Operative Social Conventions

No Prescriptions

On Saturday I had a great discussion with Anthony Johnson, Rian Stone (Married Red Pill Reddit) and “Carl” from Black Label Logic. The topic was a critique of the impact Dr. Jordan Peterson is having on a society of ‘lost’ (mostly) young men and how his message is affecting this generally rudderless generation of men. It’s a little over two hours long, but from the overwhelming response on YouTube, Facebook, Reddit and other forums it’s definitely struck a nerve. As an aside here, I’m considering making this meet up video format something I may do semi-regularly (like every other week) with some of the men I consider peers in the manosphere.

You can watch this talk at your leisure, but it has taught me a few things. As I mentioned in the chat it’s next to impossible to have any disagreement or critique of people whom other’s believe are your betters. As Rollo Tomassi it’s impossible for me to be critical of any high profile guy in the sphere without the accusations of professional jealousy or sour grapes being the first reflexive response from haters. I got that, but I’ve learned the conversation is more important that trying to convince anyone of it being genuine. In fact, I think it belies a bigger problem when they are above critique.

That aside, I think it was good to finally parse where Red Pill awareness and what Peterson is advocating have some overlap and where we differ. Peterson is a fountain of hope for the ‘lost’ boys, so anything critical of his message is going to sound like it’s endorsing an “enjoy the decline” mentality. I can’t expect everyone to have read up on my own opinion about that, but the short version is that I’ve never been convinced of some inevitable decline and fall of western civilization. In other words, I think it is possible to turn the ship around; where I may differ is in how that might be done.

For the record here I want to say that I have a great respect for Dr. Peterson. I think he’s what the sphere has needed for a while and I think he fits the role of ‘champion’ that a generation of young men have wanted to place on someone. Ideologically I agree with about 85-90% of what he advocates and there’s no doubt that he’s got definite skin in the game. In fact I really hate it when people use that as some catch phrase to disqualify men today. As a man we all have skin in the game now. How much and to what degree may be debatable, but we all live in a feminine-primary social order and as such we all have a lot to risk whether we acknowledge this or not.

Where I differ with Peterson is in his very Trad-Con solutions to turning the ship around. I wasn’t shocked to see him endorsed in videos for Prager University. In some ways what he proposes resonates with young men looking for a direction because their fathers and generations of Blue Pill men haven’t been able to deliver a way out of Hell for them. I go into this in more detail in our talk here, but here are some of my issues with Peterson’s take on things:

• Life is suffering and sacrifice: In every video I’ve watched Dr. Peterson’s founding (zen-like) premise is that life is suffering and the best men can do is to find ways to minimize that suffering. Men (and I’ve yet to see a video addressing women) must sacrifice parts or all of themselves in order to qualify for “genuine” manhood. The degree of that self-sacrifice is relative to how high a status that man can achieve.

I fundamentally disagree with this premise though I do understand why it’s so appealing to a ‘lost generation’ of young men. From my own perspective, life is based on a perpetual discontent, but how a man deals with that discontent – creatively or destructively – is the measure of him. Furthermore, I would argue that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make in order to facilitate their reality.

• Blue Pill conditioning seems to define his perspective of women: Essentially the archetype he has for women was formed for him as a 7 year old boy when he first developed a soul-mate ONEitis for his wife. His reluctance to acknowledge the Alpha Fucks side of women’s Hypergamy in any video (beyond his repeated use of 50 Shades of Grey as a humorous example) leads me to the impression that he defaults to women as innately ‘good’ and above too much criticism. As such he focuses almost entirely on the good provider / parental investment / Beta need side of Hypergamy. This is unsurprising as it follows the same Trad-Con interpretations of women being “closer to God than men” and men must qualify themselves, and sacrifice themselves for women’s (wives) intimate approval. Dalrock has covered this dynamic among male “complementarian” Christian leaders quite extensively.

• Sacrifice of men is a parallel to men’s disposability: Men will blow themselves up for pussy. From what I gather from his talks Peterson endorses male disposability as a form of Honor. He seems to play on the ‘Man Up / Shut Up’ dynamic I talked about in The Honor SystemWhat ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny. I’m not suggesting Peterson is accusing men of Patriarchy or Misogyny, rather, like most Trad-Cons, it’s a question of living up to one’s duty as a man in his disposability and his usefulness in that sacrifice.

• “Get your shit together” is also a plea for sacrifice: If a man is less valuable his sacrifice is less meaningful. No one cares about mediocre / average men’s sacrifices, but if a man accepts that he is to improve himself it is so that his sacrifice is more appreciated and important. Thus, the comparisons to Christ’s sacrifice as being the ultimate expression of sacrifice and meaning which Peterson uses in his dissertations on manhood and the Bible. My issue here is that women and a feminine-primary social order lack a capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make because these are taken-for-granted expectations of what a man just “ought to do”.

• Peterson is egalitarian to a fault: The mantra may be for men to sack up and make something of themselves, but this is couched in an egalitarian equalism that’s prevalent today. If I had one question to ask Jordan it would be this; is there a dominance hierarchy in a healthy LTR or marriage? I don’t know for certain. My guess is he would say it passes back and forth between a husband and wife which is to say he falls back on an egalitarian ideal. However, outside the family structure he acknowledges that men and women in a state of egalitarianism choose to adopt traditional gender roles (I think he gave the same example as was covered here).

• Dr. Peterson regularly resorts to shaming language with men, rarely does he do the same with women: This may be a simple question of his delivery, but Peterson is always harder on men than he is with women. In so doing he adopts the AMOGing of only men techniques that a pastor like Mark Driscoll uses from the pulpit. Inso doing he pedestalizes women and absolves them of any consequences of their Hypergamous choices by imploring men to “man up and marry those sluts“. In essence the sacrificial nature of men becomes one that is necessary for the continuance of ‘family’ and western culture in spite of women. I also see how this plays into the idea of women lacking any moral agency, personal responsibility and wiping the bad behavior of women off on the men who have allowed this to happen. Once again it comes back to the hypoagency of women.

• Peterson believes that desire can be negotiated: This is my biggest problem with Peterson’s approach to women. This undoubtedly comes from his being a clinical psychologist, but like most therapists he defaults to the idea that genuine desire can be motivated by a process of negotiation. If there is one example of his lack of experience with women it is this belief. In several of his interviews and podcasts he makes reference to appealing to women’s reason and negotiating terms for acceptable behavior (always a man’s behavior) in exchange for intimacy and/or a stress-free marriage. This is the egalitarian, Oprah Approved, male-sublimated means to achieving transactional intimacy.

As you might guess, I strongly disagree with negotiating intimacy. You cannot negotiate genuine desire. You can obligate a woman to fuck you (now called rape) via negotiation, but you cannot organically inspire genuine desire in a woman. This has always been my main point of contention with the marriage counseling trade for a long time.

What is the Red Pill version of “man-up”?

I had a commenter ask me this in the last comment thread. I think there’s two sides to this question. First, I think there’s a need to keep the Red Pill (in the intersexual sense) as close to an objectivist purpose as possible. That means Red Pill awareness is the result of a continuing praxeology.

I’ve locked horns with a few Red Pill guys recently who seem to think that ‘Red Pill’ is an ideology and it’s just the counter revolt to feminism; basically it is feminism for men. I think that does a huge disservice to everything and everyone that’s brought us to where we are today in Red Pill awareness and all of the work and personal risk that was put on the line to explore what we know as Red Pill awareness now. Not only that it casually devalues the effort and work that’s continuing right now.

Critics and feminists alike want to draw parallels in the manosphere to whatever (fictitious) wave of feminism they think applies to whatever the Men’s Rights Movement is calling Red Pill at the moment. Believing that Red Pill is an ideology is one more casualty of how the term / brand has been bastardized by other ideologies who’ve never had any business referring to themselves as “red pill”.

Presuming Red Pill is just an ideology is juvenile, and unsurprisingly it’s an opinion of some underexperienced men in the manosphere who want for simplistic answers. They don’t want to think about what Red Pill awareness implies on a larger social scale. They want a flag to wave and an easy to understand ideology so they can stick it to their feminist enemies. I get it. They want Red Pill (however they define it) to be that ideology, but to me, I think, and I’ve always said it, the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, areligious and amoral to ensure that it stays true to understanding truth. It needs to remain true to being an aggregate of men’s collected experiences with intersexual dynamics.

What these guys want is a meaning to that truth, but that’s not the Red Pill. Meaning is what men will apply to that truth according to their individual needs, situations and circumstances. This is why Peterson and probably some more personalities to follow him will be popular in the future; they prioritize meaning above truth. If you listen to the first podcast of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson they spend the entire time trying to come to an agreed measure of truth between the two of them so they can move on (in the second podcast) to what is meaning.

You want to know why I don’t do prescriptions on The Rational Male? Because we disempower ourselves when we follow someone else’s path and not our own.

There is a deep need in almost all people to improve or ‘fix’ ourselves in some way. I’ve written essays about it; discontent is is the human condition. That in no way means that life is suffering as per the Peterson (Zen) doctrine, but it is man’s condition to never be satisfied with even the greatest of accomplishments. That is what put us at the top of the species contest on this planet. You can be constructively or destructively discontent, but when you tell me that life is suffering and the only way to lessen that suffering (never to solve it of course) is to sacrifice my way to a better life all that says to me is that you’re out of ideas for a creative solution and you’re all-in on the destructive methods. Either that or you’ll continue naval gazing.

Fuck that.

So, the Red Pill needs to remain a praxeology and it ought to always resist being force-fit into an ideology because it’s always some ideological hack who wants to claim the truth it reveals as proof of his own purpose. The Red Pill has to remain an open source aggregate of men’s experiences. That’s why we’re still here today in spite of the Rooshs who said it would die out 3 years ago – it’s open source and decentralized information.

Now, to the second point, what does ‘Man up’ mean in the Red Pill context? I think this is really for the individual to decide, but I’d say that it would involve a man utilizing and internalizing the awareness the Red Pill represents to him and improving his life with it. In the Safety Net post’s comment thread there are hundreds of examples of how men saved their own lives, often literally. How the Red Pill truth reached them and then manifested in their lives is highly individual. I mentioned the need for a dissociation with ideology because that usually means aligning oneself with the expectations of someone else’s version of truth, not the objective (or as objective as we can make it) truth of the Red Pill.

When I hear ‘man-up’, I identify the context only as derogatory… is there any other definition which is not?

It should, because in almost all contexts imploring a guy to “Man Up” is following someone else’s path, not your own. This is what I mean when I say that I’m not in the business of creating better men, I’m in the business of men making themselves better men. And in today’s world of men seeking direction there is no shortage of personalities who’d like nothing more than to profit from selling men on their paths.

If there is a definition of ‘manning up’ in a Red Pill sense it is living a better way than your previous life that was informed by the falsehoods of your Blue Pill conditioning. Manning up Red Pill is killing off that old Blue Pill-created persona and killing off the false idealisms it taught you. It’s understanding and internalizing that those lies made you a less authentic person because the Blue Pill is firmly an ideology, but one that wears the mask of freedom or choice or individualism. If self-improvement in a Red Pill sense entail some basic tenets, one is that a man cuts himself away from that old Blue Pill paradigm and rebuilds a better life for himself based on a real understanding of intersexual truth on the personal, social and political scales.

Manning up Red Pill begins with rejecting the lies of egalitarian equalism and a commitment to real objective understanding of intersexual dynamics.

 

Thoughts on Aziz Ansari

I’m going to make a confession here; until a week ago I had no idea who Aziz Ansari was. I get he was some low limit comedian, and in today’s social environment that means he lectures an audience about social justice issues for an hour while trying to insert some humor into his act. I’ve pretty much given up on most comedians these days, and I’m a guy who used to love standup. However, my unfamiliarity with Aziz was actually a benefit in assessing his recent pillory in the mainstream. Had I known about him before all this, and his comedy activism, I likely would’ve just dismissed his case as the next guy to be put into the MeToo deadpool of celebrity men – and I’m being generous about the “celebrity” part.

I had actually resigned myself to blowing off his whole story until I started digging into the particulars of the ‘date’ he had with the anonymous “Grace”. On first pass this whole incident is easy to dismiss even for Red Pill aware men with better things to do than bother themselves with another Hollywood chump to go down to the open power grab that MeToo and TimesUp have become. There is, however, a lot to unpack in the whole thing though. If you want the whole story you can read about it here on Babe.net, the blog for “Girls who don’t give a fuck”, which is interesting because apparently they give a lot of fucks according to the story.

Just to break down some of the particulars here:

  • She (Grace) approaches Aziz in the beginning. Flirts with him and then goes back to her date she was with that evening. They would catch each other glancing at the other durning the night (IOIs). They ‘ran into each other’ later and he number closes.
  • Aziz Beta texts her almost immediately and tries to text Game/flirt with her before he asks her out
  • Before meeting Ansari, she tells friends and coworkers about the date and consulted her go-to group chat about what she should wear to fit the “cocktail chic” dress-code he gave her. She settled on “a tank-top dress and jeans.” She showed me a picture, it was a good outfit.
  • After the white wine she didn’t like, they end up back at his place. She complimented his marble countertops. Ansari turned the compliment into an invitation. “He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself.
  • Ansari tells her he was going to get a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”
  • Ansari repeatedly attempts ‘The Claw’. on her “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”
  • Ansari physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”
  • Ansari presses her for sex. He asks repeatedly, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was on the countertop. She says she didn’t want to fuck him at all. He keeps asking, so she says, ‘Next time.’ Aziz says, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and she says, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’
  • She later says she doesn’t want it to seem forced and this wakes Ansari up from his sexual stupor. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun. Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’ Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”
  • Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.
  • They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away.  “I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.” After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car.

All of this detail is important to consider because Ansari’s actions here are classic Beta Game desperation tactics. It is literally one Beta move after another. Many of the reviewers of this incident like to point out that it was really a misunderstood date gone wrong, or else they use it as proof-positive of a sexual assault, but I’m going to argue something different here – Ansari is simply a Beta chump with very little Game savvy who, if he’d had even a hint of Game awareness could’ve had a good sexual experience both for himself and her.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not a proponent of men attempting to push past last minute resistance. For as much as “enthusiastic consent” will be used as a tool of fear to dissuade Beta men from even attempting to approach, I can’t say that I wouldn’t want a woman to have a genuine desire to fuck me in any sexual episode. I can remember in my ‘rock star 20s’ doing exactly this. If a woman wasn’t into having sex with me or she had some reservations or some hoops she expected me to jump through in order to get her to “come around” to fucking me I would simply excuse myself from the situation. I was at a point in my life where I had many other (proven) options, and if a new prospect wasn’t an absolutely ‘enthusiastic’  “Hell Yes!” girl I had at least six other women who were eager to come over and fuck me. This was just a subconscious awareness I took for granted at the time, but it was an attitude that stemmed from abundance.

That was essentially my Game back then. It was the natural reflex of an Alpha man and women responded to it. The behaviors and attitudes I exhibited just flowed from my unrehearsed subconscious. It was who I was. Dread is much more effective for a man when a woman sees that he’s oblivious to his causing dread.

Most men never really experience this kind of sexual abundance and as such it colors their outlook and how they expect sex to work for them. One big problem inherent to men’s Blue Pill conditioning is the idea that sex must be negotiated for a woman to feel comfortable enough to fuck a guy, but more importantly in this era, to avoid any misunderstandings that would lead to his getting a sexual misconduct allegation. The Blue Pill teaches men to respect women by default, for no other reason than she has a vagina, but also that open communication, full disclosure and negotiation are necessary elements of sex. We can see this played out in the ludicrous expectation that every sex action a man involves himself in requires vocal enthusiastic consent. This is the acculturation; men are expected to negotiate every sexual detail of a sexual experience.

Needless to say this is patently ridiculous, but it’s also the surest way to kill the actual enthusiasm a woman might actually have for a guy. One thing that will separate Alpha men from Betas in the future will be that man’s honed capacity to remove himself from any sexual situation that is negotiated. Women want to play the Game, they don’t want the Game explained to them. They want a man who Just Gets It and the men who don’t get it will be the ones whose dutiful Blue Pill conditioning prompts them to start any and every approach at intimacy by negotiating the terms for a woman’s desire.

You cannot negotiate genuine desire, but this negotiation is exactly what modern feminism simultaneously fosters and struggles against. The idea of ‘enthusiastic consent’ is really a want on the part of women to have the sex they genuinely have a desire to experience with a man. This is all women want to write about now and the Ansari incident is a textbook example of the kind of negotiated sex women don’t want to have, but sometimes go through with for transactional reasons. Remember, sex with Alpha men is validational for women – lackluster ‘meh’ sex with Beta men is transactional sex. If you only read what women are writing about sex today you’d think that transactional sex is all they’ve ever been having – and sexist men see women as ‘soft’ prostitutes. Now it’s suddenly some revolutionary act for women to have the sex Alpha sex enjoyment they’ve always “deserved” but have been repressed by transactional sex with Betas.

That said, I can’t disagree entirely with the want for an enthusiastic sex partner who genuinely wants to fuck me 12 ways to Tuesday. And this is women’s rationale today, “Don’t you want to fuck a woman who really wants to fuck you?” It’s hard to argue against the “Hell Yes” girl, until you realize that the sex they are describing is only reserved for the guy they really want to bang and mistakenly believe their overinflated self-value warrants.

Now, I’ve read the debate from PUAs who make the point that it is entirely possible to make a ‘No’ girl into a ‘Hell Yes’ girl. I’ve seen the infield videos so I’ll spare you the linking. My question then is, after deftly applying Game and calibrating all the minutiae to do so, how does this compare to a woman who has a genuine desire for you from the start? I think one huge hurdle for guys unplugging from their Blue Pill conditioning have to face is the presupposition that sex is only the result of a process of negotiation. That negotiation is what the Blue Pill teaches boys and men from a very early age.

Aziz! Light!

The Ansari incident has a lot of Red Pill lessons to teach. First and foremost is the fact that Ansari is a consumate Beta. Looking at the guy he resembles any number of Indian computer programmers frustrated by a want for the secret formula to make a gorgeous American blonde with big tits fall in love with him. Don’t get me wrong, I counsel these men personally, but he fits that schema. Next, Ansari is a vocal and outspoken White Knight for feminism and regularly proves his male self-loathing as part of his standup act. I mean, the guy wears a Time’s Up pin. But like most male feminists, he gets hung by his own Beta Game bullshit – this is the fate of all male feminists.

Lastly, Ansari is a Beta who made good. I’ve talked about the Blue Pill White Knights and self-righteous AFCs in many a post, but I’m not sure I’ve emphasized how dangerous this mindset can be for a Beta who has a combination of affluence, celebrity and social proof. There comes a self-validation in that Blue Pill mindset when women want to be associated with him. He develops a belief that it’s his Blue Pill conditioning, and his adherence to it, that is the reason for his relative success with women. This insulates these guys from ever disconnecting from that conditioning, but it also lessens an incentive to see women in any other perspective. The result of this is exactly what Ansari experienced in this incident. He was too comfortable in presuming his pro-woman, female identifying, Beta Game would make his sexual expression ‘Okay’ with any woman who gave him positive sexual interest.

Another big indicator of this, and really much of Beta Game, was his repeated pawing of Grace and repeated sexual expressions with her. It wasn’t working as he believed it should, so what was his solution? Continue with the negotiation and hope for a positive sign of reinforcement from her. Every act that Ansari attempted with Grace was a form of negotiation. I can’t get sex? How about a blow job? No? Okay how about if I go down on you? She feels forced? Woah, default to female identification persona. Presume the sale, “How do you want me to fuck you?”

This is all one big negotiation – there is no genuine desire and no enthusiasm of the part of Grace – but since Ansari has never had the incentive to learn Game he keep going back to what he thinks should work on her.

To wrap all of this up, I should mention that the reason this whole affair went viral is should really be no surprise. It’s one more example of everything MeToo has been harping on for almost 5 months now, yes, but it’s also an illustration of exactly this new sentiment of the “grey area” sex I brought to light in Dangerous Times – Part 2. It’s sex women have out of courtesy (Aziz got a courtesy hummer) or convenience or just as something to do. It is exactly the obligated sex I’ve been talking about since The Desire Dynamic. This incident is exactly the story this ‘grey sex’ sentiment had needed, but in the larger picture it highlights the difference between transactional sex and validational sex.

As Open Hypergamy becomes yet more normalized it’s now time that the Feminine Imperative acknowledges the type of sex women desire and enjoy, and the type of sex they feel obligated to perform as part of a negotiation or transaction. And naturally the need to define what women’s Hypergamy dictates becomes a new form of shame for men. Evil Patriarchal men are to blame for women having to openly acknowledge that they only want to fuck Alpha men with any real enthusiasm. Men are to blame for validational and transactional sex, and now absolved, women can take the next steps in consolidating on Hypergamy.

No, there’s no current legislation that makes ‘unenthusiasitc sex’ a sex crime (yet), but remember that the sexual arms race is always fought in the court of public opinion before anything is written in ink.

Dangerous Times – Part 1

We live in a very dangerous age for men. The Blue Pill is even more of a liability today than it was in times past, because we live in an era that encourages men going all-in in their life’s investment in that conditioning.

Welcome to the #MeToo era. What we’re experiencing in our social environment today is a sea change in intersexual dynamics. The underlying fundamentals haven’t changed; our evolved natures and the latent purposes that are driven by them haven’t shifted, but the social dynamics and sexual acculturation that serve as checks and balances on them has drastically shifted, and in a very short time. While you could make an argument for an idealized free love era that took place right after the Sexual Revolution, now we find ourselves in a time that is so calculating in its design on intersexual social dynamics that it makes the late 60s seem romantically naive.

Back in October of 2014 I wrote a post called Yes Means Fear. This essay was a response to the, at that time new, Yes Means Yes sexual consent legislature that was being instituted on California university campuses. Dalrock had written similar essays regarding this latest form of sexual consent aptly titled The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring and Making the World Safe for Promiscuous Women. It may take you a while to review these posts, but please read these and skim the comments to get a gist of the conversations we had going on just three years ago.

One of these comments was the inimitable Deti:

At the end of the day, college women (soon all women) will be able to use the “lack of consent” law/policy as a weapon against undesirable men to do the following:

1. Weed out and eliminate unattractive men by chilling their conduct

2. Making even the most innocuous sexual conduct (i.e. approaching, asking for dates) so dangerous that the only men who will engage in the SMP are attractive men with proven successful sexual track records who will never get reported for doing anything “untoward”; thus ensuring that only attractive men will approach them for dates and sex

3. Giving women more power over the SMP so even unattractive women can use and select men for alpha fux; then have the sole ability to pursue and select men for beta bux when they see fit.

Open hypergamy. It will be “we women are going to do this, and if you want sex, you’ll do it our way, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.”

Deti posted this comment on October 15th, 2014. The inter-blog debate then (at places like the now defunct Hooking Up Smart) was that Yes Means Yes was solely meant as a firm response to the supposed on-campus rape /sex assault panic that was being circulated in the mainstream media at the time. From the Red Pill perspective, we saw what potential this legislation represented to what would later become a societal scale institution.

Of course, they called us reactionaries, called us ‘rape apologists’ for simply pointing out all the ways this legislation would be expanded to a societal scale. They said we were exaggerating when we illustrated that, even for long-married couples, there would need to be a check list of approved acts of intimacy for each and every act performed, and men would need some form of hard evidence to prove that consent had indeed been granted.

The new California college/university sexual assault policy requires the following:

“An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

There was sex, which is clearly “sexual activity.” The question then becomes whether there was “affirmative consent”. In order for there not be consent, the woman would have had to show affirmative conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sex with the man. It is the man’s responsibility to make sure he had that consent. She had to manifest, verbally or nonverbally, consent to it.

Silence doesn’t mean consent. Her not resisting or saying “no, please stop” doesn’t constitute “affirmative consent”. So really, the only way to make sure that consent is present is for the man to continue asking her throughout the encounter: “Is this OK? Can I keep doing this? Is this thrust OK with you? Is THIS thrust OK? Can I thrust again? How about this one? Can I keep going? Do you want me to stop?”

If that did NOT happen, if the man did not get EXPRESS, VERBAL statements that he could continue, then yes, there was sexual assault.

The way this plays out in situations like this is that verbal consent is REQUIRED. She cannot manifest “ongoing” “affirmative consent” any other way. That’s because of the way the law is written. Lack of protest is not consent. Lack of resistance is not consent. Silence is not consent. Thus, a wife, just lying there, starfishing it, giving duty sex to her husband, is putting him in jeopardy, because she is not manifesting “ongoing” “affirmative consent”.

All of that they said was ridiculous. Women would never be so petty as to make a man ask permission for, nor hold him accountable for, sex that she wanted to have with him. Furthermore, this ruling was only meant to curb campus assault; any extrapolating to a larger societal norm, we were told, was just us Red Pill men and their insecurities about the intentions of women and sex. If we’d Just Get It we’ll have no problems.

We were told it was limited to penis-in-vagina sex only. We were told it was just in cases of “drunken sex”. All of these proved false. This law was intended to govern, regulate and control every single sexual interaction between a man and a woman. This law is intended to require a man to get express consent at every single step of the process, from initial touch to banging. This law is intended to chill all male sexual conduct. This law by its very terms requires express consent for every sexual act, starting with kino.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality – Heartiste

A World of Fear

When I wrote Yes Means Fear (also 3 years ago) it was initially in response to an article by Ezra Klein, Yes Means Yes is a terrible law, and I support it completely. This reads through as bad as any gender related article on Vox, but Klein’s salient point was summed up in one sentence.

To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

I’m reasonably sure Ezra was aware of the larger scope – larger than just California college campuses – that his giddy Beta love of a world where men would be afraid to so much as approach a woman would lead to. But now we find ourselves here in his idealized sexual marketplace founded on men fearing to interact with women at the risk of losing everything. At the risk of being Zeroed Out. Today, just three years later, we’re experiencing the #metoo moral panic based exactly in the fear Ezra said would serve us so well. Ezra must be proud that the gold rush hysteria of sexual misconduct allegations any and every woman (who ‘might’ have ever felt an accidental hip brush 50 years ago) feels entitled to is the result of this cleansing fear he loved so much. Unless he’s defending allegations himself of course.

If you go before the college board and say that the woman accusing you of assault simply doesn’t remember that she said yes because she was so drunk, then you’ve already lost.

Gone is the college board now in favor of the popular court of social justice – the court that condemns a man for even the suspicion of an allegation of sexual misconduct. Gone too is part of women’s remembering the pretense of a sexual encounter. Whether a woman was drunk and doesn’t remember the details, or if she conveniently recalls them 40-50 years after the fact is immaterial. The operative point is that we always believe any and every allegation of rape or misconduct a woman brings forward.

Articles of Belief

Shortly after I wrote Yes Means Fear I wrote Hysteria, an essay intended to address the disgraceful (now thoroughly proven) UVA fraternity rape hoax story written by Sabrina Erdley and published by a complicit Rolling Stone Magazine. Just daring to question the validity of so outrageous a rape account was heresy to women back then. Bear in mind this took place after the Yes Means Yes consent ruling in California. At this time, just to question the story of a woman’s rape account was enough to earn you the title of ‘rape apologist’. But moreover, we were popularly expected to repeat this mantra and always accept a woman’s account as infallibly true:

“No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” http://t.co/3HFlXR7jme True insanity pic.twitter.com/AFXIyn32FS

This was the sentiment (now deleted) tweeted by Zerlina Maxwell on December 6th, 2014. Since then this meme that anything a woman had to say about sexual assault must be believed by default has snowballed into a default belief that anything a woman alleges against a man must also be believed. Whereas a male college student might stand in front of his kangaroo court at a university, now men must stand in front of the kangaroo court of public opinion where a woman’s word outweighs all pretense of due process. That college kid is now the average man who must prove his innocence because if a woman alleges it due process is reversed.

What we’ve witnessed in just 3 years is the systematic removal of a man’s right to habeas corpus with regard to women’s allegations.

And I expect that this removal will extend to much more than just women’s believability in regard to sexual misconduct. Imagine a culture where it’s expected that anything a woman accuses her ex of is to be believed in divorce proceedings.

We’re now seeing exactly what myself, Deti, Dalrock and countless other Red Pill bloggers and commenters predicted would happen, but it’s also so much more that what we could see coming. In just 3 years Yes Means Yes moved off the campus and into mainstream culture; a culture predicated on female social primacy. In a feminine-primary social order even “affirmative consent” isn’t enough – “enthusiastic consent” must now be established and maintained. That “enthusiastic consent” is a new ambiguously defined terminology, and part of the larger narrative meant to further confuse and instill fear in men.

Last week Novaseeker, once again, had a terrific comment that illustrates what consent has come to today.

Yep, that’s the newest goalpost move.

We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.

Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.

There are a few ways to look at this, but one obvious one is that this is a way for the FI to tighten the screws on betas. Very little sex that betas have, if any, is “enthusiastic consent sex”. Everyone knows this. Under this standard, basically all sex with betas is rape. That’s the intention.

And thus we come full circle to the latent purpose of legislating Hypergamy that I’ve continually repeated in many essays. It is Roissy’s maxim of feminism: The end goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Recently I found myself in a Twitter war on a story by CBS Los Angeles asking whether it was still OK for men to hug women. I used the cartoon I posted in The Creep 2 to illustrate my bigger point:

And of course the feminist tropes (from men and women) and the point & sputter ad hominem attacks flowed from there. However, this rage is precisely what I would expect from women who are now coming into a default expectation (entitlement) of all men to ‘Just Get It‘.

Only in this instance it is Blue Pill, Beta men who should know better than to approach a woman below their (self-perceived) sexual market value. Those men, the lesser men that her social media overinflated sense of SMV has convinced her are beneath her attraction floor should ‘just get it’ that they shouldn’t be flirtatious or even too friendly with her or risk the punishment of an allegation that might be his zeroing out. The Beta man who doesn’t ‘get it’ is an insult to her self-worth and deserving of an optimized Hypergamy.

In the next post I’ll be exploring the ramifications of the “enthusiastic consent” concept and how even consensual-but-unwanted sex and “duty sex” will be the next chapter in marital rape. I’ll also be detailing the the “Cat Persons” story that’s been making the rounds this week.

The Creep – Part 2

Just so we’re clear here, yes, I get that there are a lot of ways to take the term ‘creepy’. In last week’s essay I wanted to dig into what women claim is ‘creepy’ and how this term is really another illustration of ambiguous fem-speak rooted in how a guy makes a woman feel. Furthermore, this feeling is modified by where that man is stationed in her perception of his sexual market value (SMV).

Last week I got linked a Tweet about ‘creeps’ by Roosh (he still hates me). He had a good point, and I paraphrase,

“Creeps are just guys that go from 0-100 in sexualizing a conversation with a woman way too fast. A good PUA knows that slow and steady sexualization works best.”

Take that how you want, but I think this is definitely part of the creep dynamic. There’s a bit more to being creepy than overly fast sexualization (or presumed familiarity); we’ve got to account for a Blue Pill / Beta guy’s lack of social intelligence to understand that taking it slow should be something he knows already. And still, how can we presume this slow and steady sexualization is a proficient form of seduction when we see more Alpha, more immediately arousing men, go from 0-100 themselves and get a same night lay? I’ve done this myself more than a few times back in a time when there was no formal Game to be had. Right guy, right place, right time, and 0-100 is what a woman is hoping will happen. Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic.

That said, I am convinced that this over-investment, too quick, too soon is definitely part of the creepy dynamic. I’ve made the call in several prior posts that it’s part of the Beta mindset to want to bypass the arousal and attraction phases of seduction to go directly to rapport. Thus, you get a guy who shares too much way too soon and this itself is creepy for women. It’s a huge telegraphing of that guy’s state of desperation and optionlessness. There’s no mystery left about the guy (assuming the girl even had an initial attraction) and nothing left to figure out. This over-sharing is also a huge red flag to women’s Hypergamous filters; it’s an indication that a guy ‘doesn’t get it’ with regard to how to play the Game with her.

You see, this rush to get to comfort and rapport is usually because that ‘creep’ is anxious to get past the arousal phase, the sexual tension, because he has no clue what to do in that phase. It’s a real source of anxiety for him, and besides, every woman he’s ever asked has said she needed to be comfortable with a guy before she has sex with him (false). Comfort, rapport, familiarity (all of which are anti-seductive) should be where the sex begins to his way of thinking, so again, male deductive logic would follow that getting there quickly would be pragmatic.

When a more Alpha, natural, moves quickly it’s almost always because he’s working with a receptive (proceptive) woman. As I mentioned before, arousal covers for a lot of men’s deficits in Game or feelings of creepery.

The Creeps

As most readers will have probably guessed I’ve timed the release of this series to address the current Hysteria of sexual assault / harassment / rape charges that are  moving like wildfire through Hollywood first, and now through the rest of our pop-culture social strata. While it may be satisfying to see mealy-mouth self-righteous actors and moguls take a fall, it’s important to see the larger social mechanics in play here.

I wrote that essay over a year ago and I’ll say now that I’d never dreamed how prophetic that post would turn out. Criticizing this #MeToo sexual assault hysteria is next to impossible. For the same reasons no one wanted to question the veracity of the UVA fraternity rape hoax that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdley perpetrated – no one now wants to question the accusations leveled at the various personalities being conveniently outed for sexual assault/harassment that in some cases occurred 30-40 years ago. We are expected to believe the testimonies of women without question.

This isn’t to say that the celebrities involved didn’t do what their accusers are saying they did, it’s that we are expected to accept that this behavior is endemic in all men, and based on the same principle of believing whatever a woman has to say about it with no afterthought given to its truth or her motives. It’s one thing to presume that whenever a woman comes forward with a rape or assault claim we are expected to presume the man guilty until proven innocent, but we’re rapidly reaching a point where any claim a woman has about a man bears that same weight. When it comes down to ‘he said, she said’, what she said will hold the full weight of the law.

Our Feminine-primary social order is now repurposing this ironclad believability of women – and presumed guilt of men – for every crime a woman ‘feels’ she’s been a victim of at the hands of a man. At the same time we see sexual harassment being defined as something that even a wink from a man can convey, we also see the rapid criminalization of men  who would dare to talk to a woman they don’t already know.

When we combine this overarching presumption of male guilt with the potential crime of men dealing with a woman with the intent of establish intimacy, and then add to it the ever changing definition of what can constitute sexual assault or harassment (and with a uniquely endless statute of limitations), we begin to get a clearer picture of the direction the Feminine Imperative has for men.

I’m sure this all seems very reactionary, but so was the questioning of Sabrina Erdley’s story about a nameless girl who was violently raped on the shattered glass of a broken coffee table by fraternity boys. Once again, I’m not saying sexual assault doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the direction gynocentrism is taking is one in which men ought to lose rights and liberties that only women ought to be the judges of.

Creepiness is a feeling women get from men who lack the social skills to ‘just get it’ that they are or aren’t into them. What this distills down to on a root level is women’s presuming that men should know better than to approach them when they are beneath their Hypergamous attraction floor. It is the criminalization of men not understanding how they fit into women’s sexual strategies. I made a case for this in The Political is Personal. The more men resist the social intents of Hypergamy, the more it will become necessary to legislate men to comply with it.

Feminine-primary social doctrine is an extension of  women’s Hypergamy.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

We’re rapidly reaching this peak Hypergamous state. As I mentioned in Male Control, since the Las Vegas shooting the narrative of masculinity has shifted. There is no more “toxic” masculinity – it’s masculinity on-whole that is toxic. As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

In the Zone

Morpheus had a great comment last week that hit on what I went into in Sexual Zoning:

The term “creep” can really lead in a bunch of different directions discussion wise, but I think a really big one is “sexual zones” vs “non-sexual zones”. Increasingly, there are all sorts of places where the default presumption is that women should be “free from” male advances. Work, school, etc. In these zones, the margin for error is very small. Unless you are an objectively visually attractive man with super tight game, the odds of you being perceived as a “creep” are much, much higher. In sexual zones, such as the Friday night bar, your margin for error is higher. The default presumption is men are there to meet women. You still need to have the right social vibe and not come across as a weirdo but you have a little more room to play with.

And from that post:

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

A while ago I read this piece about Mike Pence:

“In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Naturally the media wants to pass this off as some masculine insecurity on Pence’s part. Certainly there’s a religious reason for Pence not wanting to present any perception of impropriety – I’ve know pastor who will never have closed door meetings with women or do counseling for women without their wives present – but there is a practical side to this habit. It prevents the accusations and opportunity for anything like what we’re seeing in the accusation cycling through Hollywood today. But still, shaming the masculine is the first reflex for the mainstream media.

This Atlantic article is an exercise in deliberately not seeing the intersexual writing on the wall. This is the practical contingency for a social order bent on removing men via accusations of sexual misconduct. Yet still, for all of the inherent dangers of a frivolous sexual harassment suit at the disposal of any and every western woman, men are supposed to leave themselves vulnerable to them:

Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

This is the social environment feminism and our gynocentric social order has chosen to establish for men and women. Men pragmatically look for ways to guard themselves against allegation, and yet are shamed for that sensibility. It’s gotten (or will get) to the point where old books “decent” behavior is too risky to engage in in the modern workplace. Powerful men must hide behind open doors, and still those men are shamed for being prudent. Why?

We live in a new era where marriage has become disincentivized for men by the risks of capital loss in divorce that overwhelmingly favors women with cash & prizes. Now add to this the increasing ego entitlements of women to high value men. As the prospect of marriage looks less and less like a good deal for men wanting to protect themselves there comes a need for women to create ways to bypass the requirement for marriage to access men’s capital. Enter the era of increasingly more nebulous, acrimonious, accusations of sexual harassment or assault and de facto believability of women’s testimony. Exit the era of frivolous divorce (okay maybe not entirely) and enter the era of more easily accessible capital via frivolous sexual assault lawsuits.

More to come in part 3.

The ‘Creep’ – Part 1

What makes a guy “creepy”?

For almost every woman I polled in researching this essay what makes a guy ‘creepy’ is the inability of a guy to ‘take a hint’.

Most seemed to believe that there was some ‘obvious’ (to them) boundary that ‘creepy’ men always crossed that made them into creeps. If that sounds a lot like my principle of ‘Just Get It’ you’re not too far off. Much of this goes back to women’s innate psychological filtering for optimizing Hypergamy and women expect men to ‘just get’ everything about intersexual dynamics, both positive and negative. However, there is a fundamental difference between what men define as creepy (in a general sense) and what women ‘feel’ is creepy with regards to creepy men. I’ll go into both in this essay, but it’s important to make this distinction because for both men and women there is a peripheral awareness about other people’s behavior that sets off psychological triggers which inform us that something isn’t quite right about that person and to beware of danger.

Personally, I believe we have evolved a pretty good instinct about what makes us feel unsafe about other people. For people who have some sort of clinical neurosis sometimes all it takes is to listen to that person’s speech or watch their mannerisms. If you meet someone who is drunk, it’s pretty easy to diagnose that person’s state without having to smell their breath. We instinctively get a feeling that this person is not speaking (slurring) or behaving like a sober person would. Drunkenness is an easy illustration of this instinct, but the same goes for true forms of insanity (schizophrenia, paranoia, bipolar disorder). Unless we’re really naive or just ignoring the indicators we can tell when a person is off.

Dementia and Alzheimers are easy diagnoses too. From there though, by degrees of subtlety, we really have to hone our senses to what’s right or wrong about a person’s behavior. What’s more difficult to wrap our heads around is sussing out people who have a better capacity to hide their disorders. Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome or just acute social awkwardness is sometimes manageable and we either accept it as part of their personality or we understand it as a disorder and we (as “normies”) choose to ignore it. This is where the social conditioning of today does us a disservice to some extent.

In our feminine-primary social order of tolerance and acceptance, this innate, often peripheral or unconscious, sense of understanding that something is off about someone is something we are taught we ought to keep sublimated. We don’t want to appear “judgmental” or we’re shamed for actually heeding the messages our instincts are telling us are red flags about people. Conditions and disorders that we used to consider abnormalities in the past are things we’re expected to progressively have more and more empathy for. That isn’t to say that we ought not be sympathetic to a person’s condition, but it is to say that this expectation of acceptance reduces our capacity to listen to what our instinct is telling us about a person. We get conditioned to tuning out our natural instincts about a person who may want to harm or manipulate us.

I mentioned this hindbrain instinct in Gut Check as being one reason we tend to get jealous or possessive of our mates.

Whenever you feel something isn’t quite right in your gut, what this is is your subconscious awareness alerting you to inconsistencies going on around you. We tend to ignore these signs in the thinking that our rational mind ‘knows better’ and things really aren’t what they seem. It’s not as bad as you’re imagining, and you can even feel shame or guilt with yourself for acknowledging that lack of trust. However, it’s just this internal rationalization that keeps us blind to the obvious that our subconscious is trying to warn us about. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. So when that predictable behavior changes even marginally, our instinctual perceptions fire off all kinds of warnings. Some of which can actually effect us physically.

The dynamic of Mate Guarding is also a behavioral adaptation that evolved to ensure our paternity or parental investment with a mate. Our social order today teaches us that men who feel jealousy, suspect infidelity or are prone to mate guard are by definition “insecure”. This redefining is meant to cover for women’s control of Hypergamy, in the hopes that men will self-police these instincts, but in doing so they become sublimated. So we self-convince that it’s wrong for us to heed what our hindbrain is telling us for our own preservation.

However, when it comes to women’s instincts we exaggerate their importance beyond all realistic measure. Since we prioritize women’s hindbrain perception and feeling above all else, we would never downplay their importance without risking a lot of social fallout and shame. Whereas men’s instincts are signs of ‘insecurity’, women’s instincts (feminine intuition) are raised to a metaphysical level. So when a woman says a guy “creeps her out” or is acting “creepy” we tend to misunderstand what exactly it is her hindbrain is telling her and us. There are two aspects of ‘creepy’ to women:

  • The sense of self-preservation and imminent danger that is associated with a man whom her hindbrain is telling her that there’s something not quite right about. The guy is directly communicating or subcommunicating that he may be a potential threat to her wellbeing. Her intuition is something that is exaggerated beyond all reasonable, realistic perception, but her subconscious only knows what it knows and the social conditioning kicks in to be overly cautious. This may or may not be the actual case, but women evolved to err on the side of over-cautiousness – particularly when it comes to men’s behavioral cues and perceptions of anger.
  • The sense of insult to her capacity to optimize Hypergamy with a suboptimal male makes her “creeped out”. In this sense the “creep” offends her hindbrain’s expectation of reproducing with the best genetic partner her ego believes is really her due. As you’ll see in a moment, when a physically arousing man repeats the same behavior as a less-arousing man the feeling of ‘creep’ is diminished. Much of this has a lot to do with that guy’s sense of congruency between his behavior (sub-communications) and her intuition about his authenticity, but largely the initial ‘hotness’ of one man vs. a less hot one can spell the difference between a “creep” and “awkward-but-cute”. Arousal compensates for a lot of behavioral miscues, but the point is that this sense of ‘creepiness’ is fundamentally based in a woman’s ego-sense of losing direct control of Hypergamy and her capacity to optimize it. What ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

In both these instances it’s important to consider that we’re talking about both an instinctual dynamic and how it’s been modified by our social order. The following are a few of the most common descriptions of ‘creepy’ I was able to collate for this essay:

Getting in my personal space when I don’t know/barely know you. It’s weird and uncomfortable, and if you’re bigger than me then it can feel quite intimidating.

When I worked in a bar one guy told me I was prettier than anyone else there. But he kept going on about how they weren’t attractive and had nothing to offer as far as looks go. Yeah? Some of those are my dearest friends you’re bashing.

When I make it clear I’m not interested and he keeps trying. It makes me feel uncomfortable and it puts me in a bad position cause there are only so many times you can politely turn someone down.

Over Persistence

It’s an unfortunate but totally predictable response to much of our entertainment, where the storyline involves a man “winning” an initially uninterested woman either by wooing her directly or by performing some great feat. We’ve seen this archetypal story for centuries (since the rise of courtly love). Persistence is always rewarded in Disney Blue Pill fantasies Everyone is the hero of their own story. So if you’re raised on stories like that, of course you don’t take an initial “no” as the final answer. It’s all part of the story. You’re the hero and you want her, so you’ll get her in the end.

Persistence is always a sensitive topic in the ‘sphere. Some guys will tell you that even without Indicators of Interest a woman is only a conversation away from being into you if your Game is good enough to convince her. Others will tell you to balance your efforts and play to your strengths; why bother with a dead end if other opportunities are available? In either case a guy can come off as creepy when he takes this persistence to the extreme. It’s one thing to not “take a hint” from a woman, it’s an order of degree worse when a guy persists in not taking that hint because he’s been taught he’ll be rewarded for persistence.

I have had the “attempts-at-polite-rejection” turn scary (thankfully, the worst it ever got was being slammed into a wall) enough times that as soon as someone doesn’t take “no” for an answer once, I start internally freaking out.

Persistence when a woman has rejected a guy is the top complaint of creepiness. Women expect a guy to ‘just get it’. Social retardation (I mean that in a clinical sense) and Blue Pill conditioning teach a guy to never give up, to believe in some kind of predestination or romantic soul-mate date with fate, and all he needs to do is be persistent and a woman will come to the same romantic-but-logical conclusion.

Women make the mistake of believing all guys understand when they are communicating rejection to them – they very often don’t, and for the same reason they’ve been taught to be zealously persistent. The Blue Pill makes them resistant to this. Blue Pill ‘creeps’ usually respond with either anger or self-pity when they finally realize their predestined girl not only rejects him, but she is scared of him or despises him. So the Nice Guy turns mean and vindictive, or he loses faith in his Blue Pill romanticization and gets despondent. Both are potentially volatile for the Beta.

I think a lot of well-meaning Beta “Nice Guys” come off as creepy simply because they follow a Blue Pill old-books script they believe will be reciprocated by women. Much of this creepiness is the result of their inability to do a realistic assessment of their own SMV. This is a tough bit of insight even for Red Pill aware men, but for Blue Pill guys it’s almost impossible because they are struggling against a social conditioning that constantly tells them what they do and who they are is ‘enough’ – or should be enough for any girl who’s of a quality to appreciate their unique-but-commonness.

In a way it’s a lot like today’s women’s egos being overinflated by social media and our present social narrative to the point that they believe their own SMV is, or should be, enough for any man, but especially men who are well above their own SMV. More than enough actually. So too does the ‘creep’ believe his own pathological self-impression. The problem here is that, for men,  we must be the initiators and with that comes the potential to be taken as an aggressor or harasser.

Where’s my hug?

I think one potentially bad outcome for the ‘creep’ is when he comes across something like a PUA program and watches an ‘instructor’ run through a set and then tries his damnedest to repeat the same behaviors and script with a girl he thinks he may have a chance with. When a PUA presumes familiarity with a woman he doesn’t know, and his internal game is congruent with his delivery, it comes off as authentic and it can (potentially) be endearing. But when a Beta ‘creep’, who’s trying his best to solve his creepiness problem, presumes the same behavior will endear him to a girl – and isn’t congruent, or doesn’t “get it” – he gets even more despondent (or frustrated/aggravated) when all it does is reinforce and enhance his perception of creepiness.

A common Game technique is to presume a familiarity with a woman. When PUA with Game and congruency approaches a woman and says “where’s my hug?” the effect is the polar opposite of when an incongruent Beta delivers the same line. Worse still, the guy risks not just overt rejection and creepiness perception, but he also runs the risk of having his approach considered sexual assault by order of degree. I would argue that a lot of what would otherwise be considered witty banter from a skilled PUA is creepy to women when it comes from a struggling Beta who a woman doesn’t find arousing.

This dynamic also extends to over-sexualizing a conversation with women when no context has been established between the creep and the girl.

I get creeped out by guys who immediately start talking about sexual topics in response to everything you say, every single time you are within communicating distance of each other while you two barely know each other to drop a “hint”. I had a guy that found a way (albeit poorly) to turn everything I said sexual. And whenever I called him out on it and told him to knock it off, I was being a “prude”.

Also, asking personal (sexual) questions or sharing stories of the same, especially if you’re not even casual acquaintances. I know a lot of women who want to be polite but are totally creeped out by this.

What’s fascinating about this sex-conversation creep is that, when the reverse is true, there’s no better indicator that a woman is into having sex with a you. In an upcoming essay I’ll outline our social progression towards a unilateral control of every aspect of the intersexual process by women, but for now consider that when a woman immediately presumes a sexual context in conversation it’s a solid confirmation that you’ve passed (or are passing) her Hypergamous filter. And that’s the fundamental nature of this kind of creepy guy; he presumes an acknowledged state of sexual-ness without having passed this Hypergamous determination. I’ve said in the past that women don’t decide in the first five minutes of meeting a guy if she will have sex with him, rather, she knows if she wont have sex with him.

Again, Game sometimes reinforces the idea that a guy needs to establish a sexual context with a woman from the opening, but the creep doesn’t understand the artistry and nuance that goes along with applying this. My friend, Alan Roger Currie, is a big proponent of straight up, “I wanna fuck you, are you down?” style of direct Game. While I have seen this effective with women it does promote the idea that a guy can simply presume a sexual context with any woman from the outset. And really, when a creep tries to drop ‘hints’ about sex or attempts to get personal information in a blunderingly obvious (but he thinks stealthy) way he’s not employing a direct Game – he’s beating around the bush in the hopes that he’ll pass her sex test.

When a less-than-proficient, less-than-arousing Beta adopts this direct-but-not-directness he runs the risk of being perceived as creepy, or worse, as a harasser. For a mature, socially savvy man, the obvious retort is “well, no guy should presume anything, there needs to be some kind of rapport’, but remember, we’re talking about guys who in large part Don’t Get ItThis should make for a good conversation this week. Let me know your thoughts on what you think constitutes ‘creepiness’ in the comments.

As I was researching and writing on this topic It occurred to me how deep this dynamic really is, so I’ve decided to split it into a series. In part two we’ll go into a bit more of what makes for creepiness in a Hypergamous context.  I’ll also delve into how creepiness has been developed into a feminine-operative social convention.

Riff on This

A week ago I had a reader send me a link to this helpful list of “mother-may-I’s” and feminine-primary etiquette by Nicole Silverberg. Presently I’ve got a very in-depth essay in the works about exactly this shifting of the ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative to one that presumes all forms of masculinity are inherently toxic. However, as a prelude I guess, I think it’s impossible for the manosphere and Red Pill writers to ignore the debacle that was the Harvey Weinstein admissions of chronic sexual harassment with the up and coming starlets who (along with a long list of ‘male feminist’ celebrities) didn’t feel emboldened enough to not keep Harvey’s dirty little not-so-secret until now. This, as I predicted, was then repurposed by the Feminine Imperative to be presumptive proof that all men are prospective sexual harassers with the #metoo viral hashtag.

As I mentioned in Male Control, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting the Feminine Imperative took this as an opportunity to change lanes with regard to its gestalt perspective of masculinity. In previous eras, as with this one, the reflexive response to a shooting of this nature is to blame it on the accessibility of firearms in the US. That’s to be expected, but what follows this always-impotent reactions is usually some deep, ostensibly soul-searching, introspective as to the motives of the shooter. And in this the imperative always comes to the ‘angry male’ narrative.

The presumption we’re expected to come to is that it is men’s toxically masculine socialization that makes them all potentially violent. Overwhelmingly it becomes an argument about traditional masculinity and raising boys into men in a laughably clichéd, laughably anachronistic way that is always founded in social constructivism. Yes, the allusions to testosterone being the most volatile chemical on earth gets bandied about, but usually the proponents of the Feminine Imperative rely on the ridiculous lie that boys are being raised in some hyper-masculine tribal order that tells them to “toughen up” and “don’t cry, boys don’t cry”.

However, not to get ahead of myself, in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.

What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.

The list below, which I intend to riff on, is one of many recent attempts of feminist writers to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies men (yes, the ones they say they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions. There are lots of other ‘helpful lists’ like this, and before I dig in I’ll declare that this is a tongue in cheek response to what is really a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

  • Talk to your friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

And what exactly would Nicole have us say to our creepy ‘friend’? What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women, but I’d define it as a guy who’s so socially unintelligent and sexually destitute that he’d unwittingly bet his personal life on the very low prospect of a woman responding positively to his ‘creepy’ approaches of her. I could likely write an entire essay about this ‘creepy’ dynamic (likely will), but what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

  • Don’t talk over women.

Ah, the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. We are different creatures and we have our own preferred forms of communication. Women place far more import on context (feeling) in conversation. Yes, this demand is presumptuous in that it presumes anything a woman would say is more important than men’s need to get to the damn point efficiently (we prioritize content/information in conversation). However, a lot of this gripe is about women’s wanting to prioritize their own communication style above that of men’s.

  • If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

So, refuse a lucrative position on a work team project with the potential for advancement, greater status and maybe a higher state in the male dominance hierarchy (that attracts all the women who insist on never settling for a less than ‘equal’ pairing) all to appease what passes for women’s moral imperatives? If it ever were all men on the panel in today’s work culture I’d be thanking my cubicle Gods that we’d all get something done and have time to go home to see my wife and kids that evening.

  • When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

This is the “lets you and him fight” social convention women are all too happy to use when there is absolutely no contingent consequence to themselves. This suggestion already appeals to Blue Pill White Knights who believe that their AMOGing at work will go appreciated and maybe get them laid for championing women at work. Ironically, it’s the ‘creepy’ Betas we’re supposed to say “something” to who are most likely to employ this if they thought it would get them in good standing with women.

On a serious note, all this convention reveals is the solipsistic self-assured certainty that anything a woman might say is, by default, worthy of undivided attention.

  • Learn to read a fucking room.

Most Red Pill aware men already know how to read socially. What this is is an appeal to Betas to know when to shut the fuck up socially.

  • Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting.

I would suggest not calling anyone ‘crazy’ in a professional setting, but again the intentional ambiguity of not defining what constitutes ‘professional’ is why this is disingenuous. Can I call a woman crazy if the project team is having drinks after 5 on a Friday?

  • Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

The reason this is chaffing for Nicole is that most of the male-feminist / female-allies are usually facing sexual harassment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists. I get that this is just Nicole venting, but that need to vent comes from knowing that the only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

  • Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

  • Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

There is a constant presupposition on the part of fempowered women to believe that men feel entitled to anything from. The real truth is that it is women who feel entitled to virtually everything in their solipsistic experience – this very extensive list is a prime example of what women believe they are owed from men.  In 2017 no man ever concerns himself with notions of being owed anything (even basic respect) from women. But what confuses men is women constant (Hypergamously incentivized) implications of a transactional nature. If you don’t want men to feel like they are owed your time, concern, respect or attention then don’t present a transactional pretense to your interactions with them.

  • Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

Never send a woman dick pics, especially if she asks for them. Never send a woman dick pics, even to your wife. In 2017 this is a red herring for women who are planning to file for sexual harassment.

  • If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Agreed. Next her, and move on. That said, no guy asks a girl for a date today. They hook up on Tinder or bump into each other at the club. It’s so quaint Nicole still thinks dating works like it did on Happy Days.

  • If a woman has not given an enthusiastic “yes” to sex, back the hell off.

Guys learn this part real easy, what they don’t learn, and what women deliberately keep ambiguous, is that even after “enthusiastic consent” is officially declared, he can still be charged with rape for touching her boobs (or anything else for that matter) the wrong way. Again, control the narrative, control the definition of the language and control what the consequences are and you can control the frame.

  • If a woman is really drunk, she cannot consent to you and she also cannot consent to your buddy who seems to be trying something. Your buddy is your responsibility, so say something and intervene.

Funny how we never see public service announcements stating that women still need consent from drunk men to have sex; but my buddy is not my responsibility, just like driving a drunk woman too hammered to drive home isn’t my responsibility. Good intentions get you put in jail today. If a woman is really drunk is she now ‘owed’ my assistance?

  • If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

Oh, trust me, every Red Pill aware reader I’ve ever had has come to realize that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate anything a man does for her.

  • Involve women in your creative projects, then let them have equal part in them.

Why would a woman deserve being included in any creative project I endeavor in just by virtue of being a woman? Why still would I allow her to have an equal part in a creative project I envisioned? Is it because they are owed that honor for being female?

  • Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.

But wait, I thought ‘vulnerability was sexy‘? Weakness is strength right?

Okay, sorry, I can’t possibly subject my readers to more of this inane list. You get the picture. My point is that lists like this only serve to highlight the new gender landscape that’s been brewing for years now. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

The Feminine Imperative in Corporate Culture

The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside and you look around, what do you see; businessmen, lawyers, teachers, carpenters. The minds of the very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of the system and that makes them our enemy.

You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

I apologize for breaking up the continuity of last week’s post with this one today, but I felt it was necessary to address the recent firing of James Damore by his employers, Google, for allegedly breaking company conduct codes for raising many of the issue I and other’s in the Red Pill community and the Manosphere have been dissecting for a long time now. I generally don’t like to get too wrapped up in current events until more information develops about an incident I think is relevant to how the Red Pill (as it correctly applies to intersexual dynamics) is perceived in mainstream society. It’s easy to make mistakes so if I miss anything here please feel free to correct me or add to things in the comment thread.

To the best of what I’ve been able to ascertain James Damore posted what mainstream media wants to define as a 10 page “manifesto” (really a ‘memo’) about why it is he believes certain gender/sexual stereotypes persist in the tech field. After reading it, there is really nothing all that shocking from a Red Pill perspective in his essay. If anything, Damore is still deluded by Blue Pill conditioned idealistic hopes for gender equalism not dissimilar to those held by the MRM. Really there’s nothing in this PDF that the Manosphere and even the sexual sciences haven’t been revealing for over a decade now. Damore just had the balls to post it on what Google promoted as an anonymous inter-corporate intranet forum, ostensibly established to allow their employees to voice their opinions and concerns about the company in anonymity. Google is only one of many multi-national companies to have these forums set up in some lame effort to make it seem as if they value the opinions and engagement of their employees.

Now we see just how private and dangerous these forums really are to the livelihood of their employees. To be fair, I doubt that Damore is the first guy to get fired for expressing himself on one of these forums. I’m sure there’ve been countless other men shown the door by many companies with a lower profile than Google. What made Damore a target wasn’t so much Google from a corporate sense, but rather the ‘progressive’ feminine-primary corporate culture that is endemic to Google. Once Damore had published his very well-thought op-ed about the fundamental biological, psychological and neurological differences between men and women, and how this affects innovation and employment in the tech industry, the intra-corporate witch hunt was on for the guy who anonymously posted. No doubt Google code monkeys would have little problem identifying and doxxing James, but where this witch hunt stemmed from was far more likely his co-workers and fueled by the egalitarian-equalist, postmodernist mindset that pervades Google.

This is a snapshot of the Google corporate culture. The last gal, Danielle Brown is Google’s “Diversity VP”.

The official line from Google is that Damore’s “manifesto” constitutes a breach of Google’s code of conduct. Yet for all of Google’s insisting that they respect the right’s of speech within the company, Damore’s doxxing came from within Google’s corporate culture:

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

Apparently it did. In a memo to employees titled “Our words matter,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the employee — who has been named on Twitter, although his identity could not be verified — had violated its code of conduct. (I am not publishing his name, because he — and others who disagree with him — have been threatened with violence online.)

Well, apparently James was doxxed identified and was threatened with violence both from within and without Google now. Thus, the predictable constitutional excuse that ‘you can say what you want, but you’ll be held accountable’ and Google was within its rights to fire Damore doesn’t hold water when Google promoted its internal forum as an anonymous place for employees to provide their input so the company can get honest feedback. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Google’s got a really sticky situation on their hands in that their actions technically constitute entrapment.

Furthermore, I get the feeling that Google’s campus is not unlike many other large corporate cultures – a core of skilled labor that actually puts numbers on the board as far as productivity is concerned working within a larger bureaucracy of basically superfluous positions that define the company’s corporate identity to the world around it. The writing on the wall now, that this skilled labor pool is seeing, is that this bureaucracy set of the company can have them fired for daring to voice a dissenting reality to their own ego-investments. How long before that talent pool opts for a more secure jobs in a corporate culture that looks less like the “people’s” revolution in China?

Now, all that said, James Damore, unwittingly or deliberately, has fallen into the trust-trap that I outlined back in 2013 in It’s Their Game. And while I think he’s got a pretty good case against Google, he had to have understood to some degree that Google owns his Frame. Perhaps this was his intent all along (nowhere have I seen how long he’d been employed there), but he was either very naive or very cunning in his in publishing his ‘memo’. Maybe he thinks this is his Atlas Shrugged moment, or maybe he actually bought the lie that Google (any company) cared about his employee feedback – that fact remains that the Feminine Imperative has assimilated every aspect of western society. The frame in which the overwhelming majority of men depend upon in their corporate, career, job, lives is one into which the Feminine Imperative seized social control over long ago.

For as much as it seems that standing up to systemic, calculated, postmodern ignorance is a heroic act of Red Pill aware defiance, never forget the insistent frame of the system you find yourself in. A lot of men in the ‘sphere like to tout the virtues of being ‘anti-fragile’ enough to weather the inevitable retaliations of the postmodern herd for their dissenting world view, and that may well be the case for a few men, but remember, everyone, with rare exception, is fragile about something – family, respect, integrity, personal relationships, the people who depend on him as well as his revenue (and the capacity to generate more) all apply.

Feminine Correctness

Every social, religious and corporate institution has been saturated with feminine-correctness. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to make this distinction because it will inform your decision making for as long as you remain in most corporate environments. I know many ideological and political factions like to trot out the idea about how they are against “Political Correctness”. That term, PC, has been with us for a long time now and its definition has been passed back and forth along political lines almost interchangeably for decades. Whatever it is one side isn’t allowed to address in public discourse becomes politically incorrect conversation. However, the distinction that conveniently (calculatedly) goes unnoticed is what I described as the Sisterhood Über Alles in my most recent book. Feminine Correctness permeates both sides of the political spectrum, but this is only one social arena amongst many where the appeasement of women’s perspectives as being the only correct perspective has been saturated.

Anyone who’s read my essay, Losing My Religion regarding how the Feminine Imperative has covertly (and recently overtly) assimilated authority of church culture – and ultimately doctrine – in mainstream religion can get an idea of what I’m talking about here with regard to corporate culture. The corporate workplace, big and small, has similarly been assimilated over the course of over six decades now; to the point that a feminine-primary influence has become a de facto authority under the premise of diversity, gender-neutrality and combating a presumed endemic male-sexism. All of which feed into the default, feminine-correct, presumption of female victimhood. Thus, we see the rise of the ubiquitous, almost universally female staffed, Human Resources departments whose true purpose is not about hiring, company morale or corporate culture, but rather an enforcement of feminine-correct initiatives and bylaws intended to give unquestioned authority to the feminine-correct social narrative.

In our modern corporate culture we’ve seen a meta-scale enforcement of what I termed Overseers in the Locker Room in my essay, Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

In all honesty, Jame Damore’s rationales in his ‘memo’ were very measured, bordering on Blue Pill, in his attempts to preempt what he obviously knew would be a workplace viral insult. However, his experience is a high-profile illustration of how corporate culture has been taken hostage by a mindset fed and raised by the Feminine Imperative. When you consider that this is the corporate culture of a company dubiously responsible for global access to information – ostensibly legitimate, authoritative information by the larger populace – you begin to see the extent to which the imperative as assumed control not just of our social discourse, but the unquestionable authority to direct the acceptability of personal belief and critical thought.

When I wrote The First Female President, I attempted to reveal just how globally extensive the reach of the Feminine Imperative really was. So encompassing is the presumed understanding of feminine-correctness, so ensaturated is it into our societal subconscious that we tend to take its presence for granted until Hillary (the she) was denied the presidency (to the he). Then the societal scale outrage comes to the surface because what was presumed to be correct is not a universally accepted foreknowledge as their social subconscious had presumed was believed.

That outrage was on a geopolitical social scale, yet it was due to the same presumptions that cause the outrage we see over a kid at Google who dared to say ‘no’ not just to Google’s corporate culture, but to all corporate cultures that have been subsumed by the Feminine Imperative for over 60 years now. That any company would need a Vice President of Diversity is an indictment of how deeply embedded the Feminine Imperative is in corporate culture.