No disclosure means divorce

Remember the dictum about never asking a woman for advice about women? This answer from Dear Prudence to a man who belatedly found out about his wife's sexual past is exhibit A.

Your wife violated two rules: One, she didn’t tell you when she should have told you. Two, when she told you, she told you too much.

But you now need to put what you’ve learned into perspective. You two have been together for five years, and you don’t indicate that during that time you have ever had cause to doubt your wife’s fidelity or her satisfaction with your sex life. I don’t know if meeting you was the turning point in her life, or if by the time she met you she had moved past her emotional problems and was ready for a more fulfilling relationship. Whatever it was, it’s clear that when you got together she was a different person from the one who sought out illicit and even degrading encounters. You must know that people do change and that many people are able to leave destructive habits behind for good.

Your wife was not obligated to spill all to you when you were courting. But at some point after you two became serious, she should have informed you to some degree about her past, enough to convey the salient point that she once went through a difficult period during which she “self-medicated” through sex. She could have mentioned that she’d slept with married men and been unfaithful in previous relationships without going into detail. It would have allowed you to have a sense of her past without having disturbing images seared in your mind.

What’s important now is for you to remember that your wife is the same person you’ve known for the past five years, and that there’s no reason this confession should cast a shadow on your good fortune at finding each other. It would be sad if her desire to have you understand her better leads to your loving her less. You just recently got this news and have understandably been ruminating on it. Now it’s time to stop. See if you can decide to push these thoughts out of your mind and make the choice to return to being grateful for your life together.

Notice that at no point does Dear Prudence say that the woman should have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Being solipsistic, women are always eager to protect their ability to hide their own secrets from men. But the fact is that any woman who behaved like this because "she felt sad" is almost certainly going to do it again, particularly one who exhibited no respect for the institution of marriage when on the other side of it. They've only been married for two years, and it's quite obvious that the distressed gentleman is a Delta fall-back scenario for the woman; the fact that he feels "quite lucky" to have her suggests that she's the most attractive woman who has ever been nominally interested in him, or at least in a relationship that involves him supporting her. Imagine that.

It's true, people do change. But they change for the worse as well as the better, and the scenario he is in is so common that there is a name for it: Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. It seldom ends well even when there is a considerably less sordid backstory. There is a good reason he's having trouble accepting the fact that he married under false pretenses; he should follow the lead of the gentleman who belatedly found out about his wife's college threesomes and Next her without looking back.

There will always be reasonable exceptions, but in general, young men should start expressing a firm No Disclosure Means Divorce policy, as this is the only way that women will begin coming clean and permitting men to make informed decisions with regards to whom they will or will not marry. In law, willful failure to fully disclose amounts to misrepresentation and is grounds for negating a contract, and the same principle obviously applies to marriage.

Wikipedia: Misrepresentation is a concept in the contract law of England and some other Commonwealth countries, referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

Read More

In search of honor

Emmanuel Goldstein has a theory about what motivates white knights:

I had always been baffled by white knights – men who saw it as their purpose in life to save every woman from the consequences of her own ineptitude. Like many others, I thought men want sex, and white knighting is a strategy some men use to get it. The baffling part was that I had never seen this strategy actually work – I never saw a man get to sleep with the woman he so passionately tried to save. Why would masses and masses of men try to get sex with a method that never actually gets them laid? Don’t they realize their sexual strategy is not working?

In truth, the white knight is not after sex.... On a deep level, he feels that it is women and women only who can grant him the honor he desires. When men condemn him, it is invariably the ‘wrong kind’ of men – their attacks don’t lead the white knight to doubt himself. If anything, when men oppose the white knight, the white knight takes this as a sign that he is doing something right, because he has upset an opposing tribe – that of lotharios and misogynists. What he prizes is female endorsement, for it is only women who can say with authority that he is a man of honor, as he has been told all his life.

I find this idea more persuasive than the oft-heard one that the white knight is performing in search of sex. Too many times, I've seen men go into white knight mode on behalf of a woman they don't even know, don't intend to approach, and clearly have no expectation of ever meeting, let alone having sex with.

And one thing I've noticed is that the white knight's behavior is always about him and how he sees himself, not about the woman he is defending. So, the idea that white-knighting is just a warped and misplaced sense of honor does make sense, if one accepts the idea that honor is a man's gift to himself.

Read More

10 signs of passive-aggressiveness

This are behaviors that tend to be indicative of low rank in the socio-sexual hierarchy. If you find that you tend to engage in them, it's important to note that you're not fooling anyone. People do notice these things and accordingly reach conclusions about you:

1. Intentional avoiding responsibilities, or purposefully performing incompetently to display anger
2. Procrastinating
3. Resentfulness towards others
4. Complaining about being feeling under-appreciated or cheated
5. Sulky, pouty, and argumentative behavior towards authority figures
6. Laying the blame on others
7. Contradictory behavior (enthusiastically agreeing on a job but performing poorly on purpose)
8. Displays of unexpressed anger or hostile attitude
9. Intentional forgetfulness
10. Inability to take constructive criticism

Now, obviously anyone can be forgetful or procrastinate. But this is about regular patterns of behavior. If you find yourself prone to behaving in this way, it's important to ask yourself why you are doing so.

Don't run from conflict. If you have an issue with someone, speak your piece directly and without fear. You have a right to your opinion and you have the right to have it taken seriously. That doesn't mean you're going to get your way, but then, passive-aggression isn't going to get it for you either.

Read More

Romance is harassment

This is probably not the way to go about reducing the number of men who are unwilling or unable to get married:

YouTube blogger and sexual educator Dr. Lindsey Doe, who blogs under the name “Doe Eyes,” recently posted a video titled “Dear Boy Who Likes My Daughter,” speaking directly to the boy (whom she doesn’t name). She said, “Dear boy who likes my daughter. I don’t like how you treat [my daughter.] Are you confused? You probably picked up messages from society about how when you want something, you have to ‘try harder, go at it, do whatever you can to get it. Don’t give up!’ Maybe it’s for this reason that you repeatedly ask my daughter out. In the halls, on the bus, and you write her poems.”

Doe, a former professor at the University of Montana in Missoula, may sound harsh at first, but she clarifies, explaining that if a girl says “I don’t know” in response to a boy’s advances, he should give her space to think about it. If a young woman’s response is “maybe,” the man could ask her to explain her uncertainty. If she wants the boy to ask her again later, he should do so later. Anything else, she dubs “harassment.”

The amusing thing is that when you immediately NEXT a girl because she says "I don't know" or "maybe", women get even angrier. It's impossible to take female advice seriously because so much of it is contradictory. The lesson, as always, is to ignore it.

By all means, give a woman who is not enthusiastic about you space. Give her permanent space and find another one who is. There are plenty of girls on the girl tree, and they make more all the time.

The reality, of course, is that this kid is probably a low delta and he's simply doing as he's been taught by everyone. This mother is an idiot, but she may be his first introduction to Red Pill thinking.

Read More

The Year-Long Proposal

JM asked me to address it:

Please-oh-please! write on the year-proposal guy: My wife said "gotta see this, so romantic". I couldn't stand it, it drove me crazy - A YEAR? Are you kidding me? Makes no sense any which way to me. Wife was eventually amused but otherwise flabbergasted by my reaction.

Actually, I'm not inclined to criticize a man for this sort of thing. Is it "so romantic"? I suppose. It tended to strike me as a bit of what the Brits call "taking the piss", especially if he was occasionally doing it right behind her back.

It's a bit narcissistic and passive-aggressive for me, and is both sillier and more time-intensive than anything I could ever imagine myself doing, but if the guy is a cheeseball and she's going to marry him, she's probably got more of an appetite for that sort of posturing cheese than the average woman.

It's a bit delta-gamma in that there is a little martyr complex in it that puts an amount of pressure on the young woman to say yes, but if that's where you are, that's where you are. Not every man can pull off grunting "here" and tossing a ring box at his bride-to-be, and not every woman can handle the sort of man who isn't inclined to dance on romantic command.

And this is the social media generation, after all, and what girl doesn't want something she can post on Facebook and Twitter.

Read More

Alpha Mail: face to face or forget it

CT feels as if he blew an opportunity:

I just blew an opportunity to meet a potential Christian wife.  Not a carousel rider. Found her online and got an intro(facebook) from a female high school aquaintance.

Anyhow, she started with the big compatibility questions.  I told her I wanted to meet for coffee or talk on the phone rather than use this damnable chat.  She said she never dated much and wanted to take it very slow. Chat only. 

A small voice in my head says, this rocket will never launch.

So I answer the questions and sure enough she's gone.  No attraction over chat.  Big surprise. I'm pretty sick about this a) because there are very few who aren't carousel riders. b) we agree on some of the big compatiblity issues.

So I read the post on breaking frame. How should I have handled this?

No attraction over chat? Over CHAT? That's ridiculous. The truth is that she either didn't like CT's picture or something in his profile, but she didn't want to look shallow in front of her friend. So, she subjected CT to a test, which like a good Delta, he promptly failed.

From the aforementioned post: "the interrogation test is not a qualitative one concerning what answers are provided by the man, but rather, a quantitative one concerning his willingness to submit to questioning. It's binary. If you answered the questions, then you failed."

What he should have done was one of three things:

1. Refused to answer the questions and sent her an email saying something dismissive like "No thanks. Shoot me an email when you're ready to be a big girl and actually leave the house." If she's going to act like a child, then treat her like a child.
2. Agree to answer the questions with one caveat. "I will answer one question for each picture of you in a bikini you send me. Two if they'll get me in trouble at work."
3. Ignore her. When she wiggles the bait and gets in contact later, nuke her with "Yeah, I don't think so. But hey, good luck! Name a cat after me."

Any of these approaches has better odds of going somewhere than meekly submitting to her interrogation. Look, it's not that fucking hard. BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS until attraction is firmly established. Get that through your thick BETA skulls once and for all.

I repeat: BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS WITH WOMEN.

Got it? And being meekly submissive to them is only that much worse. Women are not attracted to nice guys and they despise submissive men. Notice that the woman didn't give a damn about the fact that they agreed on the big compatibility issues. Passing the test had nothing to do with his answers to her questions. He was already toast because he was foolish enough to submit to her frame.

Read More

Trust your instincts

This email Rollo shared from a soldier describes the experience of many a beta or delta concerning female disloyalty:

One girl, leading into Christmas break, said she was going to a techno show in a city about an hour away from our school. I was planning on studying for a final, so I didn’t bother trying to go. As the date neared I realized I felt comfortable about the final and I wanted to go out that night. I asked to go with her—she said no. And this is where I could see the hamster frantically spinning its wheel.

All her reasons were obvious bullshit. I know when a girl is seeing another guy, because I’ve been the other guy. I know what the stories are like. I ended it. I was heartbroken. I wondered constantly whether I had made the right call. I missed her desperately, and I constantly questioned whether my radar had been off. My male friends (now thoroughly blue-pill, as I was attending a liberal civilian grad school) told me I was overreacting and being paranoid and jealous and not respecting her space, blah blah blah… A whole year later a girl I was friends with let slip that my ex actually was meeting another guy in the city, and fucked him the day after I dumped her.

No surprise—but I was quite upset that a few other girls I was “friends” with had known and never told me. They could have saved me a lot of grief. But then again, they were women—I don’t quite get it, but it’s like all the girls were sticking up for each other and covering for each other, even though they weren’t really close friends. It’s almost as if they felt they needed to cover up the tactics that women use, and keep the men from knowing about them—as though there was a driving need they had to keep men in the dark as to the true nature of women.

In fact, I have never been steered in the right direction in relationships by any woman. And this will bring me around to my next point—the feminine dominated civilian environment—especially academia.

The second grad school relationship followed a path that was remarkably similar to my first—in fact, looking back, I have had three major relationships, with girls who wanted to be exclusive, and they have ended because the girls were becoming involved with other men.

There is one way, and only one way, to ensure loyalty and that is a ruthless willingness to walk away from a woman. Indeed, that is arguably the most reliable ALPHA tell from the woman's perspective; a man who is attractive and is not even remotely afraid to do without her.

I was not involved in a lot of exclusive relationships; I tended to avoid "the talk" like the plague. But exclusive or not, I ended them the moment I had any sense that the woman was even flirting with other men after having expressed some form of claim on me. I didn't usually bother "breaking up" with them, I simply stopped calling them, didn't take their calls, and directed my attention elsewhere.

Taking a call from another guy when I was there late at night or simply going for an evening run with an orbiter was sufficient reason to move on. It was rather amusing, later, to observe that my instincts were always correct; usually within a matter of months, the nexted girl would have at least gone on a date or three with the guy in question.

Trust your instincts and don't ever attempt to "keep" or "guard" a woman. If she wants to be with someone else, you don't want her. There too many girls on the girl tree to concern yourself with a disloyal one.

Read More

Seeking alpha

These ten points need to be read, repeatedly, to every delta and gamma male until he understands that women like sex in and of itself:

 

See anything about love, intellectual admiration, or rewarding loyalty and sincere devotion there, Gamma boys? 

In addition to the Alpha aspects, one reason why women prefer Sigmas for casual sex is that they know the Sigma isn't likely to stick around and want a relationship: "a 2011 study out of the University of Michigan found that when women can be assured of “safety” and “sexual prowess,” they were just as likely as men to opt for a night of commitment-free sex."

Read More

College boys find their balls

Two UVA fraternities are standing up to the university administration's attempt to participate in a Maoist self-flagellation program:

So far two University of Virginia fraternities are refusing to sign a new Fraternity Operating Agreement to resume social activities. Alpha Tau Omega and Kappa Alpha have released nearly identical statements refusing to sign U.Va.’s new requirements that fraternities alter their activities following a two-month suspension on social activities. The new rules require a certain number of fraternity brothers to be sober and present and different places around the house and set limits on what kinds of alcohol can be served and in what containers.

The fraternities state two reasons for their refusal to sign on to these new rules. The first reason is that U.Va., “for reasons that were found to be untrue, unfairly punished all members of fraternities and sororities." This is in reference to the Rolling Stone article claiming a woman was gang raped at a Phi Kappa Psi party, which resulted in the social activity ban (without any evidence other than the uncorroborated accusation).

“Because we do not accept the validity of a suspension imposed in contravention of the existing FOA, university policy, Virginia law and the constitutional rights of our members, we are not compelled to sign a revised FOA to continue operations on campus,” the fraternities wrote in press releases that were put out separately but shared the same language. The fraternities also state that their own risk management policies “are as strict or more strict than this new FOA” and they will continue to “comply with the more restrictive of the policies in its activities.”

The fraternities wrote, “We are concerned that the university’s revision to the FOA may create new liability for individual members of our organizations that is more properly a duty to be borne by the university itself."

The statements also claim that the new rules “set a dangerous precedent of an erosion of student and organizational rights,” but would work with U.Va. to develop “risk management education.”

It would be better if they refused to play along at all and took the university to court on Title IX discrimination grounds, but it is a start. Men need to rid themselves of their instinct to apologize whenever a woman throws a hissy fit or hurls an accusation.

Read More

The irrational fear of no

Too many men and women alike are afraid of the word "no". Men are afraid to hear it, and therefore avoid behaving in any manner that might cause them to hear it. Women, on the other hand, are afraid to take responsibility for saying it.

Twenty-five years after I registered for college, we're still searching for an alternative to the stark simplicity of "No."  And unfortunately, there's just no substitute. If you want to "teach men not to rape" -- a formulation that floated around the Internet a lot in the days after the Rolling Stone story was published -- then you need to give them a rule that can be clearly articulated, and followed even if you've had a few.

That's why "no means no" worked so well, even if it wasn't perfect. It's a heuristic that even a guy who's been sucking at the end of a three-story beer funnel can remember and put into practice. The rule obviously needed some refinement, by adding other equally clear rules -- like "if she's stumbling drunk or vomiting, just pretend she said no, because she's not legally capable of consent." But the basic idea, of listening to what the woman is saying, not some super-secret countersignals you might think she is sending, is exactly the sort of rule that we need in the often-confusing, choose-your-own-adventure world of modern sexual mores.

Compare that with "we're in the red zone." What does that mean? It seems to me that a guy can take this one of two ways: either as "no," or as something less than "no," something which means that there's still hope and he should consider asking again in 15 minutes. If it means "less than no, but maybe more than yes," then we haven't fixed things; we've just added another layer of confusion.

But I don't think that's what Dominus is after. I think what she's actually seeking is a way to deliver a definite refusal without having to say the word "no." And being of that same generation of women, one that often goes to absurd lengths to avoid even mild refusals, such as declining to purchase goods or services we don't want, I certainly wish that there were a reliable way to deliver the message without saying the words.

But as millions of time-share owners can attest, there is no substitute for a clear "no."  My generation has spent decades trying to make things sound less unpleasant by coining new words to replace the older, harsh-sounding ones. The result of this "euphemism treadmill," as Steven Pinker has dubbed it, is not that everyone moves to a new, higher plane, free of the old unpleasantness; it's that the new word takes on all the disagreeable connotations of the old one, and then people start looking for a new euphemism.

For women, there is no substitute for the word no. To refuse, you must take responsibility for the refusal. One cannot act without acting, and without an actor there is no action. You cannot be a strong or independent woman without being able to both say no and accept the responsibility intrinsic in doing so.

Remember, the only woman who doesn't need to say no from time to time is the woman who is unwanted and ignored.

And for men, there is no substitute for taking the risk that may lead to you hearing the word "no". It is nothing to be afraid of, and the faster you hear it, the faster you can proceed to other, more promising situations where you will hear "yes".

Read More

It's not just gamma males

Who don't understand human socio-sexuality:

In her latest Pottermore update, Rowling writes how she's often forced to crush the dreams of fans who nurse strange feelings for Hogwarts's sexiest Slytherin. "Draco remains a person of dubious morality in the seven published books, and I have often had cause to remark on how unnerved I have been by the number of girls who fell for this particular fictional character," she writes. "All this has left me in the unenviable position of pouring cold common sense on ardent readers' daydreams, as I told them, rather severely, that Draco was not concealing a heart of gold under all that sneering and prejudice and that no, he and Harry were not destined to end up best friends."

The more people try to deny the reality of Game, the more they are forced to blind themselves in order to prevent themselves from seeing the obvious. Draco's appeal is not in spite of what Rowling sees as his shortcomings, his appeal is his what she calls his "dubious morality"; to young female readers, all of Harry's life-endangering, world-saving heroics are a boring turn-off in comparison with Draco's alluring arrogance, cruelty, and Aryan superiority complex.

When it comes to sexual attraction, women don't give a damn about saving the world or keeping the lights on. Unless you're a rock star, an actor, or a CEO, no woman wants to have sex with you because of your livelihood or your positive contributions to society.

Read More

The truth of the friendzone

Most young women aren't anywhere nearly as oblivious as they pretend to be:

Guys who wind up in the friendzone weren’t looking for some kind of one night stand. If they’re going through the trouble to get to know the girl closely, they’re hoping to get her to like him enough to consider being a steady boyfriend. Who the hell befriends someone for months, if not years on end, for the hope of one session of sex?

And that’s considering that these girls really don’t suspect that the guy is interested in her which is usually bullshit. Girls like this are pretty sure the guy is interested and that’s why he is so supportive and giving of his time and energy to her. Why he’ll selflessly do all kinds of favors and listen to all her drunken stories and pretty much be the perfect companion.

What pisses these girls off about the friendzone is when the term comes up, it’s when the guy realizes that their relationship isn’t going to lead to something deeper and the gravy train stops. Because he’s not going to just keep giving freely for no reason. Friendship is a two-way street where both sides support each other. Not just one side which gives and gives like a happy servant.

The reason these girls get mad isn’t because he hasn’t been thinking of her as a friend all this time. It’s because he’s only going to think of her as a friend for now on.

A girl who keeps a boy who wishes to be a boyfriend in the friendzone is a user. It's that simple. Don't permit yourself to be used in such a manner. It's fine to be friends with a woman if you don't treat her any better than you would your male friends and you don't harbor any more ambitions of bedding her than you do of them. Otherwise, you're much better off, and much more likely to get somewhere with her too, by flat-out refusing to be relegated to orbit.

I'm not saying to make a scene or present an ultimatum or create drama. That's only going to feed her sense of entitlement. Just be friendly, civil, and totally unresponsive to her overtures.

Read More

Alpha Mail: to white knight or not?

MT has a question about his sister:

I have a White Knight concept that I would like you address or clarify at AlphaGame.

In regards to women in physically abusive, or controlling relationships, there will be men who will want to "rescue" them or bring them to the knowledge of their errors by speech or force.  This is a continuum.  On one end is the sycophantic pedestalizer (we will generously call him Suitor) who may or may not seek justification for romance in his, uhh...noble and selfless efforts.  On the other end is the concerned father who wants to protect his daughter from those who would use her.  The goal of the men for the woman to be out of the situation is the same, but there are non-trivial differences between Suitor and Father.

1) Suitor comes from a position of relative weakness; Father from relative Strength
2) Suitor approaches for possible personal gain, but may view his actions as dutiful; Father from Duty and Responsibility
3) Suitor has a romantic interest; Father has none*
*2 and 3 may be the same

Possibly you could chart three axes:
1) relative strength (pedestal or parent)
2) romantic interest (present or platonic)
3) responsibility for girl (none/self-imposted or absolute)

If it is true that that the preexisting nature of the relationship between a man and another person (wife, daughter, sister, son, stranger...) has bearing on his responsibility to that person, then by charting the case on the axes, you could guess the necessity of action and tactics.

The Suitor cannot ground the woman. The Father can DHSMV, but more as a way to make a fool of the romantic interest, than to set himself up as an alternative mate.  Either could attempt violence, ill-advised as it may be, but the perception would change as a function of relative strength and responsibility.     

Maybe I hit something here, but certainly, a man's true duty to the safety of another is according to the nature of the relationship. Can you give insight on this situation?  My sister-in-law (19, out of state) is sweet, naive and shacked up with a guy with tight game who is controlling and physically abusing her.  She isn't under the parents' roof any longer.  I'll probably see the happy couple at Christmas.  I'd like to see them apart, but I have no binding responsibility to her, or even a great relationship with her.  Are there any tactics to address this or is this something to leave lie?

This is a good question. My feeling is that one's involvement in such situations totally depends upon the nature of the relationship. Fathers should speak out forthrightly about what they see. They should not hesitate to use their daughters' reliance upon them, particularly financially, as a counterweight, even in the knowledge that it may cause his daughter to turn against him in the short term. He should, of course, make it clear that he will be there for her when - not if - the unworthy love interest eventually shows his colors.

A brother has no similar leverage. However, he has social power that the father does not. He should relentlessly mock and belittle the unworthy man around his sister, planting the seeds of doubt that will one day blossom once the suitor fertilizes them with his inevitably bad behavior. And he should also make it clear that he will be there for her when the time comes.

A brother-in-law, on the other hand, should stay completely out of it. To be honest, in this sort of situation, I see a brother-in-law who is probably rather attracted to his sister-in-law and is likely to see unsuitability where none exists, and to exaggerate it where it does. In any case, there is no responsibility to intervene here, and indeed, to do so would rightly raise a few eyebrows, especially with the man's wife.

I'm also very suspicious when I hear about a "sweet, naive" girl who is nevertheless "shacked up". This indicates that she is almost certainly neither as naive or sweet as she portrays herself to be to her brother-in-law, in fact, this raises the question as to precisely who is the player in her relationship with the supposedly "controlling and physically abusive" gentleman in question. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she had a convincing "rape" story she could produce on demand with a catch in her voice and a tear in her eye.

MT is correct. There is a continuum of sorts. But nevertheless, there is a hard and bright line between "family business" and "not family business" that should always be respected, and that line falls somewhere in between "cousin" and "brother-in-law". In most cases, if you find yourself asking "should I polish my armor and mount my steed", the mere fact that you need to ask the question is sufficient reason to say "no". Women have free will, agency, and they are legal adults in the eyes of the law. If they insist on swimming in the deep end despite not being equipped to do so, you have a solemn duty to civilization and the rule of law to let them drown.

Read More

Because they can

It's not exactly a mystery why more men are turning to prostitution:

Last week, a report revealed that 1 in 10 British men have paid for sex. Find that shocking? Then try this for size: the same report, pulled from a total of over 6,000 men aged 16-74, also found that those most likely to have paid for sex in the last five years are single men aged 25 to 34.

The research – conducted by University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections – led lead researcher Dr Cath Mercer of UCL to conclude: "The picture that emerges does not necessarily fit the stereotype of the lonely older man … men who pay for sex are more likely to be young professionals."

There are a whole combination of factors at work here:

1.  Postchristian society removes any moral sanction on men preferring prostitutes to amateurs.
2. The sexual liberation means more women offering their charms to fewer men.
3. Feminism and obesity making women less attractive to men.
4. Porn causing men to be bored by the appearances and conventional sex practices available from average women.

I was surprised that the number was only one in ten.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Sex in orbit

Roger with six "r"s points out that orbiting is an effective sexual strategy, it's merely not an efficient one:

Orbiting/white-knighting is not just an occasional behavior of weak beta males. It is one of the key sexual strategies of the human male. It works. These guys will get laid now and again.

This is absolutely true. I have a friend who once dedicated three years to orbiting the same girl until finally she broke down and went out with him; they lasted less than half as long as a couple as he had spent orbiting. And this was a successful outcome!

The point isn't that orbiting never works, but rather, that it comes at a tremendous opportunity cost. I can't even imagine how many opportunities of equal quality my friend let pass because he was so fixated on that one woman, but it was probably over a dozen. Orbiting is the exact opposite of the abundance mentality; no man who subscribes to the concept of the Girl Tree will tend to find himself caught in orbit for very long.

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

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

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

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