Dangerous Times – Part 3

In writing and editing this series for the last few weeks a lot has happened in the Future is Female movement. I’m not a big fan of awards shows for obvious reasons; they have all gone from being a celebration and acknowledgement of creativity and performance in entertainment to being little more than a stage upon which political and social protests are aired by pampered celebrities. However, the recent Golden Globes anti-male / anti-masculinity screed by Oprah Winfrey initiated the next step in what can only be described as socially accepted misandry. I have no doubt that the (now annual) Women’s March planned for January 20th will see this anti-male, female supremacism go far beyond what it did in 2017 and echo Oprah’s open hatred for men and an unapologetic call for the removal of men and the criminalization of any semblance of conventional masculinity.

The original intent of this series was to raise awareness of the dangerous inherent in our coming intersexual social relations. And in the time I’ve been considering this I had to finally take a birds eye view of where we’ve come from and where we’re likely to end up with regard to the social direction I see the sexes headed today. For the final installment of this series there are a couple of articles I’m going to reference that got me thinking recently. The first was an article on Quillette by William Buckner titled Romanticizing the Hunter Gatherer. I’m using this as a starting point today because I think this piece speaks to some common misperceptions of our evolutionary past as hunter gatherer, tribalist beings.

When it comes to evolutionary psychology (evo psych) and biology (evo bio) there is always a tendency to want to focus certain speculations on particular ideological bents. In fact, there is a current push to typify all science as being inspired by male-primary sexism and a motion to reform the sciences by requiring them to basically concur with what ever serves the Feminine Imperative’s most flattering interests. Another popular idea amongst egalitarian equalists is the speculation (really romanticization) of our hunter gatherer ancestors being natural egalitarian equalists themselves. Equalists love to presume that human beings’ natural state is one of collective cooperation and gender equality, but according to new studies there’s no evidence to support these ideas (emphasis mine):

But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.

[…] In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

Much of this article confirms a majority of what the Red Pill has been observing and considering for a long time now. The Pareto Principle being the highlight in this last part here; 20% of men reproducing with 80% of women. I’ll also draw your attention to the studies that suggest that only one man for every 17 women reproduced as little as 8,000 years ago (after the advent of agriculture). The Quillette article is a fascinating read, particularly from a Red Pill perspective, and I’d encourage you to read it. The operative point in this is that this research confirms that, despite the feel-good belief that human beings are naturally monogamous and naturally egalitarian, our hunter gatherer ancestors were largely polygamous.

The second article I’m going to reference is The Link Between Polygamy and War from the Economist last month. This is a very in-depth research that breaks down the connection between modern polygamous social orders and their tendency for political unrest and unstable societies. The Economist is a paywalled site, but again it’s well worth the read. This is a very thorough detailing of how men in these countries are systematically disqualified from reproduction in polygynous social and religious societies due to their lack of resources. Only wealthy men are permitted a wife (the only sanctioned way a man can have sex) and if a man can afford more it is a sign of his prestige that he can take as many as he has the resources for.

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth — often measured in cattle — will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country’s horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practiced, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilizes society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

The article goes on to link the unemployment of young men to their resorting to criminal (and often open war) means to take the wealth necessary for them to procure a wife. This then leads to violent and social unrest. When we look at militant Islamic organizations one of the first, and probably most convincing, rewards young fighters are offered is the guarantee of a wife – even if she is the spoils of war. Much of what prompted the Arab Spring uprisings has been attributed to the unemployment rates in these countries and the consequent result that those young men cannot ‘legitimately’ afford to marry or have a family. They literally have nothing to lose and a wife (sexual release) and a family to gain.

When one man can monopolize 20 wives and thereby force his rivals from the gene pool we have a similar condition to that of our hunter gatherer ancestors. Only in this instance polygamy (really polygyny) is a socially mandated, socially approved convention.

One persistent debate I read in the manosphere is the contention that human society, achievement, stability, etc. is the result of post-agrarian monogamy. Usually this debate crops up between the more traditionalist faction of the sphere and the more brutally pragmatic of Red Pill aware men. I understand the premise from the traditional perspective; there is every evidence that the conventional family structure has been the lynchpin of social progress. I agree with this assessment, but from an evolutionary perspective human beings are not innately monogamous. Our conventional monogamy and family structure, and the resulting progress is really in spite of ourselves. The evidence is there in our genomic records. Our success as a culture was due to controlling the feral aspects of both men and women’s natural sexual strategies via social conventions, religion and personal conviction. And the result of this control is a social contract that is based on monogamy.

That said, there is no denying that monogamous societies make for the most stable societies – or at least they have up to this point in history. Even the Economist article highlights this fact. Monogamy reduces reproductive stress on Beta men – or at least until recently. One reason we have Disney myths of soul mates so prevalent in the past generations is as social a social reinforcement for monogamy. The social convention of idealistic love being a mutually accepted concept between the sexes is also a social reinforcement for monogamy. These were conventions that held men in an idealized state of monogamy. Even the worst Beta still had a hope to reproduce if the mythology was such that “there’s someone for everyone.”

But again, all of this idealization of monogamy is really in spite of ourselves. Left to our own means and our unfettered sexual strategies men will be ruthlessly polygynous and women will resort to ruthless Hypergamy.

The New Polygamy Polyandry

You can probably see where I’m going with this now. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution (and unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control) we have seen a systematic degradation of this monogamous social order in favor of a female-primary social order. This social order is predicated on women’s complete control over the reproductive fate of society. Whereas before there were social checks and balances in conventional monogamy, these have been replaced with the unrestrained, unquestioned imperatives of women’s sexual strategy – Hypergamy. In just 5 short decades men have ceded any claim to not only our own sexual strategy and interests, but to any right to paternity.

When we look at how social trends have shifted with regard to women’s sexual selection process we can see the end game more clearly. We’ve gone from ’No Means No’ to ‘Yes Means Yes’ , to itemized permission documentation of every sex act, and now to “enthusiastic consent”. Women’s end game is not unlike our original state of polygamy in that only the most desirable Alpha men will be allowed breeding rights to women – with the social contract being all women are entitled to Alpha Fucks. Enthusiastic consent is a ‘thing’ because on some level of consciousness women loathe the idea of transactional sex with Beta men. And as women’s provisioning and security needs are already met by the state and men’s own direct or indirect resource transfer, there is no longer any desire for “sex they’re really not that into.”

If not for ubiquitous, free online porn and soft prostitution (Sugaring, Tinder, Seeking Arrangements) western culture might find itself in a similar situation to the polygamous countries described by the Economist.

I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to consider that as women consolidate more and more power via social conventions that only apply to men (MeToo, Times Up, etc.) the end game is one of polyandry for women. This cartoon was a funny one because it accurately describes women’s sexual selection process, but it’s unfunny because it also belies women’s idealized state – one in which men are either draft animals or breeding stock. 

I had quite a few men ask me where I think we’re headed with regards to intersexual social dynamics and I would say that what I’m ultimately seeing is an erasure of conventional monogamy replaced with a Hypergamous polygamy in which women will have uncontested control over reproduction. I see a lot of similarities occurring with men who drop out of life, and either neglect or refuse to build their lives around supporting a family or entertaining a wife. The guys I talk to very much want to get married and have kids, but the downsides are so unimaginably dangerous for men it seems hopeless to them. The old monogamous social contracts no longer exist, but men are still being held responsible for not putting themselves on the line to take risks that only apply to them.

So, not unlike the young unemployed men in the Arab Spring, today’s drop out guy has very little hope for a monogamous future with a woman. But this hopeless circumstance is being instituted by western women, not a religious dogma. Un restrained Hypergamy leads us back to our feral, tribalist polygamy, simply because women have no use for Beta men. Sex with Betas is (or soon will be) considered rape and without porn or some other sexual sedation Betas would likely resort to violence to solve that problem.

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

Distilled to it’s essence this is how women in uncontested control of men and masculinity will view men: according to their basest Hypergamous needs and in the context of complete solipsistic self-interests.

Something more like an ant colony or beehive than a civilization of humans. A society of women owners, a handful of males allowed to breed and a whole lot of neutered workers.

I’ve used the Sadie Hawkins’ World analogy for some time now, but this is what the new order of Fempowerment has created for men and women going forward. As much as it goes against every evolved instinct for women, it will be women who must pursue and make the effort to initiate sex and intimacy with men. There will likely be some pushback from more traditional/conventional women who truly desire men to pursue them – nothing is more flattering for a woman’s ego – but the social environment will be such that the risk of personal destruction will become so high, and the juice not being worth the risk of the squeeze will be so low, that even the top tier men in the SMP will be incentivized to allow women to make the first move.

Essentially what MeToo, Enthusiastic Consent and Fempowerment is establishing is an even higher standard of what constitutes an ideal Alpha. It is a tightening of the market of sorts. Women are reluctant (and then resentful) to settle for a less-than the best Hypergamy with a suboptimal male as it is now, but add to this the condition that only the most ideal of Alphas represents the only legitimate sexual experience

Some Solutions:

  1. Play the Game better: Learn Game so thoroughly that you can use the corrupted system to your best advantage. The bar is set so low for men today that even marginal self-improvement, Red Pill awareness and Game savvy can set a man apart from the overwhelming majority of Beta, feminized symps. In essence men can make themselves into commodities women will compete for. There is a danger in this though; women who want to consolidate on the Alpha who wont commit open themselves up to false accusations in reprisal.
  2. MGTOW: As there are varying degrees of MGTOW I can’t say that the most isolationist of MGTOWs response is really a solution. Distilled down, MGTOW is an abdication of meta-Frame to women. However, not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. Many will explain that MGTOW is just men not using women as a benchmark for their ego validation, and my response is, great, I think any Red Pill aware man ought to do the same. Taking womankind off the pedestal and replacing them with your own Mental Point of Origin is key in any man’s unplugging. That said, isolation may not be the best approach to dealing with the Future is Female crowd.
  3. Transactional sex: Reducing intersexual relations to Tinder hook ups, Sugar Baby/Daddy contractual agreements, or ‘Seeking Arrangements’ will preclude a transactional understanding and imply specific positive consent. This still has its dangerous though. Even a Tinder hook up can go bad for a guy if a woman still has regrets at a later date. However, at least from a social standpoint a woman seeking a sexual encounter can be thought of as being proceptive about the experience and not a victim of coercion.

I’d encourage more solutions in the comments. I’m sure a lot of this series seems overly reactionary or disheartening for men who are looking for a return to that stabilizing monogamy. There is an element in the manosphere today who are looking for their Red Pill Trad-Con woman who will police the worst of herself in order to return to the golden era of monogamy. I have my reservations about the real motives of the few women who subscribe to this story, but the issues isn’t about what they will do, but rather what they can do in a feminine-primary social order that allows them to renege on their convictions without consequence.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

637 comments on “Dangerous Times – Part 3

  1. @kobayashi @blax

    is Hank trying to tell us that Sudan and Ethiopia are in North Africa?

    Northern Africa sure. They may not be technically/politically North Africa, but they are above or at the level of the Sahara (its subsaharan africans with the lowest IQ) and have had trading links (and thus exposure to the ideas/techs created from other ethnicities/races) and also interbred with other races unlike the subsaharan africans. Sudan and Ethiopia are just a short boat ride across the red sea to arabia.

    That’s the main point — all of the civilizations blax linked were very close geographically/culturally/genetically to other races.

    Again raising the question of why do we not see these same buildings in other parts of africa — why didn’t the zulu or bushmen ever build similar structures?

    The point of my architecture slideshow was simply to show that blax’s assertion that:

    World History that isn’t mostly Eurocentric does not show some kind of IQ disparity

    Is false because you can look at world history and come up with reasonable evidence that there might be a link between race and IQ. Once again I have to add, because people get into hysterics over this, that doesn’t mean all native americans are idiots — it simply means the bell curve (and look up what that means) for their race is shifted down a bit — meaning they would have fewer exceptionally intelligent people than say asians, but there would still be thousands and thousands of very intelligent native americans.

    Furthermore, the highest IQ populations are Ashkenazi Jews and Asians. Whites are merely
    average, so it isn’t a white supremacist thing.

    That’s right, whites are just average

    Back to blax’s examples, the African examples, even the buildings we do find there (which are almost always found amongst mixed-race african with close ties to europe and the middle east)
    never reach the size, complexity, or frequency of those found in europe or asia.

    The Tuareg mud mosques, while having a unique style, are just that — mud huts. They don’t come close to the size and complexity of mosques in the mid east or churches in europe. The ethopian castles and churches are the most impressive — but again, where is the equivalent of a Himeji castle or a Florence Cathedral?

    Nubians never produced anything to the same level as the Egyptians and — here yet again we
    are discussing a northern african people with close ties to other races.

    Way to go Kobi on the zimbabwe ruins. That was a good thing to bring up. Thing is though, those ruins are very simplistic — you see similar ruins in Ireland built by the relatively primitive people there 2,000 to 3,000 years ago. And of course those ruins beg the question — why do we not see more of these ruins across the length and breadth of africa?

    Given that the countries of higher IQ races are loaded with enormous and complex structures, whereas lower IQ countries have them only very rarely and even then on a much smaller scale, there is some evidence to believe that IQ may be a reason for it.

    Now, of course, the flaw in all this, which I would have gotten to if Blax could control himself, is why is it that whites became the dominate race as far as tech and conquests are concerned, and not asians? Asians, as a group, have higher overall IQ than whites.

    Likely it is because of the environment. Europe is overloaded with natural resources, a virtual highway of navigable rivers, among other things.

    This, not IQ, may be the reason for whites success. The homelands of the lower IQ races, like native americans and africans, are much harsher. Vast deserts, fewer navigable rivers (and few that run horizontally), etc. etc.

    Perhaps had whites been in africa, asians in north america, blacks in europe, and indians in asia, we would have seen a complete 180 in history.

    Maybe environment is the biggest factor.

    Whats so offensive about blax’s temper tantrum over all this is besides accusing innocent people seeking truth of being racists, is that it fucks over minorities. Doing more research on race and IQ (which, YET AGAIN, could prove there is NO LINK between race and IQ) may discover something about minorities learn that could help them succeed. Blacks and native americans often struggle in schools — its possible there may be more to it than just shitty city schools, bad neighborhoods, and absent fathers. Such research might find a way to help blacks and native americans succeed in school and in their careers at the same rates as whites and asians…

    But no, the subject makes blax uncomfortable, so fuck all those minorities.

    I just can’t get over the fact that the great and mighty tough guy blax with his 8 million n count becomes rabidly offended by…




  2. I had hopes that before Hank Jumped the Shark on TRM, that he would at least get laid first and then go all Softek on us.

    BTW Hank, what new diseases excuses did you discover in you? Or is it still a secret like the embarrassing food allergy?

  3. Blaximus
    Okay cool, but my money’s on the #metoo thing to run out of steam and collapse on itself very shortly.

    Like “this week” very shortly, or “this quarter”, or “this year”? Because it’s still going, and now has spun off the #ChurchToo tag as well. There’s also still a lot of ugly stuff out in Hollywood under flat rocks so there is still much real fuel lying around.

    It’s too patently ridiculous to survive.

    100 years ago men in the US said the idea of women voting was too ridiculous to be possible…

    The only lasting concern is possible legislation arises from the ” movement “.

    For the short term, let’s see what the pussyhats bring with them to the National Mall in the way of signs and banners. Longer term thre is a really dark rabbit hole underneath YmY, but I don’t want to discuss it here and now.

  4. Yollo Comanche
    January 17, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    I haven’t read “Running On Empty”.

    Extensive study and personal experience has taught me that 80% of our crime problem is people (men mostly) with cPTSD taking out their anger on a society that did not protect them.

    We don’t have a crime problem. We have a child abuse problem.

  5. OK. I looked at Dr. Jonice Webb’s ‘net site. I believe she is mistaken about the problem being so general. It is mainly confined to people with the requisite genetics. And the genes have been mostly mapped.

    The problem at this time is multidisciplinary. Unfortunately most observers have one specialty. And stick to it.

  6. @sjf

    So after meeting with doc to go over results:

    *Food sensitivities a likely cause — intestines probably inflammed and not working properly. Sensitivities to almost everything but meat and vegetables, though most thankfully are not extreme. However, hard to say without clearing my system and reintroducing them to gauge effects.

    Yeast is a bigger problem than I thought from results, doc says even though my sensitivity to yeast is on the lower end, yeast could be causing problems with my gut. On supplements now to help clear out the yeast.

    Strict diet for the next 3 months.

    *Testosterone low, possibly other issues with endocrine system. One more blood test, then we have some options to fix.

    *Low levels on some vitamins and nutrients that were missed by the other doctors. Got dissolvable pills to bypass gut, since they aren’t getting absorbed there. Will do more tests later to check if it worked.

    *Persistent bacterial infection that antibotics aren’t clearing. Nothing can be done about it now. Hopefully if I can improve fatigue, it will give my body enough energy to fight off the infection.

    Immune system likely not functioning well and leading to all these infections.

    *There are a few other diseases I will test for in future that haven’t been completely ruled out yet.

    I also have dental problems that are getting very bad, and a possible abscess that is forming and could quickly get infected with the bacteria issues I have. Will probably require removing teeth to prevent the abscess. Unfortunately I don’t have the money for that now. As it is, it is quite painful.

    That’s what I know now, with some suspicions there may be more undiscovered.

    As forge the sky told me, most issues with one quick fix doctors have learned to screen for by now. Issues like I have are a complex web of many different problems.

    He thinks we haven’t found anything huge yet, but have several leads to follow for the next few months. Hopefully these will be enough to increase my energy levels enough to get back out there.

  7. @kobayashii1681

    Men are leaders within the context of a relationship, and even within groups. But women generally keep the full disclosure of their sexual activities to the girls-only gatherings.

    How exactly do you plan on managing that? Hide in a closet and jump out shrieking “SHAME!” the moment one of them admits to fucking a random guy?

    No. Girls have to police girls. You can lead YOUR girl to behave responsibly, and hopefully that’ll translate into holding her friends accountable… but to the extent that “men as a group” have to lead their women, “women as a group” have got to take on the responsibility of sexual policing on themselves.

    Women are the sexual gatekeepers, no? Time for them to start keeping the gate.

  8. Please say you are going to do an Aziz Ansari essay.

    I love how close this event came to the whole “Cat Person” craze. Women bonded over the events of that fictional piece, but when the real life version threatens to show the meeeeetoooooo movement for the overreach that it is, suddenly we all need to be reasonable and not lump Ansari and Franken in with Weinstein… an idea that Matt Damon was SKEWERED for when he had the audacity to suggest it in an interview a couple of weeks ago. But now it seems reasonable I guess.

    I think the fallout of this event is going to be interesting.

    I have already read several articles seeking to do damage control by promoting the idea that women can discern between the shades of gray in different types of encounters.

    But anyone who has read about cases like this:


    and this:


    knows that there is a growing number of women who absolutely cannot (or will not) make distinctions that reasonable people should make easily.

    I would love to read your commentary.

  9. CFGauss
    January 18, 2018 at 10:47 pm

    In this day and age anyone who goes to college for an education is mentally deficient.

    I worked my way up from bench technician to aerospace engineer sans degree. And that was in the 70s/80s when it was much more difficult. Now a days you can get it all on line sans the labs. I built my own lab.

  10. Sexual mores in the West have changed so rapidly over the past 100 years that by the time you reach 50, intimate accounts of commonplace sexual events of the young seem like science fiction: You understand the vocabulary and the sentence structure, but all of the events take place in outer space. You’re just too old.

    This was my experience reading the account of one young woman’s alleged sexual encounter with Aziz Ansari, published by the website Babe this weekend.


  11. I guess feminism isn’t working out the way the feminists hoped.

    Her screed against the female partners surprised me, since people don’t usually rail against historically marginalized groups on the record. When I reached out to other women to ask whether they’d had similar experiences, some were appalled by the question, as though I were Phyllis Schlafly calling from beyond the grave. But then they would say things like “Well, there was this one time …” and tales of female sabotage would spill forth. As I went about my dozens of interviews, I began to feel like a priest to whom women were confessing their sins against feminism.


  12. From the “queen bee” link:

    Large surveys by Pew and Gallup as well as several academic studies show that when women have a preference as to the gender of their bosses and colleagues, that preference is largely for men.

  13. Also from “queen bee”

    Joyce Benenson, a psychologist at Emmanuel College, in Boston, thinks women are evolutionarily predestined not to collaborate with women they are not related to. Her research suggests that women and girls are less willing than men and boys to cooperate with lower-status individuals of the same gender; more likely to dissolve same-gender friendships; and more willing to socially exclude one another. She points to a similar pattern in apes. Male chimpanzees groom one another more than females do, and frequently work together to hunt or patrol borders. Female chimps are much less likely to form coalitions, and have even been spotted forcing themselves between a female rival and her mate in the throes of copulation.

    Benenson believes that women undermine one another because they have always had to compete for mates and for resources for their offspring. Helping another woman might give that woman an edge in the hot-Neanderthal dating market, or might give her children an advantage over your own, so you frostily snub her.


    Her observations are not welcome.

  14. We discussed Ansari.

    Ansari’s trouble was that he had no game. He was using his fame and status as a buffer to get access to women sexually instead of actually earning the sex by self-improvement and running game. If Ansari were a cubicle dweller, in other words, he’d never have even been in the same room as that woman. But instead of running game and being attractive and sexy after gaining the access that fame/status gave him, he decided (like apparently many of the men in this position seem to do) to try to sidestep game entirely, and just “take” sex that he wasn’t entitled to based on his actual ability to generate arousal and female desire. What Ansari didn’t get is that it is one thing for status and fame to give you access to the room where the girl is, but it’s quite another for that to be arousing to the girl, and he spent pretty much no time at all trying to generate arousal and desire. The account suggests he had pretty much no game at all — meaning he was trying to take sex that he was not entitled to, because he hadn’t generated the arousal in the woman for the sex. Typical mistake of a guy who is rich or famous or high status and uses those as buffers instead of learning how to actually generate arousal and desire in a woman so that she wants to have sex with you.

    Ansari is basically a cautionary tale about game — learn game, or face the consequences, regardless of how rich/famous/high status you are, and how much that puts you in the same room as hot women. You actually have to generate arousal in them, apart from having access to the same room they are in.

  15. Cosign truth.

    Most women will have an expectation that a man will ” know what he’s doing ” sexually. This is even more so when it comes to ” famous celebrity ” types.

    So we’re back to the whole ” bad sex ” argument. The encouraging news is that initially a woman will build certain expectations regarding the possibility of sex with a man. You can be pretty sure that if a man manages to completely destroy those expectations, there will be butthurt, and in that butthurt there is danger.

    It’s like taking a muscle car for a test drive and grinding the gears the entire time.

    Understanding game will up your ability to calibrate on the fly ( caution: canned scripted ” routines taught by some pua’s will NOT save you ).

    It seems unfair that women might choose to punish a man for awkwardness and lack of knowledge, and many won’t do that, but you really don’t want to take that chance when you don’t have to.

  16. @Novaseeker… The commentary I am interested in is not so much what Ansari did wrong (that is pretty obvious to anyone on this site) but the FI’s reaction to his public flogging.

    I think it is all the more interesting because it comes right on the heels of “Cat Person” which, in many ways, was basically a fictional version of the Ansari case.

    To my knowledge, Rollo has not done an essay on this and I think it would make for interesting reading…. not sure if he is taking requests.

    I have to say I find it very entertaining to read the articles (by women and men) calling for women to make distinctions regarding ‘degrees of offense’.

    It is so interesting because just a few weeks ago a very prominent celebrity (Matt Damon) was excoriated for doing just this. Shame on that white-male-cisgendered-hetero-privileged-patriarchal-mansplaining-douchebag for telling people to be reasonable!

    The entertainment aspect comes from watching the FI clamoring to get on board with the whole “we need to be reasonable” switch that only sprung up when the Ansari case appeared and threatens to make idiots of them.

    The attempts at damage control are palpable. How this plays out should be fun to watch.

  17. @Novaseeker

    History question. Please correct errors below if you have the time. It is relevant to the current situation, but I want to be sure I understand the history of Family Court before extrapolating.

    As I understand it, divorce from the 19th century to 1969 was a civil court matter in the US. Like a contract violation. That’s why something like adultery or physical violence or mental cruelty, etc. had to be shown at a level that would meet civil standards of evidence.

    The 1969 law Reagan signed as Governor of California loosened the standards for divorce to essentially “incompatibility”, i.e. someone’s not haaaapy anymore. This led to an upsurge in civil cases of divorce that started to jam up the civil courts in CA and other states.

    As a result, judges in those courts complained of having their dockets clogged with “he said she said” cases that resulted in a slowdown of the more legit court business. In response legislatures created the Family Court model.

    Since the new model divorce case didn’t really rely on civil tort or civil court standards of evidence (adultery, physical harm, “mental cruelty”), and since the disputes tended to be more along the lines of “how to divide up community property” rather than “who did what to break the marraige contract”, the Family Courts were not ever set up as actual courts of law in the sense of contract law. Instead they were set up as “courts of equity”, or “courts of FAIRNESS”, which allowed Family Court judges to set Constitutional protections to the side. Because of the “court of FAIRNESS” aspect, an appeal to a higher court is just about always going to fail, because absent some exttremely gross malfeasance there’s nothing to appeal over.

    Now we have a private / public partnership industry consisting of divorce attorneys, state agencies, courts with essentiallly no supervision, and various counselors & other parasites. This system “just growed” as a result of changes to the law back in the 1970’s.

  18. Anonymous Reader
    January 19, 2018 at 9:30 am

    It is ironic that “conservatives” led the charge for “no fault divorce”. Reagan wasn’t the only one.

  19. kobayashii1681
    January 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm

    We are getting closer to WAR. And you know what war does. It makes women flock to the strongest man they can find.

  20. We are getting closer to WAR.

    Oh, yeah? Show us.

    And you know what war does. It makes women flock to the strongest man they can find.

    Is that what happened in the 1990’s Gulf War? Did that happen during the invasion of Iraq?
    You know, making predictions is difficult, especially about the future….

  21. Anonymous Reader
    January 19, 2018 at 4:37 pm

    That was my experience of war. But maybe women no longer want a strong man in dangerous times. It is possible.

    I doubt it.

  22. AR —

    The family courts existed as subdivisions of the civil courts before 1969. There were specialist family court judges before then as well that heard “domestic relations” cases, as they were then called. Most of them were considered to be courts of equity as well, as far as I remember, but they were still pretty tied up by statute in terms of whether to grant a divorce or not, what kind of alimony and support was granted and so on. What changed over time were the statutes, first (no fault, then reduced alimony and child support) and then separating the domestic relations division from the civil courts and making them separate “family courts”. But the real action was in the legislation on the substance.

    It’s probably correct that in olden times these were seen as strictly contractual matters, but that hasn’t been the case for much longer than 1969 — the difference is that even though they were often courts of equity, even courts of equity cant ignore *statutes*, and the statutes had limited grounds for divorce. That changed, and then everything else changed to conform to that. No-fault was what changed the entire edifice.

  23. That was my experience of war.

    Cool. What was the war with Spain like? Can you answer the questions any time soon?

  24. @Novaseeker: thanks very much. Got to think about a rabbit trail. Let’s see what shows up in DC to protest from the PoundMeToo crowd.

  25. Thanks for confirming what MGTOW has known already for years. Your hamster-wheelingly begrudging, ambivalent endorsement of it in defiance of all currently warranted rationality made me chuckle with giddy delight.

  26. In today’s hyper-charged atmosphere it is just as important for men to be Red-Pill Aware politically as it is socially/sexually. I have to be cryptic here (unfortunately) but to quote (?) Voltaire, “To know who rules you, look to whom you may not criticize”.

  27. What I say can seem unethical, but maybe one of the solutions is to embrace feminism. I mean embracing feminism we get 2 interesting results:
    – We no longer need to commit to get sex,
    – Men bar is getting lower and lower as you mentioned. So if we embrace feminism, some time later even Betas will get laid just “lightly” pretending that they are Alfas.

    The negative part is that LTR in it’s older form will no longer be in use. But, hell with it, if anyway we gonna lose it.

    I mean, my approach is always to aggravate the situation if it stuck, to find the solution and led it to the closure.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: