Avoiding Girlington

Dr. Helen Smith is interviewed by Forbes concerning declining male college enrollment:

Jerry: “You mentioned a number of institutions in which men feel uncomfortable – no, it’s actually not a matter of feeling uncomfortable, it’s a matter of actually being disadvantaged. There’s one you haven’t mentioned yet which is something that overlaps with an interest of mine and of your husband’s, Glenn Reynolds: the idea of a college bubble, the idea of a higher education system in which the value of the product has been become completely dissociated from the price of it. Talk to me a little bit about – what do you call it, Girltown or Girlingtown? – the universities as sort of a world hostile to men.”

Helen: “Right. I call it Girlington [in the book] and that’s sort of like Burlington. There’s so many women at the University of Vermont they call the place Girlington as opposed to Burlington. What’s interesting is that it’s something like 60% women going to college and 40% men, and I think you’re right. I don’t think that it’s just the higher education bubble – I know that my husband Glenn Reynolds is interested in that and actually has a new book called The New School coming out about that very topic – but I think that actually what’s happening is that not only is the [college] commodity much less desirable to men but I think that the environment itself is actively hostile towards men. So I think you’ve got two things going on there: you’ve got a commodity college which isn’t to men as important as it used to be, and there are other things that men are finding to do; and at the same time I think that the discrimination against men in these diversity-field, women-dominated schools is also acting as a kind of barrier to men. A lot of men don’t want to put up with it and a lot of people think, “Of course that’s not really happening,” but people have no idea what men face in our colleges today.

People simply have to stop thinking about college in terms of when they went to school. It is an entirely different cost/benefit structure than it was 20 or 40 years ago, and must be considered from the value proposition it offers now as opposed to what it offered then. And if one considers the lower quality education, the reduced value of the degree, the vastly inflated costs, and the anti-male discrimination, it is a dubious prospect indeed for most men.

There are other ways to punch the college degree ticket. Look into them.

Read More

A portrait in professional responsibility

Roosh rightly takes Tuthmosis to task for his poorly conceived and insufficiently researched article concerning his assertion that short-haired women are damaged:

After prolonged and vigorous deep thought, I have come to the following conclusion: Tuthmosis has understated how utterly damaged short-haired women are. Run, run far away from them.

Don’t believe me? Look at the live Twitter response feed. Tuthmosis may have been too nice. To make yourself ugly, and then try to convince the world that you’re in fact beautiful, or that you don’t need a man to find you attractive at all, is so delusional that the ROK executive team is currently reaching out to the best mental health professionals in Moldova so that these women can get the help that they desperately need. (At the same time, I have since held a private meeting in the ROK office with Tuthmosis to encourage him to not write with such a polite filter that makes him hesitant to offend the female sex.)

I, for one, certainly hope that Tuthmosis will henceforth cease to affect such a shy and nonconfrontational style. The lad has promise, but he simply has to learn how to come right out and say what he truly thinks.

Read More

Women revel in ruin

This celebration of the shattering of a millennial-old tradition is sickening:

One of Britain's most ancient cathedrals will put an end to more than a thousand years of all-male tradition today, when a girls' choir is due to make its debut. Canterbury Cathedral has had various forms of sung worship since it was founded towards the end of the Dark Ages, back in the sixth century.

But the singers have always been male.

All that will change when the voices of 16 schoolgirls will soar towards the cathedral's vaulted ceiling on Saturday.

I wouldn't care if there was a convent with a thousand-year tradition of only permitting female singers, I would strongly support continuing that tradition instead of making it like every other American Legion hall and elementary school. But women, with their instinctive desire to ruin absolutely everything, aren't content until they have reduced everything that is uniquely male to the lowest common sexual denominator.

Traditions are valuable and worthy of respect in their own right. Hence the term "time-honored" traditions. But the Female Imperative honors nothing except itself and knows no respect for anything, least of all tradition. That's why it must be ruthlessly stamped out by anyone attempting to build anything capable of lasting.

What is the good that was accomplished by ruining the male-only tradition of Canterbury Cathedral? Did it send a Very Important Message that girls are capable of singing? They may as well have held a Britney Spears concert there and closed up shop. It wasn't "another sign of change in an institution", it was a sign of the collapse of an institution.

Read More

3x sluttier than grandma

Cry about it or celebrate it, but the increasing sexual incontinence of young women is the reality with which young men have to deal today, both in the UK and elsewhere:

Almost one in 10 of those asked said that they had had slept with more than 10 lovers by the age of 24. The average was 5.65 people.

By contrast, women of their mother’s generation, who were in their early twenties in the 1980s, had had an average of 3.72 sexual partners by the same age.And the previous generation were even less promiscuous.Women of their grandmother’s generation, aged 24 in the 1960s, averaged just 1.67 partners.

It's not so much the average as the standard deviations that would show where the serious problem is. Remember, the risk of marital failure goes up considerably at 2+ previous lovers. So, whereas the average woman was in the reasonable risk category two generations ago, not only is the average woman now well outside that range, but at this rate, the average will reach the nuclear "very low chance of marital success" range in another two generations.

This should also serve to successfully address the atheist demand to prove that declining religious observance is a reliable indicator of declining moral standards.

Read More

Cane Caldo is not Chesterton

Neither am I, for that matter, but I thought it was important to point out that Cane Caldo's post, entitled Vox vs Chesterton, is really not an accurate characterization.

It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.

Vox Day: "A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."

So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.

Who said anything about "success in the world" or "worldly success"? Cane Caldo is playing exactly the same game as Peter Boghossian and other atheist apologists who redefine faith in order to attack Christian faith. And in the process of doing so, he's made the same mistake as Karl Marx did with the labor theory of value. Success is not objective. It may be worldly or it may be spiritual. Success is subjective. It is defined by the one who seeks it. In the case of Game, it is literally in the eye of the beholder.

If you want to be rich, imitate the self-made wealthy naturals. If you want to date beautiful women, imitate the natural players. If you want a healthy marriage, imitate the happily married.

I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear....

Which is fine, but Cane is committing a simple category error here. Chesterton may have stated the foolishness of calling success good, but I simply haven't done that. I mentioned success. Cane is the one who called it good in order to attack it. Now, I do think that knowledge of Game is good because I think that Game is true. And if it is true, then it behooves the Christian man to know it, so that his actions are in accord with reality rather than with indoctrination to which he has been subjected.

Read More

Why women lean left

The Chateau contemplates why women lean so reliably leftward:

the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.

This is one reason why the 19th Amendment was such a societally destructive mistake. The decision of the Founding Fathers to keep women out of the electorate was no more a coincidence than their decision to not extend the franchise to all French and British citizens or Benito Mussolini's decision to make the political empowerment of women the very first plank in the Fascist program.

Like it or not, increased female involvement in the governing process is inextricably linked to more intrusive and authoritarian government. If you oppose the latter, you have absolutely no choice but to oppose the former.

Read More

Betraying the Sisterhood

Lest you doubt that women are ruthlessly intrasexually competitive, notice how this woman admits that she is attacked by her so-called friends for the crime of attempting to appeal to her boyfriend's preferences.

The heinous crime I had confessed to? Not an affair, or neglecting my children — but simply dressing to please my boyfriend, Richard. I’d admitted to Sara that, at the age of 55, I have grown my short hair and swapped jeans and sweaters for skirts and dresses, purely and simply to please the man in my life. But rather than applauding my decision to put so much effort into improving my appearance — and thus my relationship — Sara and my other friends are treating me as a pariah. According to them, I have betrayed the sisterhood.

The problem is that even though she's well post-Wall, she's trying harder and she's realizing the benefits of her efforts. Notice that she even wonders if making a similar effort might have made a difference in her failed marriage. How is she betraying the Sisterhood? She's upping the ante, thereby forcing them to admit to themselves that they are slovenly, short-haired shoggoths by choice, that they aren't forcibly sentenced to a life devoid of male attention.

We've already seen signs of this in the reaction of some women to previous posts observing that short hair on women is unattractive, even a red flag. But the fact is that women who dress for other women should not be surprised when they consistently lose out to women who dress for the man in their life.

It's easy to distinguish a woman who dresses for other women versus a woman who dresses for her man. A woman who dresses for other women will talk about what is classy, what is in fashion, what is stylish and what is not. She will always has some plausible excuse for not wearing what her man prefers her to wear. Dolly Parton is the perfect example of the other extreme. She's got big blond hair, big breasts, she hasn't changed her style in decades and she makes it clear that she doesn't give a damn what any other woman on the planet has to say about it. It shouldn't be surprising to learn that she's been happily married for 47 years.

Read More

The divorce disincentive

Unmarried couples break up much more often than married couples. I'm wondering if one reason why might be the growing financial and emotional disincentives to marriage that have been imposed by the State:

Unmarried parents are four times more likely to split up than those who have wed, research revealed yesterday. It also indicated that co-habiting couples with children under 16 are now responsible for the majority of  family breakdowns. On average, 5.3 per cent of these relationships ended each year from 2009-12, according to the study. But among those who had taken their vows, the average rate was only 1.3 per cent, said the Marriage Foundation think-tank and university academics.

Here is the practical dilemma. If marriage is harder to exit without one-sided penalties, it will reduce the likelihood that men will voluntarily break up marriages, but also reduce the likelihood that men will voluntarily enter into them in the first place.

It would be interesting to know if women also account for 80 percent of all unmarried split-ups or not. If not, this would tend to indicate that the divorce disincentive is a contributing factor to unmarried split-ups by men on marriage strike.

Read More

Visible damage

Tuthmosis points out that women with short hair aren't merely less attractive, they are actually psychologically damaged. Short hair is a red flag indicating a woman who is unsuitable for serious relationship consideration:

No woman in all of human history has ever looked better with short hair than she would with a head full of healthy locks. Despite this irrefutable fact, American women are “chopping it off” in greater numbers every day. This rears its ugly head in an array of ugly permutations, from the boy-like pixie cut to bizarre semi-shaved head topographies. The rationalizations—whether it’s donating their hair to sick kids or the summer weather—are immaterial. The effect, and true reasons, are the same.

I blame this lamentable trend on a few factors. The most powerful are the disingenuous lies—from both men and women—about how it looks. Women are quick to encourage other women to cut their hair by telling them how “cute” it is. While I’m no scientist, I’m convinced this is some deep, genetic programming at work, one that forces women—who compete with one another on a physical level on a daily basis—to encourage any behavior that might eliminate competitors in the dating pool. Men are no better. The cowardly and deluded among us perpetuate the myth that “some girls can pull it off.” Pulling something off, I often respond, is the equivalent of “passing” a class. Just because you have enough left-over attractiveness to remain bangable after cutting off your hair doesn’t mean you wouldn’t look better with it back on.

In truth, I think Tuthmosis misses the way in which we should be grateful to women who cut their hair off. Like women who overeat, it's a way for them to advertise their internal issues, which is not always immediately apparent. Long hair is not only an advertisement for a woman's youth and physical health, but evidence of her mental health as well. Want to know if a woman has issues? Her hair length is a fairly reliable indicator.

When a man grows his hair long and starts wearing dresses, we recognize that there is something wrong with him inside. The same is true of a woman who cuts her hair off, but for some reason, most likely the Female Imperative, we tend to be a little less likely to recognize that as quickly. But the consequences are both logical and clear: 

TUTHMOSIS: Let me ask you something: are guys hitting on you less now with the short hair?

Latin Girl: Oof. Absolutely. A lot less.

TUTHMOSIS: If you had to put a number on it, what would you say the reduction is?

Latin Girl: At least 90 percent less. That’s partly why I did it. I wanted to be alone for a while after my break up.

If a man argued that not showering for three months would make him just as attractive to women as when he kept himself clean, we'd know he was nuts. And yet, when a woman does something that women openly admit reduces their attractiveness by 90 percent and insists she is just as attractive, many of us still pretend to take her seriously. Which is perhaps an indication in itself that we harbor suspicions that she is nuts.

Read More

Game and economic theory

Hawaiian Libertarian points out a connection that, in retrospect, seems obvious:

Given that Vox is both an ascribed creationist Christian and an avowed proponent of the School of Austrian Economics, I find it completely fitting that he is also a proponent of game while completely dismissing the relevancy of evolutionary biology and psychology that are the so-called sciences cited by many game proponents and PUA. In the comment thread of Vox's response to GBFM, he writes:

"Evolutionary biology is nothing but ex post facto fairy tales and psychology is bullshit. Game doesn't require grounding in anything but observation of human behavior and the construction of predictive models from it. The "why" is irrelevant."

In other words, Game as we've come to know it here on these fringes of teh Interwebz, is a Praxeology...i.e. Game is the deductive study of human sexuality and inter-relational behavior based on the action axiom - "If a condition holds, then the following should be done."

Here is but one example that I can think of off the top of my head, that is a game-based action axiom:

*** Women often "fitness test" or "shit test" men. Men interested in mating with a woman need to learn how to recognize when she does this. When he ascertains that in fact she is attempting to fitness test him, there are several known responses that other men have employed with varying degrees of success, such as "agree and amplify."***

Looking at game as an exercise in Praxeology should help those who struggle with the morality of accepting these ideas of game description and proscription, versus the vehement distaste for the immorality of promiscuity many (but not all) game proponents advocate and celebrate.

While I am not trying to speak for anyone else here, I do believe the defining line between those of us in the MAndrosphere who are nominally Christian and advocate Christian Marriage (Vox, Dalrock et al), and see no conflict between Game and Christian morality, versus all the other Christians who are up in arms about it and repeatedly denounce it, is that those of us in favor, simply view game as a Praxeology; it is not a hard science, nor is it a moral code to live by. Rather, it is simply using deductive reasoning to come up with action axiom's to describe the hows and whys of human intersexual attraction and mating behaviors.

These action axioms are useful tools for men to recognize and reverse engineer the myriad of deliberately inculcated dysfunctional behaviors and characteristics that pervades societies institutions, mass media programming and subversion of our churches with the idolatry of Goddess worship. As more and more men embrace the axioms of the Game Praxeology, more and more discover anecdotally that they are based on observable truths regardless of the morality of the men doing the "testing in the field."

I tend to shy away from Austrian economics lingo, mostly because it was coined by erudite German-speaking Jews, and is thus virtual gibberish to the average reader. But Keoni is essentially correct and my outlook on Game is praxeological, which is to say that it is a straightforward matter of viewing human action as a series of probabilistic if-then relationships. The model is not a moral one because it does not consist of any "thou shalts" or "shoulds", but merely "iss" and "if-thens".

To put the action axiom in more complete terms: "If a condition holds, then the following should be done." would be more accurately stated thus: "If condition X holds, then Y should be done, given objective Z."

With regards to objective Z, as Mises wrote in Human Action, only the acting man can identify the reasons for his actions. So, to claim that Game is immoral, or anti-Christian, is to make a fundamental category error. One might as reasonably claim that a shovel is sinful or learning mathematical equations is anti-Hindu. One can criticize the objectives that Heartiste, or Dalrock, or I seek, and indeed, many feminists and equalitarians and white knights do. But there is nothing even remotely objectionable from any coherent moral standard about the mere knowledge of Game and its mechanisms.

Read More

Mailvox: a response to GBFM

Yesterday I was asked how I would respond to this surprisingly legible rant from GreatBooksForMen entitled "True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ". A selection:

Dalrock states that Christians need “Game,” and Vox writes, “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”

Vox states that Game is Truth and that it is a subset of Christianity. The most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:

Heartiste makes no claims of being a Christian, but he may well be, as there are those who say they are not going, who go, just as there are those who say they are going, who do not go.

Dalrock and Vox are stating that the teachings of Heartiste are the same as those of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity.

First, I'll point out that GBFM is being dishonest. He quotes me pointing out that Game is truth, then in the very next paragraph, falsely claims that I state "Game is Truth" when I specifically distinguish between small-t truth, things that happen to be true, and capital-t Truth, which is the Word, Jesus Christ.

This is clearly a purposeful lie, as in the very post GBFM quotes, I wrote: "Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well."

GBFM: "Vox states that Game is Truth"

Vox: "Game is not Truth"

So, GBFM is lying. He also lies when he claims that we are stating the teachings of Roissy and Heartiste are the same as those as Christ. Because both teachings are rooted in the truth, there is necessarily an intrinsic relationship between them, which account for the similarity between the Christian concept of all women being fallen and the Game concept of all women being observably prone to a panoply of unedifying behaviors.

This does not mean both teachings are equally truthful nor does it mean they are the same. Indeed, it is not at all hard to identify the differences between them. However, it must be admitted that the Bible gives considerably less in the way of direction to Man concerning how he should behave towards women in specific circumstances than the Chateau does. It is silent on recommendations concerning text messaging, just to give one example.

I am a Christian. If you want my absolute core advice, it is this: Fear God. 

Now, I could simply post that every day, and it would certainly be easier to do so, but I don't see how it would be of much use to anyone. I could also limit my subjects addressed to Christian evangelism, but I don't really have much more to say on that than I already say. However, I have seen that there is a tremendous amount that needs to be said, and that people have not heard before, concerning intersexual relations and their effect upon our society. That's why I started this blog. And so that is what I address here.

I have great respect for Roissy, for Heartiste, and for Dalrock. I even have a fair amount of respect for GBFM. We are all part of the same great cultural battle for the mind and soul of the West, which has been deeply corrupted by Marxism, by equalitarianism, by secular humanism, by atheism, and by feminism. But the fact that GBFM's heart may be more or less in the right place does not excuse the abandonment of the truth.

There is only one Christianity and that is the one defined by the Lordship, not merely the teachings, of Man's Savior, Jesus Christ.

Read More

Game vs Churchian Idolatry

The Hawaiian Libertarian answers a question that plagues many Christian newcomers to Game: how is Game compatible with Christianity?

Discovering "Game" was my game changer. It gave me a language to describe and think about so many things I previously could not even name, let alone comprehend. It provided a schema for grasping the larger concepts bereft in my emasculated upbringing. And ultimately, it has also  eventually brought me around full circle into belief in the truth of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

For this, I have the degenerate scumbags, the cads, the God Awful P-U-A to thank. Oh promiscuous manwhores who proclaim your proficiency in fornication and adultery, it is your discussions and note-sharing on how to commit these debased sins of hedonistic nihilism by exploiting the fallen, sinful nature of women, that helped me come to understand the primary sin that has infiltrated and subverted Christianity in the West, the sin of IDOLATRY.

I believe that is the real subversion of Christian doctrine in so many Churches today - pedestalization of the pussy...which is really just another manifestation of the ancient, pagan religion of Goddess worship.

From this idolatry flows many other sins and corruption of faith and family.

Anytime a Preacher, Pastor, Elder or some other Churchian authority promotes the Female Imperative by exhorting the men to man up and marry the sluts single moms in the congregation, or cut Husbands and Fathers off at the knees in their sermons, or praises  (worships) and the superior spirituality of Christian women, he is committing the sin of idolatry.

Any church that declares unchaste women "born again virgins," or any particular woman is excused and accepted by a church and it's congregation for destroying her family via frivorce, or preaches mutual submission by husbands to their wives or any other translation of Ephesians 5:22 that undermines a Husbands Patriarchal authority in the home, is a church laying it's offerings on the altar of that ancient, pagan goddess bitch.

Without discovering the red pill of game, I doubt I ever would have came to this realization and recognize this idolatry for what it is, nor broken free from it's ritualistic worship.

Let's not forget Phillipians 1:15-18: "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

Now, Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well. At the very least, the truth-seeker has set himself upon the rocky and difficult path that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven.

"By their fruits you shall know them." And as Keoni demonstrates, the fruit of Game is a sweet one that is beneficial to men.

Read More

Female sexism

Imagine if this ad was recreated, but the man was repeatedly disappointed because all the women he kept meeting had small breasts. Then, at the end, he sees a woman from behind who has a slim build and a small butt, and he sighs, but then she turns around to reveal a spectacular pair of DDs!

That would be considered sexist despite the fact that women have considerably more control over their breast size than men do over their height. But this VW ad is not, because Female Imperative.

Read More

Feminists: do not pass go

Go directly to the mud huts. The sexy, sexy mud huts:

Like many young women in love, Colette Armand believes she was hit by a coup de foudre when she first saw her future husband. 'The attraction was instant,' she says. 'We had an immediate connection.'

Photographs testify to the strength of their bond, showing a beaming young couple clearly delighted by each other's company. That, however, is where the conventional nature of their romance ends. For Colette's intended is a Masai warrior whose home is a mud hut on the vast African plains. Meitkini's tribe have no possessions and no running water, and their food is either plucked from the ground or killed with a spear.

Nonetheless, after a courtship of three years, Colette, 24, is preparing to abandon all the comforts of her western lifestyle to join her life permanently with his  -  even though, to date, she hasn't shared so much as a kiss with her 23-year-old fiance, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between men and women who aren't married. What's more, she has to accept that, in the future, she may have to share her husband with other women, as Masai tradition permits any number of wives.

Keep this story in mind when you try to tell yourself that women are going to stop their madness themselves at some point, that they couldn't possibly be willing to destroy Western civilization and all of the comforts that it affords them simply because the BETA males of the West don't provide them with sufficient excitement and tingles.

And notice that the woman is willing to live in a mud hut and engage in a three-year relationship without any sexual contact on the basis of "instant attraction" and "immediate connection". This is why it is ill-advised to put any serious time, effort, and expense into pursuing any one woman. Male pursuit is best done in the preparation for the moment of meeting.

Read More

Weak men, disorderly women

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things–their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

The Chateau drew our attention to this quote today, and it is an eloquent rebuttal to those who claim that feminism, or our equalitarian society, is sustainable. How was it possible that a Frenchman could see, more than 150 years beforehand, what the result of sexual equality would be?

Because the logic of nature is remorseless. The logic of nature cannot be avoided. It can be manipulated for a time through technology and human will, but it will always prevail in the end. Already women are turning in desperation to technological measures to help them avoid the consequences of their decisions to delay marriage, already men are dosing themselves with artificial chemicals to restore the masculinity they have lost.

But the results are clear. We have a society of weak men and disorderly women. And such societies are not sustainable, such societies are doomed. Unless it rejects feminism, rejects equalitarianism, and rejects multiculturalism, Western society is doomed. Nature, and Nature's God, have already passed judgment on it.

Read More

Equality is incoherence

To paraphrase V.I. Lenin, sometimes one has to murder a few thousand girls to achieve sexual equality:

Thousands of female foetuses have been killed due to gender-based abortion within some ethnic groups, the latest data reveals. Official figures suggest as many as 4,700 females have disappeared from the latest national census records of England and Wales, raising fears that it indicates the illegal practice of sex-selection abortion has become prevalent in the UK. A government investigation last year found no evidence that women born abroad and now living in the UK were opting to abort females. But an analysis of the 2011 National Census has shown widespread discrepancies in the sex ratio of children in some immigrant families, which suggests girls are being aborted.

Feminism is intrinsically destructive because it is not only at war with biology and societally beneficial intersexual relations, it is simultaneously self-contradictory and totalitarian.

Sarah Wollaston, a Tory MP and GP: "said she is a strong supporter of women’s right to choose but that this practice reinforces a very misogynistic view that girls are less valuable than boys."

In other words, the parliamentarian is a strong supporter of women's right to choose, so long as women's choices meet with her approval. Because equality.

Read More

Too much Alpha

A fat older slut explains that too much male sexual appeal can actually be a turn-off:

One such friend tells me that he long ago stopped approaching women he was attracted to in bars.  He is a quite a conventionally attractive man, with an extremely muscular build, and his preference is for women of my size or even larger.  The most common reaction he would receive was one of anger from women who were so conditioned to believe in their own unattractiveness that they automatically assumed he was making fun of them.

And once more, we see support for Roissy's keen intersexual observations. It also illustrates why men and women alike have contempt for sluts. It's hard for men to score lots of women. It is very, very easy for women to do so, even when they are grey-haired, middle-aged women who go 300 pounds. I'm not utilizing hyperbole for rhetorical effect either. The author of the piece describes herself as a "size 28" and there is a picture. Headshot only, I hasten to add.

A key that will unlock anything is a master key. A lock that can be opened by any key is a useless lock. 

However, keep in mind that the same rule applies to men with regards to commitment. The woman who can elicit commitment from any man is an uberbabe. The man that will offer commitment to any woman is an unwanted BETA male.

Read More

The possessive difference

Rollo explains why "mate-guarding" is an ineffective behavior that is indicative of BETA status:

Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.

This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.

It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.

When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.

I've never seen any point in acting possessive. Now, it's one thing to investigate appropriately when a woman is acting squirrely, in a suspicious manner that indicates that she may have been up to something that she shouldn't. That is right and necessary action preparatory to a nexting; for example, when I was single I cut all contact with different women for things as minor as cancelling plans, inviting strange men to a party she was hosting, or simply taking a phone call from a male "friend" late at night.

I never bothered explaining myself to them. Was I insecure or jealous? Not at all. There were a plethora of women to whom I was attracted at the time and my reasoning was that if a woman couldn't decide between me and another guy, well, he was welcome to her. I'd rather spend my time with women who had a distinct preference for me.

Now, this is not an appropriate attitude for a married man, or rather, it is a too-extreme attitude. But, as Rollo properly observes, possessiveness is merely the opposite of the abundance mentality. It is an indication that you believe that you do not merit your current wife or girlfriend. And, as those who understand Game will recognize, this is not the path to a successful long-term relationship, much less a marriage.

I trust my wife. I certainly don't want her to blow up our life together. But the fact is that if she wants to, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. And the converse is true as well. She can't do anything about my actions either. I'm not revealing any intimate secrets here, as this is true of every single marriage and romantic relationship on the planet. Human beings have ZERO control over the actions of another human being. Marriage is all about voluntarily coming together and mutually deciding to stay together. Every single day. It is a commitment, but it is also a daily choice.

And in the event a woman fails to make that choice one day, the consolation prizes aren't so bad. As one of my friends discovered, while being frivorced out of the blue was initially devastating, spending his subsequent evenings in the company of various young women who are barely out of college was hardly the equivalent of a circle of Hell. Is it the life he chose? No. Is it the life he wanted? Not at all. But it's the life his ex-wife chose for him and he's having rather a good time making the best of it.

That's the abundance mentality. That's the "life is beautiful" mentality. That is the ALPHA mentality. As philosophers from Sextus Empiricus to Roosh will tell you, don't shed a single tear.

Read More

Priorities

Denise Lewis, the Olympic gold medalist, explains that a woman's career can never compete with fulfilling her true purpose as a woman:

If Jessica Ennis-Hill thought that becoming Olympic champion was the most incredible feeling you can experience, she should wait until she becomes a mother. I remember watching her on the podium at London 2012, and when that heptathlon gold medal went around her neck, I thought she would burst with emotion.

But I guarantee that moment will pale in comparison to when she holds her baby for the first time, just as it did for me two years after I stood on the top step at Sydney 2000. To bring a new life into the world and to be blessed to have a healthy baby – not always a given – really is a miracle and something very special.

The fact is, there is simply nothing a woman can do that is more important than to become a wife and mother. The chance for a career will always be there, in some shape or form. But the window of opportunity to attract a good man and bear his children is nearly as limited as it is for world-class athletes.

Read More

The nuclear ultimatum

Follow me through this simple train of logic. Whereas:

1. There are potentially good wives who are rendered unmarriageable primarily by virtue of consequences of their past decisions.
2. Women are dynamic creatures whose perspective and attitudes are usually defined, per de Sade, Day, and various others, by their current lover or husband.
3. It has been observed that single women are frequently willing to mistreat, harm, and otherwise put their children at risk in pursuit of relationships with men they find sufficiently desirable.

Therefore: A man who is interested in pursuing a relationship with an otherwise high potential single mother can test her ability and willingness to become a good wife and mother to his children by requiring her to give up custody of her illegitimate spawn in return for a commitment from him.

Now, I have no doubt that this little thought experiment will put numerous knickers in serious twists. But, if one takes a deep breath and thinks the matter through, it will soon become apparent that a successful ultimatum of this sort actually meets the objectives of the Female Imperative as well as those of the BETA male seeking a high grade wife and mother.

The BETA male achieves his objective of finding a higher-grade woman than he can normally attract without the huge negative of accepting the burden of supporting her bastards. Not only that, but by virtue of such a demand, he becomes much more attractive to her, as there are few things more ruthlessly ALPHA than requiring a woman to choose between her bastard(s) and the man with whom she is seeking a permanent relationship.

In summary, the woman gets a more attractive man than she bargained for, a significant upgrade on the life support front, and she is relieved of the children that were dragging down her prospects. The man gets a more attractive woman than he expected, unencumbered by the elements that reduced her attractiveness to others.

Is it rough on the bastards? To be sure, but seriously, in a world of abortion and no-fault divorce, it's a little disingenuous to claim that the family system gives even the smallest of damns about children. If the legal regime was genuinely set up to defend the long-term interests of the children, divorce would be illegal except for female adultery, abortion would be punished by the execution of the guilty doctors and nurses and the sterilization of the guilty woman, and custody in the event of divorce would go automatically to the father. So, let's not suddenly start pretending that the interests of the children are relevant here.

Besides, in the situation envisioned, the bastards being raised by single women. Let's face it, the odds are already stacked heavily against them and aren't going to get considerably worse by one more strike being added.

So, it's a win for the Female Imperative, a win for the vital keepers of commitment, and a loss for the party that neither society nor the legal system cares about anyhow.

Read More

Women don't get women

The funniest thing about this young woman's attempt to create the worst online dating profile ever is the way it reveals that she has no idea how terrible women can be or what actually serves as red flags for the average man:

I made the OkCupid profile of the Worst Woman on Earth, hoping to prove that there exists an online dating profile so loathsome that no man would message it. I did not accomplish my goal.... In making this profile, I made sure my creation touched on every major facet of being truly horrible: mean, spoiled, lazy, racist, manipulative, and willfully ignorant, and I threw in a little gold digging just for funzies. I maintain that there is not a human on this planet who would read this profile and think, "Yes, I'd like to spend any amount of the fleeting time I'm given on my journey around the sun getting to know this person." This profile is my magnum opus; it will be engraved on my tombstone.

Let's look at the major facets she described:

1. Mean: most attractive women are mean. In the immortal words of Heather #1, they are bitches because they can be. Being mean is how women maintain their intrasexual rank. Also, the more Alpha the man, the more a haughty woman tends to draw his attention.
2. Spoiled: Most women are spoiled. By men. We learn to expect it.
3. Lazy: Most young women are, by male standards, lazy. For example, I don't know a single young man who has ever asked a young woman for help moving. Why not? Because we know they won't lift a finger to help others unless it is something they enjoy doing or because there is something in it for them.
4. Racist. These days, that's a major plus in many men's eyes. Does she really think white men are bothered by the fact that she's definitely not a mud shark? It's not as if black men like it when the hottest black women are taken by white men, and Asian men understandably bear considerable resentment on this score. If she wanted to significantly reduce the responses she got from white men, she should have said that she thinks Lenny Kravitz and LeBron James are hot.
5. Manipulative. Seriously? From the male perspective, what woman isn't manipulative? She might as reasonably said that she has breasts and expected men to be horrified.
6. Willfully ignorant. Given that this covers every feminist, every Democrat, and most Republicans on the planet, any man who didn't ignore a woman's willful ignorance would be, if not unicorn-hunting, at least searching for a very rare bird indeed.
7. Gold-digging. Most women are hypergamous. Gold-digging is merely overt economics-focused hypergamy. Problematic, to be sure, but half-expected in the sufficiently attractive.

And what was with all the Aaron Carter stuff anyway? Who the hell is Aaron Carter? All men already know that women listen to crap music, so what difference could it possibly make whether it is one terrible pop artist versus another terrible pop artist? Does she think the fake profile would have been one iota less off-putting if she had pretended to be a Justin Bieber or One Direction or Beyonce fan like tens of millions of young women genuinely are?

What she should have done instead is posted something more like this:

1. i have a great job! i love my life as a guidance counselor in the Women's Studies department at UG! Go Dawgs!
2. i am ten tonnz of snarky fun! If u can't handel that, u run!!!
3. no Republicunz! No hate! 1 Luv!
4. i will leave u for Taye Diggs if he ever ask me 2!!!! Fair warning, ayight?
5. love me, love my cats. i haz 4! They can haz cheezburger.
6. my main man LaThomas iz my life. he iz Gods gift 2 me!
7. i am a big and beautiful woman. If u only like anorexy bitchez, u ain't man enough for me.#truedat

She'd still get some responses, I'm sure, but not nearly as many. This just illustrates, again, why it is worse than useless to take advice from women concerning how to attract other women.

Read More

Alpha Mail: finding a conservative wife in a liberal sea

MCB sends a request via Twitter:

Could you do a column with advice for males to find a good wife? What's out there seems 90% corrupted by liberalism.

Let's begin by pointing out that there are a few misconceptions inherent in the question. Good wives are made, not born. And women's political ideology is both dynamic and malleable. So, the question is not how one finds a good wife, but rather, how one collaborates in the joint process of making a good wife.

Now, it's true that this isn't something a man can do on his own. He needs the wholehearted cooperation of the woman concerned. That being said, I suspect that the major mistake that most men make with regards to looking for a potentially cooperative women is to look at their current state rather than the trend and the relative position.

For example, single women in an academic environement are always going to be more or less left-wing. This is because women are heavily affected by their environments and they tend to adapt their views to more closely match those of the people around them. So, a women who is taking Women Studies courses and votes Democrat but nevertheless remains within shouting reach of sanity is actually more likely to make for a good wife than the ostensibly Christian Republican woman who lives with her good conservative family and considers herself a political moderate.

So, the first thing to do is find a woman who is somewhat to the right of her surroundings, regardless of what those surroundings might be. That's the true indicator of her ideological inclinations.  The second thing to do is provide her with an anchor. Never back down from your views, never apologize for them, patiently explain them when asked, and whenever your views are attacked by someone else when she is around, destroy the attacker mercilessly in a rhetorical manner. Don't bring up your views otherwise or try to push them on her, simply be the magnetic rock that draws her closer to you.

For example, Spacebunny once had some checks that openly advocated a liberal position with which I completely disagree, then and now. I never said anything to her about them. However, when a woman working at Barnes & Noble made a disproportionate fuss over them at the checkout counter in order to establish her liberal bona fides - "nice checks!" - I rolled my eyes, thereby drawing the clerk's attention and provoking her wrath.

She demanded to know if I agreed with the message on the checks, and upon learning I did not, promptly declared I was a bad person and demanded to know why my reasons for disagreeing. I looked at her calmly, ignored her demands, and asked her to please ring up my books. She did so, visibly fuming all the while. Spacebunny was appalled by the whole situation, and couldn't believe the clerk had treated me so rudely for the mortal crime of failing to show public enthusiasm for the sentiment expressed on the checks.

It wasn't long before the checks were replaced by other ones featuring an innocuous picture devoid of any political sentiment. And these days, I suspect she would be faster to disavow the sentiment expressed on the checks than I would.

The third thing is to be aware of the company she keeps. If she's around a lot of left-liberals, you need to be aware that they're going to be an influence on her own thinking. Counteract that influence by destroying their attempts to push their ideology every time they do it in front of you. Eventually, she'll have to choose, and intersexual relations being what they are, if your relationship is going well, she'll choose you. If she doesn't, but continues to move in their direction, well, now you know she isn't marriage material and you'll probably save yourself a painful and costly divorce by nexting her.

Read More

Identifying the future fatty

Science discovers that fat women hate exercise:

While the women viewed the pictures, the functional M.R.I. machine monitored their brain activity. The resulting readouts revealed that overweight women’s brains were put off by exercise. Shown images of people being active, these women developed little activation in the putamen region of the brain, suggesting that they did not enjoy what they were seeing. At the same time, a portion of the brain related to dealing with negative emotions lit up far more when they viewed images of moving than of sitting. Emotionally, the brain scans suggested, they anticipated disliking physical activity much more than they expected to disdain sitting.

Leaner women’s brain activity, by and large, was the opposite, with the putamen lighting up when they watched others work out and envisaged doing the same themselves.

The same approach was used to show that "many overweight people’s brains operate differently than the brains of thinner people when they look at images related to eating.  In previous neurological studies, when heavier volunteers viewed pictures of food or food preparation, they typically developed increased activity in portions of the brain involved in reward processing, or an urge to like things, including in an area called the putamen. At the same time, their brains showed relatively blunted activity in areas that are thought to induce satiety, or the ability to know when you are full. These changes generally are reversed in the brains of thinner people shown the same images."

In other words, if you're a young man attracted to a woman whose eyes light up at the sight of cake, and who moans at the thought of exercise, the chances are that she's a future fatty in the making. Throw in an overstuffed mother, and you've pretty much got a guarantee that she's going to chub out in the next ten years.

Now, that's fine if you're a portly gentleman yourself, or if you happen to prefer big beautiful women. But regardless, it's a useful science-based metric for predicting if a young woman is going to blow up or not.

Read More

The perfect woman

Spacebunny responds to some women who are always moaning about rape and assorted feminist nonsense on Twitter. How could a man not love her?

@EVB_Now @MsVanillaRose @jessikart we're all victims. Group hug! PIV is always rape, ok?

So, get your rape on, boys. The ladies, they love the rape.

The amazing thing about that article is that this is NOT the most absurd sentence she has ever written: "Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple." Hard to top, a more innocent man might say. But at Alpha Game, we are skeptical, we are, one might say, downright cynical, about the limits of feminist stupidity.

To paraphrase Voltaire, or Sartre, or some other pessimist concerning the human condition, the only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by ∞ is to contemplate the limits of feminist idiocy. Consider this fascinating essay on "science and essentialism": "women have systematically been the inventors and creators while men stole their knowledge and skills"

If only there was a time machine and we could send this woman's essays back to the men who voted for women's suffrage. Forget women voting, we'd be living in a Gor-style society, we'd have giant flying warbirds, and John Norman would be ruling the world as our unanimously elected Dictator-for-Life.

Read More

Alpha Mail: chick lit

A reader has an epiphany:

I realized another truism in chick lit which is that if the female protagonist is described as a bit homely then she will get to sleep with handsome men, the rest will be attracted to her, and even the other women will be a little sensual around her. It's the female equivalent to the wise cracking snarky gamma using his wit to get laid.

I understand why it sells as it lets them live in a fantasy world for a while, but the danger is when they start to believe the fantasy in reality.

Say what you will about the guys who read comics, but even if they like to dress up like superheroes, at least they don't genuinely believe they can fly or shoot webs out of their fingers.

We shall gently pass by the obvious question of how this particular reader has such in-depth knowledge of this particular literature.

Read More

Why children need fathers

The feminists discovered that fish actually did need bicycles after all. And as the hordes of fatherless bastards leave women dismayed in their totally predictable failure to grow up into responsible, productive men, they're gradually learning that kids need men too:

Encouraging risk: In their approach to childrearing, fathers are more likely to encourage their children to take risks, embrace challenges, and be independent, whereas mothers are more likely to focus on their children's safety and emotional well-being. "[F]athers play a particularly important role in the development of children's openness to the world," writes psychologist Daniel Paquette. "[T]hey also tend to encourage children to take risks, while at the same time ensuring the latter's safety and security, thus permitting children to learn to be braver in unfamiliar situations, as well as to stand up for themselves." In his review of scholarly research on fatherhood, he notes that scholars generally find that dads are more likely to have their children talk to strangers, to overcome obstacles, and even to have their toddlers put out into the deep during swim lessons. The swim-lesson study, for instance, which focused on a small sample of parents teaching their kids to swim, found that "fathers tend to stand behind their children so the children face their social environment, whereas mothers tend to position themselves in front of their children, seeking to establish visual contact with the children."

Protecting his own: Fathers play an important role in protecting their children from threats in the larger environment. For instance, fathers who are engaged in their children's lives can better monitor their children's comings and goings, as well as the peers and adults in their children's lives, compared to disengaged or absent fathers. Of course, mothers can do this, to an extent. But fathers, by dint of their size, strength, or aggressive public presence, appear to be more successful in keeping predators and bad peer influences away from their sons and daughters. As psychologist Rob Palkovitz notes in our book, "paternal absence has been cited by multiple scholars as the single greatest risk factor in teen pregnancy for girls."

Dad's discipline: Although mothers typically discipline their children more often than do fathers, dads' disciplinary style is distinctive. In surveying the research on gender and parenthood for our book, Palkovitz observes that fathers tend to be firmer with their children, compared to mothers. Based on their extensive clinical experience, and a longitudinal study of 17 stay-at-home fathers, Kyle Pruett and psychologist Marsha Kline Pruett agree. In Partnership Parenting they write, "Fathers tend to be more willing than mothers to confront their children and enforce discipline, leaving their children with the impression that they in fact have more authority." By contrast, mothers are more likely to reason with their children, to be flexible in disciplinary situations, and to rely on their emotional ties to a child to encourage her to behave.

I saw the difference between male and female parental roles time and time again in a toddler gymnastics class. I was the only father there, and unsurprisingly, my child was the only one who didn't have anyone holding his hand as he crossed the balance beam or as leaped down onto the big padded map. A few days later, my child was practically running across the beam and leaping headlong from the platform. Most of the other kids, half of whom were older, were still edging fearfully across the beam, tightly clutching Mommy's hand.

Sure, you still want Mommy there to kiss the boo-boos when it all goes wrong, but children need Daddy to teach them the difference between acceptable and unacceptable risks.

Read More

The walking dog

Sir, "Sir, a woman's driving NASCAR is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Don’t be fooled. By all measures that really count with Danica, it was a great year.... She mentioned mechanical issues, bad luck and the ever-popular “learning curve” that young drivers have to go through. But a lot of teams can bemoan bad luck, mechanical woes and a dog eating their spare tire. As for that nasty NASCAR learning curve, let’s see how some other big names handled it.

Jimmie Johnson had eight races in the Busch series (now Nationwide) before moving up to the big circuit. He had three wins and 21 top-10s in his rookie season. He was 26.

Jeff Gordon raced two years in the Busch series. In his first Winston Cup year, he had seven top fives and 11 top-10s. He was 21.

Kyle Busch spent two years in Nationwide. In his rookie Sprint Cup year, he had nine top-fives and 11 top 10s. He was 21.

Joey Logano spent 15 minutes in Nationwide. He had three top fives and seven top 10s. He was 19.

Danica had 58 Nationwide races before this season, going a tidy 0 for 58. If you add Sprint, Nationwide and Indy races, she is now 1 for 221 (that winning coming in Japan).

Personally, I want to see Danica compete in MMA. Forget NASCAR, THAT would be real entertainment. And I don't see why the sports media seems to think people will be entertained by watching women compete ineptly with men. Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious to see men playing on women's soccer, basketball, and volleyball teams?

Because equality!

And let's not forget the hypergamy. Who is even remotely surprised that Ms Patrick abandoned her husband for a fellow NASCAR driver? What a pity one can't get odds on that sort of thing. Women often lament that men are less than supportive of their careers and enthusiastic about their success, well, perhaps if there was not a reasonable expectation that their success would result with the end of the marriage or romantic relationship, they would understand this lack of enthusiasm.

Read More

Alpha Mail: the magical tool

GG not only ignores the evidence of her own eyes, but insists that everyone else must do the same:

Forgive me VD, but you have the uncanny ability to come so close, so very close... and then to veer so far off into the abyss all one can do is watch you float away.

Women respond to whomever is in CHARGE. It has nothing to do with being attracted to sociopaths or sociopathic behavior. Our world, our culture, has put a whole lot of sociopaths in positions of authority. They aren't attractive because of the way they act, they're attractive because of the power they hold. If pirates ran the world, we'd love pirates. If nerds held all the cards, we'd love nerds.

The flip side of that for some women is the pity factor. We will lay down in the railroad tracks to try and "fix" a sociopath. It's not really sexual attraction, it's a symptom of female pride, we believe that our love and our sexuality should be powerful enough to cure what ails them. That's a small percent of the population, however. Most women are not that interested in martyrdom and the odds of getting yourself killed.

This is a load of complete horseshit. Women ALWAYS come up with some idiotic excuse to explain why what they are doing isn't what everyone can plainly see they are doing. It's as if GG has never seen a woman turn down dozens of perfectly decent, educated man with a decent job after another, only to volunteer for the role of sex toy for the first tattooed thug, drug addict, or criminal to show her any interest.

Is the unemployed guy who spends his days huffing paint in charge of anything? What is the guy sitting in a cell for the next 50 years in charge of? GG is simply doing what every woman does when confronted with the reality of her sex's behavior: she invents nonsensical fictions in an attempt to deflect criticism. Female behavior can be readily manipulated so long as one realizes that one of its primary motivating factors is the avoidance of criticism.

Now, it's entirely possible that GG doesn't happen to be drawn to sociopaths herself, but rather the socio-sexual dominance that sociopathy often emulates. But she does not speak for the 3.5 billion women on the planet. And this female solipsism is why no man should EVER listen to ANY woman about what another woman wants. Most women are provably unreliable with regards to their own sexual desires; they are totally useless with regards to any other woman's with the possible exception of their closest friends' favored types.

As several commentators observed yesterday, women are always in a hurry to fix sociopaths, criminals, and murderers, but they're considerably less interested in fixing the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, and the socially awkward. This tends to bely GG's insistence that it is the fixing process that is the female motivating factor. As does the fact that women's vaginas are not some sort of magical Black and Decker device; one can't help but notice that this selfless fixing on the part of women somehow always seems to involve resorting to the use of that remarkable tool.

Read More

Beat Game

From the Neal Cassady letter that Jack Kerouac described as The Great Sex Letter:

I was sitting on the bus when it took on more passengers at Indianapolis, Indiana – a perfectly proportioned beautiful, intellectual, passionate, personification of Venus De Milo asked me if the seat beside me was taken!!! I gulped, (I'm drunk) gargled & stammered NO! (Paradox of expression, after all, how can one stammer No!!?) She sat – I sweated – She started to speak, I knew it would be generalities, so to tempt her I remained silent.

She (her name Patricia) got on the bus at 8 PM (Dark!) I didn't speak until 10 PM – in the intervening 2 hours I not only of course, determined to make her, but, how to DO IT.

I naturally can't quote the conversation verbally, however, I shall attempt to give you the gist of it from 10 PM to 2 AM.

Without the slightest preliminaries of objective remarks (what's your name? where are you going? etc.) I plunged into a completely knowing, completely subjective, personal & so to speak "penetrating her core" way of speech; to be shorter (since I'm getting unable to write) by 2 AM I had her swearing eternal love, complete subjectivity to me & immediate satisfaction. I, anticipating even more pleasure, wouldn't allow her to blow me on the bus, instead we played, as they say, with each other.

From this letter, we can discern two things. First, the Chateau is correct and there is an element of sociopathy to natural player behavior. If you're familiar with On the Road or the story of its real-life inspiration, then you're aware that Cassady was not entirely all there, either in terms of sanity or conscience. But he was, sexually speaking, a definite ALPHA. Women respond powerfully and sexually to sociopaths; it's not a coincidence that women used to faint at Adolf Hitler's speeches. Certain elements of Game do involve the imitation of sociopathic behavior, and this is why some decent men would rather lose women they desire and permit their marriages to fail than behave in the necessary manner.

Second, the natural behavior that Game imitates has been around much longer than even most theoreticians of Game realize. Once one knows what to look for, one can find elements of Game in the works of Flaubert, of Dostoevsky, and even Shikibu. When one considers that the latter dates back to the 11th century, it should be apparent that there is nothing new about it, there is only the recognition of something that has been obscured and buried by feminism, and before that, the chivalric social mores of mid-20th century America.

Sociopathy is rising in America for the reason that we have lionized the Neal Cassady's of the nation while simultaneously emancipating female desire from its former social strictures. Young women are now free to pursue whomever attracts them, without any practical guidance from their parents or female elders, and history teaches very clearly that the men who most attract young women are sociopaths and societally destructive narcissists.

This is why knowledge of Game is so important to society. If its artificial practitioners refuse to utilize it, too many of them will continue to lose out to the naturals and eventually become grass-eating herbs with no interest in constructively participating in society.

Read More

A year in Alpha

Happy New Year to everyone, be ye alpha or omega. 2013 was a banner year for Alpha Game, as the historical traffic measured in Google pageviews indicates:

2011: 546,438
2012: 1,675,300
2013: 3,771,032

Despite the growth in traffic, I can't say that I'm particularly pleased with my blogging here this year. While I got a little better about posting here on a regular basis, I did not feel the quality was not entirely satisfactory. And while I was pleased to bring some excellent posts by others to your attention, I didn't feel that my original contributions were up to par. I'm hoping to do better in 2014, but regardless, I'm pleased to see how AG is developing its own community of those interested in delving deeper into intersexual relations.

2013 saw some big steps forward for Game, from mainstream reporters getting in touch with some of the more significant Game bloggers to Dr. Helen Smith publishing Men On Strike. I hope that the Game community will continue to challenge and support each other as we stand in steadfast opposition to the equalitarian feminist regime that has been imposed upon the men of the West.

Read More