fertility than the woman who can only have one. As a Wharton MBA, Susan should not be unfamiliar with the concept of time value, as the time value of money is deemed the central concept in finance theory.

2. "Fertility declines very gradually between the ages of 27 and 35."

Irrelevant. See above. It is readily apparent that Susan has made the mistake of assuming the correlative connection between fertility and male attraction is a causal one.

3. "Notice how the male sexual value begins its precipitous drop at around 36, after declining gradually for five years. Not much difference."

Irrelevant. A decline in male sexual value cannot possibly make the decline in female sexual value a myth.

I will address why Kelly's mathematical objections are similarly irrelevant in a future post, but in summary, simply citing MATH isn't going to cut it here. The decline of women's sexual value is no myth; it is, to the contrary, absolutely undeniable. Even an unattractive 22 year-old woman has more sexual value than every single 88 year-old woman on the planet.

Rollo himself notes: "[L]ets put it this way, the cosmetics, fashion and plastic surgery industries didn’t become the multi-trillion dollar corporate juggernauts they are today as the result of an overwhelming demand to make women appear older."

Given that, the question that obviously follows is if men and women possess equivalent sexual value at all ages or not. Unless Susan wants to stand on the extremely shaky ground of asserting that the sexual value of men and women ascend and decline in unison, all she is actually quibbling about is where the curves happen to be drawn in what appears to be little more than an attempt to engage in a feeble ad hominem attack.

And why would any man wish for declining female sexual value anyhow? Has Susan really forgotten that men are the individuals who will be expected to have sex with those aging women? And who could possibly be more aware of that declining value than a older male who has witnessed his female age peers decline from their physical peaks?

Read More

"They do not see their future"

Despite decades in Singapore, the Observer did not appear to realize that Lee Kwan Yu was not unaware of the consequences of female education. From the comments on yesterday's post.

TZ: "Lee Kwan Yu said it was one of his biggest mistakes - educating (to the college level) the women."

TO: I'm a Singaporean born and bred for 26 years, and never heard anything like that. In anything, the PAP government pushed, and still pushes for massive education for everyone, and was a major proponent of abortion and sterilisation in the 70's in an effort to get women out of the household, as well as other measures to destroy extended families. The closest thing I've ever heard him quoted on is that educated women should have more kids, not that they should stop being educated altogether.

This is a good example of why personal experience, even decades of direct personal and relevant experience, should never be overly relied upon when dealing with the historical record. Mr. Lee is an interesting and highly intelligent man, but he was clearly too influenced by the assumptions of the Western elite, whose policies he tried to imitate without thinking through their logical intermediate-term consequences.

“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1983

"“The successful, whether you’re a scholar, a Mandarin or a successful businessman or successful farmer, you had more than one wife. In fact you can have as many as your economic status entitles you or can persuade people to give their daughters up to you. In other words, the unsuccessful are like the weak lions or bucks in a herd, they were neutralised. So over the generations you must have the physically and the mentally more vibrant and vital, reproduce. We are doing just the opposite. We introduced monogamy. It seems so manifestly correct. The West was successful, superior. Why? Because they are monogamous. It was wrong. It was stupid.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Population and Development Review, Vol. 13 No.1, 1987

“Once you have women educated with equal job opportunities they do not see their future as bearers of children. So fertility rate has gone down, I don’t see it going back to 2.1, which is the replacement rate. The only way it can happen is if you ‘diseducate’ or ‘uneducate’ the women and that doesn’t make sense. The economy will suffer.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 7th anniversary of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 2011

But Mr. Lee is completely wrong about the economy. Economies with educated women are actually correlated with much slower economic growth as well as higher debt, in addition to the much higher levels of immigration that Mr. Lee himself has said are inevitable and necessary as a result of the sub-replacement level fertility rates.

"Among the topics raised was whether the “Stop at Two” campaign launched in the 1960s had created today’s ageing population and need for incoming immigrants. Disagreeing, Mr Lee said: “Stopping at two has nothing to do with what’s happened. It’s happening throughout the developed world.” Instead, he attributed the current situation to the rising education levels among women today and economic development. Mr Lee then referred to a study by the Institute of Policy Studies and emphasised on the need for immigrants to make up population in view of the projected low fertility rate of 1.24 per woman."

It is informative to see how Lee's views on the consequences of female education transformed from 1983 to 2011 as a result of witnessing them. He went from "that's a problem" in the theoretical sense to understanding exactly how the problem manifests, although he still didn't grasp the obvious connection between a higher percentage of educated women with equal job opportunities and reduced economic growth. Which is a little strange, because even if you subscribe to the Keynesian idea that demand produces growth, it should be readily apparent that more children means more consumers which means more economic growth.

What appears to be difficult for solipsistic women and their intellectual white knights to understand is that the equal education and opportunity they so value necessarily means a lower standard of living for them and everyone else. That's not because Mr. Lee is sexiss or because I am misogyniss, the observation is no more credibly debatable than the idea that if you drop a ball, gravity will cause it to hit the floor.

"They do not see their future." Mr. Lee could have simply ended his statement there and it would have been equally apt.

Read More

The wages of female education

Japan is demographically imploding and it's a great mystery to everyone who thought that educating women was going to create new prosperity there, not destroy the entire economy:

The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier. Another study found that a third of people under 30 had never dated at all. (There are no figures for same-sex relationships.) Although there has long been a pragmatic separation of love and sex in Japan – a country mostly free of religious morals – sex fares no better. A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way.

The answer is pretty obvious.  The following is taken from a paper published in 2000 by Sawako Shirahase, entitled Women’s Increased Higher Education and the Declining Fertility Rate. The paper is more than a bit silly, in that she attempts to prove that the decline in fertility is not related to the obvious educational factor, but the unwillingness of Japanese men to do housework. This struck me as crazy, in that the only way my Japanese host-father would have considered helping out around the house would have been sending his mistress over to lend a hand. But the factual part Shirahase is attempting to explain away is sufficiently enlightening, especially considering the way in which the 13 subsequent years have exacerbated the consequences.

"Enrollment of women in senior high school increased dramaticalland by the end of that decade it even exceeded the rate for men by one point; from 1975, the advancement rate surpassed 90 percent and gradually rose to 97 percent by 1997. By the late 1990s, then, almost all young women entered senior high school after completing their compulsory education (junior high school). At the university level, the rate of women’s enrollment almost doubled between 1970 and 1975 (from 6.5 % to 12.5 %) and continued to increase slowly; between 1993 and 1997 the rate increased by 7 points. 

"Between 1965 and 1975 the rate of enrollment in junior colleges, which constituted an important part of women’s higher education in Japan, tripled (from 6.7 % to 19.9 %), widening the difference between the rates of advancement to junior colleges and universities—in 1975, 19.9 percent versus 12.5 percent. Later, enrollment increased in the form of a gentle curve. By 1996, however, the rate of advancement to universities surpassed that to junior colleges; in 1997, enrollment in universities reached 26.0 percent, as opposed to 22.9 percent in junior colleges. In this way, women’s attainment of a higher education increased rapidly between the late 1960s and early 1970s, and since the 1990s there has been a remarkable increase in advancement to a university.

"Throughout this period Japan experienced a sharp decline in the total rate of fertility. After a sudden downswing in the early 1950s, the birthrate continuously declined until the mid-1980s, when it began to drop rapidly, and by 1997 it fell to 1.39. In light of these findings, it is plausible to suggest that there is a relationship between the increase in women’s access to a higher education and the decrease in the fertility rate."

Of course, this is no mystery to the theoreticians of Game. As women achieve a higher level of education, their hypergamy cause them to increasingly focus on a dwindling pool of men with whom they are also competing. Those who cannot score an Alpha or a Beta tend to elect to remain single and devote themselves to their careers rather than settle for a Delta or Gamma as their mothers and grandmothers did. In reaction to their disdain, the lesser men are not only less attractive to these educated women, they are also less attracted to them as they learn there is no possibility of satisfying relationships with them.

Why is the problem more distinct in Japan than in the USA, where even more women are highly educated? Because Japan is a more rigidly traditional society and its people are less willing to embrace an equality paradigm that has already failed in the West.

Ironically, in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.

Read More

Epic media fail

Judgybitch anticipates, presumably successfully, the failure of a 20/20 piece on the Androsphere:

Well, the 20/20 piece on the “Manosphere” is obviously gonna be a trainwreck.... Guys, she worked at Abercrombie & Fitch and she has a degree in Diplomacy!

Off to a promising start, no?

"Deep in the underbelly of the Internet is a hidden corner known as the “Manosphere”— a collection of websites, Facebook pages and chat rooms where men vent their rage and spew anti-women rhetoric."

Furthermore, as far as I know, the reporters didn't talk to Roosh, Roissy, Rollo, Dalrock, me, or any of the others who are more or less recognized as central figures in the Androsphere. (Correct me if I'm wrong, gentlemen.) I don't see anything wrong with talking to Paul Elam of A Voice For Men, but if you're not talking to Roosh and Heartiste, at a bare minimum, you cannot pretend to be seriously covering anything that anyone would recognize as "the Manosphere".

Of course, the real revolutionaries are scary to the journalists, because we are not only considerably more intelligent than they are, but we quite clearly don't give a damn about what the mainstream says, thinks, or feels about us.

The Androsphere continues to grow in influence. For example, I'm a little late getting around to my Q3 report, but Alpha Game's traffic increased to 349,623 in Q3, up from an average of 323,079 the previous quarter. That is 8.2 percent growth per quarter, and I suspect the other Game blogs are seeing similar growth, especially great new blogs like Just Four Guys.

Read More

Sigmafication

In which the Chateau recognizes a minor contribution to the socio-sexual hierarchy, which he identifies as "the Renegade Alpha":

The blogger Vox, an esteemed member of the realtalker shock troops, has his own delineation of male status based off of the original CH socio-sexual classifications, which he has said is a refinement of the original, but which CH guardians of the Good Word of Game say amounts to an aesthetic rewording of the primeval texts. Vox’s male ranks could easily superimpose onto CH’s ranking system, because the CH hierarchy is not, as is commonly assumed by readers who have barely skimmed the ancient writings, a stark dichotomy separating alphas from betas, but rather is a continuous SPECTRUM running the gamut from the lowly omega dregs to the zero-point-one percenter super alphas. Within that spectrum there is room for every male socio-sexual rank, including the mysterious Renegade Alpha, which Vox names the Sigma Male....

Very loosely, the Renegade Alpha is a seducer of women first, and a leader of men second, if at all. Though in fact the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. A cad bounder who defies the rules can also lead a small contingent of men, although the sweep of his influence may be constrained by his chosen hedonistic lifestyle.

Notice that CH has clearly understood, as many readers have not, that there is no fundamental difference between the binary hierarchy of Alpha/Beta and my more finely graduated socio-sexual hierarchy. I merely went in an additional zoom level is all.  I'm also pleased to see CH use the term "socio-sexual", as the social aspects are so closely interwoven with the sexual ones that attempting to distinguish them is impractical.

And the Chateau is entirely correct to point out that Sigmas are somewhat limited in comparison with the greater Alphas, because social status and a coterie of loyal followers will tend to augment any man's Game, no matter how successful he may be on his own.  It's interesting, too, to note that CH sees an growing amount of opportunity for Sigmas as the social systems around the world become more chaotic, but have not yet collapsed. He writes "Societal collapse is his serendipity. The cri de coeur of broken souls his symphony." 

The commenter CK's description turns out to be, as it happens, rather apt: "Sigma’s days are spent on a metaphorical beach, in a company of a woman genuinely in[to] him. People envy Sigma for his freedom and quality of life. Hate him for not being a conformist."

Read More

Different, not double

Can you even imagine a man writing into a supposed sex expert because he is worried about the negative implications of a woman being a virgin?

I’ve just met a guy online and we really clicked but he turns out to be a 32-year-old virgin! He’s attractive and it makes me wonder if he’s damaged in some way…

He doesn’t want sex and we’ve been dating for three months. What’s going on? Is it secretly gay? He says he’s a virgin but I don’t believe him…

Two unusual emails plopping into my inbox? Or an indication of something that’s more common than you think. The answer is the latter.

Notice that a 32-year old male virgin is deemed potentially damaged, while a man going three whole months without pressing a woman for sex is enough to raise suspicions of homosexuality.  And even the expert deems such men to be "terrified".  A female virgin is considered to be a prize. A male virgin is considered to be a damaged, terrified, secret homosexual. Sounds hot, doesn't it?

With men, female attraction favors the bold. With women, male attraction in the relationship sense tends to favor the reticent.

Don't judge women by male standards. And don't judge men by female standards. There is no "double-standard", there are simply two different standards for two very different types of human beings.

Read More

"Rape" is ex post facto regret

I find it both amusing and informative that the media can't even manage to keep a straight face while trying to report yet another regret rape as a real one:

A university student photographed while appearing to be engaging in a public sex act near Ohio University's Athens campus tells police she was being raped as fellow students watched and uploaded pictures. As many as 10 people watched and tweeted pictures and even a video of the act while describing both their shock and humor of the scene unfolding, according to students who broadcast the scene on Twitter.

The couple, described as being in their early 20s, is seen in several shots leaning against a Chase Bank window on Court Street - just a block from the Athens police station - as the man has oral sex with her.

But since the photos' upload, all of which appear to be deleted online, many have questioned whether the woman pictured wasn't actively engaging in the act herself. A college news website since claiming access to the event's 1:27 video Wednesday reports that the sex does appear consensual and the woman appeared to be enjoying herself.

The fact is that most claims of "rape" are fraudulent. Every police officer and every nurse who has to go through the charade of pretending to take them seriously knows it. It's time to stop pretending that rape is the worstest crime ever in the history of the world; most women who claim to have been raped are merely women who are attempting to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their sexual decisions.

Some well-meaning women believe that the solution is to warn women about the dangers of drinking too much, failing to understand that the reason young women are drinking to excess in the first place is in order to give themselves the excuse to be "taken advantage of" and "raped" in order to have casual sex without feeling guilty about it. Hence all the ex post facto fake rape claims; in this case, the woman was embarrassed by her behavior in public, so she cries rape, and hey presto, suddenly it's not her fault. Right.

Unless a woman is either a) underage, b) at home, or c) forcibly dragged off somewhere by a stranger, the chances are very, very low that she hasn't been raped. Contra the college propaganda, no does not actually mean no, as any man who has ever gotten up and walked out on a woman the moment she said no will recognize.

Seriously, try it sometime. It's vastly amusing. The moment a woman says no, immediately get up and leave. When she looks upset and says "wait, where are you going?" just tell her "no means no, have a nice evening".  After all, you wouldn't want to be a rapist, would you?

Read More

What to do when a girl hits you

At some point, men have to realize that the "never hit a girl" strategy isn't working.  Keep in mind that this man is a U.S. Marine:

She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

It was over. We were over. I headed out the door to the police and then the hospital. My daughter stopped me. “Daddy, you need to go to a doctor, here take this,” she handed me a bandage. “I love you” was the last thing I said to her. It’s been almost a month.

I walked into the police station falling apart. What happened? What will I do next? What happens on Monday? What happens for the rest of my life? How will I explain what just happened to my kids? My head was spinning as much from the injury as from the complete collapse of my home life. I knew the officer, I had came by the night before suspecting that my wife was leaving with the kids, he assumed why I was crying, “hey man, it’s alright, you knew this was going to happen….”

I pulled off my sunglasses and revealed my bloody face. “Whoa, what the hell happened?”

I started piecing together what happened. The argument, her throwing the breakfast I was making for the kids on the ground, grabbing my laptop, the stairs, my kids, screaming. I pulled out the Band-Aid and broke down again.

“Is she hurt? Did you hit her…?” No. Never. I waited.

“We’re sending a car over there to talk to her.” I waited some more.

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

An hour later I was handcuffed to a hospital bed waiting for CAT scan results to know if my head was bleeding. I looked at the officer.

“What do you do when a woman hits you?”

“I don’t know what to tell you, man” he confided. “We don’t like doing these things, but our hands are tied."

The solution is simple. It is very simple and it's very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life.

Afterwards, calmly explain to her that if she calls the police or tries to press charges after she attacked you and forced you to defend yourself, you'll simply do your 30 days or whatever and then you'll come back and do it again. Only this time, you won't be merely defending yourself. You'll be looking for payback, and payback is a serious bitch. And remind her that the police won't be there until after the fact.

She'll believe you. Remember, first and foremost, women are creatures of fear. Because they are so fearful, they have created a system where men are arrested and punished and lose access to their children even when they are attacked, even when they don't defend themselves. The object is to make her understand that simple fact that the vast edifice of the police and the legal system are totally incapable of protecting her. Which, as it happens, is completely true.

Dalrock wrote about the same article and concluded, presumably at least half tongue-in-cheek: "The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him."

That won't work. Now, it is true that women have created what is a no-win legal situation for men.  But what is another word for a no-win situation? A can't-lose situation! In other words, carte blanche.  But there is more to it than that.

Haven't you ever notice that the real male predators, the real abusive men, are very seldom arrested for domestic abuse, and are even less often convicted of anything? On the rare occasions they are charged, they are often released without trial because the women they abuse won't testify against them. That's because abusive men instill fear in their women, and as Roissy has often noted, the defensive cringe is the trigger for female sexual arousal. Abusive men don't select women who just magically happen to be too submissive and fearful to even think of acting crazy and attacking them, they make women that way. That's why women fear them so much. They have a sense of the power men who are willing to use force have over them.

In fact, there is some reason to believe that female craziness and subsequent attacks may stem from an excess of male passivity, engendering not only female contempt, but female violence.  That's not the entirety of the case, but there does appear to be sufficient correlation between female aggressiveness and male passivity to suggest some degree of causation there.

But don't forget the most important part once things calm down. Unless the experience of being on the wrong end of self-defense seriously adjusts her behavior, (and I think this is possible since many women respond very well to harsh reality checks), get the hell out of the relationship as soon as possible. Remember, regardless of what the law says, defending yourself is not abuse, assault is abuse. And no man should subject himself to life with an abusive woman, particularly under the current legal regime.

Now, this advice should not be mistaken for general relationship advice. Notice that it is an IF-THEN statement. I have never laid a hand on my wife in anger, nor has she ever attacked me. Fortunately for most of us, violence is simply not an aspect of our relationships. But we're not talking about most people here, we're specifically addressing men who are suffering domestic abuse compounded by  subsequent legal abuse. And, as per Game, it behooves such men to look at other men, men who are naturals, and learn from their observably more effective tactics for dealing with problematic women.

Read More

Fat women SHOULD be ashamed

"A California fitness enthusiast and mother of three is defending a controversial photo of herself that has prompted a cavalcade of Facebook critics to accuse her of fat shaming women.

In the photo, seen at left, 32-year-old Maria Kang poses in a workout bra and matching micro shorts — revealing an incredibly toned figure with washboard abs — while surrounded by her three young sons, now 1, 3 and 4. Floating above her head is the question, “What’s your excuse?”

The picture has gone viral, with more than 16 million views on Facebook, and has generated more than 12,000 comments. And while much of the input has been of the supportive “you go, girl” variety, plenty of it has been made up of angry, offended personal attacks on the photo subject, calling her everything from “obnoxious” and “fake” to a bad mom and a bully. 

Yes, the woman is in shape and gorgeous. What those complaining about fat-shaming and so forth leave out of this is that the woman was 145 pounds when she got married. She got up to 180 when she was pregnant. So, she knows all about being fat. She was fat.

But instead of looking at her as an inspiration and a model, it seems there are no shortage of shambling shoggoths who would rather keep stuffing their obese faces and complaining that society doesn't recognize their inner beauty.

It's not that hard. Eat fewer carbohydrates, lift weights, and do some cardio. That's it. Sure, it sucks when you pass up that doughnut at the meeting or you don't feel like hitting the treadmill, but as the great English philosopher Kate Moss once said, nothing tastes as good as skinny feels. Food is no substitute for love, in fact, love is a lot more accessible when you're not handicapping yourself with 30 extra pounds of blubber.

It doesn't come easy for anyone. And the older you get, the harder it is. But unless you're planning on swimming out to sea, don't be a whale. Gluttony and sloth are sins. Fat is a moral failure.

Read More

The most romantic song of all time

I never thought Bloodhound Gang could possibly top Bad Touch. But I think they did it here. I really do.

Fucking's cool, but Jimmy's the romantic type.
Loitering on cliffs, thinking about stuff like,
Screwing you on the beach at night.

In case it has escaped you, these are successful musicians openly mocking delta-gamma notions of romance.

I know my haikus are freaking intense
But even the words I made up to sound French
Don't express my feelings for your toilet parts.
I would show up for our pottery class
Dressed like a pirate with John Water's mustache
On a unicorn that shits your name in stars.

It would be very hard to drip contempt more openly.

Read More

Women who don't get men

Steve Sailer observes that feminism has resulted in women becoming increasingly clueless about what men think and feel:

Of more concern is Eileen Pollack’s kind of disorganized feminism. Autism researchers have a term "theory of mind" to describe what autistics lack in their perceptions of other people. Pollack's 8000 word article on Yale coeds is strikingly lack in theory of mind terms when it comes to Yale men. They're pretty much ciphers. That's peculiar because she is a novelist in her later 50s and has a son.

In contrast, to lesbians, there’s nothing inevitable about feminine women in late middle age being as lacking in wisdom as Ms. Pollack. That’s real damage caused by marinating in decades of feminist ideology: feminism encourages self-absorption.

Mature female wisdom is a valuable societal resource. If you want advice on an interpersonal problem that is baffling you, the single most likely demographic segment to understand the various human perspectives involved is older women, especially ones who had fathers in their lives, brothers, husbands, and/or sons so that they have sympathetic experience with how males think.

Unfortunately, we're going to have the dumbest, most self-centered grandmothers in history.

To the extent we have grandmothers at all. In Australia, for example, the first generation of women to reach menopause without statistically replenishing themselves have now become reproductively irrelevant; they produced on average fewer than two children throughout their entire fertility period.

On the other hand, if one considers the performance of the Wise Latina on the Supreme Court, we may not actually be losing all that much wisdom as a society. And they should have some bitching tattoos about which they can repeatedly tell us.

Sailer's post also connects to an interesting article, in which he compares two feminist articles and concludes: "Together, these Harvard and Yale articles make informative reading because they show how protean feminist analysis has become. Feminism rationalizes a culture of complaint no matter how contradictory the gripes."

Read More