The Feminine Imperative

Old Lies

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.

 

As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.

Good Humans

As was expected this week, there’s been an extensive and eager effort on the part our feminine-primary social order to once again further shifting the narrative of “toxic” masculinity to ‘masculinity is toxic. I addressed this in Male Control. Directly after the Las Vegas mass shooting we began to see articles from the femosphere decrying the evils of masculinity as being the cause of the violence.

It is no longer enough to foster the falsehood of varieties of masculinity as being “toxic” or “hyper”– now, any masculinity is a disease to society. The Feminine Imperative is all too ready to conflate any semblance of conventional masculinity with mass murder, rape, violence, harassment and any other social malaise that might viably be wiped off on men ‘being’ men. And in the wake of every new tragic act of violence this narrative shift will be more adamantly promoted by misandrist authors.

I covered a lot of this in Positive Masculinity and the Red Pill Parent series of essays, but even when I wrote these the cultural narrative was still promoting a distinction between what was acceptable masculinity and what was ‘toxic’ masculinity. This is what the Village has been instilling in our boys for some time now. Before the loss of Hillary Clinton and the Future is Female militancy took root there was some concession as to what might be considered an acceptable form of masculinity.

Naturally that ‘good’ masculinity was always defined as something uniquely benefitting the feminine. Before this cultural shift the Feminine Imperative still recognized the need it had for a masculinity that could be exploited for its purposes. There was still a need for men to Man Up and Shut Up. To be sure, boys were (and are) still taught by the Village as if they were defective girls. Boys had to be conditioned to hate their own gender in order to grow up into compliant and feminine-identifying men, but there was still a utility in masculinity that the Village recognized. Thus, there was a need to foster some kind of hopeful appreciation in men ‘being of service’ to women’s needs. There still needed to be a carrot for the mule to follow if men were to accept the old books social contract and that was the hope that their usefulness might ever be appreciated and rewarded.

The ‘Broken Boys’

Selling men on the old social contract while playing by the new set of rules worked for the Feminine Imperative throughout the late 80s, 90s and the early 2000s. However, what this narrative shift represents is a turning point in women acknowledging men as no longer (as) useful to their imperative. By 2012 it was the beginning of the End of Men, and there was little doubt, even back then, that we’d have the First Female President in office right after Obama’s exit. In the wake of that obsolescence the idea that masculinity was in any way beneficial to the Feminine Imperative, and maintaining the facade that masculinity in men might have some redeeming aspects, is no longer necessary. The feminine meta-frame has no reason to prompt men into believing their gender has anything ‘good’ to contribute to society. And thus we see the shift from qualified forms of ‘bad’ masculinity – toxic, hyper, Patriarchy, “culture of ____” – to the intended, non-qualified form of all masculinity being bad.

For the moment gyonocentrism must content itself to capitalize on human tragedies to emphasize its new masculinity = bad narrative. The Las Vegas shooting was the first paradigm shift in this respect. Once the obligatory, and now entirely boring, gun control sermons are published as a reason for the carnage, then the demonization of masculinity can be served up.

However, in the case of the most recent Nikolas Cruz shooting the Feminine Imperative gets a double bonus. The message is not only are men and masculinity the reason for all violence ever, but our boys are being taught to be these violent psychopaths because some outdated (and entirely mythical now) macho masculinity is making them so. Our boys, they say, are “broken”.

“Comedian” Michael Ian Black had a rash of post-shooting tweets that sum this narrative up:

Black is a perfect example of a Blue Pill conditioned ‘ally’ of the Feminine Imperative, but his sentiments here sum up exactly the tact that the femosphere has been using for a while now. There will always be a utility in appealing to the old male social contract as a horrible, chauvinistic, misogynistic, insensitive facade of what masculinity should be. It serves the imperative well if the Village can convince the larger populace that boys are still being taught by horrible masculine men and a society that hasn’t existed for 50 years which bully them into being potential Nikolas Cruzs.

They say boys are broken because it’s the only easy explanation that vaguely sounds right in the face of the Village systematically feminizing boys for the past four generation. Boys are “broken” because of an “outdated masculinity” that was replaced with a feminine-primary educational system decades ago. They’ll blame men for perpetuating that lie, and in the next breath blame men for not being “men” enough to engage with these young men so as to deter them from tragedies like this. The Village has been so effective in blurring conventional masculinity that its adherents themselves have no idea what masculinity entails.

When the 2018 Women’s March took place I, and a lot of other men in the sphere, noticed a common theme in the protest placards that mothers were creating for their sons. The message for girls was the standard “girls can do anything” pablum, but for boys the message was all the same:

“BOYS WILL BE BOYS   GOOD HUMANS”

The message of today’s Village is that Boys are never to be boys, never to be male, never to be masculine in any positive aspect,…boys are born as not ‘good humans’. At least, boys are not good human beings until they acquiesce to the Village that is teaching them and to the authority of The Future is Female paradigm. In order to create the genderless, masculine-less, gelded men of the future they must get to boys earlier and earlier in their development.

In the interests of full disclosure I’ve had a handful of women defending this ubiquitous messaging tell me that it’s meant to teach boys not to blame their “shitty behavior on just their being male” – boys will be boys – but what even its defenders don’t recognize is the deeper message that boys of this age register; and particularly in an acculturation process that considers them defective girls.

But this is where we’re at in the intersexual environment today. To the imperative men are no longer men today, they are “allies”. This is the next logical step in Removing the Man from our social context. Boys are no longer ‘boys’, and they can only ever be ‘good humans’ so long as they continue their Blue Pill conditioning to become ‘allies’ later.

 

The following is a reblog of Josh Ishiro Finney’s A Letter to Boys & Young Men of America. Josh had this post and his blog attacked in the wake of the school shooting in Florida this week and I felt it was impactful enough to warrant a reblog here. Having written many a post on the war on conventional masculinity – and really the better part of my book Positive Masculinity – I wanted to extend my support for his commentary.

A response to mass shooting in Florida.

The bodies aren’t even cold yet and already you are being blamed.

Yes you.

All of you.

The boys and young men who will grow up to become one half of America’s future.
Once again, due to society’s failure to raise you, to teach you, to properly guide you on your path to manhood, your mere existence is being held responsible for seventeen more deaths—this time in Florida, and once again, at a school. The headlines of the last few days say it all:

  “Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people, experts say”
  -USA TODAY

  “Michael Ian Black reacts to Florida shooting: Boys are broken”
  -New York Daily News

  “How Gun Violence And Toxic Masculinity Are Linked, In 8 Tweets”
  -The Huffington Post

  “Toxic white masculinity: The killer that haunts American life”
  -Salon

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -The Boston Globe

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -Harpers Bazaar

  “Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men”
  -Politico

In the handful of decades I’ve been alive, I’ve seen America shift from a culture of responsibility to one of blame. We don’t solve problems anymore. We cry, we pray for, we seek to find closure, and then finally, slaughter a sacrificial lamb for our sins. When I was young and Columbine happened, that lamb was Marilyn Manson and video games. Before that, it was D&D and Twisted Sister. These days, though, as body counts continue to rise and excuses continue to vanish, the lamb America has chosen to sacrifice is you. Rather than take responsibility for the seeds we’ve sown, the culture we built, and the disaster you’ve been left to inherit, we as a nation have chosen to lie to ourselves. To listen and believe those who claim that the answer is simple: “Boys are simply born bad.”

As an aging Gen Xer watching this tragedy unfold, I can’t help but look back at my youth and realize we were the dry run for this “crisis of masculinity” as the media likes to call it.

In my time I’ve watched as fathers were pushed out of the home, separated from their children, and their role in society debased and devalued. Like you, I was taught male behavior was bad behavior. That I was broken and needed to be fixed. Drugs, therapy, mass socialization were required to save me from my most innate instincts—

—the need compete.

—the drive to create.

—the urge to protect.

—the desire for female affection.

Like you, I was told these instincts were not only wrong, but dangerous. That due to my Original Sin of being born a boy, I was destined to mature into a lustful monster and an oppressor of women. All this was burned into me before I even reached college, where campus policy actually assumed all men to be rapists waiting to happen.

It isn’t hard to see how we got here, to an age when America is more than willing to sacrifice its boys. To quote Fight Club, “We’re a generation of men raised by women.” And the women who raised my generation had a saying: All men are pigs. But there’s another saying those same women were enamored with and that is: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

So here we are, coming close to fifty years of single mothers raising their boys as if they were animals. Two generations of young men raised to believe they’re broken, immoral, and dangerous. That their natural state, if left unchecked and unmedicated, is a sexual ticking time bomb of rape and abuse. Half a century of academia peddling a grim version of history that holds your gender personally responsible for all the wrongs ever to have happened in the world. And a press, that at this very moment, is blaming YOU for every school shooting to have ever occurred.

After all this, how could there not be a crisis of masculinity?

So to the boys and young men of America, believe me when I say it isn’t you who should be apologizing for the state of our world today. This mess was set in motion long before you were born.

You are not bad.

You are not broken.

You are not inherently evil or a sexual abuser in waiting.

You are boys who were robbed of your right to be men.

All your life you’ve been told to act, think, and behave like women. To suppress your passions, your pride, your need to compete and drive to achieve.

Now society is crumbling around us.

Feminizing boys didn’t make better men. It’s resulted in broken homes and shattered families and record suicide rates. It’s destroying any notion of a healthy partnership between men and women, and is pushing us ever closer to total collapse of gender relations.

Boys, we don’t need you to be like women, the world has plenty of women, already.

What the world needs now more than ever is for you to be men.

For you to grow-up, to grow strong, and do what men do.

For it is men’s strength and determination that tamed the wilderness, built civilization, and has kept the world fed despite all predictions we’d all die starving before the year 2000. It’s men’s curiosity that lead us to explore the oceans, to conquer space, and peer into the tiniest of microcosms of the human body. It was men who built the cities we inhabit, the luxuries we enjoy, the medicines that keep us alive. Men built the road, the plumbing, the electrical grid, the phone in your hand, the internet it’s connected to.

Men have always been innovators, explores, defenders, and leaders.

But most importantly, men have always been fathers.

So to the boys and young men of America, please read this and take every word to heart.

The world needs you.

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 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Polygamy Polyandry

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

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

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

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

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

Some Solutions:

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

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

Dangerous Times – Part 2

The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence. – Pook

If you’ve been wondering what I’ve been doing lately over the past week I took it upon myself to read through the 7,000 word short story “Cat Person” that’s recently gone viral. The author, 36 year old Kristen Roupenian, was also offered a one million dollar book deal to expand the story even further. You too can read the whole thing if you have the stomach, but it reads every bit like the passive-aggressive indirection I’d expected it would coming from a less-than Hypergamously satisfied woman who’s well past the Wall. Rather than craft a concrete article about her own inner conflict (and by association all women’s conflict) of having ‘inconvenient’ casual sex, she thought she wanted, we get an overwritten fiction that sock-puppets herself as the main character.

If this book does publish, trust me, it wont be a new 50 Shades of Grey. Cat Person  resonates with women today because we now live in the #MeToo era of moral panic inspired by the same Future is Female outrage brokers who brought us pink pussy knitted caps and the women’s march in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I decided to split this series of essays into two parts because at this moment in history we are beginning to see the culmination of the predictions I alluded to in my essay, The Political is Personal. We are seeing, in real time, just how a feminine-primary social order and a growing female supremacism consolidates its power. But as I outlined in that essay, this power is always predicated on the hope of ensuring the largest pool of women are legally and socially entitled to the unquestioned, and unmerited, optimization of Hypergamy.

Any man with a Red Pill Lens reading through Cat Person will easily pick out the social conventions and rationalizations unique to women’s ‘hamstering’ (“Flirting with her customers was a habit she’d picked up back when she worked as a barista, and it helped with tips.”) that the manosphere has been picking apart for almost two decades now. And, like most women, the female readership find nothing inconsistent or conflicting about any of it. Roupenian breezes through the ins and outs of women’s sexual pluralism and the differences between transactional (Beta) and validational (Alpha) sex without so much as an afterthought – and her readers eat it up with the same solipsism.

However, the overarching concern for women about this story is the issue of the newly coined term “enthusiastic consent”. Our poor Margot (the main character and proxy for the author, and ultimately all women) is torn up by a casual sexual encounter that at first she thought she wanted, but later, even after giving the guy the green light to have sex with her, she loses enthusiasm to bang him. Yet, not to be rude or to create an uncomfortable scene, she goes through with the inconvenient, lack luster, sex because it was easier to say yes than to say no.

There are other names for this kind of sex: gray zone sex, in reference to that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don’t really want to do it but it’s probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because you’re kind of “meh” about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the “bad” refers not to the perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath.

Essentially, this shift from Yes Means Yes consent to Enthusiastic Consent ask the last questions in women’s social consolidation of Hypergamy:

“Must I still have to have transactional sex with Betas if all my provisional needs are more or less met?”

“If I’m an ’empowered’ woman, am I not entitled to the sex I want to have with Alpha men that validate both my hindbrain and my ego?”

“Can transactional sex with Betas be used as leverage to extort resources from them at any future date by redefining that undesired sex as ‘rape’?”

Curb Your “Enthusiasm”

The reason I believe that Roupenian’s future book will fall flat is because the viral conversation her short story elicits is about a new terminology that the Feminine Imperative hopes to insert into the public sphere – that of ‘enthusiastic consent‘ being the only legitimate form of consent a woman can give a man. Anything less than genuine enthusiasm (however this is arbitrarily defined by women) is at best illegitimate consent and at worst rape – even if every indicator a woman gives a man prior to, during and after sex says ‘yes’ she still means ‘no’ and, as we’ll see here, it will be incumbent on that man to be an adequate mindreader and sexual evaluator to determine her real degree of ‘enthusiasm’ both in the moment and into the future.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I wanted to begin with a comment I received last week:

If you read feminist literature, the intent behind “enthusiastic consent” seems to have good intentions. Its based on the following purported beliefs:

  • That there is a huge incidence of coerced sex and sexual contact, which is mostly inadvertent rather than malicious. The best way to correct this is to teach men the principles of EC. 
  • That the idea of a sharp Alpha/Beta divide in men’s sexual attractiveness is a myth propagated by the misogynistic Right. Furthermore, girls and women have a realistic idea of their own SMV and will be attracted to their male equivalent.

Thus, feminists believe a free sexual market will see assortive mating with both men and women being able to get a similar amount of sex. This is why when men complain of the difficulty of getting sex, many women will retort that it must be because they are only chasing “supermodels”.

Look at Charlie Rose, is this a man with any Red Pill at all? Giving shoulder rubs to office girls, showing porn to a couple, this is all high school Beta stuff. But he had a TV show that lots of famous people wanted to get on. Clearly Beta-ized, but a situational Alpha. In my not so humble opinion most of the #MeToo girls are going after former situational Alphas because they turned out to be Blue Pill Beta after all…they feel cheated, and are just so sure that all the other girls got to ride a real Alpha pony on the carousel, so the fury comes out.

The ‘enthusiastic’ consent social push we are just on the cusp of today is the next progression in the larger goal of feminism – removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality. ‘Enthusiastic consent’ will be the raison d’etat for the legislation leading to the outlawing of any form of male sexual expression.

From The Political is Personal:

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

[…]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.

As much as I’d like to believe that normalizing ‘enthusiastic consent’ may lead to women overplaying their hand, I have to consider how the specificity of defining consent will also redefine past sexual norms and intersexual dynamics; not just among single individuals having loosely defined “consensual” sex, but also married couples and how sex (or lack thereof) defines their relationships. As if the men of today needed one more reason to be wary of marriage and how it will eventually affect their sex lives, now we can add the potential for ‘marital rape’ accusations based on EC (enthusiastic consent) to that list; and all in light of women’s less than enthusiastic response to any of her husband’s advances. God forbid a mewling Beta pouts his way into this grey zone ‘duty sex’ with his unenthusiastic wife.

What were witnessing here is the insertion of college campus consent laws into Marriage 2.0, and as designed its intent is to further disrupt marriage and family. Even in the old books presumptions about marriage a man could expect his commitment to a wife and family meant a plenary exchange of sexual access. But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.

I got the following comment from last week’s Red Pill Reddit forum repost:

The fundamental driver is removal of female responsibility for her actions, pushing all responsibility onto men. Whatever happens between a man and a woman, women universally agree that the man is to blame for any and all results, including her subsequent regret.

Responsibility used to be on women to say “no” if she wanted to claim rape. This responsibility has been removed. No longer does she have to verbalise lack of consent. No longer does she even have to verbalise actual consent. She can decide after the fact…. years after the fact…. whether her consent was in fact enthusiastic enough, and she can base that on her future feelings. “But did you enthusiastically scream yes?” her friends will ask, which is more than the police or the public will subsequently ask of her.

Women side with women. Whiteknights, weak Betas and naive Blue Pill fools side with women. Everyone agrees women are right and men are wrong.

And this is the intended result: women are not to be held responsible for their actions. They are not to be held responsible at any cost – including the destruction of male lives.

I presented this point in Men and Suicide, but just to recap, on a subconscious level women will always seek to absolve themselves of complicity in men’s personal destruction. This extends from destroying mens lives due to regrets over not optimizing Hypergamy, to any concern over men committing suicide. At present, women are attempting to reconcile ‘bad sex’ with ‘inconvenient sex’ they have in spite of themselves. However, the same absolution of any inherent complicity in this ‘transactional’ sex ends with blaming men for women’s lack of agency or self-moderation:

Bad sex isn’t even necessarily coercive. I’m talking about having a sexual encounter you don’t want to have because in the moment it seems easier to get it over with than it would be to extricate yourself.

Young women say yes to sex they don’t actually want to have all of the time. Why? Because we condition young women to feel guilty if they change their mind. After all, you’ve already made it back to his place, or you’re already on the bed, or you’ve already taken off your clothes, or you’ve already said yes. Do you really want to have an awkward conversation about why you want to stop? What if it hurts his feelings? What if it ruins the relationship? What if you seem like a bitch?

The problem in this rationale isn’t about women changing their mind or feeling guilty – those are excuses for male-initiated victimhood for women and absolve women’s complicity – rather, the focus should be on the fact that women going through with this type of sex presently have the option to ruin a man’s life at any future date by defining it as ‘unwanted sex’. Ella Dawson may not want to conflate transactional, Beta sex as rape, but that’s where this conversation is leading us to.

Is it OK for Alpha Males?

I apologize for forgetting who it was that sent me this link, but the present day #MeToo moral panic combined with notions of “enthusiastic consent” and a resulting atmosphere of fear in intersexual dynamics was predicted as far back as 2004, and by a woman no less:

Sexual harassment is a crime committed by beta-males who think they can get away with alpha behavior. But that is a distinction too delicate for the blunt instrument of the law. How do you explain to a judge why one man’s comedy is another man’s bone-chilling lechery? And can we really expect the beta-males themselves to understand the difference?

I found this article very prescient about our present moral panic. In the last two posts I’ve made the case that what were finally seeing on a social scale is the consolidation of women’s entitlement to an almost socialistic guarantee of optimized Hypergamy. Through any number of direct and indirect institutions we’ve now virtually guaranteed women a right to Beta men’s resources, protection and provisioning as well as a dominant social status above them both at home and in the workplace. Whether overtly or covertly, women dominate Beta men; the last piece of consolidating Hypergamy is then the (at least partial) control of Alpha Fucks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7kpmwa/dangerous_times_part_1/drhirym/

As we move into 2018 – an era to be defined even more thoroughly by the Future is Female, #MeToo and Enthusiastic Consent – I believe we’ll see a push for the following:

  • Sexual harassment will indeed be a crime committed by Beta males who fail at a convincing ‘Alpha’ behavior. As such the push will be to get Beta men to self-police their behavior via fear. There will be a doubling down on the part of Blue Pill White Knights and ‘Feminist Allies’ in the wake of the social and legal options women will have to be believed of men’s sexual misconduct allegations by default. Feminized men will “try harder” and rat out their rivals for any hint of misconduct in an Orwellian effort to be more appealing and identifying with women.
  • Only confident Alpha men, or men well versed in Game, will be allowed to approach women from a perspective of social acceptability. However, even then it will be a woman’s prerogative to later define that approach or subsequent interaction as harassment if that Alpha doesn’t comply with a woman’s long term security needs, provisioning and parental investment ‘entitlements’. The latent purpose of a suspension of the statutes of limitation for sexual harassment will center on locking down (perceptually) Alpha men in a long term relationship.
  • This new feminine-primary sexual paradigm will further limit Beta men’s sexual access and increase reproduction stress in the few Beta men who don’t pragmatically drop out of the sexual marketplace altogether. This will also reinforce boys/men’s conditioning of loathing their own gender. They will be taught to accept this feminine-primary sexual strategy, as well as the legal restrictions  on his power of choice and his life’s direction as the societal norm.
  • Legal mandates and societal mores will directly and indirectly ensure Beta men’s compliance in all aspects of parental investment in children he was not biologically responsible for, as well as women’s long term security.

Now, more than ever it is imperative that men become Red Pill awakened and see the writing on the wall with a Red Pill Lens. All of this may seem horribly unavoidable, but let me emphasize, it’s not for men who are aware of, and have internalized intersexual dynamics and can plan accordingly.

In the last installment of this series I’ll be delving into some of the larger socio-sexual implications of where we find ourselves today and where I see present day intersexual relations leading us in a larger scale as well as what Red Pill men can do to win at whats becoming a very dangerous game.

 

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 3

One of the parts of our evolved, human mental firmware is a need to see order in the chaotic. Pattern recognition in humans seems likely to have been a selected-for trait that aided in our survival in the past. Thus, we look for consistencies that help us predict what will likely come to be or to help us plan for eventualities. As such we had a need to categorize things in our environments as well as in other people (members of our tribe vs. the members of a competing tribe for instance). Naturally, we apply this need for familiarity and recognition to other people which is how stereotypes emerged. I feel the term ‘creep’ is one such categorization, but this is really a proxy term for a type of person that conveys a certain feeling we get from them.

There is an instinctual, animal-level recognition we get from other people’s behavior, looks, smells, subcoms, voice intonations, etc. Pattern recognition has been a survival adaptation in human being’s for sometime because it saved our conscious mind from having to perform rote memorization of each of these aspects and forming a definite identity for each and every individual we meet. It saves our brains from having to consciously process large amounts of data without being overwhelmed.

From People are People:

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus, we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of more importance.

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

This is a good starting point in clarifying why we feel a need to typify others. 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. I’m starting off with this today because the last part of the creep story is about men setting off this trigger in women.

I’ve written on several occasions about how women constantly complain about how the stereotypical ‘Nice’ guy can turn into a ‘creep’ when it turns out that all the guy was being nice for was part of his Beta Game of identifying with her in order to get to intimacy. There’s a lot going on in a situation like this, but fundamentally it represents a situation where a woman’s Hypergamous filters are fooled (or not) by a guy misrepresenting himself as one asset to her Hypergamous understanding of him and then his revealing and confirming for her that he expects her to believe he’s something else.

I’ve also written before that nothing is more flattering for a woman to believe that she’s figured out a man by using her mythological feminine intuition. However, there is a flip side to this ego-compliment to women, and that’s when her ‘intuitive’ assessment of a man’s SMV status compared to her (self-perceived) own proves to be false. Nothing is more offensive to a woman than for her to have made an assessment of a guy based on her mythical intuition and then to have it prove inaccurate.

The reason this is so offensive is because women’s Hypergamous optimization with any man is largely dependent on her intuition. Hypergamy and women’s long -term breeding strategy depends on assessing men’s SMV and their utility to her accurately. This is often compounded by women being sold on the infallibility of their feminine intuition – courtesy of a feminine-primary social order – and grossly exaggerated self-perceptions of their own SMV, and the caliber of men they ‘know’ they must deserve. But as with most things human there is also a learned / trained aspect of pattern recognition. Much of this learned side for women is often distorted by our female-important society.

Hypergamy cannot afford to incorrectly assess a man’s status and value. There is only a finite window of optimization while a woman is in her peak desirability in life. So it should come as little surprise that if a man misrepresents himself as something other than what he is – either deliberately or by misunderstanding – women feel an offense on the limbic level. It’s an offense that confirms she’s wasted her very precious time with a Hypergamous dead end. And, needless to say, Game is a form of deliberately tricking a woman’s Hypergamous filtering – at least in the PUA sense, if not an authentic sense – thus, Game is so vehemently disparaged in women and their identifying sympathizers.

When a woman typifies a guy as a creep what she’s responding to is the fallibility of her intuition, but also his efforts to misrepresent himself as something he’s not to her filtering mechanism. I should also add here that concepts like preselection and social proof are extensions of this filtering process. Only in this case it’s women’s collective, social filtering that’s aiding in an individual woman’s selection and optimization process. As such, that collective of women (the Sisterhood Über Alles) needs a type of man to be the representative of the ‘deceiver of Hypergamy’ – enter the Creep.

I’m actually kind of glad I held out for three posts in this series; it allowed for that many more sexual misconduct allegations to come forward in what’s being called a masculine moral panic today. And as I predicted in Male Control, the feminine social narrative has shifted from a type of masculinity being “toxic” to masculinity itself is toxic.

THE FACT IS, IT’S YOU. IT’S MEN. THE SOCIAL ILL THAT WE CAN’T QUITE PUT OUR FINGER ON IS MEN.

This is a quote from a recent article in Esquire. Yes, Esquire, a magazine that used to be an exclusive male space dedicated to men’s higher aspirations and betterment is now a vehicle for this new narrative of male shaming, and gender loathing. That’s to be expected these days – GQ is a similar platform for the Feminine Imperative’s messaging – but what I found interesting in this article was some of the examples of ‘creepiness’ women believe is rampant in American workplace culture. I had thought that with the rise of HR departments’ directives to police male behavior (at the risk of future unemployability) the issues she mentions would be something men would fear – I guess not.

A coworker knew I had a date the night before, so he asked me how it went. He said, “So, did he get lucky?”

Don’t ask about her romantic life. Don’t refer to her sex life. Don’t ask about the quality of the sex she’s having. Don’t comment that she seems like she needs to get laid. Don’t tell her to lock down a guy before she gets too old and decrepit. Don’t reassure her that with tits like hers, she’ll find a guy some day. Don’t relay details of your own marriage and past in order to comment on hers. Don’t make knowing eyes when she mentions she’s going on date number three. Don’t tell her how to behave on a date. Don’t tell her what guys like on a date. Don’t tell her to wear a low-cut shirt on a date. Don’t make any reference to getting lucky, like, ever.

What guy does any of this? How does he know when a female coworker had a date to begin with? There’s a lot that goes along with how a woman comes to a list of Don’ts, but I think this list represents a good illustration of the creep dynamic. The primary concern she has in all of these Don’ts can all be distilled down to a guy beneath her Hypergamous attraction floor presuming a familiar intimacy with her. I find it very hard to believe any of these Don’ts would be actual occurrences, but I’m looking at them through a Red Pill Lens – yes, it’s entirely likely that Blue Pill creeps would in fact resort to some of these comments.

Essentially the entire article is an effort in berating the Beta men women really want nothing to do with.

YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF SAYING OR DOING A WRONG THING AND HAVING IT BE INTERPRETED IN EXACTLY THE WAY YOU MEANT IT.

Women want lesser men to be afraid to approach, compliment and engage with them, but the message is wrapped in generalities to imply all men do these things. This message has the potential to throw the Alphas out with the bathwater, so I would predict there’ll be a few related articles that will of course shame men for not ‘manning up’ and approaching women like a “real man” should.

Dangerous Times

All that said, I can easily imagine Beta men, confused about sexual zoning, engaging in exactly the behaviors described here. It is a very dangerous time to be a Blue Pill Beta today. In fact, I’d argue it’s never been more potentially hazardous for guy ignorant of Game and the nature of intersexual dynamics. I find it very ironic that the men who actually understand the potential for some real life-damaging accusations in the workplace or any other off-limits social context, who take the open door, have-a-witness, policy for working with women are being shamed for it by women. This is the environment they created, but they created it in response to a want for absolute control of their Hypergamous choices.

A “creep” can pretty much be anyone a woman (or women) want that guy to be – even guys who were previously attractive with whom they had consensual sex with. That Alpha they didn’t mind oversharing their sex life information with can be the “creep” if he decides to break things off with her. Again, this comes back to unfettered control of women’s Hypergamous choices as well as absolving them of any regrets they may have had that resulted from them.

Edelweiss had an excellent comment in last week’s thread:

From my perspective, the guys most often labeled a “creep” are those with poor social awareness and/or men who those women see as offering no real value to them.

Now in my mid 40’s, I can see things that would never have registered for a 20yr old version of me. I often think “how did I miss this before?”. My focus now is almost entirely on body language. A woman can consistently lie with what she says, but she (anyone really) can’t consistently lie with their body language. Any guy not well versed in reading the various signs of interest, or a lack of, needs to spend some time studying the basics. It seems simple now.

One of the major mistakes I see guys make, is escalating too quickly. Touching, and sexualizing around a woman who isn’t into you, or is unsure of your value, is a great way to be labeled a creep. How many times have you seen a guy double down on an approach that isn’t working, and consequently become known as a “creeper”? A good number of men get into “pursuit” mode, and completely fuck up their chances by being overzealous.

I’ve got to repeat this, it’s never been a more dangerous time for men unaware of Red Pill intersexual dynamics and even basic Game principles. Blue Pill Beta men have been conditioned and acculturated to default to a Beta Game that is the perfect storm for so volatile a time. These guys literally have no idea that what their interacting with women is doing is setting them up for. Simple compliments and treating women with a default respect is becoming a liability for men with poor social awareness, but this is exactly the type of men our social order has developed for the past 4 generations. These Beta ‘creeps’ who should just know better than to try to approach the ‘average’ woman are the result of decades of raising and acculturating boys to hate their masculine nature and confuse their good intentions with some form of Game women might appreciate.

Pook once had a great quote back on the SoSuave Forum. He said,

How do I judge a woman’s character? I see how she treats people who can do nothing for her.
This test has never failed me.

At this point in time I think we are seeing how women treat the men who can do nothing for them.

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.