Children and Cornfields


Does anyone remember the episode of the Twilight Zone called “It’s a Good Life“? I rewatched this for this article and I’ve got to stay it still holds up and it’s just as creepy as when I watched it as a kid.

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks can be deceiving: he is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers, including mind-reading. Years before, he isolated his town of Peaksville, Ohio. Everybody is under his rule, even his parents. Since he’s begun isolating the town, supplies of common household items, such as bar soap, have been dwindling. He has blocked television signals, caused cars to not work, and, due to his controlling everything, he does not attend school.

The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good,” since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical “cornfield”, an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is “bad” and doesn’t “like [him] at all,” and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

One night, due to the townsfolk having always done what he wants, he treats them to one hour of TV. Although they do not like what he shows, they tell Anthony that it was far better than what used to be on TV.

Finally, at Dan Hollins’ birthday party, he gets two presents from his wife: a bottle of brandy and a Perry Como record. As Dan is eager to listen to the record, he is reminded by everyone that Anthony does not like singing. Getting slightly drunk from the brandy, complaining about not listening to the record, and no one singing “Happy Birthday” to him, Dan cannot take the strain anymore and confronts Anthony, calling him a monster and a murderer. While Anthony’s anger grows, Dan yells for someone to attack Anthony from behind and end his reign of terror. Aunt Amy (who isn’t able to sing anymore because of Anthony) tentatively reaches for a fireplace poker, but no one has the courage to act. Anthony cries out to Dan, “You’re a bad man! You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!” Dan is transformed into a jack-in-the-box (ending his life), causing his wife to break down. The adults are horrified at what Anthony had done, and his father begs him to wish it into the cornfield, which he does.

Because of Amy’s earlier complaints about the heat, Anthony causes snow to begin falling outside. His father observes that the snow will kill off at least half the crops, and he is about to confront Anthony about this, but his wife and the other adults look on with worried smiles on their faces. The father then smiles and tells Anthony in a horror-tinged voice, “…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real ‘good’ day!”

I didn’t really understand the significance of this episode until recently. In a sense I guess I can attribute it to a more defined Red Pill Lens but the femosphere events and a few articles brought to my attention this last week reminded me of this Twilight Zone story. I’ll get to why in a bit.

The first event was the highly publicized not guilty verdict in the Jian Gomeshi rape (hoax) trial. Mike Cernovich had a quick hit post about the details here. I’ve written about the particulars of why women’s insecurity about optimizing Hypergamy drives them to insane lengths to control for it before, but my focus this time with Gomeshi wasn’t so much about the women’s lying, or the ambiguity of what constitutes rape or sexual harassment. When the Rolling Stone/UVA fraternity rape hoax was finally revealed for what it was I wrote Hysteria :

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

[…]women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

gomeshi

The overwhelming zeitgeist consensus in this case was that the women concerned in Gomeshi’s rape trial were to be believed irrespective of facts that exonerated him. And so strong was this sentiment that suggesting the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.

Once again, just as in the UVA rape hoax, we see a feminine-primary collective social consciousness moved by a need to believe in order to maintain a collective ego-investment in that social order’s correctness. And all of that in spite of all controverting, unignorable evidence. However, the feminine conditioned reflex for feminine defined ‘justice’ in this regard has been taken a step further – an accusation of rape or sexual assault is as good as a conviction.

I can’t be too sympathetic for Gomeshi. He built his reputation on being a social justice warrior and a self-evincing ‘male feminist, but just like another notable male feminist, Hugo Schwyzer, he’s had to learn the hard way that feminist Game comes with a substantial risk.

However the salient point I took away from his trial wasn’t that women are duplicitous or a feminized society being too ready to unquestioningly presume the veracity of another woman’s rape claims. Neither was it unexpected that a need to believe that presumed guilt would come up. What struck me was the push for control, for absolute unilateral arbitrative power to condemn a man for the accusation of sexual misconduct.

What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).

As the protests and debate swirled around Gomeshi I was also made aware of a review of a new book Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

An economics major taking a gender studies class is getting dressed in her college dorm room for a night out, cheerfully discussing sexual stereotyping in advertising with Orenstein — while at the same time grabbing a miniskirt and a bottle of vodka, the better to achieve her evening goal: to “get really drunk and make out with someone.” “You look hot,” her friend tells her — and the student, apparently registering the oddness of the scene, turns to Orenstein. “In my gender class I’m all, ‘That damned patriarchy,’ ” she says. “But . . . what’s the point of a night if you aren’t getting attention from guys?” Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

Author Peggy Orenstien serves up the same reheated feminist alarmism for her young daughter that Hannah Rosin did 8 years ago. However, Orenstien escalates the narrative much in the same vein that the feminist reaction to Gomeshi has. She defines it for us:

For guys, she says, there is fun and pleasure; for girls (at least the straight ones), too little physical joy, too much regret and a general sense that the boys are in charge. Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.” The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

Orenstein presumes the control of a girl with a handle of vodka and dressed ‘just slutty enough’ rest entirely with the boys she’s making out with and more. They are ‘assailants’ by definition – a definition that depends on the Hypergamous whims of the woman involved.

I drew parallels between these stories because they are indicative of a trend I predicted a couple years ago – in a social order that prioritizes Hypergamy as the intersexual priority, men who wont cooperate with it must be legislated into complying with it. But as it develops now this doesn’t go far enough; men must be preemptively convicted of the crime of sexual misconduct before the they are ever judged worthy of a woman’s sexual interests. In other words, men are ‘assailants’ for the very attempt of presenting themselves for the intimate approval of women.

Monday’s Price of Nice post and the femosphere response to men’s want to be Nice in order to ingratiate themselves in the hopes that they might endear a woman to him highlights this even further. Men being ‘nice’ are by definition ‘assailants’.

But it’s not enough to discourage men’s niceties, they must be taught to fear the attempt of initiating anything looking like intimacy. They must fear being whisked away to the cornfield for not thinking the right way about the women they would hope to find favor with.

Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:

Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinizes her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain in it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.

Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.

Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.

 

 


588 responses to “Children and Cornfields

  • Ciacorps

    Excellent post, Rollo!! Couldn’t agree more.

  • theasdgamer

    Will the fear extend to men being afraid to speak out against cuckolding? Will cuckolding become a rite in churchianity?

  • Jeremy

    I’m trying to hard to imagine the converse, where “men are given unilateral God-like arbitration of women in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc…” Where “men and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.”

    I think it would be something like being some Arab/Muslim king back when sexual slavery was routine.

  • Dutchman

    Whenever i think about the future of artificial intelligence, I think of this episode of the twilight zone.

  • kfg

    ” . . . given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.”

    That’s why God invented blue water sailboats, and I’m not afraid to use them.

  • SJF

    @ Rollo

    “Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:”

    Please correct that to say SJF quoted (your alter-ego across the pond) The Illimitable Man in one of his comments from this essay:

    http://illimitablemen.com/2016/03/16/understanding-female-psychology/

    That paragraph is way more erudite than my literary pay grade.

  • Adam

    “… Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls …”

    Once Anthony had taken control it was almost impossible to stop him. Everyone was so invested in saving their own skin and not bringing attention to themselves that they were not able to act in their own interests, even when Anthony’s action of causing it to snow doomed some of them to die by starvation.

    They effectively become wardens in their own prison. Turning to the real-life example of men partaking in the feminization of society, they seem to do it either because they are trying to keep their heads down, they’re thinking it will get them laid, (as you have pointed out many times), or they are so self-hating that it is an inevitable action for them. It’s a particularly insidious creeping threat because you cannot go to war against women. The only possible resistance is to flee.

  • LeeLee

    When I had my first kid and I was stuck at home with her all day while she slept, I used to follow a popular feminist website and comment on their stuff, hoping that my impassioned explanations of the Biblical view of gender and marriage would save their souls.

    Success was not mine, but I did pick up on some pretty weird stuff.

    Like how they kept pushing for colleges to take on a criminal justice role when a student accused another of rape. WHY? Why did they want that?

    What was, (or is, as this remains a demand to this day) so wrong with the way the criminal justice system is set up to address the crime of rape? Actual rape leaves PLENTY of evidence — cuts, bruises, internal abrasions, flippin’ DNA — a woman who has actually been raped is at no disadvantage in bringing her rapist to justice. All she has to do is proceed to the local police station for evidence collection, and the law can take it from there. Is she guaranteed a conviction? Of course not, but that’s not a different situation than any other type of crime victim might face.

    So why do feminists want colleges to go where only the police should go, and decide who is innocent and guilty, and hand down sentences, and circumvent the system of gathering and weighing physical evidence? Well, anyways, I don’t have to tell you all. We’re in Babylon now.

    I used to believe that it was my calling in life to help women who had been sexually abused. Now I can’t even bring myself to talk about it because I don’t know who to believe, and I can feel this powerful agenda just PUSHING me from behind whenever I try to speak about it, trying to insert this agenda that I don’t even fully understand.

  • kfg

    “So why do feminists want colleges to go where only the police should go . . . ”

    Because the police are constrained by law.

  • enrique

    Is that Will Robinson?

  • enrique

    Rollo,by the way, your take on Gomeshi is exactly why I feel zero sympathy for the Greek-American dude that got thrashed by the “brown millennial” at Yale. People were posting shit like, “I kinda feel sorry for the guy” mainly because he seemed to be reasonable in the face of hatred and (yes) racism…Zero fucks and all that. That guy supported ALL that shit on campuses until he was hoisted on his on petard. He probably constructively drowned hundreds of men, if not thousands indirectly, via his own White Knightedry and Social Justice creepery.

    It’s like these people never read or saw the (later) ’70s creepy afterschool special “The Lottery”, which was to prove the very same point. Ya, let’s go stone some people!

  • kfg

    “Is that Will Robinson?”

    Bill Mumy – yes.

    “That guy supported ALL that shit on campuses until he was hoisted on his on petard.”

    Social Justice revolutions always, always, always eat their own children – but they never seem to catch on.

  • Not Born This Morning

    Curiously, and honestly I’m not sure exactly why, this post brings to mind my knowledge of Katherine Ann Porter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Anne_Porter

    My first knowledge of Porter was an abbreviation of one of her quotes “Love must be learned over and over, hate only needs to be provoked”. Here is a link to the full quote

    http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1157388

    I was so impressed with this quote when I first saw it in my early twenties that it is the only reason I remembered her name. At the time, I considered her quote brilliant and wise and believed she must have been someone who truly respected and understood love…. Because, I thought her quote expressed a strong genuine desire to experience and give love. I assumed she was loving, kind and somehow morally astute. Why else would someone describe love as something that must be constantly relearned unless they genuinely cared and were striving to really learn it?…. Right?

    With some help I was duping myself.

    In reality her quote reveals the exact opposite of what I originally assumed. My assumption had far more to do with what I wanted or hoped for than the reality of Porter. A brief review of Porter’s life and her work reveals not much love but a lot about hatred, failed relationships, anger, and selfishness…. Porter’s hatred, anger and selfishness. Porter describes love as something that must be relearned over and over… because she never really wanted it. She readily experienced hate… because she embraced it.

    Her famous book “Ship of Fools” was in reality her attempt to project her hatred and foolishness upon everyone else.

  • Yollo Comanche

    Sometimes there is so much I want to say on this blog but I don’t do it because I know I’ll look retarded for it.

    That said, I’ve only ever really felt disgust from other people when I told them what I was actually thinking.

    I think cornfields are beautiful.

  • Ophir

    Meanwhile, Alanis spouts another open hypergamy gem:

    It may help to divide your dating life into three categories: 1) flings (this requires staving off the bonding that happens with oxytocin, so be careful); 2) boyfriends (these can last anywhere from two to three years, and the breakups are not the most fun); and 3) husband or long-term-commitment material. Number three is for when you are ready for the deep dive; and perhaps for when you are ready for children

    I have had some serious fun in the first two categories. And the third has been a huge payoff, maybe because I enjoyed the first two so much. 

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/25/dating-younger-man-friends-disapprove

  • Yollo Comanche

    @Not born this morning

    But what is “love” if not merely guessing right?

    Don’t people hate what they cannot control?

    What did she hate? What was her foolishness?

    Why did our society reward her for her foolishness?

    Where do people like her come from?

    One quick look and she echoes a lot of my own thoughts.

    I wonder if her family told her she was beautiful too.

    She looks like a real cunt.

  • blogster

    Troubling is that these cases are becoming more and more frequent in occurence. I’m in Australia and we have had 3 cases recently of high profile sportsmen essentially being subject to extortion attempts. Two from disgruntled ex’s, who both it was revealed had a history of blackmail, along with a situation where a woman was dropped off in a taxi by the person in question AT her boyfriend’s house (only for the taxi camera to show nothing like she claimed happened)

    Women know there will be no consequences (in the UK there is at least a reasonable chance of jail sentence for deliberately wasting court time), so they win on all fronts – ‘get revenge’ and socially and financially ruining the men involved.

    What concerns me is that there does not appear to be any burden of proof required for a case to go to court. WTF? I know that from now on, I will record every interaction possible between myself and women going forward (whether emails, text messages, video/audio etc.).

  • enrique

    That pic of the fat chick with the bowl haircut getting “escorted” away by the cops, is simply priceless. I’m not creative enough to do good captions but it is worthy of continual memes.

  • Sun Wukong

    @kfg

    Social Justice revolutions always, always, always eat their own children – but they never seem to catch on.

    Abso-fucking-lutely. I’ve had a lot of thoughts about how dudes that come out as feminists and the like are the first dudes to get stabbed by these harpies right in the back. The moment you’re no longer a part of their victim classes, you will become a target even if you’re an ally.

    I suspect it’s part of the reason my friend living in the NYC hugbox decided he needed a different “gender identity”. He was about to fall out of favor with all his “friends” up there as a straight white male. Quick! Find a victim identity to assume so they won’t attack!

  • scribblerg

    I often wonder why it is that women struggle with playing fair in any endeavor. Could it be that men have had to adapt fairness and ethics in order to cooperate constructively in larger groups, in high stakes undertakings? Example: Hunting the Woolly Mammoth takes a group of men who coordinate and take their roles seriously or the hunt may not be successful. Or in trade, high trust results in more productivity for everyone so keeping one’s word is valuable beyond any single transaction.

    Could it be that since for most of history women weren’t engaged in these high stakes cooperative activities they didn’t evolve/adapt to value ethics and a sense of probity to the degree men do? Rollo talks of it from the POV of collective rent seeking and SJF (via his Illimitable man cite) attributes it a woman’s preemptive strike based on her fear of male power but I’m just not convinced by these arguments. I notice that women always fail when the stakes go up in any activity. When survival is on the line (the highest of stakes) women are next to useless, at least in my experiences where life and limb were on the line and women were present. And they of course reserve the right to go back on any agreement at any time, when I was growing up we had a meme for it, “A Woman’s Prerogative” it was called and it meant a woman could always just change her mind about anything.

    It seems that they aren’t capable of keeping agreements and to rules and a basic moral sense in the larger world in the way men are. I’ve grown to be permissive of it, like the adults with Anthony in the Twilight Zone Rollo references, in the sense that I fear the consequences of calling women out on this kind of shit. The response is always escalation and conflict so I just roll on.

  • walawala

    Borderline Personality Disorder and Cluster B traits are more common than acknowledged and often people close to these types of girls enable the behavior by rationalizing it. “He deserved it because all guys are like that..” “it sends a strong message out to all men….” that sort of thing.

    I’ve had two stalkers and it took all I could manage to break free from the urge to engage.

    I just celebrated the one year no contact with my crazy ex who had a large number of Cluster B traits and who broke up, cheated but at the same time was unable to accept that I might move on. When I finally quietly just stopped engaging her and began to look through her, ignore her…she felt it and tried everything to get my attention from being nasty, to being nice.

    I know she bad mouthed me to other people and that had an effect on my social standing to a degree. But I’ve ploughed on and stayed true to my own goals and ideas. Yes it was hard but overall I emerged saner and smarter.

    I celebrated that one year of no contact by meeting up with a hot 20’s girl I was gaming and banging her brains out after cocktails. It was a fitting end to a stormy saga.

    But engaging these types of girls is useless. Society gives them a free pass to do whatever they want because they’re attractive and charming. When you see past their manipulations the best strategy is to leave them be. Eventually they’re self-destruct by going too far in a situation where their behavior can no longer be covered up.

  • kfg

    “Could it be that men have had to adapt fairness and ethics in order to cooperate constructively in larger groups, in high stakes undertakings?”

    Yes. In fact, I take that as my working hypothesis for male social interaction. It is what both the archaeological and anthropological evidence tends to support strongly.

    Not only that, but it makes a damned lot of sense.

    “Hunting the Woolly Mammoth takes a group of men who coordinate and take their roles seriously or the hunt may not be successful.”

    Worse than that, the hunt may be tragic, putting the tribe down a man through injury or death.

    Sperm may be cheap and eggs expensive, but the time scale is that of a generation. The tribe has to first have enough food, on a reliable basis, to make reproduction a viable undertaking in the first place.

    And when the goblins come over the hill, one man who can’t be trusted to hold his place in the line threatens defeat of the whole tribe.

  • kfg

    Addendum:

    There is some debate over where the term “right hand man” comes from, but it’s always seemed intuitively obvious to me that it comes from fighting in a phalanx, where the shield of the man to your right is what protects your exposed side.

  • keyser Soze

    Jian Ghomeshi used the persona(game) of “nice guy” / feminist supporter to get women, and when they ended up in his bedroom , he flipped into a dominant alpha, that caused those women to be turned off (and disgusted). These pussies knew he was no dominant and there was no tingles (though he fucked some beautiful 9s)
    Tingles , tingle with the first impression (just ask Emily).

    Ps: “Hell hath no fury like an Ugly woman scorned”

  • SJF

    @ScribblerG

    “….and SJF (via his Illimitable man cite) attributes it a woman’s preemptive strike based on her fear of male power but I’m just not convinced by these arguments. I notice that women always fail when the stakes go up in any activity. When survival is on the line (the highest of stakes) women are next to useless, at least in my experiences where life and limb were on the line and women were present. And they of course reserve the right to go back on any agreement at any time….”

    Old times vs. new times. Women were never designed to provide usefulness when survival was on the line. Why should they have ability now when they weren’t designed for it?

    My four wheeler wasn’t designed to plow my two acre field in preparation for planting corn. My 83 HP John Deere tractor was.

    In the process of humans growing up (otherwise known as evolutionary process/history) women were never part of the equation of protecting the the band/gang/perimeter. Flash forward 50,000 years and surprise? They are not evolutionarily designed to do that? Biologically, temperamentally, hormonally, neurologically. No. It wasn’t in the design. So when society in large groups came along. And when the last 50 years of letting Matriarchal tendencies (Female stages of manipulation) take over it is really not surprising that they don’t “play fair”. If you are at an evolutionary disadvantage and you are playing a game you are ill equipped to play, do you want to lose at playing fair, or do you want to attempt not playing fair to win? Notwithstanding the bitterness over thousands of years of the evil patriarchy subjugation you?

    Enter Jack Donovan:

    http://theartofcharm.com/podcast-episodes/jack-donovan-the-way-of-men-episode-443/

    “Masculinity comes from what men have needed from each other,” says Jack. “All throughout evolutionary history, we’ve been forced to defend and hunt in these small bands. Kind of like a sports team — who do you want on that team, and what qualities do you want them to have? And those qualities are pretty consistent across cultures.”

    THE FOUR SURVIVAL VIRTUES OF MASCULINITY

    Jack presents four survival virtues that he sees as crucial to defining masculinity.

    “Strength is part of masculinity,” says Jack. “Always has been. It’s biologically part of masculinity. I think that’s an easy first virtue. There’s no culture anywhere that has said that it’s better for men to be weak. That’s just not a thing. It’s never happened — except for maybe ours!”

    “The second (virtue) is courage. If you have people attacking you, if you need to take down an auroch or whatever we were hunting back then, you need a great deal of courage. [You need] people who are going to take the risk when you need them to take the risk for the group. And men have always judged themselves that way. James Bowman is the one I always quote — he wrote a book called Honor: A History — ‘If you want to insult a man, call him a coward.’ In any culture, anywhere. That’s always been true.”

    “The third (virtue) was a catch-all for me. I called it mastery; I also call it competence sometimes. Because you can have a lot of strength and a lot of courage, but if you’re incompetent, it doesn’t actually get you very far. And men judge each other on competence all the time.”

    “Honor (the final virtue) is a confusing topic in our society because a lot of it has been influenced by Christianity and some deep philosophical ideas that extend far beyond that kind of survival group. But I think of honor almost as loyalty. If we’re in a tribe together and you don’t care what I think about you, I can’t trust you. If I can’t say, ‘Hey, you’re screwing up! What are you doing? You’re making us look bad!’ I can’t trust you. I think that’s where the root of honor comes from.”

    Jack also mentions something called reflexive honor. If an injustice is brought upon you by someone, and you don’t retaliate, it opens the door to greater injustices. “We have to present a strong image to the public so that people don’t just walk all over us,” says Jack.

    Men are men, women are women and they were designed to be complementary. Women were not designed to have strength, courage, mastery and honor (for the sake of the collective tribe) and be useful when survival was on the line. There was no reason for them to be selected for those traits evolutionar-ily in the old days when the blueprint (DNA) went down

    So men are stuck between a rock of a tribe (100 person collective) and a hard place of society (millions of men and women).

    Donovan:

    Does this mean that we should abandon the trappings of society altogether and go back to our tribal ways if we ever want to be comfortable with the people we’ve evolved to be? “A lot of people accuse me of always wanting this kind of Mad Max world where everybody’s always in complete conflict,” Jack says. “And while I think that’s a good corrective place, that would never last. Because people would band together and create societies again, because that’s what people do. I think there’s a sweet spot between how much you trade away the job of being a man and how much you keep it.

    Men staying true to form is one thing. Women staying true to form is entirely another thing.

  • rugby11

    Pain and attachment

    Women and children first…

  • SD

    “Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.”

    Unless you’re a high SMV male with obvious game.This will sound like graduate level humblebragging, but I live this fact daily at the office. I crack jokes as a natural part of my personality,and despite that I’ve even been promoted by my female superiors despite saying stuff which would surely get a beta male canned.

    If you’re a “hawt” dude you can get away with murder, socially speaking. Not many cases of high SMV dudes being tried for sexual harassment .

  • Sun Wukong

    @SD

    Wound up tonight at my local bar (just a place to build social connections; the women aren’t worth a shit) snubbing two women that try every time they see me to push FI agenda on me. They constantly try to act like they’ve got some kind of leverage (because feminism) on me, but I pretty much laugh and shrug all their anger off.

    Had one demand (after she had been straight up bitchy) for me to call her by her name instead of “bitch” after some fairly cunty behavior on her part. Told her “If you’re going to try to play with the boys, you’re gonna have to deal with the boys’ rules.” I mean, if a dude’s an asshole or a bitch, we’re calling him out as such right? She thought she was exempt. Both women are light years below me in SMV. Cunty one is a fat young chick who would be an HB4 at best without the extra pounds, the other is a 40+ harpy (perhaps she was an HB6 in her prime) that wound up loudly saying “ASSHOLE” repeatedly in my ear last time she saw me before I told her date to get control of his bitch.

    40+ year old reassured me this time that she could handle her liquor. “No, you can’t. Myself and every bartender in this bar are sure you can’t. You had to be dragged out last time drunk as shit and out of control.”

    “Well are you prepared for cheers this–”

    “No. Thanks for asking,” and I grabbed a bartender over her for a drink. No consequences in either case. Low SMV women really think they can act shitty to a guy like me and get automatic good treatment. It really shocks them when that isn’t the case.

    These are both women who have behaved far shittier than any man from the get go and expected their standard entitlement to male ass kissing, yet continue to try and bother me for it instead of ignoring me. Sure sign that I’m above them in the SMP: no one kicks me out, they don’t ask them to kick me out, and they attempt to engage every time. If I’m so unpleasant, why try again sweetheart?

  • IAS

    If I ever get divorced, learn game and start having sex with other women, I really need to learn how to protect myself against false rape accusations.

    Possibly I should learn that before starting to have sex with other women.

    I think RSD even has some material specifically about that.

  • Sun Wukong

    @IAS

    The 21st century called with one word: “Cameras”.

  • Naka

    Hey Rollo. You say in the Rational Male that women’s sex drive is weaker than men’s. But they have a much more powerful and pleasurable orgasm so is it safe to assume they like sex as much as/more than men? What do you think?

  • IAS

    @Sun: not sure if admissible in court, and certainly “still guilty” even if proven innocent. Better to have specific game strategies to protect it from happening in the first place. But cameras are good. And as a bonus you can watch it later to improve your technique I guess?

  • kfg

    ” . . . not sure if admissible in court . . . ”

    Which is why the security camera industry has been a complete flop.

  • Misanthropist

    @Naka, the belief that women have a lower sex drive than men is a myth. But it is something so deeply ingrained in our culture, that it takes some effort to deprogram from that type of thinking (indeed, until I really swallowed the Red Pill I too believed that women have less need for sex than men do). For most of human history people believed that women were more sexual than men. As with most things, people in the past were usually wiser than today. Our society is probably the most naive and deluded on most things compared to the bulk of human history.

    It often appears at least superficially that men have greater sexual need than women (for example, there is more pornography targeted at men, and more services such as prostitution targeted at men etc.). Yet this is because most men have less opportunity and access to sex than women, not because they have greater sexual need. Sex is easier to come by for most women, as they don’t have to do the initiation and take most of the risks, so they often appear less desperate for it. It is not that women need sex any less. It is just that they can get the sex they need with less effort or initiative on their part.

    Moreover, you have a situation today where most men either have access to a large amount of sexual stimulation (such as pornography) and are also subjected to a large amount of sexual stimulation (such as in the way women dress and act), and yet the majority of men have relatively little access to sexual outlet and release. Desire is ramped up to the max, and yet release and access to the source of that desire is heavily restricted. This is not a natural state of affairs. It is a heavily distorted situation. This is likely part of a broader agenda to control and demoralise men.

  • SJB

    What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).
    .
    I’d suggest this is incorrectly attributed: if I understand correctly, the FI is a subconscious biological process manifesting in general amongst females. While the FI may influence feminists I’d say the feminist identity is the preeminent rational construct in play.
    .
    In that light, identity groups have been very successful in modifying civil codes to include non-causal, thus non-evidentiary, terms. That is, the existence of such a thing as a “hate crime” shows the lurch toward accusation-as-conviction.
    .
    My reaction to the situation was also surprise—surprise that evidence was given the appropriate weight and identity group assertions disregarded.
    .
    Very well written on your part. Thank you.

  • Misanthropist

    What is striking about all this is that men are afraid of being labelled sexist or misogynistic if they dare to think or express any critical views about women. Yet women are allowed, nay encouraged to, think the absolute worst about men in every situation.

    What so many groups want nowadays is the right to judge and condemn others, but to never be judged themselves or forced to accept responsibility for anything. Women can judge and condemn men, but men are not allowed to cast the slightest aspersions on women’s character. Or to put it in terms of script analysis, it is a hard game of ‘I’m OK, you’re not OK’.

  • scribblerg

    @Keyser – I also had the same suspicion that could it be Gomeshi’s Betaness aroused this buyer’s remorse? But then I couldn’t factor that in his dominant sexual behavior. I wonder, are Pajama Boys really choking women and dominating them physically? He’s got the cool, sultry, progressive kind of good looks that some women find attractive but also presents himself in such a hardcore SJW/Blue Pill way it would seem axiomatically beta. Perhaps is a Beta with a side of Alpha in the sack, and this causes the buyer’s remorse?

    Anyone else here have a thought on this aspect?

  • scribblerg

    @Misanthrope – So all those studies showing how men think about sex far more frequently than women are just nonsense? What about the fact that men can become aroused in a matter of seconds whereas the process takes much longer for women?

    Using the term sex drive is a bit misleading in that I think it’s true that men don’t understand women have a dualistic mating strategy (one of the major topics of this blog, fyi) which includes a purely lust driven strategy, based solely on good acquiring good genes for reproduction. You are correct that many men cannot face this aspect of female sexuality squarely. I also think that part of what we are seeing today is women flaunting this aspect of their mating strategy openly in ways that were not acceptable in most cultures (not all) in the past. But in the end, testosterone is largely responsible for sex drive and men have much more of it.

    But of course, you give away your fatuousness with the following statements:
    “For most of human history people believed that women were more sexual than men.” – Really? Have any data to prove this? Keep in mind there are about as many people alive today as there were who ever existed, so a population weighted evaluation of human history would see current culture as pretty important in any analysis…

    “As with most things, people in the past were usually wiser than today” – Horseshit. This strikes me as likely a part of a larger “Nobel Savage fallacy” that you adhere to.

    “Our society is probably the most naive and deluded on most things compared to the bulk of human history.” – More hyperbole. Human knowledge has expanded so greatly in the past 100 years that to compare our current understanding of ourselves and the world around us to any previous state can only lead you to conclude that earlier versions of humanity were comparatively fucking retarded. As for being deluded, so I guess you think dancing around to make it rain or worshiping a Sun God wasn’t deluded?

    Sure, we have plenty of delusions today. Human beings can easily be seen as meaning-making, story-telling machines run amok and we can tell ourselves some doozies. What you miss, apparently, is that in our modern world, the so-called Age of Reason, we temper and true these stories up via reason and science collectively in ways we simply never did before.

    Have a nice day.

  • Yollo Comanche

    @Misanthropist.

    It’s not about whether women like sex. It’s all about the context of female sexuality, along with the hard scientific fact that women go into different stages of sexual receptiveness as they menstruate. I hear PUAs talk all the time about how women are JUST AS sexual as men. I used to think it was a misleading marketing tactic, but maybe they really were all just stupid as hell before 2010.

    Read it and weep, they are NOT as sexual. Their mind is just such that they are far more likely to buy useless shit with the right pitch.

    Ever met a girl who DOESN’T have a closet full of worthless crap?

    Me neither.

    What do you think the odds are that she doesn’t have a bunch of worthless sperm donors in her past? Stick with this and you’ll see what I mean.

    That is men, who donate WORTHLESS sperm? As in, these are men with no prospects or at least, no intention to couple up with them?

    Jell up your hair, and learn to act excited and you JUST might pass for hot.

    It’s an oversimplification, but I can tell you’re gonna have problems understanding it.

  • scribblerg

    @SJF – Well said, and i think that part of honor is one’s word, keeping it and actually understanding the value of it. One’s word is (or was) currency among men. And of course, I was speaking from what I internalized from Jack Donovan’s and other’s work.

    How do you weigh that view against Rollo’s assessment that Gomeshi’s trial and the rabid SJW/RadFem reaction to it is more a collective attempt to push forward the options of female sexual agency and to frame male sexual agency to women’s advantage? I like the argument intellectually, in that it looks like an attempt to impose an optionality on male sexuality for women so they can always revert to claim they were “coerced” or worse (after putting in miniskirts while swilling vodka, eagerly approaching the night with the goal of making out with some random guy).

    But to me, individually it looks much more like the kind of childishness women display rather frequently when it comes to getting their way in just about anything. In a culture that is so permissive to, and actually hagiographic of women, I see it more as this individual lack of accountability being mixed with the social ecology. I also wonder how much Blue Pill beta maleness has put all of this on steroids?

    Consider how enthusiastically the likes of Gomeshi embrace a femcentric order and the demonization of masculinity, maleness, men, boys and fathers? It seems to me that without enthusiastic male support and enforcement, none of this would be occurring.

    Perhaps this is what Rollo means after all with his collective characterizations but I think seeing the individual behavior and the adaptive strategy is more revealing than collective social strategies. I mean, I don’t think the radfem/SJW movement is as covert as all that. I think they really believe men are oppressors and they they are oppressed I don’t think at any conscious level the radfems ever rub their hands together in glee and claim, “Ha ha, now we can do whatever we want.”

  • qsajaq

    That’s interesting. Because men can overpower women on the whole, it is a woman’s brain that is rooted in a mortal fear of men. All their behaviours and rationalizations, indeed even cognitive frameworks, are rooted in a mortal fear of men. So interesting that now we are being trained to fear women.

  • Yollo Comanche

    @Scribblerg

    Hey I read Donovan’s book. If there’s a punch-line, I’d say it’s that he wants me to read his other book to better understand the book I bought.
    I’ll figure out the punch-line dammit.

  • scribblerg

    @Yollo – LMFAO, talk about a long running gambit. The punch line is that Jack Donovan is gay. Yet he’s a very masculine man in his own way. Most guys are shocked to find this out.

    As for him being inscrutable, I’m not sure I see it that way. I actually don’t think he’s a good writer in that there seems more to what he’s saying than there actually is. Don’t get me wrong, what he has to say is crucial but he’s a guy who should stick to video blogging or essays. The book itself was not well constructed and while the writing is okay, thematically and rhetorically it’s just not organized that well. IMHO, of course.

    Develop the 4 Virtues. Form your gang. Recognize that the modern world is set against all your instincts and impulses and deal with life on your own terms. All of this is essential advice for men.

  • Stingray

    The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

    This. This is what it is all about. Power and winning.

  • SJF

    @ScribblerG

    Imagine you are a child of 16 years old. Were you not sneaky and try to bend the rules of those in authority?

    When I was that age I went on a study tour for us German students at a Jesuit high school. We spent 4 days in London initially and were free to roam with food vouchers when we weren’t touring the sites in a group with guides.

    On the last day there we had a bunch of food vouchers stored up and went to a steak and ale pub for lunch (and then again for dinner). The drinking age was 17. We sat by the sidewalk picture window and ordered beers. Our sub-comms easily alerted the owner to the fact that we were under-age drinkers. He questioned us and we admitted that we were 16. So did he punish us? No. He asked us to move to the back of the restaurant and enjoy our meals and ale at a back table in the restaurant (a little more out of sight). See where I’m going here? It was deal that both us and the the tavern owner were complicit with and served our needs.

    The rest of the tour through Amsterdam, the Rhine Valley, East Berlin, Vienna and the border town of Constance on Lake Constance (The Bodensee) was chaperoned on a small troop level by a Jesuit priest who was getting a free ride and enjoyed his wine. We were childish and sneaky and he wasn’t helicoptering over us. So we snuck around and got our way with beers and pints of brandy (Asbach Uralt–Der Geist Des Weines). It was against tour rules and USA ethics, but the drinking age in Germany was 16 for beer. But we were responsible (insofar as we didn’t fuck up), yet taking advantage of the situation. And no one forced us to use the native language because we weren’t enforced to do so.

    Children will get away with what they will according to their natures. If you are feeling oppressed (as feminists do in an alleged former patriarchy, and now the half-matriarchy) you will easily get away with it because you are feeling oppressed yet sneaky and powerful ( with smarts). We weren’t playing fair (according to the rules), but there was no one at a level that could enforce us not to sneak in the hooliganism.

    I think the same goes on with Radfeminism and SJW’s. They are simply left to their childishness as adults where men and societies can’t enforce every rule in place.

    It is no different than:

    Perhaps this is what Rollo means after all with his collective characterizations but I think seeing the individual behavior and the adaptive strategy is more revealing than collective social strategies. I mean, I don’t think the radfem/SJW movement is as covert as all that. I think they really believe men are oppressors and they they are oppressed I don’t think at any conscious level the radfems ever rub their hands together in glee and claim, “Ha ha, now we can do whatever we want.”

    The take home message? Yes it is individual and adaptive. It is right there under our noses (not covert) now. Woman are like that and it can cause grief like the Jian Ghomeshi ordeal. And we all know the Red Pill drill for men, right? Get through the K-R stages, accept it and adapt. And then get out there and Game. With a bottoms-up approach.

  • Misanthropist

    “So all those studies showing how men think about sex far more frequently than women are just nonsense?”

    Who says they are nonsense? That may well be true. But you have to consider what they are measuring. As I said, men are more preoccupied with sex because sex is harder to come by for men than it is for women. Not because of a greater innate biological need for sex.

    I suppose you could do a study showing that a starving man thinks about food a lot more often than someone with access to sufficient food. Does that prove he has a greater innate biological need for food?

    “But in the end, testosterone is largely responsible for sex drive and men have much more of it.”

    It is a bit simplistic and reductionist to reduce something like sexual desire down to one variable, Mr Science and Reason.

    I guess that’s why socially awkward men spend so much time wanking off to porn in front of their computers all day. It’s because they are such macho men with sky high testosterone levels, they can’t help but think of sex all the time dontchaknow. It’s got nothing to do with the simple fact of human nature that people end up wanting more that which they cannot have.

    “Really? Have any data to prove this?”

    Gotta love posters that demand data and evidence for every claim made by others, but feel no need to provide the same for their own claims.

    If you decide to provide a comprehensive reference list for every post you make in future, then feel free to criticize me for not doing the same.

    “As for being deluded, so I guess you think dancing around to make it rain or worshiping a Sun God wasn’t deluded?”

    No, but thank God modern humans are not stupid and deluded enough to think that human activity or token gestures can have a significant impact on things such as the weather or climate. /sarc

    “What you miss, apparently, is that in our modern world, the so-called Age of Reason,”

    We are living in the Age of Reason? Now you are just taking the piss.

  • SJF

    @ScribblerG

    “The punch line is that Jack Donovan is gay. Yet he’s a very masculine man in his own way. Most guys are shocked to find this out.”

    I knew that before I read the book. I was not miffed. It didn’t make any difference at all. Just like race doesn’t matter when judging the content of one’s character his message is for the masculine imperative.

    “I actually don’t think he’s a good writer in that there seems more to what he’s saying than there actually is.”

    Some of us didn’t get the memo on what masculinity was when growing up and compounded with the fact that a feminized society is meant to confuse masculine boys, the message is a simple one.

    I mean guys like Blaximus got the message from the males in the extended family because of over teachings about masculinity and the sub-communication of the men. The Greeks, Romans and Spartans got the memo back when there was less societal noise.

    And the practical message stands as spelled out in your last paragraph.

  • Cosmococcic

    “the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.”

    Due to “Enough is Enough” policy recently enacted on SUNY campuses,
    https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-suny-adopts-comprehensive-system-wide-uniform-sexual-assault-policy#
    this is already occurring in pockets of society. A similar policy is in place on California state campuses.

    From the policy: “(a right to)Be free from any suggestion that the victim/survivor is at fault when these crimes and violations are committed, or should have acted in a different manner to avoid such a crime.”

    Presumption of innocence of victim(and correspondingly, guilt of alleged assailant) is built into the policy. Should you be a male accused of such an action, you will be presumed guilty and the burden will be on you to prove your innocence.

    Unfortunately, I’m aware of this because it’s likely my son will attend such a university within two years.

  • SJF

    @Misanthropist

    I take it you haven’t read the class material yet?

    https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/

  • scribblerg

    @SJF – Misanthropist is a pseudonym for scroll wheel…Nothing to see here. Listen to his response to me, pure troll. Can’t defend a fucking thing he says, moves the goalposts, substitutes snark for reason and then declares victory. I’ll give you 10:1 odds he spends a lot of time playing video games.

  • ace

    Misanthropist

    March 26th, 2016 at 4:59
    “the belief that women have a lower sex drive than men is a myth.”

    Not at all a myth…simple fact. Mens drive is constantly high (high in comparison to women) womens drive is much more dyamic – high highs, low lows and everything in between. Maybe your view is skewed because you’re meeting them only/primarily when they’re uber horny?

    If women had a sex drive comparable to men we as a species would have died out a long time ago. We wouldn’t be doing much more than fucking. Literally fucking ourselves to death.

  • Jordan Awlings

    interesting point about the UK article. In Ontario, there are “sexual harassment” and sexual violence program legislated all over the work abd private sphere. Check this link:

    https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2015/10/ontario-strengthening-laws-to-stop-sexual-violence-and-harassment.html

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Naka, Misanthrop:
    https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/

    There are very simple biological reasons you are mistaken.

  • ace

    Misanthropist

    March 26th, 2016 at 7:20 am

    “I guess that’s why socially awkward men spend so much time wanking off to porn in front of their computers all day.”

    Porn and wanking off to it is an activity which almost all men are engaging in today, not only “socially awkward men”. Blue balls is a condition most men, awkward or not, are afflicted by. Guess why?

  • Roy

    Is it better to be loved or feared? Can you trully “love” what you fear?

  • Jeremy

    There are physical reasons, probably derivable down to energy conservation, why men are more horny than women.

    1) Human estrus is more chemical-energy costly than producing sperm
    2) Because estrus is energy intensive, it is biologically taxing (perhaps mortally so) for this process to be occurring very often in a body.
    3) Because of this, estrus has to be cyclical, not persistent.
    4) Because Estrus is cyclical, human procreation is now dependent on it.
    5) Unlike other primates, human estrus is mostly invisible/concealable.
    6) Because human female fertility is invisible, and because human procreation depends on human females being fertile… the only situation that works is if men are “always ready” for sex.

    If you have half of a sexually dimorphic species, who by virtue of being the center of the more-chemically intensive process in procreation cannot always be ready for procreation… then by god if you ever expect that species to procreate the other half of the species better be ready to have sex at any moment. If males were cyclical, if men also had a “cycle” that determined when sperm were viable, then the misalignment of the cycles would be deadly for the species.

    Hence, men are far more “horny” than women. We have to be, if we weren’t.. if we found reasons to have “headaches” on a whim to play games with women, the human race would have died off.

  • theasdgamer

    I’d like some Game analysis of a convo.

    Context: Hookup bar about 8:30. I was chatting with some girls and a bartender. I’ve known these girls for a few months and have danced with them some over that time. Haven’t sexualized much. Girl 1 is a girlie girl and pretty. Girl 2 is dorky and lovely. She wears these large, dorky black-framed glasses. A tall blonde. Girl 2 is mildly attracted to me. She wanted to dance cuddly once. Maybe more than mildly, she’s a bit hard to read. Girl 1 is very good friends with Girl 2 from high school. Both girls are in late 20s, so track-switching. UMC.

    A bartender (man) made a hose joke. I dovetailed off of that by saying that I could take a hose at the other end of the bar and my hose would be longer. Looking at the bartender and both of us laughing.

    Girl 1, shocked tone: That was inappropriate!

    Me, looking at the bartender, both of us laughing, then glancing over at Girl 1: We were talking about water hoses, what were you thinking about? I looked at the bartender again, both of us laughing.

    Girl 1, protesting: There are ladies present.

    I started looking around, taking the girls by the shoulders, moving them around, looking behind the girls.

    Me: Where?

    Everyone was laughing. Girl 1 attempted to make a lame joke about a third girl who walked up.

    I started off where Girl 1 assumed that I was in beta frame, lol, because I hadn’t sexualized much. She saw the bartender as an alpha and he could get away with sexual jokes, but not me, lol. So she shit-tested me when I sexualized the convo. I blew her shit test away with a humorous shiv of her social awareness for missing the plausible deniability of my double entendre, which she enjoyed. Girl 1 then shit tested me a second time about ladies being present. Then I teased Girl 1 about her pretension to ladyship. Not sure if I blew that away with my convo, but my kino of moving the girls around probably blew the shit test away.

    When I danced with Girl 2, she was always trying hard to please. Girl 1 asked me to dance once, but she was more guarded when we danced. Both girls were fun to dance with and I have taught both a lot about dancing.

    I read Girl 1 as standoffish because her friend is attracted to me. Disqualified herself for her friend.

  • theasdgamer

    @ Jeremy

    There are physical reasons, probably derivable down to energy conservation, why men are more horny than women.

    Men have a higher resting state of sexual desire, but get women around a desirable man and their sexual desire can spike higher than a man’s. Men don’t go throwing their underwear at women, but women throw panties at men who are rock stars.

  • enrique

    Every White Knight I have known, in any position of power, who “helped” women get into positions of authority just under him, or lateral to him, got viciously stabbed by them in the back shortly after. I think some of these high-positioned Alphas (otherwise) had no choice in a way, and had to “play along” (clearly the white dude at Yale is not this type, he was in on it from the very BEGINNING of his career).

    But for the senior manager at a big company or govt agency, they almost have to play the game–and then they get stabbed in the back later, you almost sense they knew it would end that way. Other men don’t necessarily learn from this because the details are always compartmentalized to where other guys, especially if not RP do not put all the facts together to realize what happened.

    These liberal/progressive pricks on campus and elsewhere deserve EVERY backstab they receive.

  • Jeremy

    @theasdgamer

    No doubt you are correct. For instance, there is no male equivalent of this:

    Our fem-centric society has decided that the measure of horniness is male sexuality, and has used that yardstick as a club to beat men with for being “too obsessed with sex.”

  • Kyfho Myoba

    @Keyser, ScribblerG,

    We really have no idea what the initial socio-sexual dynamics between Gomeshi and the Liars were – whether he presented as Alpha or Beta. What we do know, is that he fucked them, and fucked them well enough that they returned for more, many, many times. Ahem. These are not the results that a Beta gets.

    It is more likely that the Liars wanted more (sex, commitment, who knows?) than Gomeshi was willing to provide, and, well, you know, PATRIARCHY!!!!!

  • Ang Aamer

    Slightly off topic but I think I found a female Anthony!

    I read the Sub-Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/creepyPMs/
    It’s a cruel place where messages from Betas to Entitled sluts get critiqued to the amusement of the sluts and omegas who inhabit the reddit.

    The thread to look at is this one:

    It’s a screen cap of a POF messaging – FYI You will be confused if you DO NOT Click the LOAD REMAINING IMAGES to get the sluts advice.
    Remember – LOAD REMAINING IMAGES

    Her comments mixed with Omega comments are here – https://www.reddit.com/r/creepyPMs/comments/4c004j/in_which_i_am_asked_to_give_a_critique_and_do_so/

    TL;DR version – Guy with minimal Red Pill and PUA skills takes out a girl who lives with 7 guys (yep count em).
    The date did not go well and at the end she starts to do the Ghost but for some inexplicable reason she decides to give him advice.
    She enumerates 7 red flags – one being his concern with her having 7 male roommates, two his dominating personality, three his attempt to touch her by reading her palm

    This whole sordid tale really confused me. But if I put my red pill glasses on I realize what is going on.
    If you use the mantra watch what women do not what they say. You can see what is going on.
    She talks A LOT about her sensitivity to her living arrangement. I mean she brings it up at least three times. She even enumerates one of her red flags about it.
    So… It’s pretty obvious that the 7 dudes in the house are not just “roommates”. In fact the 3 girls she lives with too may not be just “roommates” either.

    Yes oh yes polyamory is here! To my way of thinking if you put Mndlsspnx in the category of rinsing and assume she is using POF for free food and ego stroking.
    The real story emerges, she had no intention of having any interaction with her date. She was there for the Sushi. Her physical needs are met elsewhere and POF is just to shop for the better deal and free food.

    Which brings me to a topic I think needs to be addressed – How can we determine if a girl is serious or just using?

    One technique I have tried is asking if she will have a beer with me. (POF says beer drinking is highly correlated with first date sex).
    So I ask. If I get the direct no – I basically bail and stick her with the tab. If I get the no I drink wine or some such… I just assume that no action is happening and decide from there.
    Usually though If I get the snippy NO with attitude I’ll end the date right there. It’s obvious that she is not respecting me so there is no point in continuing.

    Anyone have ideas?

  • kfg

    ” . . . the white dude at Yale is not this type, he was in on it from the very BEGINNING of his career . . .”

    It turns out that the girl screaming “Who the fuck hired you?” was on the committee that hired him.

  • scribblerg

    @Jeremy – Very nice explication of the biological costs of estrus. You touched on the topic of how female fertility is hidden, whereas in some other species it is easily detectable in males. It seems males in those species are also “always on” sexually so I think you are right that it pays to have maximum choice for women when they are fertile but it doesn’t explain the hidden nature of female human estrus.

    According to this article which summarizes research on concealed estrus, http://pkhanal.umwblogs.org/2009/11/22/loss-of-estrus-evolution-of-concealed-ovulation-in-humans/ and it turns out that concealed estrus coincides with monogamy and increased parental investment.

    Yet human females advertise estrus via more flirtatious behavior and also engage in different sexual behavior. The implication of this is profound for the Red Pill male. It seems that women do this so they can con Beta/Provider men into sex, thinking it gives them a chance at reproduction while also changing strategies to advertise fertility when it’s on for best genetic quality. Female dualistic mating strategies have an incredibly deep biological basis and social utility that most women – and even many Red Pill men – can’t seem to come to grips with.

    I know Rollo has explained this here in different ways, and that you already get this. But I think it’s worth getting and repeating and exploring as I know that in my case, I haven’t been able to appreciate this deeply and personally until I began gaming correctly and in earnest. I find myself trying to distinguish between signalling comfort/providership and lover/best genes yet I find that due to past habits and also being older/successful, I trigger the former at times and it actually appears like real interest and attraction. I’ve also had situations with my “soft sugar babies” where the initial setup was provision seeking (in terms of generosity and mentoring and an emergency payment of a phone bill etc) but when having sex, by going all dominant, I was able to get what seemed like real desire going. G-spot Os and real ferocity and passion sexually, or at least something much better than Starfish sex.

    Anyone here have thoughts on this? Can one use both of these signals to get laid effectively? My infield experience tells me being the older guy triggers the provider response naturally sometimes and until recently I’ve focused on disqualifying myself that way. But I’m starting to play around more with exciting the comfort aspects too (not direct provisioning or overtly negotiated desire like I used to do with the soft sugar babies) and then disqualifying and projecting dominance. It feels right somehow, but this could easily be Blue Pill thinking working away in me.

    Would love to hear from other guys on this. It may be that this kind of game is optimal. I also find I have a caring/comfort impulse with younger woman, like the 29 yo 9 i’m working as she is only two years older than my daughter. Taking on the paternalistic role (not with material provisioning, I make clear I’m not available for that and in fact disqualify myself financially overtly) seems quite natural and a vibe that 20s yo women react to nicely.

    Have a great day guys! I’m working but moving it to the cafe so there may be some real time FRs coming in!

  • Jeremy

    @scribblerg

    Yet human females advertise estrus via more flirtatious behavior and also engage in different sexual behavior. The implication of this is profound for the Red Pill male. It seems that women do this so they can con Beta/Provider men into sex, thinking it gives them a chance at reproduction while also changing strategies to advertise fertility when it’s on for best genetic quality. Female dualistic mating strategies have an incredibly deep biological basis and social utility that most women – and even many Red Pill men – can’t seem to come to grips with.

    Exactly, I think it makes the most sense to consider hidden estrus the most recent evolutionary expression of female attempts to control human procreation (optimize hypergamy). If women can have (some level of) conscious control of their signals (as opposed to involuntary biological signals), they have some control over which males get to procreate. This is only possible with hidden estrus. I’d gather that male stoicism is an in-process response.

  • stuffinbox

    Can a man that has been relegated to the proverbial cornfield ever return to consensus society?
    IMO short of a change of identity and venue,not likely.
    For high profile men like Cosby,Gomeshi etc. cornfield survival is not even an option,it would seem the only viable option would be to embrace the new villain role and run with it.This option is hardly viable for most because of the internal moral conflict implied.
    Hence the men in the cornfield hear the siren call and fight down their idealistic temptation,having once survived the rocks,not wanting a repeat experience.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Because men can overpower women on the whole, it is a woman’s brain that is rooted in a mortal fear of men. All their behaviours and rationalizations, indeed even cognitive frameworks, are rooted in a mortal fear of men.

    Sexual dimorphism alone explains a lot of female behavior, add hidden estrus into the mix and a great, great deal is explainable.

    I believe that a lot of women look at men as a horse whisperer looks at a horse; big, not too bright animal that can cause a lot of damage if poorly managed, but quite useful otherwise.

    So interesting that now we are being trained to fear women.

    Not all men. Just, oh, 90%….and that’s no coincidence.

  • kfg

    ” . . . it would seem the only viable option would be to embrace the new villain role and run with it.”

    If you’re going to be convicted no matter what, might as well do as you please.

  • stuffinbox

    @ AR
    I agree with your analogy,leaving men to avoid the Bit,being put out to pasture or sold to become Alpo.

  • Kate Minter

    “When I had my first kid and I was stuck at home with her all day while she slept…”

    How charming. Your feminism is showing. Allow me to correct you:

    When we had our first child and I was blissfully content at home getting to spend every moment with her…

  • stuffinbox

    @KFG “might as well do as you please.”

    Took a guest up to my alpine honey hole yesterday,aside from the postholeing and outright floundering through deep drifts,he landed a trophy mackinaw and we both caught the limit.STELLAR day w/ no bitches present.

  • keyser Soze

    Women are the weaker sex, when you’re weak, you can never play a fair game. weakness for women is a double edge sword , in order for the Tingle to generate, she has to enter into a dominant man’s frame, she has to be at peace with her weakness to “Tingle” otherwise, she can never Tingle.

    Beautiful woman (above 8s) are at peace with their nature, they can afford being weak and get Tingle + $$ from any man . Ugly women(all feminists /under 8s) are the opposite, they don’t play fair, and they are scorned and vindictive.

    13 years ago, Ghomeshi’s women were after his status in the “artsy world” to advance their dying careers, they weren’t attracted to him, he knew that, so did they.
    He likes to be dominant in bed (which is normal) and for some reason he was turned on by how those women looked (they look like weak/ retards).
    13 years ago they were ready(not happy) to be “sexually assaulted” by him had he stayed with them (or you can bring a spin Doctor to explain the psychological reasons why women stays in “abusive relationship”)
    13 years later, these women are much older, uglier, angrier and hey! Let’s call the Law against this Persian sonovabitch.
    And while at it, let us change the justice system where you can go to jail if you dump(feminists) ugly women .

  • kfg

    @Stuff in Box:

    Still waiting for opening day here in the land of an 18″ brownie being a big deal.

    Except for the snow bit, I’m jealous.

  • SJB

    @scribblerg: Can one use both of these signals to get laid effectively? My infield experience tells me being the older guy triggers the provider response naturally sometimes and until recently I’ve focused on disqualifying myself that way.
    .
    A neophyte’s opinion: the woman has no idea she’s signaling much less why she is signaling. If you strongly guide her away from BB and she still shows interest that’s great. If she tries to re-frame you as BB then it’s a next. In other words, why she’s approaching your frame is unimportant; what is important is that she enter your frame via capitulation rather than negotiation. You lay because that’s what you want.
    .
    Hidden estrus, in my experience, is hidden from the woman as well: of those with whom I’ve copulated only one has every even guessed that she was ovulating. Only two kept record of the start of menses.

  • stuffinbox

    @kfg
    An 18″ Brown is a big deal in any land,where hesitation leads to regret.
    As for the snow another set of 36″ Canadian webs are in order.

  • scribblerg

    @Jeremey – “If women can have (some level of) conscious control of their signals (as opposed to involuntary biological signals), they have some control over which males get to procreate. This is only possible with hidden estrus. I’d gather that male stoicism is an in-process response.”

    This is what I was trying to get at. It gives women conscious control, which they will even talk about openly if you get them very comfortable with you and the believe you “just get it”. I still find this mindblowing, how overt is it in some ways but also how it’s never, ever discussed openly in mainstream society. And it’s so basic, I mean hidden estrus is a fairly unique feature of human sexuality?

    I know a woman right now who told me that she would fuck the guy next door in exchange for building a shed for her. The idea of exchange of sex for services just seemed so natural. It came up because I told her that he was doing it in hopes that she would fuck him

    Her response – Now Listen Up Boys!!! – “I would fuck him if he thought he could fuck me.” She’s quite attractive. Get this. This is a guy who hasn’t been laid in a long time, and certainly not by a woman as attractive as her. Yet he’s willing to do all the work on spec, hoping she’ll throw him some pussy instead of at least demanding it. He’s not an older guy either, lol.

    At least when I was doing my soft sugar daddy stuff I was overt about it – you will fuck me in exchange for my mentoring and cooking you a steak and coming over and smoking weed and hitting me up for gas money and shit. But since this guy doesn’t have the balls to at least ask for provisioning sex, so he won’t get it. It also brings to mind the convo set I ran with a hottie 20yo I shared some time back, when talking about the pathetic beta who was always nice and always texting her. When I asked, “So why do you respond at all?” She replied, “Well I do my laundry there every two weeks.” I asked, “Wouldn’t you respect him more if he at least said next time that you were welcome to com over to do your laundry but you have to do so topless.” She grinned and said, “Yeah, and I’d probably do it and respect him more.”.

    Women really don’t respect guys who don’t have enough self-respect to at least try and get what they want, even if it’s not alpha selection. Word to the wise, provisioners, it may be “negotiated desire” but it’s still better than porn. Btw, I’m sure this is what the girls in the article Rollo cited meant by “coercion”, lol. Imagine, the nerve of a Beta guy actually trying to get some sex in return for his services.

    Keep peeling the onion boys.

  • enrique

    kfg: Interesting, I did not know that. My favorite line of hers was the whole “this is about making me a comfortable home” or whatever. Too funny.

    To their (barely granted) credit, the Yale dude and his wife basically pulled out of the system, right? The wifey wrote some addendum to her original crybaby blog or something from what I recall. They “got it” and realized like any good coup, they themselves were going to be thrust upon the wall to be shot.

    Happens in all takeovers, some of the “smart” Cubans (etc) who were part of the Revolution, get the fuck out asap, because they realize where it’s headed. The Yale guy and his wife essentially fled to avoid the obvious end to their careers.

    May they ALL get the same treatment, but don’t expect pity from me or other Libertarians, Conservatives or Red Pillers.

  • emilyy96

    “When I had my first kid and I was stuck at home with her all day while she slept”

    RPW in a nutshell.

  • keyser Soze

    Ghomeshi ‘s lawyer Marie Henein ,one week before the ruling (by the way, she was attacked by feminists for defending Ghomeshi).

    her golden rule: Always mean what you say and be prepared to walk away.

    “The minute you are desperate for something to settle, your opponent knows and you have lost,” said Henein.

    http://www.westerngazette.ca/news/henein-inspires-packed-law-school-audience/article_98e9b3a0-ead9-11e5-80aa-03845497006e.html

  • keyser Soze

    @Emily the little unless bitch.
    I mean, what the fuck Is wrong with you?
    Different fucking photo of yourself every time you post? I mean, what the fuck?
    Do you think this is fucking Facebook?
    I fucking hate hate hate your face and all the lip stick you put on the pigs lips.
    Get fucking over it, you are not a 10 or a 9 or an 8.
    Now if you show some tits (not that you have any) you might be a 7. (in my scale a7 is ugly).

  • kfg

    @Enrique:

    The scholar in me fixed on the prefix: “It is not about creating an intellectual space!”

    At fucking Yale.

    ” . . . the Yale dude and his wife basically pulled out of the system, right?”

    The wife resigned, the dude is “taking a one semester sabbatical.”

    Others, disgusted with the system, are starting to abandon the sinking ship:

    http://observer.com/2016/02/yale-art-school-dean-robert-storr-steps-down-first-woman-named-to-role/

    His replacement is system to the bone:

    http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160209/yale-school-of-art-getting-first-female-dean-in-marta-kuzma

  • Forge the Sky

    Alright, we got a roundtable going. Just thought I’d throw out a reminder if anyone wanted to join😉

  • kfg

    Addendum:

    The dude, whose spine you can watch gradually crumble over the course of the confrontation, was once on Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World list.

    Should he return to his position, he will do so as an eggshell waiting to be walked on.

  • emilyy96

    Forge!😀
    Whats a roundtable?

  • scribblerg

    @Emily – It’s a table with no corners.

  • Forge the Sky

    Sorry Em, no ovaries allowed. House rules.

  • Pinelero

    OMG… I just closely looked at the pic of the fat lady being taken into protective custody- I think that’s a nipple. Even with tits it’s time for her to GTFO.

  • kfg

    @Pinelero:

    She’s a member of FEMEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femen

    That’s her on the right: https://twitter.com/FemenCanada

    Scroll down a bit to see the “official PR” photo of her back, which has “WOMEN DECLARE GHOMESHI GUILTY” written across it. Across her front (for which there is thankfully no PR photo) is written, “MISOGYNY IN BED AND IN COURT”.

  • Sun Wukong

    @keyser

    Damn bro. Butthurt much?

  • Anonymous Reader

    keyser soze to Emilyslut
    I mean, what the fuck Is wrong with you?

    She’s a 20 year old dearie in need of attention.

    Duh.

    What’s wrong with you that you can’t see this truth right in front of you?

    BTW, LeeLee’s comment about staying home with her baby & hanging out on social media / uselessnet web forums is something every man under 30 needs to pay attention to. The modern young woman is a habitual user of social media, it’s the modern sewing circle. She’s in need of that social stroking, so a wise man would choose where and what she socializes with. Because if he doesn’t, she’s gonna, and one more time: women are herd creatures, they will take on the opinions of the herd.

    Churchgoing men would be well advised to find a church with a women’s study that is not too feminist. The alternative … something very different.

  • Jeremy

    @kfg

    Has someone told that woman her face looks like a man? Seriously, she looks like my brother.

  • The Question

    “Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

    Dalrock has elaborated on this mentality before. No girl wants to be seen as a slut, including sluts. So they engage in grandiose rationalizations or keep moving the boundary posts as to what behavior constitutes a slut to justify their own choices.

    As long as they can say to themselves “I’m a good girl” and they’re seen as one by others, they’ll do it.

    The problem is as much as they want to maintain that balance, the context of their encounters can beyond the restrictions they’ve placed in their head as to what a “good girl” does and doesn’t do, and only they know what that is.

    Thus we things like this:

    “Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.””

    One wonders how many of these girls’ “assaults” were just encounters that violated their “good girl” code. Their behavior so dramatically crossed the line between good girl and slut in their mind that they can’t rationalize it as such or move the goal post that far. Their only other possible option is to acknowledge they consensual engaged in slutty behavior or rationalize to themselves that they somehow didn’t consent to “that” part of the night.

    If that’s the case, calling hookups “assaults” is just spraying WD-40 into the rusting sections of the hamster wheel.

    It’s ironic that they bash the patriarchy but it is only under such a system viable, practical mechanisms are put in place to ensure women’s safety. Chaperones and multi-layered modest dresses left little room for ambiguity as to whether an encounter was consensual or not.

  • Anonymous Reader

    kfg on Yale
    His replacement is system to the bone:

    The bone is pretty easy to see in that hatchet face…

  • Looking For Zion

    This reminds me of an encounter I had while in the military. One of the women on my crew was getting married and was complaining one day about how some of the hundreds of wishes in her jar weren’t coming true. When I.reached my limit with her whining I told her sometimes you can’t always get what you want. Her response was instant red faced anger, a “how dare you talk to me that way” and stomping off the aircraft. She didn’t talk to me for like two weeks. Not that I really cared. But it was an experience that taught me how different women are when told something they don’t want to hear. It shatters their inner reality, which is reality for them.

  • Anonymous Reader

    One wonders how many of these girls’ “assaults” were just encounters that violated their “good girl” code.

    …the morning after…or the week after…or the month after…or..well, see the Ghomeshi accusers, eh?

    Their behavior so dramatically crossed the line between good girl and slut in their mind that they can’t rationalize it as such or move the goal post that far.

    Their behavior when they are in their own little nasty world is thrilling but when the compare notes later with girlfriends it becomes, oops! I didn’t mean to do THAT! He must have rayped me!

    It’s ironic that they bash the patriarchy but it is only under such a system viable, practical mechanisms are put in place to ensure women’s safety. Chaperones and multi-layered modest dresses left little room for ambiguity as to whether an encounter was consensual or not.

    Of course they bash it, because that system left little room for the ambiguity that is a core part of female sexuality. Ambiguity, plausible deniability – it’s all part of their strategy set. The problem we see now is that having given women pretty much all that they want, they still keep winding up with Beta men. That’s what infuriates them, when Alpha McBadboy turns out to be Beta D00d – then the consensual encounter must be raype, because Beta.

    They want their top 10%, and do not wish to settle for anything else.

  • scribblerg

    @Rollo – I referenced that you covered it but not the exact post. I will review, thanks for the link.

  • Sun Wukong

    @Rollo

    You gonna pop on with us today?

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 12,204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: