"Rape harder"

Black knights are taking the fight to the rape fantasists on campus:

College men accused of date rape are fighting back with ethically dubious techniques including hacking, outing their attackers, and videotaping their sexual encounters, in addition to bringing an increasing number of successful law suits to vindicate themselves, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Last week, at the University of Chicago, individuals allegedly trying to keep “the Hyde Park community safe from people who publicly accuse other people of committing varying levels of gender-based violence without any proof whatsoever…” hacked into a website of the school’s student organization and posted the name and photo of an alleged rape survivor as well as this threat: “Hopefully the class of 2018 is paying attention because otherwise the UChicago Electronic Army is going to have to rape harder.”

....As colleges are pressured to be more aggressive in finding students guilty of date rape, it appears that a few male students are beginning to follow the advice on various web sites to surreptitiously videotape their sexual encounters to be able to prove afterwards, if necessary, that the act was consensual.

For example, four students at Hofstra University were accused of gang raping a fellow student, but were freed when a cell phone video indicated that the sexual encounter was consensual.

Likewise, a San Francisco lawyer, charged with raping three women, had the charges regarding two women dismissed because he had videotaped those encounters, and another man was found not guilty of an alleged gang rape after a Cook County, Illinois, jury was shown a videotape arguably showing some signs of consent as pointed out by an expert witness.

If you're a male college student, then you'd damned well better be sure that you've got everything on video, because these days that's the only way you're going to be able to prove that you weren't raping her, otherwise they will absolutely kick you out of school and quite possibly try to see you charged in criminal court on nothing more than her word.

Most college women lie about rape because they are are encouraged to do so. Almost all the sob stories you will hear from them are nothing but attention-seeking fiction. And there is nothing "ethically dubious" about self-defense.

Read More

Be yourself

A light bulb goes off for a commenter at Rollo's place:

I think I get it!

For years I have been bitter about this need to “perform” about how this shows that women do not love us as we love etc.. And just now I was reviewing my old relationships and I recalled something.

In each of my relationships, prior to meeting the women I eventually fell in love with, I was constantly working on myself, I would get in shape, hang out with friends, explore my environment and work on myself and my music etc. As soon as I would “fall in love” I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and “being what she wanted” what I thought she wanted, better said.

But here is my Eureka moment, what I recalled each time was being unhappy, what I recall each time was feeling boxed in and kind of dull.. of feeling trapped.

Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?

So I think I finally understand it for myself… the talk of putting yourself first, of “performing” etc is really just a way of saying “you don’t have to do what people say you’re supposed to do in a relationship – you don’t have to drop everything for her, you don’t have to stop doing what you like and love and you don’t have to kiss her ass”

Be the man that attracted her in the first place, not the mythical man you think she might be idealizing. Every time I get away from who I am and what I do, not only do I end up feeling out of sorts and discontented, but usually things don't go as smoothly in my family life.

A marital relationship with a woman should be a capstone on your self-determined identity forged over the years, not a complete transformation of your being. The more you attempt to turn yourself into some sort of nebulous Husband or Father figure, the less you will be yourself. And you are precisely what she was drawn to in the first place! So focus on being that guy, not some figment of your interpretation of her imagination.

"Be yourself" is terrible advice for men who are failing to attract women. But it is very good advice for men who have proven themselves to be attractive to women.

Read More

A history of women and videogames

Actually, this history could easily have started sometime between 1977 and 1982 instead of 1995. I can remember some girls playing Pong when it first came out. But I can't recall a single girl ever playing an Atari 2600 game, not at the stores and not in anyone's house, much less Intellivision. To be honest, I don't recall there being any association between "loser" and "videogame" until 1983. For the most part, girls really weren't even aware that they existed until then.

Read More

Science restates the obvious

It's fascinating to see how many people refuse to believe the evidence of their eyes until a scientific study gives them permission:

Straight men of all ages tend to have their romantic sights set on women in their mid-twenties, while women prefer men who are about the same age as they are, according to a new study.

The survey out Friday, financed by the government-backed research funding group Academy of Finland, gathered data on 12,000 Finns and found that women, on average, are looking for partners who are about their age or slightly older. But men across the age spectrum have a sexual preference for women in their mid-20s. This remains true for men of all ages—men in their early-20s or younger are attracted to women older than themselves and older men are attracted to younger women.

The findings are similar to data culled from the dating website OKCupid, which found that male users of the site of all ages, by far, are looking for women in their early-20s.

This is news? It's simply hypergamy vs the sexual imperative. Never forget, it is MEN that are the romantic sex; WOMEN are the pragmatic one.

As ever, insistence on equalitarianism forces divergence from reality AND science.

Read More

Gamma Delusion: the play

A demonstration of Gamma male delusion in five acts:

ACT I

    GUY: I WILL NOT DATE YOU IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST Woman: Great! Thank you. GUY: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO REACT THAT WAY Woman: Oh, but I AM.

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT II

    GUY: OH HEY THERE BABY YOU LOOK LIKE YOU COULD USE COMPA- Woman: I'm a feminist. GUY: NOOOO THE BURNING MAKE IT STOP (flees) (Woman smiles)

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT III

    GUY: HEY THERE BAB- Woman: Feminist. GUY: LIKE A REAL FEMINIST OR ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO GET RID OF ME Women: Why not both?

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT IV

    GUY: HI THER- Women: Feminist. GUY: THIS WHOLE BAR CAN'T BE FULL OF FEMINISTS (Every women in bar nods) GUY: HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT V

    GUY: I STRUCK OUT AT THE BAR BUT I HAVE THIS LOTION AND MY HAND Guy's Hand: Feminist. GUY: OH COME ON Lotion: Me too. GUY: NOOOOOOOO

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

Gamma males have to believe that most women are feminists because their primary strategy for winning female favor is self-abasement and supplication. This can work if your object is for women to say nice things about you, but it's considerably less effective in causing women to be attracted to you.

As many readers know, I'm married to a highly attractive woman. And I've always dated women at the upper end of the spectrum "despite" the fact that I have always been notoriously anti-feminist; a woman once wrote an actual column in our university newspaper decrying me and my two housemates as "sexist pornographers" and a poem I wrote that was published in the university Poetry annual caused half the staff to resign afterwards.

Its last line was, "Why, then, does she let me fuck her?" It was a paean to female inconsistency and the women who publicly indicate that they want nothing to do with you, but nevertheless show up for sex in the small hours of the morning.

It's just that inconsistency that causes the Gamma to inflate his delusion bubble. He takes women at their word, which of course is why he reliably fails with them. He doesn't realize that there are few things hotter to a feminist than a contemptuous man of high socio-sexual rank who sneers at her false pretensions to equality. In short, the Gamma is a man who fails every shit test he encounters because he doesn't understand the nature of the test or female attraction triggers.

As for the Gamma fantasy of all women being feminists, well, it's just that, a fantasy. Because all women are not ugly man-haters bitter about their lack of sexual desirability or manipulative idiots playing victim.

Read More

Alpha Mail: too slow, sport

A reader hasn't learned the Window of Opportunity concept yet:

I got burned by a chick today. Met her a week ago at a well known clothing store.  I had to buy an article of clothing as the one I had was starting to fall apart.  She suggested some articles, we found one that worked.  Then she asked, "Is there anything else your little heart desires?"  She asked the same thing two days later after helping me.  She asked what I was doing afterwards and I told her nothing (I was a bit slow on the uptake).  I asked her and she said she was going to watch some shows on Netflix. 

Fast forward to two days later I go back for another sale they're having and to ask her out.  She formally introduces herself.  I never tell her my name (though she could look it up due to me being a preferred customer).  We joke for a bit and I ask her what her plans are.  She's hanging out with friends afterwards (not going to get into specifics but it was a closed get together).  Should've asked her for a future date out but didn't. 

The following day I go into get some shoes.  Someone else helped me out BUT she made a point to come over and talk to me.  We weren't alone long enough for me to ask her out.

I get a call today, the shoes are in.  I go over there and although someone else greets me at the store, she, basically, jumps in and  asks what I need.  We shoot the breeze again and I ask her out for a beer.  It turns out she has a boyfriend and she doesn't think he'd look too highly on that.  I made a comment to the effect of, "Well, that's a shame."  As I'm leaving, she smiles and says, "Goodbye!" followed by my name. 

Now, I've asked several friends, including two of whom are women, their take on the situation.  One called this chick out for flirting with me even though she has a boyfriend.  The other, disappointingly (as I believed she would've called her out too) said I could've found out she was taken a week ago and then hastily added, "but I'm sorry."

Per the hierarchy, I think I'm a low beta or high delta.  I can tell you that sixteen months ago I wouldn't have ever thought of asking someone out like her or even have known how to joke around.  I credit you, Tomassi, Dalrock, and DG for that.  So thanks one and all.  Also, I'm in my late 20's.  Are there any real generational gaps I should be aware of vis-a-vis women?  What are your and the readers' thoughts on her?  Additionally, did I move too slowly?

First, let's get things straight. You're a delta. Your behavior was about as conventionally delta as it is possible to be. A woman sent you clear signals of interest, with a mild spice of challenging contempt, and you failed the test about as flawlessly as possible. The clear sign of the delta: waiting for permission and encouragement to approach.

Second, she is a flirt and she's seeking dominant men. Her repetitive use of the phrase "little heart" is intentionally belittling. Any time a woman uses a term like that and the first phrase out of your mouth doesn't involve "massive tool" or "giant penis", you've lost. The correct Alpha response would be something on the order of "my little heart is good but my giant penis thinks we should go for drinks when you get off". Never let a woman saddle you with a deprecating term without reframing. It's very simple: whatever term they use, apply the opposite.

Of course, men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status can play the opposite game. I was once in the gym doing shoulder press with two 80-pound dumbbells, thereby inspiring a gym bunny to call out: "Geez, what are you compensating for?" I didn't interrupt the set, but immediately called back "very small penis!" which cracked her and everyone else up.

Third, you're missing the point. She may or may not have a boyfriend, (although if she is pretty she has a few orbiters on the string at the very least), but she was potentially looking to trade up. Hypergamy dictates that girls with boyfriends are often going to flirt with men they think might be a better deal. If you can't deal with that, then go find a woman who is 1 or 2 points below you in attractiveness and content yourself with her being loyal, faithful, and true. Any girlfriend who perceives herself as being at or above your level is going to occasionally flirt with the idea of trading you in. That's not because she's an unfaithful slut unworthy of your protection and manly chivalry, it's because she is a woman and that is what women do.

Fourth, in case it isn't clear by now, yes, you moved far too slowly. Stop looking for "the right moment". The right moment is always NOW. Women have windows of opportunity, and the more attractive she is, the faster that window closes. She might have gone out with you the first time or two. Once you showed that you're just a lowly delta in need of encouragement in order to find the courage to approach, she lost whatever interest she had.

Read More

Alpha Mail: the BETA shield

A reader observes white knights actively defending women from the consequences of their own actions:

A woman-writer posts about getting creeps asking for one-on-one sessions. She jokes that they can have one... for a million dollars, ha ha! So I don't know this person, but I gently point out that this is not the best idea. She's basically admitting she's a prostitute and inviting these same "creeps" to talk her down on the price. This is actually a relatively well known parable that she's put herself into....

Well the reaction is all too typical. Her beta orbiters swoop in to protect her from the insinuation that she need ever have any sense. They have to one up each other showing how cultured, refined, and right-thinking they are with regards to feminism, humanism, and chauvinism. I can't imagine what it must be like... going through life having a veritable team of full time cheerleaders that would do everything in their power to protect you from ever having to think, to reason, or develop a moral compass. But that's what this is....

It is of course even worse in the church. R. C Sproul is a pretty good guy for the most part, but in his survey of the Old Testament a falls apart when he gets to Job. When Job's wife says, "curse God and die," it wasn't such a bad thing, really, and (according to Sproul) we shouldn't get hung up on it. After all, she has such a caring heart that she just wants to have her husband's suffering alleviated. (Never mind that she is basically repeating the words of Satan from a few verses earlier... and never mind that alleviating suffering in this case basically boils down to euthanasia.) The woman's been dead for thousands of years and yet Sproul has to stick up for her.

Women in a Bible study who have lived a sheltered life will respond poorly to anyone that points out what's going on with this. They will even go to the point of defending the abortion of kids with Down Syndrome-- after all, preventing suffering is what our heart is all about, they say. It's unreal the lengths that they will go to avoid having to take a firm moral position on anything.

I have no idea if this revulsion to responsibility is instinctive or socialized, but it is very bad news. It means you cannot rely on women to train children in any aspect of morality, theology, or ethics. But culturally, we defer to them in those matters on the assumption that they tend to be more spiritual than men. The reality is that we've delegated these things to a class of people that have an almost perfect shield against any sort of consequences or responsibility.

One thing about GamerGate is that reveals just how big a thing this really is. Zoe Quinn cheats on her boyfriend and she instantly has every major media outlet at her service to provide shielding. This is why it's futile to argue with women about anything. Not only do they have the option to use unfair tactics and then get a pass on it, but they always always always outnumber you. Tramps, sluts, and even dead women can easily maintain a coalition of twenty people that will routinely shout you down.... It's unreal.

I don't recommend arguing with women about these things. I recommend simply treating this sort of woman with the same disdain and lack of respect you would treat the logic presented by a retarded child attempting to defend his decision to defecate in his own bed. No individual, male or female, who refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions, can be considered a moral adult or an intellectual peer. I don't automatically defer to women on anything, and I certainly don't regard them as peers sans evidence of actual higher brain function.

Now, I trust my wife to train our children because she has reliably demonstrated both the aforementioned brain function as well as acceptance of her moral culpability for her actions. But she is not most women; she has never made a habit of attempting to evade the consequences of her decisions, good or bad. She is observably a moral adult and expects to be treated accordingly. It is a mistake to assume all women are moral children, even if it is a less egregious one than assuming that all women are not only moral adults, but are also morally and spiritually superior to men.

As with men, the proof is in the observable actions. Women can and often will behave like moral adults when they are expected to do so. It should not be surprising that when they are permitted to behave like moral children and permitted to evade negative consequences, many of them elect to do so instead.

And as for being outnumbered, what of it? Being outnumbered doesn't matter so long as you outgun the other side, both literally and intellectually.

Whatever happens, we have got
The naked truth, and they have not.

Read More

Teach women not to rape 2

Glenn Reynolds observes the unintended consequences of expanding the definitions of rape and sexual assault:

According to a recent study from the University of Missouri, published by the American Psychological Association, male victims of sexual assault are often victimized by women: "A total of 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, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity."

This shouldn't be so surprising. Back in the old days, when talk of "rape" or "sexual assault" generally meant forcible penetration at the hands of a stranger, rape was unsurprisingly pretty much a male-committed crime.

But feminists pushed for a broader definition of rape, going beyond what Susan Estrich, in a very influential book, derisively called Real Rape, to encompass other forms of sexual coercion and intimidation. And so now the term "rape" as it is commonly used encompasses things like "date rape," sex while a partner is intoxicated, sex without prior verbal consent and even — at Ohio State University, at least — sex where both partners consent, but for different reasons.

Unsurprisingly, when the definition of rape — or, as it's often now called in order to provide less clarity, "sexual assault" — expands to include a lot more than behavior distinguished by superior physical strength, the incidence of rape goes up, and behavior engaged in by women is more likely to be included in the definition.

In modern American rape culture, we are all victims. Stay strong, my poor victimized brothers. Be brave. It's not your fault. It's NOT your fault. It's not YOUR fault!

Read More

Feminist philosophy

It's amusing to see women hesitant to endorse perv-shaming for fear that doing so will come back to haunt women:

Slut-shaming is wrong. We all know that – even Robin Thicke could probably hazard a guess in that direction. Ditto fat-shaming. It’s never OK to publically humiliate someone because of their gender, weight or relationship history.

But what about shaming someone for being sleazy?

Welcome to the murky world of perv-shaming, where young women are publically naming and shaming men who have supposedly sexually harassed, or assaulted them. There was a prime example this week, when American bartender Laura Ramadei wrote an open letter on Facebook to a man who allegedly groped her.... In posting Lederman's personal details online, Ramadei’s actions reflect a wider trend - that for seeking justice via social media. She is relying on people power to hand down a public and humiliating punishment.

There's no mention of reporting Lederman to anyone official.

Of course, this is a one off. An isolated incident. But, other recent examples are more serious - I'm thinking of the movement started by video games fans, called #Gamergate, aimed at publicly shaming certain female players.... These women are victims of online mobs. Just like victims of revenge porn - where ex-partners post explicit photos and personal information about women online - they have been publicly and unfairly named and shamed.

They deserve our sympathy. But does someone like Lederman?

After all, he allegedly groped a young woman. And he definitely made a sexually inappropriate joke about taking her ‘to go’. But does that justify Ramadei posting his personal details on the internet and perv-shaming him?

It’s a complex issue. On one hand, raising awareness about sexual harassment is incredibly important. Websites like the Everyday Sexism project have shown us that. But there is a difference between highlighting a problem and becoming a vigilante.

Observe the woman's dilemma. If slut-shaming and fat-shaming is wrong, then so is perv-shaming. And if perv-shaming is right, then what is the argument against slut-shaming and fat-shaming? After all, sluttery and obesity are considerably easier to prove than a claim to have been bottom-pinched.

These are the deep philosophical questions with which the feminists of today must wrestle. Notice that male occupations such as the Beautiful and the True don't come into it, as the central concern is "could it have the consequence of making women feel bad".

Read More

The perils of a generous heart

Women admire generosity in men, right up to the point that it negatively affects their own lives:

A multi-millionaire who gave away £16million to help cancer patients after his wife survived the disease has ended up losing his home, possessions and even his spouse.

Brian Burnie, who owns a recruitment business, paid for his wife Shirley's treatment when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and became so inspired he devoted his life to helping other sufferers.

But after selling the family home, cars and possessions, the couple have divorced as Mrs Burnie reveals she could no longer put up with her husband's generosity.

Shirley and Brian Burnie divorced in 2012 after the 70-year-old businessman sold their 10-acre estate and all of their belongings when his wife was given the all-clear from breast cancer

Speaking for the first time since their 2012 split, Mrs Burnie told the Sunday Mirror: 'I didn't want to give everything away. I wanted security for us and our family.'

There are few things I find as annoying as women's charity with the money their husbands make. The fact that it is a form of conspicuous consumption rather than genuine charity couldn't be more obvious when it comes to their reluctance to doing the same with the money they earn themselves, or the money that they thought was going to provide them security.

You can't really blame the woman for not being happy with her husband giving away his wealth, on the other hand, it underlines that while he may have signed up for the "sickness or in health", she didn't sign up for "poverty or in wealth".

Read More

Beware Lucifer's daughters

An interesting article on the female predator archetype:

In this article I introduce to you the dark triad woman or as I and a close friend refer to them as, “a Lucifer’s daughter” the term Lucifer’s daughter was affectionately chosen to aptly describe the cold, evil nature of the dark triad female, so much so that, if one were religious – they would deem such a woman to be a spawn of the devil himself. Dark triad women are incredibly calculating, they have virtually no morals, they’re incredibly opportunistic, they’re unfeeling (towards others) whilst being very good at simulating inauthentic feelings purely for the purposes of deception. They’re emotionally and rationally solipsistic to a point where their perception of other people (including women, not just men) can be succinctly summed up as  “what does this person do for me, if nothing, what could they do for me and how can I manipulate them into providing that for me?” Lucifer’s daughters are sadistic, I say they’re dark triad because the term is more familiar to the readership, but due to their sadism, they’d much more accurately be described as dark tetrad.

Lucifer’s daughters are women whose core personality is shrouded in a thinly concealed barely contained undying rage, they are of an adversarial disposition and extremely emotionally violent. They have a tendency to over accentuate a neonatal appearance in order to better allow them to win people’s hearts and sympathies easier through their insincere aesthetic display of innocence. They are in essence, the closest thing to a Venus fly trap a human can be, watch out for that lip gloss. These are women of incredible psychological prowess whom utilise the power of the victim in all it’s perverse and incredible might to gain hordes upon hordes of allies who will put themselves on the line so that she need not, to a Lucifer’s daughter there is no sanctity in human life, any man or woman who can be used up as a consumable to fulfil her aims is entirely disposable.

It's an interesting article marred only by the author's failure to understand that he is describing female psychopathy. Psychopathy is not logic versus emotion, but a complete lack of empathy. I've known a few of this type; they tended to gravitate towards a friend of mine. Interestingly enough, I've observed that they tend to be afraid of men with a Dark Triad trait or two.

Read More

Teach women not to rape

TIME observes that women rape men as often as men rape women:

For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist “rape denial.” However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, “rape culture” is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person—usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.”

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

I was a victim of a female rapist. Where was the candlelight vigil on my behalf? Why was she never prosecuted? There is clearly a female rape culture and a conspiracy of silence protecting the women rapists in our midst.

Read More

Why men prefer clean breakups

There is no lasting grief like that of a woman deprived of her drama:

So what is it about men that they can't end relationships with manners, dignity and, yes, some emotion? Why do they think it'll be easier for the woman if they don’t show their feelings, rather than shed a tear and at least come up with a lame excuse?

I've been subjected to many crass dumpings since I first kissed a boy 30 years ago, and I've no doubt my experiences are pretty standard

There are ways for men to dispatch a woman, and Rory clearly needs some practice. As does the spineless worm who dumped my sister after passionately courting her for almost six months. Literally all he said was ‘goodbye’ before walking out. No wonder she was left sobbing on my sofa for weeks.

Just last weekend, several years after the event, we had a ceremonial shredding of the love letters - great sheaves of them. And, still, she kept asking, 'Why?' During her emotional outpourings, my sister was lamenting not only the end of a long relationship but the fact there wasn't a reason for the ending.

The loss was bad enough but the not knowing why was worse. There must have been a why, it's just that the man - and, let's be honest, most men - found it nigh-on impossible to express it.

Women need closure, while men seem able to suppress their emotions and build impenetrable walls around unfinished aspects of their lives, as if those loose ends no longer exist.

Not that she actually wants to know, but the main reason a man simply walks away without an explanation is that he knows perfectly well that no matter what he says, it's not going to make any difference anyhow. He's still going to be the villain of the piece. After all, when a woman has repeatedly shown that she has no interest in anything you say and no respect for anything you believe, what is the point of telling her why you don't want to be around her any longer?

I've told women exactly why I'm not continuing the relationship and they don't react to it any better than when I simply stopped calling them or taking their calls. By the time a man gets sufficiently fed up to want to walk away, he doesn't want to explain himself or argue or fight, he just wants out.

And in many cases, the final straw sounds a little stupid. The man knows that it's going to sound ridiculous, but the point is that it is the final straw. It's not the singular reason.

Read More

Why women shouldn't vote: Scottish edition

It was entirely predictable that Scottish women would vote against freedom and independence:

Among women, however, an increasing number are coming down in favour of voting No. The results show that the No campaign now has a 16 point lead among women who have decided which way to vote - up from 14 points on Sunday. Some 58 per cent of women say they will vote No on Thursday, with 42 per cent planning to vote Yes, among those who have reached a decision.

Men are more evenly split but more than half – 53 per cent – now back independence.

Women voting. A free and independent society. Choose one. The choice between the two is rarely so obvious as this, though.

Read More

Start sooner

It's a good thought, but in reality, young women should start prioritizing family over career no later than 25:

'When you're in your twenties, everything is about you. But when you enter your thirties, your world then begins to centre around your family.

'I know I said in the past that I was putting my career first, but when you reach your thirties, things change.

‘You get to a point where you seriously have to think about choosing between work and having babies.

Still, it's interesting to see that the younger actresses putting their careers on hold instead of working, remaining single, then adopting an token African child-substitute in their mid-40s as their predecessors are doing. One has to suspect there may be a connection between the two things.

Read More

Even the comics

Having successfully taken over SF/F and set their targets on electronic gaming, it appears the feminist Social Justice Warriors have already conquered Comic Land:

Readers might be able to deal with Spider-Man repeatedly getting saved by a brand new hero in his own book if, as Peter Parker, there were sufficient character development. One would think that the six months after Peter Parker essentially returned from the dead would warrant considerable time for soul-searching introspection between action sequences. Instead, Peter Parker goes about his life as if nothing of much significance has happened; he has an “I sorta-kinda died — moving on,” mentality. Meanwhile, Silk comes to his aid, Black Cat embarrasses him, and Anna Maria Marconi runs his company.

Hey, what young nerd doesn't want to read all about The Sensational Silk and her strong, independent womanhood? It's not like he could be expected to identify with Peter Parker, after all.

The fact that the SJWs are gunning for the comics proves that they will leave no male bastion untouched.

Read More

White women prefer white men

Contra Whiskey, the incessant barrage of multiracial advertising, and Mandingo porn fetishists, the objective statistics demonstrate that Asians, Whites, and Latinos are actually becoming less inclined towards mudsharking and coalburning. In 2014, the cumulative OK Cupid average for non-black men rating black women was -18.3 percent compared to +10.3 for members of their own race, while for women it was -17 percent for black men compared to +20.3 for men of their own race.

This increased preference for one's own race is up from +9 and +12.6 in 2009. The reason for the myth of white women preferring black men stems in part from the media propaganda, and from the fact that both male and female whites are less strongly anti-black than Asians and Latinos. So much for the idea of immigration improving race relations.

Interestingly enough, the strongest negative preference measured in the last five years is Asian men rating Black women in 2011 (-30) and Asian women rating Black men in 2014 (-27). The strongest positive preference is Asian women rating White men in 2011 (+25, although only one point above White women rating White men at +24), which ties with Asian men rating Asian women (+25).

It would appear that the more the media throws interracial couples in the public's face, the less the public likes the look of the concept. And it has really risen to a fever pitch in recent months; last night I saw two fictional "white man black wife" couples in advertisements in succession, which in real life is only marginally more statistically common than "leprechaun man unicorn wife" marriages.

Read More

Never trust a word they say

At least, not about what they sexually prefer:

A new study says women prefer men with big bellies.

Three out of four women say they'd rather have a man with love handles than a six pack. Almost 100 percent of the women surveyed said men with beer bellies have better personalities than those with a good body.

They also say guys in shape prioritize the gym over spending quality time with their significant others.

Yes, this is precisely why most female-oriented erotica features men with beer bellies on the cover rather than ripped abdominals.

Read More

Alpha Mail: the noblest of intentions

 A recovering Gamma attempts to explain why Gamma males always insist that women really, truly, and secretly want nice Gamma males:

After watching a low-Delta/Gamma say that no woman likes a jerk, and another co-worker pointing out that his son put a beating on his baby-mamma while pregnant, and she still can’t get enough of the tattooed meth user, and the Gamma just getting quiet and shaking his head, I got thinking about the denial of the Gamma that women can and do like men who treat them badly.

At first glance it would seem that a Gamma would readily agree that a lot or perhaps most women like “jerks” as it gets them off the hook, but not so. This all goes back to the Gamma wanting to avoid competition at all cost and always winning. By constantly inserting themselves into women’s lives as the “friend” and white-knighting they are able to always take the high road in their heads (We’ll leave out the part about it being a technique to try to actually snag a woman and the dishonesty of their real motives). If a woman rejects the advances of a friendly Gamma it’s not because the Gamma did anything wrong, but rather that the woman didn’t clearly see the Gamma’s wonderful traits. Even worse of course are those pesky dude-bros who “manipulate” women into liking them more than the Gamma. You see the Gamma always has the noblest of intentions with women and only ever loses because the other side cheats! That is why in their heads they could have had 5 different girlfriends last year if the playing field was level, but the cheaters deny them what is rightfully theirs.

Hence no girl in her secret of secret hearts that a Gamma always knows so well would ever truly want a man who treats her badly. Women always want nice guys, but somehow lose their agency as a person around dude-bros who use their awful manipulate power like Saruman or something to take away their free wills and blind them to the awesomeness of the Gamma!

It's really not that hard. What women say they like, what women think they want, and what women actually find sexually attractive are usually three different things. This shouldn't be that hard for men to understand, because what genuinely turns us on and what we want in an actual mate are often contradictory as well. If you are capable of understanding the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, you are capable of understanding the ALPHA/BETA dichotomy as well.

Read More

Alpha Mail: of fear and hierarchy

Johnny Caustic elucidates the connection between conflict-avoidance and socio-sexual status:

What this long discussion really boils down to is tolerance for (or liking for) conflict. Vox is very comfortable with conflict, downright enjoys it sometimes. You are less comfortable.

And women instantly know this about you when you say something like "I'm not interested in your opinion on that subject." That's why Stingray says, correctly, "Most women will smell your additional phrase for what it is. Fear."

So why do you say, "it has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with respect"? Because, like almost every man who isn't near the top of the sociosexual hierarchy (that's 99% of us), your behaviors that follow from that fear have become habit, and you've built up decades of justifications for them. So you don't notice the fear any more; you say it has "everything to do with respect."

Well, no it doesn't. Some of it is respect, but most of it is your aversion to conflict. You've repressed most of your knowledge of this fact. I know this because it's true of most men, including me.

I think that the single biggest (though not the only) determinant of our places in the sociosexual hierarchy is aversion to conflict. Alphas and sigmas have little aversion and often seek out conflict. (After a lifetime of this, they're pretty good at winning those conflicts too.) The rest of us have various degrees of fear, but we usually justify it to ourselves as being polite, respectful, "good men", etc. It's more comfortable to rationalize one's own behavior than seek a higher place in the hierarchy. But women aren't fooled; they read these signals instinctively and instantly know our places in the hierarchy. You aren't aware of the signal you're sending, but they sure are.

As an exercise, I would suggest you try saying things like "I am not interested in your opinion" and other "disrespectful" things that "may go a little too far." While you're doing it, pay attention to your emotions while you're saying it. It will open your eyes to what keeps deltas delta.

This relates directly to something I observed long before I first became aware of Game articulated as such. Men tend to worry about going too far in the direction they don't have to worry about. As a young man of high socio-sexual status, I often worried about the potential consequences of being too nice, which was of no little amusement to my friends who were accustomed to dealing with the aftereffects of my thoughtlessness and casual cruelty.

Meanwhile, one of my best friends, who is the sort of man who would be proud to labor seven years for the hand of a woman of whom he has only heard a description, constantly worried about whether he was being too hard on women by only laying down his coat over puddles rather than getting down in the mud and letting them actually tread upon his body. He would return from a trip with gifts, not only for his girlfriend, but for her siblings as well, then submit tamely to a tongue-lashing, apologize, and go buy a replacement if he happened to get a size wrong.

This sort of thing was a typical conversation between us:

Him: "So, do you think it would be too much if I ask her to pay me back for the first thing I bought her sister?"

Me: "The first thing? Wait, you bought a SECOND gift for her SISTER?"

Him: "Well, yeah, I had to since the size of the first one was wrong."

Me: "And let me guess, she ended up keeping the first one for herself."

Him: "Sure, because it fit her and I couldn't take it back anyhow."

Me: "Forget the money, I think you ought to just fuck her sister and move on."

So, based on your understanding of Game, guess which man was repeatedly trampled and treated badly by the women he dated. And guess which man was usually treated like a delicate piece of blown Venetian glass?

The more a woman understands you are fully prepared for conflict in the relationship, the less willing she is to initiate it with you. This doesn't mean you have to live on edge or be a preemptive jackass, only that when she decides to test your borders, you make it clear that you are entirely willing to defend them.

The advice of the Roman military strategist Vegetius is as sound for men in relationships as it is for nations: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Read More

A useful phrase

Cailcorishev observes a link between Christian theology and the female predilection for control freakdom:

The traditional Christian viewpoint is that it's Original Sin. Eve violated her husband's headship by eating the apple without his permission and then encouraging him to follow her example, so her descendants are cursed with the temptation to commit the same sin. Ever seen a woman in a restaurant second-guessing her husband's order and commenting on how much salad dressing he uses? It's the apple all over again.

It is remarkable how hard many women find it to keep their mouths shut whenever someone is doing something in front of them. It doesn't matter what it is, the mere fact that a man is doing something is usually enough to inspire their mouths to shift into gear, regardless of whether they know anything about what he is doing or not.

There is one phrase, however, that enables a man to keep control of the situation in all circumstances. It's a reliable workhorse:

"I am not interested in your opinion."

This works whether she actually has a relevant comment or not. It's not defensive, it's not aggressive, it's not uncivil, it is just a very clear indication that the man has taken responsibility, he has the situation under control, and she should stop trying to intervene. It also doesn't give her any ammunition to argue the man's position, as she often will if he says "I know what I'm doing" or otherwise disagrees with her advice. If she doesn't get the message and tries to interject again anyhow, it can be repeated with a little more emphasis.

"What part of 'I am not interested in your opinion' did you not understand?"

This puts her back on the defensive, but makes it clear that it's her own fault. She was already informed to stay out of it, but she IS NOT LISTENING, which of course we all know is something that women consider to be A VERY BAD THING.

Rational argument in these situations serves no purpose whatsoever. I've seen women justify their criticism of men who point out they are doing exactly what the woman herself was doing in the same situation. Unless you're in the mood for hamster-wrestling, neutral resistance to her instinctive control freak tendencies.

The other tactic that can work, but is a bit more negative, is to turn and hand whatever you're doing to the woman and say: "if you want it done your way, then do it yourself." Then walk away and leave her to it. She'll be angry, but after a few instances of this, she'll learn to stop interfering unless she actually wants to be stuck with the task.

Read More

Ghosts of the Alpha Widow

Alpha Widowhood is a description of an observed behavior, not a cruel invention of the Game theoreticians meant to plague BETA husbands and give them sleepless nights:

Steve has been with me for the past 50 years and Ron for 47. Neither is the man I am married to, nor have I seen or spoken to either since our love affairs ended in my 20s. All the same, there is no denying they have both messed with my marriage to Olly, the man who has been by my side for the past 40 years.

I found myself thinking about them both as I read recent research that suggested women who played the field before marriage are unhappier with their lot than those who entered matrimony virginal.
Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

My first reaction was: why on earth would that be? I have always believed a bit of experience, in both love and sex, to be an asset to understanding what we really want when selecting a partner for life.

Having no history to draw on — settling down with no idea what else the world has to offer — seems a recipe for disaster, not satisfaction.

And yet there is no denying that my past lovers have made their presence felt in my marriage — at times, even making me question my commitment....

[W]omen, far more than men, according to Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, Yale psychologist and author of Women Who Think Too Much, are likely to find themselves ruminating on how life might have panned out with the past loves that seemed so magical in their time. Whether the thrill might have endured and could have made for an infinitely more satisfying relationship than the one we have now.

These fantasies, as I see it, are like powerful ghosts, haunting the darker recesses of our psyche, ready to swoop in and cause trouble, when given the chance.

Certainly, my marriage became crowded with ghosts when, after my first decade with Olly, the little things that had once been no more than niggles began to take on greater significance.

Note that Alpha Widowhood is not primarily about sex, although that is where the ghosts of Alphas past are formed. Even after 40 years of marriage, the woman is still hooked on the memories of the two men in particular who made an impression on her sexual psyche; it's not even a little surprising that one of them dumped her because he found "fidelity too hard". She pines for that long-gone Alpha buzz.

And observe that it is obviously not male insecurity that is to blame when women are literally questioning their multi-decade commitments to their husbands due to their past sexual experience. The simple and observable fact is that sexual experienced women find it harder to bond to their husbands and to live up to their marital commitments. This doesn't mean it is impossible for them to do either, only that it is a material challenge that has to be recognized and surmounted by both parties, particularly the wife.

As for those who would prefer to remain in ignorance, recall that it is always considerably easier to surmount a challenge that one knows is there.

Read More

The Alpha test

It's pretty simple. Since most young women take naked selfies, if your wife or girlfriend is below the age of 30 and isn't sending them to you, then you're not an Alpha. Because, at some point, there is a 90 percent chance she was sending them to someone who isn't you.

Of the 850 readers who responded to a poll in a Cosmo twitter callout (99 percent of whom were female, with an average age of 21), 89 percent had taken nude photos of themselves at some point. Of that group, only 14 percent regretted doing so, and 82 percent said they'd do it again.

According to the poll, around 83 percent of women would take nude photos again -- 26.21 percent stipulating that they would only do so if they weren't recognizable in the images.

Of course, the caveat here is that these are young women who read Cosmo. I tend to doubt the percentage would be quite as high if the poll surveyed 850 young women who read Tolstoy. Then again, if your wife or girlfriend likes to read Cosmo or InStyle or any other magazine that is primarily composed of gossip and pictures of celebrities, it's probably a fair metric.

Read More

Hunting alphas

For less attractive women who seek alpha males they can't otherwise attract, pursuing a career as a prison guard appears to be a strategy that permits them to obtain what they want:

In the most recent federal survey of detained juveniles, nearly 8 percent of respondents reported being sexually victimized by a staff member at least once in the previous 12 months. For those who reported being abused, two things proved overwhelmingly true, as they were in Woodland Hills: They were teenage boys, and their alleged assailants were female employees tasked with looking out for their well-being. Nine in 10 of those who reported being victimized were males reporting incidents with female staff. Women, meanwhile, typically make up less than half of a juvenile facility’s staff.

These were not one-time occurrences. Among those who said they were abused by staff, 86 percent reported more than one incident in the previous year; 20 percent of those who reported sexual misconduct said it happened at least 11 times over that period. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, the use or threat of force was present in only one in five victims. Instead, the research suggests that female guards are more likely to establish a relationship with the boys, writing them letters, giving them gifts of alcohol or even drugs, or granting them special favors to build their trust. Such activity—often called “grooming”—not only sets the stage for the abuse that follows but also makes the teens less likely to report their abusers after the victimization happens—or even to consider it abuse in the first place.

Better a young Alpha than none at all, I guess.

Read More

Why low-N matters

Alpha widows don't know they're widowed:

This goes against the premise of every single romance novel, but you’re not going to marry the best sex of your life. At least, not if you’re like most women. According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.

Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ‘best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ‘best’ sex.

“I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”

Just what every man wants to hear from his wife, I suppose. "You're not bad, darling, but you just can't compare to that drunk guy who ravished me in bathroom of that nightclub."

This also explains why higher N is less of a problem for Alphas. Even if she's experienced, she's less likely to be pining for his predecessors.

Read More

Dr. Helen hits USA Today

With her rhetorical six-guns blazing:

Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.

This would not only be unthinkable in our society but most people would say that it bordered on abuse or worse. Yet, as reported in a recent Arizona Republic news story, this is what happened to Nick Olivas, who happened to be 14 at the time he had sex with a 20-year-old woman. The difference, of course, is he's not a girl.

At the age of 21, Olivas found out he had a child and that he owed over $15,000 in back child support plus interest. He was rightfully upset, stating: "It was a shock. I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.

Why the double standard when the victim is male?

Now that is a lovely rhetorical start designed to punch right through the female imperative before the reader realizes it, then adeptly making the twist to appeal to the legal equality that feminists supposedly stand for.

She's right, of course. The law holding male statutory rape victims responsible for their children is absurd. That being said, female rape victims who bear their rapist's children do assume responsibility for them, so the correct thing to do would be to give a male victim the right to claim paternal responsibility and/or custody without either being imposed upon him.

Read More

How Gamma males argue

John Scalzi likes to brag about how he's a master of rhetoric because he has a Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago. Here is how he demonstrates that rhetorical mastery when various gamers have pointed out the obvious fact that Anita Sarkeesian, who has developed a little cottage industry out of complaining that there aren't enough women involved in the games she doesn't play, has completely failed to provide any convincing arguments to support her ramblings:

In the last couple of days, some dudes have tried to talk nonsense about @FemFreq to me here. Dudes, I SO don't have time for you. (1/2)

Your arguments are bullshit, you reek of fetid sexism, and also @FemFreq is fucking RIGHT. So, stop, already. You're not swaying me. (2/2)

Now remember, the First Law of Gamma is: Lie RELENTLESSLY to yourself. Observe that Scalzi is announcing that NO INFORMATION can possibly sway him from his chosen position. In doing so, he also announces that he is not capable of dialectic, he is one of those individuals that Aristotle described as the sort for whom "not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."

The Gamma cannot be instructed because he identifies with his delusions and any knowledge that does not conform to his preconceived delusions must therefore be rejected before it can threaten them. This is the primary difference between Delta and Gamma. Both Deltas and Gammas tend to be conflict-avoidant, but the Delta can be easily instructed. The Gamma cannot be.

Read More

There is no rape epidemic

Not in the USA, anyhow. Although I'm sure the importation of more Pakistani Muslims can correct that in a hurry.

Prof. Mark Perry comments: "FBI crime statistics reveal that far from an “epidemic” of an increasing frequency in rape in America, we’ve fortunately experienced exactly the opposite – the frequency of rape has been declining for more than two decades, and fell to a 41-year low in 2013."

What happened around 1990 that changed things so dramatically? My guess is that the rapid expansion of concealed carry laws has had a significant effect in reducing the frequency of actual rape as opposed to date rape, near rape, regret rape, and other forms of rape that take place only in the female imagination.

Read More

A collapsing civilization

Sarah Hoyt laments the decline of civilization in her old Portuguese village:

It just seems that every woman my age has been divorced three times, or is shacked up with some guy half her age who is eating out her savings. Every younger woman is having kids out of wedlock starting well before seventeen. And I keep thinking: Oh, h*ll. When did everyone who grew up with me become… low class?”

Look, the village was poor as Job, and financially we were probably the wretched of the Earth. Things I remember from my childhood could fit in a documentary on “growing up in the third world.” Stuff like getting clothes stolen from the line, because there were people who genuinely couldn’t afford clothes for their kids; stuff like eating day old peasant bed fried in lard for a meal, to stretch out the grocery money of the household; things like getting the toes of my shoes cut off when I outgrew them, so I had ersatz sandals for spring. Other things, like playing with empty containers, or thinking the days the crops were irrigated (not with water!) ideal for cork boat races (disposable, thank heavens, but…)

We weren’t rich, and my family was relatively well off.

But dear Lord, we were middle class, no matter what our actually available money was....

Again, I ask you – can the roof stay up when the walls fall? Will we turn in the “middle class” standards so many found so oppressive for medieval standards that bring poverty and misery? For places where women and children are only safe while a man is willing to defend them; where the bad men aren’t looked down on by other men?

Is this what we want?

And how is it possible we came so far so fast? How did we tumble to this?

Her answer, I suggest, can be found here: "And I’m not going to lie and say that all things that went on and the established mode was the best one. It very well wasn’t. For one, it was a genuinely patriarchal society in the sense that women had almost no power."

There is her answer right there. Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power. It’s not the only factor, but it is a necessary one. The restrictions can be cruel and enforced primarily by men, as in the case of Islamic semi-civilization, or they can be soft and enforced primarily by women, as in the case of traditional Western civilization. Or something in between, such as she describes. But the restrictions must exist, be they self-imposed or externally imposed.

There is no equality. There never will be as long as young men are willing to build, steal, or kill for sex. Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone. And that decivilizing process is exactly what she is describing.

The decline of civilization is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution combined with the Divorce Revolution. There were no winners and civilization lost.

Read More