The Remedial Red Pill


feminism-men-300x300

As of this post there are now 400 essays on Rational Male. And if there’s one thing that writing for as long as I have in what’s now known as the manosphere has taught me is the difficulty of having to initiate new readers to old concepts. When we get down and dirty in the commentary on a particular topic I tend to assume most commenters are familiar with at least the core concepts I’ve presented over the years and those who aren’t usually ask me for a link they probably could’ve found just by perusing the sidebar links, categories or a quick term search to see what I’ve post about a particular topic.

Still, this doesn’t seem to placate the disease of attention deficit disorder common to people who want to find whatever fault they can to defend the narrative they’ve invested themselves in. The problem then becomes one not unlike playing whack-a-mole where I’ve got to post links in comments or tweets I can only hope the critic will actually have the temerity and patience to read. Usually it comes back to TL;DR and they never really consider a rebuttal to their ‘Gotcha’ that I covered, in some cases, a decade ago.

As the manosphere and Red Pill awareness go more mainstream I expect this intellectual lethargy to increase on the part of those who are ego-invested in the continuance of a feminine-primary social order. As I’ve posted before,…ahem, the Red Pill is a Threat to the comfort and certainty of men and women conditioned to be dependent on its continuance:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

I’m proud to say that the comments in the last post reached a record high of over 700. And while I’m appreciative of that it does have the unfortunate effect of burying some really interesting commentary deep in the thread. Towards the 5th page of comments I got the following post from a commenter going by the handle ‘Alpha Female’. The consequent posts were a screed of what even the newest of Red Pill men can recognize as standard Gender Studies Major boilerplate.

I can’t say as I was surprised to see ‘Alpha Female’s’ comment on this week’s post since I was already aware of her previous foaming rant on the Women in Love post under the telling monicker of ‘The Best Thing You’ll Never Have’.

Against my better judgement I’m going to pick her comment apart here for this week’s discussion. Just so you know, I’m fully aware this is feeding a blatant troll. I also understand that Ms. Alpha lacks the critical thinking skills and curiosity to make even a cursory attempt to search for any of the 399 prior posts (a third of which I wrote for SoSuave over a decade ago) that might actually give her pause to think I’d covered them before.

Try not to think of this as a courtesy to Alpha Female, her argumentative style is one of presuming personal truths that fit her ego centered reality are the universally accepted ones. Think of this as more of a remedial lesson in Red Pill theory/ideology/practice and background for those new to Red Pill awareness.

Feel free to pick apart any or all of her initial list below in the comment thread. You can pick up the old thread to see where her rabbit hole goes here, but as you’ll probably expect most of the conversation revolves her own personal experiences and veers off into “ooh ooh, men do it too” and “people are all different, society sucks” tangents. Like most bad debaters, she flits from one issue to another when a snare she wasn’t expecting to conflict with her ‘correct’ reality holds her on that challenge for too long.

1. Equalitarian and “female-primary” social orders are not synonymous nor interchangeable. I assume you know the definition of equalitarian, yet you are using the term interchangeably to mean a female dominant social order. First example of flawed reasoning in this article.

Actually the only error is in AF not having searched the term “equalism” here, but keep that in mind, it’s going to come up often in this post. I’ve covered egalitarian equalism both here and here.

She is correct though, they shouldn’t be synonymous or interchangeable, but unfortunately the Feminine Imperative, and its predominant social arm of feminism, has conflated them both to serve a purpose for going on 70 years now. Universalism and Equalism have been the cover story to sell a feminine-primary social order since the late 60s.

It would be very simple if, as she constantly parrots, the definition of equalitarianism was only limited to a belief in ‘equal rights’ for all. Very few people are going to argue against that ideology, but the fact is that her ego-preferred definition has been contorted to be a useful tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The social veneer of ‘equalism’ was a necessary social convention in recruiting men to disavow their conventional masculinity (which later would be redefined by the feminine for them in later generations to better fit women’s dualistic sexual strategy) as well as their self-interests and adopt the idea that a nebulous ‘society’, and more specifically a Patriarchal one, was the source of gender roles they were told they should find oppressing.

Thus the synonymous association of a ‘faux equalist’ equalitarianism was paired with feminine social primacy. Equalism is simply the religion of feminism because it can hide the more egregious aspects of its agenda (unfettered Hypergamy for instance) behind a social convention that very few people would want to ‘be against’ – those who are are easily ostracized as “backwards” anachronisms by way of that definition. So the “flawed reasoning” really comes down to the semantics of the fluid definition the Feminine Imperative has prepared for women like AF to use and the observable facts of the utility it serves the Feminine Imperative.

Feminism has never been concerned with true egalitarian equality. Feminism has only ever been an effort in retribution and restitution. Our present social state of Open Hypergamy and feminist triumphalism is an indictment of that fact.

2. “The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.” There is evidence that exactly this is true.

This is interesting, because she cites no evidence. That’s because there is exactly zero evidence this is the case and increasingly science is proving exactly the opposite, much to the ideological discomfort of “equalists”. Men and women’s brains are literally wired differently (if she’d had the curiosity to look at this link I provided in the post she found so offensive she’d know this).

But we don’t even need those studies to grasp this most basic of human truths – we already know that men and women’s biochemistry and endocrinology work and affect their respective sex’s bodies and minds differently. Whether it’s the dominant presence of estrogen, progesterone and oxytocin in women or the dominant presence of testosterone in men, the body state – behavioral effects and emotional stimulus of those hormones make us fundamentally different beings – and that’s a good thing.

Complementarianism benefits women and men.

Furthermore, each sex evolved into different gender roles according to these biological predilections. We can split hairs as to which sex should be more suited for higher order vocations based on intellect and personal merit, but the obvious fact that men are more physically suited to certain tasks, and women are also similarly suited to other tasks – yet both complement the other – is inescapable.

Part of the evolved male neurological firmware is a natural aptitude to accurately and forcefully throw an object from a very early age – an evolved behavior necessary for survival and hunting. Yes, girls can be taught to throw as or more effectively than a boy with the right training, but it’s the natural unlearned aptitude boys have that puts the lie to the “we’re all born the same” blank slate trope.

So the question then becomes one of determining which sex’s strategy stands to benefit most from advocating for a belief that all humans are a blank slate, biology is meaningless and all gender is a social construct. Which sex has their interests served in lowering the bar and “leveling the playing field” to become more like the other?

Examine how being transgender impacts someone’s gender. You believe in a heteronormative gender binary which clouds your judgment and makes you incapable of understanding how gender relates to power dynamics in society. Until you can grasp that gender is defined by more than genitals, you will continue to write this complete and utter tripe that disparages women for the sake of helping you feel superior (which a truly superior person would not do).

Transgenderism is a mental disorder:

In the vast majority of cases, children who say they’re transgender and act that way change their minds about being the opposite sex—if you just leave them alone.According to a recent Hastings Center report, gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood in up to 73 to 94 percent of cases  (citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which noted dysphoria continuing in only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls.)

[…] Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels.

The term “heteronormative” is a common trope taught by Gender Studies academia with the latent purpose of canonizing a new definition of the term by demonizing and marginalizing the fundamental truth that gender finds its ‘normative’ condition in an evolved ‘hetero’sexual biology – and yes, that is a binary, one from which you cannot escape. Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.

The roots of gender are written into your DNA.That hetero normative state is responsible for producing you. Try as you may to convince yourself socially or psychologically it’s otherwise, you will never escape the biomechanic foundation that influences your motivations as a man or a woman.

With regard to how gender influences social dynamics, the Red Pill is the direct result of, and logical contingency to the feminine-primary social engineering the Feminine Imperative has instated into society over the last 70 years. If it weren’t for that foundational recognition of feminine-primary social power by the Red Pill you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

I do agree on this, gender is far more than genitals. Once an ideologically ‘correct’ form androgyny and egalitarian equalism enter the public sphere, the biological influences on gender determines who will play the perpetual victim and who must play the role of victimizer.

3. “It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways.” All people experience life in different ways. You are overvaluing the common experiences that you have with men and undervaluing the common experiences you have with women. The binary that you use to define your superiority is again hampering your ability to understand that you are not defined by gender and your experiences will never perfectly align with any other human being’s experiences and that you share lots of common experiences with BOTH men and women.

AF’s out of context quote only makes my preceding point for me:

I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

I found this interesting considering that it entirely contradicts point 2 – if gender is self or socially assigned and we’re all alike (blank slate) independent of biology this then precludes independent differences since we’re all supposed to have some ‘enlightened’ higher-self capacity to rise above them. In other words all people should be inherently bisexual and born with the capacity to fluidly transition from one set of arousal cues to the opposite in any given environment. Androgyny should be the normative in that model. Yet we find that in nature androgyny and homogeny lead to evolutionary dead ends

But if that’s true then homosexuals, and heterosexuals aren’t born the way they are, they’re behaviorally conditioned into their sexual alignments and gender roles by “society“, right?

Individuals do experience life in different ways, but each of those individuals are still subject to their biologically determined physical influences and the environments they find themselves in.

4. Hypergamy is conflated in your mind with gender, when it is absolutely normal for people in both genders (and not all people in either gender) to branch swing from one mate to the next based on perceived value or sexual attraction. Males engage in this behavior all the time. Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females, yet you claim women cannot “love” a man in the same way that a man “loves” a woman.

Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.

This metric is determined (again) by the inescapable biological realities of the influence women’s hormonal and menstrual cycles, and the evident behavioral effects play on their sexual selection strategies. The influences of women’s innate ovulatory shift behaviors and preferences define the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy on both the personal and societal level.

Remember the usefulness of the “equalitarian” term as defined by the Feminine Imperative we discussed above? Women’s innate, biologically determined and sex-specific Hypergamy is where that conflation finds its purpose. AF makes the same comparison to men’s sexual selectivity being itself a form of hypergamy because she fundamentally clings to her ego-investment that ‘all are equal’ and men’s sexual strategy serves the same purpose as women’s. It is not and it does not, and any basic knowledge of parental investment theory as well as the biological realities of men’s reproductive methods once again put the lie to her assertions. Men quantity, women quality, and no one’s ugly after 2am.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time. Neither can they sell Open Hypergamy and the premise of egalitarian equalism – particularly when AF’s feminine-primary boilerplate is refuted by statistics taken after the advent of unilaterally feminine controlled hormonal birth-control.

You see, it’s was a useful trope that men cheat more than women when Hypergamy was more socially concealed, but in an age of unrestricted, socially mandated Open Hypergamy the only question that remains is whether a man will choose to be cuckolded before or after he’s invested himself personally, emotionally and financially in monogamy with a woman who’s looking for an “equal partnership” (now that she’s less able to arouse the Alpha bad boys she’s happy to tell him about).

But, wait, if we’re all ‘equal’ and the plumbing doesn’t matter, wouldn’t men and women cheat equally?

5. ‘“I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.’ And yet asexual men exist, which directly contradicts the anecdotal evidence you use to support your non-fact based argument that men are simply horny all the time and are therefore experiencing a condition that women cannot even begin to fathom. I mean when you write this tripe, you are well aware of the many logical fallacies that you use to justify your beliefs, are you not? I hope you are. And if your response is “Well those asexual men are just exceptions to the rule” or “hyper sexual women are the exception to the rule” is simply to say that “I know my theory has been disproved but I would rather ignore the facts and evidence that do not support my claim in favor of plowing on so that I can continue to demean females with my outdated 15th century mindset.”

Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end. Only in our present social state of enlightenment do we entertain the “equalist” notion that an ‘asexual’ person in anyway represents anything significant to human development.

However AF still doesn’t grasp that the ‘anecdotal’ example I give here has been repeated in every woman who’s taken anabolic steroids, and every woman ever proscribed hormone therapy to aid her flagging libido and mood swings after menopause. It’s a good thing gynecologists and endocrinologists don’t share her opinion that we’re all the same except for the plumbing. It’s interesting that we’ll prescribe hormone therapy for menopausal women and transexuals, but we’re expected to accept that ‘asexuality’ is normative and not an ill.

I should also add that AF has very poor debate skills.

6. “So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s.” Your logic is inherently flawed, [presuming the condition] and then you make an assertion that there should be a logical conclusion that the assumptions you have not and cannot prove [already present in the post] should mean that all women experience relationships in exactly the same way [what part of individuated experience did I lose you on?] .

Let me make a correlation. [I reject your reality and replace it with my own] I am reading misogynistic psychobabble from overly emotional men [projecting bias] that demeans women and places them in a position beneath men [implied nowhere in the essay, and in fact I concede that women do love deeply based on their opportunistic criteria] based solely on their genital composition [“equalist’ binary presumption and again not implied in the post] , so I conclude based on this evidence (and my evidence is actually supported so it is very different from your flawed premise [support that is never supplied and expected to be presumed as valid] ) that all men view women as inferior beings that are not worthy of equal treatment. [presuming a truth. treatment is not to be conflated with expectations of stimulus to predicted behavior]

That is the logic you use, and it is absolutely worthless. [straw men always nod their heads in agreement with your reality] The saddest thing about it is that people with this mindset purport to be pseudo-intellectuals and use junk science to support their claims [still waiting on your non-junk science] while men of lower intellect just eat it up because it makes them feel all rough and tough and superior for a while. [yes, because spending hours a day reading a blog is a better high than getting drunk or going out to do something productive]

Group think is a terrible and scary thing, [you’re right about that] as this blog proves time and time again.

Final note: I realized in the time it took to compile this that Alpha Female is really an comment thread attention whore who’s need for catharsis over her sadly Hyena-like marriage motivates her to write stream-of-consciousness diatribes to support truths she needs to support her ego-investments and self-image.


250 responses to “The Remedial Red Pill

  • M Simon

    Thank the maker a new post.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    You’re welcome, but do be ready when the dam bursts.

  • orion

    What I find so fascinating is that every poster that comes in and tries to educate a mouthbreathing troglodyte like me about the errors of the red pill, inevitably hammers the red pill ,message home.

    Now I do know that such a thing as confirmation bias exists, but in my mind I get my checklist and a pen ready.

    Sollipsism… check.

    Projection of the female experience unto men…. check.

    Some sort of shaming because the standard assumption is that we GAF…check

    Motte and bailey tactic… check

    Weaseling out if that does not work… checkl

    Feelz, and I mean HER feelz before reelz… lets check that twice.

  • Wanderer

    Bitter?… Check.

    Fat?… Check.

    Ugly?… Check.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Sorry about the length, but it had to be done.

  • Sun Wukong

    @Wanderer

    I like to pretend that they’re not fat and ugly unless they post pics. That way I can imagine a hot princess in her well-fitting lingerie at her best sexual agency complaining that we view her as a sex object. The irony is more delicious that way.

    @Rollo
    … that’s what she said?

  • theasdgamer

    Cool post, but I called “attention whore” first.

    And, of course, the notion the men cheat more after marriage is based on self-reporting. Men over-report and women under-report. We need some method of checking cheating that is independent of self-reporting. Maybe compile data from private investigators? Maybe STD rates of married women v. men?

  • ck

    She knows she has no ground to stand on. She is spewing instead. I cannot be but mused.

  • thedeti

    IT’s a good article, but not the one I was expecting.

    I’m constantly both amused and amazed at how Red Pill concepts continue to be proven over and over again when contrarian women come to these parts in an attempt to refute and dispute them.

    I didn’t want to believe it at first but it is simply undeniable. “Alpha Female” and other women like her bristle so much at RP concepts because way down deep, they KNOW them to be true; but they cannot face those truths.

    Hence we have some women still lurking around these parts whose lives fit the AFBB pattern perfectly, yet become disturbingly invested in attempts to disprove its existence. Hence also we have other women who revel in the attention they get while simultaneously proclaiming their ideological distance from the milieus that feed their attention cravings.

    Alpha Female wants you all to believe she is legion. She wants you to believe that most women want “egalitarian” marriages and LTRs where all are truly equal. But we must never, ever forget a corollary to one of the “laws” I [re]discovered, which is this:

    “Whenever a woman says she is in an egalitarian relationship with a man, that woman is the dominant partner in the relationship.”

    And don’t believe “AF” when she says that most women want true equality or are OK with being the dominant partner. Most women are most decidedly NOT OK with ruling the roost in the relationship/marriage. Most women only do so because they must, usually because their men cannot or will not take on the dominant role.

  • zdr01dz

    The torpedo at the waterline of equalist, feminist “theory” is that women are attracted to Self+1, i.e. hypergamy. The fact that women are only interested in LTRs with superior men ends equalism on the spot. There is no rebuttal. It’s done. Over.

    If men understood the basic concept of women’s Self+1 attraction model they would never listen to feminists again. They’d also look at their own ideas and behaviors much differently.

  • zdr01dz

    For your listening pleasure, Arctic Monkeys – Fluorescent Adolescent with Lyrics. It’s a sad story about a post wall woman who played the AF game and is now bored in BB world.

  • AlphaFemale

    Dear Rollo,

    Thank you for dedicating an entire post to my initial comment on your blog. I feel quite special that I made such an impact.🙂 My response is long, and how about you practice what you preach by reading my whole response the way you expect me to read yours.

    I’m going to structure this comment in a new way. I’m going to go through each of the 10 commandments of rational debate, list them, and then point out where you broke it in this post. As a bonus, I will be adding some freestyle commentary to the end of this post. Shall we begin:

    1. “Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument itself.” The first quarter of your response was a conglomerate of ad hominems. I’m not going to point them out one by one because they’re too numerous.

    2. “Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.” You did this throughout, but here’s a blatant example: “I also understand that Ms. Alpha lacks the critical thinking skills and curiosity to make even a cursory attempt to search for any of the 399 prior posts (a third of which I wrote for SoSuave over a decade ago) that might actually give her pause to think I’d covered them before.” – You say this knowing full well I went and read another of your posts and commented on it. The very height of the straw man fallacy for you to imply that I didn’t read any of your other blogs and that I lack critical thinking skills when you know that is not the case also. Here’s another: “Try not to think of this as a courtesy to Alpha Female, her argumentative style is one of presuming personal truths that fit her ego centered reality are the universally accepted ones.”

    3. “Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.” “but the obvious fact that men are more physically suited to certain tasks, and women are also similarly suited to other tasks – yet both complement the other – is inescapable.” – The reason this statement falls in this category is because you are using a hasty generalization to create a supposition that men are suited to X tasks while women are suited to Y tasks. What we can see through the evolution of society is that women are well suited for a variety of tasks. What you have not proven (and cannot prove) is that women are not perceived to be ‘suited’ for those tasks through environmental conditioning and learned behavior. You have to look at these sample sizes in a standalone capacity, since women have not filled these positions (managerial, leadership, C-level executives, etc.) for very long and thus make up a smaller percentage of the overall numbers. For additional insight, see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2014/07/23/who-makes-a-better-leader-a-man-or-a-woman/. Important takeaway point: “When leaders rated their own effectiveness, men tended to rate themselves higher than women. But when other people (peers, bosses, subordinates or third-party observers) did the rating, women were seen as significantly more effective than men – particularly in studies from 1982 and later.” Also, some good info in that article about how a male dominance structure can impact women’s perceived success in leadership roles.

    4. “Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.” You do this throughout the article. Literally all over it. One example: “Which sex has their interests served in lowering the bar and “leveling the playing field” to become more like the other?” – Premise assumed to be true: men would be ‘lowering the bar’ to level the playing field for women.

    5. “Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause.” From a cited ‘source:’ “[…] Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels.”

    This author’s assertion that the existence of the desire to commit suicide necessitates that transgenders all have mental disorders is so obtuse I can’t believe it was actually published. Is this a quote from someone on this blog? It must be because it’s completely irrational. Transgenderism is so widely disapproved of that it would make no sense if trans people were NOT trying to commit suicide. Environment is the dominant factor in why suicide is a common thread in transgender life experiences — they are widely unaccepted by family (even disowned), lonely, unable to locate a suitable life partner, unable to experience life as the gender they really are, etc. The social stigma and the sum of their life experiences with other simpletons (like yourself) all contribute to creating intense sadness in people which can lead to suicidal thoughts.

    6. “Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.” When you advocate that the ‘feminine imperative’ or the ‘male dominant’ social structure are the only options moving forward.

    7. “Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false.” Basically, the entire premise of the Red Pill argues this point. “Because some experience happened with women that didn’t go our way, we assert that all women like being treated like shit and want a man to dominate them. We do not need women’s opinion on them because they lie and stuff.”

    8. “Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.” See where you implied that I should’ve read all 399 of your other articles in order to challenge you in the commentariat.

    9. “Thou shall not assume ‘this’ follows ‘that,’ when ‘it’ has no logical connection. Your quote that because transgenders want to commit suicide, they as a group have a higher rate of mental disorders or in fact, I think you used it to prove that transgenderism is a mental disorder. Whatever it was, it was a fallacy.

    10. “Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, it must be true.” Easy: Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.

    More insight next…

  • AlphaFemale

    Additional insights:

    Your blather about how ‘most men’ can support the dictionary definition of ‘equalitariainism’ is a prime example of someone who believes themselves to be in a superior class, then dictating the ‘rights’ they grant the people of what they perceive to be an inferior class. So essentially, as long as women only have the right to vote, access to education, and other very basic human ‘rights,’ you are fine, but when that freedom extends to things like freedom from patriarchal dominance in the workplace or freedom from gender roles in the home, well you can’t abide that. Here’s a tip: you don’t get to decide which freedoms are granted to women, and the only reason you would argue that you do (as you do here), is if you fundamentally believe you are superior to all women. Yes all. Not some.

    “This is interesting, because she cites no evidence.”

    Actually I did cite evidence. It was the rest of the paragraph. Where is the rest of the paragraph, Rollo? Oh right. Outliers are dismissible so you didn’t include it, as it actually is evidence that gender is a social construct. Weak argument from you all around. You literally omitted my logic based evidence, and then claimed that I didn’t provide evidence. You can do better than this, can you not?

    Also, I would like to point out that different doesn’t mean superior. You seem to think by default men’s brains are always more suited for X and women are more suited for Y. You know this is not the case, but you continue to parrot it as a defense for taking control of women as if they’re herd animals. Why do I think you think the inferior/superior dichotomy exists around gender specifically? Because that’s what every word you speak revolves around, so don’t pull out another fallacy to say that you don’t think the inferior/superior dichotomy is what it is, and I’m just putting words in your mouth. There’s this handy tool we use in debate called inference. Not to mention, that’s exactly what you think, and THAT has not been proven by science nor is there a single scrap of evidence to support it. Also, explain this, “Male and female brains showed few differences in connectivity up to the age of 13, but became more differentiated in 14- to 17-year-olds.” Hormones. So it’s not an intrinsic biological difference, as if it were, there would be evidence of it from birth. You were saying?

    Hormones affect people differently. Therefore, we can deduce that hormonal changes do not have the same impact on every being nor are they experienced the same by every being, since all people are different.

    New studies show that transgenderism is biological. Your study shows that children many times identify as transgender and later change that to cisgender later in life. What we can deduce from that reasoning is that they are born transgender but either through conditioning, life experiences, etc. they identify as another gender later in life (supporting the premise that gender is a social construct). For more information: http://www.gjss.org/sites/default/files/issues/chapters/papers/Journal-07-02–02-Kennedy-Hellen.pdf . Where transgenderism not a choice, it would not present in children. Their brains are not developed enough to contrive it.

    “Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.” You mean ask the people who prove that gender is a social construct rather than a biological imperative? Yes let’s ask them.

    “Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.” This is not biological, and you have absolutely 0 proof that it is. Women that know they can and will provide for themselves do not seek mates that they believe can ‘provide’ more or that have a higher ‘value’ than they do. That’s not how it works. You are speaking of what we like to call gold diggers, Rollo and that is all. Some women, surprisingly enough, know they are capable of making money and acquiring many resources without the help of a man and are thus attracted to people who hold specific traits that they find appealing, e.g., great sense of humor, faithfulness, thick hair, tall, alluring eyes, nice lips, or whatever it may be for ANY specific woman. Women go for men’s resources when they don’t think they are capable of providing the resources they want themselves. IT IS NOT BIOLOGICAL. Also, “higher sexual market value” is based on inherently subjective criteria that YOU define based on YOUR perceptions of what makes someone valuable. It is socially accepted that certain things are desirable – money, beauty, health, etc. however, it is SOCIAL and not BIOLOGICAL, which you claim it to be.

    “This metric is determined (again) by the inescapable biological realities of the influence women’s hormonal and menstrual cycles,” Rollo, I would like to point out here that just because you state something doesn’t make it truth. Where have you made a connection in proof or in logic to women’s hormones and a ‘biological’ predisposition to ‘hypergamy?’ Nowhere.

    “Men quantity, women quality, and no one’s ugly after 2am.” This is scientific then right? Nope just a demonstration of hubris.

    I’m glad we got to this part where you beat the drum about hypergamy again because this is the cornerstone of the entire Red Pill theory. Let me explain to you why hypergamy isn’t a biological imperative, and is instead, if anything, a social construct. Hypergamy is the practice of “marrying up,” which we all know. Women have traditionally “married up” because they did not have access to the same resources that men had, i.e., they could not acquire the resources in the same way men did and therefore they were forced to dig for gold in a husband if they wanted to live a life above the poverty level. This is where we historically see a confluence of hypergamy in women, when they have no rights. It is, in fact, a symptom of them having no rights, and not a biological imperative. When women are capable of earning the money/influence/power/etc. themselves, they do not seek a mate that they believe to be “above” themselves necessarily. Look at any powerful woman that is powerful in her own right and through her own merit. You may find men that are kind of in the same general league with her (because that’s who she is exposed to most on a regular basis), but you’re not going to find women that as successful multi-millionaires only select husbands from the pool of billionaires. This does not happen often. When you find women with a defeatist mindset that believe they are inferior to men or that have low self esteem, THAT is where you see hypergamy at play the most. Also, now if we define hypergamy by the parameters society typically judges women on (beauty), then we can see that men practice hypergamy throughout their lives.

    In summary: hypergamy is something that any person of perceived low sexual market is going to attempt to do, whether it be that their spouse is better looking (some men seeking women) or that they have a higher earning potential (some women seeking men). It is very common in both genders, and none of your mental gymnastics will change that fact.

    “Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end.” Irrelevant and stupid supposition. Assuming you know all men’s sexuality better than they know it themselves is pretty low level thinking, Rollo. Pick it up.

    And you ended a worthless, irrational rant with an ad hominem, as expected. You will be the next subject of Rollo logic, just like Dr. Nova. Until then, ciao stranzo.

    Cue the super alpha men instructing the beta alpha men to stop responding to me. Then whining at the length of my reply.

  • kobayashii1681

    Well played brother…well played.
    This is what the FI produces, overly entitled, extremely solipsistic, primadonna, head-up-their-ass “intellectuals”.
    To AF, don’t quit your day job…
    To quote Morpheus, we “have the eyes now”.

  • kobayashii1681

    Reblogged this on 254MGTOW and commented:
    The teacher has spoken….owned!

  • thedeti

    Hamsterlation of AF’s comments:

    “Shit. The jig is up. I know I fucked up and married an inferior man. Now I have to be the dominant one. I don’t want to be, but I am. Now I have to live with my screwup. The only way I can do that is to convince myself that I actually wanted, and still want, this. I have to convince myself I meant to do this, and that I wanted this all along. I have to convince myself I want to be the dominant one.

    “I’ve now gotten myself caught up in a stupid debate with a bunch of guys on the internet who have got my number and have me pegged. I’m sitting here with tears streaming down my cheeks because I know they’re 100% correct about me. But I cannot let them see that. So I have no choice but to talktalktalktalk.

    “I have no hope of convincing any of these guys, and I don’t want to.

    “The one I’m trying to convince is ME.”

    I pity you, AF, because you won’t accept your errors. You messed up, you’re stuck in a relationship you kinda want, because it’s the best you could do. Now you have to show the world, and yourself, “Hey. I meant to do that.” I feel sorry for you. I hope that someday you can learn to live with the choices you made.

    –We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. –Pogo

  • theasdgamer

    I’m impressed at the femtroll’s volume of verbal diarrhea. She truly is superior at something.

  • zdr01dz

    @ Alpha Female
    Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of marrying someone wealthier, or of higher caste or status than oneself.

    Men don’t do this in significant numbers. Women on the other hand stick this in the plot line of every popular romance novel ever written. They only want Self+1… or +10. If they can’t get a +1 most would rather be single.

  • AlphaFemale

    So what we’ve learned in the comments is that some of you think I’m really beautiful because that makes my opinions easier to stomach, while those of you that don’t have the intellectual prowess to debate me assert that you believe I am some fat, ugly hag that is bitter.

    Ruminate on it further. I would hate to ruin the mystery for you. Also I wouldn’t sacrifice my anonymity to prove you wrong @wanderer.

  • Joe

    Love it! Remedial is where I need to start to build up my foundation.

  • AlphaFemale

    @theadsgamer, At most things, but thank you for acknowledging it.

    @zdr, read that whole paragraph especially the last sentence of it where I explain how men can be seen as hypergamous.

    @thedeti caught me! But seriously none of that is true. You know that right?

  • AlphaFemale

    I really am amused that after all of this, you still truly believe you could dominate a woman like me. I mean truly you believe that you could and that that’s what I really want. Mind bending.

  • zdr01dz

    @ AlphaFemale
    @zdr, read that whole paragraph especially the last sentence of it where I explain how men can be seen as hypergamous.

    Hypergamy addresses class and status. Few men are attracted to women based on those variables.

    If you want to say that men are attracted to beauty you’d be correct. But that has nothing to do with hypergamy.

  • Bango Tango

    “Against my better judgement I’m going to pick her comment apart here for this week’s discussion. Just so you know, I’m fully aware this is feeding a blatant troll.”

    You gave her the attention the whore was looking for. Against your better judgement indeed. Her mission….accomplished.

  • Wolf

    Rollo never fails to put the fools in their place. Notice that AF’s reply again failed to include any science backing up her points. Notice that AF’s words seem loose, as a stream of excrement might, where Rollo’s words read firm, steady, carefully carved, realized from a marble-block premise to a sculpted statue of verbal wisdom. Wise men might debate the village fool, but as the fool believes himself to be the wisest of all, this one-sided debate serves only to educate the village, without intent to move the mind of the bitter fool.

  • Wolf

    Women desire to be taken by a superior male. Bitterness, independence, and your special flavor of aggressive pseudo-intelligence are not desirable qualities in a woman.

    Yes, we can dominate a “woman like you”. Could it be perhaps that those capable of your domination lack motivation to achieve it?

  • orion

    @ AlphaFemale

    “I really am amused that after all of this, you still truly believe you could dominate a woman like me. I mean truly you believe that you could and that that’s what I really want. Mind bending. ”

    Well, I get really tired when I read a post that assumes that we all want to “dominate” you but we really could not, because we are not manly enough or some such.

    Read “Dangerous Men, Adventurous Women” about the common tropes in Bodice Rippers and that is basically all you riff on.

    No, I am not a sexy pirat that will try to break you but in the end your beauty and virtue and general moxy will earn my reluctant respect and win me over and if I were, I could probably do better than you and just throw you overboard for someone who gives me less lip.

    Because pirates tend to have a very high time preference and “taming” you seems to take a lot of time away from pirating.

  • AlphaFemale

    “Hypergamy addresses class and status.” – which women demonstrate through their beauty, traditionally. Therefore beauty is a measure of a woman’s class and status.

    “Her mission….accomplished.” Indeed. This attention whore hasn’t spent several hours crafting good arguments against this tripe. My only desire is for attention. You are very astute. /s

    “Yes, we can dominate a “woman like you”.” No you can’t. It has been tried by better men than you I’m sure.

  • AlphaFemale

    “Well, I get really tired when I read a post that assumes that we all want to “dominate” you but we really could not, because we are not manly enough or some such.” You could not because I would walk out before you accomplished it. There is no desire in me to be dominated by some oaf ‘alpha’ that thinks he’s superior to me. Not subconsciously, consciously or in any other way.

  • Bango Tango

    “Women go for men’s resources when they don’t think they are capable of providing the resources they want themselves. IT IS NOT BIOLOGICAL. Also, “higher sexual market value” is based on inherently subjective criteria that YOU define based on YOUR perceptions of what makes someone valuable”.

    I read this and the rest of her idea of what hypergamy is and was like omfg! Are you serious? How do you respond to that?😉 lol

    Now that is just embarrassing.

  • AlphaFemale

    I realize that I mis-worded my reply about men not being able to dominate ‘a woman like me’ to make it seem like I was challenging you to do it. It’s not a challenge. I’m stating a fact that I don’t want it and would not tolerate it in my relationship, as in you could not keep me in a relationship in which a man used things like ‘dread game’ on me. I would walk out. I should have worded it more clearly.

  • orion

    Good for you.

    And you feel the need to make that point over and over and over again….why?

    Noone here is obsessed with dominating you.

    You are obsessed with being dominated, kind of a love-.hate relationship, dont worry, most women are.

  • AlphaFemale

    Bango, No. OMFG! I think hypergamy is a biological trait, but I can’t prove it and when someone points out that I haven’t (and can’t) prove that it’s biological I act like I can’t understand her reasoning. <— Men when faced with the reality that hypergamy is not biological, but is instead environmental and is practiced by women that can't acquire the resources on their own (or believe that they can't.) Gold diggers. Your entire theory about women is based on gold diggers, and you guys think you've got it all figured out. lol. Enjoy those gold diggers, y'all!

  • sjfrellc

    If you haven’t read Jack Donovan’s “The Way of Men” you should. The evo-psych that makes men’s hind-brains coded the way they are make the sparring nature of “intellectual debate” on the internet a way of engaging in man’s nature.

    But is hilarious to recognize Donovan’s take on the fact that not all are intellectuals and they are going to suck at the game.

    AF’s debate skills are rife with fallacies. Then she denies it.

    Men are designed to have strength, courage, mastery and honor. To defend their tribe from invaders and protect their women, children and weak elders.

    Quote:

    “Feminist demands for absolute equality and the integration of the sexes into war and its equivalents–combined with the looming threat of technological mass destruction and the desire of globalist elites to protect their investments against ornery gangs of men–have pushed the intellectualism of masculinity into a terminal phase: repudiation. Accepting the nature of men as it is and offering them equivalents to war is not longer acceptable to women or globalists. Their shared agenda has become the complete repudiation of the idea that men should want to do the things they’ve been selected to do.”

    Men need to talk among themselves. When women interject, they just distract. Rollo’s interjection is informative and unique in his skill in engaging the debate. I’m surprised the reaction was not indifference and the famous retort of Don Draper to Michael Ginsburg “I don’t think about you at all” ( you tube it). Indifference is worse than hate to a woman.

    I think well played. Thank you. We don’t think badly about our women. We just want them to be reasonable and desire us when it is warranted.

  • jf12

    @Rollo, well done! You did both: providing a remedial primer BY addressing AF’s points.

  • Badpainter

    theasdgamer – “I’m impressed at the femtroll’s volume of verbal diarrhea. She truly is superior at something.”

    Not really all that impressive. Typical of the SJW studies crowd. Words are there weapons, and volume = firepower in the culture wars. Since well reasoned logical arguemets are not available to them they rely on the psychological impact of non-stop talking, resorting to screeching and personal insult when their opponents refuse to concede their point.

    in real life, outside the Internet the best tactic is,as Buena Vista suggested in the previous comments, to laugh and walk away. If you instead demand value for your time for having to listen to such fatuous twaddle then there opportunities to explore in terms of mocking, and indirect attack, and practicing game. Since “discussion” with the SJW types is merely interactive exposition and not a good faith exchange of ideas the only way to win the “debate” is by verbally breaking the SJW’s frame. Of course loud farting works as well but using flatulence as a “debate” tactic may be to vulgar for most despite being perhaps the most succinct and honest rebuttal.

  • orion

    @ AF

    “Bango, No. OMFG! I think hypergamy is a biological trait, but I can’t prove it and when someone points out that I haven’t (and can’t) prove that it’s biological I act like I can’t understand her reasoning. <— Men when faced with the reality that hypergamy is not biological, but is instead environmental and is practiced by women that can't acquire the resources on their own (or believe that they can't.) Gold diggers. Your entire theory about women is based on gold diggers, and you guys think you've got it all figured out. lol. Enjoy those gold diggers, y'all! "

    Well, as someone who actually dug up studies on social dominance in primates and reproductive success there seems to be a very close link in all of our closest cousins.

    Also, at least for a while, only 40% of all males reproduced but 80% of all women which fits in nicely whith the behavior of other primates.

    Plus, sexual dimorphism, size of the testicles and whatnot.

  • AlphaFemale

    “Well, as someone who actually dug up studies on social dominance in primates” We do know your behavior can be closely linked to that of primates, so for you that’s relevant. For the rest of us, evolution has been a wondrous thing.

    Now that this thread has clearly devolved into a circle jerk with no cohesive arguments to be found in the lot, I’ll be taking my leave. I’ll come back and check periodically to see if someone has actually rubbed two brain cells together in order to refute my points, but that’s highly unlikely. Ciao.

  • jf12

    @AlphaFemale, first keep in mind that most of the commenters here realized they were beta and didn’t like it. Most.

    Second, I myself have repeatedly claimed to you that women hate for betas like me/us to try to dominate them.

    Third, along with many others I claim that I could in fact very very easily dominate you if I felt like it. I just couldn’t make you enjoy it, necessarily.

    Fourth, you’ve been owned early and often here, so you must enjoy it anyway.

    Fifth, you really should meditate on the polygamous concept “men quantity” for a minute. What do you think this concept implies for your relationship? To help you along, “women quality” means women will take the better man instead of the ok man, while “men quantity” means that your man WOULD, if he could, take the ok woman along with the better woman.

  • orion

    @ AF

    You are a primate.

    Yes you are.

    But a few million years of evolution dont count because you can be snarky on the interwebz….

    Well, good day to you Ma´am….

  • orion

    God, back in my day, before I was fat, bald, middle aged and lusting after nubile nymphs , trolling was a form of art….

    That was not the Sistine Chapel of trolling, that was Gonzo porn….

    I am sad now.

  • jf12

    re: “to help you along”

    After a woman is past the Wall, her man will continue to have wife goggles provided he remains in love, which is made *easier* for him if she is submissive.

  • ManlyMan

    Geezus her cognitive dissonance is giving me a headache. The gulf between what she thinks she’s proven and what she’s actually proven is miles wide.

    She’s every female cliche we talk about all rolled into one.

  • Nathan

    Rollo, a modern day prophet

  • Flatnose

    It is well recognised withing the psychological fraternity that fixed delusons are almost impossible to treat with rational argument. Socratic dialogue may have an outside chance with AF but somehow I think her solipsism will sabotage any possible cognitive shift.

    I’m off for a beer…..

  • Sun Wukong

    Told you humoring this bitch was a bad idea. From what I can infer from responses (because ain’t no way in hell I’m wasting my time on her walls of text), she’s now asserting that “You can’t handle a Real Woman(tm) like me, that’s wh you’re intimidated by me!” Probably one more fan of Marilyn Monroe’s drool about having to put up with her worst to deserve her best or some other such inane stupidity.

    No, bitch. We just get home and want to enjoy who we’re with instead of having yet another person to compete with in our lives. A man’s world is defined by competition. We don’t go looking for a relationship to find another competitor. We go looking to find a supportive pit crew. You’re somebody actively trying to be another competitor. You know, the opposite of what we’re actually looking for.

    Now here’s the fun fact: I know I can beat you at anything. Anything. It’s just what’s my reward? That I have to get up compete with a loud-mouthed princess with an over-inflated ego again the next day?

    Fuck. That.

  • Bertrand Russell

    Well, if Rollo’s theories are wrong and the people who follow his advice are idiots or insecure or losers or whatever, then so much the better for AF. Obviously she or anyone who respects himself/herself/itself would never have anything to do with a guy like that and since almost all women (female people?) would reject a man who acts like this then ,according to Darwin’s theory, these individuals will eventually run into an evolutionary dead end and their genes will be removed from humanity’s gene pool. On the other hand, if Rollo’s theories are right then the people who follow his advice may end up living more fullfilling lives and some strong genes remain in the gene pool. It is kinda like Pascal’s wager if you ask me.

  • Jeremy

    I really am amused that after all of this, you still truly believe you could dominate a woman like me. I mean truly you believe that you could and that that’s what I really want. Mind bending.

    No, what I believe is that no man in his right mind would desire to. Beauty can be cancelled out with unchecked arrogant singlemindedness.

  • Jeremy

    @thedeti

    I didn’t want to believe it at first but it is simply undeniable. “Alpha Female” and other women like her bristle so much at RP concepts because way down deep, they KNOW them to be true; but they cannot face those truths.

    What’s hard is to imagine the shoe truly being on the other foot. A masculine primary social order, where polyamory is openly practiced and encouraged, even legislated for, and men are ego invested in justifying it.

  • Badpainter

    @ Jeremy

    I know this is heresy but I don’t believe a polyamorous social order is likely even if masculine dominant and primary. Monogamy will be default setting. The reason being children, and limited resources. No possible reality provides most men with several wife’s and the time and wealth to properly provide stable homes. A polygamous society can only manifest that for a tiny few, and only with some fairly oppressive rules for the under privileged.

    The idea of a beta revolt against the alphas because of a pussy gap is not wrong, but it won’t be blood in the streets. Instead it’s an enjoy the decline model where those who can’, won’t, or don’t wish to compete at that level seek alternative meaning in their lives and no longer contribute surplus labor to the economy

    Despite monogamy restricting a man’s ideal sexual outcome it does provide the model of the best for the most, and it ensures that most children are properly cared for. Men are sensible being and willing to compromise so long as those compromises don’t become one sided and sacrificial.

  • Jeremy

    @Badpainter

    Yep, that’s why it’s hard to imagine.

  • Mere Indevisual

    I’m late to the party and just skimming, but doesn’t Alpha Female’s arguments basicallly boil down to, “Because there are exceptions to the rule, then obviously no rules exists.” And as far as not being able to biologically prove “hypergamy” or whatnot, we can’t biologically prove much of evolutionary psychology or even much of neuroscience yet, but that doesn’t invalidate either. Trends point to truths. You can point to exceptions all day long, but that doesn’t invalidate the validity of a trend. I’d say AF is probably an outlier amongst females, a natural leader with a dominant personality. That doesn’t mean much. One time I won on a scratch off lottery ticket, but that don’t mean I should bank on it as a retirement strategy.

  • Jeremy

    You know, Rollo, I was thinking.. For the Hysteria post, there are fantastic historical examples of exceedingly irrational group female behavior for any male with extensive pre-selection working for them. Just look at any video of U.S. females when the Beatles showed up (or any major rock band in the late 50’s through 70s).. Women would literally scream, almost in sync and en masse, with some women literally fainting away, just from getting a view of such men. These women still exist, most of them are grandmother age by now, they often will admit to this kind of behavior (my mother did). This behavior has been constant throughout history, however established world-pervasive social proof was exceedingly rare before the invention of mass media, and essentially reserved only for the political elite. In fact one wonders if it was the unchaining of hypergamy that reduced their open display of this behavior (it still exists but women have concealed it).

  • Jeremy

    @Mere Indevisual

    ..a natural leader with a dominant personality. That doesn’t mean much.

    Most of the natural leaders I’ve met are able to recognize where they’re wrong. Most of the wanna-be leaders insist they’re always right, and get promoted to the level of their incompetence.

  • redlight

    “Just look at any video of U.S. females when the Beatles showed up (or any major rock band in the late 50’s through 70s”

    youtube 2012, “One Direction Concert, Crazy Fans wont stop screaming”:

  • zdr01dz

    @ AlphaFemale
    “Hypergamy addresses class and status.” – which women demonstrate through their beauty, traditionally. Therefore beauty is a measure of a woman’s class and status.

    Kate Middleton is a beautiful, likable, amiable woman but if she didn’t marry into royalty she would have middle-class social status. Beauty by itself does not confer social status. There are plenty of attractive women around the world who posses low social status. Beauty is a tool that women can use to acquire status by marrying men who have it.

    The bottom line is that men are attracted to beauty and women are attracted to status. Those are very different items. The strategies that men and women use to reach their goals require completely different tool boxes.

    The problem with feminist, equalist theory is that it does not predict human behavior. Hypergamy does. I was at a party tonight with many couples in attendance. Every wife at this party followed a Self+1 mating strategy. This is the dominant behavior pattern for women. Ask yourself, are you attracted to men that are shorter or less intelligent than you are? I didn’t think so. Self+1, strikes again.

  • jf12

    “The truth is relationships are hard because love is easy.”
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201411/why-you-need-change-how-you-think-about-your-relationship

    Since women don’t stay in love when in relationships, women erroneously think the relationship is the problem instead of themselves.

  • walawala

    Crucial to understanding game and the Red Pill is the concept of “Hypergamy”. It took me personally a long time to fully internalize this idea and the idea that it comes from a “biological” imperative.

    I posted this elsewhere but I think it’s worth reading in the context of this post.

    This is how women perceive themselves: sensitive, empathetic, caring.

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/kim-quindlen/2015/01/this-is-how-she-feels-when-she-breaks-your-heart/

    But missing from this is the idea of “why” she broke your heart. Hypergamy is nature’s dirty little secret.

    Years ago a girlfriend gave me a book on how to stimulate orgasms so that I could get her off. It was a medical and technical manual on how a woman’s anatomy is set up and how to stimulate it. After that several tries with my then girlfriend I was able to understand and recognize the stages and stimulate her to climax. In other words…I “got it”…

    It’s like the orgasm, once you understand how to stimulate it, it becomes less “magical” and rare and more a question of technique and skill.

    Understanding hypergamy is critical to flipping the switch.

    Then it becomes a situation of tapping into her “hamster”—push-pull, withdrawing attention, building comfort, sparking attraction—creating “value”.

    The higher she perceives your “value” the less likely she will be to stray.

  • jf12

    It’s not the little things, it’s the big things …

    While hustling slowly (we’re getting old) to get back to the car after fine dining last evening, she slipped her cold bare left hand into the glove on my right hand. “Oh!” she said delightedly “it’s so …” (I thought she was going to say warm) “… big!”

    Answer: yes, of course, three times since.

  • zdr01dz

    @ AlphaFemale
    Feminist, equalist theory does not predict the contents of this 53 second clip.

    Larry King & Shawn Southwick Celebrate his 79th Birthday with a Kiss at Madeo in West Hollywood

  • jf12

    Women “love” the men that please women, but the women do not reciprocate.

  • Badpainter

    walawala – “once you understand how to stimulate it, it becomes less ‘magical’ and rare and more a question of technique and skill.”

    I have yet to master the full range of “game” party tricks, but I can see they all work when properly calibrated. However, discovering that has devalued women for me. I keep looking for a reason to pursue a relationship that doesn’t involve sex and I haven’t yet found one.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Hypergamy is biological. The ovulatory shifts in behavioral effects on women during menstruation are well documented and serve as the foundation for women’s Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy.

    Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science

    Meta-Analyses and P-Curves Support Robust Cycle Shifts
    in Women’s Mate Preferences

    Do Women’s Mate Preferences Change Across the
    Ovulatory Cycle? A Meta-Analytic Review

    Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the
    ovulatory cycle

    Body odor attractiveness as a cue of impending ovulation in women: Evidence from a study using hormone-confirmed ovulation

    Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men: Further Evidence of the Importance of Primary Partner Sexual Attractiveness

    Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile

    Evidence for Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity

    Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle

    Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives

    There are many more at Dr. Martie Hasselton’s site. She and her colleagues (at UCLA, not WebMD) are the leading minds in the field of human sexuality and evolutionary psychology. Their studies are based on hard data behavioral psychology and experimentation, not touchy-feely cognitive psychotherapy.

    So, once again, from the top, Hypergamy is encoded in the neurological firmware that comes standard with each woman. The simple truth is that Hypergamy is a sexual strategy motivated by women’s innate biological condition. I covered this in Your Friend Menstruation . How a woman is able to best optimize Hypergamy is individuated on her personal capacity to do so, but the root note is the biological nature of Hypergamy for every woman.

    Alpha Female is in denial of this fundamental truth that clashes with her ego-investments.

    From Truth to Power:

    Denial

    The first step to really unplugging from our preconditioning (i.e the feminine Matrix) is recognizing that this conditioning has led to the beliefs we think are integral to our personalities. The psychological term for this is called ‘ego-investment’. When a person internalizes a mental schema so thoroughly, and has become conditioned to it for so long, it becomes an integral part of their personality. So to attack the belief is to, literally, attack the person. This is why we see such a violent reaction to people’s political, religious, inter-social/inter-sexual, inter-gender, etc. expressions of belief – they perceive it as a personal attack, even when presented with irrefutable, empirical evidence that challenges the veracity of those beliefs.

    One common frustration that Game-aware Men express is how dificult it is to open an AFCs eyes as to why he’s not hooking up, why he’s not getting dates (or 2nd dates if he is), why he’s constantly getting LJBF rejections, etc., and all the flaws in what is really ego-investment internalizations. As I’m fond of saying, it’s dirty work unplugging chumps from the Matrix, and this is made all the more difficult when a person is in a catagorical state of denial.

    People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation. Short of catching a spouse in bed with your best friend, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous. It’s motivated skepticism. You’re more skeptical of things you don’t want to believe and demand a higher level of proof. Denial is unconscious, or it wouldn’t work: if you know you’re closing your eyes to the truth, some part of you knows what the truth is and denial can’t perform its protective function.

    One thing we all struggle to protect is a positive self-image. The more important the aspect of your self-image that’s challenged by the truth, the more likely you are to go into denial. If you have a strong sense of self-worth and competence, your self-image can take hits but remain largely intact; if you’re beset by self-doubt (a hallmark of self-righteous AFC thinking), however, any acknowledgment of failure can be devastating and any admission of error painful to the point of being unthinkable. Self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you’re competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Attribute it to an outside element (women won’t play by “the rules”) rather than resort to introspection (maybe I’m wrong about “the rules”?).

  • Bluepillprofessor

    @ Orion: Besides Solipsism, Projection, Shaming, Motte and bailey tactic, weaseling and feelz before reelz she also gives us NAWALT, hamstering, and straw man.

    They really can’t face the truth because it would require them to deny their equalitarian god but it is more than that. It is almost like a weird glitch in the Matrix. A Red Pill women can wrap her head around hypergamy and AF/BB but NO woman can face her dark attraction triggers or her Solipsism and projection, or her emotional decision making.

  • Dr. Manhattan

    The amusing irony about feminism is that its proponents are unwittingly its strongest detractors

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Sun Wukong,

    Was I humoring her, or did I just give her a bit more rope to hang herself with?

  • Bluepillprofessor

    @AF- Hamsturbation par excellence. Look at the rodent marshal those logical ideas to support her emotion! So I have to comment that my wife has more education and based on both their writings a much higher IQ than her (or me for that matter). Which shows the point that all of AF’s hamsterbation on equality, intelligence, variety of work, income, none of that matters to happy inter-gender relations.

    What matters is attraction and SEX. Good, hard pounding sex. If you have that the couple can be happy, affectionate and cooperative.

    If you are like AF and don’t have that the couple is always unhappy, they carp, and they bitch at each other.

    If you want hell on Earth in relationship follow AF’s ideas. If you want happiness ignore her and take the Red Pill.

    Here is my personal experience: Under AF’s plan of “equality” my wife was not be attracted to me. Grudging starfish sex twice a month and years of slow torture and denial with constant Shit Tests and unpleasant, seething anger from her. With the Red Pill, which is the same plan as the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Koran, and nearly every culture in all of world history (with the exception of some Nepalese and Pacific Islanders) with the Man as the leader of the family guess what? She became attracted to me again and it did not take long. Sex every other day, when I want, and a sweet, helpful, awesome wife who is cooperative and kind. She walks on air now. AF is just wrong and the Leninist prescription is a disaster. Men may not always be happy being in charge, but almost no women is happy being in charge. Most of them hate it and they reserve a seething hatred they could not even generate for a rapist for any husband who abdicates leadership and demands that the woman lead instead.

    This is not an isolated experience. We see this all the time on

    /r/marriedredpill.

    TLDR: Alpha Females plan sucks. It is a recipe for marital and relationship unhappiness in almost every case.

  • walawala

    @Badpainter This was a major realization for me. There IS NO reason to pursue a relationship beyond sex.

    I have female “friends”—many of whom I banged or would like to…I can’t think of too many I regard simply as “friends” that I don’t have a history with.

    Also, some of the girls I see will make it appear we have a “relationship” when really it’s about seeing each other for sex.

    I can’t think of any reason to be with a woman other than sex.

    In my Blue Pill days it was about finding girl who I “clicked” with.

    Now, I can pretty much click with any girl I game properly.

    Also, entering my 5th year the “tricks” of game are becoming more internalized and natural, in some cases automatic.

    But practice makes perfect and by taking the emotion out of the “tricks” and focusing on the technique I can then start to enjoy the outcomes better.

  • Ang Aamer

    Rollo,

    I must say that I greatly appreciate that you took the time to logically assault Alpha Female’s tolling. But in the process you proved a long standing assumption I have had, (Rollo, thanks for trying by the way.)

    Females when dealing with issues of deep emotional import, cannot debate logically. They can’t do it. It is beyond their estrogen addled brains to debate binary “law of the exuded middle” arguments.

    It’s impossible for them… (proof: Alpha Female did not even ACKNOWLEDGE that Rollo spent a lot of time actually refuting her assertions… he spent mucho time doing that… did Alpha Female appreciate this? No she just went off on another tangent that she felt would be another way to keep the kettle in stir)

    Why is this?

    MY THEORY is that most normal women are actually too busy getting banged by their boyfriends/husbands to be on Red Pill forums. So those females who post in man centric forums like ours are already outliers. In actuality they are so bereft of male attention that they must shrewishly debate non-relationship males in COMMENT SECTIONS!!! Think on this implication carefully because it’s important. IF a woman had a man in their life they WOULD debate, nag, badger that man to beta subservience. BUT, if you don;t have a man in your life by gosh you can go out into the internet public square like everyone else and badger those males… hey it’s like having a beta slave without the room and board right?

    So in essence Alpha Female is actually a Crazy Cat Lady ™ that either has a gay/TG/fugly boyfriend orbiter. Or does not even have a male in her life right now. NO WONDER she has a skewed understanding of gender dynamics.

    This is why feeding the feminist trolls on the interwebs is so counterproductive. By their VERY POSTING on our male forums they have admitted they don’t have the looks to even badger a Real Life man. In other words fellow red pill-ers… we are debating a <4 scoring wench.

    TL:DR version
    Females (like Alpha Female) who post to male centric web sites have their own agenda. This agenda is from a female who can't attract a male to hen-peck… they are either too (emotionally unstable, ugly, old, fat) to attract such a male so they revert to anonymous comment forums to get their shrew fix for the week.

  • Ang Aamer

    AND I’ll add this…

    To put it as nicely as possible, we should ignore any comment from a female perspective on Manosphere forums.

    Why? Because even the most correct observation from a female would be incorrect when applied from a male point of view. I am a firm believer in the mantra “pay attention to what women do not what they say”. The logical end point of this assertion is to ignore all female commentary.

    Empiricism Rules fellow XY travelers.

    It’s not that I believe they have nothing to contribute. It’s that even if they are actually wishing to be helpful (which I doubt by the way). Females are talking from a FEMALE perspective. Men cannot be females at best we can’t poorly play the part (by being Beta Males???).

    We men need to stop listening to women who self define themselves as outliers, by posting here, and ignore everything they say.

    After all it’s really NAWALT … with pretty prose around it right?

  • Louise

    beauty, as pointed out, has always been a useful tool for women to help them marry up. in the past, money was also very useful. A lot of men were willing to marry women of a lower social class provided she brought a fat dowry with her, upper class men marrying rich merchant’s daughters, wAs quite common in the medieval and early modern periods, and in the late 19th century there was a spate of marriages between wealthy American heiresses marrying impoverished british Aristocrats. Winston churchill’s parents for instance had this kind of alliance. Do men still marry for money nowadays? one doesn’t heAr about it very much.

  • lh

    Imho you’re wasting your time with alpha female. You can discuss the Red Pill with women only after you demonstrated well enough you act Red Pill. Only the resulting attraction and impression of strength makes them willing to understand instead of battling it.

    On the matter of Hypergamy I’m not happy with the state of knowledge in the manosphere and at RM as it’s pinnacle. I think comparing SMV’s or other rather objective measures distracts from the real issue.
    In terms of SMV etc I think both man and women do it. The bigger the abundance, the bigger the drive to optimize.

    The real difference between the sexes is the love experience. I think for women love (and sexual arousal) are basically tools to make a man commit to them, both financially and especially emotionally. The bigger the challenge, the bigger the love needed, that’s why they love jerks, bad boys, “alphas”.
    For men on the other hand love is falling victim to the female “tools” to make him commit.
    This means they both have something like a true love experience, which on top isn’t that different at all. Feeling “love” is in both cases an expression of neediness.

    The problem and the emotional root of Hypergamy is imho, how a women’s love disappears the more successful she is in making the man commit, taming him. As a result while both share a very similar love experience, it cannot be a shared experience for more than very short moments. The bigger the male’s love, the less female love left or needed.

    Optimizing for SMV, status etc comes only second. Once the arousal, the genuine love, is gone because the man committed too much, the woman has the choice to stay with him and make use of that commitment or she can leave and try the next. Now the more important beta bux are for the woman then, the more rational reasons there are for this man, or the stronger the moral pressure to stay with him, the more likely it is she stays. But her decreased wanting for sex will still tell the truth.

    Over here in middle class Germany I still see a lot of working marriages. It seems to me women over here value a father for their children more (and of course different divorce laws and more wealth stored in social security systems, which cannot be plundered at divorce, play their role too). The women stay as long as the man does this job properly. But still the decrease in sex drive is there and from my impression these women aren’t really happy. They are busy in an almost stressing way fighting their own emotions to make the rational reasons for their commitment prevail.
    It was the same in the “old days” when morality kept Hypergamy in check. The housewife of the fifties wasn’t happy either. They were often depressive etc. And literature has a lot about the unhappiness of married women in previous centuries.

    So back to the morality of the old days isn’t going to work either. We came here because it didn’t work. There is no alternative to the Red Pill.

  • Sun Wukong

    @Rollo
    The reason I say “humoring” is that by your own admission it was against your better judgment that you responded to her. But really, why would you need to give her the rope? She obviously stopped by Costco on the way over for a couple miles of it before arriving.

  • M Simon

    theasdgamer
    January 10th, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    I’m impressed at the femtroll’s volume of verbal diarrhea. She truly is superior at something.

    And the answer to that is TL;DR. Heh.

  • M Simon

    sjfrellc
    January 10th, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    Indifference is worse than hate to a woman.

    When I really want to punish the fm I stop talking to her. The “wall of words” is useless. She can’t take more than three days of that.

  • M Simon

    Jeremy
    January 10th, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    No, what I believe is that no man in his right mind would desire to.

    Oh. yeah.

  • M Simon

    Badpainter
    January 10th, 2015 at 9:25 pm

    The idea of a beta revolt against the alphas because of a pussy gap is not wrong, but it won’t be blood in the streets. Instead it’s an enjoy the decline model where those who can’, won’t, or don’t wish to compete at that level seek alternative meaning in their lives and no longer contribute surplus labor to the economy

    In the west surplus labor is becoming superfluous.

    http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/the-bots-are-coming/

  • M Simon

    Badpainter
    January 10th, 2015 at 9:25 pm

    Reports are that children from polygamous marriage are not happy with their childhood. Common complaint “insufficient fathering”.

    Which confirms your point.

  • Badpainter

    @ M. Simon

    Re:bots

    I see it all playing out very differently. Get back to me in 2025 and I’ll tell you if I am right or not. Hint: Wir sind die Volk!

  • lh

    To elaborate further on the different love experience:

    I think “love” is for both sexes a desire (but not it’s fulfillment!) to be loved back. As such, it’s for both an expression of neediness or emotional submission. It may even feel very similar subjectively, that’s why woman reject the idea they couldn’t experience the same love. The difference comes only from the dynamics.

    For men a state. where she loves him like crazy, borderline desperate, would be doing everything for him, is not bad at all. As long a she is hot or because it’s easy and convenient in a marriage, there a plenty of reasons for a man to stay and fuck her. I’d even say this is the best emotional situation, alpha traits grow on their own with all the confidence induced by her love.
    For women on the other hand a situation, where the man “loves”, needs, would be doing everything for her, is terrible. There is no genuine desire left, no reason to fuck him, which becomes only a duty. She might stay for the bucks or morality (even their equality fantasy might work as such), but she will never be really happy like that. That is the emotional root of Hypergamy.

    After reading the long NYT essay on female desire, which was linked in the comments to the previous posting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&amp😉 I got the impression the normal biological or primal way of getting to sex may even be the male raping the female, proving his power and evolutionary value by doing so. And the female is hard wired to be attracted to that power, rejecting the lack of it and additionally well prepared to make the man commit to her, even when he was only raping her. She can’t do it by violence or overt power, her tool to achieve it is love and the hormones involved in sex.

    Todays problems for men result from the fact, that in the old days the world was dangerous and any sex would normally result in children, which needed a provider. There was a need for the women to take the commitment of the man and there was also a need for the love-dynamic making the man commit. In todays world though, those reasons are gone. Women need neither protection nor providing anymore. Both the male and the female “emotions”, which are really hormones at work, aren’t fitting to that situation. But while the resulting female experience is still “I fall in love with a powerful man, make him commit and when my feelings are gone, I leave and all is well”, the corresponding male experience when following the call of nature is more like “She did so much to make me fall in love and when that happens she leaves, breaking my heart”.

    The only solution for todays men is to reject the call of nature, to avoid loving back by controlling your emotions, to forget that romantic, idealized male love. Never commit, especially emotionally. The right way to love as a man is to enjoy the women loving you.

  • M Simon

    Dr. Manhattan
    January 10th, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    The amusing irony about feminism is that its proponents are unwittingly its strongest detractors

    Slyly smiles.

  • M Simon

    Badpainter
    January 11th, 2015 at 6:40 am

    Why don’t you leave a comment at my link. I’d like to hear more.

  • jf12

    @lh re: “She can’t do it by violence or overt power, her tool to achieve it is love and the hormones involved in sex.”

    Hah! We can call it mind-rape.

  • redlight

    paging @alphafemale

    this article needs your wall of text ™ comments:

    https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/candace-cameron-bure-i-want-my-husband-to-lead-107638431337.html

    “We are two equal people but I love my husband and I want him to lead. … Men and women are different in how they want to feel love and respect”

  • Softek

    @ AlphaFemale

    Age old argument: nature vs. nurture. Obviously the Red Pill is going to have some flaws because you can never isolate every single variable. It’s not Gospel truth.

    The take home message is to get a general enough understanding to improve our relationships with women. That’s the end result. We are not a collection of ivory tower research scientists here. We’re men trying to improve our relationships with women.

    And just about all of us have virtually the same anecdotal stories about failures with women due to our believing in ‘equality.’

    It’s very funny to me how just about any woman who read this stuff would be INFURIATED. Beyond measure.

    Although with all the women currently in my life, I’ve applied what I’ve learned here and have vastly improved my relationships with them.

    Anecdotal evidence might not be enough for you, but the ultimate goal here is for men to field-test these theories in real life and see for themselves if it works or not. Just about everyone here who has changed their behavior to be more in line with Red Pill thinking has seen major improvements in their relationships with women.

    The proof is in the pudding.

    BTW: If men could get laid and have solid relationships without having to put so much effort into it, don’t you think they’d do it? I don’t know about everyone else here, but I don’t have any other agenda than my own personal happiness, which includes figuring out how to have better relationships with women.

    I don’t think anyone here actually cares about being “right.” We care about what works.

  • BuenaVista

    Anyone who has actually been married to a self-described alfalfa female knows two things: 1) such women don’t have time to type (not write) 20,000 words on a mens blog under the guise of improving the world; 2) their husbands have heard their wives say calmly “I really just want to be dominated.”

    Pull-string robotic-talking-point dolls, in their screeds, have no one to shit-test, so typing self-aggrandizing novellas is all they’ve got. This is called “making a difference” and “fighting for justice.”

  • Jeremy

    Yeah, AF is likely just doing it for the feels. We’re like a porn site to her.

  • zdr01dz

    @ Ang Aamer
    MY THEORY is that most normal women are actually too busy getting banged by their boyfriends/husbands to be on Red Pill forums. So those females who post in man centric forums like ours are already outliers.

    this^^^^^

    If AlphaFemale has time for us she doesn’t have a man. If she doesn’t have a man what does that infer about her mental and physical condition?

  • revisitingthebasics

    Good to re summarize the body of work. No need to snark those people who happen to have missed it. Interaction with our beginners need not include invective. Going forward, I recommend less engagement with the trolls – for everyone.

  • Badpainter

    @ M. Simon

    I left a lengthy comment for you at your link.

  • Softek

    Anyone else notice the “Don Juan” trope of Alpha guys being “softies” deep down, and craving “emotional connection,” to fit feminist brainwashed women more than anything else?

    This occurred to me the other day when I was talking to this girl — an HB10 — who has been very successful, but is very into the strong and independent thing, not needing a man…and happened to drop a couple lines about her ex-boyfriend, presumably an alpha that she missed, took a few jabs at beta guys, also said she might want to have kids some day but that would mean letting some guy stick his penis inside of her, which is “gross”…

    She was joking (I hope), but to even joke about something like that says a lot…I actually felt kind of sorry for her. She was really a true knockout, just about perfect face, thick, beautiful hair and full, curvy athletic body, starting to hit the wall, but plenty of good years left on her. Just brainwashed out of being able to face her own desires from what I could tell. My guess is she’s been with a lot of beta guys but might be an Alpha Widow.

    I found myself looking at her like “Don Juan” portrays Alpha guys — thinly veneered and hurting on the inside, craving something more.

    What’s funny is women try to label guys as this, as if they understand men’s experience of the world: and I think it ends up revealing more about women than anything else. I think when they say these things about men they’re really talking about themselves. It’s a feminine fantasy, not reality, and looking at these films and books through that lens is pretty eye-opening.

    We’re not getting insights into men through that media: we’re getting insights into women by seeing their fantastical portrayals of men. It’s all written from a fem-centric viewpoint, even if it’s written by a guy, since most guys in this culture these days are operating perfectly from a fem-centric point of view even though they’re not aware of it. It’s been conditioned into them.

    While she was going on about all these different topics and how she’s making all this money and is free to do whatever she wants, etc., and occasionally sprinkled in some stuff about ‘beta’ men and possibly wanting kids….I felt like I was listening to a hurt little girl. The words coming out of her mouth didn’t line up with the reality behind the scenes that I was picking up on. Early 30-something semi-entrepreneur making an independent living, but with lots of free time on her hands and no one to share it with, and pretty obviously frustrated with men to the point of having no idea what to do about any of it, and going into denial.

    And I don’t say “little girl” to be condescending. This is how women frame men in pop-psychology these days: hurting little boys that don’t know how to express their feelings — which I actually think is true, but it’s because they’ve lost touch with their MASCULINITY and were conditioned to be ashamed of it, not their mythical “feminine side.”

    And like I said earlier, these fantastical portrayals of men by women say more about women than about men.

  • Badpainter

    @ Softek

    Proper response: “Do you need a hug?” with sympathetic voice and ironic smile. Then change topic to sports, or gas prices.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Ang,

    I must say that I greatly appreciate that you took the time to logically assault Alpha Female’s tolling.

    This was for my reader’s benefit, not hers.

    Females when dealing with issues of deep emotional import, cannot debate logically.

    Oh, I’m well aware of the fact that it appears I’m appealing to (what passes for) her reason, but then, I’ve written about that too:

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/08/07/appeals-to-reason/

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @redlight,

    Not as much as they need it on Jezebel:

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

    The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species. Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves? Why is masculine dominance such an attractive male aspect for even the most feminist of women who’d otherwise plead for equality among the sexes?

    I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.

    […]

    There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

    This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?

    What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).

    The doctrine of equalism presumes a socialized expectation of being turned-on or attracted to men exemplifying a ‘gender equitable’, equalist-correct, mindset and the evolved, visceral arousal / attraction to a man exhibiting the dominant characteristic traits of masculine complementarity.

    Another example of this conflict can be found in my essay on Choreplay.

  • zdr01dz

    Sigmund Freud on women.

    The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’

    What an idiot.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Softek,

    Anyone else notice the “Don Juan” trope of Alpha guys being “softies” deep down, and craving “emotional connection,” to fit feminist brainwashed women more than anything else.

    Yep…

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/01/17/mister-softee/

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,782 other followers

%d bloggers like this: