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.

Fem-Centrism

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. You want some real irony?

    Not 4 months ago there was this MSM fem outrage over a husband who logged his wife’s sexual rejections in Excel spreadsheets, including all her excuses reasons for not fucking him.

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/07/23/case-study-low-expectations/

    This story made radio and TV talk shows, and countless articles on fem blogs decrying this guy’s ‘entitlement’ to sex with his wife, etc.

    It made for some great indignation material in the femosphere, but for all this guy’s unflattering documentation of women’s control in sexual denial, his litigiousness is EXACTLY what Yes Means Yes not only suggests, but demands in order to exonerate men who would attempt to initiate sex with a woman.

  2. @Rollo,
    given that a pattern of a woman’s Yes’s is not allowed as defense evidence for the man, is it or is it not law that a pattern of a woman’s No’s is also not allowed as evidence for the prosecution?

    In other words, can the DA say “Look, Bubba, the text messages indicate she turned you down twelve times in a row! And we’re supposed to believe she changed her mind for this thirteenth time?”

  3. With respect to egg freezing – I suspect it will not be long before the left agitates to mandate that all health insurers provide it as a benefit, at no out-of-pocket cost to the insured, just like contraception has become.

    Just one more layer of men being forced by government to pay for the female imperative to be added to the pile.

  4. “Financial abuse” that is some of the most dangerous shit I’ve ever read.

    A study of history reviles the fact that sociological conditions leading to oppression and loss of freedom never develope simultaneously or rapidly. Such conditions are introduced one at a time, or a very few at a time, incrementally over an extended period of time. This dynamic occurs on a cultural level and a personal level. The oppressed are generally unaware of what is occurring because each new small loss of freedom, each new lie or accusation, each new character deformation, each new law, each new imposition seems tolerable by itself. Concessions are given one or a few at a time as oppression advances mostly undetected. Each new concession is only slightly more unreasonable than its predecessor yet become absurd over time. Those born into each new phase of oppression are unaware of the past and accept their experience as “normal”. Everything seems “normal” or reasonable until the accumulation of constraints, loss of freedom, loss of power, and loss of identity becomes intolerable. Intolerance occurs when “culture” looses enough respect for and attempts denial of reality…innate instinct. This is usually marked with general insanity when incredibly preposterous claims are embraced by the main culture. This is what we are experiencing today.

    Enough is enough.

    Time for us to put a stop to this shit guys.

  5. In the future marriage may quite literally become a prostitutional contract within which written explicit sexual acts are predefined and detailed. It will have to include all details such as positions, frequency, type of lube, vocalizations, stroke speed, emotions experienced, duration of various acts, required sphincter pressures, etc. Couples will have to apply to the government for change orders before deviating from their marital contracts.

  6. “I literally know zero women who seldom say no.”

    It has been very rare for any of my women to ever say no.
    Possible reasons?

    1) I’m skilled in the Venusian Arts. Being good at that is worth a lot of goodwill. The guys who think there is something wrong with pleasuring women are morons. The world is a mirror: you get back what you put out.
    Even if all you do is P&D, you are less likely to get regret rape accusations. Her mind will be filled with retroactive yesses. She will likely give you positive reviews with her friends leading to them wanting to be with you.

    2) Assortative mating. I like sex. The women who get together with me also like it.

  7. “Time for us to put a stop to this shit guys.”

    Hear, hear!
    Spread RP and anti-feminist memes in the mainstream culture.

  8. Rollo,

    What are your thoughts are on “clingers”…. women who get so obsessed they are a problem. These are the ones who say you are their “sole mate”, say they “would die without you”, “you complete me”, “I love you more than anyone I’ve ever known”…”I love you more and more every day..” “Do you love me, do you love me???, Did you miss me, did you miss me”….emotionally insecure, etc. They get angry, pout, sulk, and can become vindictive when the man reviles he is not willing to subjugate himself and compromise his identity to facilitate a fantasy role she expects him to play in order to cash in on her ego investment. Without exception, they attempt to blackmail the man. In fact someone telling someone they are a fucking “sole mate” is a form of blackmail itself because it mandates that “god” or “the universe” or evolution formed the two for each other exclusively. it directly implies that if one or the other doesn’t play the role, then they are violating universal law. Of course we all know it is bullshit and one person is sociopathic and attempting to strip the other of personal identity to facilitate a neurotic fantasy. Unfortunately, It is inevitable that an average man with decent skill and aware of reality can snag a “clinger” because some are excellent actresses and aren’t evident until it is too late.

    I am wondering what you think of this and how you would deal with a “clinger”.

  9. “It is inevitable that an average man with decent skill and aware of reality can snag a “clinger” because some are excellent actresses and aren’t evident until it is too late.”

    I would dispute that. They are not aware of the reality that is within themselves.

    Assortative mating.

    Despite the fact that my count is well above average, I used to get upset when hot sluts would fuck everyone but me. I figured that it was because I’m not the male counterpart of those sluts. I was also too blue pill and FI indoctrinated, but there is more to it than that.

    Some PUAs complain about the crazy BPD women they have to deal with all the time. The truth is that couples often get together because right away on a subconscious level their neuroses mesh and they recognize it.

    Ricky Raw has some good insights on low self esteem, narcissism, ‘co-dependence’ and PUAs.
    http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/
    http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29714

  10. “I would dispute that. They are not aware of the reality that is within themselves.”

    I was referring to average men who are aware. I did not mean to imply that all average men are aware. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

    Thanks for the input.

  11. You’re right.
    Few people are in the habit of examining their own selves. Especially if they are low on self acceptance. And that is what draws the crazies.

  12. Reiterating: YMY is completely antithetical to BDSM. Period.YMY *requires* ongoing consent, and you *cannot* waive the necessity of ongoing verification of consent by a blanket pre-nooky agreement.

  13. Rollo, have you seen this review on Gone Girl? Hilarious. If you haven’t seen the film, you should go see it.

  14. @Shuttas,
    Nick is a quintessential natural alpha. He’s never romanced anyone; women have always serviced *him*. Flynn is an accurate enough (albeit not great, per se) observer of human behaviors, but she cannot give Nick a coherent male point of view for his parts. Also, she totally misses, probably unconsciously and NOT deliberately, in characterizing the male sex drive as female-level. She fails at portraying How Men Are.

    But she is trying to reveal, sort of, How Women Are, specifically how women are around a natural.

  15. The fundamental conundrum for a man is that a woman is more likely to voluntarily and enthusiastically consent to him when he is more menancing. It’s quite the ethical pickle, and the solution leading to nice guys becoming more preferred involves *women* changing.

    It’s not my fault, at all, in any way. I know the fact that Game works is women’s fault.

  16. In case Anyone has been wondering, yes there is a good reason I’m only commenting here and not the other two places. The problem isn’t them, it’s me. Just before my spate of “I’m the worst one!” comments, several months ago I had heard indirectly that Someone had been deeply offended and had characterized me that way in major social media, and it managed to blowback irl. In short, I caved, but the quoting enabled me to realize that Someone was only reading the other two places. I kinda hoped that someone Else would still read me here at TRM, despite making me blow up the bridge after burning it a couple times before, and it turned out she did.

    Hey, Else. You’ve been demoted, btw.

  17. @shuttas re GoneGirl
    Looks like Flynn just re-invented the wheel “Chill Girl” for a middleage bourgie audience.
    Which leads me to question her bona fides
    A concept first devised by fugly lady SJWs, to assuage the diminution of intense self-esteem caused by their own repulsive effect on hawt guys.

    May have evolved from the slough of despond in which the mouthbreathers, mental defectives and officially-on-medication insaniacs orbiting the hilariously Orwellian “FreeThoughtBlogs” squirm.

    I notice Flynn also broaches the can of corpseworms referred to hereabouts as the “Nice Guy™”.

    [long story short; are writers now reduced to milking the ‘Sphere for topics to make a buck (don’t see why not, go for it), and, more exasperatingly, consciously or unconsciously transmogrifying RP concepts to make them acceptable to a Cathedral/FI-conditioned audience? In order that their eventual emergence in mainstream political discourse can be short-circuited by pre-programmed responses as to what is –Bad or ++Good (for today only, of course) ?]

  18. @Tam re: “are writers now reduced to milking the ‘Sphere for topics to make a buck (don’t see why not, go for it), and, more exasperatingly, consciously or unconsciously transmogrifying RP concepts to make them acceptable to a Cathedral/FI-conditioned audience?”

    Yes, but. Flynn is not *merely* writing for her FI audience. She may be trying to believe that only psycho b-tches treat nice guys so badly. She definitely is desperately trying to believe that only “lesser” women treat men well, and further, she is definitely writing to communicate to a particular man that the particular girl that is being so nice to him is just pretending. IOW she is writing to make men doubt and fear.

  19. “..writing to make men doubt and fear “ woopsie I missed that, you’re right.
    I’m distressingly rubbish at the “fear” thing (and inevitably get accused of possessing some freshly-devised “Spectrum disorder” or other by the offended parties, lol. Or more accurately, told I’m just lazy (more of a guy thing)).
    So the take-away message is ..?
    ” Achtung! Manlets! Cool Girls are Pure Evil and made of Sex, avoid or you’ll be sorry! They can be identified by their physical attractiveness to deviants. Now report to the Authoritesses for YMY relationship duty immediately”
    Gottit. Can’t wait to try it out ..

  20. @Tam, re:rubbish.
    I sincerely believe women wish to be viewed by men (e.g. you, me) as more of a threat than they are really capable of. As always, it is projection on the women’s part, because they prefer a man who can be very menacing.

    I wonder if women realize just how hard it is to suppress a smirk when one’s little woman stamps her little hoof.

  21. Testing … testing …
    I’m still wondering why the Uncool Girls haven’t shown up here lately.

    One day this summer I happened to be hanging with a couple of other Uncool Girls, in a very public space, no worries there; some minutes earlier I had been effectively contributing over-his-shoulder vocal English to an unvocal boy’s Ingress gameplay ported to the overhead bigscreen. The three guys were still over there, still quietly, often glancing our way as if missing my input and/or checking out the babes, whilst the two other young Ladies and I were loudly discussing Unreliable Narrators recursively, hilariously. You had to be there.

    Except you weren’t, so I’ll take you. One girl sat primly postured but smacked her hand on the armrest rather boyishly to accompany her own boyish guffaws, and the other sat curled with her bare feet up on the seat, rocking and giggling, with her arms around her shins, knees up by her face, and her anogenital region aimed towards me. I had already, considerately, moved twice out of the direct line of fire but she kept tracking me.

    Then three Cool Girls joined us. I’ve known the oldest well for years; she is the same age as my youngest granddaughter. She was also the fake-blondest, tannest, and thinnest. Not athletically slim, but model-thin, slender, still coltish. Immediately the conversation became girl talk, including boy talk of course, and although not uncomfortable, since I feel I fit in anywhere and the more the merrier, I made as if to go back to saying “Ooh! Aah! Man!! You should have deployed more Resonators!” but she stopped me with “and you have to see THIS!”

    THIS tuned out to be large stretch marks on both the small little (A+) fat deposits on her chest. She was holding open, and pulling down, the top of her polo shirt to show us, oscillating ±20° like a room fan to show each of our little group, tete-a-tete as it were. I personally did not see anything at all unusual, plus she also has large stretch marks on her knees and her back … but I gathered that she was neither looking for comfort nor the dismissive “You’re just the kind of girl who gets a lot of stretch marks, but it really common and guys don’t really care!” For some reason girls get peeved upon having to publically acknowledge knowing that guys aren’t picky.

    I could sense a couple of other girls about to indulge in some scar (or worse) one-upmanship, so I hastily hazarded the advice to stay out of the sun, emphasizing not the effect of tan-scar contrast but just overall skin health. That got them to talking about sunscreens, then makeup, upon which I felt released to retreat.

  22. Stretchmarks wtf?
    That’s an ex-fatgirly thing isn’t it?
    Although our kid got them across his back as a teen, big ones, going from four foot something to six foot something in a few terms.
    ‘Er Indoors has them, but then she’s as old as BV and has dumped out way more kids than he has as well, I reckon.
    Ain’t right in a girl tho’.

  23. re: fatgirly

    No, she’s always been thin, and not much of a growth spurt either. Having now seen, although not seen-seen, I can prophesy that she will be thin with small little saggy beanbags by her early 20s at the latest.

    As I said stretch marks are commonly easier to see with the contrast turned up, tan girls and black girls and latinas being in superabundance here. I gather you’re ensconced in a dim mushroom cave in Misty Isle, so all this talk about solar effects may be beyond your ken.

  24. Gone Girl-hood.

    A major theme in Gillian Flynn’s writing is the “unwarranted” attraction between younger women and older men. It explains a lot, right there.

  25. THIS JUST IN!

    The feminine imperative strikes again, Eliott Rodger style:

    http://news.yahoo.com/two-dead-including-gunman-shooting-washington-high-school-201342337.html

    The story is still a bit hazy but allegedly, his girl dumped him for another guy. Jaylen(the shooter) wasn’t having it so he went to the other guys table and shot him.

    To see his twitter page, just type in Jaylen Fryberg into google. Hurry up and see it before it gets taken down. This kid was blue pilled up to the Tee.

    Such a shame really.

  26. Weighing in here on the debate elsewhere, for reasons I’ve alluded to vaguely. I’m aligning with Martel and “It’s perfectly possible to think “This will turn her off and might make her think I’m weak, but right is right so I’m doing it anyway.”” Being a Good Man does not work properly with women, but it is still the right thing to do. Conversely, it is being the Bad Man that does work with women, which is why women shouldn’t get to decide such things.

  27. Serious question for Her. I dare you to actually answer instead of pretending it was not asked. In *your* opinion, does YMY give a green light to any tactics a man knows will work in getting enthusiastic voluntary consent? If so, what if anything should hold him back? If not, then you are saying “No! Red light! Stop doing what you know will work!”

  28. Not a clue, all I foresee is implementation of YMY, at the end of a nightstick if necessary, and a resultant spread of Chaos.

    I like Chaos, it’s what I’m used to, and I generally know what to do.
    Other than that, I might re-read The Gulag Archipelago as a refresher into the mindsets both of the apparatchiks promulgating this inhuman absurdity, and the likely fate of betas and other True Believers who even halfway attempt to comply with such an obvious method of entrapment.
    I guess the mini-Star Chambers will utilise extensive kafka-trapping, and allied tricks familiar to the Holy Office of the Inquisition to ensure conviction before a fair trial. Because it’s for the offender’s own good etc. No-one is innocent/cosh the driver etc.
    Woohoo! An-archee in Cali-4-nye-ay!1!! (initially, before this fabulously destructive bit of legislation rolls out elsewhere).

  29. What, what, can I say to get a rise out of her? Shall I point out that my narcissism is altruistic? Shall I point out that my besting other men merely makes her want to compete with me and not capitulate? What, what?

    How about this: Sexual dysfunction in a woman is her failure to be enthusiastic when she SHOULD be. And you know it.

    I is winning, lots.

  30. Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)

    Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle.

    Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose.

    Unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science.

    Buy our product and you will become the Ultimate Shadow Cad. No woman will be able to resist you. This is the image that some commercial Pick-Up-Artists are basically selling the gullible dudes who buy their products, attend their bootcamps, etc.

    This isn’t so much a community as it is a marketing gimmick. It’s a bullshit title used to sell books and programs.

    These books seek to “redefine what it really means to be an alpha male.” Really, it’s not just a bunch of cock-sure, arrogant and self-entitled assholes. It’s a gentleman. A leader. A strong and worthy man blah, blah, blah. They’re putting lipstick on a pig, trying to convince you that you’re either the leader of the pack, or you’re a beta who won’t get what you deserve in this life, and they pretty it up with all kinds of nice-sounding terminology and definitions, but at its core the idea of being an alpha male is bogus.

    It’s built around the myth of the alpha male wolf, which is allegedly the strongest, most dominant member of the pack. He is the leader, the one who gets all the bitches (literally) and keeps the other males in their place. Or something.

    1. Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)

      Yep it’s all those Manosphere misogynists, telling themselves this fairytale…

      “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

      ― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

      Ugh, more men confirming this myth, how can you stand this?

      Half of all women have a ‘Plan B’ – in the shape of a man whose arms they can run into if their current relationship turns sour.

      A study carried out among 1,000 women found a substantial percentage have managed to keep another man waiting patiently in the wings should they end up single.

      And, worryingly, married women are more likely have a Plan B in the background than those who are merely in a relationship.

      And it’s not like you’d ever see this confirmed in advertising or the media…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRXrhTL5u0E

      Yep, sure looks like it’s only those bitter misogynist manosphereans who like to tell themselves this fairytale…

      According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.

      Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ‘best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ‘best’ sex.

      “I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”

      Go fuck yourself Steve.

  31. Moreover, the woman being too enthusiastic when she should NOT (e.g. serial-killer groupie) is also dysfunction.

    The woman is the wrong measure.

  32. No one seems to get how the power has shifted into the hands of men. We can now do to women what they have always done to us. We let them chase us, we can decide uopn first approach whether or not the plaint will be rewarded with sex, we can put women in the Friend Zone forever, and they would have to ask US to marry.

    Few of us get regular sex now, so what’s wrong with working with the law under the strategies I propose? It can only engender more honesty out of women regarding their sexual desires – something almost completely non-existent now..

  33. Even Sir Tyrion doesn’t believe what he himself says. He hasn’t had facial work done, and he hasn’t castrated himself. Both are very easy and quite inexpensive comparitively.

  34. @blurkel re: “We can now do to women what they have always done to us.”

    False, because fallacy of composition, specifically the apex fallacy. Almost no women chase any men, compared to men chasing women, and the very few men that women do chase are all chased by very many women.

    A broader reason is that women will not chase because their libidos are an order of magnitude less than men’s.

  35. Women on fakebook are the biggest collection of narcissists ever. The demand for likes is just the tip of the iceberg. The primary difference between women and men is that women do not care who provides their narcissistic supply; a like by a random strange woman is as good, or better, than a like by a familiar man. Underlying it all, for women, is the imaginary audience. For their selfies, of course, and for pictures of the food they eat (or would *like* to eat!) and shoes they own (or would *like* to own!), and for their opinions about others’ opinions, etc. In fact, women (née girls) usually get mad when their imaginary audience (again, of selfies e.g.) becomes revealed as a real audience.

    In sharp contrast, for men most others’ likes are irrelevant at best. Romantically, men’s drive for a *real* audience is so strong that their imaginary audience will be imagined as real as possible.

  36. Mentally reverse the title. What if a man acting more menacing is what makes a woman (“a”, hah) more enthusiastically consenting? Will he be permitted to act more menacing? Or will there be definitely proscribed tactics he may use, and other tactics he must not use, to raise her consent to enthusiastic? This is the mother lode, here.

  37. That was kind of pathetic watching Steve Quixote attack the Manosphere Windmill. Back to watching some college football.

  38. YMY makes a good case for men abandoning what women consider to be their assortative equals, i.e. women who are older, crankier, and more likely to say no, for women who are younger, nicer, and more likely to say yes. YMY is a total green light for men to push for sex immediately if not sooner.

  39. In case you missed it, I’ll double down my accusation. Jaclyn Freidman and Jessica Valenti are both sexual predators who have for years pushed Yes Means Yes publically as a tool for recruiting college girls to the lesbian lifestyle, and under the guise of education, have abused their positions of authority to seduce young college girls, and during reenactments to portray YMY situationally, young nonlesbian college girls have been publically felt up sexually by older lesbian women. With government funding to boot.

  40. God I’m slow! It’s taken me literally this long to realise why feminist trolls tend to use a man’s first name/professional title, instead of something a bit more random, individualised and memorable.
    they’re bone-idle. Bessy-no-mates shut-ins with a keyboard
    they feel it necessary to pre-establish that they must be accepted as a Man, who’s come to tell all us children off, or incite, as agents provocateurs

  41. an open question for all the readers:
    is it not obvious that the natural order and truth is completely reversed- women ruling men fiat currency over real currency, tyranny called democracy, freedom define simply is not being in jail. how the fuck did it come to this

  42. Nathan – “an open question for all the readers:….how the fuck did it come to this”

    In the beginning there was nothing and it exploded…

    14 billion odd years later the sentient hairless apes of Earth became briefly enlightened. The survival question was answered. Civilization flourished despite several failed attempts at suicide. Then for some reason the hairless apes entertained themselves almost to death because they mostly no longer had to worry about being killed be other critters, the weather, other hairless apes, or starvation. They lost the survival instinct the moment it no longer became necessary to survive.

  43. * women don’t rule men. Other men rule men. Using women, who are only too happy to oblige as that’s what they’re wired-up by nature to do. Some incredibly privileged, idle and wealthy women seek power over the lower sort of man and woman directly, and these are called feminists. The Madame Maos and Winnie Mandelas of this world.
    * all currencies are fiat, except perhaps not by imperial decree with a monopoly on issuance; from giant stone discs, gold, cowrie shells, wampum, paper bills, to Bitcoin. Else they’re simply trade goods.
    * democracy is merely the most cost-effective form of tyranny, as the oppression is internalised/outsourced to the individual. You can’t even blame God or the devil any more.
    * in these decaying societies, “outside” is simply “jail without a roof”, and tends to feel much the same either side of the wire (I’m reliably informed etc.). Here, now; former soviet bloc, then; Austrohungarian empire before that; late C18th France.. bla bla, back to everybody’s favorite, Rome.

    It’s the stench of a corpse in your nostrils you’re noticing, hard to shake off once you realise what it is.

  44. @Steve writes:

    Buy our product and you will become the Ultimate

    I’m searching for Rollo’s ‘marketing gimmick’ packaged in a super profitable product on this website.

    It doesn’t exist.

  45. Yes this Jian thing is going to be a total shit show. False rape accusation? rough play goes too far? Already lots of sides to the story and immediately a $50M lawsuit against an employer who canned the guy even after they themselves admitted he clearly had consent from the ladies involved.

    It was interesting in that earlier this year, Jian hosted a debate on his show called Q, it was about the “rape culture” on Canadian college campuses and the mere fact that he hosted an even handed debate between two women, one a staunch feminist, the other a woman who questioned the orthodoxy of “rape culture” was enough to cause a huge backlash at a corporate level for him. The interview was mid week and by Friday he had to spend some half an hour airing voice mail screeds from irate feminists and he adopted the tone of a chastened school boy who had been sent to the principals office for peeking in the girls washroom, complete with heavy sullen musical soundtrack to express the full extent of his presumed “remorse” for having actually hosted a fair debate.

    To hear Jian’s side of it as expressed in FB, it sounded like regret rape meets recent graduate thinking she could take an ex-lover through a campus grievance committee process but then she has found out that this will be a little harder then that. Cheered on by an aggrieved author looking to make a name for herself.

  46. I’m still conspicuously absent from elsewhere, i.e. there. When even my grandiosity is afflicted by paranoia, you may be assured there are unspeakable happenings behind the scene.

  47. Regarding gamergate, Yoda at another place observes yodaly
    “With churcians sex involved it was.
    With gamers sex irrelevant it was”

    Women dangle *possibility* of sex to keep betas in line. Gamers know there is no such possibility, thus disempowering women.

  48. Agent P – yup, Jesse Brown (actually a man) is being rightly questioned for his ‘journalism’ on this. Even in the Toronto Star ‘article’ (gossip screed) – right down towards the very end of it, there’s a paragraph which outright acknowledges that in all 3 women’s cases, the ongoing sexual relationship had been- consensual. In fact, the only thing where – in all fairness – there seems to be any potential validity, is in the workplace scenario described by the 4th woman. That would constitute minor sexual workplace harassment if true. *If* true.

    And yes, it could be a real game changer precisely because of his progressive, feminist ass-kissing views. And on other topics, I actually think Jian is a brilliant interviewer with insightful, compelling content.

  49. This is news, and I am reposting from a newer thread what follows as a comment here. I predicted in an essay here the illegality of the “Dear Colleague” letter which underlies Yes Means Yes generally. While thinking it through I also suspected it was never adopted properly as a binding regulation through proper channels. And now the Dept. of Education which issued it admits it has no legal force!

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/education-department-officials-candid-acknowledgement/article/2573581

  50. One thing that always bothered me with “Yes Means Yes” is who has to prove what?

    Does she have to prove she didn’t say yes? If so, this law will only reduce the amount of public (gang)bangs of drunk girls. Small loss.

    Does HE have to prove SHE didn’t say yes? How? By recording her? By recording her without her knowledge in bed, you have commited a crime. You have to commit a crime to prove you didn’t commit a crime. Gotcha!

    If anything, “Yes Means Yes” should serve as a MAJOR wake up call to the manosphere that Game and PUA tactits are only SHORT-TERM, and hence by definition ineffective, fixes to the problem that is female entitlement in the West. Foreign brides from poorer countries are the long term solution. With 70% of the world not having steady access to food, just being able to feed 70% of women puts you into mate status. The problem is geographical distance and mainstream acceptance. This is the new frontier for the manosphere to conquer, not perfecting PUA tactics women are already becoming aware of…

  51. Also posted here from the Key Masters thread:

    Oh this may be worthy of its own post. But it’s relevant to the OP.

    I’ve descanted before on “yes means yes” and the death of dating. Well now look at how this is working out – campus women find the legally-prescribed protocol boring and, well, demeaning:

    “Even in less extreme situations, young men are more skeptical of women’s ability or propensity to consent to sex, which some women on campus consider demeaning.
    “I find that men are more and more interested in ensuring that I’m consenting before sex, which would seem like a good thing,” Columbia student Dylan Hunzeker said. “But sometimes I don’t necessarily feel that way. Especially when I have to answer a man’s question: ‘are you sure you’re not too drunk?’ Or ‘you want to have sex with me?’ In a sense, it’s annoying and debilitating to be constantly questioned about whether or not I have agency and am a sexual human being.”

    “Men are scared of women on campus now, and fear breeds anger and prejudice. Women are frustrated by men, which inspires a lack of desire to collaborate for solutions.”

    http://heatst.com/culture-wars/columbia-student-the-damage-done-by-mattress-girl/

    So if you approach a girl on campus, you’re expelled as an assaulter. If you do what Ezra Klein and the sex police mandate, you’re boring and oppressive. Why go to college again?

    The quoted article is by a Columbia senior girl-type student!

    PS: The demeaning part? She’s absolutely right. But it’s THE LAW.

  52. @Fred Flange, Authorized Safe Zone Pemit #333

    The funny thing is Hilary thinks that by riding the whole “campus rape” hysteria and requiring more laws that make normal human interaction awkward and illegal (laws which were created in the aftermath of a hysteria based on fraud) is the way to win over young voters and college women. Yeah, right…

    Typical case of a Wall Street planted politician who thinks understand young people but doesn’t make the slightest effort to do so..

    PS: In a sense, I am glad that the college kids of California volunteered themselves to be the experiment subjects of such laws (by allowing them to pass) and afterwards proved the absurdity of such laws, so they will not be applied to a state level on any blue states…

  53. As a “beta male” I actually like this new law. It will show all those Alpha Brahs/Pickup Artists/Chads that no personal solution can exist to the systemic problem of women being given preferential treatment by law and politicians pandering to feminist entitlement and irrational demands.

    No matter how well Alpha Brahs/Pickup Artists/Chads hone their pickup skills, if they have sex with a woman and she decides to revoke consent post-fact by claiming she was too drunk to give consent, they are screwed. They will either get kicked out of the university they have paid tuition fees to, or have a rape conviction following them for the rest of their professional careers, depending on whether the case gets handled in an internal university court or an actual court.

    Maybe then they will understand that the only solution is to have men to work together instead of dividing ourselves to alphas and betas and some of men trying to game the system and find a personal solution that will allow them to walk around the problem (you can’t really walk around a systemic problem, as this Yes Mean Fear law shows). Maybe then men will stop asking for other men to “take the red pill and become alphas and leave the majority of betas in the dust” or other similar nonsense but instead ask that other men do something simpler: Demand justice before law. And vote accordingly.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: