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. The men’s rights movement represents true feminism. MGTOW represents the total and complete rejection (and future collapse) of female privilege. MGTOW are an evolution of MRAs.

    MGTOW are the future of men. Across the globe, in all developed nations, men are opting out. Why? To understand why – you have to understand the power of projection. Ever have someone do something really bad and then blame the result of their bad behavior on you? If you have, then you understand projection.

    Here’s an example. This example can be applied to any number of things that women blame on men:

    The Blame: Men are obsessed with porn. This is causing a breakdown in marriage. Men are sex obsessed pigs. Women are forced into prostitution. Women wear revealing clothes because the patriarchy makes them.

    The Truth: Women take naked pictures of themselves and post them online because they’re obsessed with themselves and want others to be obsessed with them as well. Women wear butt floss, high cut skirts and low cut blouses to lure in naive, ignorant men to pay for their drinks and meals. Women sell themselves sexually to gain monetarily. Women use their bodies to gain favoritism in employment and education and to avoid traditional male labor. Women always claim victimization because they know the naive, ignorant cowardly white knights will fall to their knees for a sniff.

    Boys should be raised to “not be traditional men”. Boys should be raised into men that understand the centuries of social programming, brainwashing and manipulation that has gone into making them disposable utilities. Boys should be raised to reject the white knight role and to reject gynocentrism.

    Look at the BS movies that always put men in the position of sacrificing their lives for women. There are thousands of these movies. That’s some deeply, psychologically damaging stuff both men and women are doing to boys. It’s psychological abuse against boys and men. When a man doesn’t act in a way that’s self-sacrificing when a woman’s life is at risk, how is that portrayed in the media? These are obvious examples of self imposed misandry by men and women upon men and boys.

    The most important thing to teach boys is how gynocentric shaming and projection work. It’s also very important to teach boys how men help women proliferate gynocentric shaming and projection.

    /*————— INTERMISSION —————*/

    Let them have it. Let women have all they want. Let them fight their own fires, their own wars and be humiliated and discarded with the same lack of empathy and compassion that men get. Let them build their own infrastructure and housing. Let women die by the tens upon tens of millions in wars for men’s and men’s children’s lives. “Men’s and men’s children’s lives”. Let women die homeless post divorce. Let women be rejected from homeless shelters in favor of men. Let women be stripped from all wealth post divorce. Let men get privileged status in college and employment.

    Cut off all donations to sperm banks. Women are starting to get the massage that they can get the best genes through sperm banks and have children later in life, without men. Men need to stop donating to these banks and these banks need to be blown into oblivion (by whom, I know not). That I have billions of sperms and that somehow makes women’s fewer numbers of eggs more valuable than my sperms is a dangerous train of thought. You just watch how quickly that calculation can change. You just watch how quickly revolution can take place.

    That women consider a sperm bank the equal of men is pure bigotry, sexism and represents the precursor to Hitler’s vision of establishing a “pure race”. It represents women’s hatred of men. You know what’s funny? Women are 10,000,000,000 times more misandric than men ever considered themselves misogynistic. Ever hear of a man wanting to establish an egg bank? Never, right? A man would never consider storing up women’s eggs in a plan to eradicate women. Further proof than men are naive and ignorant white knights. Women actually think about how they can be impregnated without having a man involved. They think about this process in terms of sperm banks. Think men. Think. Sperm banks represent the feminazi ideal of future male disposabilty. Men won’t be needed if trillions of their sperm are stored for future IVFs, right? Sperm banks represent the feminazi’s goal for the end of men.

    The end of men and the rise of the FemiNazi can be achieved through sperm banks. Take note, you naive, ignorant men.

    /*————— INTERMISSION —————*/

    To understand “yes means yes”, one must understand how women view their assets. Women view their “assets” like a car salesman views his cars (his assets). When a potential customer walks on the lot, what happens in the car salesman’s mind? Why, he immediately tries to figure out the best way to manipulate the buyer into spending as much as possible. Why? Commissions. He doesn’t care what kind of car you want. What he cares about is how much he’s going to make in the transaction. He doesn’t care about you at all. Nevertheless, he’s going to treat you like a long lost brother. He’s going to say and do whatever he has to do to get you to buy his car. Now, if during this transaction, he figures out that you can’t afford to buy his car, then notice how his attitude towards you changes. If he’s desperate for a commission and you’re desperate for a car, he’s going to try to lock you into a high interest deal on a “previously owned” model. Think single mother with kids.

    Women view themselves like car salesmen view their cars. How do I know this? Women want to marry up. If they marry up and a BBD comes along, they want to trade up. Women know that their “car” is a time sensitive, depreciating asset. When you drive a car off the lot, what happens? It loses a big chunk of its value, right? As you drive it around, it loses more of its value. After a while, and many, many miles, the car is pretty darn worthless, right? And people wonder why women use ignorant, naïve men for financial gain. Too funny.

    Now, imagine if a car salesmen (or should I say, salespeople) had a “yes means yes” law that applied to test driving his assets. Imagine if after giving you the demo ride of your life, you decided not to call him back or buy his car. Imagine if he could claim that you didn’t have consent to drive his car in the first place. Imagine what would happen to you if he claimed that you physically attacked and forced the keys from him and drove his car without permission.

    It’s all so simple. If you create a law that mandates purchase of the vehicle after the test drive vs. imprisonment, far fewer will chance the test drive unless they’re really serious about driving the car.

    Welcome to the old world – one in which feminists and conservatives can agree.

  2. Don’t fool yourself.

    In “the old world” things were not as such. The intelligent and strong prevailed the stupid and weak perished. Polygamy was the norm.

  3. “Don’t fool yourself.

    In “the old world” things were not as such. The intelligent and strong prevailed the stupid and weak perished. Polygamy was the norm.”

    In “the old world” naive alpha men kissed women’s butts – much in the same way they do today. The naive white knights were cuckolded and the strong and wise progressed. Women choose alphas to mate with (the unstable), and then dump them for betas (stable). Only the mentally strong survive (the alphas end up in prison). The low class, low IQ alphas may spawn more, but their offspring will end up in prison and/or homeless. Alphas eventually breed themselves from existence, much like feminists.

    The Betas will win in the end, but the alphas will also have something to look back upon.

  4. 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).

    In a game determined by status, unless an alpha has so much status (e.g., famous actor, rockstar) that he can nuke the bitch without repercussions, this is the smart move, even if it is a “bro”.

    Anyway, this whole legal snafu is just another step toward Betas Shrugged. And women/society had really better hope that the betas do just GTOW. Otherwise, and especially if men (even betas) are left with no way to withdraw, things will get ugly in many ways.

  5. With the veneer being removed, the question now becomes how many people will recognize the rise of statists and how soon will they act? For that is what Ezra is, an out-of-the-closet statist who believes that laws should exist purely to alter human behavior. A more authoritarian viewpoint does not exist. He might as well be advocating for forced Inguinal orchiectomy on men whose genetics and alpha-ness don’t meet a criteria. There is little distinction between his words and my absurdity.

    History doesn’t repeat as much as it rhymes, this tune has been sung before, and the populations to which it was sung failed to recognize the threat to their lives until all the undesireables were taken care of. Hetero white men are now the undesireables of the developed world.

    If you are an adult, heterosexual, productive male, living in the developed world (particularly the U.S. or U.K.) it’s no longer ridiculous to have exit strategies, plans by which you might exit your native country in favor of one that lets men be men… Normal male living is being turned into too risky a proposition. Vote with your feet, be prepared to let Rome burn itself down and find a nice hill to start again on.

  6. @jf12

    I wouldn’t want you to be mistaken for a crazy young feminist on “radical wind”.

    The correct term is PVI:

    “… A wide range of studies, however, have found that greater frequency of penile–vaginal intercourse (PVI), as distinct from other sexual behaviors, is associated with measures of better health (Brody, 2003, 2006; Brody & Preut, 2003) and that condoms might detract from some of the benefits (Costa & Brody, 2008). Studies of the general adult population in several countries indicated that condom use for PVI, like abstinence from PVI, is associated with depression and suicidal tendencies (Gallup, Burch, & Platek, 2002; Morrill, Ickovics, Golubchikov, Ber …”

    The last sentence is another reason why having a lover already puts you in a better position to flag down another. Unless you’re never gonna do it without the fez on.

  7. @Mr Ironwood :-
    Men would be better suited ceding the increasingly obsolete university system to the women”
    To be fair it did have its uses, and may well do again soon.
    Very popular when I was that sort of age, particularly among doting white UMC parents.
    As a way of keeping Junior out of the draft.
    I assume lots of the wanky “Institute of Studies”-type courses had their origins around this time.

  8. @jacklabear :-
    “radical wind” ??? lolzlozlll
    Sure this ain’t a wind-up (poe, in your language, I think)?

    Right, that’s it. Beans on toast for brekky. Nowt else will do now.

  9. First I’d like to say how much I enjoyed the podcast, just listened over the weekend. I’ve read articles from McQueen before, but now I’m hooked on his podcast! For those yet to listen, go check it out, McQueen is one funny motherfucker!

    Being a Californian I’ve been tracking the progress of this law with keen interest. One remarkable aspect is that there was not one singal NO vote cast. While Cali has a legit liberal reputation-I was recently one of them, there are many rural, conservative congressional districts, and not one state legislator cast a NO vote. It nearly seems to be a statisitical impossibility!

    I’m 43 and less than a yr into the red pill. At times I’m prone to if I’d only known what a I do now then reflecting. I can think of numerous opportunties I had with women during college, and I lacked the confidence and “alpha” to be even be really cognizant of the opportunities at the time. Point is Deti is spot on that the betas will just drop out of the SM-i know 23 yr old me (I started college late) would’ve done just that.

    Prior to discovering the red pill I read a lot of MGTOW, in fact I used to love a site called American Women (mostly) Suck. I think I instinctively didn’t wholly dive in like I did with the read pill because of the persistent whining on those sites. Never the less I’m finding it quite disconcerting that what I recently considered my own paranoia regarding women and their sexual stratagies are actually very legitamite fears.

    On a different point I’d like to tag onto something Rollo says early on in the podcast. I’ll admit that I’m not rolling in alpha pussy the way I’d like to be, but hey, at least the fuckin multi-yr drought ended! But when Rollo beings his tangent that you’ve benifitted from game if… dead the fuck on! I think we get caught up in the notch count “of that all important pussy that we’ve been denied for so long” as stated in the book RM. Aside from attaining occasional pussy, game has also benefitted me in my dealings with women at work, family, friends women & wives, female bosses & overlords, my nieces & cousins, I could rabble on indefinately. My point is if you only think game has “pussy” applications then you are limiting yourselves needlessly my manosphere brothers.

    One last comment on people’s posts here that game only works for the hot hunky roided up alpha dudes. I’m recently recovering from a tibia fracture & knee injury from mtn biking. I began rehabilative wt training 2.5 wks after surgery. I was walking a wk early-much to my surgeon’s chagrin! My recovery time is far short of what is typical. Now much of this is due to my active athletic lifestyle. But I believe, and have been told, that it’s just as much about attitude & motivation. Are you gonna sit around and feel sorry for yourself? Or are you gonna get up off your ass and put in the time, work, and PAIN, to recover and regain your functionality?

    I think much the same applies to us here in the manosphere-remake yourself (law 25)! Roosh did it, as I’m sure many of the other manosphere bloggers did. Get your ass to the gym. Go shopping and buy some new fucking clothes, and Rollo’s right-shoes lads! Invest in yourself. Work on your personality. I’ve learned you can actually become a more fun and likable person! Become Mr. Positive (I read that on SoSauve)! Given enough time, you won’t have to tell yourself your the shit, you’ll just KNOW IT, because the world will keep affirming it for you. The joy of the journey is at least as important as reaching the destination is.

  10. @George
    Re: water crystal forming and killing frozen cells. That’s why flash-freezing (vitrification) was developed.

  11. Yes Means False Rape Claims and Rape Theatre.

    Over the weekend, a woman accused two men of raping her on the Millersville U. (Penna) campus. Then her story immediately collapsed and she recanted. The police chief says that she won’t be charged or identified, and that the priority is “giving her the support and care she needs” while also investigating if permits “intimate partner violence” had elsewhere and previously occurred. (IOW, since there was no rape, they have to find one. The campus sexual assault czar is leading the charge to discover who hurt the woman in the past, leading her to falsely file felony complaints.)

    Meanwhile, now that the campus is denied the hysteria of extant rapists, the campus is using the non-rape to teach itself about rape, and young men are promising to walk their girlfriends around campus in case the non-rape conditions morph into real-rape conditions.


    Obviously, this is rape theatre in the service of an elevated sexual assault consciousness. It’s a fabrication constructed on a lie in pursuit of a dream, which dream is that admitted false rape charges nonetheless are the fault of men, somewhere and somehow.

    My view is that the women in this immorality play are playing their parts predictably. What is more chilling, and disgusting, and dangerous, are the ways the police chief and the butt-boys on campus are stepping up to ferret out the non-raping men to ensure that no one ever non-rapes the lying claimant ever not again. I think it is a common observation that while feminist self-aggrandizement is a big problem, what’s worse are the male enablers, lapping at the feminist bowl of milk, as though this will get them somewhere with chicks. That’s my takeaway from the Millersville U. situation.


    It will be interesting to see if this sort of false rape theatre spreads across campuses. I think it will. There’s ample precedent with the agitprop racisssss incidents, when black kids hang up a noose or spray a KKK signature, and turn campuses upside down in the search for the lonely raaacciiissssts. My alma mater was shut down for two days last year in one of this fabricated incidents, even though the president (revealed later) knew the incident was a fabrication of two clever prog-liberal students. His reasoning was that it was a good exercise in consciousness raising, white privilege self-examination, ritual flogging, etc.

  12. re: females reverting to external fertilization.

    Maybe it’s because my imagination is limited, but I can’t see any overall reproductive benefit to giving up internal fertilization, except maybe for predation somehow focused on adults who are getting busy. It kind of makes sense that one wouldn’t want to be thus engaged whilst being eaten.

  13. re: Millersville. It is a fact that colleges now get brownie points for counting a false rape report as an additional “report” of sexual violence and the withdrawal of the claim does not subtract from the tally of reports. Does anyone know for sure if this one has already increased the official number of “reports” of sexual violence at Millersville for this year?

  14. Badpainter: “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.”

    In reflecting on how this new innovation will affect my social life, I have a couple of observations.

    One, I have long been a firm No Means No guy. If I’m getting to know someone, and she says “No” or “I can’t” or “I’m not like that” … I just get up and start dressing. (I am not getting hoisted on a regret sex complaint, could give a shit about triumphing over LMR, and I save the rape fantasy stuff for later.) Women *really hate* that and immediately drop the pretense of resistance and become direct sexual aggressors. Like, within 15 seconds. It’s a measure of the idiocy of No Means No if the primary objectors to it are female.

    So I think YMY will make the sexually ambitious female even more aggressive, as any guy willing to navigate a YMY environment will just say, “Prove to me you really want it.” Circus acts will ensue by way of convincing a man she’s offering true consent. It’s bizarre, what I envision happening by way of convincing men they are in the clear.

    Two, as Badpainter notes, the only true defense for a man is being able to read a woman’s mind. Moving on, I think we have to, essentially, view single women the way doctors view their patients. Doctors’ insurers train their clients to view patients as their primary risk, their potential enemy in all cases. Obviously, any woman at any time can change her spots and claim assault under YMY. How do we identify this potential?

    One way may be to note the degree to which her language is dependent on feminist talking points. Example: while bantering over the past couple of days with a woman, who has been occasionally in pursuit of me over the past few years, I notice now constructions such as “you shouldn’t keep those pictures” or “how do you entrap your young things” or “men are turned on by the dumbest things, women are so much richer than that” or “women have a much more complex sexuality than men, and we need so much more”.

    And you can imagine, in this 500 line texting exercise, the other two dozen or so appeals to feminist authority. These are not thoughtful observations, she’s making, she’s just on texting autopilot and littering her comments with prog-feminist talking points because she’s such a SIW etc. Thus by my way of thinking, she’s pre-programmed to claim victimization according to feminist conventions. So while she wants the action, I won’t get near her unless she does all the work, and demonstrates objectively that it was she chasing me. As in “Officer, how could I be guilty of sexual assault of this pristine unknowing innocent woman, when I have these texts including these pictures of her in bed with her ass in the air that she sent to me — and then she drove 325 miles to see me.”

    Net, the best defense will be women demonstrating their good faith through new levels of egregious licentiousness. And women want this law and this intersexual regime!

  15. @Buena Vista re: “Circus acts will ensue by way of convincing a man she’s offering true consent.”

    I concur, and the standards for consent will keep escalating. This will include girls competing with each other to show a guy which one is more enthusiastic, which is I suppose what we’re all imagining (and/or trying not to imagine…). But it will also include plausible deniability of consent “Yes, I said yes *somewhat* enthusiastically to Jim but not nearly as enthusiastically as I had just done for Bob. See the video? I was getting a little tired, and Jim could have given me a break before Joe…”

  16. @jf12
    Ovoviviparous fish are able to produce less offspring than ovuliparous ones, but their survivability is another matter. Ask an ichthyologist for a better explanation.

  17. Without jaws, the armor of the mother is the best defense for her offspring. With strong-jawed predators, the best defense is the strength of numbers.

  18. Deti: “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.”

    I’ve always been a “Dad” as Deti describes them: someone who suppressed a playful or racy side, in order to behave like my own father in public (i.e., a gentleman drafthorse) and in private (work my ass off, practice monogamous marriage, love my family).

    However, first hand experience now of the pointlessness of being a greater beta (greater beta: more easily strip-mined of home, hearth, and children) leads one to a “I really don’t give a fuck-all” attitude, with startling results. Just startling. While watching the game last night, (sandwiched between two guys whose response to the SMP and their own divorces is MGTOW sullenness, a perpetual depression) the pair of DD’s that was serving us behind the bar adjusted her bra. Just a quick hike.

    So I just said some shit like “I bet you can’t juggle them.” (I have never in my life suggested some boob juggling. And she is not a friend: I know exactly two things about her: her first name, and that she has DDs.) And for the rest of the night, this was a running gag, the bartender filling my water or whiskey glass, and giving her girls a quick juggle, and even getting the chick at the end of the bar to put down her phone for 5 seconds to join her in a quick team-juggle.

    I don’t do pickup, but in reflecting on all this while it was happening, I truly wondered what would have happened if, on my way out I’d just tapped the other juggler, at the end of the bar, on my way out, and said, “You ready to go now?”

    As women tend to compare notes a lot, and compete socially, and seek validation among girlfriends more than men for their sexual activities, I see some really, really crazy shit descending on us under YMY.

    In the theatre there is the concept of the fourth wall. That is, the imaginary wall between the stage action and the audience. Various dramatists break through the fourth wall, great actors make us forget it. I think what Deti is alluding to may be thought of as the obliteration of the fourth wall in the SMP. The historical pretenses of male care and concern, male provisioning, male protection are discarded once women prove their ability to destroy men in court, the child services unanswerable bureaucracy, and in the culture. Once a man contemplates that he may well just shrug and go downtown with Game in his back pocket. And grown women will juggle their tits on command, for all to see.

  19. @BV re: “I truly wondered what would have happened if, on my way out I’d just tapped the other juggler, at the end of the bar, on my way out, and said, “You ready to go now?””

    YMMV, but during my brief foray it seemed that the only difference that women were using to discern between pervs/creeps and guys-who-have-a-chance was the male’s directness.

  20. @Exfernal, re: oviparity.

    Queen bees are internally fertilized. Communal critters like that tend to have both extremely high numbers of offspring and high survivability, due to protected mating areas and protected nurseries.

  21. @jf12

    So? Not a typical species following the K-selection strategy. I don’t get your position. Are you implying that armored fish were also extremely communal? A bee ‘swarm’ is practically a superorganism. Not many vertebrates follow the same ‘lifestyle’. A shoal of fish, a thousands-strong herd of grazing herbivores, a flock of birds – neither of these reaches the same level of genetic kinship that bees, termites or ants have with their ‘queens’. As an aside, our discussion strains my meager English skills.

  22. If you take a swarm as a single unit (being subject to selection), not a single bee worker, drone or queen, then bees seem to conform to the general pattern of K-selection more closely.

  23. @Exfernal re: “I don’t get your position.”

    I said that the only reason I could think of to revert from *already* being an internally-fertilized species was if the actual process of fertilization made them easier prey. Making mating more protected, e.g. having a boudoir/den, or perhaps some friends to stand guard, would have been a better solution if possible.

  24. Well, self-interest of these ‘friends’ dictates to care more about their own safety. A den in the middle of the sea seems equally impractical (outside coral reefs, of course).

    I wonder how you would understand the following bee queen ‘ritual’ heralding the ‘schism’ in the swarm: A mother queen kills all her ‘princess’ daughters, except one (or more, if the collective is exceptionally prosperous and numerous), before taking wing with roughly a half of her worker daughters. Difficult to fit in a typical moral paradigm/frame, isn’t it?

  25. As usual with such issues of identity politics and social power dynamics, those holding their hands in a prayer position and clapping quickly and gleefully are:

    administrative types who would otherwise have nothing to do and need to feel important;

    the legal industry who is ever so happy to play both sides for their own benefit;

    the media, for whom this is prime grist;

    entrenched political structures who wish to further consolidate their power;

    and SJW types, drawing their identity from outrage, who must push the envelope into ever more preposterous territory…

    From the lot of ’em, not much of any true creativity, hard work, or generation of real value for society.

    This is not justice. It’s nothing more than make-work for carrion-eaters.

    Betas Shrugged indeed.

  26. Buena Vista- “Obviously, any woman at any time can change her spots and claim assault under YMY. How do we identify this potential?”

    Despite my tendency to oversimplify things I’d say that potential exists in all humans identified as women. The degree of risk in each individual is of course an unknown. So the question to be asked is this piece of ass worth the assumed default risk? For me the answer is no probably not, and thus my own decision tree gets more complicated.

    On the upside there is increasing amusement to be enjoyed in getting them to debase themselves by boob juggling, and other tricks. Such displays might be a useful filter to determine who is worth a fuck (and nothing else), and who is worth more than a fuck.

  27. Black Knighting suggestion.
    1) Since all males in the California collegiate system have received, and signed acknowledgements of receiving, indoctrination of principles AND methods of bystander intevention
    2) Since said methods include how to physically intervene
    3) Since said principles morally *require* intervention if sexual violence is occurring or is about to occur
    4) Since YMY *defines* any sexual activity (or activities intended to lead to sex, or sex-related activites) which is not explicitly consensual to be sexual violence
    5) And finally since definitionally no woman who is drunk, under the influence to any degree including “had a drink or two”, can possibly be considered to be explictly consenting to anything sexual
    6) Then by law any time any group of guys sees a *possibly* “under the influence” woman flirting with, or making out with, or holding hands with, or looking like she intends in the future to get sexual with, any man including her husband or boyfriend, that group of guys is *obligated* to intervene. Two of the guys can hold the dastard aka boyfriend back while the designated Black Knight guy for this episode throws the screaming girl over his shoulder and carries her off to a place he knows her dastard aka boyfriend won’t find her. The Good Samaritan principle absolves the Black Knight of any harm she may incur during this episode.

    One time is all it would take.

  28. The best way to enlighten someone that they cannot have their cake and it it too is to snatch the cake away and force them to watch you eat it all.

  29. I’m amused at seeing middle-aged men talk about something they haven’t been inside of(college) for at least 20 years. I’m go to college. I’ve never seen or heard of women accusing men of sexual assault to get attention. I also see nothing of this nonsense of women only being interested in men who treat them like trash. I also don’t see nothing of the nonsense that the top 20% get the vast majority of the sex.

    1) Stop going for women half your age.

    2) Don’t be obese.

    3) learn social manners.

    There ya go, you are now attractive to a very large percentage of women. Of course, if the mansphere wisdom still holds water, the only women worth anything are ”HB 10s” so you gotta be HB10s yourself. Go for it BRAH,.

  30. ‘Sweet Jesus jf12 you take this blog too seriously. Stop trying to come across as an expert on women sexuality. Go outside sometime and catch some air. It might increase your lifespan, god knows you’ve burned off half of it already.

  31. To go abstract here for a second. . .

    Women are from Venus; they are superior/more valuable reproductively and socially more intelligent and cunning.

    Men are from Mars, they are physically mightier and capable of great objective intelligence.

    So. . .I can conclude that feminism, as defined by Heartiste, cannot be defeated by Game or any social method. Game is just a response to the imbalance in the force and can only be helpful on an individual basis.

    Outright revolution (brute force) is the only way to change things to the masculine side. An order where women can’t vote and her husband can hit his wife if provoked to discipline her. Otherwise, the game is OVER. You cannot beat women in the social/political realm when the (multi)culture is “democracy.” Remember, even in the past “patriarchy” women were *still* more valuable than men. See Jefferson’s “Tyranny of the Petticoat.”

    Women can only win by Venus. Men can only win by Mars. That is all.

  32. ”Phillip is a woman right?

    Phillip doesn’t agree with the cult-trend here so he must be a woman. Makes sense. Do you know what is the difference between a feminist and a red-piller?

    Can’t find any.

    ”Phillip = Professor Von Hardwiggs = Princess SSB = Plagio

    Well, since you share the same views as Roissy and Roosh V, I’m assuming you are all those handles.


    You better go make another article on how no masturbation turns a man into alfaalfa.

  33. lmao rollo you changed my previous posts to ”princess.” Hey, I think 90% of what you write is BS, but at least you got a sense of humor. Kinda like how much you laugh by making bank at the expense at these kids and middle-aged men who are either obese/autistic and think being a ”bad boy” or a ”high smv man” is the way to be sexually successful with hot, 20-something women, right?

  34. Maybe it’ because Phillip talks nonsense and sounds like a typical woman. Therefore no value to be found in Phillip’s comments. easy enough to scroll past.

  35. “Outright revolution (brute force) is the only way to change things to the masculine side.”

    Force is the way the Tao expresses itself. Force is the only way anything changes in the universe.

    And it’s Adams, not Jefferson.

  36. @Mike re:article.

    Yep. “How are women supposed to tell the difference between Robinson and a potentially dangerous sex offender?” One could guess: the lack of tingles …

  37. ”Maybe you should ask Aunt Giggles ( or is it SLUTHate now?) the same the next time youre there.
    All you do is parrot her.”

    You are more similar to her than you would know. You’re essentially the male version of what she parrots, except you think life is all about scoring pussy, even though you are old enough to have some sense in that head of yours, whereas she seems obsessed with marriage and children.

    Btw, did you know roosh V had his channel blocked and he’s going to be pressed with criminal charges? lol, the mansphere is pretty much dead, but you people cling on to it.

  38. @jf12, re article: As far as I can tell, mic dot com doesn’t allow comments but I found the story via their posting it to Facebook. About 2/3 of the women commenting there said the subway PUA should be beaten or shot or otherwise punished. Many of them – self-awareness not being a strong point – basically admitted that the problem was the man’s looks. So, yeah, no tingles=rape.

  39. I’ve made this comment before about the Jameis Winston accusation, but it needs to be here. First, let me reiterate that I am against the sordid immorality of it all, and that the facts are not my fault. I think moral clauses should prohibit Winston from playing ever again. Again, although not publicized as such, the video evidence of the girl’s “enthusiastic consent” was key.

    On December 5 of 2013, Florida State Attorney Willie Meggs announced that no prosecution would be forthcoming against Jameis Winston, who was accused of raping a girl at his place a year earlier on December 7, and the announcement was accompanied by the release of multiple books of police reports and interviews and transcripts. The accuser’s attorney Patricia Carroll stood by Meggs and complimented him even as they cracked jokes about it all on camera. As soon as they released the documents my first thought was that there must be video somewhere and that is why Meggs was so comfortable dropping the case. The following narrative is pieced together from the released information and little else. Yes, I know of the videos plural, no I haven’t seen them.

    Only one or two of the incidents of what transpired back at Winston’s place are factually disputed, and none of the rest of this narrative is under dispute. I will not dwell on police actions or nonactions, in part because some of those are disputed. Winston’s place was a no-questions-asked party dorm with holes in the walls and doors kicked through, off campus, for football players. Cops had been called by neighbors there to the Legacy Suites repeatedly that fall, and specifically Winston and his roommate Chris Casher three times in the prior few of weeks for 1) a loud big party in the building past midnight 2) those two being drunk and disorderly with two women outside in the parking lot in a separate incident 3) those two among others running around the neighborhood shooting BB guns, trespassing across fences and yards, and breaking windows.

    The evening of December 6, the multiple phone calls and physical evidence show that the party-hardy accuser first hooked up, with unsafe sex, with Jamal Roberts, at 5’9 and 185 lbs an old boyfriend who was in town just that night, passing through to spend the weekend in their mutual hometown. Multiple semen spatters of his on the inside of her skinny pink pants probably indicate that he pulled out in time. Shortly thereafter, after redressing without showering or anything she ditched him (he was still in town) to go out underage drinking with several other friends, including Marcus Jordan, eventually landing at PotBelly’s on College Avenue.
    Once there, she soon recognized Casher from school and ditched her friends to drink and flirt with him, but once she was with his football group the hunky Winston immediately caught all of her attentions. Casher and Ronald Darby, who also lived at Legacy Suites, were used to scraping girls off the 6’4” 240 lb (he bulked up that fall) Winston. He had ordered them to keep girls off inpublic, so as not to upset Breion Allen, one of his favorite girlfriends, who had social-media spies at Florida State. But this one wouldn’t stop stroking him and climbing into his lap, despite Casher and Darby’s efforts to return her to her friends. After midnight, as Casher and Darby and Winston prepared to leave, she pleaded with a girlfriend to go with her and them, having misinterpreted Casher’s interferences as possessiveness and hoping he would be satisfied to make it a “double date”. The other girl wouldn’t go with her, so the future accuser climbed into the cab to go back to their place, and she paid for the cab ride.

    Everyone agrees Winston and the girl were complete strangers and that there were two other witnesses to the sexual activity in his room. The girl claims that after lots of consensual activity that Winston got too aggressive and Casher, her friend, broke into the room to try to pull Winston off her but Winston was too strong so Casher took pictures of her being sexually assaulted to help her for evidence. Casher and Darby claim that Casher was already in the torn-up room (the door had been kicked in months earlier) from the beginning, the whole time videoing in closeups the activity on the soiled bed, pretending to be a porn director with a good video camera and with a bright light, telling them what todo next and exposing himself and pleasuring himself, but the girl got annoyed when Casher tried to physically join in, several times. Everyone agrees that Darby stood in the door with his phone camera perving, and that Winston did not pull out, and that everyone knew there were pictures and video. And some of these photos and videos survived.

    Anyway, soon afterwards, everyone agrees she rode back to sort of near her place on the back of his cute little scooter, holding onto him tightly, and he basically dumped her off on a rather random street corner at Stadium Drive and Call Street at 2:00 AM because he didn’t want to be seen with her, and he sped away leaving her there alone. She walked up to her place on campus a few minutes later, bedraggled to say the least, and her friend Jenna Weisberg partially cleans her up and partially gets some story or other out of her (Jenna’s version of what she heard doesn’t match the girl’s story). Jenna is the outcry witness who called the cops. The campus and Tallahassee city police sorted out jurisdiction, and by 4:00 they are at the police station giving physical evidence, including photographing her many visible bruises, some brand new, many quite old bruises, and took her testimony with the help of the victim advocate.

    Later that same morning the news circulates semi(!)privately on twitter until her friend Bria Henry blasts it everywhere and takes it on herself to call the girl’s mother. Her friends all commiserate but nobody tells her who her accused attacker obviously was (being Casher’s star roommate narrows it down, for example). On the night of January 9 the accuser recognizes Winston at yet another underage drinking party, and after making inquiries and learning his name, tells the police on January 10.

    I personally feel like retching myself, even with the red pill, regardless of the one (at most two) facts in dispute. I held back the punchline. The accuser’s testimony provided an accurate physical description of her unknown attacker, precise enough to extremely accurately fit: height, weight, clothing, face … drum roll … her boyfriend Jamal Roberts. I think that fact is a clue to her frame of mind or, perhaps, her framing of the story, given that she knew Jamal’s semen was on her.

  40. @Mike, re: “no tingles=rape”.

    I’m saying “one could guess” in order to avoid saying it’s my opinion, that one way those women can tell Robinson is safe is *because* of the lack of tingles.

  41. @jf12: I get your point now. I was surprised so many women want this man killed, injured, or jailed, just for asking. No indication he was threatening or even rude, or that he touched anyone.

  42. I think in Northern Ireland now, it’s legal to solicit paid sex, but illegal to actually pay for it.

    “The Northern Ireland Assembly has voted by 81 to 10 in favour of making it a crime to pay for sex. MLAs spent several hours on Monday debating the measures, which formed part of a private member’s bill on human trafficking and exploitation. Clause six of the bill makes it illegal for someone to obtain sexual services in exchange for payment. “

  43. Kinda like how much you laugh by making bank at the expense at these

    What money?

    Where are the ads at The Rational Male?

    What’s for sale here that’s profitable?

    This is not the “making bank” site.

    I know the value of Rollo’s time in the field he’s worked a lifetime to be the best in the world at. These posts and comments are not profitable for Rollo Tomassi.

    Rollo is talented in more than one type of art. The writing he does here… is free. The best artists SHOULD be paid for what they do that affects change around the world. Rollo Tomassi has chosen not to have advertisers here. The “donate” button leads to a charity that rescues retired Greyhounds which is more than 2500 miles from where he lives.

    The funded trolls should try this at a blog that’s proud of the “bank” earned from helping the “obese” and others to transform their bodies and improve their whole life. Victor Pride calls his blog work “being a professional artist” … He’s completely open about how much “bank” he makes from it. He explains on his free blog how anyone with real talent can do the same.

  44. @Mike re: “No indication he was threatening or even rude, or that he touched anyone.”

    Correct. He was described as “cordial”, “polite”, and “nice”.

  45. Of course, the short term reaction should be that any parent would be out of their minds to support a son attending a California university.

  46. “Yes Means Yes” is a concept-book authored by two hardcore lesbians Jaclyn Freidman and Jessica Valenti. They see themselves and sell themselves as evangelists for the lesbian lifestyle and are paid for (with government money) and applauded for *actively* recruiting naive college girls, in the guise of “educating” them in “what women really want”.

    “Yes Means Yes” laws are for the purpose of eventually criminalizing hetero sex.

  47. We all agree No Means No was unambiguous. We all agree it wasn’t working. One disupute is whether the reason it wasn’t working is that women’s dislike of the lack of ambiguity caused them to hesitate to use the word “no.” (hah,hah,right?)

    Anyway, either YMY is more ambiguous, as all of us who are not lesbian activists know, or it’s more definite. IF it is more definite, then Yes Means YES is aggressive and intrusive, making the male’s compliance more mandatory. It’s the exact equivalent of “I Mean Yes, Buster, So You Better Get Busy Right Now!

  48. @jf12: Thanks for that.
    Lindy wrote: “Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?” She never gets around to telling us how we might discover we’re desired. Since we’re not allowed to ask.

  49. @Mike re:”Whywould you want to be tolerated”

    It’s the EXACT equivalent to “Undesirables will not be tolerated!” and the women all know it and are now brazen about it.

  50. A slight digression, or pause, for Game advice. One effective, woman positive-response change I made a couple of years ago was unclenching my hands while walking or standing. The fully open hand still felt weird though, so my hands were at the side of my hips with the fingers somewhat curled. In addition, in trying to stand straighter posturally inevitably the elbows go back a bit (not as much as the swole walk, but partly). The combination with hands at the ready at the hips is very gunslingerish, although I didn’t make the connection until a woman told me. Lately (she told me), I’ve been evidently menacingly (but unconsciously) opening and closing my hands and waggling my fingers while walking, exactly like old-movie gunslingers itching to draw. I just thought it felt good to exercise my tendons and such. “It looks like you’re going to shoot somebody!” she giggled.

    Try it; try the gunslinger walk with the menacing hands like I said. It’ll make your day, and hers.

  51. @Mike, Lindy tends to be less ambiguous than most. She’s upfront about what she considers the problem (besides that she sees men chatting up *other* women …) and solution “Because there’s no law against talking to a pretty woman [yet!]”

  52. @jf12

    We all agree No Means No was unambiguous. We all agree it wasn’t working. One disupute is whether the reason it wasn’t working is that women’s dislike of the lack of ambiguity caused them to hesitate to use the word “no.”…

    Full female sexual expression is incompatible with any form of explicit law. This is because female sexuality requires ambiguity whereas laws are supposed to be well-defined enough to be etched in stone. Female sexuality is a core of ambiguity. Being feminine means never showing her cards, never actually revealing how much she may or may not be into whoever she is with. It’s the men in the world who propose, who confess their love. Women resist admitting any feelings for someone as if it were apocalyptic because to do so is to essentially surrender the game.

    If you force explicit laws to match such conditions, you’ll end up just disrupting the sexual behaviors of both sexes, whether you like it or not.

    YMY is actually the worst thing that could happen to female sexuality, but there are so few truly feminine women left in the developed world no one realizes it. These idealogues who pushed for this law seem to have very little understanding that it’s the men who are much much more familiar with following explicit laws. If pushed to do so, men will either force women to express positive consent throughout each encounter on pain of withdrawal of intercourse, or simply game women all the more.

  53. More from Rosin’s article
    “their photos will be shown to police officers and judges and probation officers. And the reality is, a lot of these officials are going to be men. That process itself is what’s traumatizing.”

    Girls are being *violated* by adult males protecting them from saying yes to boyfriends.

  54. Rollo,

    If the object is to instill fear in a man, perhaps thats not a bad idea? It would seem to me, if females wanted the alpha for their progeny they wouldn’t create laws like this, which make it more difficult for an Alpha to inseminate her.

    Imagine with the law in play, if a woman has sex with man she is labeled a slut after some number, her count is “confirmed”. She can’t walk it off and proclaim it was the alcohol or …… whatever some solipsism excuse she can come up with to keep her dignity intact.

    There are some that proclaim this law makes traditional relationships much more “secure” and likely. I am of the wait and see, I do understand documenting the act is not laid out, and a few poor suckers will get the slammer before it is.

    Also with laws like this, were you must document the act, eventually your “count” will be public knowledge. Affairs would be much more difficult. If you were a man in an affair would you not have the consummation documented? So later she could claim rape?

    I see the law as a double edged sword for women.

  55. @Exfernal, re: no choice.

    Correct. The male will be forced to consent to the penetration of his wallet. And be forced to smile too, probably.

  56. This goes beyond the feminine imperative. We should call it what it is: if women living in fear is patriarchy (as the feminist persecution complex dictates), then men living in fear is matriarchy.

  57. I’m feeling sympathy for Michelle Martin’s attempts to connect with the universe by starting a blog, so I’m not going to actually bash.

    I will, however, attempt to enlighten her at a distance. She is bright, witty even, and healthy, certainly attractive enough, but is having trouble maintaining any man’s interest … that is, any man she is interested in.

    Like others we have discussed recently, she is post-menopausal and considers herself newly available, and she is bewildered that the men she consideres to be her assortative matches are more interested in much younger and much funner i.e. “lesser” women.

    A bit of background. She is literally a professional SJW who has refused romantic contact with men for two decades, pretending that she was just too busy with her career and son, while actually just not being all that interested. Meanwhile she projects her active dislike of men onto herself, pretending that men are turned off by her calves, her chin, and her niceness.

  58. @boxsterpaul

    If the object is to instill fear in a man, perhaps thats not a bad idea? It would seem to me, if females wanted the alpha for their progeny they wouldn’t create laws like this, which make it more difficult for an Alpha to inseminate her.

    It’s the opposite. Laws like this open the field up for true alphas, because no woman other than an absolute psychotic cunt is ever going to try to prosecute an alpha for a lay. These laws punish the non-alphas, forcing them to either become alpha in behavior, or shut up. They force men to game, absolutely force it, because ultimately the only way to keep a woman from being upset with a random encounter and crying “Rape”, the only way to ensure her positive consent throughout the experience is to convince her that you’re worthy of her. These laws practically BEG men to manipulate women for sex.

  59. @jf12: I read Doc (Michelle) Martin’s post of advice to online daters. For men, it boils down to this: Don’t put anything in your profile that might attract a woman who’s not Doc Martin. Don’t target younger, slim women; only date age-appropriate fatsos (“curvy”). Gee thanks Doc, I’ll get right on that.

  60. “She has a master’s degree in social work, a master’s degree in policy studies and a Ph.D. in peace studies . . . she has virtually no hobbies . . .”

    Right. sign me up to be her hobby.
    Then just shoot me.

  61. I’ll be honest, there was one time a girl brought me back to her dorm in college trying to get me to sleep with her even though the excuse was to “get something she left at her dorm”… I didn’t feel safe even letting the door close so I stood by it because of all the orientation rape lectures… this was as a freshman or sophomore about 5-7 years ago. Found out the next day from my friend whose friend this was that she was disappointed I didn’t fuck her because she really wanted it but such is life.

  62. Women NEED beta men, they desperately need them. As every parasite, women need her host – loyal, supportive, romantic, stupid male.There will come a time, in almost every woman´s life, where she would like to cash out of life. She will need this stupid slave to work for her lazy ass and her children till his very death.

    While alpha might satisfy ego/gina desire of many women, his ability to satisfy their parasitic, innermost needs are limited. Most alphas are able to provide for one woman, minority do not give a fuck to it completely.

    So – alpha can not do that. He can provide for one woman, as majority of men. Of course should he be wealthy, he can provide for more women, but majority of wealthy men are catched by one parasite. This clever manipulator uses all his capacity for herself and fights other parasites, that try to steal him from her.

    So when we realize that most women are not able to chatch alpha as her host, but still women need her slave, we have to reach inevitable conslusion – most women need their stupid beta.

    Due to my profession I know many single moms, divorced women, or past 35-years single chicks. I have yet to find single of them that would not sell her gina for one dutifull provider.

    THIS is one of the innermost fears of women. She might use bravado to cover it, but she is scared shitless, that she will have no man to fight, provide, protect and slave for her. Therefore women panick when attention of even beta men fades.They are running out of slaves, out of workers, out of drones.

    The stupid laws, STUPID men ruled by women in your country pass, are in part, projection of this fear. Feminists, as every women, are screaming for attention…without attention form men, they are nothing.

    Therefore they attack MGTOW so viciously. Women are quite happy with alphas, players, cads, ´cos they satisfy their gina requirements. They need betas so they are doing their best to indoctrinate them with mentality of the slave – it starts with your very mum!

    But MGTOW turn their back to the basic need of every woman – providership and security. It means that our chick has to provide, protect, slave for herself and her children alone? Even with the money form the state, it si tough, very tough job!

    Of course, parasite can live without its host…but in a poor, very poor condition.

  63. @ gregg:
    Even though you used words that are quite harsh, I think that’s exactly the most basic fear of any woman. And yes , many of the laws are there to protect the FI.
    But I’m still not sure, after having read many opinions on this here and elsewhere, what’s exactly the point with this YMY law.
    In the end I think it is just another meat shit test. Feminists may have installed it because they can’t stand women and men being happy together, or maybe it’s just divide and conquer. However, it will cause a lot of harm to young men. Even the alpha guys will get caught, cause most naturals just don’t give a fuck about women’s buyer’s remorse after the fact.
    Relationships with women are getting worse everyday. Where will this end and what can a guy do to avoid the consequences?

  64. “a master’s degree in social work, a master’s degree in policy studies and a Ph.D. in peace studies . .”
    These are actual Things, like what you can get a degree in?
    Christ. We’re all doomed. Dooooomed Ah tell ye.

    I mean, I’d be genuinely impressed by a master’s in Knitting, or Cheesemaking, or Brewing or Horsetraining or something. But this made-up shit? Fuck no, bye.
    As real as Witchcraft or Spoonbending the lot of them, she might as well wear a t-shirt with “warning: contains windowlicking moron” on it.

  65. One thing I find interesting about YMY is ultimately the class distortion it will have in the effectiveness of marriages. By this I propose that UC and UMC kids of both sexes are going to end up in college regardless and then they will be indoctrinated with YMY and the corresponding social programming. My own experience 20 years ago at college was at the time the No Means No came out and the corresponding rise of women’s studies and campus grievence committee type of actions all around me. It had a chilling effect on me even though I was an unwitting alpha at the time.

    Going to an institute of “higher learning” in almost any context now exposes young people to this social programming and it soaks in regardless of where they lie on the Alpha, Beta, Omega scale. This nagging cloud of thought left school with me. Sure I naturally knew how to escalate with chicks, but there was always this nagging doubt of, “Just make sure you have this all sorted out so there can never be any accusations levelled at me later”. This eroded my bravado and natural self confidence. To that extent it was a success on the part of the FI, it slows the roll etc and emasculates and de-powers natural male agency.
    This carried over into my marriage, it’s subtle and insidious and destructive and it nearly ended my relationship.

    My point about class success is simply that the more higher education you get, the more you are soaked in the progressive, FI lead propaganda and it is ultimately successful in it’s objective of regulating and restricting natural male behaviour. Of course this happens at the expense of normal happy functional relationships.

    So classes that do not send their young men off to higher education actually end up creating better partners and mates in the long run.

    Sort of accelerates “Idiocracy” even more as the UC will be gradually wiping out it’s own natural Alpha’s weather it means to or not.

  66. Won’t the posh people just raise the bar/drawbridge to entry, to guard their sons against the ensnarements of the she-morlocks? Better or different grades required, mahoosive fees, expatting their spawn out-of-state, even to Europe/Asia, for tertiary education?
    Which means the cohort females will be operating hypergamy as normal. Absent a shedload of frantically upwardly-humping middleclass (and lower) scrubbers from college, and the guys won’t be getting much action except for the teenytiniest sliver of the apex elite scions. The very wealthy and spoiled daddy’s princess girls still in the game at this point will be instinctively spurning their actual socioeconomic peers as usual, while in hot pursuit of the biggerbetterdeal. At a time when they still have the goods in a fine state of preservation.

  67. Slight update.
    One of the three cases was unwanted, apparently clothed, touching of a male by a male.

    One of the three cases is already a non-case. “factually innocent”, “exonerated”
    “we’ve concluded that Mr. Quillin did not commit any sexual assault on September 27th, 2014. And I would add that Jane Doe is in agreement with that conclusion that we have come to”

    The third case involves five individuals, gender unspecified, who made a joint complaint the morning after a huge party at the Dekes. They felt they “must have been” drugged.

  68. I’ve been paying more attention to the world around me lately and I am absolutely shocked at how pervasive the FI is. Everything you’ve said is true. I’ll see something, whether it’s something political or an older girl complaining about her boyfriend leaving her for someone younger, and a memory of an article I’ve read here just pops into my head and it’s like….yup.

    Beta and aspiring-alpha men have it hard enough. Especially with social media booming, it’s clear as day to see how thoroughly the FI has infiltrated society and has been heavily influencing the way people think about and perceive intergender relationships, to the point of complete distortion and hypocrisy.

    The analysis here is spot on. He is best prepared for trouble who sees it coming from afar.

    @ agent p

    I was raised in a very conservative household. Mom quit her job to stay home and raise me and my sister while my dad worked, mom was expected to do all the chores in the house, and have dinner made and ready for my dad every single night when he came home. He would never get up off the couch to get anything at all, not even the remote control — he would just call her over and tell her to get it. Never had any marriage problems I was ever aware of and never in a million years could I imagine my parents getting a divorce or even considering seeing other people.

    My dad’s said at least once that he had my mother very well-trained, and one time even made a joke about that, just calling her down for absolutely no reason to show me how quickly she’d come down the stairs to serve him. I love my mother and that’s not a knock to women, he’d even tell her what he was doing sometimes and she’d just shake her head and roll her eyes. She’ll be the first one to call my dad an asshole and then admit how lucky she is to be with him, and I’ve heard that before plenty of times.

    One time she was complaining about making him dessert. He just looked at her and said “Okay. You go out and get a full time job and start paying the bills. Otherwise if you want to keep living here, then go make me my dessert and bring it to me.”

    That was the end of that. And by “the end” I mean she made and got him his dessert and I never heard her complain about that again.

    He would spout off a whole lot about how hypocritical and fraudulent liberals were, how they relied on emotional arguments and covert manipulation to get themselves ahead while actually doing the opposite of what they claimed they stood for.

    That was beaten into me over and over again, so even from an early age I would silently know that all the “politics” kids were talking about in school were all bullshit, and they were just parroting whatever their parents were telling them.

    It’s all just superficial appeal to emotions. Any logical person would see how stupid feminism is, the hypocrisy and absurdity of feminist arguments are clear for anyone to see who actually uses their brain, but the reality is most people just react emotionally on auto-pilot. They are very susceptible to hypnotic suggestion and the feminist rationalizations just seep right in through the cracks, because the cracks are so big.

    So you know, man, you just gotta make your crack really tight. Haha.

    But seriously though, if this blog were called “The Emotional Male” and was in line with white-knighting, feminist propaganda, it would probably be a lot more popular and get a lot more coverage on different sites. This is just the world we live in.

  69. In fact, according to the text of the bill, portrayal of sexual activity that does not involve explicit ongoing consent may be illegal. So, no Fifty Shades books or movies allowed anywhere on California campuses. And possibly, no more “enactment” dramatizations for student indoctrination.

    Am I missing something?

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: