In praise of snake-hipped women

It's no secret that I have always tended to prefer slender women. Not for me the over-lush curves of the Earth Matrons and their over-stuffed brassieres with fatty flesh spilling out from them on every side. Now, if the well-fed curvy girl turns your crank, that's absolutely fine by me, but she tends to leave me, if not entirely cold, generally indifferent. But there is an additional reason to prefer the slender breed: she is not only more attractive, more fit, and more likely to retain her shape over time, she is also less likely to be a slut.

Shakira was seriously on point — hips really don’t lie. Even when it comes to a woman’s sexual history. That’s according to scientists at the University of Leeds, who report that a woman’s figure could play a crucial role in her decision to have sex. Specifically, women with wider hips are more likely to hit it and quit it, and to have more sexual partners in general. Less-hippy women, on the other hand, tend to take a more prudent approach to sex....

Women with hips wider than 14.2 inches (36 centimeters) had more sexual partners and one-night stands than those with hips narrower than 12.2 inches (31 centimeters). And women who tooted and booted it in 75 percent of their sexual relationships had hips nearly an inch (2 centimeters) wider than those who had fewer one-and-done encounters. Their less-curvy counterparts “really only had sex with people in the context of relationships, demonstrating a more cautious sexual strategy,” Hendrie said.

So it's essentially a win-win scenario for everyone but the breast men. This may also explain why slutwalks tend to be populated by hulking, wide-hipped creatures who look as if they would be best utilized by being rendered down for tallow.

Read More

Unrestricted female sexuality

Modern women absolutely hate the fact that the restriction of female sexuality is a core foundational element of civilization. But the fact is that if their sexuality is not restricted by fathers and husbands, by men who love them, then it will be repeatedly abused by men who don't and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Nor will the State upon which they are relying in lieu of their families. As the young women of Rotherham will bear witness:

Vicky, now 27 and training to be a paramedic, is one of the countless youngsters groomed by the predatory gangs of Pakistani men allowed to roam the South Yorkshire town with near impunity for so long.  She recalls being picked up at night in taxis in the town centre at the bottom of Ship Hill, where drunken crowds gather around takeaways and under-age white girls are seen as easy pickings.

“We would come for a night out and they would be sat around waiting in their cars,” says Vicky. “My friends had met them before me and said they had got beer and stuff like that. We would be taken to these big houses in Rotherham and Sheffield and they were always trying to give us drink and drugs. I was spiked a few times, they gave me ecstasy and cocaine. I knew what they wanted from me. I still remember being called a dirty gori [Pakistani slang for a white woman] which is what they always used to say to us.

“Once I was spiked with something and ended up in a right state. I was 15 and had tried to walk home but couldn’t get in the door. My dad threw cold coffee over me to try and wake me up.

“After that I ran away for two weeks. One of my friends went with a man to the pub and ended up being taken away for a few days and raped. She reported it to the police but nothing ever got done about it.” 

Notice that she ran away from the protection of the only man who didn't want anything from her. As civilization and Western culture wanes, all the protections that the modern woman relies upon in her unrestricted sexual freedom vanish.

If women genuinely prefer to be dirty goris rather than restricted wives, daughters and mothers, there are millions of waiting barbarians who are more than eager to drug and rape them. Of course, the fact that they have to be drugged and raped tends to indicate that it's not a choice they would knowingly make if they truly understood the consequences of choosing the protection of the indifferent state in preference to the protection of a man who loves them.

The State will not protect you. That is the message that has to be driven home to young women. The State does not care and it will not protect you.

Read More

Affirmative consent

The California legislature passes a sexual consent law based on Antioch College's much-mocked campus standard that was so ludicrous, it inspired an SNL-skit.

State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses. The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.

The actual law is described more clearly here.

You may have heard of this bill as the one that would require students to draft up a written sex contract before bed or constantly proclaim “yes, yes, yes!” at every slight readjustment, thereby practically redefining most sex as rape. The Fresno Bee editorial board interpreted the bill to mean that “ ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said aloud.” The Daily Californian, the independent student newspaper of UC–Berkeley, also claimed that affirmative consent is necessarily verbal. RH Reality Check advanced the game to approvingly say that affirmative consent requires “a verbal or written yes.” If consensual sex entailed that level of consent, millions of couples would be unsuspectingly raping one another every night of the week.

But the bill doesn’t actually require those things. It calls for “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."* (While the bill initially warned that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding,” that language has since been stricken.) Update, June 24, 2014: As of June 18, the bill's definition reads: "'Affirmative consent' means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity."

It’s understandable that commentators would jump to the conclusion that affirmative consent requires sex partners to engage in a constant Q&A—or else a finely drawn sex contract—because the bill doesn’t define what “clear, unambiguous” consent would actually look like. Perhaps some remember Antioch College’s infamous 1991 sexual assault rules, which did require all partners to verbally request and assent to every stage of sexual activity—“body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans” didn’t cut it. But the California legislation’s language becomes clearer when it specifies which situations do not constitute consent. “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the bill reads. “The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” Parties can’t consent when they’re asleep or unconscious, or incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.

Well, this should TOTALLY make things less complicated for everyone. I wonder how long it will be before young women start complaining that they are being sexually harassed by men demanding signed and notarized documents before kissing them.

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I compliment you on your halter top?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You may.

Male Date Rape Player #1: It's very nice. May I kiss you on the mouth.

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I would like you to kiss me on the mouth.

[ they kiss on the mouth ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I elevate the level of sexual intimacy by feeling your buttocks?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You have my permission.

[ Male touches Female's buttocks ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I raise the level yet again, and take my clothes off so that we could have intercourse?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I am granting your request to have intercourse.

[ scene ends ]

Dean Frederick Whitcomb: Contestants?

Ariel Helpern-Strauss: [ buzzes in ] Date Rape! 

Read More

Women never lie about rape

Except, of course, when they do:

A nurse has been struck off after being jailed for falsely accusing her grandfather of rape in a bid to claim his inheritance money. Natalie Mortimer, from Aberdeen, was disciplined at a one-day standards hearing at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in London.

The 25-year-old was jailed for 22 months at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in January after being convicted of wasting 175 hours of police time by fabricating claims that her grandfather Gordon Ritchie sexually abused her.

Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard at the time how she had falsely accused her grandfather of raping her when she was a child so she could get her hands on inheritance money.

She eventually admitted she had made up the sex attack claims - but only after her innocent grandfather had spent time in a police cell following the allegations.

And who is surprised by this coda: During her sentencing, she showed no remorse as she left the court dock in handcuffs - smiling at her friends in the public gallery.

Women will not only lie about rape, they will do so without hesitation or remorse. In fact, most rape claims are false. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy the teary story produced in halting whispers at 3 AM, or even decline your part as the Consoling Shoulder in the Rape Victim Kabuki Theater if that sort of thing floats your boat. Just keep in mind as you do so that the whole thing is fiction.

And do try to keep a straight face. I once cracked up when a woman told me her Terrible Rape Story, forgetting that she'd told me a different one a few months prior. But honestly, what can you do when THE MAFIA suddenly appear out of nowhere in a Terrible Rape Story?

As to why women invent historical rapes when an inheritance isn't on the line, the answer is simple. Women love drama and they love to be at the center of it. Being a Rape Victim puts a woman squarely at the center of the drama. If you think about it, it's really a credit to them as a sex that they ever talk about anything else.

Read More

Men are more abused

On Twitter, anyhow. The freaky little people upset about the Hugo awards aside, I actually take a good deal less stick on Twitter than I would have expected based on the amount of hate mail I used to get. But won't someone think of the poor men?

According to an analysis of more than 2million messages sent to celebrities, politicians and journalists - one in every 20 sent to prominent male figures was abusive compared to only one in 70 for females. 

This should have been obvious. After all, were the numbers were reversed, we'd be seeing prime time ads for STOPPING TWITTER ABUSE. And frankly, the abuse directed at Piers Morgan really shouldn't be counted. I mean, is it really abuse when it is eminently merited?

Read More

That would be why they don't hire women

 After reading this, does this make you think that sexism in venture capital is a serious problem that needs to be addressed? Or does it make you think that it explains very well why venture capitalists are less than enthusiastic about hiring women in the first place?

A female intern at a venture capital firm who publicly spoke out about the overt sexism that she experienced, has revealed that she was reprimanded by her employer for doing so and 'treated like a perpetrator.'... She's since revealed that the firm 'wasn’t exactly ecstatic' about her decision to blog about gender bias, and scheduled several lengthy meetings during the final week of her internship in which her bosses wanted to know why she hadn't consulted them first and how they could spin positive publicity out of the incident.

Of the 46 employees pictured on General Catalyst's website, only four are female, with just one woman on the firm's investing side.

'The fact that all of the meetings they set up about my post that last week and beyond were with men, and that the majority of our conversations revolved around bringing this topic back to a positive perspective of what the firm and its peers are doing to solve the problem, made me feel as if the core of my post, my feelings and less-than-welcoming experience, were not valued,' Miss Swallow wrote in a first-person piece for the Wall Street Journal. 'They didn’t see that I felt left out; they saw that their firm was under attack,' she added.

Miss Swallow, who graduated with a Bachelor degree from NYU’s Stern School of Business in 2009,  says that the final straw was during a 'highly constructive' conversation about diversity initiatives with her mentor at the firm, when another partner 'stormed in' and began reprimanding her.

'He said the post was misguided and anger-filled, and he was disturbed that he had received emails from LPs and portfolio founders asking how I could have done what I did. After multiple calm responses to his shouting, I couldn’t take it anymore. He had been standing and pointing furiously at me the entire time, while everyone else was seated. I stood up, tears falling from my eyes and my breath becoming uncontrollable, and said I wasn’t going to take this treatment. I hadn’t done anything wrong for speaking up about something I felt was an issue, but I was being treated like a perpetrator. I had broken their trust, they told me. And maybe I had, but I would not be silenced and belittled,' she wrote.

Notice how her priority at her INTERNSHIP was not learning how to do her job, but changing the firm to better meet with her approval. Any venture capital firm would have to be completely insane to hire a female control freak like this; the moment an INTERN mentioned the word "initiative" should have been enough to set off enough red flags, sirens and warning bells to justify her immediate termination. Holy water, a stake to the heart, and beheading might be wise as well, just in case.

The problem isn't actually with women per se, but with Social Justice Warriors, people who see themselves as activists imbued with the holy right to Fix What Is Wrong with every organization foolish enough to grant them entry. Every female SJW will make it an absolute priority to do "women's outreach", just as every black SJW considers "affirmative action" to be vital and gay SJWs inevitably believe that the most important issue concerns insufficient homosexuals in the organization.

Don't let these parasites into your church, association, or company. They are literally worse than useless. If a person proudly talks about championing this cause, leading that initiative, or launching any "effort" that involves buzzwords like diversity, outreach, inclusivity, or whatever, then you know their focus in the future will be attacking the organization, not doing their job.

Read More

He said, she didn't say

It's always fascinating to see how feminists oppose the entire structure of the Western legal system, namely, evidence and eyewitnesses:

Rape conviction statistics will not improve “until women stop getting drunk”, a retiring judge has said, as she is criticised by women's rights campaigners for her "potentially very harmful" remarks.

Judge Mary Jane Mowat, 66, who worked at Oxford Crown Court until earlier this month, said it was difficult to secure convictions when women could not be sure what had happened because they had drunk too much.

She said juries were faced with an impossible task when a case came down to one person's word against another.

The retired judge told an Oxford newspaper: "I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk. It is inevitable that it is one person's word against another, and the burden of proof is that you have to be sure before you convict."

Perhaps women would be slower to put themselves in positions where they can be raped with impunity if they understood that they will not be taken at their word simply because they cry rape. It's ridiculous. Can you imagine any other purported crime being investigated, much less prosecuted, on similarly vague grounds?

"Hello, police? I'd like to report my car stolen."

"All right, when was it stolen?"

"Um, I don't actually know."

"You don't know when?"

"No, I mean, I don't actually know it was stolen."

 "Oh. All right. Where did you last see it."

"At the mall. In the parking lot."

"I see. And where are you now, Miss?"

"I'm still at the mall. But I can't find it, so I thought maybe it was stolen and I called you."

"Yes, that is possible. Is it also possible you simply forgot where you parked?"

"Um, yeah, maybe. I'll keep looking for it then."

"Yes, that might be a good idea, Miss."

Read More

N and the odds of marital satisfaction

If your wife has had more than two previous partners, the odds of her being satisfied in your marriage are quite literally against you:

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages - but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found. According to  new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women (53 per cent) who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners. But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.

This underlines the importance of a low-N wife, particularly for men lower on the socio-sexual hierarchy. Each additional past partner increases the chance that your wife is an Alpha Widow who is settling for you, and who will find you measuring up unsatisfactorily to her previous partners.

It's also something women should keep in mind. The cost of premarital sex to a woman is a 21 percent reduction in the chance she will be highly satisfied in her marriage. And the cost of premarital promiscuity is a 58 percent reduction in the likelihood of marital satisfaction.

This doesn't mean a man must automatically eliminate all N=10+ women from consideration. After all, there is still a one-in-five chance she might be satisfied, but that's not a chance that any man below Beta status should risk taking.

Read More

How to talk to college girls

College Deltas and Gammas are heeding the signals and increasingly refraining from approaching women on campus:

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.

At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is. This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation....

Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner. Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women. Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).

Feminism: the gift that just keeps on giving. But at least the current environment is teaching lower-status men to speak to young women in the way higher-status men do. Talking to women as if they are slow-witted children is, without question, a display of high value. Women are seldom attracted to intelligence when nerds treat them as if they are smart, and yet many of them will drop their drawers on command when an intelligent jerk treats them as if they are mentally retarded.

Don't take my word for it. Experiment. If you're a college guy, talk to the next pretty girl you meet as if she's Stephen Hawking and you're in awe of her every word. Then talk to the next one as if she's a retarded kid who is getting on your nerves. Report in and tell us which girl gave you her number... and whether it was solicited or not.

Read More

Women are rapists too

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that on the consent standard, women appear to be just as prone to commit rape and sexual assault as men:

When Lara Stemple, a researcher at UCLA looked at the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, she was shocked to see that men experienced rape and sexual assault almost as frequently as women, and that women were often the perpetrators. Once the definition of rape was expanded to include more than just penetration, it became clear that men and women were equally likely to be raped, and more importantly, equally likely to be rapists. Researchers from the University of Missouri got the same results, finding that “43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.”

Sexual assault on college campuses and how that is handled has been all over the news lately, with even the President taking time to address the issue. But almost without exception, all the cases given as examples involve women as victims and men as perpetrators. Yet the survey and the confirmation from independent researchers indicates that men are often the victims and women the perpetrators.

The difference, of course, is that while men may regret being sexually assaulted  by a sub-par woman, they don't press charges, they just expect to be mocked by their friends. And rightly so.

Like those 43 percent of young men, I am a victim of rape by a female aggressor. Do try to keep that in mind before you attempt to criticize me for anything. It should be interesting to see how the women who elevate rape victims to secular sainthoood will twist-and-shout to distinguish female-rape from rape-rape.

Why do these female rapists need to be educated? It seems to me they need to be jailed.

Read More

Feminism reaches its logical extreme

I suppose it was only a matter of time before some young feminist fool decided that Amazonia was a policy prescription rather than an amusingly titillating legend:

 VICE: I assume The Ratio refers to your belief the male population should be reduced to between by 90 percent.

The Femitheist: I believe that conventional equality, with a 50/50 female-to-male ratio, is an inferior system. Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

Assuming people are down for that, how could you reduce the male population by that much? Are you talking culling or selective breeding over years?

Obviously men comprise a substantial portion of the victims of violent crime and participate heavily in war, so there will always be deaths there—but certainly not culling. I don't advocate selective slaughter or brutal processes.

So how would you achieve it?

Further research into designer babies will be necessary: manipulating gender or sex, prenatal sex discernment, sex-selective abortions, development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers), and numerous other mechanisms will be utilised in order to achieve these aspirations. They won’t be enforced or mandated to achieve the goal in the short-term, but merely heavily encouraged in the early stages. Unless one opposes abortion, there's little ethical reason to find that too outrageous a proposition. The maths has already been done on all of the genetic and population-sustainment-related issues: population bottleneck, inbreeding, mutations, et cetera. Everything works out in favour of my ideas. I've been meticulous and cautious. I've had the work reviewed by people who are experts—or at least extremely knowledgeable—in biology and genetics, and I've received confirmation that it all works out.

That’s in theory, what about in practice?

It'll require the re-teaching of everyone—female and male—in classrooms, homes, through literature, media, art, and networks. It is a process that would take decades, generations, and perhaps even a few centuries. Nevertheless, these are things that should be done to forge a new and vastly superior world. My mission is to devise and describe a framework for the carrying out and success of such objectives.

Considering that feminism is a dysgenic philosophy that has already led to a statistically significant decline of human intelligence, this sounds like a perfect recipe for a return to the caves. Feminism is not only insane, incoherent, and misandrist, it is avowedly misanthropic. It is literally anti-human. It must be eradicated, root-and-branch.

Don't blithely accept it when women tell you that they are feminists. You should react to a feminist the way a Jew does when he learns someone is a National Socialist, or the way a self-made capitalist entrepeneur does to a card-carrying communist, with outrage and contempt. Feminism is pure and unrestrained evil, and feminists are anti-human monsters less sympathetic than the average Nazi.

At least the Nazis were eugenic. Feminism can't even surmount that exceedingly low bar.

Read More

Criminalizing dominance

Apparently since women are such helpless flowers, it is necessary to pass laws preventing the men with whom they are having sex from making them feel bad about themselves:

HUSBANDS who keep their wives downtrodden could face prison under new plans set out by the Government today. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, published proposals for a new offence of “domestic abuse” designed to criminalise men who bully, cause psychological harm or deny money to their partners.

The law would make the worst cases of non-violent “controlling behaviour” a jailable offence. Exact terms of the offence are yet to be defined, but it could involve humiliating, frightening or intimidating a partner, keeping them away from friends or family or restricting their access to money.

If humiliating a partner or keeping them away from their friends is to be a criminal offense, I suspect considerably more women will be at risk of jail than men. Of course, we all know that despite the fig leaf of the prospective law's theoretical application to both sexes, the devil will be in the enforcement details. 

Social dominance can be interesting. The other day, I was at a party where one woman was holding a small group of men and women hostage as she moaned on and on about the various travails of her life. I was reluctant to join them, but I liked several of the people who were shooting me "kill me now" looks, so I felt it behooved me to rescue them So, I sat down, and promptly wrestled the conversational dominance away from the woman by turning each statement of hers into a question directed at a different individual.

Before long, everyone was contributing something to the conversation and the former monologuist had fallen silent. Within six minutes of my arrival, she sullenly stomped off, deprived of her audience. In most cases, direct confrontations are not required to establish dominance. It is usually sufficient to undermine whatever tactic the dominant individual is using to maintain his hold over the others. In the case of women, it usually the solipsistic technique of relating every possible subject back to themselves.:

Woman: "It's so hot today!"

Monologuist: "Oh, I know! I was just talking to my grandmother in Sante Fe, and can you believe it, it's hotter here than it is there! I was telling her, it's the middle of August and here I am wearing a sweater. I don't know if you know it, maybe you haven't seen it, it's the blue one I wear sometimes and I knitted it myself--"

Man: "So! I heard Manchester United lost this week--"

Monologuist: "Oh I LOVE soccer! You know, Jimmy, he's my youngest, he starts playing soccer in two weeks, and can you believe it, he doesn't have any shoes! So we were going to go shopping for them at the mall tomorrow, but I heard you can get better prices from the specialty stores. But I need to go to the craft shop, I'm working on a new sweater, you see..."

After three or four abortive attempts at changing the subject, most people just give up and suffer in silence. But the breathless monologuist is very attuned to how other people are submitting to her or not, and so you only have to cut her off and force a topic change three or four times before she'll give up and go in search of easier prey.

There is no need to say "Shut the fuck up, you narcissistic bitch! No one here gives even a quantum of a damn about your fucking sweaters, the present state of little Jimmy's podiatriac wardrobe, or the temperature in Santa fucking Fe!" Although sometimes it is tremendously tempting.

Read More

The lady that protests too much

This story of a nice, well-meaning guy getting repeatedly cheated on by a remorseless whore reminds me of one of my good friends. He's a tall, strong guy with a giving heart, an instinctive white knight by nature, which naturally means that he has dated some impressive trainwrecks. I'm not casting any stones here; it's been a matter of no little humor for us in the past, such as the time that there was a front page story in the paper about two strippers being arrested for a fracas at the strip club and one turned out to be a high school girlfriend of mine, the other a college girlfriend of his.

But the problem was that he kept finding himself in sub-optimal situations with these trainwrecks and I kept repeatedly having to tell him "sometimes women say things that aren't true." And he would insist that he was sure that this time that couldn't be the case, because she had looked him right in the eye, or she had told him that she loved him which really wasn't easy for her to say, or she had cried, or any number of a variety of signs that, of course, meant absolutely nothing.

We’d spend hours discussing anything and everything; though the conversations often turned to ethics, motivations, and stories of her past. Among the most commonly recurring were:

• Stories about how the grief and confusion of being raised by a pathological liar taught her to make it a point to always say what she meant, and to communicate at face value.
• Stories about an extremely manipulative ex-husband, who would do things like refuse to stop wearing the ring from his last relationship, and make her feel terrible or insane for any discomfort she expressed — though he was in fact cheating on her as he was making her feel terrible for being worried.
• The pain of spending most of her childhood alone, as well as the injustice of being ostracized from various groups and communities in her adulthood.
• Views on the ethics of infidelity. Which she maintained is inherently wrong even if the person who was cheated on never finds out, because (aside from willfully endangering their partner by way of increased STD risk) if the unfaithful party then has sex with their partner, they are doing so under false pretenses, and therefore without their partner’s consent. That is, sex with a partner who doesn’t know you’ve cheated on them is sex without consent.

There were other strong principled positions, sometimes brought up for their own sake, sometimes brought up in relevant situations, and almost always tied to her past, but they didn’t in any sense make up the bulk of our relationship.

Shit, man, what happened?

I mean, obviously she cheated on me (a lot actually), but why would someone violate their own beliefs on something as important to them as sexual consent? And what’s with all this fear of someone going public? What happened to her strong principled stance of unflinching honesty? Or of owning up to mistakes? What happened to the paragon of virtue I fell in love and set out to help fix the world with?

Well, the above conversation happens a few days after a considerably more painful one, where I discover almost none of the things I loved about her were true.

My immediate response to reading this was: shit, man, what else did you expect? Any time a woman makes a big deal about how important not doing X is to her, that is because she is doing X. For some reason, women think posturing is camouflage, and that reason is probably that so many unthinking men buy into the posturing.

What would you think if a man walked up to you and said, out of the blue: "I think molesting children is VERY, VERY bad. I think it is terrible! I think it is inherently wrong and I think child molesters should be shot! I think we need MORE laws against child molesting and we need them now!"

My first thought would be: "Well, you certainly think a lot about child molesting." And my second thought would be: "Never let this man anywhere near my children."

But for some reason, if a woman goes on and on about the evils of infidelity and how IMPORTANT it is to always tell the truth, the average man concludes that this means that she is faithful and trustworthy. No, it doesn't! It means the precise OPPOSITE! It's bait, cast out to see what sort of innocent idiot is going to bite on the bullshit.

Stay very far away from a woman who wallows in past pain. You want the sort of woman who says: "yeah, so it sucked when I saw my parents eaten by crocodiles when I was six, but hey, what are you going to do? Anyway, that's why I always wear croc-skin boots." not the one who revels in the reaction to her stories of suffering and nobly deigns to accept the consolation you offer.

Also, if you are a man and you decide a woman is untrustworthy, ditch her at once. You will NEVER regret it. Granted, it's easier if you have a few more mares in the stable than if you are LOSING YOUR ONE SHOT AT TRUE LOVE IN LIFE or whatever the hell it is that Deltas think every time they face a breakup with any girl they've had sex with more than twice, but it's still true. And once you break up with someone, MOVE ON. They're not your responsibility anymore. Ironically, you'll have a much better chance of eventually being friendly acquaintances if you cut contact and stop worrying at the wound.

Read More

The argument for patriarchy

It's also the argument against women in science fiction. It should be no surprise whatsoever that the science fiction world has devolved into award-winning dinosaur revenge fantasies, gay Asian angst, genderless pronouns, and necrobestial emoporn nominally representing the best of the genre ever since the strength of SFWA failed like Isildur before the fires of Mount Doom. (The men of what was once an association of science fiction writers did not tell Ann McCaffery she was welcome to depart when she threatened to leave the organization if fantasy writers were not permitted to join.) In fact, it is the essential argument against unrestricted female involvement in anything.

Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards. They are motivated to do so in part because they are more herd-oriented and they enjoy being around their own kind, but also because they are, on average, smaller, weaker, slower, less intelligent, less sturdy, and more self-absorbed. That's why women are constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards, which is nothing more than rhetoric used to justify lowering natural barriers to female involvement, influence, and control.

Which, in the end, eventually leads to the equivalent of a naked woman menstruating on an empty canvas and calling it art. Never forget that the ultimate aim of all female involvement in every human activity is to eventually reduce it to a group of women talking about themselves, ideally while being admired for their looks, wit, and superior sense of style by attractive heterosexual men.

Read More

Don't cut your damn hair redux

The Chateau observes that short hair on women is an affront to male desire:

The best you can say about a woman with short, cropped hair is that she looks almost as good as she does with long hair. Audrey Hepburn was a classic representative of the ingenue who looks impishly sexy with short hair. But long-haired photos of Audrey prove that she looked even better with her tresses out and about for a playful romp.

Given the near-universal preference of men for longer-haired women, it is then a mystery why women chop their hair off. Don’t women want to please men? They do, but cultural and sex ratio shifts can influence how weakly or strongly women feel the need to appease the sexual preferences of men.

The last period short hair styles were widely fashionable on women (as well as flapper dresses which concealed the female form) was the Roaring Twenties, a time of feminism, suffrage, intensified status striving, and growing wealth inequality. Sound familiar?

We can even quantify the amount to which a woman cutting her hair reduces her sexual market value. The difference between going from long hair to chin-length hair reduces a woman's SMV by 15 percent. Going even shorter probably knocks it down another 5 percent.

Just to put it in perspective, that 15-percent reduction is the equivalent of going from a D-cup to completely flat or from skinny to flabby. So, if you're a woman who has ever worn a push-up bra or worked out, keep in mind that cutting your hair off will cancel out all your other efforts to look attractive to men.

Also, as Gavin McInnes points out, short hair is rape:

Cutting your hair short seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe your boyfriend dumped you and you’re looking to reinvent yourself. Maybe you think a “pixie cut” is a cute new look. Maybe you find it empowering to have a zero-maintenance ’do and you want to be free to focus on your work without being hit on all the time. In all cases, you are saying “yes” to yourself and “no” to us. This is perfectly fine if you want to check out of society for the year or so it takes to grow your hair back, but if you’re still horsing around with us, it’s more than unattractive. It’s rape.

And rape is wrong. So don't cut your damn hair.

Read More

A tale of a white knight

It's always mildly amusing to observe brave white-knighting going south, especially when it's over something as harmless as young men exercising their right to free speech in public:

A Texas man who attempted to intervene in some routine street harassment landed in the hospital over the weekend, after a group of catcallers knocked him unconscious while he was visiting Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square.

Police report that around 2:45 a.m. on Saturday, the 39-year-old man (whose name has not been released) saw a vehicle full of men pull up next to a group of women. The men began taunting the women and making suggestive comments, at which point the victim decided to intervene, according to NBC Philadelphia:

“The male victim took offense to something that the guys were saying to the girls and said ‘hey, watch what you’re saying,’” said Philadelphia Police Captain George Fuchs. Police say one of the men inside the Nissan then got out of the car and punched the victim once in the head. The man was knocked unconscious after he fell and struck his head on the concrete.

First, it's not your business. Second, a group of women can take care of themselves better than a single middle-aged man because Equality. Third,  you have neither the responsibility nor the ability to patrol the streets ensuring that no one makes a woman feel bad. Fourth, don't threaten violence unless you actually intend to follow through on the threat. Fifth, what are you doing in a place where people behave this way? Sixth, don't take offense on behalf of someone else. And seventh, it's not your business.

Violence is serious affair not to be taken lightly. I have weapons. I know how to use them. But since I'm not willing to gut a teenager like a fish or blow his head off simply because he's inclined to say stupid things while trying to sufficiently impress a girl so that she'll open her legs to him, I'm not going to intervene unless the girl is family and I have a responsibility for her. After all, the reason most young men will promptly back down to fathers who tell them to shut their mouths is that they suspect, quite rightly, that the father is just looking for an excuse to unleash Hell on them.

But if you're not willing to kill a man over his actions, then don't confront him. It's ironic, but it seems it is often the men who are least prepared for violence who are most eager to threaten it and leap into situations where it is a distinct possibility. It is vital to understand that we no longer live in a society where either basic civility or sweet reason are paramount.

Read More

Blind Game

A college reader writes in again:

Not sure if you remember this, but you wrote a post about a year ago about ways a blind man might be able to leverage some game in specific ways.  I wasn't able to incorporate a lot of the suggestions from that post, with the exception of power-walking and facial hair.  However, I have done quite a bit of dating over the past year and I still keep up with some of the manosphere blogs.  While I have some moral differences with a lot of them (including yours), gaining a knowledge of the theory has been helpful.  I just wanted to give you some updates on what I've learned and, probably appropriately, most of it doesn't have to do with blindness.

I have learned through several experiences not to try and date longstanding female acquaintances (I would use the term "friend", but I'm kind of leery of calling woman "friends" at this point.) Especially adding the blindness as a factor, it simply doesn't work; I will often place myself right in their friendzone and it's generally impossible (and not worth it) to try to escape.  I have also found that basic game concepts-frame control, outcome independence, and mission/God priority-serve as a very solid foundation to build on.

So, here's one of the basic tactics I have employed successfully multiple times.  If I have met a girl I'm interested in, often I won't even ask for her number first.  If we are sitting in close proximity, I will do a small and explicitly physical IOI; nothing salacious, but definitely not mistakeable.  I will then say nothing about it the rest of the time I am with her.  This has proven to be very effective at gauging interest.  It is also helpful with regards to blindness, because a physical IOI is both natural to me and not out of place in my circumstances.  How it plays out from that point can vary by the woman, but I have found this particular tactic to be quite useful.

This guy doesn't let being blind stop him, or even slow him down. What's your excuse in comparison with that? The best thing he's doing is asserting responsibility for himself and refusing to accept being friendzoned.

Read More

How you know they're important

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it. Apparently the same is true for the MRAs.

The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It. Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.Some of movement's fiercest activists aren't men.

Now, I very much encourage what these women are trying to do. It's not even remotely their fault that they find themselves being given a platform denied to the men they are trying to support. Dr. Helen, in particular, is always very good about rejecting the idea that she speaks for men or that she even can speak for men. She understands that we are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves and points that out with regularity. But it is still a bit ironic, if entirely predictable (and it was, in fact, predicted), that the aspect deemed most newsworthy about the Mens' Rights movement is that there are women who support it. Real live women and everything!

It is great that Dr. Helen and other women are getting the word out there; exposing people to the ideas is far more important than establishing any cults of personality, and let's face it, some of our sites can be a bit much for the neophyte. But it is still amusing to see an article with pictures and glossy illustrations of Janey-come-latelies who have been addressing the subject since the early days of 2011.

If we were women, there would already be a Time Magazine cover with Roosh, Roissy, and me dressed in all black, arms folded, cast in dramatic lighting. Based on our respective numbers, I would estimate that a man's site requires about 20x more traffic to receive the same amount of media attention as a woman's. But it doesn't matter anyhow. Roosh is far too busy doing unspeakable things to the local women in Tanzania or wherever he is now and Roissy is even more reclusive than I am. We'd probably just send Rollo, Dalrock, and Yohami in our stead.

Read More

No one cares when you kill yourself

If you are a middle-aged white man:

More than 70 percent of all suicides in the United States are white men, most of them in their middle years, and many take their lives in the wake of some loss, whether professional, personal or physical.

There are 39,518 annual suicides in the USA. About 25,000 are middle-aged white men. That's only 14,000 fewer deaths than there are every year from female breast cancer. Meanwhile, there are 145 annual deaths from anorexia nervosa, of which about 129 are young women.

And yet we are subject to an unending barrage of media propaganda concerning the terrible societal problem of young girls feeling bad because they erroneously think they are fat. Which is rather ironic, as, based on the current obesity statistics, they are probably going to end up as fat, waddling, land whales if they don't manage to starve themselves to death first.

Thereby illustrating, again, that most people are simply not very concerned about the fate of men. I suspect people would only consider the problem of middle-aged white male suicide to be more of a priority if they had a greater propensity for taking those who drove them to it with them. Or if they didn't leave their financial resources behind.

Read More

Another victim of Marriage 2.0

Robin Williams struggled with depression and alchoholism. But it is unlikely that he would have taken his own life had Marriage 2.0 not wrought financial devastation on him:

Robin Williams faced ‘serious money troubles’ shortly before his death. He was forced to accept a string of second-rate but lucrative acting roles which insiders say made his battle with depression even tougher. The actor had admitted that he was on the verge of bankruptcy and was relying on the success of an upcoming TV series which was then ignominiously cancelled, affecting him deeply....

Last September, Williams revealed he was having to put his huge California ranch and vineyard up for sale for £22million to cover some of his debts. Although he was famously generous to both charities and his friends, the actor blamed his money woes chiefly on two divorces. He divorced his first wife – Valerie Velardi – in 1988 and ended his second marriage, to Marsha Garces, his oldest child’s former nanny, in 2008 after 19 years together.

The two divorces reportedly cost him at least £12million. In addition, he agreed to pay a mistress an estimated £4million in damages in 1986, after she sued him for infecting her with herpes. ‘Divorce is expensive. It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet,’ Williams told Parade magazine last year.

Now, Williams clearly had a problem keeping his trousers on. But before we judge him too harshly, we should keep in mind that addicts are not known for their sexual continence, and, as Bill Burr points out, we don't know what it is like to be a famous actor targeted by a legion of whores. What we can reasonably observe, however, is that multiple divorces have financially ruined a number of intelligent, wealthy men, including Williams and John Cleese.

The conclusion? If you get divorced, do NOT marry a second time. Especially if you are a comedian.

Read More

The other side

As some readers correctly surmised, Eliza's narrative was not entirely accurate. The gentleman involved shares his perspective:

I'm the guy from the story. For what it's worth, I read through both the post and the extensive comments section. I was absolutely shocked to find this post, since Eliza never mentioned to me that she intended to make this story public.... I'm not a Red Pill person myself, and if we're being totally honest, I found many of the comments to be somewhat misogynistic. But it also seems like some of the people posting had some misconceptions about me and how I acted — and after reading Eliza's piece, I can hardly blame them!

First off, I have no idea where she got the "temper tantrum" term from. It's a fairly gross misrepresentation of what I thought was reasonably dignified behavior. I felt she was sending me mixed signals by inviting me over for one-on-one drinking, and as soon as she said no definitively, I simply got up, put on my shoes, and left. I explained to her in a clear, calm voice that I felt misled, and simply meeting up to build a platonic friendship wasn't my intention. I even shook her hand to make sure there would be no bad blood.

As soon as I left, I started getting a string of angry, invective-laden texts from her, calling me "manipulative" and a few other choice words that aren't fit for print. I'm not sure what I did to earn this treatment, but I kept an even keel and kindly asked her to desist. She did — after about a day. We've since buried the hatchet (as long as we're crystal clear on where our relationship stands, I don't mind being platonic friends), but make no mistake: This was very aggressive behavior on her part, and I did my level best to keep my cool throughout. I believe I succeeded.

Furthermore, I have no idea where she got this idea of "entitlement" from, especially coming from me. I didn't believe she owed me any kind of physical contact, but obviously I was hoping to get it. I believe I made appropriate overtures, engaging her on a friendly level at first, then escalating the situation to something that could turn more intimate.

If you want to call this approach "beta" or "gamma" or what-have-you, fair enough, but this is generally how I go about attracting women, and it works well most of the time. If women are interested, great! We'll make out, or have sex, or whatever's most appropriate. If not, fine! They're not under any legal obligation to be interested in me. I'll bow out gracefully and see who comes my way next.

Translation: this guy is a High Delta, on the low-key side, doesn't like to work too hard for a woman, and is probably more attractive than the average man. He lacks socio-sexual dominance, which is why he tends to underkick his coverage, and he obviously has little Game. Which is fine for him, because he does well enough that he can take it or leave it, as it happens to come or not. He's more concerned about behaving in a gentlemanly and "dignified" fashion than he is with scoring; he only wants to score on the terms he deems appropriate and acceptable.

Eliza on the other hand, is obviously a narcissistic drama queen who is attracted to socio-sexual dominance. That's why she sent me something like five or six emails the first day and expressed her desire to "understand" the mind of a complete stranger on the Internet.  She's neither the first nor the 20th woman who has attempted to strike up a private dialogue with me this way. She's also more attractive than the norm and is accustomed to having orbiters at her beck and call. When this gentleman didn't correctly read her intentionally mixed signals, (whether she'll admit it or not, she wanted him to at least try to push through her token resistance), she was angered, first by his contemptible failure to pursue her aggressively, second by his refusal to gracefully accept his demotion to orbital status.

The handshake, in particular, is what triggered the fury. Having failed as a dominant sex partner, (demonstrating his own inferiority) he then rejected her kind offer to permit him to orbit her in a manner that, to a woman, indicated sexual contempt. He would have done much better to simply leave without explaining himself, as had he done so, she would have been upset and intrigued rather than angry and resentful. The "temper tantrum" to which Eliza referred was pure psychological projection.

Had he been a Gamma, the claims of a tantrum would have been credible. A Delta like this, not so much. I have no dog in this hunt, nor do I know who is telling the truth, but the she-said he-said is interesting for how it illustrates many of the theoretical concepts we have discussed in action.

As for the differences in the two narratives, a woman's story is rather like the government and conspiracy theories. You may not know what truly happened, but the one thing you know for sure is that it didn't go exactly the way you were told.

Read More

Saving civilization is not "manning up"

Unlike many in the Game community, I don't have much regard for the self-styled MGTOW sorts. I tend to view them as being predominantly weak and damaged individuals of low socio-sexual rank who would probably sacrifice their oft-expressed principles in a minute if the right woman presents herself in the right way.

Here is why: a man who is genuinely doing his own thing doesn't make a big deal about it. If I'm not going to read a book, I just don't read it. I don't loudly proclaim to all and sundry the fact of my not-reading it. I don't know any man who makes a habit of announcing that today, again, he is going to refrain from having sex or engaging in romantic relationships with chickens, or indeed, poultry of any kind. The very act of the self-identification as a Man Not-Reading a Book or a Man Not Having Sex with Chickens is an indication that everything is not in psychological good order.

Now, I have a lot of respect for men who take vows of celibacy for religious or intellectual reasons. I don't think it's an accident that some of Man's greatest geniuses, men like Isaac Newton and Nicholas Copernicus, never married, although I think it is a genuine tragedy that, in the case of Newton, their genes were lost to the race.

But the vibe I get from most self-styled MGTOW is that their professed choice is an emotional reaction, not a proactive decision. This observation is supported by the reaction some have had to the statement of the completely obvious that if civilized men do not manage to reproduce and instill civilized values in their sons, civilization will not survive. To somehow summarize that as a call to "man up and marry those sluts" is to miss the point so profoundly that I don't even know where to begin pointing out the errors.

I can't fault a man who is so psychologically damaged by his experience with the opposite sex that he has been rendered capable of nothing more than retreating into a cave and licking his wounds for the rest of his life. But it is not behavior that merits respect from other men, nor is it of any use to anyone who values the finer aspects of Western civilization and wishes to avoid a collapse into mud hut barbarism.

As for those who claim I am somehow attempting to shame such men, what would be the point of that? It's a factual observation, nothing more. If a man is so delicate as to remove himself from the world due to the bad behavior of a woman or three, he's not likely to be of any use in the upcoming battle for the West.

There is always a risk in doing anything worthwhile and sometimes the odds are stacked against you. That is the way things are; it is the way things have always been. The hero is the man who runs toward the sound of gunfire, not the man who runs away from it.

Read More

No, your mere company isn't enough

Yesterday, Eliza expressed some distinct surprise at the idea that men might not be interested in her company outside of sex. I suspect this is a not uncommon view among women, who fail to understand how very little interest the average man has in the company of women outside of the potential sexual aspects of the interaction.

Let me see if I can put it in terms women might understand. Do you know how little interest boys have in girls before they hit puberty? That is about how much non-sexual interest most men have in women. Not because women have cooties, not because men are misogynistic, but because men have absolutely no interest in the subjects that fascinate most women and tend to find the female forms of conversation circuitous and tedious.

Consider how much interest you would have in listening to me, or any man, discussing a 500-page rulebook that delves into great detail concerning the armor and light machine gun armaments of WWII-era Polish tanks. Or analyzing the ideal killing zones in the Call of Duty airport map. Or defending the case that Fran Tarkenton, and not Ken Stabler, was the best quarterback in the league in 1976.

(Don't pretend any of these things actually interest you. It may surprise you, but men see through your attempts to stake out a claim to be "gamer girl" or a "real NFL fan" or a "serious muscle car buff", most simply pretend otherwise out of either an acknowledgement for the gesture you're making or sexual interest. As it is said by a certain pop band, "boys will laugh at girls when they're not funny". Guess why?)

For most men, spending time in the company of women means sitting there in silence, with a tight, polite smile on your face, occasionally exchanging "kill me now" glances with the other men in the vicinity. Don't take my word for it, test it out for yourself. The next time you're in mixed company, try to count the rough amount of time that the women spend talking versus the amount that the men talk. In most cases, the ratio is 80-20, and not infrequently, higher.

This isn't always the case, of course, I am familiar with a few exceptions myself, but it is the general rule I have observed over the course of three decades. For some reason, it has been deemed the social norm for women to dominate the mixed discourse with the topics of interest to them, but rude for men to speak about their interests in mixed company. And yet, observe a group of men and you will see that they are perfectly capable of engaging in lively, dynamic conversations... just not about subjects of zero interest to them.

It's not a question of intellect or education either. In my experience, highly educated women are the worst, as they tend to have less interest in discussing any specific issue per se than proving to everyone that they are at least familiar with even the most esoteric subjects. If you find yourself in conversation with a highly educated woman, entertain yourself by making up something ridiculous, like the Nemean Dialogues of Socrates, the Decepticon of Ovid, or Lord Byron's epic poem, The Walrus and the Butterfly. More often than not, a highly educated woman will not only claim to be familiar with these nonexistent works, but will actually claim to have read them in college for one class or another.

(NB: Some men will do it too, usually Alphas or Gammas. The hardest part will be keeping a straight face, especially if you ask them to clarify a point or two for you that you've found difficult to understand. What did Byron really signify by the Walrus? I mean, the reference to England's sea power is obvious, but since the Butterfly represents the female spirit, what is the deeper meaning?)

Anyhow, the point is that outside of sex, women aren't very interested in men and their interests and men have even less interest in women and theirs. It is a simple and straightforward observation, there is nothing wrong with this perfectly normal state of affairs, and the better you understand it, the more easily you will get along with the opposite sex.

Read More

Romance isn't friendly

Here is the other part of Eliza's missive that I intended to address:

I was friendly, just friendly, with a guy once, at a bar that I go to frequently and at which I have lots of friends (male and female). He friended me on Facebook. We started talking, and we had a lot of the same interests. He was pretty cool, although I wasn't interested in dating him. He asked me to hang out, and I said sure. He then mentioned something about a "date," and I gently but explicitly clarified that I was not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment, but I would be more than happy to hang out as friends. In the same conversation, we decided to just split a bottle of wine at my apartment and chat.

He came over. We were having fun. We were talking about all of our mutual interests. And then he brought up the idea of dating me again.

"I am not trying to be cruel here," I said, "but I want to be clear, to manage expectations. I am not interested in dating you, and that's not going to change."

He threw a temper tantrum.

"I swore off women a few weeks ago," he said, "but I made an exception for you."

Basically, "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you?" Even though I had made it very clear that I was not interested, he had assumed that I still was. He did the right thing, I guess. He didn't give up when I turned him down. But it was pretty revolting, rather than attractive. It was basically the "friendzone" idea - that if a man is interested in a woman, and he is nice to her, and he does all the "right" things, he is entitled to her dating him. If she's not interested, it's because she's a bitch, or friendzoning him, and it's entirely unfair. It's not because, well, she's just not interested. And that's her right. Just because a man "does the right things" doesn't mean he "gets" the girl, like in a video game where if you play it right, you win.

 It's actually not a question of "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you", but rather, "how dare you spend time with me while not being interested in me." If someone is interested in you romantically, and you permit them to go out and spend time with you despite your lack of romantic interest in them, you are being selfish and cruel. That is true of both men and women.

It doesn't matter if you "clarify that you are not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment"; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that "not interested at the moment" is often going to be taken as "maybe in the future", especially by nice guys who have been told their entire lives that if they only hang in there and be themselves, eventually they will be rewarded with True Love from a Good Woman.

That was the cause of the temper tantrum. He had done everything right. And yet, he didn't get the girl.

Eliza is trying to spin this as male entitlement, when really it is nothing but the selfish entitlement of the desired. If you're not interested in dating someone, THEN DON'T GO OUT WITH THEM. Not as friends. Not as anything. Stay home and be lonely, because otherwise what you're doing is using them for companionship, which is every bit as cruel as using someone for sex. Probably crueler, actually, because at least if you're being used for sex, there is a good chance you'll get off on occasion. Of course she would be "more than happy to hang out as friends", because she was more than happy to use him without giving anything he wanted in return.

The friendzone is inherently unfair. It's the desired female counterpart of the male sex stable, in which the desired male keeps the various living sex toys he periodically summons to polish the royal penis in one form or another. As with female emo porn vs male visual porn, society is presently operating under the mistaken impression that women using men for companionship is somehow better than men using women for sex.

It isn't. Using people is wrong, whether one is honest about it or not. Sex slavery and theft don't magically become acceptable simply because the individual committing it is willing to admit that he's guilty of it.

Read More

Dependence and the male response

Many women struggle with the concept of submission. They assume that men think like they do, that men respect and are drawn to shows of strength and independence and look down on displays of weakness, fragility, and dependence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The other day I was out walking with two little girls and two very large dogs that outweighed them by a considerable amount. One of the dogs belonged to one little girl, who was naturally not in the least bit afraid of either of the brutes. The other little girl, her friend, was somewhat afraid of dogs in general, so she was naturally a bit nervous to be in the vicinity of two such oversized specimens.

I didn't really know her, nor am I the sort of man who particularly likes children that are not his own. However, when the dogs began playing with each other, barking, and charging back and forth, I felt a little hand slip into mine.

What I found interesting was that I immediately felt an instinctive sense of responsibility for her that I had not felt the moment before. Not that I would have ever permitted the dogs to harm her; the reason I was present on the walk in the first place was to ensure that the beasts didn't get out of hand in case we ran into anyone else. But her gesture was a request that said: "I'm scared, please protect me", to which the normal male response is to feel more affectionate and sympathetic towards the individual for whom he has accepted the responsibility of protecting.

This is why young couples often like to see horror movies together. It is an emotionally bonding experience, as the girl seeks the feeling of being protected and the boy has the opportunity to assume, however hypothetically, the role of her protector.

Because women don't think like men, they don't understand that being challenging is intrinsically unattractive to men. It provokes the man's fight (or flight) response rather than his protective response, but since in most cases the man actually doesn't want to fight, it leaves him feeling frustrated and conflicted. Being submissive, on the other hand, provokes a protective response, and the subsequent affection.

So, if you are a woman, consider what sort of response you wish to provoke in a man. Do you wish him to feel more affectionate to you or less? Because that is exactly the choice you are making when you decide to behave in a submissive manner or not, regardless of your intent.

Read More

A woman inquires about Game

EH sent a long email with a series of questions. Here are some of them:

It seems like being Alpha is different from Pick Up Artist culture. PUA, from what I understand, is about getting laid every night of the week. But it seems like Alpha Game is more of an entire lifestyle. How to attain the life you want. How to manage relationships with women, both long- and short-term. What women actually want and how to be that. But also, how to interact with men. I found your blog through your exchange with Dave Futrelle, after clicking through a few links on the "Confused Cats Against Feminism" tumblr. And it seems like you classify even that interaction with a man as an Alpha-Gamma interaction.

Am I right that it's much more of a lifestyle thing? If so, what are the characteristics of being an Alpha? Or can you point me to a few  illuminating articles? I read the 16 Commandments of Poon. Can you give me a quick, couple-paragraph summary of the overall AG philosophy?

I think that a large part of it is that it's about not being/appearing weak. What exactly is weakness? Is kindness weakness? Is gentleness weakness? Or is it more that reticence and insecurity in your decisions and beliefs are weaknesses?

The interaction between Mr. Futrelle and I would be more precisely characterized as a Sigma-Gamma interaction, but close enough. PUA culture is merely one aspect of Game. Alpha Game is a broad spectrum series of observations, reflections, and random ideas concerning intersexual relations and how they impact society. Game is not a lifestyle thing, it is a philosophical heuristic.

The core philosophy of AG is that a man can learn successful patterns of behavior and improve his position in the socio-sexual hierarchy by observing and imitating the patterns of behavior exhibited by socially successful individuals.

Male success is heavily dependent upon not being or appearing weak. Weakness is the lack of strength, be it physical, mental, or moral. Kindness is not weakness, but it is often perceived as weakness by women. Gentleness is not weakness, but it is often perceives as weakness by women. Reticence may or may not be weakness. Insecurity is a weakness.

The gap between reality and the female perception of reality is one of the chief intersexual challenges with which every man must deal. It may seem unfair that the kind, gentle man cannot initially show his true nature to women he wishes to be attracted to his because they will have a strong tendency to reject him as weak, but the rules of attraction are what they are.

Read More

The importance of policy

At esr's place, Deep Lurker explains, by way of analogy, why going to SF conventions with "harassment policies" is not a good idea for men by way of analogy:

Hypothetical SF cons with “no prostitution” policies that not only are very strict, but that also put all the onus on the women and give all the benefit of the doubt to the men. Where an accusation, from a male attending the con, of “she propositioned me!” would be enough to get con security on the woman’s case, would probably get her kicked out of the con, would possibly get her arrested by local law-enforcement, and might well get her slut-shamed on social media and/or fired from her job. Because any male accusation has to be taken seriously and given the benefit of the doubt, and any denial by the woman considered a lie unless there was proof otherwise. (Because, after all, all women are natural whores, and if a woman hasn’t acted as a whore yet there’s still good reason to believe that she might suddenly start acting like one at any time in the future.)

And for extra rudeness, consider that, at such cons, the men can get away with propositioning women under this system, with a woman’s complaints either not being believed, or worse being dismissed with a “lucky you!” or words to that effect.

Under such conditions, would you then be so blithe about telling a woman that she should be brave and attend such SF cons anyway? That she is being excessively timid for declining to do so? That she is not a real woman but a mouse who deserves to die as a reclusive spinster?

I don't go to cons anyhow, having been distinctly underwhelmed by my single experience with one about 20 years ago. But at this point, it's difficult to understand why any man, however nerdrageous, would take the risk.

Read More

Defending the West

Heartiste brought this important video to our attention. It shows why MGTOW is not an option. This is why it is necessary for men to learn Game, to reproduce, and to build strong families. Civilization literally depends upon it. If you want to live a hedonist's irrelevant life for fear of a woman claiming cash and prizes, no one is going to stop you. But Man is made for more than momentary pleasure. If all you seek is pleasure, then smoke crack and crystal meth until you die. If you seek more than that, if you seek to help shore up and sustain civilization, then you have to take the risks that are inherent in doing anything worthwhile.

Marriage 2.0 is part of the plan to destroy Western civilization; it is part and parcel of the program that includes multiculturalism and mass immigration intended to do to the Native Europeans in Europe and America what was done to the Native Americans three centuries ago.

As it happens, I am both Native American and Native European. And I certainly don't wish to see the latter suffer the fate of the former, particularly since the well-being of the entire world depends upon the survival and well-being of the Native Europeans. Never forget that the future belongs to those who show up for it.

Read More

How not to write a rebuttal

The ironically named site Beyond Highbrow savages the Chateau with all the fury of a toothless lamb:

Roissy’s site is truly horrifying, and the man is a monster. He’s the biggest asshole in the known universe. Most of his commenters are orbiting him hoping to bask in the narcissistic glow he gives off. They are also trying to be an even bigger asshole than Roissy, and that’s probably not even possible. I mean not physically possible. I mean there is probably a law of physics that prevents any man from being a bigger dick than Roissy.

Knowing Roissy, he'll probably print that out, laminate it, and use it to successfully pick up two Ukrainian blondes this weekend. That being said, I have to admit it is nice to always be able to point to the two R's as proof that I am but a humble moderate in the controversial field of intersexual relations.

And as further evidence that the many would-be critics of Game remain irrelevant due to either a) their cognitive inability to comprehend it or b) their willful insistence on miscategorizing it, there is this logical debacle:

Look. This is the way it goes. Probably in any unglued society, the Alphas cannot possibly make up more than 15-20% of the males.

Let us suppose you had a society full of Roissy addicts who had all somehow managed to reach the pinnacle of Alphaness. It would not make sense. Because no society can be all Alpha Male (at least I do not think so). In Arab and Middle Eastern, Russian, Iberian, Latin American and Filipino society, sure, you have a huge % of men playing the “Alpha” game. They look and act like Alphas (especially in Arab and Middle Eastern culture).

But even here, the same 80-20 rule must apply. Suppose a hot woman, instead of being approached by one high-value (Alpha) man a day, is now being approached by five or six high-value Alpha men a day? What’s she going to do? Bang all the studs and whore it up? You kidding? The 80-20 rule, hard and fast, will continue to apply.

In a society where all of the men act like Alpha Males, females will simply pick off the top ~20%, the most Alpha of the Alphas and most Sigma of the Sigmas, relegate the rest of the regular Alphas to Beta, Delta or Gamma and toss the least Alpha of the Alphas (who are nevertheless very much Alpha men) to the Omega bin.

This hypothetical situation is impossible. Not implausible, but impossible. Since Alpha is defined as a certain level of success with women, a society of men where all men all reach the Alpha pinnacle is, by definition, a society where all men are successful with women.

Furthermore, since women find Alpha behavior attractive, even if we address his less extreme hypothesis that 100 percent of men merely mimic Alpha appearance and behavior successfully, this does not mean the 80-20 rule will survive. The 80-20 rule is not a law of physics; it's not even a law of economics. It is merely an observational rule of thumb.

Consider: if every man turned into Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Joe Mangienello, women would not ignore 80 percent of them. Robert is completely ignoring the rules of attraction and getting the application of the 80-20 rule exactly backwards. The point is that women will reliably choose nothing, or sharing an attractive man, over settling for an unattractive one. This does not mean they will ignore attractive men simply because there happen to be a lot of them.

I am not saying that Game is beyond criticism. Of course it isn't. But it is a little tedious to see that its critics remain so resolutely incompetent. I mean, what does it say for a critic when he has observably failed to understand that which he labels "stupid".

And speaking of critics calling things stupid, I was recently amused to observe that what a Whatever reader once described as my "stupid little Game site" had more pageviews last month than Whatever has been averaging for the last eight months.

Read More

You have the right to be a slut

And we have the right to call you one. I find the futile attempt of women, presumably of varying degrees of ill-repute, to decry "slut-shaming" to be more than a little amusing:

It’s 2014, so Andi has the right—like any other Bachelor or Bachelorette or human being—to have sex for a myriad of reasons besides love. Plus, the show is also constructed to make her develop feelings for more than one man at a time, so it shouldn’t be shocking that she kisses or sleeps with or does whatever with multiple men.

Sure she does. And since everyone else possesses the freedom of speech, anyone who thinks she is exercising that right without sufficient discrimination has the right to call her a slut for doing so.

Women can cry about double-standards all they like. It won't do any good due to the fact that the double-standard arises from their divergent own rules of attraction. Women favor men with sexual experience. Men disfavor women with sexual experience. It's not rocket science.

Want to get rid of the double-standard? Fine, then stop having casual sex with men who aren't virgins. Going to go with that strategy? No, I didn't think so.

Read More

Back to the basics

I was at a public event yesterday, not a massive one, but about 300 people in a self-contained space. It was mostly families, so there were a fair number of people who were not paired up from the ages of 15 to 30.

There were several attractive girls and young women there who appeared to be unattached. There were also a number of good-looking young men. What I found interesting is that at no point did I see any of the young men attempt to talk to any of young women. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; I wasn't paying much attention to any of them. But I saw no signs of any young men even attempting to speak to anyone outside of their own little groups, which normally one would expect to have occasionally observed over the course of several hours.

This is the very first principle of Game a man has to accept: be proactive, not reactive. If you see an attractive girl, don't wait for "the right moment", but go and talk to her. Start with "hello". This is not necessarily with an eye to getting her number or finding out if she is taken, but simply to get oneself into the habit of speaking to attractive women as a matter of course. It's really not that hard.

If you're a single man, set a goal of approaching and speaking to seven female strangers this week. That's just one per day. Nothing fancy, no pressure, just going up and speaking to them, even if it's only to ask them the time. The objective is for it to become so natural that you will no longer suffer approach anxiety when you come across a woman in whom you are actually interested.

Read More

Nothing angers a slave-owner more

Than the sight of an escaped slave become a free and independent man:

Besides the warm, pumpkin-candle scented aisles of the Hobby Lobby, there’s another new club for self-effacing female enablers of angry white men. Women Against Feminism had, last time I checked, 16,013 followers on Facebook. Its tumblr is constructed of selfies of young women, dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services, holding up bits of notebook paper on which they’ve scrawled screeds against feminism.

Here are just a few quotes from a compendium of such blinding idiocy and prejudice that it defies description.

Black nail-polished hands hold a notebook over a half-shirt exposing a bellybutton: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t think it’s necessary to belittle and dispose of an entire gender in the name of equality.”

A note is propped against the protuberant cleavage enhanced by a pushup bra under a tank top. “If I’m wearing a top like this I want you to look.”

A woman with two or three lip piercings: “I don’t need feminism because blaming men for your OWN insecurities and mistakes is WRONG & ABSURD.”

These women are slandering the movement that enabled their freedom. They live in a world in which they and their mothers can vote, decide whether or not to work, who and when to marry, and whether and when to have children. That was not the case for women within living memory. They have feminists to thank for that, not Rush Limbaugh’s ideological forebears.

And yet, when male critics point out that feminists are to blame for all the negative fruits of women voting, working, and failing to produce the next generation, we're told that it is the fault of the men who gave in to the dictatorship of the petticoat.

Aging feminists are angry that women are wisely beginning to turn away from an insane and incoherent ideology that is societal and civilizational suicide. And that anger is a positive sign that the equalitarian wave is finally beginning to recede.

Read More