Yes Means Fear

Not surprisingly the latest “anti-rape” Yes Means Yes law just passed for California university campuses has been the topic du jour in the manosphere this week. I usually like to allow mainstream news like this to percolate in the ‘sphere before throwing my hat into the ring, but I think it’s gotten a lot of mulling over on various blogs now.

Just as a point of order, I’ll repeat that as a policy I never do politics, religion or race on Rational Male – unless those topics relate to intergender relations or the interests of red pill truths and/or the manosphere in general.

That said it’s impossible not to consider the politics, social perspective and the underlying motivations of this new law. Dalrock has already done three posts to this effect, and I wouldn’t want to take any of that thunder away from him. So if you’re wanting a more in depth social / religious perspective I suggest heading over there and read his last posts.

For the most part Dal dissects the Ezra Klein article Roosh vlogs about here regarding how terrible, but ‘necessarily terrible’ this new law is. I’m not sure what I could add here that hasn’t already been debated with regard to speculating about its long term effects, however I do think this law is less about rape prevention, or even the redefining of ‘what rape is” and a lot more about the need for total control of both the male sexual imperative and optimal feminine hypergamy.

Although Yes Means Yes is law on California University campuses it is merely the first of many coming mandates with the latent purpose of legally mandating men’s cooperation with feminine hypergamy and women’s sexual pluralism (AFBB).

I could elaborate on the details of how Yes Means Yes is essentially worthless without some metric by which to document ‘consent’ at each stage of an intersexual encounter (yes, it’s in the law), but this would be pointless, because the actual intent of this law is to create an environment where men are led into a false sense of security with a woman as they move from stage to stage.

The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she said yes. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she meant to say yes, and wasn’t consenting because she was scared, or high, or too tired of fighting. If you’re one half of a loving, committed relationship, then you probably can Be Pretty Damn Sure. If you’re not, then you better fucking ask.

The problem with Ezra’s scenario here is he’s presuming a baseline of two honest agents with each other’s mutual interest at heart, in rational discourse between both men and women in a “loving relationship” with no ulterior motives either in the now or in the future. Being ‘Pretty Damn Sure’ is not enough and that’s what makes YMY so dangerous. It presumes male guilt before, during and after any sex ever occurs, and Ezra knows this…

…men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

Sadie Hawkins’ World

And thus we understand the latent purpose of this law – instilling fear in men. Nominally the law is about making men so fearful that they concede all aspects of any intersexual discourse to a feminine imperative. This is Sadie Hawkins’ world. One in which only women are allowed to make any intersexual approach to a man for fear that his doing so will be construed as rape, or an intent to rape, even before he initiates anything.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality – Heartiste

The more a feminine-primary social order embraces, endorses and openly promotes feminine hypergamy as the normative, correct, social paradigm, the more it will be necessary to legally force men to comply with it.

As it stands now, the Feminine Imperative is having an increasingly difficult time enforcing its primacy through social conventions and popular culture shaming men into compliance with it. Increasingly men are becoming aware of the raw duplicity of open hypergamy and are becoming less and less cooperative with what really amounts to their participation in their own hypergamous cuckoldry – which women triumphantly crow about in as public a manner as is practical now.

A common refrain from the manosphere has been that the only reason a man should consider marriage is if he wanted to raise children – a functioning, cooperative, child-rearing environment being the only evident ‘advantage’ marriage offers men – but in light of potentially more laws cut from this cloth and the glaringly evident risks of having his children legally removed from him under the flimsiest of pretenses I can’t say as I agree with this anymore.

In Sadie Hawkins’ world there are no “advantages” for men in marriage – only liabilities enforced by fear.

It’s no longer about buying the cow when you can get the milk for free anymore. It’s about the cow milking itself and giving it away to Alpha Fucks in its peak years and then expecting you to buy her just before she’s gone completely dry. And all under the assumed risk of accusations of nonconsensual sex at her disposal should you choose not to comply at any time.

The latent purpose of Yes Means Yes is to lock feminine hypergamy into a legal mandate while ensuring fear (I should say Dread) is the motivator for men’s compliance in it.

Brave New Hypergamy

Deti is a permanent fixture in the manosphere, and though he doesn’t have his own blog, he regularly hit’s ’em out of the park with his comments here and on various other blogs.

Deti on Dalrock:

Proponents of “Yes means yes” also are Game deniers and Game haters. The funny thing is that this law will only increase Game and swell the prevalence of its practitioners. Jerks, players, and cads will be the only ones with the balls and the resolve to press forward. Less adept men will give up, because they cannot run the risks of an encounter going bad. They can’t risk criminal records, loss of jobs, loss of family, loss of money and time. The risks aren’t worth the puny rewards.

What marriage is now is what social interaction between men and women will become – a man merely looking at a girl too long will bring a complaint to police, and a man will have to answer merely for his gaze. He could be fined or even imprisoned.

The proponents of Yes means Yes think it will reduce Game and assault; will remove the ambiguities. they think it will foster and encourage the growth, development and proliferation of healthy relationships and marriages. They think it will create safer places for women to seek relationships (or not). It will do none of these things.

“Yes means yes” will only increase Game because the only men willing to try will be those with proven successful sexual track records. It will only create more ambiguity. It will only cause more “good men” and providers to drop out or hoard their earnings, refusing to put them to the service of women. It will leave only the jerks, thugs, cads and players in the SMP as the only men willing to navigate the sexual minefield. These men won’t marry because they don’t have to. The men who would be willing to marry won’t be in the marketplace because they dropped out, and they won’t prepare to marry in the first place because they never got the signals to prepare for it and there’s no point in trying anyway. Marriage rates will continue sliding; the age at first marriage for men and women will continue inching up.

Women will continue to get pumped and dumped. The unhappy ones, ones who regret the encounters or they didn’t go exactly as hoped or planned, will quickly and quietly drop their “lack of consent” claims when video recordings of the encounters in question surface, together with smiling photos and confirmatory texts. A few such women and their institutions of higher learning will be defendants in defamation lawsuits. Some of those videos will make their way to the internet; most won’t.

Welcome to our brave new sexual world. I think that our interlocutors really ought to think this all the way through before supporting it and deciding this is what they want.

There’s an idea that the work around to Yes Means Yes is simply to have sex with a girl off campus. Ergo the incidence of “campus rape” declines and the law is spun as a victory for feminists and evidence of a successful enactment of a functional law.

Yes Means Yes will be a ‘success’ insofar as it curbs campus rape because it is uniquely based on male fear. Again, from Klein’s piece:

To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

Read this again, “…to create a WORLD where men are afraid.”

Ezra believes this ‘useful fear’ is a horrible-but-necessary tool with which to fight what ever definition of rape he subscribes to, but what he doesn’t realize is that fear has uses and implications which go well beyond rape prevention.

The ‘big deal’ is the latent purpose of the law and the motivating ideologies behind it. The law won’t actually curb rape, but it will be successful in creating a world where men are afraid by ambiguously and progressively redefining what rape is and what harassment should encompass – all while legally enforcing men’s compliance in feminine hypergamy.

It’s just as easy to say, ‘well, men will simply not cooperate and go their own way”, and while that would certainly predicate what Deti is proposing, the most salient part is that this law has already successfully changed the gender landscape to one based on fear of the Feminine Imperative. For all my female critics decrying my advocating men use Dread (or at least not discouraging it passively) in their relationships, you can see here in stark contrast that it is overwhelmingly the feminine which is not only comfortable in using dread, but openly mandating legal assurances of its use.

The Feminine Imperative is so fixated upon the insecurities inherent to women’s individual capacity to optimize their hypergamy, so entitled are women to an Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks sexual strategy, it will enact legal mandates to ensure that optimization.


When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality, I took a lot of shit for being a conspiracist in making the assertions I made:

…the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

Doesn’t sound so crazy now does it?

A few other things to consider; just this week we’ve seen companies like FaceBook and Apple offer a female-only benefit of freezing women’s eggs for future insemination to its potential female employees. On the face this perk is intended to attract ‘professional’ women to the tech field by assuring them they can eventually “have it all” – once they’ve conquered the “male-dominated work world®”.

While that may help assuage the bad PR the tech industry has with finding any women to work for them, the latent purpose is still ensuring feminine hypergamy and the goals of a female-primary social order can be fulfilled, regardless of how realistic those expectations are.

Also consider my favorite whipping girl Emma Watson’s appeal to the United Nations a few weeks ago initiates a campaign which asks men to take “The HeForShe Commitment” pledge: “Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.” This essentially distills to the common “lets you and him fight” convention women will use, but in this instance it amounts to a plea for Feminine Imperative compliant men to police the actions of noncompliant men.

When we consider these two recent developments along with the Yes Means Yes law, the veneer of the Feminine Imperative’s purpose comes off in ways which make it recognizable as the driving social paradigm of our time. The more that control is made obvious, the more a need for legal enforcement and male compliance will be necessary as societal efforts to enforce it break down.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

286 comments on “Yes Means Fear

  1. Not enough people have caught on to the fact that the laws they try to push under the banner of “gender equality” aren’t really equal. Imagine a guy trying to file a report for Yes Means Yes, he would be laughed out of the police station.

    We are quickly reaching a time where every interaction must be recorded in order to protect ourselves from the law being maliciously used against us.

    Now you can enjoy asking for a yes before you put your hands on her, before you kiss her, before you take her clothes off and before you penetrate. Sounds kinda like a dom/sub relationship, but with the genders reversed. Women being oppressed? Doesn’t sound like it.

  2. “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality – Heartiste”

    That is, male heterosexuality. If you’re a male homosexual, go hog wild. You’re only a problem if you’re a heterosexual man.

  3. Ezra believes this ‘useful fear’ is a horrible-but-necessary tool

    Ezra is a horrible-and-unnecessary tool.

    Seriously, though, this is one way to tell a TradCon/So/Con from a true conservative – they have just as little understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences/Perverse Outcomes as your garden variety liberal.

  4. Why does Ezra Klein want men to live in fear?
    It’s Rule 9.

    The counter is Rule 4, if, as Twenties Mentor notes, you can ram it through somehow. I note that there have been some recent successes along this line. That’s what can happen when you push “equality” so hard people actually start to believe that’s what you want.

  5. Deti is spot on with his post. These things won’t stop game aware and confident men because they know that women are physically and biologically wired to be turned on by alpha males and to have sex with them. Lots of men live in fear just because she could reject him, now to ask her for consensual sex doubles and triples that fear.

    I wonder if this sort of thing improves the overall alpha fucks / beta bucks part of female imperative because it makes it easier for her to spot men who are there for fucking and are actually turning her on sexually and it makes beta bucks work that much harder to try to negotiate her desire.

    Or does it decrease the overall beta bucks and inspire more men to gtow because they don’t want to deal with the feminist laws out there now days. Even if I weren’t red pill aware, reading these laws would make me less inspired to deal with women at all.

    Women love sex with a man who turns them on to the point where they would suck his dick in the back ally or in the bathroom of some shitty bar/club. And they are a slave to the orgasm like men can be and even in a world of abundantly horny men there’s only so many men who can make her vagina tingle as well as alpha/game aware men can. In my opinion it just increases men to be more fearful around women altogether but increases the need for knowledge of game and red pill.

  6. The yes means yes law has a simple flaw. If no one says anything both are guilty of rape. Of course if they only prosecute men..that would be where men get hurt.

  7. The funny thing is that it will make it easier for Red Pill guys with Game as some well-meaning good-looking Betas will be limiting their sexual encounters.

    Occasionally a uninitiated Natural might be caught in the fray of regret rape, but the full-on Players with formal Game teachings will thrive more than before. The law will create what the No-Fault-Divorce laws and other such “improvements” have done for marriage – it will destroy ever more healthy mating patterns and only cads will be the winners here. I don’t even consider the Alpha fucking college sluts the co-winners here – the few who will leave the place of rampant promiscuity psychologically unscathed will be few and far in between.

    Men can more easily be happy as Players and settle down in their end 30s or 40s – no freezing of eggs will be making that a reality for women. They will find out that they cannot have it all and will turn around to accuse men for ruining their glorious life-planning – heh.

  8. LOL

    A law should be enacted forcing women to be more honest and direct concerning their sexual desires and requests. All women should be legally required to administer blow jobs prior to any penetration and refusal to allow anal penetration should require mandatory jail time. She should be required to beg for it, “Fuck me! fuck me! I want you inside me…fuck me like an animal you bad ass!

  9. Being serious now…

    This is yet another attempt to legislate thought. Laws and courts have always primarily focused on facts and actions, actual damages, etc. this is a completely bullshit attempt to legislate thought or the lack of thought.

  10. George: We already have that, so no new precedent or law would be required, simply changing a single character in existing law would suffice.

  11. good post Rollo… if a bit rambling.

    I have stated elsewhere – the unintended consequences to these laws will be huge. I have a young son. Once he is old enough to attend College I will definitely inform him of the consequences of dating/copulating with fellow college student. To me it underscores the REAL problem with College now. Young men have NO incentive to select a future mate there anymore. And Aunt Giggles should be tracking this.. because if California gets it’s way… No more Hooking Smart advice will help the spinsters!

    In effect there is a state organization (the school) that is a 3rd person interest in any sexual activity now. I mean REALLY who wants to deal with this? Is it not better to advise our sons NOT to date girls at his school. Therefore limiting another “Duke Rapists” type media tragi-comedy?

    We send our children to College to learn things that will enable future success. WHY on earth would we send our Sons to a school system that wants them to become like Monks?

    It’s just absurd really. Even the “Ezra Manginas” of the world are tying themselves in logical knots trying to defend this miscarriage of justice.

  12. Flip: I’m putting you on ice. Cool Party! Let me break the ice. Revenge is a dish best served cold. The Ice Man cometh!

  13. Expanding on my own prior comment at Dal’s place: There is a better than 50-50 chance this law, as applied, will be found to be unconstitutional by even more liberal Courts of Appeals, and certainly the conservative majority of the current US Supreme Court. And that is aside from the patent ambiguity of what the term “affirmative consent” in the law means (a legal redundancy: all consent is “affirmative” so that extra word must mean something else, but what?)

    The fault in this law is letting colleges sort out the standards for themselves without legal advice or training. (That Russian-style expediency is touted as a feature of the law, not a bug). That advice – which could include a legal arbitration-style system of trained hearing officers and some evidence rules – could accord the process some legitimacy as something truly meant to stop sexual assaults. The refusal to build in even these limited due process standards are what will doom this law eventually (I don’t care how many states and universities are copying the YMY law – they are all going to end up in the same legal liability soup).

    Once again: The “hearing” framework for college student code infractions is not meant to give due process; it’s to deal with things like academic violations or discipline, so there are no lawyers, no evidence, no sworn testimony, no record, no confronting the accuser. Many campuses trumpet this framework as an additional “guarantee” that the accuser will not have to give evidence, and the accused will not be permitted to present any. The goal is to “expel sex offenders”, as one university dean put it.

    The result of the tribunal is not jail, as Amanda Taub (Ezra Klein’s self-described muse) crows, and that is true. But the result IS expulsion for “sexual assault”: an allegation of criminal conduct without the crime being proven. Lawyers among us will recognize that as libel: alleging falsely and negligently that someone committed a crime. Damages are presumed. The “sexual assault” expulsion will follow the man around as he tries to apply to other schools or jobs in the future. In the context of a state-sponsored school, ithe “expulsion for sexual assault” is also a Civil Rights violation (the so-called “1983” case, based on the civil rights statute cite). Because now the “academic tribunal” of two SJW’s and a woman studies professor takes on the mantle of the government. And when that happens, due process rights to the victims obtain and it becomes a serious civil rights tort liability for the school.

    These new SJW Prudes, if they knew any history, should recognize that such due process claims in the past were how they were able to win cases that expanded rights for women and gay people (i.e., they couldn’t be expelled just because they were women or gay). It drove civil rights cases founded on the principle that the government should get out of the bedroom and shouldn’t be capriciously prosecuting people for fornication or sodomy based on the cops not being able to find anything else to justify breaking down the door or shining the light in the car window. Now these same progressives want to go back on that, not realizing by so doing they put their other long-fought personal privacy gains at risk.

    So now it’s so-called liberals who want the government back in the bedroom! Assuring us, like Ezra Klein does, that there “won’t be a lot of these cases, we just want to establish the principle”. They of all people should know that these were the reasons “justifying” the fornication and miscegnation and sodomy laws they were fighting against!! And now they are throwing that over in order to bring back those very same capricious prosecutions to “keep men in line” in a “world of fear.”

    Some Harvard and other Ivy League constitutional law scholars are weighing in against Yes Means Yes; they see the civil rights issues YMY’s lax procedures present and the schools that don’t will see six-figure verdicts to wrongly expelled men upheld on appeal. This includes smoking-banner John Banzhaf (currently trying to ban as obscene the word “redskins” on radio and TV). They are not being shamed into silence, to YMY proponents’ annoyance. Even the women accusers could lose their so-called anonymity protection: if the school is accused of libel in a court case, it needs to plead “truth” as a defense. To do that it will have to produce evidence in court that the allegation was at least somewhat true and reveal the “record” behind it. They may well have to name and produce the accuser whose evidence the school tribunal relied on! So much for anonymity! Many courts’ pleadings are now public records, downloadable by anyone – and publishable at will, as public court filings they are absolutely privileged and can be publicized and quoted freely.

    So I guess the next group of laws doesn’t have to be a change in the burden of proof, or establishing strict liability for insufficiently documented fucking. You want the government back in the bedroom? Just re-outlaw all fornication and non-marital sex, like we had in decades past. Now women are fully protected; let’s face it, they were never prosecuted for fornication, only men were. (Or if they were black men, lynched for fornication). So shall it be again if we outlaw fornication AND sodomy (we’re being sex neutral with YMY right? So you can’t outlaw one kind of sexual activity and not the other – equal protection violation). Consent is no longer an issue – the accused needn’t prove it and the accuser need not prove the lack of consent! Or the “enthusiasm” of the consent! Just being caught doing the nasty. Strict Liability. Not limited to college campuses! So now we’re all safe! Oh yeah, that personal zone of privacy they fought so hard to establish now disappears too, so there go all privacy rights for gays, those who engage in interracial dating, and those who practice anything other than procreative missionary position mating. Not a good day to be a libertarian.

    PS: the latest insurance product being marketed to schools is literally something called sexual assault liability coverage: to protect against suits both by aggrieved unjustly expelled men and insufficiently satisfied accusers whose targets got off without expulsion. Looks like a fast-growing market.

  14. Re: Freezing eggs.

    The notion that a 45 year old uterus will be just as efficient at gestation as a 25 year old uterus is the real humor here, but the latent purpose behind this ‘benefit’ is just a publicity stunt.

    Essentially FaceBook and Apple are ready to give a $20,000 incentive to women to perform the same job as a man, and they don’t see the irony in the fact that the perk is a bonus to encourage women to perform a job they simply don’t have much interest in performing.

    I sincerely doubt that ‘professional’ women will educate themselves and sign on for a job because freezing their eggs was in the cards for them.

    All of this is kind of a dead end because the problem wont be decaying eggs when professional women feel that they’re in a good place career-wise to have children – it’ll be the lack of status-equal men willing to sign on to be her inseminator (not a father) at that age.

  15. @Dr. Fred, I find it ironic that the group of people who adamantly want the government out of their bedrooms and out of their uteruses are the same group who want to legislate the appropriate use of my penis.

  16. You don’t get to ‘Yes Means Yes’ until you’ve spent a few decades internalizing ‘No Means No’.

    YMY would never have happened had not men already accepted as just and fair the misandric notion that it was perfectly acceptable for a certain class of people to cruely dangle raw meat in front of a hungry dog and not even expect to get nipped much less get their hand bit clean off.

  17. ” Just re-outlaw all fornication and non-marital sex . . .”

    One character, change a “1” to a “9”. Done.
    The legal argument for it was accepted in raising the drinking age above the age of majority.
    The shit of unintended consequences gathers mass and momentum as it rolls down hill.

  18. “Essentially FaceBook and Apple are ready to give a $20,000 incentive to women to perform the same job as a man, and they don’t see the irony in the fact that the perk is a bonus to encourage women to perform a job they simply don’t have much interest in performing.”

    Good point. If the woman never had any intention of ever having kids or would be willing to wait until they were no longer employed with Apple or Facebook then it’s a trip to the doctors office and a 20 grand bonus from the employer. Women suck at tech in general. Of course maternity leave has always been biased against employers and for women but everyone just accepted it as reasonable like alimony. This is more of a publicity stunt to further demoralize men and try and normalize women being the sacred species that have special rights and privileges that men don’t have and you should just accept they are the boss. The powers that be have an interest in promoting women to positions of power because they are conformist and will do as they are ordered to do without question. Never any danger of a coup that you might get with men in those positions.

  19. Love the nod to Deti, Rollo. I copied that quote as well because it really lays it out.

    All this law does is optimize female hypergamy. It separates out the Betas more efficiently for individual women. Right now the 80:20 rule applies- 20% of men get 80% of the women. With this rule just 10% of men will get 90% of the women. It will be like the QB on Blue Mountain State- the Alphas will need a dedicated CC scheduler.

    This rule will reduce the market of men pursuing the stank- if you don’t immediately induce the tingles then using game to do so is suddenly an extreme risk. How do you ‘assume the close’ by asking permission at every stage of the seduction? LMR freeze outs- illegal. Listen to what they say, not what they do- It is now the law. Now she is in complete and total control and if you object you are a rape supporting rape sympathizing rapist.

  20. re: “men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter”

    It is the “first of many coming” anti-beta law, and deliberately. The fearless men won’t be bothered to obtain actual consent. Soon, the asking will be illegal “if you don’t already know, then you cannot ask”.

  21. Keep in mind that *any* rational reason for YMY was already in No Means No, which either wasn’t working or women didn’t like having to say no so much. I’m certain the *entire* reason for YMY is that they feel “Women shouldn’t have to say no”. In other words, the purpose of the law is to forestall, or stymie, the asking.

  22. In every justification of YMY I’ve been looking, every single one pretends to believe women will do just as much asking as the men.

    So, the next step after criminalizing asking from unwanted men will be to criminalize attractive men’s refusing.

  23. @jf12: That is correct: all women everywhere are threatened and compromised by the prospect of having to say no. Look at the Amanda Taub article quoted and cited by Ezra Klein. She calls that the “woman tax”: the fear that every male a woman encounters anywhere and everywhere MAY be the next Ted Bundy, so she has to be nice just in case, adjust her clothes, force herself to encounter the male again, say yes when she means no, etc. etc.

  24. Apparently it has been law for eight weeks with no prosecutions. Raise your hand if you believe zero drunk California coeds have had sex within the past eight weeks.

  25. jf12- “I’m certain the *entire* reason for YMY is that they feel “’Women shouldn’t have to say no’ …”

    I suspect No Means No worked to well in that many men understood No to mean No and not some variation of try again. Since No is definitive the woman losses plausible deniability and thus her advantage of never ending ambiguity. I suspect YMY will generate similar results but with the added comfort of ambiguity as in “I said yes but not to exacty that.” Either way the requirement to read minds is now law in California. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, now ignorance of her deepest thoughts is actually a crime.

  26. @Fred Flange, yes, Taub is one of the articles that presumes women give consent often and that women seek consent often. Both presumptions are very false indeed.

  27. I know for a fact that YMY technically means that *any* libido-enhancing drugs, including estrogen cream or testosterone cream or *anything*, is technically undue influence – it artificially inflates the probability she will say yes.

  28. So, since the law is already not working at all, can the lesbians cease high-fiving each other about decreasing heterosex?

  29. During genital contact for the purpose of stimulation and satisfication, after obtaining consent for the contact, how many times per minute MUST the asker ask for ongoing consent?
    1) For PIV, for every insertion?
    2) For oral, “Don’t stop!” is NOT “Yes!”. He must stop, every time, and clear his mouth free to clearly ask (“Mfhmm?” doesn’t count as asking.).

  30. More and more I want some excellent version of sex bots or VR sex to come. I say this as a guy who’s getting lots of hot young ass.

    A little bit I want it for me.

    Very much I want it for our beta brethren (yes they are our brothers and NO a sucker does not deserve to be betrayed)

    Mostly I want it for justice. Modern women are not useless to men, but they’re certainly trying their hardest to be. Beta boy engineers and computer scientists need to pick up the slack, meet these ladies half way.

    One day there should be a story told about how men and women used to need each other and be good for each other, until a few generations of women became so stunningly selfish/dishonest/greedy that a new system had to be invented.

    Women in that future era we’ll see that men are clearly useful and often good hearted. They will have an awareness that the pigs we are suffering today stole something from them.

    And maybe just maybe these ghastly immoral SJWs will spend their last days on this earth surrounded by men who see them as monsters and young women who despise them for killing this “love and companionship” fable they grew up hearing about.

  31. I worked out a way to short circuit that whole scheme 45 years ago. “Snuggle naked with me. No sex. I like the body contact.” About 3/4s will come back gagging for it (her thinking is: “is there something wrong with me?”). The other 1/4? Well you got to snuggle naked with them.

  32. YMY and similar laws won’t go anywhere in the long run. They won’t hold up in the courts, particularly if they are expanded to the non-academic world, and men are already beginning to sue colleges for abusive applications of biased rules. More pushback will come as opponents of such laws become more aware of and focused on the threat.

    Much of what’s going on with the YMY campaign is, like the race baiting surrounding the recent Missouri riots, part of an orchestrated attempt to gin up interest-group enthusiasm and general distraction ahead of the coming elections. Not to take anything away from the fine analysis on this blog, but let’s see if the current drumbeat of media attention on feminist hobbyhorses lasts beyond Nov. 4.

  33. “So, the next step after criminalizing asking from unwanted men will be to criminalize attractive men’s refusing.”

    Leaving aside the question of whether or not I am an attrative man (I don’t see it myself, but then I’m not a woman), my own experience in this field suggests that it would be a much more pleasant experience to shout, “It’s a fair cop. Take me to jail. Now!” than what they are likely to do to enforce “justice” on their own.

    They worry about saying no to men?

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
    Nevermind a woman scorned in favor of a younger and more attractive woman.

  34. From a GREAT essay by Zenpriest, written many years back. A prophet, this man was.

    The determination of criminality has shifted completely away from objective interpretation of events to subjective determination based entirely on the perceptions of the female. Behavior on the part of the female which could have been interpreted in the subjective experience of the male as an invitation or enticement to pursue her, the proverbial and inflammatory “she asked for it”, and which can turn really ugly if the woman changes the rules at the last moment and grabs for the maternal power postion of withholding what she has previously implied she was quite willing to give away freely, is now ruled inadmissable in determining guilt. However she says it was, is the law now. The ratios of criminal to non-criminal sexual behavior have been entirely reversed. Rape used to exclude anything which was ambiguous or where the woman’s intent was unclear: now it includes all these formerly gray areas and only excludes the rare occasions where the woman is clear and unconflicted in her desires and intent; as Robin Morgan stipulates. …

    The complexity of the conditions for “politically correct sex” have become so prohibitive that failure is inevitable. Perhaps the first area where true equality between the sexes is going to be achieved is by making men as inhibited and ambivalent about sex as the popular stereotype of women portrays women to be. Nothing is so ironic as listening to a woman, who never even took high school psychology, make bitter and scathing authoritative pronouncements about men, their nature, their motivations, and particularly their sexuality; then wonder morosely why none of these exploitive creatures approach her in order to force their unwanted attentions upon her.

    Read the whole thing. Do it! Do it now!

  35. Cops, cops, cops, cops .. why does everything to do with feminism eventually rout back to the cops?
    Don’t they understand that there are not, and can never be, enough cops, soldiers or even terminators in the world to even put a dent in a disenfranchised underclass of desperate young men bent on mayhem? Don’t they watch the news?
    “Oh well, just behave yourselves boys, and we might get around to you in a decade or so, once Princely Buttocksmasher III has tired of our luscious young .. but only if you obey our every command!

    Trying to peel back the aeons to put myself in those guys’ teenage shoes, the only thought clouding my otherwise sunny and vacant mind is “fuck this for a game of soldiers, my life is basically over already, ain’t gone to uni, complete waste of money, what’s the point? .. time for a bit of smash’n’grab. Who’s up for it, lads?”
    Or does the previous success of the “No means No” caper means the purveyors of the Imperative judge that young men are sufficiently conditioned to proceed to the next phase with little or no blowback?

    I fear this idiotic proposal is simply going to result in the Mastercard and the Trojans being tossed from the smart young beta’s dating wallet, and being replaced with a straight razor and a roll of duct tape.
    And sub-par women, the very ones feminism was devised to advantage, will be shunned like lepers so as not to give them any excuse to … howl for the cops, of course.
    Just as well that like Daleks they’re easy to dodge. Just find the nearest ladder, fire escape, or a gap in the buildings narrower than a filing cabinet. Pretty much goes for the cops, too.
    Even (non-pyschotic) cads will eschew dumpster-diving and pigging as pastimes, if they’re playing Minesweeper every time they catch the eye of some hungry, ovulating warpig.

    ” It’s about the cow milking itself and giving it away to Alpha Fucks in its peak years and then expecting you to buy her just before she’s gone completely dry “ .. yay! Then that means it’s definitely ..BBQ Time!

  36. Oh goody. Just read thro the thread (backwards of course) and Mgr. Flange has shown up. As at Dal’s, I strongly suspect that he’s going to be a millionaire, as that is ….. the right answer!!11!

  37. “If you’re a male homosexual, go hog wild. You’re only a problem if you’re a heterosexual man.” and Ezra is …???? Let me guess .. no V.I. in the overnight creation of tens of thousands of “Lost Boys” there then eh?

  38. Frozen eggs huh? Ladies, looks like you better make sure that damn’ Con-Ed bill hasn’t ever “just slipped my mind”.

    Remember, the steady-Eddie beta comes after the alphas, who couldn’t give a shit about your debts, eggs, innermost hopes and dreams or anything else. No eggs, no Eddie, though.

  39. FYI, yes there have been officially cases under “no means no” of oral “assault” in which the woman, after the fact, said, “I couldn’t bring myself to tell him to stop, because he was being so sweet in trying so hard …”

  40. It’s not just the few women we have experience with, btw. The vast vast majority of women seldom give *enthusiastic* consent to anything, ever, except maybe cute shoes. Women envision themselves totally unrealistically. Women tend to be wet blankets on *anything* fun; it’s like their job.

    Let’s make the analogy of sex as a bonfire on the beach. The man brings the matches, the tinder, the initial spark, and the slow building with little twigs, sheltering it carefully to not mess it up or he’ll have to start all over, and he brings the big logs too, stacking them to burn hotly. The woman brings wet seaweed, a starfish, a beached whale, …

    What do women think they bring? Seriously.

  41. @Badpainter, you may be right that “no means no” wasn’t ambiguous/deniable enough for women. Further, as Taub et al. complain loudly, “no means no” put the ball in the woman’s court, especially AFTER saying “no”: It’s *not* the strawman that she “has” to keep saying “no” unhappily ever after, but that now the onus is on her to grab his hand and put it on her whatever “I meant “No, not there, but here is fine.””

  42. I agree Tam the Bam. There never be as you say, “enough cops, soldiers or even terminators in the world to even put a dent in a disenfranchised underclass of desperate young men bent on mayhem.”

    This is simply yet another measure; next take away video games and the last male spaces. Arson, mayhem, and rioting become the new pastimes, creating more “thugs” to create ‘tingles’.

    An example happened this very last weekend.

    Anyone who thinks having a large number of disenfranchised, under-employed, and increasing the number “sexless” young men is healthy for any country are completely deluded.

    It won’t happen all at once, declines are gradual, but when the bottom falls out, boy it really falls out.

  43. I am going to head out to buy stock in Google, allow me to don my tin foil hat for a moment.

    A. In the short term, Google glasses are going to be handy for limiting false rape accusations under YMY. It won’t change the underlying social currents of fear promulgated by the YMY laws and similar measures which will keep coming down the line at young men today, but it be a momentary safeguard. I see them selling well until the FI outlaws any kind of evidence of YMY to preserve the possibility of legitimized regret rape.

    B. Google will bonus it’s women to freeze their eggs for future use. In time as mentioned by Rollo, said women will come to realize their uterus is not functioning quite so well as women half their age. Despite having dumped all of their career capital into Google, well, not all women can rise to the top and inevitably a number of them will either plateau or outright give up on attempting to climb the corporate ladder. They may get out to try and capture an AFC and perhaps start a family. Then they will find that at that point IVF, which they will require, costs $150K +++ and the benefit of freezing eggs was illusory at best. How does Google benefit, well they con the women into working harder, for longer under the notion that they have an off ramp just a bit further down the line. Bravo to Google, this is an insanely cynical ploy to extract further uninterrupted labour from the female labour market by keeping them in the office with a shiny trinket. The biggest liability to having a woman in the work environment for an employer beyond gratuitous sexual harassment claims, is the inevitable baby break and her possible exit from the labor pool. By keeping her in as long as possible, you extract a continuous stream of value from the worker and get decent return on the investment in training and team indoctrination.

    C. Eventually said women will “age out”. They have pushed the FI agenda as far as their psyche’s allow and they hit the wall of psychic exhaustion and turn to that which they were forced to have such contempt for previously, namely child rearing. These women will get to a point where they are not rising on the ladder, their wombs are about to sputter out of activity and they know the clock is winding down and they have to throw the hail Mary pass. They will voluntarily exit the labor pool and it saves Google having to downsize them with fat pay-outs. Score one more for the share holders as there is no need to cut down the tall poppies in a cost cutting move if a good chunk of the field simply dies every season anyhow.

    D. Now I put my foil hat in place. The Misandry bubble argues that by 2020 female sex-bots from Japan will be so good that man will have no need for woman. Perhaps he is right, perhaps not. But what if way down the road Google, now one of the biggest tech innovators on the planet, in all sorts of areas your never would have thought of, reveals it has perfected artificial wombs? OK ladies, skip the IVF, just pay us many more hundreds of thousands of inflation adjusted dollars to use those eggs of yours to produce a baby for you. You can keep working for us in an uninterrupted fashion while we grow and raise your kid for you in the corporate daycare. Or, we’ll buy your frozen eggs off of you and sell them on your behalf. Or perhaps they can sell these services to the other ladies who have done the same thing as all sorts of corporations are brow beaten into following the path of Google and Facebook with their new employee trinket.

  44. My thoughts above have to a certain extent been influenced by a book I read earlier this year, The Empty Cradle, how falling birth rates threaten world prosperity and what to do about it.

    One core idea within the book is that families create something that all societies need, namely HUMAN CAPITAL. What is that? Well its humans that are moderately well adjusted individuals who can make a meaningful contribution to society, most likely in the form of an economic contribution both as a consumer but also as a producer.

    Traditionally in agrarian societies Mom and Dad would have lots of kids as a form of employee development and familial insurance. With lots of kids you have your own “low” cost labour pool to help run the farm. Kids are expensive to raise in terms of both cash and opportunity cost but once you get past the first few the incremental costs start coming down. Particularly in multi-generational living arrangements where grandma can take care of the infant freeing up mom to do stuff like churn the butter. This arrangement can be emulated in small social groupings like villages, allowing for some greater specialization but still an interconnected network of people who have common concerns, challenges and objectives.

    Likewise, it’s insurance as if you do a good job raising a brood that is likely to stick around or survive in sufficient numbers, they can look after you in your old age.

    Now flip the page to modern urban societies. Today more than 50% of the worlds population lives in cities and families see kids as primarily a cost center. Kids cost a lot to raise in terms of cash, after tax cash especially. Housing, food, clothing, childcare, transport, medical and education. That’s just the starting point. If you raise an SWPL kind of kid, you also have to keep up with the Jonses on Ballet and soccer lessons. So today, in North America the starting cost of raising a kid in any urban center can easily be $20,000 per year. Add to that the “opportunity cost” of Mom even taking 6 months off for baby, and then all the career limiting moves that will happen as a result of having a kid, for both M+D. Kids slow you down no matter what in an urban environment.

    The book argues that over time, in both cash outlay and opportunity cost, it can easily cost $1,000,000 to raise a kid to some kind of functioning adult status.
    Then what happens? do they help at harvest time? Nope, do they come back and help the parent in old age? Not like they would have ten generations ago? No, they go off and live their lives for better or for worse.

    So who benefits from this massively expensive creation of human capital? Well, everyone else essentially. The kids go off and work for companies like Google etc. The education that parents paid for, the well adjusted individual that was shaped by the hard work and investment of parents is USED by society to add value to other enterprises such as shareholder corporations, private business’ and of course the government itself. The “life training” provided by parents is set free in society to be used up and leveraged by others.
    Now the kids also go on to pay taxes, lots and lots of taxes. This supports debt, roads, wars, government spending and of course health care. So in essence every old fart who did not have kids is getting subsidized by people who did have kids. Every corporation that never spent a dime on child care gets a free ride on the backs of parents who did invest in it.

    So if you are a MGOTW with no kids, congrats, you are gaming the dumb ass parents like me.

    To be clear, government investment in child development and education is but a tiny fraction of what we spend looking after old ladies in hospitals. Arguments about wealth redistribution to “families” at the expense of “single people” is pretty much a red herring. In the immediate sense, it may not be fair, in the long run being single even without the benefit of various tax breaks for having kids, is a faaaaar better deal.

    Why this long winded thought? Well when I look at Google paying to freeze eggs, what I see is them simply extracting the maximum possible benefit from HUMAN CAPITAL. They can dress up the move however they want, because the long game is to keep workers at their desks without interruption as long as possible. That same human capital that was brought to society by some parent, somewhere.

  45. Men who “stay in the game” will quickly learn self-defense. They will start video recording every sexual encounter. They will document every interaction with every woman. They will save every selfie, every nudie, every sext, every explicit text exchange.

    They will learn to deploy their own nuclear options –“Go right ahead and accuse me of rape. You’ve got the law? I’ve got video, baby. I’ll show the police the video recordings of your, uh, enthusiasm. And after I show the cops, it goes on the internet. So. Still wanna go there?”

    YMY will severely discourage and curtail marriage. More and more men will refuse to take chances on the cuties they see out and about. They know that anything they do could potentially result in a rape charge. The entire point of interacting with women is to get to sex and relationships but even attempting that is simply too dangerous. Since trying to get to sex involves unspoken interactions and frequent misunderstandings, and is now fraught with danger at every step of the interaction, men just won’t even try. Men who might be good matches for certain women will never try. Matches that might have been made before will never even be introduced, because the men won’t try – it’s too dangerous.

  46. One major theme of Gone Girl (the book) is that women do not want to have to be Cool Girl, who is good giving and game, who enthusiastically consents. Seriously, *women* will complain about feeling forced to exhibit enthusiasm.

  47. This law will have (and is clearly intended to have) a chilling effect on less assertive men. It will only embolden the thugs, jerks, players, cads and “rapey” men its proponents say they want to discourage. The “dads” that some in these parts claim they like so much will only become less engaged.

    “Dads” are the rules followers, the betas, the engine of our economy, the parts of our society who make it run. They can’t afford to take a flyer on some cutie at a bar or some other meeting place. So they won’t approach girls they otherwise might approach. Matches that might have been made in the past will never get made, because the men are too afraid to try. That’s what Ezra Klein wants – a world where men are afraid of sex.

    But the guys who will approach? Players, cads, and jerks. They are more aggressive, have less to lose, don’t care anyway, and will have learned the workarounds.

    There are those who claim that this law will apply equally to women. That’s absurd on its face. As Nova explained above, this law will never, ever be applied to any woman anywhere. This law is intended to apply solely and only to straight men operating in male-female interactions. Its proponents proceed from a view that men are always sexual aggressors and all are potential rapists.

    This is more evidence to me that women are lying when they say they want good men, nice men, kind men, providers. They don’t – they want to winnow good men away from them, and encourage only the men who will push through the resistance.

    They don’t even realize they are actually ENCOURAGING Game, negs, hot/cold, push/pull, dread, “dark triad” traits, and all the rest of it, because the men who employ those tactics are the only ones who will be able to successfully navigate the SMP they’re creating. But, then, that’s the point, isn’t it? The point here is to eliminate the betas and make them “wait their turn” when it comes time for them to pony up their money to start supporting the soon to be retired carouselers.

    It’s funny that this law/policy will discourage the men these women say they want. And, this law will only encourage the men they claim not to want. It’s clear to me these women are going to use this law for what blogger Whiskey has often pointed out: Such laws merely serve to separate out attractive men that women want from unattractive, unwanted men. All a woman has to do to fend off a good man is to shout “Yes means Yes! BUSTED!!!” and the guy is well and truly screwed.

  48. Novaseeker posted this useful comment on Dalrock’s “The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring” thread.


    The more you think about it, really, as this law spreads from college campuses to the rest of us (which will happen almost certainly over the next 10-20 years if not sooner), it will give a lot of women what they want in their marriages to B-list men (compared with pre-marital lovers): a full legal endorsement of the idea that husbands are only entitled to sex when the wife is enthusiastically consenting. If she is less than enthusiastic, he is legally blocked. This is precisely what many women in these marriages (the BB side of the AF/BB life scripting) want, really, so that their husbands stop “pestering them for sex”, and when they are “enthusiastic” about it, perhaps during those high fertility swings each month, that’s when sex is “legal”. Otherwise, hub is a rapist, and his expectation that he should be having sex with her in any other circumstance just means he has a rapist mentality. Isn’t this the attitude we see reflected time and time again from married women all over the internet (most of them presumably in marriages to men who are good husband material but not optimal compared to prior lovers in that area)? This will codify that into law, which I think is what a lot of women want — at least older, married women in those sorts of marriages (which I am guessing are much more numerous than the star-struck, can’t-keep-my-hands-off-my-husband! type of marriages).

    Ironically, if your wife has sex with the neighbor, presumably enthusiastically consenting to the same, there is no legal issue whatsoever — not for the sex nor for the adultery (and the latter not even in the case of marital dissolution). But if that same husband has sex with that same wife and she less than enthusiastically consents, he is a rapist, and can go to jail. This really just underscores how utterly irrelevant marriage has become from the social/legal point of view other than as a means for women to obtain assets from men. That this is already largely the case is something most readers already know. But this law will further solidify that by making marriage even less relevant, because, really, the only thing relevant in male/female encounters is going to be enthusiastic consent — nothing else really matters, not marriage, not emotions, not romantic connection or commitment – none of it. What is relevant is whether there was enthusiastic consent in the moment — everything else is quite irrelevant.

    Obviously, this exacerbates trends in sexual access, because I think most of us know that women are more enthusiastic about their consent to sex with a certain subset of men than they are with pretty much all other men. That’s true whether they are the gatekeepers or not. It all comes down to with whom they will enthusiastically consent, and that’s a fairly small group of guys in any given group. So basically this standard of affirmative, enthusiastic consent just reinforces the overall trends we have been seeing socially (which is what the law often does anyway) and codifies it into law, which hardens it.

    I can see this leading to not less hookups and sex on campus (the first place where it is getting rolled out), but even fewer men being permitted to participate (only the ones who generate enthusiastic consent — basically a legal way of expressing the meaning of the word “tingles”). In terms of marriages, I see it solidfying the trend of relatively sexless marriages due to women being married to BB and having less than enthusiastic consent most of the time, with this now being backed up by the hard stick of rape law — which will act to decrease the overall amount of sex in these marriages from where it is even now (because under current law, a good deal of the sex happening in these marriages now is not “enthusiastic consent” sex, which means that under this law, that sex would be rape). Likely, that will be another factor in depressing marriage rates over time (among many other factors that are acting to do that).

    So, really, it’s a stick that is based on, and amplifies, existing social trends, really.

  49. Five decades of encouraging women to be all they want to be, sexually, has failed. So now to achieve gender equality in enthusiasm, males will have to be forced to become less enthusiastic.

  50. A few thoughts:

    1. Those talking about cops and prosecutions seem to miss that this only applies to college campuses and their kangaroo courts, in California. The uniquely far left politics of California permit this to happen, and it may happen in other states. If you aren’t on a college campus in California, it does not apply. And like one commenter noted above, this law will likely not survive judicial challenge and review. You can bet that FIRE and other civil liberties organizations focused on student rights are already sharpening their knives. Any of you who actually want to “do something” should consider supporting

    2. I think in some ways this is a reaction to the new promiscuity of young men and women in a subset of college students. Fyi, if you look at the stats on “hooking up” in college, you’ll see that the hook up culture is not broad, but is rather a subculture, a minority of them. I guess it’s comprised mostly of high SMV young men and women who have much greater mating opportunities in the first place, but none of the studies of this take attractiveness into account. Certainly it’s less than half of college students. Most college students, in fact, report hooking up once or twice and not doing it anymore (is this anything new?). It’s likely those individuals had far fewer opportunities, but again such data is not collected or studied.

    I think that the highly sexually active women in this subculture discover that embracing such behavior gives high value men much more sexual liberty and play, and women want to be able to clamp down on that. They want more leverage over those they consent to have sex with as they already have plenty of power over the lower SMV men, so this is just about plugging a gap exposed by the wildness of the hookup phenomenon. It’s about preserving women’s sexual prerogatives so that even when they are being promiscuous and gagging for cock, they can still play the “lady” card. Even when they are getting drunk and banging 3 frat guys in a night, they are still precious little porcelain dolls that men should worship and care for. Even when they are re-enacting scenes from porn movies for us in our beds, we are still supposed to be chivalrous gentleman, lol, We are supposed to be worshipping women and the vajayjay even when there is no prize beyond banging them worth playing for anymore. I say it’s a reaction to high SMV men “playing the ball as it lies” and having the time of their lives, pumping and dumping. My sense is that in many colleges, this entire scene has been put on hyperdrive or something. I mean, when crowds of young women are showing their tits at the Keene Pumpkin festival, you know something is really different. This is common behavior at Mardis Gras, spring break etc – itjust didn’t happen when I was that age. And by freeing women up to be this way, high SMV men have a huge field to play in, which this kind of law seeks to correct.

    3. Men – Why any man would attend a California college now is a mystery to me. Why any man would send his son or pay a penny of tuition to a California college is a mystery to me. The real reason women can exercise this kind of power is because so many men are betaized, blue pill pussy beggars and have been brainwashed by the ridiculous ideas of radical egalitarianism since birth. Men can change this if they want to – but most men are asleep and content to stay that way. After all, it’s better to believe you are a victim and cling onto the hope that “the one” will come along someday and validate you for being a “good guy”. Much easier to digest that than realistically assessing one’s SMV and realizing that your genetics were a lottery draw in this contest and that most men are never going to be “winners” in this game. That it’s a brutal competition and it’s also hard realizing that the “one” you’ve been wating for your whole life can and will dump you when it suits them. In a way, being a “good guy” is a shortcut to getting laid. She HAS to fuck me, even though i’m 20 lbs overweight and have a sagging upper body. Even though I don’t make her wet. It’s a nice cover for men who are losers in the mating game to cling to, and accordingly most will never give it up.

    As an aside, it’s amazing how much less of a “good guy” I am to women now and how little it matters to my chances of getting laid. I did something quite rude to my young friend on the phone last night, laughing out loud at how some other guy was treating her – and in the past I would have immediately apologized and bought into her rage. Instead I just ignored her objection, and moved on. 3 minutes later it was like it never happened.

    4. Politics – Oh gosh, Rolly, let’s not talk about politics! Grab your fucking pearls, cuz politics is at the center of this and by avoiding it, you avoid dealing with the truth.

    The radical egalitarianism which informs the current feminist insanity doesn’t arise out of nowhere – shocker. It’s roots emanate from many different threads of 19th century collectivist/marxist/progressive/socialist political and moral philosophy that picked up the thread of classically liberal ideas and perverted them. They turned them on their head, in fact. A nice view of the tipping point upon which all this occurred is contained in the ideas of John Stuart Mills, who essentially used consequentialist morality to justify traducing individual sovereignty and actually limited government. One could also call it deontological thinking run amok.

    In the elite, intellectual circles of our society, soft-collectivism/statism/authoritarianism has taken root deeply and is seen by its supporters as striking a moral “balance” between the red tooth and claw of unfettered liberty and property rights and the “good of the people”. Of course, behind this are the much more pernicious ideas of Marxism and critical theory which set up our entire society as a set of victim/oppressor dyads, so this offers moral support for such a view. It”s actually a whole lot more complicated then that as much of the socialist movement of the 20th century was at odds with the radfem ideas, so the inside view of this is much messier, but my point is broadly correct.

    “Social justice” has become the unified field theory of the left. And it brings together many activists under the umbrella of radical egalitarianism and fighting white male/capitalist power. “Intersectionalism” was intentionally created to settle the many squabbles in this community about who is actually a victim and what the root causes actually are – they all are victims and male enforced capitalism is the oppressor,, voila, now party on social justice warriors. They also have conveniently created their own pseudo-science that allows them to disconnect from actual scientific fields. For example, even lefties like Chris Ryan see the entire “social construction” thing as absurd in the extreme – but gender warriors simply ignore all that. This is why their ideas don’t get struck down – they have huge political support for them, a priori.

    This also can be seen as a “moral panic”, which there is ample academic literature on. These panics are often fueled by women. Consider the movement for the prohibition of alcohol. It never would have happened if it weren’t for women – and it was squarely aimed at getting men out of bars where women couldn’t control their sexuality nearly as well. This garbage will end similarly if men wake up. But I’m not sure that is going to happen in my lifetime.

    So, what’s a man to do? Improve himself, be a selfish prick and get as much ass as he can – just stay away from California college campuses. Seems to me like that game-plan works for any Red Pill man in a post chivalric/romantic/courtly love world – period. For me personally, the farther I walk down this path, the more ridiculous I feel about having spent so much of my life buying into all the gynocentric ideas that made me miserable. If the world snapped back and suddenly I was going to be respected for being a provider and a Dad and a ‘husband’, and women actually reacted to me being a “nice guy”, I don’t think I’d sign up for it. I’m like the cucumber that has become a pickle – I can’t go back. As an aside, did you ever notice that “husbandry” is about caring for and conserving crops/livestock to maximize their value/utility? Seems a perfect way to describe how a woman treats a blue pill, provider, beta type, “husband” doesn’t it? I can’t imagine ever aspiring to be livestock again…

    Have a great week everyone. See you next post.

  51. Here’s commenter Escoffier at Dalrock’s on the “How Yes Means Yes Fuels Hookup Culture” thread.


    What I am looking forward to, and I’m sure it will happen (perhaps it already has started), is certain bloggers-writers-commenters will say of the various horribly unjust speculative scenarios posted here and elsewhere “No way, that will never happen, typical overreaction, reductio ad absurdum, etc. Crazy MRAs and other assorted male losers jump to the worst possible conclusions about this necessary, sensible law.” Then when actual cases start to get reported, many of which will look exactly like the doomsday scenarios we’ve speculated about, those same people will say “Totally justified, what a rapey creep, he deserves what he gets, the system is working.”

  52. Clarification: My comment about “deontology run amok” was with respect to the abstractions of other thinkers mainly, not the consequentialism of Millls per se, literally. But at a higher level, Mills’ justification for a higher morality that trumps individual sovereignty is a principle in and of itself. However, the way I’ve phrased it is awkward and confusing – don’t get hung up on it. I’m not giving a didactic presentation, just having a conversation.

  53. @Glenn re: “They want more leverage over those they consent to have sex with as they already have plenty of power over the lower SMV men”

    I don’t think so. Ezra Klein’s point about fear was alarmingly honest, but that fear applies solely to the 80% of men who are considered below average. This law *requires* women to compete to show more enthusiasm for the 20% of desirable men.

    The previous decade of selling selling selling this issue was supposedly to force men to become better lovers. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a lousy lover who doesn’t have to do anything to encourage the woman and merely waits out the month until her horny time comes around again. The good lover is the one who takes her towards enthusiasm from her initial uncertainty.

  54. I believe there is a large population of very bitter angry desperate lonely old hags in this civilizations future.

  55. Glenn:

    You’re a fool to believe this law will remain in force only on California college campuses. This is being used as a test case to condition everyone to its spread to other states’ universities, then into general application to civil and criminal law.

    This law, or a version of it, will soon be applied to everyone, adult or college student, married or single.

    This law essentially codifies and gives legal force to “tingles”.

  56. This law will, in the next 20 years or less, be applied to EVERY sexual encounter, married or unmarried, anywhere and everywhere. If she didn’t give “affirmative consent”, then you’re a rapist, whether you’re married or not.

    In Christian circles is the “duty sex” concept, where a wife doesn’t really want to have sex but does so anyway to give her husband “release”. Under this law, husband is a rapist, and he goes to jail.

    Husband touches wife’s arm, then brushes against her breast. If she didn’t give “affirmative consent” for that encounter, husband is a rapist, and he goes to jail.

    Contrary to certain female sex advice bloggers’ hysterical shrieking on this law, it doesn’t apply only to “drunk sex”. It doesn’t apply only to “penetration” either. It applies to “sexual activity”, which encompasses everything from kino to rawdog anal.

  57. Red Pill songs…

    Whipping Post

    I’ve been run down
    I’ve been lied to
    I don’t know why,
    I let that mean woman make me a fool
    She took all my money
    Wrecks my new car
    Now she’s with one of my good time buddies
    They’re drinkin’ in some cross town bar

    Sometimes I feel
    Sometimes I feel
    Like I’ve been tied
    To the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Good lord I feel like I’m dyin’

    My friends tell me
    That I’ve been such a fool
    And I have to stand down and take it babe,
    All for lovin’ you
    I drown myself in sorrow
    As I look at what you’ve done
    Nothin’ seems to change
    Bad times stay the same
    And I can’t run

    Sometimes I feel
    Sometimes I feel
    Like I’ve been tied
    To the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Good lord I feel like I’m dyin’

    Sometimes I feel
    Sometimes I feel
    Like I’ve been tied
    To the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Tied to the whipping post
    Good lord I feel like I’m dyin’

  58. re: defining sexual activity.

    Having sex with a different girl CAN be considered sexual abuse of the neglected girl. Not responding promptly enough to her sexts CAN be considered sexual abuse (you weren’t enthusiastic enough about her consent …). Offering a defense to the charges and denying that you did something to upset her CAN be considered sexual abuse.

  59. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all of this is being driven by the rage of bed-death lesbians who are jealous of all the sexual attention that hetero girls get.

    As much as women don’t want to feel they *have* to be Cool Girl, they hate even more being Uncool Girl. And nothing is less cool than a bed-dead lesbian.

  60. Somebody had a birthday …
    This woman doesn’t find any men attractive enough to have sex with, wonders what’s wrong with all the men …

    Well, the thing that strikes me about that is that if you are a 32 year old woman who is not religious and yet is still a virgin … something is off. Either she isn’t that attractive, or she has a persona that sends people off, or she’s very much a loner (i.e., doesn’t meet many people) or something else. But even more than a 32 year old male virgin (where there are also issues), a woman who is not religiously-restricted who is a virgin at that age is a kind of “off” tell. Especially if she is trying to meet guys online for dating with sex attached. That’s … going to be off-putting as some kind of a tell that something is off. She’d be better off figuring out what it is about her that got her to where she is, and fixing that, than trying to have sex with guys from online dating sites in her current situation. Something is “off”, and it needs to be ferreted out and dealt with.

  61. @Rollo re: the aging uterus.

    If you really need references to educate yourself, you’ll have to obtain my enthusiastic consent first. But, as it turns out, old uteri are just about as good as young uteri, strictly in terms of probability of healthy delivery AFTER implantation. Believe it or not, an ancient wizened crone well past menopause could (almost) as easily bear a full-term baby IF she could get pregnant in the first place.

    Shorter version: young eggs artificially implanted in old wombs do (almost)exactly as well as young eggs artificially implanted in young wombs. In stark contrast, old eggs do as lousy in young wombs as in old wombs.

  62. But, as it turns out, old uteri are just about as good as young uteri, strictly in terms of probability of healthy delivery AFTER implantation. Believe it or not, an ancient wizened crone well past menopause could (almost) as easily bear a full-term baby IF she could get pregnant in the first place.
    Shorter version: young eggs artificially implanted in old wombs do (almost)exactly as well as young eggs artificially implanted in young wombs. In stark contrast, old eggs do as lousy in young wombs as in old wombs.

    Which is why egg freezing is such a big deal (not sure why people are making it out not to be one). It’s a big benefit aimed at the higher powered women employees so that they can put off having kids until they plateau in their careers in their mid 40s or even early 50s, take your pick. Of course she will then have to pay for IVF itself, which isn’t cheap, but baked into the idea is that the women who are using this are high-powered, high-earners, and will have the money to pay for the IVF later on. But for now, employer would like them to power through to career plateau level before having kids …. if they want to, of course.

    If this spreads, it will push back somewhat the average ages of marriage and childbirth for the high powered people (the two-earner, advanced degree professionals who are UMCs), but only somewhat. Most will still prefer to marry at the currently appointed time and try to have kids in the early to mid 30s the old fashioned way. This is really for the ones who want the brass ring / have it all formula, and there will be plenty of takers for that — just not the majority, I think. I do think a majority of women at these companies who have access to the benefit will use it “just in case”, however.

  63. @ Tam the Bam

    while there will never be enough cops* there just might be enough betas and blue pill chumps to enforce the FI’s will

    * one cop is one too many

  64. In the future, assuming current trends continue — and there’s no reason to believe they won’t, Cthulhu only swms left, after all — male heterosexuality will be like cocaine, heroin, meth and other illegal drugs. Some men will indulge and have their fun, while hoping they won’t be one of the unlucky ones who gets in trouble, while other men will decide that the risks of punishment outweigh the potential rewards and pleasures, and will just refrain from dealing with women altogether.

  65. Bloody Google, eh. I thought most people had had the “Dive! Dive!!” klaxon go off in their minds when the “Don’t be Evil” shite was being touted around.
    As people have tried to point out to them, because The Goog is completely unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, defaulting instead into a “good for/not good for The Google” definition, its corporate mindset is in fact the very banal essence of evil. Like they care.

    Frozen eggs for good little worker bees ahahahahahahahahhhahahhhhhaaaa
    Let me know how that works out willya?
    Say. Why don’t you Google “Robert Nelson and the Chatsworth Scandal”? Or this transparently sanitized corporate wiki.

  66. I saw a date off campus twitter account advocating guys to avoid dating other female students. It’s been closed though.
    I waiting to see if an increase in girls dating off campus will happen. Mainly hook ups with older men or sugar daddies with tinder and any other apps to come. Women always try to justify their own expansion of dating age range as needing somebody more mature because guys their age aren’t on their level.
    The web site that men and women sign up for, where men bid on dates to have with the women and just so happens the women who do sign up for it are very often college students, might go through some exponential growth in the next few years.

  67. Such fuckheaded, hamfisted and contra natura laws sprout wherever jews are in power. Don’t believe me, just read history.

  68. @Novaseeker re: egg freezing.

    Psychologically it’s a big deal. In practice, not so much. Long-frozen eggs are almost impossible to fertilize, which is the entire reason egg-freezing is still so rare in 2014. Beyond a handful of years, the frozen egg apparently forgets how to respond. For many decades, fertility quacks have touted secret recipes and secret thaw schedules/windows of opportunity supposedly maximizing chances.

  69. If I may borrow Rollo’s comment on the linked Dalrock blog:

    Johnny and Jane have been in a “relationship” for 2 months, and while they’ve kissed and petted intimately on various occasions, Jane tells Johnny she’s still not “comfortable” enough to have sex with him on the occasions he attempts to escalate to sexual intercourse with her.

    While Johnny hasn’t verbally expressed it to Jane, privately he’s becoming fed up with her hesitancy and disappointed by her repeated resistance to his negotiating and reasoning with her for her genuine desire. As a result, Johnny becomes more open to flirtations and the genuine attentions of Sally and a few other girls on campus who’ve given him legitimate IOIs who have the potential to want to “enthusiastically” bang him.

    Jane picks up on the subcommunications of Johnny’s attitude, behavior and openness with engaging these girls, and though she’s still not “comfortable” she reluctantly initiates sex with Johnny one night in her campus dorm in order to maintain his emotional investment in her and their relationship.

    Johnny has violated SB 967, and is now subject to discipline.

    I’d be more worried that Jane, who in this scenario still doesn’t go all the way and have sex with Johnny, but upon seeing the change in Johnny’s attitude and the flirtations with the girls, can now make Johnny subject to discipline because in the past he tried something she wasn’t comfortable with(that kissing and petting is now coercion for sex), but now she’s really just mad at Johnny for talking to other girls.

  70. I think the whole thing is a crock of shit despite the so called scientific evidence touted by numerous organizations selling the extremely profitable hoax. Freezing induces crystallization of any moisture present. Any crystilazation decimates cell structure. It’s probably all bullshit despite what you can find on the Internet, etc.

  71. Hmm, musing about Rollo’s “reluctantly initiates” throwaway. Is enthusiastic consent sufficient, or is enthusiastic initiation also *required*? In other words, does half-hearted asking count as asking “Uh, say, we’ve got almost an hour before our next class. You wanna grab some a’ them Frito burgers and then, like, make out and stuff?” Or will boys be required to take classes to learn how to ask enthusiastically? Will girls get enthusiasm lessons? *Should* girls get enthusiasm lessons? (and we all enthusastically say “Yes! Yes! Yes!”)

    Interestingly, women’s main secular complaint about pornography-for-men is that it portrays the woman as unrealistically enthusiastic. Clearly it is men, not women, who literally want to see women be more enthusiastic.

  72. The term “date” rape was coined years ago. Why? Before that rape was rape plain and simple. Why did the description of the crime of rape specifically have to be expanded to include “date” rape? Before that dating was dating and rape was rape. Why was the word “date” used, accepted and embraced as an adjective to express rape in such a specific context?

  73. The idea that women’s sexual preferences should be deferred to is not new. Pope John Paul II’s opus Theology Of The Body is based largely on his earlier Love And Responsibility, a distillation of decades of housewives complaining to a handsome priest. The celibate Pope mansplains why husbands shouldn’t pester their wives for sex so often, and like a girl he concludes that they both would like it better if they always waited until she initiates.

    A hundred years ago, Marie Stopes tried to give a scientific nonreligious impetus to the woman’s preference that a man not pester her for sex so often, in her Married Love tome. She literally makes the case, as far as it can be made by anyone, that a husband ought to try to be satisfied by having sex a few days at a time during the month. This conflicts with natural family planning, obviously.

  74. Esther Perel makes the much better scientific case that women are the problem in long term relationships, because women cannot handle being treated well and politely asked.

  75. This big 2014 review inthe JournalofAssisted Reproduction and Genetics is unambiguous:
    “It seems that the longest storage of human oocytes in LN2 after vitrification will be of more than 5 years and less than 10 years, but the evidence provided by those reports do not lend support for the practice of oocyte cryopreservation in long-term cryo-banking requiring a long duration of cryo-storage.”
    “the cryo-survival, fertilization rate and embryonic development of the vitrified oocytes are affected significantly, in an adverse manner, by the cryo-storage duration in LN2”

  76. The smartest thing a young Beta can do is . . . drop out of college.

    Seriously, unless you’re going for one of a handful of technical or professional degrees, for most dudes the “college experience” is a waste of time, energy and money. Without easy access to young horny girls, what is the point?

    Men would be better suited ceding the increasingly obsolete university system to the women who want to become corporate spinsters and devote their time instead to piling up technical certifications, opening surf shops,building their bodies and learning the crafts of masculinity while perfecting their Game.

    It should only take a few years for these poor Beta saps to start getting the message – and #dateoffcampus was the start of that. YMY is an outright anti-Beta law. And as soon as the first round of heinous lawsuits is settled, it will be one that universities will be desperate to get rid of.

    There is another issue. The “male issue” of university attendance is already a serious concern, as male alumns tend to donate at a much greater rate and amplitude than female alums, and with 60% of the alums going to be female in the future, that cuts into expected institutional giving projections pretty hardcore.

  77. @ianironwood is right, in a way.

    I’m a sophomore in College and I can already tell you this is only meant to stop Betas from advancing with girls. This hardly affects Alphas.

    I go to a lot of parties and high status girls ignore any Betas or any “outsider” that she sees. They’re almost like a piece of furniture to them. They can be downright cruel to some guys.

    I remember being at a party with a side piece (fling), sitting outside on a bench watching the debauchery as my bros were getting drunk beyond their minds. As the night goes on, a girl that my fling knows sits right next to us and talks about how “there’s no hot guys here”.

    A few minutes pass, and one guy decides to approach the girl right next to us. He looked confident and sure of himself (must have been the beer) but she rejected him in such a harsh way. After the guy finished with his introduction, she quickly said, “I don’t know who you are or where you came from but all I know is that you better leave me alone.” The guy left with hunched shoulders, defeated. I was thinking, “damn, bitch you could have just said no thanks.” After the guy left, the girl also said something along the lines of, “Ugh, did he actually think he was in my league? Pathetic.”

    I won’t lie. After it happened, I felt like defending the guy but I’m not stupid. I’m not sacrificing my status for some guy out of empathy. I know it sounds fucked up but that’s the way it is here. There are those who are “insiders” (the alphas) and there are those who are “outsiders” (the betas).

    A young college girl’s hypergamy is the most ruthless thing alive, and you know what? After witnessing so many of these kinds of scenarios, I’ve realized that she wouldn’t have it any other way.

  78. @keg chugger

    If you encounter a ‘beta’ en route to dropping out of college, supplement The Rational Male with Victor Pride at Bold and Determined as he’s given exact reasons to do so with simple to follow strategies. He writes, “College was a waste of time for me but the endless books, endless experiences and endless amount of self-study has proven invaluable.” As we speak, an apprentice has left much behind to work with him to learn to have the kind of success he enjoys. Mike C at Danger and Play is another extraordinary resource for men that have a vision to learn what college cannot teach in a world where ‘credentialism’ no longer means what it did. Mike is also a walking law library.

  79. @jf12

    October 20th, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    “The idea that women’s sexual preferences should be deferred to is not new. Pope John Paul II’s opus Theology Of The Body is based largely on his earlier Love And Responsibility……”

    Religion has always been a feminine beta schema orchistrated to eleminate alpha freedom usurp power and reap wealth. Any man feels at least a slight twinge of awkward uneasiness in church. Religion is the biggest business in the world and the Catholic Church is the wealthiest institution on earth. They own more property than any other and control vast amounts of cash all while claiming a “vow of poverty”. The average priests Sunday costume costs a few thousand dollars and their theatrical props are quite expensive. When you consider all the costs, the total,is staggering. Their entire story is nothing but insane bullshit fairy tale lies and they have absolutely no shame in telling more for profit. All they have to do is turn up the temperature of the air conditioning thermostat on Sunday in summer and claim the church needs more money to fix the AC system. After this happens several times every summer for several years at the same church, one becomes very suspicious. Women are their biggest supporters and their relationship with women is symbiotic.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: