No Preference

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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

28 comments on “No Preference

  1. 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 they don’t act out through biological imperative by through countering biology and assuming that humans are stronger than biology.

    I don’t consider them “wrong”, per se, 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. I also laugh when people take offense that I truly believe that most people who live counter-imperatively probably have some fucked up history that is really sad to hear about.

    Guy/Girl colors hair: they’ve got problems.
    Guy/Girl tattooes entire body: they’ve got problems.
    GuyGirl pierces face: they’ve got problems.

    It’s not that hard to understand, and yet the White Knights and their detractors felt a need to come out and pontificate on why one side is wrong and the other is right.

    Honestly, they’re both wrong because they both refuse to acknowledge the idea of projection in individuals who want to create a reason for others to give them attention. It’s no different than the PUA clubs of Mystery and the other hat-wearing crowd.

    Rollo: 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.

    There’s no gain in using your real names anyway, because all it does is create a greater sense of “I am better than you because you are not believable.” I’ve been dealing with the criticisms against me since I started using my real name — before most people even had email. Never hurt me, only helped me, but it’s a huge risk to take, and I recommend against it for most writers online. I’m just blessed that I warn pretty much all my customers-to-be that I’m a loud mouth and I openly disparage all forms of groupthink online and in person, and they can take it or leave it.

    1. 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 for granted, much less the wonders of art and culture, much less a basic language.

      You don’t have to deny the influence of biological urges, nor must you be a leftwing social engineer who wants to remake mankind, to submit oneself to the control of those urges like a slave, much less deny the very possibility of transcending primal instincts.

      Yes, our animal nature persists, and thank God — it is an indelible part of being human. But that nature is “gentled” in the complete man (the gentleman). A strong man can withhold his strength by policy. Deference is not always a sign of unchosen weakness or inferior stock. The strength that allows discipline allows the acquisition of a still greater strength. Such is a power all out of proportion with what any single man can achieve on his own. It is the leverage that binds men together. Also known as leadership. The interplay of those strengths among men? Also known as honor.

      You need better language than that which is provided by “bio-mechanics.” That specialty argot is not expansive enough to express the thoughts you are trying to express. In fact, words themselves may not be adequate to the task, which is why we must turn to literature and art to properly convey the main argument.

      1. 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 goal it is to be completely thinking, completely in control of those urges and instincts.

        I truly believe that women are more able to delve into their animal roots, it’s the males who refuse “Game” that are the real losers in life.

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 card she had no desire to continue the discussion.

    Of course this discussion struck a chord with other women, and before you know it they are coming out of the woodwork expressing their displeasure at my lack of compassion for mothers who care for families, men who leave their wives….you name it. If I made mention of any of these things it was in a factual context, but all these women needed was the smallest thread to grasp onto to launch into a tirade against men.

    Since this was all off topic of the thread a (female) moderator suggested that we start a new thread about “the war of the sexes”. As much as I would have loved to eviscerate these women with facts that would completely disprove their garbage, I know better. The tidal wave of female indignation would crush me. And of course the men who see truth in what I say are too afraid to speak up, so the outcome of defending my position would have been that everyone would end up hating me.

    My point is that this shit runs DEEP. If we are met with this much resistance on blogs that are targeted toward people who understand this stuff it is hard to even fathom the scope of the prevailing attitude in the general population.

  4. 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 I still wanted to surprise you.’

    Game works. Oh, and she wasn’t going for rounds 3, 4 and 5 because she just loves me oh so much– she knew I was going clubbing on Saturday and wanted to make damn sure I was drained and wouldn’t be motivated to bring home another slam piece.

    Plugins have a good sense for what makes LTRs work. But there’s a whole other relationship model for having girls kick down your door to rip your clothes off.

  5. 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 says more about the blogger than it does about the people he chose to skewer. Like feminists who are preternaturally annoyed not only at sexism per se but also by the possibility that some sexist is indulging in sexism somewhere in the world right this very second! in the privacy of his own room, under his covers, with the lights out; Roissy is personally disturbed that somebody, somewhere doesn’t worship the “biological urge” quite to his level of zealotry. A zealot is a zealot. The blogger and the subjects have more in common than not.

    Worse, his fanboys can’t distinguish this kind of criticism from any other. Their world is divided exclusively into Roissy Wannabes and White Knights. Boring. Also: idiotically false.

      1. 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?

        1. Because you’re a Christian fanatic who thinks he’s “Diogenes with his lamp,” saving the blogosphere one misguided PUA at a time?

  6. 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?

    My gf: “Don’t pick on her, she’s nice…”

    Won’t stand up for me when people talk shit, but when I say something about one of her friends she jumps to the rescue.

    I dumped her.

    1. 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 it exists.

      1. 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.

  7. 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 and its farcical ‘Human Rights Commission where a comedian was prosecuted for ripping on some hecklers who happened be lesbians who were ‘offended’ by the comedian. Sadly, there is a clear effort to silence dissent and debate in the West much of which, (but not all) coming from the the cultural Marxist cults of Feminism and environmentalism, and from Islam itself. Few seem to truly want to defend free speech. Other groups and institutions aren’t helping. Universities are some of the most intolerant places for some ideas but not for others. I suppose whether that ends up being tolerance or intolerance depends on if the powers that be “approve’ of that opinion/ideology or not. Stay safe Rollo.

  8. 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.

    1. 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 accept and respect asexuals? You must have a small penis!”

  9. 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 automobiles got nothing but her tears and complaints about me.

    1. 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!”

      Ugh, nightmare.

  10. 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 of a canonical article of a Plugin’s social understanding.

    People with questions don’t scare me, it’s the people who have none that do.

    1. 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…
      (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 someone in Brazil where the fireplaces are not a part of their history.

      And something like sexuality tends to be very closely tied to self-worth indeed.

      For an advanced understanding of social interaction. It is important to understand the other person’s emotional lens.

      People who view the world through a lens of fear and shame will tend to view even the kindest attempts to rid them of their delusions as an attack on their person and respond with hate. Reaffirming their delusions on the other hand triggers positive feelings and they cherish.

      Because of this there is a real disincentive when it comes to trying to help the delusional by making them question their reality.

      This lack of internal and external questioning and makes the delusional state stable for a short time, until it inevitably comes crashing on the shores of reality.

      Breaking through this delusional state predictably causes disillusionment, anger, and confusion. A veritable dark night of the soul ensues as their previously cherished beliefs are crushed. This is the real test.

      What is seen, can’t be unseen. Those who attempt to fall back into delusion will be tormented by the truth. The only way out is to go further into the abyss and come out the other side.

      The rewards for those who manage to do this are great.

      (Note the chief at 3:30)

      1. 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 have Ms. Nixon taking ownership of her decisions, well, you see what happens. She’s already backtracking.

        On an episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!, a leading climate scientist said, “There is no debate on global warming.” To which Penn interjected, “Bullshit; there should always be debate.”

    2. 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.

      1. 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”.

    3. 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 often works unless one calls out the one(s) making those charged claims.

      The other tactic now used, most often by Leftists and Islamic groups is to attend lectures by speakers, and shout them down so they can’t speak. The muslim students at UC Irvine who shouted down the Israeli ambassador are one of the more recent incidents of this silencing tactic. One needn’t be a supporter of Israel to see how anti-free speech that tactic was. One can find other examples as well.

      Your reference to homosexuality being a ‘choice’ and not a genetic and biological trait is interesting because I share the same view. I just don’t buy that it’s biological, rather if one looks at the history of homosexuality, it is most often occurs in the contexts of sexual abuse and abuse of power vis-a-vis slave vs. master, Greek male vs. catamite, etc. If that is the case then it makes homosexuality a situational social construct if not a belief system, like slavery or cannibalism.

      If homosexuality is a belief system, and that in itself makes it a belief system, little different from Christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Marxism, etc. and subject to criticism and protected by the 1st amendment. The critic is under no compunction to conform to the subjects idea of fairness. If the feminists, homosex activists, plug-ins, white knights, et al. don’t like it, then they don’t believe in free speech.

      Regardess Rollo, keep up the good work.

  11. ‘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. : )

  12. 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.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: