Too Hot

too_hot

Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.

mrs_knight

Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.


122 responses to “Too Hot

  • Bob Wallace

    I knew a guy who fired his ex-lover because of course it was impossible for him to be in her presence. He didn’t hate her. He was still in love with.

    And damn if her firing didn’t catch her unprepared. She didn’t see it coming.

  • Common Sense

    So the only solution to the Dentist’s and Petraeus’ predicament: cheat on your wife.

    The Manosphere should be pushing men to cheat. Stay married for the sake of kids, as kids grow up best adjusted in two parent homes. But the man in the prime of SMV deserves the rewards he spent two decades trying to achieve.

    In this world – YOU MUST CLAIM YOUR OWN REWARD. Because the world surely isn’t going to give you what you deserve.

    Rollo, you need to have some balls and start encouraging men to cheat. That IS being a “Rational Male.” You’ve come this far – Do not get all touchy-feely progressive liberal on me now, my man.

    Get good at game, cheat on your wife, and don’t get caught. The third is the trickiest.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    What’s interesting is that every article I’ve ever read about how having an affair actually strengthens a marriage was written by a woman, specifically for women, and published in media that caters almost exclusively to women.

  • The Other Jim

    There was a case from a couple of years ago similar to the one described above; http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/debrahlee-lorenzana-sues-citigroup-claims-bank-fired-sexy-article-1.178086
    0

    Here are more photo’s of Lorenzana who despite her whining seems very aware of here own SMV: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10003635-19.html

    Women, at least, youngish attractive women like Ms. Lorenzana are always aware of their own attractiveness and how to use it, negotiate the work place, and in the end get what they want often at the expense of doing the hard work in any company. I’m sure everyone has had their own experiences. In contrast, fat, old, and unattractive women don’t have that advantage in the workplace, they just have to work harder to get ahead just like the men.

    In regards to the dentist, his first mistake was hiring an attractive women in the same place where his wife worked. Use whatever metaphor one likes-never fish off the company pier/shit where you work, remember fellas, never ever mix personal shit with business. Do what you have to keep it all separate and compartmentalized. You’ll be better off in the long run by this practice.

  • E.J.

    I see Common Sense is swallowing the whole red pill. Some of us are trying to chew that shit like a Flintstones vitamin. Down it with vodka and enjoy life.

  • amscheideweg

    I agree with Common Sense. If Women ride the carousel during their peak SMV years, men should sack up and ride their own version of the carousel during their late thirties / fourties.

    I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? Divorce ? That’s a big risk anyway, if you cheat or don’t. Actually going through with cheating on the other hand should work in the favor of a game-aware man (DHV).

  • taterearl

    “What’s interesting is that every article I’ve ever read about how having an affair actually strengthens a marriage was written by a woman, specifically for women, and published in media that caters almost exclusively to women.”

    Well if a women wrote it then it will lead to a divorce.

  • John Galt

    Another fantastic post. Rollo – please consider writing more of these “current event” posts that reinforce previously posted concepts. Theory meets practice, its a great way to learn.

  • CassMan

    Finally,

    It has taken many months to find a viewpoint I strongly disagree with in the Manosphere, and here she is. I do not advocate infidelity / deception when inside the confines of a committed, monogamous relationship.

    Morality and ethics are not characteristics that are identified through gender. A husband cheating on his wife is no more or less moral than a Wife cheating on her husband.

    If you want the ability to game Women to your hearts content, you go for it and enjoy it Good Sir, it is your right in this world. If you want children you can have them and live a single / monogamy-ridden life as well. Yes, it does entail more work from the Man to achieve this, if you want it then go after it. Why cheat on your wife and risk her finding out, causing drama, disruption in your social circles and the extra work required to keep the lie healthy? Why?

    Do not saddle yourself with commitment to one Woman in the first place? If you are already married as a Man and not getting any because she is using her vagina as leverage in your relationship, get rid of her. If you don’t want to get rid of her out of her of losing her / getting divorced I would argue that getting laid is no longer your biggest issue at present time.

    Variety is the spice of life, the contract of conventional Marriage removes that option for a Man. Unless you plan on having an open marriage where the Wife truly accepts and embraces it (tough but not impossible guys), you are asking for a life of solitude in bed unless you picked her well, she picked you well and you both employ a long term relationship strategy much that like of Mr. Tomassi.

    The benefits of maintaining a long term relationship that operates in this fashion (open relationship or very good, strong connection between you both that transcends time) are clear, and often difficult to achieve.

    This is one of many reasons our fearless leader still is gainfully employed in the institution of Marriage. He has found a happy medium with Game in a LTR, puts in effort and has a Woman who reciprocates on all levels. Most of us are not that fortunate nor do we have the desire or self-awareness to make it happen. Sure, I suppose cheating at this point is an option for some of you, and I certainly judging.

    I do have to ask myself why any Man would willingly put himself into a situation where his actions would constitute he is ‘cheating’ in the first place.

  • taterearl

    I do like the idea that a wife should be a whore for only her husband…and a husband should be an alpha only to his wife. Nothing good ever comes from adultery.

  • CassMan

    Certainly ‘not judging’, rather.

    If you are a Man over 30 that understands his own SMV, is there a logical reason for a Man to marry a Woman well over 30?

    Children can be provided to you from a younger, more physically attractive Woman. Other than the knowledge you will have to compete your hottiie wife’s increased hypergamy, is there a universal downside to marrying a younger Woman?

    Other than the obvious benefit of additional life experience, I really do not see much reason for optimism for Woman over 35 in North America right now, at all.

  • CassMan

    “Nothing good ever comes from adultery”

    This has been my conclusion so far going through Life. The benefits of fresh ass being plundered in a high-risk, low-reward fashion like adultery just is not powerful enough for me to get involved in.

    Even in a LTR, after enough investment has been made I will not go cheat on her, I do not see the point. If she isn’t offering me what I need, I tell her. If she doesn’t care, I move on and now i’m ploughing another Woman to my hearts content, or better yet I forego the LTR and I bed as many Women as I can fit into my schedule.

    It’s that simple for me and that simplicity is what keeps me going. I do not care for drama, I do not like fighting, especially with a Woman. I say my peace and that’s it, if the line gets crossed talking time is over and Action Time begins. That’s it, I move on and take what I want, I do not keep her around and lie / deceive / juggle my life’s order to perpetuate a lie to someone else, not worth my effort.

    I have always been wired a bit differently, in my eyes cheating for a Man is borderline ‘beta’ behaviour. When I am with a Woman and only that Woman (sometimes I am a Free Agent and every Man needs some face-time in that arena) she automatically knows via my frame that if she fucks up I will be moving along very shortly. I’ll flirt with her friends, i’ll flirt with random women who aren’t her friends and I will instil a sense of Dread in her strong enough to absolutely crush any illusions she has on the amount of leash I have given her. Said another way, I only enter into a LTR when I feel that what that one Woman I care about has the ability to provide me everything I need from one source: Her. This is a rare occurrence because ‘She’ is a rare occurrence.

    If the Woman cannot satisfy me sufficiently in all areas, I will reject her LTR request, destroy her in bed and let her go if she demands anything more. I refuse to put myself into a situation that cannot satisfy me (and her), and thus ensures future unhappiness. If the Woman has the tools to keep me happy, then we have something to talk about. All the rest of them will never be fortunate enough with me to be in a position where I could ‘cheat’ on them.

  • Vicomte

    Advocating infidelity is a ridiculous concept. As others have stated, if you want to fuck around, do not enter into a presumed monogamous arrangement. There’s something incredibly pathetic about infidelity for the simple reason that it can all be entirely avoided by refusing to make an unnecessary commitment you have no interest in in the first place.

    Some people around these parts have an insanely convoluted view of ‘red pill’ philosophy. One has no need to work the system if one does not enter into that system.

  • KK

    I find it interesting that although the manosphere viewpoint on events such as this still comes across as somewhat inflammatory and controversial, it has been a part of the cultural undercurrent all the time, even in the middle of the 90’s that is sometimes portrayed as the era of Peak Feminism.

    I caught a glimpse of an old Ally McBeal rerun while visiting my father and the episode had a very similar subplot. One of the nice-looking lawgirls was being transferred to a different department against her preference due to pressure from her boss’s wife. The sexual competition angle was played very straight.

    Also from the same episode: a group of dem nice-looking lawgirls were giving ‘helpful’ piece of advice to the office fatso about how she can afford to break up with her (also fat and meek) boyfriend while the next man of her dreams would be just around the corner. To her character’s credit, the fatso eventually shot the suggestions down by noting something along the lines that “people like us don’t get to choose”. It was also very clearly implied that the other lawgirls weren’t actually malicious but were looking at the situation from their own perspective where the next man is literally always around the corner.

    That was all within one commercial break.

  • E.J.

    You guys are playing word games at this point. Having a wife and chicks on the side, having a babymom and various girlfriends, or deciding to have kids without the promise of monogamy, are all means to the same end. A man can and should give his children a two-parent upbringing without participating in monogamy, especially with a woman whose SMV is rapidly decreasing. Whether you call it infidelity or open marriage, or “spinning plates” or whatever, these are all just terms to describe how much “permission” you’ve garnered from your child’s mother.

    I don’t advocate dishonesty personally, but that’s me. Some (I would say most) men have to sell women the facade for various social reasons, lack of frame, indoctrination, etc. I’m not saying it’s “right,” but it’s definitely preferable to divorcing a good mother and splitting up your family just to get your dick wet. That’s hamster logic.

  • Tarl

    Those tattoos on his upper arm are grotesque.

  • Survivorman

    Only slightly O.T. (and just to stir the pot a little);

    I have a cardiologist friend that has hot Asian wife, 2 great kids, a palatial home in a nice part of town, AND a mistress on the side — all out in the open.. no deception whatsoever!

    Everyone involved seems OK with the arrangement, and this has been a stable situation for many years. He isn’t what I’d call “alpha” – but obviously pulls in pretty decent coin, and he’s enjoying the benefits of his station in life.

    He’s a man of integrity, IMO – ’cause everything’s on the level.
    So is this a “cheating” situation? *I* don’t think so!

  • wdplant

    Another very good post Rollo. Keep it up please!!!
    I love your logical analysis of such situations from a man’s point of view. Too often in the regular press we are subjected to the feminist interpretation of such events by feminist/beta writers. This becomes very frustrating when we know, as men, that such interpretation is slanted to suit the feminist imperative.

  • Anthony

    Advice for Mr. Knight: If you value your relationship with your kids, go read MMSL. Your wife isn’t fat, and you could probably get her to be more satisfying without cheating or divorcing her. (If you don’t have kids, then contemplate divorce, but not until you’ve consulted a lawyer *and* read some game blogs so you can do well out of it after you’ve lost half or more of the value of your practice.)

    What will probably happen instead: Mr. Knight will end up having an affair with someone else – probably less hot than Ms. Nelson, and maybe even less hot than his wife. After a while, he’ll get caught at it, and the divorce and the scandal will ruin his practice – he’ll have to move to another state (or at least a far away part of Iowa), and will end up as someone else’s employee because the divorce settlement will make it impossible for him to start up his own practice.

  • 22to28

    Insightful. It makes me wonder, though. What should a twenty-six year old single man like myself who values fidelity proceed with the knowledge of where his SMV is now and where it will be in another fifteen years?

  • Vicomte

    Survivor,

    Asian-Asian or Asian-American?

  • elDuro

    Great post, very well written

  • monster221

    seeing the missez it does come into full view. she wanted the pretty girl fired. it was an act of jealousy, using her husband as a weapon to prove to a young(ish) pretty broad that even old bats can still win the hypergamy game.

    but we cant all be players. this guy may be a chump, but in his mind hes a married chump. he recognizes his attraction and finds that his wife and family is more important to him than some womans job, and sadly, more important than his masculinity. a fellas gotta do what he feels is right.

    i would have handled things differently. in all honesty i probably would not find myself in such a situation to begin with. that is if i were to be married.

    for speculations sake, id like to add that if this dude had a backbone he could turn it around and claim that the tight clothing (hahaha) was a form of sexual harassment on her part, a deliberate attempt to play with his natural compulsions for work related benefit. with all the shit passing for sexual harassment on dudes these days, i dont see why not.

  • FuriousFerret

    I think the moral of the story is learn not to be a total beta early in life so you avoid this extremely pathetic situation.

    Knight looks like your standard ‘nice guy’ beta. Tattoo simply was because he wanted to be cool at some point and failed miserably. His wife looked like she was never hot and always a prude. He could probably count on one hand the times he has had sex over the covers with the lights on with this woman.

    See don’t be a beta schulb when you get married and she will marry a woman that retains some type of sexuality even in the later stages of life and you won’t be some damn desperate loser at the office that some middling blonde in scrubs gives you a boner.

    I guess what I said was a slumming way of just reiteriating what Rollo preaches about learning your SMV too late but it’s always helpful to speak the same concept in your own words.

  • Keanu

    “The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare;”

    …Everytime he thinks that there is a girl out there who he can have sex with without having to picture someone else. Good luck with that Mr. Knight, should have locked your phone!

  • Dillon

    This case is nothing to do with the dentist. He is just an employee of the real owner. His wife.

    The lawsuit was acutally between the wife Mrs Knight and Mrs Nelson.

    If it was only between Dr Knight and the dental assistant, she would have won of course.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    Fascinating analysis Rollo.

    As for “Nothing good ever comes from adultery”, I completely agree. Broken homes so often result in huge trauma for children going up. When I decide to settle down, it will be my wife and my wife only forever.

    Even when the going will likely be tough, I will push on out of love for my children. I’ve seen the effects of broken homes and adultery on too many of my friends. Even when it happens in their twenties it still affects them badly. When the kids are younger it’s just horrific. On top of that, the thought of my kids visiting my ex-wife and her new boyfriend is just horrific.

  • Johnycomelately

    The most amazing aspect of the story is that he actually told her why she was being fired. For goodness sakes, he couldn’t come up with a better reason? Downsizing, lack of work, planning on reducing his working hours etc.

    This smacks of some false bullshit Christian modesty (he even included the pastor?!) which only reared it’s head when his wife found out.

    He got caught out and rather than face the music he blamed it on her carnality.

  • James

    Hey Rollo, Just curious if you have an email address I can message you some direct questions?

  • Bully

    What I’ve noticed about women getting older is that they would rather attempt to control and subjugate rather than contribute and compete, this case being no exception.

    Women getting older and closer to the wall are at a significant disadvantage, no doubt. But instead of trying to hold onto that youthful glimmer through maintaining an acceptable weight, hairstyle, femininity or even more extreme options like plastic surgery, they would rather shame and demean men’s biological preferences instead of putting forth the effort to keep themselves up.

    The funny thing is, I think most men are good enough to realize that their wives are going to grow old whether they like it or not, but would gladly stick with them if they put up a decent effort to maintain themselves. When the effort isn’t there, men get frustrated, especially when they themselves have gone through those same rigors. I think this fellow is one of those types which is why he turned her loose, but you can tell that he was more than tempted at some points. If his wife didn’t bear such a resemblance to 90s Marcia Clark it might have been an easier decision.

    (Also, holy crap, look at 2012 Marcia vs OJ Simpson trial Marcia. Night and day. That’s the kind of maintenance I’m talking about. She gets it.)

  • Bully

    I don’t think that inciting men to cheat is the answer. I think it’s more about pressuring women to stay attractive as they age, just as men are pressured all their lives to compete for greater power and resources. It feels like during marriage only one party gets relief from their role, and it sure as hell isn’t men.

  • YaReally

    Cheating is for men with weak frames, a scarcity mentality, and no control over their own life.

    Open Multiple Long-Term Relationships are the way to go. No lies, no deceit, no guilt, no shame, and all the benefits of normal LTRs. If you want kids, keep the girls on the side discreet and at a distance. If you don’t want your girl fucking other guys, be higher value than them to her (regardless of objectively whether most people would consider you higher value) and trust her hypergamy to keep her from wanting to bang anyone but you, and give her enough of an emotional rollercoaster to keep her invested.m

    There’s plenty of PUA knowledge out there for anyone wanting to explore this stuff.

    Zero respect for cheaters. Don’t give your word to do something you have no intention of doing or are incapable of doing.

    Only situation I’d be alright with a guy cheating is a guy who’s already married with kids who’s just found the Manosphere after his wife has stopped putting out and forced him to be involuntarily celibate and the legal complications would be too severe if he were to tell his wife he wanted to fuck other girls. THAT guy can cheat because his options are get financially raped in court, go without sex for the rest of his life, or cheat.

    Anyone else cheating is a pussy.

  • Adam

    That’s not a tattoo. They were probably at some fucked up spiritual/yoga class where symbols are painted on them to signify some gay personal growth shit.

  • FuriousFerret

    “That’s not a tattoo. They were probably at some fucked up spiritual/yoga class where symbols are painted on them to signify some gay personal growth shit.”

    Alright. That’s the last straw. It’s official. James Knight is beta of the year.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I think that’s a Henna tattoo, and yes, he’d certainly be a strong contender for CH’s beta of the year.

  • LynxViridis

    What I don’t get is why he did this talking about bulging pants, involving the priest and everything. Why? Legal reasons, in order to be able to fire her? Or was it some kind of revenge from the wife, wanting it to be made clear that she was thje one behind all this?

  • FuriousFerret

    “What I don’t get is why he did this talking about bulging pants, involving the priest and everything. Why?”

    All your questions can be answered with “Beta of the Year”.

  • itsme

    THAT guy can cheat because his options are get financially raped in court, go without sex for the rest of his life, or cheat.

    seems to me that describes the majority of married guys.

  • E.J.

    “seems to me that describes the majority of married guys.”

    Exactly. I love the male hamster. “Cheating is unacceptable, except under these specific circumstances, which applies to 99% of married men who cheat.” Only three words to describe this level of cognitive dissonance:

  • Erudite Knight

    I have to say, I am very surprised this decision stood. Perhaps there is still a little hope left. Watching everyone (women mainly) cry about this is funny.

    The irony is this is a ‘huge story’ yet if a female fired a male for a similar reason no one would say anything.

  • Emma the Emo

    I’m just glad family values won over ridiculous anti-discrimination laws this time.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Did anyone happen to catch this from the first article?:

    She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

    So, “bulging pants”, “tight fitting” medical scrubs and beta sexual innuendos about sports cars “didn’t particularly offend her.”? What if she had been offended? I think we’d have an entirely different outcome here.

    This is the subjective nature of sexual harassment legalities. Harassment only occurs when a woman feels it occurred.

  • How the feminine imperative “just happens”. | Dalrock

    [...] Update:  Several other bloggers have written their own thoughts on the issue (Vox Day, Sunshine Mary, and Ballista74).  See also Rollo’s recent post on the feminine imperative and employment law. [...]

  • D-Man

    Yeah, that’s why this decision has gone through (so far)…

    1) She doesn’t claim to have been harassed (good for her resisting the temptation to claim this, false sexual harassment charges are watered-down false rape claims)

    2) As Dillon says it was the wife who fired her. Take the wife out of the equation (well, he wouldn’t have fired her in that case, but assuming he did), he would have been charged and she would’ve received cash and public vindication.

    Still, sad in so many ways. Basically this is like saying the average man – even the successful ones – are hopeless addicts with no impulse control. Like hiring a junkie to work in a hospital’s anaesthesia room, it says we can’t be trusted around the goodies.

    It still sends the greater message that our desires, our NATURAL, HARD WIRED impulses, are both reprehensible and beyond our control. That our wives need to be our mommies and the state/church our daddies.

  • NeotheLeo

    Funny how the firing and even the ruling by “MEN” judges all are being spun as “Evil men, fire woman without just reason”, when the reality is, a WOMAN “Knight’s wife” demanded her be fired. A woman did this to another woman. Knight was only doing what a good beta would do and follow his wife’s orders…. If it wasn’t for the wife’s demand to fire her, I am willing to bet she would still be employed and Knight would still be pining away…

    Yes, it’s all men’s fault…. pfffffft

  • taterearl

    “What I don’t get is why he did this talking about bulging pants, involving the priest and everything. Why? ”

    Some guys aren’t the strong, silent type.

    Plus the confessional is the better place to talk about this…it’s private, the priest can’t say anything to the wife, and you can air all your grievances. It always surprises me how people don’t like going in there…it’s the best and cheapest therapy I can find.

  • D-Man

    “The funny thing is, I think most men are good enough to realize that their wives are going to grow old whether they like it or not, but would gladly stick with them if they put up a decent effort to maintain themselves. When the effort isn’t there, men get frustrated”

    It’s not only the effort to maintain their physical attractiveness… it’s also the effort to maintain their demeanor and personality. Their likeability.

    If wife has lost some of her youthful juiciness, but she’s still warm, eager to please, and easy to be around, it’s not such a big deal.

    BUT if she has managed to get her hubby under her thumb, he will fear her (as his mother), even as her “carrot” (her sexual reward) dries up. This is how she can become more and more unpleasant, and not only stay in the relationship, but dictate it. She sharpens her “stick”.

    You can tie up a grown elephant with a shoelace, if you start by tying them up with heavier ropes when they’re young.

    The irony of all this: what’s the real source of the sourness that too often besets women as they age? OTHER WOMEN. Women perceive themselves to be losing sexual power relative to other women… and they end up taking it out on their husbands.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here. I realize this is all speculation, but judging from Knight’s actions and pictures of him (and the missus) and the fact that their pastor was involved, I would bet that Mrs. Knight didn’t discover the texts by snooping or accident – I would bet he confessed all of this on his own to her.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d felt convicted for wanting to bang Nelson, brought it up with his pastor or someone at church he felt accountable to, and copped to the texts he beta-riffically assumed would result in an affair, or someone convinced him would. As overly feminized as churchianity has become, and with feminine imperative accountability preaching masquerading as christo-masculinity being more prevalent this wouldn’t shock me.

    What brings me to this is the fact that Nelson had worked in the office for 10 fucking years! Where was Mrs. Knight during all of that? In the same office. In 10 years she didn’t suspect her husband wanted to get after it with the only hot piece of ass he was in the immediate vicinity of?

    I assume this is the case, and Mrs. Knight was either genuinely clueless, trusting or just negligent because 10 years is a long time NOT to suspect her husband’s attraction. I mean the guy felt comfortable talking about bulging pants and his wife doesn’t pick up on his affinity.

    So the only probable case for Mrs. Knight becoming aware is by his own (or a third party’s) confession.

  • FuriousFerret

    “I would bet he confessed all of this on his own to her.”

    Fuck “beta of the year”. James Knight shall now be known as “Beta of the New Millenium”.

  • D-Man

    “In 10 years she didn’t suspect her husband wanted to get after it with the only hot piece of ass he was in the immediate vicinity of?”

    Hamster at work. 10 years ago she probably thought she was as hot or hotter than Nelson. It’s only now, as she knows she’s not, that the insecurities come out and get projected on the husband.

    You say you wouldn’t be surprised if he confessed it… I say I wouldn’t be surprised if she drew it out of him through interrogation.

  • D-Man

    OH and while we’re wildly speculating, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nelson loved the attention (hence the lack of harassment claim), and loved the power it gave HER over her boss (Mrs. Knight)….

  • D-Man

    I realize that all sounded like GOSSIP, so here’s my point:

    The internalized Feminine Imperative will always have us examine and attack the character of the Man in the situation first… in this case not once, but TWICE:

    First as done by the wife, the church, and the state: They assume he’s not in control of his desires, he’s a potential cheater, (and if you will believe some vehement feminists, a potential rapist)…

    Then, as we have done here: he’s a hapless Beta… (a conclusion with which I do not disagree)

    NeotheLeo: “Yes, it’s all men’s fault…. pfffffft”. Maybe this is because men are more likely to own up to things when it’s their fault. Or when they’re told it is.

    The point I’m trying to make is that turning the magnifying glass on the character of the women in the story is the last thing society gets around to… is the wife is a frigid, castrating harpy, the worker a drama-seeking attention whore? Are they in a battle of their own with the man as pawn?

    We only start to think about it after we have made up our minds about he guy.

  • michaeltx

    …this morning on the today show…

    [

  • YaReally

    “Exactly. I love the male hamster. “Cheating is unacceptable, except under these specific circumstances, which applies to 99% of married men who cheat.””

    No shit, that’s my point. 99% of men aren’t living the kind of lives they should be living because they’re not self-aware enough to know what they want and are too scared of being alone to achieve it.

    Game and the Manosphere are the answer to that. This generation of old guys who are in that trap, hey, go ahead and cheat, you’re a lost cause, but do it intelligently. But the next generation of men that 99% sure as shit better be lower. It sounds like you guys are advocating non-married men purposely enter relationships where they have to cheat. I’m saying they should be learning the mindset and skillset to avoid both the marriage trap the last gen fell into and the scurry-around-like-a-pussy cheating scenario being recommended.

  • michaeltx

    “Women should flirt at work to get what they want”

    http://i47.tinypic.com/11tvskp.jpg

  • YaReally

    CassMan’s got it. I concur 100% with his shit. Having to cheat means you put yourself in a situation where you’re not living congruently to your desires. It’s beta and weak.

    That doesn’t help the old guys who fell into the marriage trap, but it applies to any non-married (not even single, just not legally bound) guys reading this blog. If you are cheating on your girlfriend or fiancé, you are weak as a man.

  • itsme

    i don’t cheat on any of my girlfriends.

  • Akeem Balogun

    Anyone know any books (such as the The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley) which detail why men are the way they are, and also any other books that explain what it means and – how to – be a ‘real man’ (a cool arse motherfucker with game to put it bluntly) I’m looking for a way to teach some of my people this stuff without them getting defensive or saying some other bull telling me how they’re ensured to get with the ‘right one’ in the not too distant future. It would be VERY helpful.

  • Phillyastro

    Hookers ain’t cheating…

    -St. Augustine

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @michealtx, do you have a link to the video?

  • E.J.

    “CassMan’s got it. I concur 100% with his shit. Having to cheat means you put yourself in a situation where you’re not living congruently to your desires. It’s beta and weak.

    That doesn’t help the old guys who fell into the marriage trap, but it applies to any non-married (not even single, just not legally bound) guys reading this blog. If you are cheating on your girlfriend or fiancé, you are weak as a man.”

    As I said yesterday, I don’t personally choose to be dishonest to women, because I don’t have to, and neither do you. But there are men, and I would say most working men in fact, who live in a completely different social reality. You’ve been living a PUA lifestyle for so long, you can’t fathom anything outside of this alpha/beta paradigm. Real life is not a blog. The majority of men can’t just say “hey, this is what I want to do. If you don’t like it, fuck you. I’m alpha!” Some men have family, friends, and professions that impose restrictions on natural male behavior. Doing whatever you chose and telling the mother of your child to just deal with it, more or less, would cause completely unnecessary problems that cheating wouldn’t.

    I was reading the other day on Roissy that you don’t even have a car, you just get girls to pick you up and bang them. Yet here you are lecturing what is “alpha” to someone with actual success in the real world, based on their unwillingness to risk that success for some side pussy. That is absolute madness. Men who have a lot to lose in life may have children with women who don’t approve of open relationships, and cheating on these women to maintain a 2 parent household for your child is not alpha or beta, it just is. Calling these men names because they don’t study “pick-up” and dedicate hours a day to watching RSD videos doesn’t change the necessities of reality. Some men are not going to want to “spin plates” or keep multiple LTRs. Some men actually want a blue pill relationship and occasionally bang something hotter on the side. Again, this isn’t alpha or beta, it just is. Some men believe that telling their main girl the truth would be too much for them to handle, so they lie to protect these women’s feelings. They have no desire to not fuck around, and they see no benefit to tell their main girl/wife that they’re doing it either, as nothing would be gained by this. That isn’t alpha or beta, it just is.

    This is what many of our fathers and grandfathers did. This has been the case for hundreds of years. It isn’t going to magically change because you read on a blog that “PUAs have this all figured out!” What works for one man isn’t going to work for another, for a variety of reasons. What arrangement one woman finds acceptable, another may use to make a man’s life a living hell. Cheating on such a woman is not beta, unless you view life through a PUA blog lens.

  • Phinn

    “10 years is a long time NOT to suspect her husband’s attraction”

    Ten years ago, Nurse Nelson was hotter. The younger, hotter, more fertile Nelson probably gave Dr. Dickless zero attention and responsiveness to his entreaties back then.

    But as she started to hit the Wall, Nurse Nipples may have been attention-whoring more than usual, wearing tighter clothes, giving Dr. Beta a little more of a flirtatious greenlight to stroke her ego and lift her sagging … uh … self-confidence.

    She still had zero intention of letting Henna-Tattoo do more than peek down her undersized scrubs, of course, but Mrs. Dr. Dickless couldn’t tolerate even the tiniest bit of erectile activity when it was prompted by someone other than herself.

    That’s my take on it.

  • AnonWriter

    Cheating is for people with no character and no accountability. If you are in a sexless marriage or you’re no longer attracted to your wife, then either fix things to your liking or get a divorce.

    Men need to stop being so afraid of divorce. Yes, men get shafted in the short term, but if divorce is never a viable option for you, then you are going to get shafted much worse in the marriage.

    Ideally, you plan for the possibility of divorce before you get married. You have a pre-nup. You maintain separate accounts as well as a joint account. Etc.

    Even if you haven’t done these things, you still can’t be afraid of divorce. Sure, kids suffer – but not that much if you do things right. Kids suffer much worse by having a dad who is an unattractive, milquetoast loser constantly trying to placate their mom. That’s the kind of example that causes your children to fail in their own marriages and relationships.

  • YaReally

    E.J.:

    Like I say, I give a free pass to the last generation because they didn’t have PUA Game or a Manosphere to learn from.

    But any guy in today’s generation, who willingly enters a legal contract of monogamy and then cheats is someone who entered a contract out of ignorance, apathy, or against his better judgement because he caved to the social pressure to do it, or because he’s terrified he won’t be able to find another girl (scarcity).

    If you aren’t ready to settle down, don’t enter a monogamous relationship. It’s that simple. If you’ve been around and you’re done with it all and you know you will be able to uphold your end of the marriage contract with this woman even if she gets fat and old and stops putting out and you will still be able to be loyal only to her, go ahead, get married. I wish you the best

    But if you can’t keep your dick in your pants when your wife is old and fat and stops having sex with you, don’t enter a fucking contract that says you will. Know yourself and respect yourself enough to keep the relationship open and find a woman who will accept you that way. If you enter a contract (even just agreeing verbally to monogamy) and cheat on it, then you are beta.

    It’s a very simple formula. Knowing your wants and needs and goals and standing by them is alpha. Letting others dictate those things for you or not knowing them or giving up in them out of fear of scarcity etc is beta.

    And again the last gen gets a free pass, they were duped. There is NO excuse for a man to get married tomorrow and be cheating 5 years from now. Or for a man to meet a girl tomorrow and agree to be monogamous with her and cheat on her at the bar a few months later. No excuse.

  • YaReally

    Another way to look at it:

    Say your rule/value that you’ve decided for yourself is “I don’t drink. It’s bad for my body and make me lethargic the next day and I have business to attend to.”

    Then you go out with friends and they offer you a drink and you go “well I wasn’t really planning on drinking tonight…no thanks” and they go “aww c’mon man!!” and hold a beer in front of you. So you take it and drink it to feel accepted and not rock the boat. Then a couple beers in a cute girl you’re into brings you a shot and says “c’mon have a shot with me!!” and she wants to liquor you up along with her so you two can let loose and she can bang you and blame the alcohol. Knowing this and thinking you’ll need to drink to get laid by her that night, you do the shot.

    You get hammered with everyone and bang that chick and it’s great. But in the morning your body feels like shit and your hangover makes you sleep through your business stuff and you have to play catch-up with it later.

    Does that guy sound alpha? No. He’s beta because he let other people, peer pressure, pussy scarcity, etc distract him from his goals and he let those things dictate his values and overwrite his own.

    Contrast that with the guy who adamantly, confidently states “no, I’m not drinking tonight thanks.” and is steadfast. And when that girl brings over the shots he says “no, I’m not drinking tonight, thanks.” even knowing it’ll be harder to bang her without the alcohol excuse and instead having to rely on his game and charisma to seduce her.

    That guy still bangs the girl, but he wakes up, his personal goal/value of not drinking achieved, and does his business shit as planned.

    Entering a verbal/legal contract where you agree to monogamy is the same as deciding not to drink. Don’t enter it if that’s not your value, and if you enter it, stick to it or break it off if you can’t because that’s knowing your goals/values and sticking to them regardless of “we’ll it’s hard”.

    And yet again the older gen gets a free pass, they were duped into letting society decide their values for them. This generation of men (anyone under 40) should be smarter and more self-aware and more willing to follow their own path.

    In a way I respect the MGTOW guys for making their decision (not to play the game) and sticking to it. It’s not for me but I can respect that they’ve made a choice.

  • YaReally

    I’d recommend a man spend his 20s figuring out what his values and goals and standards are, by meeting and dating and sleeping with a variety of women and meeting and making friends with a variety of people, and doing some traveling solo to learn how to rely on yourself and build your identity as a man and solidify your internal confidence.

    Then in your 30s, follow those values/goals and don’t settle for less and leisurely seek women out that fit your lifestyle and needs.

    If these days you get married at 20 to the only girl you’ve dated, you are retarded.

  • E.J.

    YaReally:

    Again, such heroic nonsense. No one knows right now whether or not they will be able to fuck the same woman 10 years from now, especially if that man’s SMV goes up a point or two while his wife’s declines. If you fuck a dozen 7’s, get married with the best intentions, and have an 8 throw herself at you with a fat wife at home, all of a sudden “morality” turns into “opportunity.” It happens every single day, and has nothing to do with the alpha/beta spectrum. I agree that there are aspects of infidelity that are beta (scarcity being at the root of it, as you’ve mentioned), but alphas and naturals cheat every day too. You could say that it’s a moral issue, but certainly not an alpha/beta one.

    Let’s look at your last comment:
    “Having to cheat means you put yourself in a situation where you’re not living congruently to your desires. It’s beta and weak.”

    Think about this for a second. If your desire is to fuck 15 women, but you have 2 girlfriends that you fuck regularly, that’s “beta and weak” because you’ve put yourself in a situation where you’re not living congruently to your desires. If your desire is a relationship with a 10, but you settle for fucking a few 7’s every month, that’s “beta and weak” because you’ve put yourself in a situation where you’re not living congruently to your desires. Do you see how absurd that is? Every man on the planet is making some type of compromise, between his true desires and the reality of his social possibilities and biological reality. There’s nothing beta about a man with a good career, family, and strong social circle, who doesn’t want to risk those things for a few hours with a side piece. You’re trying to impose your “PUA lifestyle” morality on the masses of men who aren’t PUAs, and have no desire to be.

    Personally, I keep everything up front, because I’m too lazy to lie and prefer not to (my word is very important to me). I could say that I’m being more “moral” than a cheater, or that I’m more “alpha” because I do as I please, but that’s really just patting myself on the back. The reality is, I’m doing what I can get away with, and so he is. We all are. We each have our own desires, our individual limitations, and we all do what we can to get the most out of life. You and I don’t lie to women because we don’t have to, not because we’re some sort of morally superior righteous men. If we were alive 100 years ago, and you had to get married to have access to frequent sex with quality women, we would probably be married; and we’d probably cheat eventually. So I’m not going to shame these guys. You’re blaming men for staying in the Matrix, but not everyone can be woken up.

  • E.J.

    “I’d recommend a man spend his 20s figuring out what his values and goals and standards are, by meeting and dating and sleeping with a variety of women and meeting and making friends with a variety of people, and doing some traveling solo to learn how to rely on yourself and build your identity as a man and solidify your internal confidence.

    Then in your 30s, follow those values/goals and don’t settle for less and leisurely seek women out that fit your lifestyle and needs.
    If these days you get married at 20 to the only girl you’ve dated, you are retarded.”

    I agree with this 110% by the way. What men should do ideally, and what men actually do however, are not always the same. That distinction usually has nothing to do with how alpha or beta they are, merely circumstances and environment. You speak as if everyone is reading the manosphere daily, agrees with the brunt of its content, and practices its principles. The average American man is a brainwashed egalitarian blue piller, even the alphas.

    Do you realize it’s almost 2013, and most men are still buying women drinks at the bar? How can you expect these guys to go from supplicating for pussy to having soft harems with strict guidelines? They would have to adopt a whole new worldview, then dedicate an inordinate amount of time to studying and practicing game. “Cheating” is a lot more time efficient. It’s really that simple.

  • Rik

    Maybe the dentist did fuck the nurse and the wife found out. Then forced her husband to say theese things. That would be one way of coming out as the winner in all this, next to divorcing the husband which she for a number of plausible reasons may not want to (or will do later). If thr husband agrees to this then the nurse can’t believably laim she fucked him.

  • michaeltx

    @Rollo, no sir, I just caught a glimpse of it on this morning on my way out the door.

  • Enskipp

    Ironic that he’s white and his name is Knight… lol

  • Georgia Boy

    I don’t do the infidelity thing, though I suppose I do have the status to get a side girlfriend. Nobody said the red pill meant you can’t believe in love anymore, just clarified what a woman’s love is and isn’t. But once you have an LTR with a good one, that’s worth more than 20 flings with full-of-themselves barflies and cocktail waitresses. Just my opinion of course. The good women don’t much like sharing their men, and sneaking around and lying is not conducive to living an alpha frame.

  • Ace Haley

    @YaReally: For real. Especially that part about meeting, dating and sleeping with a variety of women in their 20s. If they can’t in their 20s for whatever reason, the 30s. \

    I don’t know how to put it in another way but it bothers me when I hear that a guy worked his ass off and didn’t have his fun like the “reformed” woman he settled for. Why should Joseph settle for Jane if Jane slept with 50 guys and Joseph hasn’t even touched 10 girls?

    This is mind-boggling to me and to a lot of people I know.

  • Random Angeleno

    Phinn at 3:52pm seems to have hit the closest to the mark regarding the dynamic of this situation. I have been with my current dentist many years and have long noticed that his staff doesn’t include a single boner-worthy woman. That may be more beta than alpha, but on the other hand, he’s insuring that his living doesn’t get interrupted by sexual politics and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, Schwarzenegger jokes notwithstanding.

    Regarding cheating, if the relationship devolves to the point where the man feels like cheating, then if there are no kids, he’s better off leaving. But if there are kids present, that’s a different dynamic and he’s probably better off with Athol. Further, the husband needs help from his wife in order to avoid temptation. Without that help, that temptation will be strong, too strong in many cases. But getting that help requires the husband to alpha up to some extent.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Does it mean nothing to you that you get these tales from tabloids? White-trash/underclass culture is the state of nature. And it is almost 100% irrelevant to my life, despite its alarming gradual takeover of the middle class. Your projection of animal behaviors upon the civilized is white trash in itself, where grown men giggle at sexual innuendo like junior-high drop outs. It’s only a short step from there to imagining

    [t]his very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years.

    You have no standing to imagine what the “very religious and moral individual” is imagining. You simply fill in the blanks with your own lowest-common-denominator assumptions about the limits of discipline and human flourishing.

    Of course hypergamy is raw and undisciplined down in the gutter of society. Of course men there compare their middle-aged wives to youthful tramps and find the former wanting. They are encouraged to do so, in part by the likes of you. There is nothing in evidence that this man was anything other than a crass dentist who mishandled an employee problem; you and the tabloids conjure the rest, including psychological states, hidden intentions, and titillating motivations.

    Nevertheless, even if my outpost is a lonely tower above the swarming, writhing, frisky hoi polloi who are, as you describe, hellbent on destroying themselves, it doesn’t matter. None of it matters if my orthodox refuge perishes. None of it matters if we revert to savagery.

    That is where you should come in. You should promote the ideals the lower classes should strive after, not the comforting-but-ultimately-destructive, popular misconceptions of the good. People should read a book rather than watch “Toddlers and Tiaras.” But rather than making a case for the liberation of literacy, you wallow in the septic tanks of trailer parks, using their deviance as examples of hypergamy run amok, which is an enemy any civilized man is, by definition, focused on eradicating like the cancer it is. Hypergamy, and the subsequent masculine bungling of it, is not organic to our best selves. It is handled discreetly, like toilet habits, not as the tragic, inevitable motivations in a universal morality play.

    Hypergamy indeed exists. But it is ourselves at our worst, and we can transcend it. It is not to be reasoned with or compromised with. It does not control us. It controls the weak and déclassé. Show them how to be strong, how to overcome, rather than indirectly promoting a resignation to trashiness.

    Matt

  • Phinn

    “You have no standing to imagine what the “very religious and moral individual” is imagining. You simply fill in the blanks with your own lowest-common-denominator assumptions about the limits of discipline and human flourishing.”

    Where do you come up with this crap?

    This isn’t a tabloid story — it’s from a state supreme court legal opinion. It initially made the news because of its impact on labor law.

    From that legal reporting, we learned that Dr. Knight himself contended that his employee’s female form caused him to have erections. This was part of his defense — that he was sexually attracted to her, and did not fire her because he disliked having a female employee (which is legally prohibited), but because he liked her too much. He fired her not as a form of sexual harassment, but so as to avoid sexually harassing her.

    So, you’re pretty much exactly wrong. We in the news-consuming public can claim to know what Dr. Knight imagined, because the thoughts that coursed through his mind were part of the facts of his case.

  • YaReally

    “Again, such heroic nonsense.”

    Transformers rules.

    “No one knows right now whether or not they will be able to fuck the same woman 10 years from now, especially if that man’s SMV goes up a point or two while his wife’s declines. If you fuck a dozen 7′s, get married with the best intentions, and have an 8 throw herself at you with a fat wife at home, all of a sudden “morality” turns into “opportunity.””

    Well then, perhaps they shouldn’t be getting married or entering monogamous relationships because those are retarded notions that go against our biology and logic when you actually consider the long-term consequences of entering a monogamous relationship.

    Oh snap!! I’m here to promote not getting into monogamy, at all, anyone. Did that just blow your mind? :P

    More to come later, I have an Xmas party to attend.

  • Case

    Rollo re: post of dec 27th 1:15 pm,
    I don’t know if its the 3 shots i’ve imbibed so far this evening or the fact of my own early prehistory with churchianity that informs me of certain high likelihoods but tthat post has me busting up.

    Si tunc ecclesia stultus

  • Case

    Actually that’s not what I’d meant to say
    kinda drunk
    what I meant was

    In risu sit veritas

    In laughter, is truth

  • Matthew King (King A)

    YaReally writes:

    But any guy in today’s generation, who willingly enters a legal contract of monogamy and then cheats is someone who entered a contract out of ignorance, apathy, or against his better judgement because he caved to the social pressure to do it, or because he’s terrified he won’t be able to find another girl (scarcity).

    *pitying head shake*

    I’d recommend a man spend his 20s figuring out what his values and goals and standards are, by meeting and dating and sleeping with a variety of women and meeting and making friends with a variety of people, and doing some traveling solo to learn how to rely on yourself and build your identity as a man and solidify your internal confidence.

    Then in your 30s, follow those values/goals and don’t settle for less and leisurely seek women out that fit your lifestyle and needs.

    *fucking eye-roll*

    You speak like a boy of one kind of experience and a severely retarded imagination. Marriage isn’t a mere “contract of monogamy”; it is a covenant and a sacrament. There are high-minded reasons to participate in it beyond “ignorance,” “apathy,” poor “judgment,” “social pressure,” or being “terrified” by “scarcity.” These are the only possible motivations for you because you are a worm limited by a worm’s-eye view. Men and women lapse. They are prone to error. Your litany of excuse-making has nothing to do with the pursuit of perfection or the setbacks necessary to such a pursuit.

    What’s more, weak men complain of the marriage “trap” as a cover for their own shortcomings. They cannot be the man of their own house, they cannot control a woman’s hypergamy with love or with dread, and so they weep like girls and seek some external force to blame. And there are fat targets out there in the culture to unload one’s responsibility onto — feminism, no-fault separation, divorce “rape,” obesity and entitlement. But men don’t pass the buck, especially to feminine institutions. They manage the situation, whatever the situation presents.

    I too have no sympathy for the men who married harridans, but not out of a lack of foresight or in commiseration with the indignities their fishwives inflict upon them. Even the shrewiest shrew can be tamed — particularly since they seek their own taming above every other want. The shrike is all but shrieking for the discipline she cannot provide for herself, the manly command that saves her from self-destruction. A man just has to up his game.

    You obviously have not lived long enough to “recommend a man spend his 20s” doing anything. Because if you think one’s “values and goals” are simply “standards” to be “figure[d] out” in an atmosphere of experiment and diversity rather than merciless truths to be discerned against desire, you know nothing about the consequences of the misspent youth you advocate. You are the male version of the wall-approaching slut who recommends the cock carousel because it’s the only ride she knows.

    You promote that advice because it is the decision into which you have invested your own paltry resources. But your teenage braggadocio indicates you are not a reliable judge of your own choices, much less a good proxy judge on the behalf of men who do not want to end up like you — difficult as that possibility may be to imagine during the last of your salad days.

    Matt

  • E.J.

    King A to YaReally: You’re childish and unmanly because you get laid more than me. You just need to “man up” and get married. The men who got divorced deserved it because they weren’t alpha enough and/or Christian enough.

    King A to xsplat: You’re pathetic and unmanly because you get laid more than me. You just need to “man up” and get married. The men who got divorced deserved it because they weren’t alpha enough and/or Christian enough.

    King A to AB Dada: You’re an unmanly hippie because you get laid more than me. You just need to “man up” and get married. The men who got divorced deserved it because they weren’t alpha enough and/or Christian enough.

    etc. etc.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Phinn wrote:

    This isn’t a tabloid story — it’s from a state supreme court legal opinion. It initially made the news because of its impact on labor law.

    You credulous sap. The prurient focus on just those “facts of his case,” the judgments based on ample photographs, and the speculation about psychological motivation are what’s “tabloid.” The immodest dress of the woman, the indiscretion with which the dentist handled the disruption, and the transformation of marital discord into employment-legal issues are what’s “white trash.”

    And still none of it speaks to how these crude specimens’ behavior informs us about “religious perceptions” or gives cause for Rollo’s going “out on a limb here.”

    If it were merely about labor law, how come Rollo didn’t focus on that overriding framework? Did Rollo feature the “legal reporting” or did he interpret the Daily Mail’s photographs? Tabloidism isn’t about facts per se, it is about how those facts are verified, characterized, and presented.

    The National Enquirer uncovered the simple facts of the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair long before any other news outlet did. But no one paid attention to their reportage because their reputation indicated the high likelihood of distortion about those facts.

    The tattoos, the smarmy innuendo about “bulges,” the inability to control himself in public, and the very law that necessitates a public discussion of erections are all rotten fruit from the same underclass tree.

    You are “in the news-consuming public” all right. Consuming the news that confirms your slovenly understanding of the human condition. Or do you mean to imply you were interested in this story because of the impact on labor laws, first brought to your attention when you were perusing the docket of the upcoming supreme court term?

    I proudly have no interest in and minimal exposure to the little titillations of little souls. You can’t make me go down that rabbit hole in search of the irrelevant precision behind your inane gotcha. The facts are understood, what you cited does not contradict my thesis.

    And before you hide behind the judiciary’s outmoded frocks of dignity, any “supreme” “court” with an interest in these matters also stands athwart the very civilization that makes their frivolities possible. How about we discuss that, instead? Now there is a subject I can sink my teeth into. Much more than the attempt to divine wisdom about the eternal feminine from a Fleet Street rag and their shocking discovery of the day: uncivilized men and uncivilized women act uncivilly … FULL STORY AFTER THE JUMP!

    Matt

  • Johnycomelately

    Mentioned the article to a friend and he chimed in with this one:

    MERMAID EFFECT

    Barney from How I Met Your Mother

    “Sailors stuck at sea would get desperate for female companionship. It got so bad that eventually the manatees out in the water started to look like beautiful women: Mermaids. You see, every woman, no matter how initially repugnant, has a Mermaid Clock, the time it takes for you to realize you want to bone her. Sure, today you see [your secretary] Iris as a manatee, but she ain’t going to stay that way.”

    Funny but true.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    E.J. to King A: I remember details and patterns about your disagreements from years ago, with people and conversations you have forgotten, but I have to mock you to prove I’m not an obsessed and jealous observer of other men.

    King A to E.J.: It’s not working. But keep judging from a distance, as detached cowards do, rather than risking an attempt at substance and my harsh public rejection of it. Next time you might stumble over a pattern that is useful to me.

    Right now your observations reek of bitterness and complaint in the utter absence of cause, beyond whatever private demons prompt a grown man to store-away the otherwise unremembered resentments of third-parties.

  • E.J.

    I only found the manosphere in 2012, so I had no idea you’ve been posting the same arguments for years. That’s even worse.

    So let me get this straight. You’ve spent years trying to shame single and divorced men, on numerous blogs, but I reek of bitterness and complaint? Irony aside, how is your life mission going?

  • CL

    The repeated injunctions concerning Matthew’s supposed lack of sex life sounds like the first line of attack feminists use on men they don’t like. Weak.

  • E.J.

    @CL

    There is no reason on Earth any man with a healthy sex life would spend years attacking and shaming bachelors. That’s classic misguided sexual frustration. If you’re concerned with feminist shaming language, you can start with Matt’s entire post (calling men weak little boys for not wanting to get married, insulting divorced fathers for not being man enough to keep a wife, etc.). Interesting how none of that bothers you.

  • Love's Orphan

    The event proves me what i’ve been thinking for some months. The battle is between unattractive women and attractive women. And men are the sword, the shield, the bait, and the lamb that is going to be sacrificed to the gods in order to win it.

  • John Galt

    Queen A’s comments are very tiring. Only way to shut him up is to steal his bible and thesaurus.

  • anon

    Piss off, idiot. King A is the manosphere’s brightest voice, by far and bar none. Simply peerless, and always an absolute pleasure to read.

    I’m sure you’d disagree, but then again it’s probably about time for you to “John Galt” your way back to a place that’s a little bit more up your speed. I’m sure you’d fit in nicely in the Hooked on Phonics community forums.

  • Keanu

    Obviously Knight’s problem was that he broke the golden Tom Brady rule:

  • Mike

    Rollo,

    There might be somthing in this article that is rare and self revealing Fi.

    file:///C:/Users/Micheal/Documents/Interview%20with%20Jane%20Christmas%20%20Macleans_ca%20-%20Culture%20-%20Lifestyle.htm

  • Mike

    file:///C:/Users/Micheal/Documents/Interview%20with%20Jane%20Christmas%20%20Macleans_ca%20-%20Culture%20-%20Lifestyle.htm

  • thebloggerssoliloquy

    Anyone know any books (such as the The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley) which detail why men are the way they are, and also any other books that explain what it means and – how to – be a ‘real man’ (a cool arse motherfucker with game to put it bluntly) I’m looking for a way to teach some of my people this stuff without them getting defensive or saying some other bull telling me how they’re ensured to get with the ‘right one’ in the not too distant future. It would be VERY helpful.

  • taterearl

    “Even the shrewiest shrew can be tamed — particularly since they seek their own taming above every other want. The shrike is all but shrieking for the discipline she cannot provide for herself, the manly command that saves her from self-destruction. A man just has to up his game.”

    Now if every man put that into his brain bank and used it he’d be surprised with the results.

    I’ve been practicing this…just giving commands to women, nothing big, just something to see what the results will be. Some will just do it, some will shriek and then do it, some will laugh at me…then they do it. The common denominator is they will shit test, but if you stand your ground and don’t get emotional…they do it.

  • Phinn

    >>> And still none of it speaks to how these crude specimens’ behavior informs us about “religious perceptions” or gives cause for Rollo’s going “out on a limb here.”

    Part of Dr. Knight’s case is his argument that he and his wife consulted with their pastor before firing the woman. They put that fact out there, and are relying on it.

    But even though they inserted that religious element into their argument of having done nothing illegal, you want us to think that it’s somehow wildly inappropriate to walk through the door they opened by commenting on that very same religiosity.

    Typical religious nonsense — posit some fact or argument, then get offended when other people react to it in a way you dislike.

    >>> “If it were merely about labor law, how come Rollo didn’t focus on that overriding framework? Did Rollo feature the “legal reporting” or did he interpret the Daily Mail’s photographs? Tabloidism isn’t about facts per se, it is about how those facts are verified, characterized, and presented. The National Enquirer uncovered the simple facts of the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair long before any other news outlet did. But no one paid attention to their reportage because their reputation indicated the high likelihood of distortion about those facts.”

    Rollo can comment on whatever he wants to comment on.

    The point I was making is that the origin of the news story is a legal case, not original intrepid tabloid investigative reporting. That’s the reason why so many of the operative facts we are discussing here are public in the first place — the parties themselves already went through an entire litigation process to determine these facts.

    >>> “The tattoos, the smarmy innuendo about “bulges,” the inability to control himself in public, and the very law that necessitates a public discussion of erections are all rotten fruit from the same underclass tree.”

    Yeah, I guess. You are pretty judgy, for a dude.

    >>> “You are “in the news-consuming public” all right. Consuming the news that confirms your slovenly understanding of the human condition. Or do you mean to imply you were interested in this story because of the impact on labor laws, first brought to your attention when you were perusing the docket of the upcoming supreme court term?

    Actually, yes, I first picked up on the story through legal reporting.

    >>>”I proudly have no interest in and minimal exposure to the little titillations of little souls.”

    And yet, here you are, consuming the very same news story. And consuming in IN A WAY THAT CONFIRMS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN CONDITION.

    There’s something about the religious mindset that fosters your kind of hypocrisy. I think it comes from the incredible amount of double-think that is required to maintain religious thinking. Religious thinking depends entirely on splitting and projection — a constant monitoring of one’s self, a complete inability to cope with most of one’s emotions, and the relentless rejection of most of your own mind as “bad” and intolerable.

    Rather than accept and cope with it, the religious mindset requires that this part of the self be denied and compartmentalized through all sorts of endless magical labels and other defense mechanisms.

    Doing this every day for 20 or 30 years makes a person highly adept at self-ignorance and self-contradiction.

    Pointing this out usually provokes a highly religious person into a rage outburst, because the rage is just another defense mechanism, designed to help keep the lid on all that repression. Taking that away from a religious person is like taking away someone’s oxygen.

    Magic doesn’t exist, Matt, except as a figment of the imagination. Reality may be messy sometimes, but you really don’t have to be afraid of it.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    When I read any of Matt’s diatribes, I find them far more palatable and entertaining if you imagine his words being spoken in long form Elizabethan English, as if they were delivered to the House of Lords by the prime minister.

    What’s more, weak men complain of the marriage “trap” as a cover for their own shortcomings. They cannot be the man of their own house, they cannot control a woman’s hypergamy with love or with dread, and so they weep like girls and seek some external force to blame.

    If I’m understanding you correctly here then your take on ‘responsible’ marriage isn’t all that different from what YaReally is warning men about marriage. Your methods certainly differ but the end result is still the same – be a man with the capacity to master women before you commit to a lifetime of marriage to one woman.

    According to you both, ideally a man must master his own ‘shortcomings’ before he’s qualified to enter into a lifetime of committed monogamy. He must be a master of himself, his home, a woman’s hypergamy, etc. YaReally (and to a degree myself) offers a plan of action to achieve this state – spin plates, learn about women, self-improve, understand the social implications of the feminine imperative, learn Game, etc.

    True, sometimes this is a process of trial and error; in fact most of this blog wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for those errors, but ours is a process of learning via experience. All I hear you suggest is learning via divine inspiration and high-minded readings of appropriate philosophies in ancient manuscripts. I wont say that doesn’t have its value, but it’s not the same as learning about oneself and women through experience.

    Who is the more effective addiction counselor, the former addict or the one who’s never used, but has only read the approved books to get his certification?

    Who’s the better judge of the nature of women, the man who’s known the love and sex of 20 women, or the one who’s only ever been with one?

  • treylesnorth

    Caught something interesting to me yesterday. Happened to relate to some of the comments I skimmed above regarding whether it’s ethical or respectable for a man to cheat on his wife.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/3653763/Brilliant-men-always-betray-their-wives.html

    I’d heard about Picasso and JFK, sure. But Einstein? Bertrand Russell? Curiouser and curiouser

  • John Galt

    Lol, well, if you really do think Queen is the “brightest voice” in the manosphere, then there is a reason you post as “anonymous”. You stick to you your racist bible beating faggot, and I will take Ya Really and mark minter, men who are actually out there pounding the pavement every day with women and sharing their experiences with the community.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,366 other followers

%d bloggers like this: