Life isn't personal

Badger points out that not taking things personally is a badge of male honor. And like most things male honor-related, it is a complete mystery to women:

Guys don’t really have to shit-test each other because the male social environment contains an implicit contract of competition – we understand that we’re supposed to respond to challenges by competing, and that those who compete frequently or well have enhanced opportunities in the social order.

However, it’s also critical to acknowledge that the competition is a game, to not take it personally. That’s what is communicated by the post-game handshake. It’s a way for the loser to say “nice job,” and the winner to thank the loser for putting up a good fight. Even if you are hurt or humiliated, it’s an offer you need to accept as a way of showing there’s no hard feelings.

I would note that it goes even further than the realm of competition. Yesterday, at the gym, a careless guy took all the weights off one side of the curl bar. There were a considerable quantity of weights on the other side; one guess what happened.

The problem was that I was standing just on the other side of the bar with my back to it. So the weighted side of the bar crashed to the floor and caused the bar to flip over and whip over as per the force of gravity. Fortunately, I heard the crash and something caused me to step sideways rather than turn around to see what happened. The end of the metal bar smashed down where I'd been standing; it probably wouldn't have injured me too badly, but it would have hurt and it definitely wasn't the sort of blow you'd want to take to your lower spine.

The guy responsible immediately ran over and apologized profusely. He didn't attempt to disclaim responsibility, he didn't make any excuses, and he didn't try to blame me for being in the wrong place. He just apologized. For my part, I didn't get angry with him, I didn't lecture him on being more careful next time, and I didn't take the opportunity to play the victim in some way. I just assured him it was no problem, it was nothing, and no harm had been done.

In five seconds, it was finished. He cleaned up the weights, and we went on with our workouts. There was no drama, no issue, no lingering resentments to be resolved.

To take everything personally, from a sporting defeat to a minor accident, is to be fundamentally unmasculine. The fact that the interests of others often run contrary to our own does not mean that they have anything to do with us personally. Don't be afraid to apologize or to accept apologies. Learn to leave the spirit of opposition on the playing field and save your wrath for the wicked, for those whose enmity is specific and personal and temporally unlimited.

It's not a surprise that the female boxer did not touch gloves after being defeated. She has no male honor and everything is personal for her. The match may be over, but you can be sure that she still sees the man with whom she was boxing as her opponent. In fact, she probably sees many men with whom she has never boxed and never will box as her opponents.

Read More

Slenderexy is hotter and healthier too

Recently, Tuthmosis has come in for some heavy criticism for his praise of women with so-called eating disorders, so much, in fact, that the international media has now joined in the hysteria.

A blogger who caused outrage by advising men to date women with an eating disorder says he is bemused by the 'female histrionics' the controversial article has provoked. Tuthmosis has refused to apologize and says people offended by his '5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder' post need to get some 'perspective'. The blog tells men to date anorexics and bulimics because they 'cost less money' and 'her obsession over her body will improve her overall looks'....

A number of petitions have since been set up calling for the blog to be taken down, and one has received more than 12,000 signatures. Since it went live on November 13, the writer has been accused of 'dangerously and absurdly' trivializing the disease, which affects about 20 million woman and 10 million men in the U.S.

The Return of Kings blog post states that eating disorders are a 'luxury reserved for only the most privileged members of the female race'.

'In other words, the presence of one of the classic eating disorders is a reliable predictor of various socio-economic, cultural, and personality traits in a young woman -- features that, in the end, are desirable to today’s American man,' the writer, who says he has dated 'several' girls with an eating disorder, explains in his post.

Tuthmosis is correct to respond to the female histrionics with bemused and condescending laughter. So-called "eating disorders" are not only almost completely harmless, but they are materially beneficial to millions of men and women who would otherwise be obese and diabetic. And they are both materially and aesthetically beneficial to the hundreds of millions of men and women who would otherwise have to look at them, pay taxes for their medical care, and bury them.

It is important to understand that anorexia barely kills anyone.  Virtually no one who has it is at any risk of dying from it, as per the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, which cited a study entitled "Death from anorexia nervosa: age span and sex differences".

The purpose of this study was to assess characteristics of individuals who died from anorexia nervosa by assessing the frequency with which anorexia nervosa is listed as a causal factor related to the death of individuals in the USA. Data from over 10 million death records (all National Center for Health Statistic registered deaths in the USA for 1986-90) were examined for mention of anorexia nervosa as a primary or contributing cause of death. Only 724 were found, which equals an average of 145 annual deaths, and a rate of 6.73 per 100,000 deaths. The age and sex distribution suggests two fatal forms of anorexia nervosa, an early-onset form comprising 89% women and a later form comprising 24% men. The findings suggest that the mortality risk from current anorexia nervosa may be lower than formerly supposed and that it is not confined to young adults and adolescents.

That's almost exactly the same number of people who annually die in school-transportation related crashes, which amounts to 142 annual deaths. Considering that far more people eat than go to school, it should be obvious that unless one considers school transportation to be a serious danger to society, one cannot rationally consider "eating disorders" to be one either.

A "disease" that affects 30 million people and kills one out of every 206,897 of the individuals who contract it is simply not a serious societal problem, especially not when considered in light of how diabetes contributed to 231,404 deaths in 2011. 28.5 million Americans suffer from diabetes, so the risk of death from diabetes is one in 111. That means the risk of dying from diabetes is 1,855 TIMES HIGHER than the risk of dying from an eating disorder.

Stuff that in your piehole, fatty. Better yet, stick your finger down your throat if you want to live... and that's not even considering amputations, blindness, and other non-fatal complications.

Tuthmosis should not be criticized, he should be praised as a great champion of women's health. It's no accident that none of the criticism directed towards him is even related to the points he raised. Anything that keeps fat men and women from stuffing their faces is an important and desirable step towards a healthier future for them. An "eating disorder" is a hell of a lot less risky than gastric-bypass surgery.

Slender women are not only healthier than fat women, they are considerably more attractive. I prefer women with a BMI between 16 and 18 myself. Your mileage may vary, but anything over 21 is getting a bit porcine for the average non-athlete and anything over 25 starts increasing the aforementioned risk of diabetes. There are many healty, attractive, active women with three, four, or even five children whose BMIs are well south of 20.

Everything can be taken to a dangerous extreme, even drinking water. But that doesn't mean that one should conclude that drinking water is a deadly danger best avoided. The pejorative terms "eating disorder" and "anorexia" should be reserved for that tiny percentage of men and women who are actually at serious risk of starving themselves to death. For the overwhelming majority, being slenderexy should be considered something that is desirable, fortunate, and beneficial for women.

Roosh, meanwhile, formally defends Tuthmosis despite mistakenly buying into the myth of the seriousness of "eating disorders":

The delivery of ideas like these may make some people uncomfortable, but they are based on our experiences and views of the world. We speak the truths that politically correct outlets are too afraid to share because of sensitive mainstream readers who lose their composure at anything they disagree with.

I want to make it clear that we at ROK are not promoting eating disorders. These are devastating illnesses on those whom they afflict, and we wish sufferers are able to receive the treatment they need. It is unfortunate that sufferers continue to be stigmatized by society, so it surprises me that Tuthmosis’ article has been angrily received when it attempts to reduce stigma by encouraging our male readership to give women with anorexia and bulimia an opportunity for real intimacy. This is far better than merely giving patronizing e-support by outlets like Huffington Post.

We are educating our masculine readers not to pass on eating disorder victims just because they have an illness, yet instead of receiving thanks, we’re receiving hate instead. If we all had cancer, and someone wrote an article titled “5 Reasons To Fornicate With A Man Who Has Cancer,” we would spread it far and wide to make fornicating with us a better proposition for women. 

Read More

Happy Thanksgiving

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor - and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be - That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks - for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation - for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war - for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed - for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted - for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions - to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually - to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed - to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord - To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us - and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

Read More

Alpha Mail: playing with fire

RC tries to lock down a Tinder hookup:

I've found your insights and commentaries on so many issues so illuminating that I'm writing you for your opinion on what to do in this situation. I've suffered from massive beta backslide and I feel like I did when I was in my early 20s (I'm 33 now).

I hope you get a chance to read this and give me your very valuable to me 2 cents on how to take care of this situation... or end it in a nuclear way:

Met X on Tuesday in October through Tinder. Met briefly for 1 drink... there was a lot of chemistry so we set up a date for Friday... then she went to a concert and I went to bang a chick I hook up with every once in a while.

Friday I pick X up, take her to two places, heavy kissing, then I suggest going back to her place. We get naked on her bed and she tells me to stop and kicks me out of her place at the last second.

Saturday we meet briefly at a cook off by my place. She's with a girlfriend of hers and her friend says that I'm a great guy, etc... Then X leaves to a housewarming party, I'm not invited. I go home.

Sunday morning we had brunch and then sex at my place and then hung out all day at festivals.

This went on fine for a few days until one time I saw that she kept getting calls and messages from other Tinder guys and other regular text messages. I told her I had zero tolerance for other people contacting her with romantic intentions and she said that we were never clear about being exclusive. She said let's continue seeing each other so I made it a point to spend every mutually free moment together... even going to the gym together. My plan was to make her dependent on my presence so that when I travel (and I travel a lot) she would miss me and not fool around or accept any advances.

Well, I'm traveling now have been away for a week. I get back in 6 days (NOV 30). At one point, she had given me her work computer sign-in password, which lo and behold turned out to be her gmail password.

Well, my morbid curiosity took hold and I went through her emails and search history. Nothing out of the ordinary, except last night I saw that she emailed herself from her phone a picture of a guy. I immediately emailed her telling her that I was in the beach and that there was a only a crappy internet cafe there and that I missed her and all that beta shit and that I had the computer for an hour and I'd come back to check to see if she'd written. After 45 mins she wrote me... then sent that guy his own picture... then she wrote me a little more.

This morning, I check her email and she had made a folder with his name and my emails are gone.

Obviously, I have to break up with her. What kills me is that she has 5 days to finish it with me first. We are supposed to go to a party the same day I land. Obviously that's not going to happen.

What's the best way to finish all of this?

This is a girl that works in my industry, which I'm also in. I don't exactly want her as an enemy and I can't write off any bitterness to a break up because not many people knew we were dating.

I was planning on not writing her until I hear back from her, obviously. But once I get back to CITY Y, I wanted to show up to her place and tell her that I felt that she didn't miss me as much as she claims to miss me and that quite frankly I didn't miss her as much as I thought I would. But I want to do something that stings... I'd like to tell her that I saw us being together for a long time or something, since I know she wants to sooner or later. As a matter of fact, I always came inside her, but she always went for the Plan B morning after pill, so I don't know if she was that interested in keeping me around through those means.

Can you give me some advice about this?

Yes. Stop being such a bloody Delta and start being honest with yourself. You were on Tinder to find sluts. You found one. You nailed her. Now you're all butt-hurt because she's still a slut and she's doing what sluts do, which is look for her next sexual fix.

This is a simple case of category error. Sluts are for sex. They are riding the carousel and they don't want to get off. They're sex toys, they're not real girls, from the relationship perspective.

It's apparent that Y has a higher SMV than RC does, which is why RC wants to turn Pinochiette into a real girl and she has no intention of letting him do so. This is a big mistake and a modified form of oneitis. It's also why so many men marry the wrong woman; they don't propose because they are in love or due to mutual compatibility, but because they think she is the hottest woman they will ever get.

If you feel the need to spy on a woman or make her dependent upon your presence so that she won't cheat on you, then she's not a woman you should consider for a relationship. The urge to spy is your subconscious telling you that she can't be trusted. If she doesn't behave in a way that permits you to continue the relationship without spying, you should either next her or maintain a non-exclusive status.

In this case, the best thing for RC to do is to simply stop communicating with her and move on. If she comes sniffing around wondering why he's not paying the expected attention to her, he should just tell her he heard she was involved with another guy now and he's not interested in her anymore. He should not, under any circumstances, tell her that he was logging into her email account. He should let her hamster spin with regards to how he knows.

And if RC wants a serious and committed relationship, he needs to rethink his current approach to women. If one wants quality food, one goes to a decent restaurant, not the bowling alley. So, if RC wants a wife, or even just a proper girlfriend, how does it make any sense for him to go looking for one on Tinder?

Read More

Feminists are two-legged ferrets

This explains so much, SO MUCH, feminist lunacy:

Yes, female ferrets will develop a minor medical issue if they have been waiting for a mate for too long: It's called "death." More specifically, the thing that kills them is a fatal state of too much horniness. Unlike human females, with their fancy and confusing system of spontaneous ovulation (which has the negative effect of making them not constantly fertile and infuriating iguanas), ferrets have induced ovulation, meaning that they will remain in heat until they have sex.

Unfortunately, the hormones that flood their body during heat are toxic and will sooner or later kill them if a guy ferret doesn't come along and end their torment with a good dicking....

So, perhaps we in the Game community should be a just little more tolerant when the Jezzies and other hormone-addled feminists waddle over and bray nonsensical spittle at us. It's not entirely their fault that they're hopelessly illogical and deeply unpleasant, they're simply hormone-poisoned from their inability to attract men capable of giving them what they are desperately craving.

It is science. And we all know that you can't argue with science.

Read More

Alpha Mail: time management

Martel asks how he can more effectively manage his time:

I'm a regular reader of both Vox Populi and Alpha Game.  Although I don't always agree with you, I can't help but be impressed by how much knowledge you manage to acquire, how much you write, and all the other stuff you do with your life.

I therefore suspect that you're a master of time management.  Do you have any suggestions as on how one should maximize one's time?  Is there an underlying frame through which you view time that helps you maintain such consistent output, or are there any specific techniques you use? Any help would be much appreciated.

I wouldn't call myself a master of time management. I'm lazy, I procrastinate, and I am appallingly bad about keeping to the schedules I set myself. That being said, I do always find the time to get the important things done and I seldom have any trouble popping up a blog post or two.  But to the extent I can offer any advice, it is as follows:

1. Become a creature of habit.  It's much easier to get things done when you do them on auto-pilot.
2. Set ambitious schedules. Even if you don't keep to them, you'll get a lot farther than you will if you don't try.
3. Keep the television watching to a minimum. One hour per day, tops.
4. Avoid getting sucked into pointless internet debates. Make your case, succinctly, and then learn to let it go. You don't need to have the last word; people are perfectly capable of discerning who is an idiot and who is not without your help.
5. Avoid unnecessary socializing. This sucks up as much or more time than most time-wasters. One is seldom genuinely obliged to do as many things as most people seem to feel the need to do. Your best friend's wedding is an obligation. The funeral of your mother's cousin you never met, not so much.
6. Don't fight yourself. When you're tired, go to bed. If you're not feeling motivated to do X, do Y instead. It's the MJ approach. If your shot isn't falling, then play defense and take the other team's scorer out of the game. Just don't bench yourself in front of the TV.
7. Always read everywhere. I actually spend very little time "reading" anymore, in the sense of sitting down with a book. But I read at the gym, when waiting in lines, when waiting while running errands, and on the train. There is usually a book's worth of waiting time per week, so why not use it? There is no excuse not to with all the excellent ereaders on smartphones out there.
8. Read one serious book for every two pieces of mind-candy.
9. Go to bed later/get up earlier than everyone else. People are the ultimate distraction. The more alone time you have, the more you can get done.
10. Focus on the important. The urgent will disappear soon on its own.

I don't know if those things will work for Martel or anyone else, but they seem to work for me.

Read More

Accomplishment and attraction

Keep this in mind the next time a woman is attempting to sell you on the myth of female strength of mind:

Rebecca had to be comforted by her fellow female contestants after the sight of Amy Willerton in a bikini became too much for her to bear on Thursday night's episode and she later broke down in tears.

She admitted: 'It's making me very, very insecure that I have to look [a certain way]. For me, I was an athlete.

'I wasn’t trying to be a model, but pretty much every single week on Twitter I get somebody commenting on the way I look.’

This is not a silly, weak-minded girl talking. This is a world record holder, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, and a woman who is lionized in her country.  And yet, she is repeatedly reduced to tears by the mere sight of a prettier woman with a better body in a bikini. And it's not even an exceptionally attractive woman or a model, merely a small-time British wannabe with good hair.

 One look says it all.

The fact is that women care more about their sexual appeal than their accomplishments. Far more. Why? Because their primary objective is to attract the highest-quality man and sane women understand that their accomplishments tend to be tertiary factors, at most, in this regard.

Which, of course, is one reason why the Game approach to them is the most effective one.  A female writer adds:

"[T]he not always palatable truth is that women feel immensely competitive with one another on a purely superficial level. Call it genetics, call it plain old jealousy, but which one of us hasn’t lost weight and had a makeover and swept into a roomful of frenemies – ta-dah! – to be met with a studied air of indifference? And which one of us hasn’t felt a touch of the green-eyed monsters about a colleague’s thick glossy hair, or a friend’s endless legs and radiant complexion?" 

Women care about male accomplishments and female appearance. That's the simple reality. You can accept it or you can cry about it, but the one thing you aren't going to do is change it.

Read More

Saving SF from strong female characters

John C. Wright explains the necessity of rescuing the genre from the curse of Pink SF:

A poet portraying the mating dance in fiction by the nature of the art must portray only the essential elements. This is why Romeo and Juliet do not have a long courtship: we have one balcony scene and a secret wedding soon thereafter.

If the essential element of the female side of courtship is discovering the man’s true character, then a book like PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, which is concerned with the misjudgment and the correction of misjudgment about a suitor’s character is the central theme, is the quintessential feminine book. Women, if they are feminine women, will be fascinated by a book such as this, as it will allow them in their imagination to play through the steps they themselves, if they are not to live as nuns, will go through, or which they went through as maidens.

Even if they were not at first more interested in love stories and the play of romance than little boys, a little girl should be encouraged by the cold logic of the circumstance in which she find herself to pay close attention to that one life-decision upon which so much of her happiness and success depends.

Girls who do not like love stories are well advised to learn to like them, because such stories deal with the essential and paramount realities on which much or most of that girl’s happiness in life will hinge.

Likewise, if the basic nature of the male side of courtship is overcoming obstacles between the suitor and the bride, then a book like A PRINCESS OF MARS is the quintessential masculine book. John Carter is so deeply in love with Deja Thoris that even death cannot hinder him, nor the wide uncrossed interrupt of interplanetary space, and he fights his way past men and monsters and Martians, red and green and yellow and black, all the way from the North Pole the South Pole in search of her, even though she is promised to another man.

These elements might strike a modern reader as offensive to the equality of women, particularly if the modern reader has been unwary enough to absorb modern ideas without examining them. This objection has always struck me as slightly comical. It is not the equality of the sexes that is at question in a story like A PRINCESS OF MARS. If memory serves, nearly every heroine of the several Barsoom books of Edgar Rice Burroughs and his many imitators is a princess. In other words, in such simple adventure stories the woman usually outranks the man. She is a princess and he is low born. He is in love not with an equal but with a superior, hence winning her heart is a more difficult victory, hence more satisfying a drama.

Likewise, on the distaff side of the equation, I note that the particular example I selected of an exemplary woman’s romance, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, it is Elizabeth Bennet who is lower in status than the proud and handsome Mr Darcy. Equality is not a part of the mating dance: the drama of such girlish tales comes from the humble girl, the Cinderella, winning the high and aloof prince, and likewise the drama of boyish tale comes from the humble boy winning the heart of the princess.

In that most famous homage to sciffy serial adventure, namely STAR WARS, please notice that it was a princess who needed rescuing. While the space farmboy Luke is low class enough to be a proper suitor when he becomes imbued with magic powers as a psionic Warlock-Samurai, he is no longer low enough in rank to be a satisfying suitor, and the lovable space rogue Solo the Smuggler is selected instead. And Luke is not the brother of the space princess until the third movie, a plot twist needed to eliminate any possible romantic interest.

But perhaps it is not the inequality of rank between space princess and space rogue that concerns us here. The objection is that the space hero does the rescuing, his is the initiative and the action, and he gets to fly the spaceship through the palace wall, whereas the space princess is given no role but to languish in prison, perhaps wearing chains or perhaps wearing a silky harem outfit, and await rescue. The inequality is between the active versus the passive role.

I submit that this is not inequality, and more than Fred leading and Ginger following during a stirring waltz is inequality. It is complimentary. Those who object that men should not lead in the dance, whatever they say, are not friends of women; they just want to stop the joy of the dance.

There can be little doubt that those who preach equality in SF have badly damaged it. What they write isn't merely bad SF, it's simply bad literature, because it is quite literally based on lies. It is fiction that rings entirely false and entirely contrary to civilized norms. As Wright correctly notes, "introducing masculine traits to female characters does not make them strong, merely unrealistic to the point of dishonesty."

It's not an accident that this sort of nonsense is pushed by unattractive women and gamma males. The worthless nature and low self-esteem of the men and women who write Pink SF is readily apparent in this observation: "A woman perhaps will be offended at being portrayed as a prize; but none should be offended at being prized."

Can you imagine any heroic man wishing to bestir a finger to rescue the snarky shambling shoggoths of pink SF? He might do so out of human decency, but out of romantic inspiration? He'd rather have a beer with the villain.

Read More

How race matters in romance

Contra the incessant advertising for us men of color in the media, it appears that non-imaginary women still strongly prefer white men:

• Black men and women get the lowest response rates to their messages.
• Most men prefer Asian women (with the exception of Asian men).
• All women (except black women) are most drawn to white men.
• Asian women seem to most strongly favour advances from white men.
• Men are least likely to respond to ‘likes’ from black women.
• Men respond to women around three times more often than women reply to men's messages.

The only thing that seems very strange is this conclusion: "Men from all different races prefer a partner of another race over their own." But either the vast majority of all couples represent romantic disappointment or there is another factor here. The clue, I think, is here: "Researchers for the app looked at 2.4 million heterosexual interactions by users who are mostly aged 35 and over, to collect the statistics."

My thought is that by the time people hit 35, they tend to start looking further afield. I mean, there are no shortage of American men in the Game community who have sworn off American women as a result of having had to deal with them for decades. Also, at that age, those using online dating sites don't tend including the statistically significant minority of men and women who are already in relationships and have no need to look online for readily available companionship.

Read More

He violated the Three Rules

One guess how this guy ranks on the socio-sexual hierarchy:

For the last couple weeks I’ve been accused of a lot of very serious things. I feel I have to speak up for myself and for my friends and colleagues who are finding themselves under a sort of scrutiny they don’t deserve. This situation has reached the point where it is affecting people who in no way deserve it, up to and including my family.

Tess Fowler is correct about this: I did make a pass at her at [the San Diego Comic-Con] Hyatt bar roughly 8 years ago. But when she declined, that was the conclusion of the matter for me. There was never a promise of quid pro quo, no exertion of power, no threats, and no revenge. This was at a time in my career when I had very little professional power or industry recognition. The pickup was a lame move, absolutely, and I’ll accept the heat for having done it, but that’s all it was: I liked her, I took a chance, and was shot down. I immediately regretted it, and I apologize to Ms. Fowler for the tackiness and embarrassment of it all.

I’ve kept quiet for these last couple weeks because this is a problematic thing to address without unintended blowback. While I believe she is as incorrect as she can be about what my intent and motivations were, I don’t want to encourage any negative opinion directed back at her.

I think the larger issues of abuse in the comics industry are genuine and I share everyone’s concerns. As a father to a young daughter showing an interest in making her own comics, I do really care about this stuff. So I don’t want our difference of accounts to take attention away from that industry-wide discussion that needs to happen.

So, what were the three rules of sexual harassment that he violated?

1. Be Handsome
2. Be Attractive
3. Don't Be Unattractive

The sad thing is that it is clear the man has learned nothing from his experience. He's being slammed as a creep for a single failed pass eight years ago. But instead of opening his eyes and realizing that his prolonged abasement before the collective pedestal has brought him nothing but shame, rejection, and ridicule, he thinks that further abasing himself and pretending that "the larger issues of abuse in the comics industry" are real will somehow make women finally look on him with approval.

But they won't. It simply doesn't work like that.

Read More

Why gammas don't get it

There is a reason that gamma males like John Scalzi publicly fret about the massive societal problem of creeps making women feel uncomfortable and write long instruction manuals on how to avoid being creepy and what to do if you are perceived as being a creep. They simply don't understand that they are creeps by virtue of their low SMV, not because of their actions. Creep is an intrinsic and relative state, it is not the consequence of objective actions.

As I've pointed out previously, men of sufficiently high SMV can walk right up to a woman they don't know and do pretty much do whatever they want without inspiring any protests or murmurs of complaint. This is a simple and observable fact. If you've never done it, then your SMV is probably in the normal or low range.

Not that permission is ever asked, but it is granted by the frozen, fascinated stare in the woman's eyes. Any sufficiently predatory male knows the one I'm talking about. It's that glazed-over look that tells a man that he can do anything he wants to a woman and she wants him to do it. I suspect it is the source of the legend of the vampire's enchanting glamor.



Want to stop creeping? The rules are simple. Be more attractive. Don't be unattractive. But are you perceived as a creep, are you normal, or are you a predator? Remember, it's all relative. The test is simple. Find a woman and lock eyes with her.

If she perceives you as a creep, she will scowl, narrow her eyes, and look disgusted. She may even verbally confront you for daring to lift your eyes to her and imagine yourself on her level. If she perceives you as normal, she will either look puzzled or look away. If she finds you attractive, she will either smile and look away or look down, smile, and blush. If she wants you to take her around the corner and ravish her, she will stare at you in a fixed manner and smile broadly.

And if she licks her lips and swallows hard while staring, that means you can do anything you feel like doing right there and then. But out of courtesy, and for everyone else's sake, please don't do it there.

Read More

Girls lie about sexual abuse

The myth of women never lying about rape having been permanently exploded by the omnipresence of smartphone video, it appears the next myth to be demolished is the idea that girls never lie about being sexually abused:

Two years after San Jose schoolgirls branded a teacher as a "perv" and "creeper" who inappropriately touched kids and peeked into their restroom, a civil jury Friday found the children and their parents financially liable for defamation in a case that pitted the rights of the accused against the aim of reporting perceived abuse.

The jury awarded $362,653 in compensatory damages to former Catholic school physical education teacher John Fischler after finding the families spread false statements about him that damaged his reputation. The 49-year-old broke into a huge smile Friday when he heard the favorable verdict, which his lawyer characterized as "complete vindication."

"I'm grateful the jury was able to see through the smoke screen and the truth came out." Fischler said in a choked voice outside the courtroom. "There's always going to be a scar. But the jury saw through the deception."

The Santa Clara County Superior Court panel also found that one of the girls -- who was 11 years old at the time -- acted with malice and is liable for punitive damages. The jury will decide how much during the second phase of the trial, which begins Monday. Judge William J. Monahan admonished jurors not to discuss the trial until it's over.

The verdict shocked the families and their attorneys, who were confident that the jury would heed their warning that a decision against them for complaining that the teacher made their children uncomfortable would have a chilling effect on the reporting of school abuse.

"If this trial prevents one little girl or one mother or father from reporting suspected abuse," lawyer Lee J. Danforth said Friday, "then this is profoundly sad for our society."

But the jury believed the counter-argument by Fischler's lawyer, Robert Vantress, that the families did not merely discuss their concerns with school officials, they essentially gossiped about it.

The unusual case began in 2011 when administrators at Holy Spirit school in Almaden Valley were told that teacher John Fischler had inappropriately touched their 10- and 11-year-old girls and peeked in a girls' bathroom. School officials and police cleared Fischler of sexual misconduct.

But the teacher, claiming the ordeal had indelibly stained his reputation and ruined his teaching career, declined to return to what he called a poisonous atmosphere at work and filed a lawsuit seeking nearly $1 million in damages.

The lawsuit contended he was the victim of a "conspiracy" by "classic parent bullies" and their daughters, including a popular girl he described as having a "gang-leader-like personality," to get him fired from the private Catholic school where he was an at-will employee.

It took the jury of nine women and three men about four days to reach Friday's verdict.

To prove defamation, at least nine out of 12 jurors had to find by a "preponderance of the evidence" that a statement was false, injurious and not of legitimate interest to its recipients. And, in the toughest hurdle to overcome, the panel also had to decide the statement wasn't merely opinion.

Fischler claimed several other causes of action, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jurors had to weigh the evidence against each of the seven defendants -- three girls and their four parents. They found the former teacher was only 10 percent responsible for the harm he endured.

They came down hardest on the "ringleader" student and the mother of the other two girls.

Sexual abuse is a problem. But as is often the case, the overreaction to it has created problems of its own, as children have become aware that they can create massive problems for adults by falsely accusing them. Perhaps the awareness that they run the risk of bankruptcy if they don't control their progeny will convince parents that their little angels may, in fact, be little devils in disguise.

One hopes these sorts of lawsuits will be continued. It would be extraordinarily amusing to listen to the screeching of shocked feminists when they start being forced to pay financial damages for harming the reputation of men by falsely labeling them as "creeps".

Read More

The ultimate feminist fantasy

Or, to give it its proper name, pure and unadulterated horror:

“Good morning, Barbara,” the soft, pleasant, sexless voice said. “Time to rise and shine.” When there was no reply in sixty seconds, Snoozalarm tried again. “Good morning, Barbara. Please wake up.”

John got one eye sort of half-open, gave some consideration to waking up, then slid his hand around Barbara’s tummy and snuggled in closer, burying his nose in the back of her neck.

The clock’s voice became a bit more insistent. “This is the third call, Barbara. Please wake up. It is already 7:02.”

Her long, blonde hair smelled wonderful. He ran his fingers across the curve of her hip and down her thigh; she responded with a soft, throaty sigh...

“Barbara Lynn Murphy!” Snoozalarm shrieked. “If you don’t wake up this very insta—”

“I’m awake.” She started disentangling herself from John’s arms and pushing back the blankets.

“Snuggle one more minute?” John suggested.

“Afraid not.” Yawning, she sat up on the edge of the bed and started working the kinks out of her neck.

“It’s a lovely morning, Barbara!” Snoozalarm said cheerfully. “The current temperature is 56, with a predicted high today in the low 70’s. The air pollution index is low to moderate, but there is a 60-percent chance of rain in the late afternoon, so be sure to take your umbrella.” Barbara pulled on her terrycloth robe and wandered into the bathroom.

“The regularly scheduled breakfast for Friday is orange juice, wheat toast, coffee, and mushroom and cheese omelets. Do you approve, Barbara?”

“Yes,” John said.

Thirty seconds later Snoozalarm said, “I’m waiting for your okay on breakfast, Barbara.”

“It’ll be fine,” John said.

Another third seconds later Snoozalarm said, “The regularly scheduled breakfast for Friday is—”

“BARBARA!”

She stepped out of the bathroom. “What’s wrong, honey?” John just scowled and pointed at the alarm clock. “Oh. Yes, that’s fine.”

“Thank you,” Snoozalarm said.

“Barb,” John asked, “how come that thing still won’t take orders from me?”

To understand what this has to do with Game, read the rest. It is fortunate for men that women have so little interest in technology or there can be little doubt it would soon become a reality.

Read More

Longer means less

Dalrock explains why men are withdrawing from the courtship process even prior to opting out of marriage:

What does a woman’s age have to do with courtship?

For a man who is managing the risks of courtship outlined above, the age of a woman is very important.  The older a woman is, the more likely it is that she is very picky and/or not seriously looking for a husband.  Older women also are less attractive from a courtship perspective because they have used up more of their most attractive/fertile years, and while their attractiveness for marriage has declined their expectations for courtship have only increased.  In short, the older a woman gets the worse a bet she becomes (on average) when it comes to courting her.

There is another impact of women increasing the time period they expect courtship, and this is on men’s willingness to court younger women.  Consider the 25% of current early thirties White women who still haven’t married;  unless they are terminally unattractive an awful lot of courtship has almost certainly been wasted on them.  They aren’t just bad bets for courtship today, but (in retrospect) they clearly were bad bets for courtship for the last 15 years.  Even more telling, just shy of half of all late twenties White women have never married, which means five years ago 50% of early twenties White women were a complete and total waste of traditional courtship risk and resources.  Given the direction of the trends over the last five years, the risk is even higher today.

Put simply, the extended delay of marriage by women has placed marriage minded men in a dilemma;  older women are (generally speaking) known bad bets for courtship, but half of early twenties women are also poor bets for courtship.  And this is before the man in question starts to consider which of the good bets for courtship (in general) would be a good bet for him personally to court.

His logic is amply supported, if not turbo-charged, by the reported preferences of unmarried women as revealed in a recent British poll.

"The proposal should be made approximately three years and four months into a relationship, after the couple have been living together for a while and after a number of discussions about marriage. But while girls like to have had a couple of 'deep and meaningfuls' about marriage, they also want the proposal to be a complete surprise and something their partner has given great thought to."

In other words, a man is expected to invest sufficient time to have four children in  a woman before he even PROPOSES to her. Is there any wonder that even men who are interested in marriage can't be bothered to jump through the ever-increasing number of hoops that women have come to expect? How can any man rationally justify wasting years on a woman that he may not even marry?

It appears that women increasingly like the idea of postponing marriage and "having fun" in their twenties before "settling down" in their early thirties. And they assume that men must therefore think the same way. But the young men inclined toward marriage are learning that there is no point courting a woman with no intention of getting serious during the next 10 years; how many times is it reasonable to expect them to be told "no, I'm not interested" and still keep trying?  Meanwhile, the young men less inclined toward marriage hit their thirties and discover that not only are there more young women in their twenties who just want to have fun being made every single day, but those women are actually more inclined to have fun with them than their predecessors were a decade before.

The reality is that six months is a sufficient period of time to determine whether a woman is marriage-worthy or not. If you require more time than to make up your mind, then you've already made up your mind and she is not worthy. If you have any genuine concern for her, have the decency to next her and move on to the next girl. Don't string her along for the additional 34 months it will otherwise take her to realize you have no intention of marrying her.

Read More

Alpha Mail: a confident woman

Kimbrena Cravens asks for advice concerning women who don't care what men think about their hair:

How about women cutting their hair because THEY WANT TO? Maybe they LIKE short hair and don't care what a man thinks about it. What about the women that are confident in themselves and don't measure their worth by how attractive men are of her?

In such cases, I suppose a woman may as well shave her head, stop shaving the rest of her body, pierce her face, start eating 10,000 calories a day, and acquire at least three cats. She is irrelevant to the species, being an evolutionary dead end, has nothing to offer the male half of society, and is obviously of zero interest to me or most of the other 3.5 billion men on the planet.

I don't care what "women that are confident in themselves and don't measure their worth by how attractive men are of her" do, say, think, or feel. I pay no attention to them. Neither do the vast majority of men.

I suppose there may be a few sad denizens of Innsmouth that concern themselves with the affairs of shambling short-haired shoggoths, but I'm afraid I am not one of them. Such women may do as they like, with my blessing.

Read More

The curse of genetics

It is a tragedy how genetics have somehow caused millions of Americans, male and female, to put on great quantities of weight. There is obviously nothing to be done about this until the day Science comes up with some sort of gene therapy to address the situation.

This is particularly unfortunate given the fact that the single easiest way for anyone to increase their SMV is to lose weight. If only there were some other way to accomplish the impossible dream! Curse you, natural selection!

Read More

Alpha Mail: Pickup at the checkout

In which a low-Delta man attempts to improve himself:

I wrote to you back in February about coming to terms with my place in the SMP, a realization brought on by your public interaction with John Scalzi. Your advice was very helpful, and I have endeavored to improve myself since then. I restarted my resistance training, started a new job, etc. And I have attempted to become more social, with some success albeit limited.

I wanted to ask for your advice given a certain situation. There's a girl, you see.

I go to Whole Foods on Sunday evenings to treat myself to some decent food, and a few weeks ago I went through the checkout line where a cute girl was stationed. I was the last person to go through right as she closed her register. Spur of the moment, I figured I could flirt a bit with her. Her line had been really long, so I told her that she should wear a huge fake wedding ring to stave off some of the male customers that were getting in line just to talk to her. She laughed and said she would have to try it.

Couple of weeks later I saw her again. Her line was long and this time I was in the middle of it, but she talked with me for a good long while about how she asked her cousin who asked her husband who said that the wedding ring idea was totally silly and not gonna work, all while beaming up at me and playing with her hair and generally acting silly enough for her coworkers to start pointing and smiling.

I told her that of course it wasn't gonna work and her cousin should have told her that I was obviously flirting with her. She said that her cousin had told her exactly that and I told her she was a silly lil thing and said g'bye, since she had at least six or seven people waiting to checkout behind me.

So yesterday, I'm there again. She's only got one person in front of me, a middle aged woman buying a couple bottles of wine and some snacks, makes eye contact and smiles. I smile back, but another cashier has a register open and calls me over. I'm walking over to him and she goes "oh, I see how it is." I laugh and he says that he thinks that she wants me to wait on her, so I go ahead and get back in line behind the woman, who promises that she'll pay quickly so that cashier girl can talk to the cute guy. (This caught me way off guard) So older lady pays and leaves, I tease cashier girl for begging me to come talk to her, and one of her friends starts talking to her about some drama going on at work while she rings me up.

I had a text I had to answer, so I'm just kinda standing there half-paying attention to the conversation she's having with her coworker while I take care of business. Coworker leaves, and I just turn my phone around to cashier girl, who seems to pick up on exactly what I was asking for.

"Really?" she asks.

"Uh, yeah." I respond.

She laughed nervously and says "maybe next time" in several permutations and gives me my desert for free for waiting for her. I laughed at her and told her that she was silly. "See you next time." she said, still laughing kinda nervously.

So, I haven't really read any books or blogs on game because I've just been trying to work on myself as far as basic stuff goes -- dressing better, working out and such. Did I totally blow this one? I can't help but think that "maybe next time" translates to "probably no not ever." And it's really bugging me a lot.

Like I said, I haven't had much success with being social yet, but I thought that this girl was really digging me given the way she acted. Did I go wrong somewhere? I'm thinking it was actually getting in line behind that woman when she asked me to that hung me up.

So what exactly do I do now? Do I write this one off and just play it cool if I see her again? I don't want to ask for her number again because that seems like a desperate move, but I'm really digging this girl and thought that she was into me too. Or maybe she's just a flirt?

Welcome to the concept known as "the window of opportunity". Our emailer here was bitten by the dread Delta disease known as "waiting for the right time". Unless a woman is receiving or providing emergency medical treatment, the right time is always NOW.

Remember, women are DYNAMIC. Their opinions and attractions change with the wind. Even if she was genuinely attracted to the emailer at the time of their first encounter says absolutely nothing about whether she was attracted to him the next time. In fact, a woman who initially attracted may well be downright uninterested in a man on the basis of his behavior during that first encounter. Because men's attraction tends to be binary and stable, they wrongly assume that if a woman was interested in them once, she must still be interested in them so long as she hasn't gotten too involved with anyone else. This is occasionally true, but it is neither necessarily or usually true.

My diagnosis is too much talk, too little aggressive masculine action. The more attractive the woman, the more intense and immediate the action she expects. (Yes, you don't need to spell out Indifference Game to a Sigma, but we're dealing with basic concepts for a man working his way out of gammatude here. Piano, piano.)

So while obeying her and following the rules probably didn't help, the larger problem was probably the failure to pursue. Don't worry about it. This entire experience was a big step forward.  Now it's time to remember there are plenty of girls on the girl tree and move on. Be friendly. Be charming. But behave towards her like you already found another girlfriend. If she's still genuinely interested, she'll be curious and will let you know, at which point you can go back into pursuit mode - active pursuit mode this time.

And if she isn't, well, be grateful that she taught you one of the most important lessons a man can learn, which is that female interest is time-limited.

Read More

Pedestal on steroids

Brendon Malone explains the Gamma perspective on women. Is it any wonder why women hate them so much?

I don’t open doors, or practice other acts of chivalry towards women because I look at them and think: ‘geez, she looks like a frail weakling incapable of scaling the great heights of masculine awesomeness which gives us the muscular strength that females lack for door opening prowess. I better open this door for her before her poor tiny confused female brain makes her cry because it can’t figure out the engineering dynamics of door opening.’

No, instead when I look at women I see the feminine genius. A genius so profoundly complex, important and valuable that I adore it. I adore the feminine genius because I am a real man who has not had his masculine awareness dulled by erroneous ideologies about gender, or seriously messed up by pornography-fueled predatory attitudes towards women.

As a real man I know that for my masculinity to scale the heights of greatness, I depend totally on the feminine genius to become the best that a man can ever be – in much the same way that I depend on oxygen to keep on living.

Without the complimentary and amazing feminine genius I can never be a real man. Instead I am doomed to be nothing more than the masculine equivalent of a rōnin – the Japanese name for a samurai without a master to lead him, a term which literally means “wave man” because he is adrift without direction and purpose.

I open doors for women because I know they deserve my profound adoration and selfless love. My tiny act of sacrifice is my way of saying ‘I am in awe of your feminine genius and all that I owe to it as a man’.

Any man who tries to tell you to stop opening doors for women is unvirtuous and selfish – he is not a real man. Do not listen to him.

Got that? Unless you have a female master, you are not a real man. I, for one, am proud to not be a real man by Malone's definition. And if you want to avoid having a healthy, mutually satisfying sexual relationship with an attractive woman, by all means, listen to him and put his principles into action.

This is the male equivalent of women who advise other women to lean in and show how strong and independent they are. Women reliably say they want submissive men, but they are just as reliably attracted to the hostile sexists. So, it's really just a question of whether you want to have women approve of you or be attracted to you.

Choose one.

Read More

The interpreter

Yohami never ceases to crack me up. His take on things is not only unique, but regularly makes me laugh. In this case, he observes, quite possibly correctly, that if a woman is asking a question, the answer she is seeking is not necessarily the answer to the literal question asked:

A lot of these questions change if you ask them from the female perspective. A girl is not going to see “guys” as a gender, she’s going to filter “guys she likes”, “guys she really really doesn't like” and the majority of “invisible guys”.

The guys she likes capture her attention and make her curious, she wants to get them – the subtext question is “how do I get them”. The guys she doesn’t like, the question is “how do I get rid of them”. The rest of the guys, she doesn’t care.

As long as they are nice and do her favors.

The question of “what do men would like me to know” is followed by “and that I can use in my favor.” So this quiz should be renamed to “how to gain understanding in the manipulation of men” and hence that’s how I'm calling my post.

But, girls, first things first, men are people, too. We’re not just cattle to be classifie… nevermind.

* * *

What guys think is important, their perspective on life.
Most men are concerned about how to be a good man / the best man they can be / trump other men. Being a winner / being successful is tied to…. wait what? you’re bored already? that’s because I'm actually talking about men, see, you didnt ask the real question:

What do guys [I LIKE] think is important [ ABOUT ME AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH ME], their perspective on life [ AND IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH MINE?]

This is an important lesson. Every man is familiar with the experience of a woman asking him a question and then rapidly losing interest as soon as he answers it. When that happens, there are two possible explanations. Either you are answering in more detail than she would like - and I am regularly guilty of this - or you are answering the wrong question.

The solution is quite simple. Provide minimal answers. Don't explain. If the question is a yes or no answer, answer only yes or no. Make her pry the answer out of you. If she's interested, she will. If she actually has another question in mind, she'll be forced to ask it.

Read More

Words of advice to a man on his wedding day

Congratulations and best wishes to Morpheus and his new bride. As a long-time married man, I thought a few words of advice might not be amiss:

1. Never hesitate to admit when you are wrong and apologize as soon as you realize that to be the case.
2. Never admit you are wrong when you believe that you are not. Stand your ground in the face of her tears and hold firm in the face of her anger. Never appease in the interest of short-term peace.
3. Learn to let things go. In every conflict, there is a point at which there is a choice between conflict and conversation. When you choose conflict, let your choice be a conscious one and not a reaction.
4. Encourage her when she decides to let things go rather than argue. Don't take any passive-aggressive shots, don't make any little comments or provide any ex post facto reminders. If she is willing to let it go, you should be willing to do the same.
5. Don't expect her to hold herself to the same standards she holds you. Accept her failure to do so as a compliment to your sex and do your best to provide her with an example to follow.
6. Don't let her get away with being dishonest. If her story changes, call her on it.
7. The sexual norms for your marriage are set in the first six months. Keep that in mind and behave accordingly.
8. Don't be surprised if there is more relationship conflict than before you were married. The relationship dynamic and the daily patterns of life have changed and they are as new and unfamiliar to her as they are to you.
9. Both of you will have unconscious expectations of marriage that are unrealistic. Learn to let them go as they surface.
10. Remember that you are a team. If necessary, remind her that you are a team.

Read More

Hunting for anger

Rollo observes that the androsphere is keeping its collective cool:

If the “postponement” of the ABC 20/20 manosphere “exposé” has taught us anything it’s that the writers seeking to cast light on the manosphere are looking for crazy. They need crazy because it’s the only thing they know how, or have the patience, to confront in as minimal an effort as it takes to type a few paragraphs dismissing it as misogyny.

Writers (vichy male writers) like R. Tod Kelly are also lazy. They see an opportunity for outrage and that sells advertising. They wanted Stormfront and what they got was a global consortium of rational, well reasoned men with jobs, families and intelligence, men from all walks of life, all ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressing ideas that don’t fit into an acculturation of feminine primacy.

If you read Matt Forney’s 20/20 interview post you’ll see the desperation for crazy in their producer’s attempts to provoke him to become what they think he should be – a frothing, angry, hate-fueled misogynist. That would make it easy for them, they know how to sell crazy. The copy gets approved, the crazies get marginalized and we move on to the next Mabeline commercial.

He's absolutely correct. The media has neither the ability nor the time to engage in rational dialectic, so cheap appeals to rhetoric are all they can manage. And one of the easiest ways to disqualify an opponent in a rhetorical manner is to portray them as out-group.

This is why the writers and producers he mentions were trying to find some wild-eyed angry men they could hold up as examples of the androsphere's craziness, and if they couldn't find them, they were perfectly willing to try manufacturing them.

However, we're fortunate that from Roosh and Roissy down to the smallest blog, the androsphere consists of men who are much practiced in maintaining their frame. In fact, one could argue that there is not a worse group to attempt to rhetorically dismantle, because by definition, the Game bloggers are adept at dealing with the grand rhetorical arsenal wielded by women.

And it's not as if maintaining frame gets any harder when dealing with someone with whom you have absolutely no desire to have sex. All the same, be cautious whenever dealing with the media. They ALWAYS try to sound like your best friends during the phase they call "the get". And once you're on the hook and the recording devices are started, they switch into full prosecutorial mode.

It's not a problem so long as you are prepared for it. Just remember, no one, NO ONE, interesting in covering these subjects in the media is on your side. Be cool, be prepared, and above all, maintain frame.

This doesn't mean that a man's anger is not legitimate or justified. It only means that it is unwise and counterproductive to display it for the public, because it is a rhetorical weakness.

Read More

A portrait in female solipsism

Shed a tear for this poor young girl, who is being maliciously denied the fame and fortune that are quite obviously hers by an indifferent world.

I am writing because I vary from wanting to kill myself and just giving up my career. Nobody in my family does what I do, so I don’t have contacts through nepotism. I’ve won national art awards since the age of 11 and now, at 17 years old, I have been awarded a prestigious photography prize.

I’m too young to apply for grants and seemingly too old for the mainstream media to give me any encouragement as a young talent. Ever since I was a young teenager and had my work exhibited with the United Nations, I’ve been contacting newspapers and TV networks to no avail.

Why does the world prize celebrity bimbos, not talented girls like me?

I don’t know why I try when they would rather give attention to a teenage pregnancy. I’m sick of seeing inane celebrity gossip getting more coverage than anything I will ever do.

With every award I win and every exhibition I’m in, I get closer to the edge of madness by being deprived of what I want, which is to be known.

Why is a 140-character tweet from a bimbo reality star worthy of more attention than my entire career?

If her state of depression doesn't put a smile on a man's face, well, I don't know what will. But she's actually quite fortunate to be learning a very important lesson now rather than when she's post-Wall, pushing 40, and it is too late for her to change directions.

Men don't give a damn about female talent. And most women don't either. The world doesn't care what your credentials are, doesn't care if you've won a few participation prizes, and it certainly doesn't care that you happen to be younger than the average person who is doing what you have done.

Smart young girls are particularly prone to falling into the Achievements trap. They get such a buzz from being patted on the head and being told that they're special that it never occurs to them that they are big fish in very, very small ponds. It is a rude shock to discover that 99 percent of the world doesn't care who they are or what they have done, and in fact have considerably more interest in girls with beautiful faces, nice breasts, or extraordinarily well-shaped posteriors.

It's actually quite cruel to so mislead young women, but then, it's not as if the feminist propaganda factories are telling the truth to young men either.

Read More

Female Imperative: PR version

Tuthmosis responds to an MTV producer's request for him to do her work for her and find someone if they, or anyone they know, are dating a cheapskate. A modicum of hilarity ensued.

Tuthmosis wrote back: "Thank you for your note. I would refer you to our sponsorships page. I hope it's not lost on you that, in the end, you're merely proving my point that all women are cheapskates. Here you are writing me - without a tinge of irony - asking for what amounts to a free advertising campaign. It's like you can't help but try to get free stuff from men."

To which Helena Kincaid responded: "I think you're a misogynistic ass hole. Fuck you and all that you stand for."

A true media professional, is she not? Anyhow, it's worse than  Tuthmosis describes it. She's not merely asking for free stuff, she's actually asking him to do her job for her. She wants him to do the grunt work of finding people silly enough to be exploited by making fools of themselves on cable TV even though he doesn't know her and it has absolutely nothing to him.

This isn't so much women being cheapskates as it is a particularly obnoxious version of the Female Imperative in action. Would a man ever consider, for a moment, contacting a stranger apropos of nothing and asking him to please do his job for him?

Hey, I've got some leaves that need raking in my yard, Ms Kincaid. I was wondering if it was possible for you to come by and rake up a small pile of them? If not, no worries, but it would be a great help!

Read More

First-rate women

Few things appear to upset women more than the fact that Alphas prefer beauty to brains, careers, and credentials:

I have a friend who dates only exceptionally attractive women. These women aren’t trophy-wife types—they are comparable to him in age, education level, and professional status. They are just really, notably good looking, standouts even in the kind of urban milieu where regular workouts and healthy eating are commonplace and an abundance of disposable income to spend on facials, waxing, straightening, and coloring keeps the average level of female attractiveness unusually high.

My friend is sensitive and intelligent and, in almost every particular, unlike the stereotypical sexist, T & A-obsessed meathead. For years, I assumed that it was just his good fortune that the women he felt an emotional connection with all happened to be so damn hot. Over time, however, I came to realize that my friend, nice as he is, prizes extreme beauty above all the other desiderata that one might seek in a partner.

I have another friend who broke up with a woman because her body, though fit, was the wrong type for him. While he liked her personality, he felt that he’d never be sufficiently attracted to her, and that it was better to end things sooner rather than later.

Some people would say these men are fatally shallow. Others would say they are realistic about their own needs, and that there is no use beating oneself up about one’s preferences: some things cannot be changed. Those in the first camp would probably say that my friends are outliers—uniquely immature men to be avoided.

There is no need to apologize for what one prefers. All men are attracted to female beauty even if only the top men can expect to reliably obtain it. This doesn't mean that they are dumb enough to value only beauty; the man who marries a woman simply because she is the most beautiful woman he has ever dated is a short-sighted fool.

But there are bars which men will not cross. Limits. Like the man referenced above, I simply wouldn't date a woman who was below a certain level of facial attractiveness and bodily fitness. Anything over a BMI of 20, forget it; pretty much  every girl in whom I harbored any interest from college until I married Spacebunny was between 17.5 and 18.5.

Was that superficial? Not at all. It merely meant that I had high standards. If I was superficial, I would have married an exceptionally beautiful trainwreck. Instead, I chose to marry a sweet, smart, funny girl who is equally good company at a football game or a black-tie gala. Of course, she also happened to meet my standards of female beauty.

A standard is merely the initial hurdle, it isn't the finish line. Expecting that the woman you marry will meet your expectations is no different than your future wife expecting that you will have a job. No woman who turns up her nose at an unemployed homeless man or an ugly gamma male has the right to denigrate your standards, whatever they might be.

Female beauty isn't a problem, it is a gift from God. Appreciate it where you find it and enjoy it while it lasts.

Read More

Equality in action

This unhesitating response to a woman's remarkably ill-considered attack is simply beautiful.



What a lot of grrrl power feminists don't seem to realize is that there are no shortage of young men who would never, ever, initiate violence with a women, but would absolutely relish the chance to lay the smack down on a woman dumb enough to start something with them.

I'm not sure which is funnier, the shock and horror in the woman's voice after the man responds to the second attack, or the fact that the blonde was dumb enough to try attacking the big guy a second time after he'd already made it clear that he did not consider her off limits.

Teddy Roosevelt once recommended speaking softly, but carrying a big stick. And part of carrying a big stick means being willing to use it. My policy with regards to women is exactly the same as it is with regards to men. Start nothing, finish everything.

Read More

The Female Imperative in publishing

It's not your imagination. The reason you have no interest in reading the vast majority of books on the shelf is because they are not written with you in mind, published with you in mind, marketed with you in mind, or sold with you in mind. And yet, the publishing industry affects to be surprised that you do not buy their products.

This NPR piece three years ago came to the conclusion that women read more fiction than men by a 4-1 margin. Articles like this madden me because I think they miss the big picture, or perhaps are even ignoring it purposefully. It's like discussing global warming, while completely ignoring the fact that hey, maybe we have something to do with it.

Nobody can deny the fact that most editorial meetings tend to be dominated by women. Saying the ratio is 75/25 is not overstating things. So needless to say when a male editor pitches a book aimed at men, there are perilously few men to read it and give their opinions. Not to mention that, because there are so few men, the competition to buy books aimed at men is astronomical. I was once shot down in an effort to buy a sports humor book because I couldn't get the support of a senior editor. The reason? This editor had written a similar book proposal on submission and didn't want to hurt his chances of selling it.

Men read. Tons of them do. But they are not marketed to, not targeted, and often totally dismissed.

There is, of course, one other factor that may prove to be at least somewhat significant now that ebooks are so popular. Men tend to know how to pirate things. I buy a fair amount of books because I like being surrounded by real books on bookshelves. But I don't actually need to buy most of those books, I only choose to buy them in order to support the author and encourage the publisher.

Read More

Alpha Mail: cracks in the marriage

TO wonders what to do about a marriage that appears to be breaking down:

You gave me good advice 4yrs ago so I am writing again. I am having major problems with my wife due to the drop in my SMV. I went from owning a commodity firm to being in nursing school while my wife works paying the bills. She now constantly talks about divorce and how she hates where she lives and wants to move back to NY. An additional factor is she hasn't found a church she is 100% comfortable with. It is only my strong frame and the fact I keep the firm open on the side giving her hope has keep us together these past few months. My other concern is I have to spend a lot of energy gaming her and end up reading games sites at 2am when I need to be studying.

To complicate matters when we first got married she was violent and ended up seeing a shrink. She is better now, but she really damaged the emotional connection we have and I worry she will revert to previous behaviors in times of stress.

The plan was for her to homeschool our kids so when I graduate she would be quitting her job and hopefully all would return to normal SMV wise. Of course I am also christian and don't believe in divorce. On the other hand if I fail out due to all the drama she will be gone anyway plus my SMV could be damaged severely.  In addition there  are plenty of 18-22yr olds (less pretty, but better SMV ratio) who have expressed interest in me at school. My wife is 27 and I am 30 (look 25). I graduate in May 2015. Any advice would be appreciated, really feel like starting over at this point.

My advice is as follows:

• Get your act together and graduate on time.
• Get off the Internet in the evening. You're hiding from her. If you're not studying, you should be engaging her in one form or another.
• The next time she brings up either divorce or New York, tell her to knock it off. She made her choices, this is the life she is living, and that's that. This isn't a game with some sort of reset button.
• Stop flirting with your fellow students. You've made your choices too. Live your life, stop fantasizing about a do-over.

The problem is the reduction of his SMV due to his loss of income and status. He has to get over his understandable feelings of betrayal; her lack of attraction to him and confidence in him is no more surprising under the circumstances than his would be if she suddenly gained 30 pounds.

It was a dumb idea to think that he could live off her job for a while, as women always want to leave whenever they find themselves forced to act as the breadwinner. So, the answer is easy. Focus like a laser on increasing income and status, become the breadwinner, and most of the problems will resolve themselves, so long as new ones aren't introduced in the meantime.

Read More

Of math and stuff

Morpheus responds to Susan Walsh and her attempt to defend her assertion that the idea female SMV declines with age is a myth:

Let’s walk through Susan’s post here.  First, let me give credit where credit is due.  Susan is quite articulate, and has a masterful command of rhetoric.  No doubt, she would have been a successful lawyer.  I’m sure she is very persuasive to those without a sufficient IQ and critical thinking skills to see all the holes in her Swiss cheese arguments.  When it comes to basic logic though, she often stumbles in contradictions and non sequiturs.  I believe this is because she often starts with what *feels right* to her and then tries to fit the data and construct arguments to support that feeling.  As a side point, I think many intelligent women struggle with the battle between their emotions and feelings versus their intellect.  Most often, emotions and “what feels” right is the master, and the intellect becomes the servant.

Let’s start with the title of the post.  Note the use of the word “Conclusive” in the title.  This is a rhetorical gimmick.  If something really is conclusive, then the data and analysis can stand on its own.  The reader does not need to be told what follows is “conclusive”.  The word is simply there to plant in the minds of less discerning readers a false sense of authority.  This is the sort of thing that does work on most people to set the tone.  The Game parallel to this technique is what is called Frame Control.

She goes on to state: “was apparently incensed by her argument, emailing me this vaguely ominous message:”

Actually I was not incensed…perhaps that is projection on her part but I was a different “i” word.  I was incredulous that she was making the foundation of a post a random commenter claiming to be a PhD, and clearly not even understanding the details of the mathematical argument.  It is understandable that Susan might have some trouble with the math here.  In a recent comment, she made the statement that men over 35 lose 7 pounds of muscle a year.  Clearly, if one stopped to think about that point for even one second before making it, one would realize the basic arithmetic is absurd as you would lose 210 pounds of muscle by age 65.  To her credit, she did correct this egregious error, but it does point out that perhaps she has some difficulty with “math and stuff”.

She goes on to say: “but he is correct IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the homo sapien male is inherently more valuable sexually than the homo sapien female.”

Ahhhh.  Note the use of the CAPS and the emphatic IF AND ONLY IF which excludes all other possibilities.  She is so sure of herself.  Of course, this is demonstrably false.  If we assume for the sake of argument that this “area under the curve” notion has any meaning, then the OTHER POSSIBILITY where the areas could NOT be equal is if the “homo sapien female is inherently more valuable sexually than the homo sapien male”.  To be clear, I’m not outright rejecting that possibility.  One logical possibility is that the peak value of a typical female is orders of magnitude higher than the peak value of the male, but that the value decreases at a much more accelerated rate.  The key is that whether you start the top of the Y-axis from 10 or 100, that represents the peak value for each sex, not an absolute number you can compare between the sexes.  When dealing with “math and stuff” and comparing different data sets with different value ranges, this is called normalization of the data:

    In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale,

So conceivably, the 10 or 100 for a guy could be a lower absolute value compared to the 10 or 100 for a girl.  It is an interesting question.  Who has a higher absolute sexual value?  The 23-year Sports Illustrated swimsuit model with 36″ legs, a perfect body, and face of an angel, or the 38-year old tall, charismatic, handsome, wealthy hedge fund manager?  But they both could be at their respective peak values of 10 or 100 or whatever scale you normalize to.  What I’ve described here with normalizing the data is yet another reason this whole “area under the curve” business is just gibberish.

Let’s hit this from yet another angle.  When we depict SMV on a chart like this, we are essentially showing a price path or trajectory in value.  The path of the line over time and the corresponding Y-axis value is the informational content, not the cumulative area under the line.  If a woman was super-fit then gained 50 pounds, then lost it, the path of that line would show a sudden collapse and rebound.  It would be nonsensical to start analyzing the area under her particular SMV value line.  In a sense, this is basically just like plotting a stock price over time.  It is the stock price at a particular point in time that matters, not how much area is under the stock price line.  This whole “area under the curve” business is almost as nonsensical if I grabbed two random stock tickers, plotted them and then stated that somehow the areas under the curves must equal.

In general, responding to rhetoric with dialectic in this manner amounts to little more than casting pearls before swine, but not when the rhetoric is fake dialectic. In such cases, exposing it for the nonsense that it is is extremely effective, and Morpheus has done a competent job of demonstrating why Susan's reliance upon an incompetent authority was unwise.

Read More

Top 10 Game blogs Q3-13

Here is the quarterly report on the Top 10 Game blogs for the third quarter of 2013. What is most interesting about it is the way it shows considerable growth across the board, in line with the widespread expectations that the Androsphere would begin garnering more mainstream attention this year.

1. Return of Kings: 19,257 (+23,568)
2. Roissy: 35,799 (+19,649)
3. Roosh:  40,281 (+22,711)
4. Rollo:   156,390 (+6,244), 230,395
5. Alpha Game: 183,840 (+23,086), 349,623 (+8.2%) 
6. Dalrock:  190,532 (+60,558)
7. Just4Guys: 221,248 (+486,446)
8. MMSL:    286,495 (+57,471)
9. Keoni Galt: 468,052 (175,049)

The first number is the current Alexa ranking, the number in parentheses is the change in that ranking since the posting of the previous list. The bold number is the three-month average in actual traffic over the quarter, as measured in Google Pageviews. Although my previous estimates were fairly accurate, I am no longer going to calculate them, so if you are a blogger on this list, please send me your three-month average for July, August, and September and I will add it here.

I have removed Hooking Up Smart from the list as a result of Susan Walsh's explicit realignment of her blog. If there are any other Game-related blogs anyone feels merits inclusion on this list, please let me know.

Perhaps because the problem of feminism is most acute in the USA, Game blogs are disproportionately popular there. The top-ranking Game blog, RoK, is 6,323 in the USA. By way of comparison, two outspoken gamma males who consistently attempt to assert that Game bloggers are outliers and outcasts, Manboobz and John Scalzi, come in at 37,268 and 46,650, respectively.

Read More