There’s nothing like a good internet shit-storm to fire up the inspiration for great manosphere bloggery. As most of my readers are aware I cite Roissy/Heartiste often enough, if not for content then certainly for terminology. If I have one complaint about the Chateau it’s Roissy’s habit of posting a fresh topic about a half an hour before I’m ready to log off for the day and the comment discussion ends up in becoming an epic struggle between the manospheric forces of reason versus the blathering cut-and-paste canards of the militantly Matrix plugged-in. Such was Friday’s post at the Chateau.
I’m not entirely sure, but my guess would be that Roissy wasn’t expecting the landslide of commentary (685 responses at last count) his post provoked from the more agitated wing of social crusaders poised to defend any critical analysis of the search term: “Sexual Preference”. Oddly enough, the main thrust of his commentary wasn’t about the alleged ‘asexual preference’ of the girl in his chosen article, but rather the Beta of the Month guy who’d endure and encourage an entirely sexless monogamy to accomodate this little Pixie.
As I’ve noted in many a prior thread, Indignation is a basic requirement for the feminine psyche (and extended to the male feminine identifier’s psyches) – directly or vicariously, in the absence of indignation, women will actively create it for themselves. If you feel like sifting through 685 posts of indignation to understand this, you’ll have an easy time of it by attempting to explain ‘sexual preference’ in a rational manner to the legions of Matrix Plugins. Even when that sexual preference is “none of the above.”
Every Plugin in the comment thread had some pet interest in the orgy of ignorance: Feminists, White Knights, Sexual Preference Crusaders, Rape Culturists, etc. yet the spark of the whole debate was a little rainbow haired girl who volunteered to be interviewed by the BBC about her claims of ‘sexlessness’ and the legitimacy of asexuality as a, presumedly biological, sexual orientation (or non-orientation in the stricter sense). Oh, yeah, and some anonymous herb who chose to repress his sexuality to apease said Pixie.
Accusations of rape culture flew out in the first volley Matrix-speak:
“If she’s not into sex there’s nothing wrong with her. She doesn’t ‘owe’ him sex and if she does so against her will then that’s rape.”
Following up were the appeals to sexual preference and gender identity:
“It’s people like you who demonize and bully people who’s sexual orientation conflicts with your own. You’re what’s wrong with society, you’re scum of the earth.”
Next came the predictable White Knight contingent and their “not-like-other-guys” Beta game mantras:
“Thinking the only way to be intimate with another person is through sexual contact is not only ridiculous but incredibly limiting. I’d be perfectly fine being in a sexless relationship.”
And for the finale, a healthy dose of male shame administered by those lacking the insight to add anything novel:
“If this bothers you, I bet you all have really small cocks.”
What interested me most about this ‘discussion’ wasn’t just the intensity of the responses, but also how quickly and comfortably the Plugins were in their need to set the “troglodytes” straight. You see, in our disconnected lives it’s much more difficult to express our ideology without real-time social repercussions. We can get fired from a job, kicked out of our social circle, excommunicated from church or not be asked back to the lady’s bridge club when we venture a disenting perspective on a great many topics. The Buffer of the internet make that expression much more convenient, but is also fraught with the same risks, albeit more indirectly. This accessibility is also a good indicator of what provokes indignation.
In an era when critical analysis is conflated with political incorrectness it’s interesting to observe what prompts outrage, even if it’s simply token, actionless outrage. As I stated in Enter White Knight:
Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.
There is such a dearth of critical thought and analysis in society at large that those willing to do so become the immediate targets for the indignation seeking majority of the Matrix. Bloggers such as myself, Roissy, Roosh, Dalrock, Ferd, and a whole host of others, must be exceptionally careful in our anonymity for fear of real-world repercussions for our ideas and our observations. We take on pseudonyms by necessity for fear of an impact to our careers, our families, our personal lives, etc. No feminist blogger need worry about using her real name – their ideas aren’t dangerous, they don’t threaten the feminine imperative’s primacy.
It’s a shock to normalcy when a conflicting idea is expressed, but it’s what the Plugins wait for. It’s their prime opportunity. They perceive it as a test of their ego investments to refute (however lamely) the observations that would challenge their comfortable world view.
I can’t believe it caused so much fire over at CH. I saw the article, clicked through, saw the female’s photo and thought to myself “someone got raped by daddy dearest or a close male relative. Poor gal, but such is life.” I tried to read the article but realized it was too biased for my taste, so I bounced. NEXT. I’m pretty accepting of my gay friends, my lesbian friends, my conservative friends, my liberal friends, my pro-lifer friends and pro-choice friends, but in the end, I could never let any of those people into my inner circle, because… Read more »
A.B. Dada wrote: “I could never let any of those people into my inner circle, because they don’t act out through biological imperative by through countering biology and assuming that humans are stronger than biology. … I just don’t see why one has to be so weak as to defend the idea that we’re more than our biological urges. …” We are comprised self-evidently of “more than our biological urges.” Look all around you. It’s called civilization. Without some handle on our urges, we wouldn’t have stopped fighting and fucking long enough to develop the comforts of civilization you take… Read more »
And as someone who endows the arts, and assists amateur writers in publishing their words, I agree fully — a man who leaves this life with not a speck of gratitude for the writers and artists and actors is not a man in full. I just am unwilling to deny my animal urges as many are expected to do. Do I tame them? Of course I do, to be untamed would be less than one can strive for. But I will not make excuses for those urges, and I won’t have time or space in my life for those whose… Read more »
Eat the meat; throw away the bones. Every group has a truth to speak to humanity. Learn it and move on. Some views add information; some distort it. In the end what you are is what matters more than anything else. This is the dream to live.
The biggest problem is that you can’t easily have a conversation about such things with females because by nature they are self-delusional and/or invested in the femcentric model. A woman whose mind has been broken down and resculpted by medical school or law school can more often understand and appreciate the rational arguments being made. Otherwise you really have to go out of your way to connect the dots for them. That’s just how they’re wired.
White Knights, beta males, etc. – they have no excuse.
A few days ago I got sucked into a fight with a frothing-at-the-mouth feminist man hater who posted something on a message board about the wage gap. I quickly and succinctly provided proof that said wage gap was a myth, but of course she wasn’t hearing it. No matter how calm, rational and well presented my argument was she had no desire to listen to reason. Of course we all know how this goes- completely misconstrue my words, strawman, more strawmen, avoid all of the points that would destroy her argument, and finally…..ANGER! As soon as she played her last… Read more »
I got the text at 2am on Friday that said, ‘open your door.’ When I opened it ten minutes later, the buzzed little spinner took my hand, dragged me to my room and was deepthroating me as soon as my pants were off. She wouldn’t let me sleep because every 20 minutes her hand would find my cock for another round. She dumped her fiance a week ago. She kept saying, ‘I know who you are and you get with tons of girls, but I still couldn’t stop thinking about you tonight.’ ‘You say the rudest things about girls, but… Read more »
The 700-comment brouhaha was a work of Roissian Troll art. He didn’t just make fun of the poor little confused girl. He took her existence as an affront to his creed if not to his very existence, going way over the top as is his style to crush a gnat with a sledgehammer. Some were reacting to the asexuals, some were reacting to Roissy’s shtick, some to his “shocking” ideology, some to very existence Roissy himself. But, like any masterful P.T. Barnum blogger does, he made them all react. As for the merits of Roissy’s circus-style post, I think it… Read more »
Then, why are you participating all of this?
I don’t understand the premise of your question.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, and why am I “participating [in] all of this?”
I dunno. Because I’m a partisan of the truth? Because ideological zealotry in any form is an insult to my presence? Because I like to make lies perish, be they pretty or unpretty?
Does that answer your baffling question?
Because you’re a Christian fanatic who thinks he’s “Diogenes with his lamp,” saving the blogosphere one misguided PUA at a time?
Speaking of social circle acceptance and delusion…the girl I’m seeing was told by her “friend” that two other girls didn’t invite my gf to a group social circle dinner because they didn’t want me to come. I blasted her for not standing up for me. My gf said “everyone’s entitled to their opinion, it doesn’t bother me, I stayed with you.” I then slagged off the friend for being the one who broke the news and just as bad saying if she was a friend and the had a dinner without you, why bring up the fact you weren’t invited?… Read more »
I’m very open with my women that I don’t trust any of their close friends — if they call me out on it, I ask them to be honest and tell me which females did them the most harm in their lives. That shuts them up. Women are most evil to the women they’re closest to. Helping relationships destruct from the outside is a natural talent that hypergamy “blesses” on the female of the species. I wonder how often in the animal kingdom do females competing for the AMOG perform actions to denigrate the males to other females. I’m sure… Read more »
I find myself avoiding the lady’s friends and family. I don’t run much social circle game though when I do I kill it. A women’s friends are her competition like you stated in so many words.
That the topic of the “asexual” emo-chick and her rube-for-a-boyfriend are mildly interesting but so odd I wouldn’t think it merited 685+ posts. Rollo is correct, it reveals far more about the people staking out their positions than the topic itself. As for the rest, interesting and disturbing commentary, both the examples above and at Chateau’s site. Makes one wonder if there really is ‘Freedom of Speech’ in the US or whether the US is well on its way to becoming like Europe where any dissent is silenced and at times prosecuted. Perhaps the US will end up like Canada… Read more »
I think Roissy inadvertently tapped into the feminine subconscious fear of not being desirous enough to attract a quality man.
Asexuality in women is a ruse by which they can protect themselves from being losers while maintaining some sort of virginal superiority complex.
Just check out the reaction to asexual women compared to men, hundreds come out of the woodwork to defend asexual women while Japanese herbivores are roundly condemned for being losers.
The herbivores aren’t just rejecting sex. They are rejecting intimacy with women. Which of course translates to rejecting provisioning women. As in all things, follow the money. Or as I prefer to say, follow the labor. Asexual women want attention and labor, for less reciprocal attention and labor (sex and blowjobs) than is the accepted trade. Of course they will defend their position by any and all means necessary, even when their arguments unmask them as insane, irrational, stupid, and hateful. For instance – “That guy is a loser for staying with a girl who doesn’t put out” “You don’t… Read more »
As I mentioned in the Roissy comment thread, it’s possible to bust through an asexual girls resistance, if she is romantically involved with you. In essence you use a careful mixture of force and romance. I have nothing but pride in declaring that I had to basically rape her the first few times. Consensual rape, but her body literally fought me. And I refused monogamy with her for the first 5 months of dating her. Needless to say, all of that cemented her to me even closer. The nice guys who orbited her with gifts and promises of marriage and… Read more »
Damn, you did that with the retarded laws of what she could have said in terms of rape allegations? I’m impressed.
That kind of thing would be a serious notch, but not one that’s worth risking for my taste. I’d rather go for a girl that is less likely to file rape and less likely to be believed.
“I’m asexual, all my friends know this! Then this bad, EVIL man seduced me after just half a beer that inhibited my ability to say no!”
JIm’s comment made me realize that the reaction to Roissy’s post was less about ‘intolerance’ and more about silencing critical inquiry about issues the feminine imperative depends upon to maintain it’s primacy. It’s not so much about tolerating differing perspectives as it is about misdirecting critical analysis of social dynamics the Plugins need to protect in order to exist. For instance I may doubt the biological basis of homosexuality and propose that it’s root is environmentally conditioned and behavioral (not necessarily a choice, but a conditioned sexual behavior) and my offense isn’t about my presumption, it’s literally about the questioning… Read more »
You sentiment on homosexuality is quite reasonable. However I doubt the average person would understand it in a rational manner. It is rare to come across individuals capable of understanding nuanced views about reality and being open to change without an emotionally charged reaction to the facts. Here is a good example a delusion almost everyone has… http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion (Wood fireplaces, are more carcinogenic than smoking) The closer a topic of discussion is to that individuals sense of self-worth the less likely that a person can hold rational views on the subject. So the fireplace delusion wouldn’t elicit a reaction from… Read more »
Recent example: Cynthia Nixon (“Sex & the City”) declaring that her homosexual lifestyle was a “choice” recently. That has the gay-rights community up in arms. As you said, it’s not about the argument itself, it’s about the existence of dissent itself which has become intolerable to the “rights” groups. Never mind that when the gay rights movement started, homosexuality (or any sexuality) was trumpeted as a choice. This backfired, of course, because it made them seem deliberately deviant in the eyes of homophobes. By the 90s, homosexuality was no longer a choice but an ironclad genetic trait. So when you… Read more »
Those people don’t give a shit about tolerance. They are quick to criticize you for not accepting an “alternative” lifestyle, but the second you point out an alternative point of view you will see just how tolerant they are. It is ALL about maintaining and advancing the feminine imperative.
In order to do that they MUST maintain a system of smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth. Pretty easy to do when everything that supports their warped agenda sounds good and logical to the majority of the general public who lack the capacity for critical thought.
There would be no need for terms like “alternative” lifestyle if there weren’t already an established “normative” lifestyle.
That’s the crux then; when you establish a normal state anything that deviates from it isn’t “normal”.
Yep, one of the cheapest and sleaziest debating tactics is to claim ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, Islamaphobia, religious bigotry, etc., sometimes with hysterics and an air of righteous indignation. It’s a lowball attempt to end the debate, rather than further it. It’s deflection, not debate nor discussion. It makes the person have to defend himself, and gets the subject and person off topic. When having to fend off the charge of being a ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, Islamophobe, etc most clam up, spend the next few minutes defending themselves and convincing others that they aren’t. All the while the debate effectively ends. Sadly, it… Read more »
‘Asexual females’ really is an expression that devoids the women of any responsibility for their life choice (as opposed to herbivores). Since memes are based on language an expression needs to be created to fully do justice to this phenomenon, particularly since it seems to piss the feminists to no end.
My weak attempt, Princess Layless. : )
Really good post. I think you nail where / why the Game haters exist and what explains their rabid frothing against people they’ve never met and have no real-world logical reason to care about.
[…] “Intensity of Affect“, “Creative Intensity”Rollo Tomassi – “No Preference“, “Three Strikes“, “Sexy“, “The Threat”Rivelino – […]