violence

Why We Fight

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” – Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

In the almost nine years of of this blog I have only hit upon violence on a couple of occasions. I’ve only been in a physical altercation a handful of times in my life. And by that I mean real fights; the kind of violence that requires you to physically harm another person. I’ve been in lots of sparring fights and martial arts tournaments, mostly when I was in my 20s and 30s. While I’ve been hurt and caused hurt to my opponents, I can appreciate that there is a qualified difference between competitive sport fighting and real violence. The one mutual interest my younger brother and I had when we were growing up was beating the shit out of each other. By the time I got to high school I was no stranger to taking a fist to the chops or various headlocks and “wrassling” holds.

Most of the times I’ve been in real fights were in high school. It’s interesting just how Darwinistic our teenage years really are –we’re just too immature to appreciate it then. Unless you grow up in a sheltered family, learning about sex and violence is usually part of our adolescent experiences. After high school I got into a few fights when I was playing gigs in the late 80s-90s Hollywood scene. Depending on where we played and who we happened to piss off, those kind of fights were something you had to keep in the back of your head as being a possibility. Usually you had friends or bandmates who had your back, but not always.

Of those scuffles most of them were versus a drunk guy who presumed he could kick my ass, or my bandmate’s ass, because, well, we weren’t exactly the most physically imposing guys to be honest. And a lot of those fights were initiated in one of two ways; the guy was fed up with guys like us because the women (usually in some sexy outfit) preferred to fuck guys like us – or, the fight was provoked by a woman and the guys fighting were coming to blows over who’d fucked whose girlfriend. Often enough it was the girl herself who’d later admit she “made a mistake” and one or the other found out.

All of that was back in the late 80s and early 90s. Things have definitely changed with respect to how violence is initiated, normalized and respected (or delegitimized) today, but the basis of that violence will never change. Violence is part of human nature. We do ourselves no favors in denying this simple fact. I can remember in 2001-02 when I did casino promotions for this new ‘sport’ called King of the Cage. It was the forerunner for today’s MMA fighting, but back then it wasn’t as socially acceptable as it is now. I believe Nevada was one of the only states that could legally host such an event. The outcry then was that it was an underground ‘bloodsport’ and legitimizing it as a true sport was the first step towards degenerate social savagery. Or something like that. People used to be appalled by it.

Now MMA fighting is something I’ve seen some Evangelical Christian churches use as a draw to get their men to attend a ‘masculine revival’ weekend. Warriors for Jesus with a ‘saved’ MMA fighter speaking about using his sport as a ministry. I think there’s a primal, evolved side of men’s nature that makes violence attractive. And like love and respect, violence is another aspect of the human experience where men and women’s approach and understanding is innately different.

Boys and men are innately drawn to competition, combat and violence. We make ‘guns’ out of our fingers. We craft weapons from scraps we find in the garage to defeat our ‘foes’. We love our plastic army men and G.I. Joes, our cowboys & indians, and we play ‘war’ with our friends. Our video games from the first coin operated arcades to our immersive virtual reality consoles are about combat and strategy. Even sports have been called a “proxy for war”. Team sports are a facsimile of tribal competition. Human males’ physiology, by and large, evolved for combat and physical stresses. I realize that might be hard to believe by today’s standard of masculinity, but the evidence is there.

The male Burden of Performance began with a need for testing that performance against our primal environments and some very real opponents. I have read some interesting research that suggests human beings are innately risk averse. Most humans would rather avoid conflict than voluntarily engage in a fight that they could very well lose, if not die from. The logic is that humans’ success as a species is at least partly due to our evolved sense of caution for life and limb. If you cooperate and play it safe it’s likely your risk-averse genes would propagate into future generations.

Of course the flip side to this can summed up in an old Latin proverb,…

Fortune Favors the Bold. 

There’s also research that shows men experience a spike in testosterone levels after defeating a rival in combat, and/or killing their opponent. This doesn’t even have to be actual violence; some studies show men experience a similar spike when their sports teams win a significant game. So, while in some instances avoiding conflict and backing down from a dangerous engagement has survival benefits, risk taking and enacting one’s will by force also has some reproductive benefits. 

For as much as they rail to the contrary, women do have an affinity for violent men. Women get turned on by men with a capacity for violence. Modern psychology attempts to pathologize this arousal prompted by dangerous men (hybristophilia), but, by order of degree, women evolved to select for men with at least the perceived capacity to do harm to another man. I would speculate that this attraction stems from women’s evolved need to seek security and protection from men, and sympathetically, men evolved an innate protectionist aspect to our own evolved firmware. Competing with rival men for sexual access, sometimes violently, is part of our ancestral programming. As we developed into a more ‘civilized’ species that competition shifted to contests of performance between men, but the old violent firmware is still part of humans’ starting package.

Let’s You and Him Fight

On Twitter and a few past livestreams, I’ve pointed out that women today have developed a false sense of security with respect to the potential of real violence. This is equally a result of the masculinization of women as it is our accommodating the Feminine Imperative in mainstream cultures. In the age of social media, as the globalization of women’s entitlements have spread, so too has women’s entitlement to personal safety. 

One very real downside to the Fempowerment narrative is that it has convinced women that the fantasy of the “strong female” is something they can aspire to personally. This is what I’ve called the Warrior Princess fallacy: Over the course of generations our feminine-primary social order has convinced women that they can realize the same warrior role as men. Via storytelling in various media the ideal that physical differences in men and women are relative, and women can be “just as tough and dangerous as men” is pervasive. This is a dangerous precedent, and one that is a direct result of old order beliefs in, and popularization of, Blank Slate equals. 

In the idealized fantasy society of equalism, masculinized Amazon Warrior Princesses can give as good as they get from any man. But in the real world, men evolved for physical performance, competition and combat; women evolved to endure the rigors of childbearing and nurturing. And as the introduction of transgendered biological males into biologically female sports divisions is proving, the realities of our physical differences is unavoidable.

However, the idea that women are always entitled to physical protection in the new order presents some interesting dichotomies. Women mix an entitlement to personal safety with an expectation of clichéd female bravado. Remember, this all happens in the context of women’s innate solipsism; add a bit of alcohol and the social posturing of a group of women all vying for attention on a Friday night and you begin to see the volatile potential. Today’s women have grown accustomed to initiating or escalating inherently unsafe circumstances for themselves – to say nothing of the men they’ll involve.

Women have a limbic understanding that, for the most part, they can be violent with relative impunity. If a male ever strikes a female, even in self-defense, she can be assured that a mob of random males, following their evolved protectionist directive, will spontaneously form to beat the shit out of the guy. In today’s Blue Pill engineered society, even the most passive male waits for an opportunity to prove his quality to womankind by becoming ‘justifiably’ violent in defense of a woman. It’s what most men are conditioned for for most of their lives.

“Sorry babe, I don’t know what came over me. I just can’t abide by any man assaulting a woman!”

The old, vestigial, evolved response of violence is something our male hindbrains know will trigger ‘gina tingles in women. The primal ideal of the nobleman with the capacity to unleash justifiable fisticuffs is Blue Pill conditioned psychological red meat. That the woman provoked or escalated an unsafe situation isn’t even an afterthought – the guy raised a hand to a woman, opportunities to prove a legitimate capacity for violence are rare for low SMV men.

As such, women presume safety. Women will raise hell about feeling unsafe around men. They’ll bleat about fantasies of enforcing a ‘male curfew’ (only for undesirable Betas of course) out of safety concerns. We’ll hire security staff to walk a woman across a dark parking lot and install emergency call boxes on college campuses. But in social situations (particularly when drinking) will escalate inherently unsafe situations knowing that men will play by the old order rules.

There is an old PUA maxim that picked up on women’s penchant to provoke men to violence. It was called the Lets You and Him Fight dynamic. Whether women are aware of this and deliberately provoking a fight between men, or, their subconscious motivates the conflict is a debate that’s been around for a while. But the LYHF dynamic is a shit test women will use in assessing a man’s Alpha status. Women need indignation as it is, but in this dynamic is a woman’s hindbrain wants a visceral response from a man.

I first became aware of the LYHF shit test when a friend had told me how annoyed he was by his girlfriend starting fights with guys that she expected him to finish. She would honk the car horn from the passenger seat if someone had even slightly cut them off in traffic. Even flip off other drivers if the opportunity presented itself. She would start fights with other women which would provoke their boyfriends to step in on their behalf and he was tacitly expected to kick their ass to defend her provoking them. “What are you a pussy? Go beat his ass!”

I’ve tackled the subject of shit tests numerous times on this blog so I won’t belabor them here, but this test plays upon some very deep, evolved, intersexual and intersocial dynamics. On some level of consciousness a woman wants to know her man can get violent. Most Blue Pill men find that suggestion appalling. We’re supposed to be “above all of that”, right? For the most part I’m sure the majority of men would rather not be put into a position of taking a fist to the face. As such we build social conventions and rationales around not engaging physically in a real sense. So, to consider a woman might desire a man with a predilection for violence prompts them to qualify that woman for his own safety.

Intrasexual Competition

“Any group is weaker than a man alone unless they are perfectly trained to work together.” – Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

When a group (tribe) of primates reaches a certain number of members the potential for ‘hostile takeover’ by lesser males becomes almost a certainty. Beta male primates form coalitions to overthrow an existing Alpha leader. Most dominant Alphas instinctively cull this coalition building to ensure their position. A smackdown, abuse, punishment for anything that looks like a challenge to his position from lesser male troop members is something Alphas do to infrequently teaming up on him. Partially this is a display of dominance (social proof reinforces it), but it is also a curbing function.

Eventually the Alpha becomes weaker and less effective at enforcing his dominance, and the Betas grow in number until such time that they can band together and depose him. Then the cycle repeats with the most dominant male among them assuming the Alpha role. He gets access to the most fertile females, kills off his rivals’ offspring (which prompts the females into estrus) and reproduces for as long as he’s able to remain in that position.

And yes, I’m aware of the theory that pro-social Alphas that build loyalty-exchanges among other males, and display a willingness to share resources with females, tend to make for better ‘leaders’ within a tribe. What most of that research conveniently leaves out is the element of envy and jealousy that develops (even among primates) in the Beta male population until the sentiment reaches a point of challenge. Even the good-guy, prosocial Alpha has to watch his back.

As you might guess, many of these behaviors are paralleled in humans. Alpha displays of violence, even if by proxy, are ‘sexy’, but mostly we manifest male prowess in social displays. Athletics, resource acquisition, peacocking, conspicuous consumption, really any costly signaling of high sexual market value. To compete with these Alpha displays, lesser males must either: 

  • Increase their own value, and learn to display it effectively, 
  • Find ways to convince other men, (coalition building) and reproductively viable women, that those displays are worthless, while propping up his own displays as more valuable.

In the age of social media and mass communication Beta males are constantly reminded of their lesser positions. There’s no respite. Even the most well-meaning, prosocial Alpha’s presence is a reminder of Beta male inadequacies. High school bullies and ‘Jocks vs. Nerds’ is a constant theme across human cultures because the evolved human male experience is always one of competition and a Burden of Performance. To be male is to compete, and as such there will be winners and losers.

Deposing, or disqualifying, an Alpha – much in the same way primates do – is also a constant theme in human cultures. Beta males enacting ‘justice’ on an ‘evil’ Alpha or an Alpha proxy has always been a teenage fantasy for boys. Spiderman, Captain America, the wimp who incredibly transforms into a powerful Alpha himself will prove to the world how that Alpha power should be ethically used. The geek who gets the girl because she magically sees his superior quality that aligns with the terms he’s establishing as valuable is also a fantasy. All of these cast the Alpha as ‘oppressor’.

“O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.” – Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

Why is using strength, displaying value and exercising will an act of ’tyranny’? Why is restraint of power a moral imperative? How did we come to disqualifying value displays? I’ve seen a few talks by Jordan Peterson where he promotes the idea that a real man is a dangerous one who possesses the capacity for violence and oppression, but has the strength of will not to use it. This then begs the question, how does anyone know a man even possesses this capacity if he’s not to display it? Concealing strength is awesome, but it is, by definition, indistinguishable from weakness. No one knows if you’re a black belt or a white belt until you get in the ring and fight. However, the moral consensus is that it’s unacceptable for men to display value.

This then is the global, social coalition that was formed by the majority of lesser men. To continually disqualify the merits of superior men is individually taxing and makes lesser men look worse for doing so. But build a social order around men self-policing their displays of value; then you have higher value men doing the heavy lifting for lesser men. You may be powerful, but the social mores of the time (created to serve the majority of lesser men) will tell you to conceal it. In fact, they’ll build social conventions to convince the whole of men that displaying vulnerability, not strength, is a display of value.

Most of what I’m digging at here is old order thinking. Socially enforced monogamy has primarily served the greatest number of Beta men. And while it’s definitely been a stabilizing factor for civilization, I can’t ignore that the social expectation of monogamy is also the result of society-wide coalition building among lesser men to ensure that greater men wouldn’t out-breed them. Most male-specific social conventions are designed to control men’s innate directives. Their latent purpose is to teach rules that limit displays and usage of strength.

And in the new order we see this old order intersexual competition struggle to keep pace with a global sexual marketplace that centers on women’s innate mating strategies reseting context of intersexual dynamics. Open Hypergamy incentivizes men’s overt displays of higher value – and now on a worldwide scale. In response, men form online coalitions to disqualify those displays in an attempt to devalue the strengths of men they couldn’t hope to compete with in the old order. Meanwhile, women in the global sexual marketplace continue to reward men who display genuine value according to their mating strategy’s needs. 

The Anger Bias

I don’t think it will come as a shock to my readers, or anyone who follows me on Twitter or on the Red Pill Reddit forum, that I’ve gone to bat in recent months to combat the (often deliberate) misperception that self-described ‘Red Pill’ men are inherently angry men. As such, we’re also meant to presume these ‘angry men’ have a potential for violence or at best self-loathing.

The idea, of course, is proposed that “the guys in TRP are just embittered, deeply hurt men who’ve taken the truths that Red Pill awareness has presented to them and converted it to a real, genuine misogyny”. Furthermore, the convention is proposed that these guys cannot come to terms with their own failures and want to blame them all on women, or at the very least an unkind, unforgiving, pro-female world in which they’ve always struggled (i.e. “losers want to blame their losing on women”). Thus, these ‘bitter terpers’ (TRPers) promote either hostility towards women, or they attempt to check themselves out of the sexual marketplace entirely by “going their own way”. In either case, it’s proposed that it’s men’s inherent anger that motivates them to an anti-woman mindset.

I addressed much of this misguided argument in my essay Anger Management:

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

Anger bias and attribution to men is an easy follow for a social order predicated on empowering and protecting the feminine. From an egalitarian mindset that insists on socially constructed equalism between the sexes it’s ironic that the attribution of a default anger to men, and the conventionally masculine, is something entirely unique to the male sex. To the feminine-primary mindset, all-is-one until a negative trait unique to the male biology serves a purpose, and a positive trait unique to women is flattering for them. Then the ideals of social constructionism are suspended insofar as biology agrees with a feminine-primary social order.

I would also argue that predisposed anger is just one attribute the Feminine Imperative finds useful in men to create operative social conventions. The default presumption of mens predisposition to anger is the basis of most domestic legislation (paternity, domestic violence, child custody, etc.) between men and women.

This is a convenient social constructivism based (ostensibly) on egalitarian equality until a particular emotion or personal quality is predominantly attributable to one sex in the positive or negative; then it’s the ‘differences’, not the similarities, between the sexes that make for social control. It’s funny how we’re all equal, blank-slates until anger is better attributed to “toxic” masculinity and some preternatural capacity for empathy in women are beliefs the Feminine Imperative reinforces in its cultural context.

Anger is a useful emotion for fem-centrism. It’s all too easy to classify men’s propensity for anger (and associated violence) as ‘toxic’ yet women’s anger is something transformative and empowering. This connects back to the social efforts of the past five generations designed to feminize men and masculinize women; the inverse traits that would be conventional to one gender are encouraged as positive traits in the opposite gender.

This may be somewhat remedial for my regular readers, but I’m reviewing this because it illustrates a dichotomy that a Blue Pill mindset is all too ready to accept. To the equalist ideology, biological gender-specific truths are only a minor factor in the human condition – unless the truth of that gender-specific biological fact is something advantageous to the feminine and disadvantageous to the masculine.

For instance, to suggest that women’s evolved neurological capacity for communication makes them more intuitive and sensitive to verbal and nonverbal sub-communication we’re supposed to embrace this biological fact as something that sets women apart as ‘special’ or evidence of women being “more evolved”. But when we suggest that men outclass women in cognitive spatial ability, or neurological gender differences in rational abstract thinking gives men a biological advantage in areas like mathematics, then male professors lose their tenured jobs for expressing these facts publicly. If a biological difference is flattering to women it’s an exception to the blank-slate ideology; if a difference is unflattering to women it’s considered evidence of an institutionalized sexism on the part of men.

For all purposes, a social order founded on the blank-slate ideology of egalitarian equalism (serving the Feminine Imperative) regularly, and ruthlessly, quashes any discourse of biological gender differences – unless those factual differences are flattering to the feminine and/or damning of the masculine.

Anger Bias

One biological difference equalism is happy to promote is the notion that men are biologically predisposed to anger, aggression and violence. The motivating impetus behind this anger is rarely something the equalist mind will consider, but that men are predominantly, naturally, more ‘angry’ than women is a meme that is actively encouraged. If anything, this biological fact is a root basis for the cultural concept of “toxic” masculinity.

However, the fact does remain, healthy men possess 12 to 17 times the biogenous serum testosterone that women do. This naturally predisposes men to be more muscular, hairy, lower voices, libidinous and yes, aggressive. It’s no secret that statistically men are biologically more prone to anger, aggression and potentially violence. In a feminine-correct social context this natural predilection is the basis of all masculine attributes being ‘toxic’, if for no other reason than it presents a threat to women’s social control.

For all this, the male gender-bias towards presumption of anger has a foundation in evolutionary psychology. Men will always be considered more angry than women because of an evolutionary adaptation known as Error Management. And in men’s case, this anger attribution is a species-survival adaptation. The following quotes originate from a study called, Seeing storms behind the clouds: Biases in the attribution of anger. This experimental study, and another similar study (If looks could kill), come to us courtesy of Dr. Martie Haselton and her colleagues in the evo-psych department at UCLA. These studies outline the inherent biases towards anger all humans theoretically harbor subconsciously.

Anger-prone individuals are volatile and frequently dangerous. Accordingly, inferring the presence of this personality trait in others was important in ancestral human populations. This inference, made under uncertainty, can result in two types of errors: underestimation or overestimation of trait anger. Averaged over evolutionary time, underestimation will have been the more costly error, as the fitness decrements resulting from physical harm or death due to insufficient vigilance are greater than those resulting from lost social opportunities due to excessive caution. We therefore hypothesized that selection has favored an upwards bias in the estimation of others’ trait anger relative to estimations of other traits not characterized by such an error asymmetry.

Anger attribution to physical and gender cues is an “adaptive rationality”. In other words, it’s probably better to err on the side of caution and misattribute anger to an individual displaying even marginal cues of a potential for aggression (for instance, they hold implements or tools that could cause physical harm) than to miss that cue and wind up dead or injured.

Moreover, we hypothesized that additional attributes that 1) make the actor more dangerous, or 2) make the observer more vulnerable increase the error asymmetry with regard to inferring anger-proneness, and should therefore correspondingly increase this overestimation bias.

This is an important distinction to make when we extrapolate this theory to a larger social scope. When the actors (men in our case) are made to appear more dangerous, or the observers (women & feminized men) are made to feel more vulnerable there is an increase in the perception that the actors are in fact more prone to anger (asymmetrical error attribution).

Adaptive rationality and error management

The “adaptive rationality” approach contends that the mind was shaped by selection to enhance fitness in ancestral environments rather than to yield accurate judgments. Therefore, human cognition can manifest seemingly irrational biases that are, in fact, “adaptively rational.”

I explored this topic in my essay, Vestiges.

Anger attribution is one domain in which this might occur. Perceivers can commit one of two errors: underestimate an individual’s trait anger (false negative) or overestimate it (false positive). On average, underestimations will have been costlier than overestimations in ancestral populations: assuming that an anger-prone individual was temperate placed the perceiver at risk of assault, whereas assuming that a temperate individual was anger-prone merely led to foregoing potentially profitable interactions. Thus, overall accuracy (i.e., committing false negative and false positive errors with equal frequency) did not maximize fitness over evolutionary time. Rather, in line with error management theory, we hypothesize that selection favored a biased tendency to commit the less costly false positive — overestimating trait anger. Although the same logic applies to the estimations of state anger, our predictions focus squarely on trait anger because traits predict future behavior, and it is costly to underestimate an individual’s anger not only in the moment, but also in future interactions.

For the Red Pill aware, what I’m suggesting is that there is an evolved predisposition to perceive men as generally more prone to anger, and thereby more susceptible to aggression/violence, than may in fact be the actual case with men individually. Largely, as a man, you will always be perceived as potentially angrier than a woman.

Contextual factors can influence this asymmetry, resulting in a concomitant increase in biases in the perception of a given emotion. Anger motivates aggression, hence an important contextual factor in anger perception is the capacity of the perceived individual to inflict harm. The greater the capacity to harm, the more costly it is to underestimate the extent to which the target is angry, and therefore the more that perception should be biased in favor of overestimation.

I would argue here that men’s state in western(izing) cultures is one that grossly exaggerates men’s overall potential for anger, and by extension violence. Presuming that Red Pill men are “a bunch of angry misogynists” is one such error, but it is also a useful one in that it plays upon this overestimation of anger in men on whole. This anger attribution in men will always be an easy method of poisoning the well or creating straw men arguments from which opponents of Red Pill awareness will dismiss valid, factual arguments.

As you might guess, this male anger bias is a simple tool to use – and one I unfortunately see being employed by many Purple Pill dating coaches who’d like to dissuade their clientele from the less marketable aspects of Red Pill awareness. Anything Red Pill that disagrees with their feminine-sanitized advice is conveniently dismissed as “negative” or the rantings of angry, bitter, burned men. It becomes “Truthful Anger”, but their emphasis is always on the anger part rather than the truth that would kick a leg out from under their positivity marketing scheme.

The default state of women and feminized men is one of a presumed vulnerability due to a persistent social characterization of a default female victimhood in popular culture and media. Likewise, men are portrayed as quick to anger – all in spite of generations of effort spent in Blue Pill conditioning of men to be ideally passive, supportive, non-assertive and entirely less masculinized. Despite all that sensitivity conditioning, from the earliest ages, the default presumption that’s still popularly reinforced is that men are always the angry/violent ones. Domestic violence laws presume a man is always the attacker and always the party to be removed from the home because of this preconception.

Both the Feminine Imperative and even well meaning Red Pill men default to this overestimation. I get that this is largely merited on whole as a characteristic of men. This error management is a useful and pragmatic adaptation, but it is also a useful foil for dismissing men on whole. It’s interesting that I’d be pilloried for expressing that the realities of women’s menstrual cycle predispose them to ovulatory shift, as well as anti-social, behaviors, yet were I to explain that testosterone predisposes men to aggression we largely accept this as a given.

My intent in this essay isn’t to say men aren’t as angry as their evolutionary nature makes them. The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.

Violence

There’s an interesting dynamic with regards to women and male vs. male violence. I have some interesting stories that address this.

When I was dating my wife I was a blue belt in [a martial art that will go nameless in order to avoid the inevitable debate on which is ‘the best’] and was just getting into competitive sparring. As a date idea I once asked her if she would come with me to Sacramento for a tournament and later we could hit a sushi bar I knew of down there. Instead of the standard “oh I think violence is just terrible/juvenile/men with insecurities stuff” line I would expect from 90% of women, and to my surprise, she enthusiastically agreed. When it came time for my sparring events I beat everyone in my pool that day and placed first for my belt class – trophy in hand. I don’t say this to gloss myself (since I generally had my ass handed to me pretty regularly), but I just happened to win this day and I even took out the last guy with a 3 point head kick and unintentionally drawing a little blood from his nose in the process. To make a long story short, we never made it to the sushi bar that evening – we were too busy fucking like rabbits back at the motel room, she wouldn’t even let me shower! My girlfriend (now wife) worked me 7 way to Tuesday in bed and this is still some of the most memorable sex I’ve had with her.

Next story – As some of you know, I used to be the art director for a major casino in Nevada. We had on two occasions a King of the Cage (UFC/MMA early incarnation) event there. In both instances the women in my department would go nuts over this. Most of these guys are in very good shape physically, but the fighting dynamic is what puts them into a real frenzy. These women would look forward for months to these events, not because of the sport of fighting, but their attraction to the personas of the fighters we did promos and PR with (“I’d jump so-and-so and do him all day, etc.”). Understand that none of these women had any idea of what these guy’s personalities were like, they just lusted after the idea of what they were.

At the last event, a group of guys who were the boyfriends of a few of these women, went to the King of the Cage matches, and got into a street fight in the parking lot later after the event was over on their way back to their cars. When the girls related this story to the rest of us the next day, they emphatically decried how shocked and disappointed they were with their boyfriends for resorting to violence. They then began characterizing ‘men’ as just big children, and ‘brutish’ and ‘typical’.

Now, do you see the contradiction here? There is a definite sexual attraction to a man who can ‘handle himself’ by women. I don’t think I need to reiterate my posts on the attraction of the Alpha thug appeal. For the most part women will ardently deny this to no end so as not to seem to condone violence, while at the same time reward the man, the soldier, etc. who can take care of ‘business’ – who goes off to war – with her intimacy and sexuality so long as he fits her mental archetype of the guy who deserves it. Even if you disagree with this assessment, you have to see the paradox and the confusion it creates for a man. Be a gentleman, but don’t be a gentle man. And again, this all comes back to her intrinsic need for security and ‘strength’ in a man, while at the same time verbally denying she is attracted to it. Society tells her she should be disgusted with the man who punches the guy who disses her at the bar, but in practice, she takes the guy home and fucks his brains out or fantasizes about the hot fighter in the ring who would do the same.

A capacity for at least measured violence in a Man stimulates a woman’s desire of fantasy, sexual submission, physicality and security.

One thing I’ve learned about fighting is you don’t go looking for shit, because you’ll find it. Not only that, but if it seems like you’re looking for it, women think you’re an automatic asshole and/or are using that bravado as an overt message to directly to trigger this appeal for her. But if you’re careful, and the opportunity presents itself in such a way that you end up the hero, and whether or not you get your ass kicked, chicks will give it up faster than for any other reason or motivation. If your motives are even peripherally noble, the situation allows for indirect social proof and you actually have the confidence to put your face in the path of someone’s fist, regardless of circumstance or even the outcome nothing spreads a woman’s legs faster. However, you have to be seen as positive, not the aggressor.