Compatibility

There is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft. – Roissy

Rollo, what are the Best Hobbies for meeting chicks?

Yeah…i know..you’re not suppose to be looking for chicks while you are practicing your hobby but…fuck that crap. I’m always on the lookout….and hanging with a bunch of drunk dudes who play softball on the weekend in SWELTERING heat doesn’t sound like my gig.

It’s very entertaining for me to hear guys reason as to why they got into yoga, or my all time favorite, salsa dancing as some means of meeting girls. I mean really, if that’s the goal you choose to devote the precious few hours of your leisure time to then I suppose a guy ought to take up scrap-booking or zumba.

If you’re picking up a hobby in order to meet women all you’re doing is attempting to Identify with what you expect your idealized woman to appreciate. If you get into something for this reason it’s not a hobby, it’s a Buffer.

Successful men don’t chase success – success chases them. Women are going to expect you to have your own uncontrived, interests, passions and hobbies established before meeting them.

However, I do think the desire of finding a common interest prior to, or in order to hook up with women is an interesting one. The MGTOW crowd will of course use this as a prime illustration of how men autonomously shape themselves to the ideals of women. And in the terms of living in the feminine reality they’d be right. You see, whenever a Man engages in any leisure activity, passion, hobby, etc. that doesn’t directly benefit his wife / GF it’s always perceived as a waste of time. If she cannot realize a tangible result that benefits her – or by way of her, the potential “family” or the “relationship” – your effort is pointless and frivolous in contrast to engaging her, entertaining her or relating with her. Again we see the hypergamous feminine imperative of girl-world. If it’s not directly benefiting women, it’s not benefiting humanity in general.

That said, you can stretch this association quite a bit. If you enjoy playing basketball after work with friends or hitting the gym, there is a benefit to her – your improved health, better looks, less fat, etc. so the “hobby” is more tolerable. There is a kind of hierarchy of leisure activities, hobbies, passions, etc. that women rank based on how it relates to themselves and the social perceptions that are associated with it. You could even make the case that playing X-Box helps you decompress after a hard day at work, but this is less tolerable than something that has tangible benefits or at least the association of benefits for a woman. You have to learn how to mediate this in an LTR. It’s actually a fantastic opportunity to maintain the frame within a relationship if you have the wherewithal to endure her protests. I have a LOT of passions and interests that I enjoy. Some directly benefit my wife, others don’t, but the moment I give one up, I surrender and that’s the moment she loses respect for my authority as a Man. I fully acknowledge there are interests I have that Mrs. Tomassi is casually indifferent to or outright despises, but were I to acquiesce with “OK honey, you win, I’ll stop it with such and such”, I lose prominence.

Nothing irks me more than AFC husbands who abdicated their authority and prominence by giving up things that they loved prior to marriage. And then they tell me how “thankful” they are that they married a woman who “allows” him to watch Hockey occasionally on the little TV set they have in their bedroom (not the widescreen in the living room). If guys are obsessively playing fantasy football or baseball in preference to banging their wives, I think the first place to start is with the wife. Most often it’s a referendum on her. Men should not need to create their own space, their home should be their space. Your home should be your ‘Man-Cave’.

Common Interests

When I was dating my wife we shared one common interest – fucking like rabbits whenever and wherever. There’s are very few things my wife and I do together as a couple as far as common interests go. We don’t share hobbies, we do bodybuilding, but separately, she taught me to ski when we were first married, but after our daughter was born we ended that.

I think in general people place far too much importance on “common interests” as if it’s some kind of glue that should hold a relationship together. I think shared beliefs and appreciation for individual identities is much more vital for a strong relationship than whether or not you both enjoy tennis. It’s our differences in personality and how the traits of our individual characters complement each other that makes a couple grow. I have a tendency to intellectualize things; my wife’s ‘common sense’ simple wisdom helps temper this in me. My wife is generally very impatient, and I have the patience of Job (particularly with our daughter) – this complements her deficit. My wife is a ‘worst case scenario’ worrier, I tend to be more pragmatic and optimistic and this balances another aspect of our relationship. I have a tendency to be more artistic and passionate and this fills a need she has, but is unable to articulate. It’s differences in identity that complement the deficits of the other and a vibrant appreciation of them that account for strong couples.

I would advise guys to re-think this compatibility myth. Every time I see these 40 point personality tests that “ensure compatibility” on eHarmony I want to puke. They’re all based on shared commonalities and this has a potential to lead to disaster. Men need to be able to excel in certain areas or activities in their lives that serve as a renewable source of social proof for the women they pair-bond with. Gender equalists will of course take offense to this in assuming it’s adversarial – as is always their tact – presuming that a woman reduce herself to ‘allow’ her man to win at something. The reality is that women want a Man who’s good at something because it serves to gratify women’s innate narcissism as a source of associative pride for her. Women want a Man other men want to be, and other women want to fuck, and in the context of an LTR or marriage, a guy with an exceptional, recognized talent or passionate dedication to something, however compartmentalized it is, can be all the reminder she needs to help validate her decision to commit to that Man.

As nice as it is to have a mate that shares your interests, a relationship based on how alike the couple is only leads to homogenization and stagnation.

Qualities of the Prince

You know, I’m not quite sure if my readership is aware of this, but I’m a Prince. No really, I’m a Prince (stop laughing), or at least that’s the expectation I’ve come to have others recognize in me after sifting through women’s online profiles on such fantastical dating resources such as Plenty of Whales Fish and OK U-Bid Cupid. But don’t think I’m such a rare bird, because amazingly enough, if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a Prince too! And you didn’t even realize it did you?

You see, virtually all the women you encounter on these Buffers online dating resources are simply undiscovered, under-appreciated jewels in the rough. They’re Princesses, and goddammit they deserve to be treated as such. Just reading through each profile is like going on safari and encountering a virtual cornucopia of rare and exotic animals (kind of like a zoo), each meticulously described in encyclopedic detail of their uniqueness and rarity of finding. What mere mortal man could possibly deserve to touch such feminine refinery?

A few years ago the denizens of the SoSuave forum accidentally conducted one of the most humorous social experiments ever performed. A member by the handle of Bonhomme was a frequenter of Plenty of Fish and noticed an interesting trend in women’s profiles. Though most of the women using online dating run the gamut from hopelessly fat to 2-drink fuckability, the one thing most had in common was an entirely overblown sense of self-worth to compliment their grossly overrated self-impression of their sexual market value (SMV for those of you playing the home game). This is nothing shocking for unplugged Men; the ‘community’ has long held that social media and online Buffers work in tandem to convince a woman she’s 1 to 2 degrees higher on her SMV scale. What hadn’t been studied up to then was the descriptors and qualifications that online women used in both their “list of demands” and their own self-evaluations, or “the brochure of value added features” any man with common sense (see fem-centric conditioning) would ever be considered a ‘Man’ for appreciating in a woman.

The following is an example pulled from a typical profile:

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of guy I am interested in… 5’10” or taller, lives near by, compassionate, intelligent, giving, VERY Attractive (someone other than your mother or sister has said so, lol) and in shape, prefer self employed, FAMILY orientated, open to new spontaneous things, likes to camp, likes to golf, wants children, would be a good father and faithful husband, a gentleman, gives me my space when I need it, not a nerd or too sarcastic, can take a hint, social, calls for no reason, remembers sending a note or a nominal gift IS romantic and necessary, respectful, sense of humor, and thinks the world of me. I am not interested in anyone older than 41 and anyone who makes less money than me since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be a stay at home mom and furthermore… my children will never want for ANYTHING (but of course will not be spoiled brats either lol). You should also love animals  I am not attracted to red heads at all lol sorry.

Wow! A rare find indeed. Thank heaven for the internet in providing men such a valuable resource that we might encounter such rational and strong women as this. This is one common example, but by far the most common self-references women made involved the word “Princess” – “I’m a Princess waiting for my Prince” or “I’ll admit it, I’m a Princess, I just need to find a man who can appreciate that and treat me right.”

Well, far be it from Rollo J. Tomassi to deny these undiscovered royals their due! Quickly I began to craft a cunning profile of my own; one which these pouting Princesses would surely recognize as that of none other than the Crown Prince of Man-dom. Using their own profile’s jingoisms and idioms as a template, I established an idealized persona, one that any woman worth her equalist “common sense” salt would instantly be irresistible to,…

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of gal I am interested in…5′ 5″ or taller, but not over 6 feet (because while I don’t mind being eye to eye with you, I won’t ever be looking up to you), lives close enough to be at my house within 10 minutes after I make the call, genuinely passionate, intelligent enough to be good company, sexually available (preferably insatiable) and VERY attractive – we’re talking Jessica Alba, Keyra Augustina attractive – women with a body-fat percentage higher than 8% need not apply. Must be employed but not so well as you’ll interfere with our sexual activities, FAMILY oriented, but only after you’ve hit 30-33, open to spontaneous sex (you know, like outdoor stuff or a surprise 3 way with one of your hot girlfriends after our 2nd martini), likes to camp (in the nude), knows not to complain when I go play golf with the clients from work.

She must want children after 33 years of age if at all, and only after she’s proven to be a good mother and faithful wife, must be a lady with class and know when the right time is to speak and not to speak, not a prude or bitch, can take the first hint, sociable, unexpectedly texts me pictures of her wearing something new from Fredericks of Hollywood, understands that the best gift she can give me is expressing her desire to fuck me like a wild animal, and also understands that gifts for her are treats or rewards for desired behavior.

Must be respectful of my decisions being final, can’t take herself too seriously and thinks the world of me. I’m not interested in anyone over 31 (since this is most women’s expiration date anyway), she cannot have exorbitant spending habits or a credit debtload in excess of $1,000 since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be able to send my own children to college (rather than pay for your student debt), and furthermore… my children will be taught to reasonably earn their achievements on their own and respect the decisions of their Father and mother (and absolutely will not be spoiled brats either). I’m very attracted to redheads, blondes, brunettes, Latinas, Asians, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc., pretty much any woman that meets my physical requirements. I am not attracted at all to even slightly fat women no matter how much “inner beauty” you think you may possess. Hope to meet you soon, your Prince.

There! What woman could possible fail to appreciate all of the qualities of a Prince based on their very own template? Insidious, clever and witty. All I had to do was await what could only be a landslide of returned affection and positive responses. I contemplated how I would have to let down the poor cast off Princesses who failed to meet my humble criteria as the first response came in,…

“I read your profile, and is any of it serious?????”

A bit perturbed I reply,

Why do you think it’s not serious? Am I not allowed to be a bit specific?

“Sorry not about to put up with your kind of shit.”

Strange and yet strange again. Here I’d learned that self-confidence and assertiveness were traits women admired in the land of gender-equalism. Ah, perhaps this Princess was a bit jaded by such a dearth of qualified Princes at her disposal. I waited a bit more and was rewarded by a Princess called ‘Lil Sweet Heart’ who’d randomly read my glowing self-description,..

“what a profile
see iam a strong willed person!!
i speak when i want to say what i want and when i want and the way ur profile sounds i dont we;d be a match and the part about raising a spoiled brat thats a hard one to over come depends what u see as spoiled sure my boys r a bit spoiled well a lot but thats the way i was raised and it did me no wrong my kids know that they have to work to earn their spending and treats but no reason why a parent cant buy something just because so maybe ur profile can off wrong but my feeling is not some one id wanna meet hmmmmm”

Egads! I respond,

“Honestly, I really tried to read your message to me, but all of the bastardized English and the run-on sentences made it virtually impossible to understand what you were trying to say.”

I do say. Whomever this royal child’s au pair was is deserving of a public scourging! The thought of so ill-preparing a Princess for courtly discourse with the Man who will one day be her King is inexcusable. Bah, the blazes with this one, I’ll be patient on another,..

“uh, yeah, i don’t think so. maybe your profile’s a joke (which would make it less sad), but i don’t find it amusing, not my sense of humour at all.and the fact that i’m even bothering to reply to say no, rather than just ignore you, should tell you how distasteful it is.happy hunting. (though you’d have better luck if you went back in time 100 years or so, have fun finding chics like that today)

After checking out your profile, you are one of the rudest people i’ve even encountered. In your dreams…”

Hmm, I was beginning to see a flaw in my profile design. You see I had simply reworded the profile of my original Princess’ profile and changed the gender specific terms to the masculine, while adding a bit of my own desires to the outline of the ideal Princess I’d like to meet. After all, they all want to be treated like Princesses, I’m just asking to be treated like a Prince. But,..perhaps I’d been remiss in my waiting for the Princesses to respond. How unmanning of me – I would seek out my prize and pursue her. This profile caught my eye,…

“I am friendly, outgoing, generous, loyal, honest and adventurous. I work in a hospital. I also drive and have my own car.
I love to get my nails done every two weeks. I love fashion and style. I care about pop culture and social issues.
I have an IQ of 146. I am extremely intelligent and educated.

First Date: I dont want to meet Cheaters, users, players, haters, crumb bumbs, guys who want booty calls or fuk buddies… ya’ll dont let the door hit cha on the way out… I guess Im looking to meet someone around my own age, who is taller than me preferably caucasian, attractive, who likes to work out, has a unique, ghetto and sarcastic sense of humor like me.”

Well, not the ideal prize I’d been seeking, but perhaps this was another jewel in the rough that just needed a bit of spit and polish. I respond in the affirmative to her brassy, assertive equalist nature. After reading my profile, she responds,..

“i mak emy own moneya nd pay for own 5hit.. and for someone with such high standards take a good look in the mirror becuz these girls aka jessica alba are way out of ur league… if u want someone who is hot at least BE hot urself!”

I found this confusing since I had no picture on my profile at this point. I’d have to address that, but strange that the assumption was that my physical stature would necessarily be inadequate for her. I respond,..

“Dear woman, for someone with such a high opinion of her intelligence your grammar, punctuation and syntax are far from reflecting this. You type like shite.”

What I’d found most entertaining of this whole affair is that these women somehow feel compelled to respond to the profile. As if it were some personal affront to their sensibilities that it should need their attention to correct, rather than simply move on to the next profile. Judging from the frequency and intensity of the responses, how many men do you suppose responded to the original woman’s profile with the same fervor?

One of the best ways to illustrate how insaturated feminization has become in society is to flip the gender script on certain gender-specific dynamics. As funny as all this was, it serves to show that women live and operate in gender assumptions that they simply take as normalized conditions. Were a Man to publicly expect the terms and demands for his own provisioning and intimate access that women demand without an afterthought, he’s instantly accused of misogyny at worst, comedy at best. There are many more dynamics that illustrate this fem-centric normalization. My critics get fits of hysteria when I describe the acculturated, feminine-centric undercurrent operating in society. Girl-world is the only world for them, so pulling back the iron-veil of the feminine reality like this is usually a hard revelation. Ironically it’s the vitriol engendered in the responses to my reworded profile that prove the point.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. Generally women in this demographic have decided to pursue a career at the sacrifice of caring for a family, and for some, initially, there is a learned disdain for the idea of being ‘trapped’ in a domestic life. Some are aware of this sacrifice and some are not. Most professional women swallowed the all too common ideology that “you can have it all”, a ‘rewarding’ career, a family and are deserving of an equally professional, equally intellectual husband that will respect her choosing the career path and equally share in what she perceives as his domestic duties. This of course is the new image of the American Dream for egalitarian equalists. And like most professional women, at some point they come to realize this dream is false because the sacrifices required to attain this fantasy defeat it’s own conditions.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

At age 18 she’s progressed through high school with a high GPA and her single mother or 2 parent equalist family (only rarely is it a single father) has raised her to believe she can go far, and through the financial aid available only for women and/or the college fund her parents planned for her to be ready to compete in “a man’s world”, she’s ready for college. Not a bad thing for a woman who understands the future sacrifices she’s about to make and is ready to actually meet the challenges of a University and a ‘promising’ professional career.

At age 24-26 she’s achieved a bachelor’s or master’s degree, perhaps a doctorate by 28. More often than not though it’s a bachelor’s degree, and an expectation of professional respect in the professional world. 90% of professional women graduate with education, psychology, journalism or communication degrees. That’s not to say some don’t seek out careers in law or medicine or business, they do, but in far fewer numbers. Regardless of her education, her expectations are the same as her peers – once in the workplace she will be rewarded and respected based on merit. Unfortunately, in the professional world, things don’t go as smoothly as her Women’s Studies teacher prepared her for. She discovers that to function as a professional she is also required to be responsible as a professional and more times than not, it’s not all that ‘rewarding’. In fact it entails a lot of rejection and a lot of hard work at the sacrifice of a personal life and personal relationships.

At 30 she sees the girlfriends she went to college with married and perhaps having their 2nd child. She still clings to the self-affirmation that her choice requires she have, but can’t understand why she hasn’t ‘gotten it all’ by now. She’s single or may even be divorced at this point, but looking for that ‘professional’ and intellectual equal of masculinity that the fantasy sold her, yet it hasn’t quite worked out that way. Most guys her age don’t have the intellect she expects they should or they lack the status in their careers. Men more successful and mature aren’t interested in her since she pales in comparison to the 22 y.o. women they seem to prefer.

At 35 she’s achieved quite a bit in her career, but has no prospect for a family at this point. She enjoys reading the articles in the women’s magazines that affirm what she thinks she experiences often enough – that men her age are juvenile with ‘fragile egos’ and only want to become involved with women in their 20’s because they feel ‘threatened’ by a woman who would dare to be their equal. The truth being that the men who she’d consider her peers are hardly juvenile at this age, but rather calculating, they generally have a better understanding of what they want and what is satisfying for them after more than a few failed attempts and have learned how the game is played to a greater or lesser degree. Particularly professional men of the same or higher status than she, since they have more access to being particular with the women they choose to become involved with. They are aware that the 35+ y.o. professional woman’s personality has been shaped by 12-15 years of expectations of ‘having it all’ and they are aware that she is generally not a good candidate to start a family with since he knows all too well the sacrifices and responsibilities necessary to achieve his own status. A career man rarely sees a career woman as a good choice for a wife or an LTR, not because he’s ‘threatened’ by her status, but because he’s known and worked with enough of them once he’s reached 35+ years of age to steer clear of them.

Men typically could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it – it’s simply not a factor in attraction for us – we don’t take a woman’s status or wealth into consideration; all she has to be is hot. That is a guy’s one condition for intimacy, physical attraction, sexual availability. She’s gotta be hot – whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jone’s husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodisiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from ‘professional’ life are conditions women have for MEN in attraction. That’s not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring’s security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

The ‘Today’s Woman’ crowd loves to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy’s ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction on the physical by blaming it on ‘men’s fragile egoes’ or how they ‘feel threatened by professional women’. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their ‘professionalism’ that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

This is the overreach of the feminine imperative – to attempt to thwart men’s biological predispositions by convincing them what they should find attractive and arousing in women. This becomes all the more ironic when you consider that the women the imperative would have men be attracted to are masculinized versions of  women.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects of their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men’s basic impulses – she’s-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive, a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it’s just icing on the cake for us, but this is analogous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking and fun in bed.

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this ‘professional woman’ mythology is that professional women want to be success objects themselves, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman’s choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as she understands the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

Protracted SMV

Leave it to Roissy to scoop me on my own posts:

Rollo Tomassi writes:

Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for creating the single greatest time-comparative engine men have ever known. I’m not a big fan of Face Book from a male standpoint, but if it has any redeeming aspect it’s that it provably shows men, in stark contrast, how women’s SMV declines. This is driven home all the better because the subject women are usually ones he’s known personally for a few years.

I entered my 20s in the early 90s, well before the internet went mainstream. I can vividly remember the women I was banging then and the ones who wouldn’t have a thing to do with me. Now I see them 20 years later thanks to social media and every single one is just ravaged by time and lifestyle. I’ve accepted friend requests from women whose memory from 20+ years ago are ones of flirtatious, beautiful lust-inspiring youth, all to be shattered when I see photos of them in their late 30s and early 40s. Then I pray to God and thank Him for sparing me from being yoked to cows like that in spite of my consuming desire at the time to get with them.

Take a minute to digest this: we are really the first generation of men to have such a convenient comparative tool. There was a time when a man could get with (or not) some girl he fancied and never see her again. Young men hear all the time how inconsequential the women they pine for really are in the grand scheme of things. Now the older men giving him advice have a tool to prove and emphasize that advice, and women have cause to lament the ugly, provable truth.

I had imagined going into this dynamic in more detail when I wrote it a few months back, but Roissy’s pretty much summed up my thoughts fairly well. However, one thing I couldn’t have accounted for is the inevitable female response to this dynamic, as represented in the comments by Maya (the troll):

Such a pleasure when you see us getting old and worthless, isn’t it?
If this makes you feel better about yourself …

I can fully understand why women would think men acknowledging this would be mean-spirited. Women’s innate solipsism predisposes them to thinking that viscerally identifying their SMV’s decay is an attack on them personally. Vitally important ego-investments tend to bring out that kind of defensiveness. That’s really not what I had in mind when I wrote that.

I primarily write for Men’s benefit, though I think women may learn something along with it. In writing this, my intent was to provide men with an overall perspective of their own, protracted SMV in comparison to women’s protracted SMV. Naturally, women will see that as an affront because it casts their sexual strategies in a negative light, but think about the beta chump struggling with thoughts of suicide because he thinks he’s losing his soul-mate in a break up at 19. We may live in girl-world, but sometimes our emotional wellbeing, even our own survival, depends on resisting it’s influences. As I said, I believe Face Book, and the greater part of social media, dynamically serves the feminine imperative – attention, affirmation, voyeurism, gossip, etc. – but allow a man to even recognize a use for it that serves to put things into a masculine-positive perspective and he’s attacked and shamed for it by default.

It’s a simple matter to tell a guy he’s dodged a bullet in the cosmic scheme of things, but it’s altogether different to provably show him how he’s dodging it. For all the evils of facebook at least it gives him an ability to see the forest for the trees, but the feminine can’t even afford him that. You must stay dumb, you must stay plugged-in for the feminine to maintain primacy. For all the benefits of a globally connected world, the feminine imperative expects you to accept a feminine-centric normalization of it.

The Mechanics of Kino

It’s no secret that I think one of the best ways to practice Game is to understand the mechanics behind Game. It’s very important to remind ourselves why what were doing is (or should be) effective and what exactly that effect is to predict an outcome. Ironically I take the most amount of criticism for disassembling Game mechanics from both sides of the debate. Women naturally hate explanations of the crimson arts because in revealing the blueprints for how Game techniques and principles functionally operate, they acknowledge their Achilles heels and feel forced to scramble and misdirect or mischaracterize Game for fear of the sisterhood being wantonly manipulated by less than scrupulous men.

Male Game critics (i.e. manginas) have similar misgivings, but I also get a bit of flak from Game practitioners who’s only real concern is making the technique work without any care for functionality. Lastly, there are guys who think it’s really kind of remedial to review Game principles and prefer my theory over the “under the hood” disassemblies of Game.

I think stressing the importance of Game mechanics is necessary. I was actually taken aback a little by the responses I got from my Learning to Read post. “Stick to theory man, we know this shit already.” With all of the current debate about how Game is evolving and to what end I think it’s really necessary, occasionally, to explore the fundamentals more thoroughly. We assume (myself included) that anyone reading a manosphere / Game blog must be familiar with the techniques and concepts behind them, however I’m increasingly having to defend core principles of Game precisely because opponents lack even a basic understanding of the mechanics of a particular principle or technique. If you’re unfamiliar with the functionality of Neg Hits, why would you think a woman wouldn’t react to them with anything but offense and insult?

So, it’s with all this in mind that I will occasionally return to the basics and hopefully help further a more thorough understanding of why Game works. Try to remember that the freshly unplugged guy still in the discovery phase of his awakening doesn’t have the benefit of having read Mystery Method or even knowing what alt.fast.seduction ever was.

The Mechanics of Kino (kinesthetics)

Human beings require touch and physical affection to bolster praise and self-affirmation.

Children need this in great amounts when in their infancy and I’d argue into their teenage years as well. Babies need contact with their mothers and all OB/GYN neonatal caregivers are instructed to pick up and cuddle newborns since this human contact is essential in triggering hormonal and immuno-chemical changes that benefit the survival of the child.

All mammals to some degree employ this physical connection to one another and so do we. A pat on the back, a hug from a parent, an embrace between lovers, or even sick or elderly people petting a dog or cat — goes a long way for stimulating not only the sympathetic nerve and immune systems, but also the psycho-biological feelings of well-being that come from the endorphins that accompany the stimulus. That’s the nuts and bolts of Kino. Your touch is a stimulus, but it’s how that stimulus is interpreted that makes or breaks how it’s employed.

Casual Kino

Casual kino is something we already do to a greater or lesser degree unconsciously. The act of petting a dog is Casual Kino. Once your subconscious (and sometimes conscious) has determined whether an animal is friendly, the natural unconscious impulse is to pet it. Why do we do this instead of just going on about our business?

The latent reason is because we want to gain its favor (some would say to ’tame’ it), but we also experience physical pleasure from that simple act of stroking a cat, petting a dog, etc. This same Casual Kino holds true for people as well. This type of Kino isn’t meant as intimate contact so much as subtle reassurance of acceptability by that person. In other words, to tame them.

There are also cultural and conditional rules that make Kino more or less acceptable. Dutch men and women for instance greet women with three kisses on alternating cheeks and in other cultures certain acceptability of subtle gestures of Kino are expected. Unfortunately modern westernized American culture is probably the most uptight in this regard. While contact between unrelated males is usually limited to a handshake or a pat on the back, the older an individual is the more acceptable it becomes to be more affectionate with them — as if there is an unconscious understanding in humans that the older an individual is the more affection that person needs to stimulate these health benefiting responses.

I’m sure you’ve encountered the ’touchy-feely’ kind of people? Try to remember what it was about them that made them remarkable. Did they make you more comfortable or less comfortable in their presence? In some instances I’m sure you could call Kino ’groping’, but this is when the line between subtle Kino and intimate Kino has been crossed. Likewise the touchy-feely person betrays a neediness for this contact, most certainly as a result of deprivation, thus conveying a subconscious message that the person hasn’t been found acceptable for touch for any number of reasons in the past.

Using Kino

The trick to effective Kino is to make the contact seem casual and subtle without crossing into betraying intent of intimacy seeking or to present the appearance of ’needing’ the contact.

For instance, we may consider a slight squeeze back from a woman whose hand you’ve just grasped as an indicator of interest (IOI), but this connotes something different than the woman who grasps your inner thigh while sitting down for drinks or dinner. The same holds true for men in the opposite role of delivering a message with touch, only it is much more exaggerated.

Bear in mind that women are far more adept at interpersonal communications than men are aware of. They covertly communicate with innuendo, subtle and carefully chosen words, visual and non-verbal communications to be sure (i.e. dirty looks) and, of course, touch. They will understand a male’s intent when he is unaware that he is even communicating it to her — and nothing belies this intent better than carelessly applied Kino.

Strategic Kino

Casual Kino is easy to understand, but Strategic Kino is an art. Recall that physical touch engenders bio-chemical changes in a person — this is the basis of Strategic Kino. In this Kino we establish a reward-reinforcer relationship with our target.

This principle is rooted in behavioral and child psychology — we reward children with praise and affection for a desired behavior, but remove it when an undesired behavior is performed. This is effective because of an actual physical need for this contact. Reinforce desired behavior – deincentivize (not punish) undesired behavior.

It should also be emphasized that this Kino is only ever effective after a dominance / affirmation seeking relationship is established. Using effective Neg Hits, demonstrating higher value (DHV) and making your target see you as the PRIZE is essential. Kino without a pretext of higher value only worsens your approach and you slip into the creepy zone. Strategic Kino is just one tool in a Man’s tool box and using Kino prior to setting yourself up as the objective for her will in all likelihood turn her off to you. You have to establish a perceived value for her prior to initiating any casual touching.

That said, the principle of Strategic Kino is to reward your target with touch for appropriate responses while in conversation. Your target should be isolated to ensure there is no external interference. This Kino is akin to shutting your target out in the initial stages of opening to a group by keeping your back to her and only recognizing her when she becomes insistent. Your touch becomes comforting to her once you’ve established a baseline for this sense of comfort.

Remember, there is a bio-chemical element to touch, so on a subtle level her body becomes accustomed to this. When it is removed (and you’ve made this touch valuable), she will covertly understand that this touch implies approval and acceptance, and the absence of it connotes a lack of affirmation.

As with most things Game, what you’re looking for is reciprocation of your effort on which you can then amplify to a next level, ultimately resulting in intimacy and/or sex. Game is a dance and a language – as a Man you need to lead and direct the intercourse, but it’s vital to see the signs of reciprocation and the willingness of a woman to dance with you. Returned kino is an excellent IOI (indicator of interest) and confirmation of a willing ‘dance’ partner.

Chasing Amy

Beware of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.

As an addendum to the Good Girls Do post from a week back I’m submitting an insightful story about the disillusionment Christian beta-males had with Amy Grant.

Here we have a purile Amy Grant-as-sex-object; only that object fits an idealization so she becomes the mythical Quality goal for moralistic men. She fit the bill perfectly; hot, virtuous, talented, etc. She offered the perfect fantasy in that she (or other women like her) would be patiently waiting for her husband-to-be (i.e. them) to share her virginity on their marriage night, be the best sexual experience conceivable in this reality, PLUS the best virtuous experience by definition.

All that comes crashing to the ground when Amy gets off on the pre-marital sex, “she enjoyed it”, and falls from grace. She becomes human, the idealization shatters and the vitriol ensues. Now she’s secular, an insincere charlatan that led them to believe something false. She’s suddenly “low quality” and they hate her more passionately than had she not fit their idealization to begin with, and all the girls who modeled themselves after her are now suspect of her sins by association.

People are going to be people. What this essay doesn’t elaborate upon is that eventually Amy Grant cheated on her husband with Vince Gill (also cheating on his first wife) and they got married and are all fat, rich and happy.

Sex, Amy Grant and the Quest for the Righteous Fox

By Mark Olsen

Almost a decade ago, riding a church bus back from the obligatory summer choir trip, a friend turned to me and I heard these words for the first time. “Hey, check out Amy Grant.”

I slid the earphones off my head and wrinkled my nose. “Yeah, I know. That folksy singer, the sincere one.”

I’d heard about her, read some gracious reviews of her first few releases, but my curiosity had never ignited. Her image seemed kind of limpid. And then my friend handed me a copy of a Christian mag. There lay a full-color picture of Amy, beckoning from the page.

“No. I mean, check her out. She’s all right.”

So I checked out Amy’s picture. All of a sudden, my interest knew no bounds.

You have to understand. Back then, in the waning years of high school, my church friends and I were the epitome of Contemporary Christian Youth. We
were the paradigm. We would pray for our back-slidden acquaintances and then go watch them perform at keg parties. We would scrutinize Pat Benatar and Styx albums for signs of latent Christianity. We would agonize over the dearth of hot guitar licks in so-called Christian rock. Then, having gratefully discovered Phil Keaggy, we would play him to our unsaved friends, bending towards the speakers with satisfied grins, watching eagerly for their silent nods of approval.

All this is relevant. It’s relevant because high atop this slightly marginal, oddly acclimated Christian teenage-male subculture, towered the seductive Myth of the Righteous Fox.

Hovering languidly at the end of our frustratingly virtuous dating rainbow, this beautiful and unsullied babe of legend had rejected the lure of football jocks and fast cars and saved her beauty for an earnest Bible-studier and choir-attender (who also happened to be cool, hip, and into rock’n’roll) – someone, of course, remarkably like us. The Righteous Fox would be God’s reward for having survived, for having endured. He knew how many youth group videos on sexual purity, and the saccharine, fifties-laced condescension of countless off-the-cuff pastors’ talks we endured. She was our revenge on those unsaved guys who’d nearly convinced us we’d missed the action.

Reduced to its bare Quixotic core, the Quest for the Righteous Fox consisted of a never-ending search for that really cool, deeply spiritual chick who’d hung out with the guys just long enough to make every last one – except for ourselves – overlook her blinding-yet-unobtrusive beauty (Pointing out once again the Quest’s most delusional side-effect: The Fallacy of Original Attraction).

Only one problem though: true Righteous Foxes were (and still are) incredibly hard to find. And nearly impossible to find before another hard-scamming Christian dude discovered her first. Yet the fantasy persisted. It invariably followed these exacting parameters:

We and The Fox would spot each other someday, eyeing each other soulfully over the pages of our Bible study guides, knowing, with that mutual instinct borne of fate, that we had found The One. We would ply her with a typically Christian courtship, spent in the festive embrace of a youth or college church group. Then finally, mere hours after a ceremony of Contemporary Christian music interspersed with wedding vows, she would reward our years of grudging virginity with the pure abandon of sanctified lust. (The best kind of sex there is – we  ‘just knew’ it.)

“She’s out there,” we’d say. “Just waiting for me.”

But for a while, we weren’t so sure. The girls in our youth group … well, we didn’t think they qualified, on account of the babe criterion. Familiarity breeds … well, you know. We caught fleeting glimpses of The Righteous Fox at youth rallies, desperately scanning the crowds, pining for another glance like Richard Dreyfuss in “American Graffiti”. We spoke longingly of the babe-laden youth group in the neighboring town. But she never seemed to find her way into our lives.

That is, until Amy.

Amy made our blood boil; she burrowed into our imaginations and oppressed our dreams. She made us gape shamelessly, as I did when I first saw in person Amy’s big doe-eyed sincerity, cascading brown hair and crooked smile, and was smitten with the knowledge that God had finally epitomized the Righteous Fox in human form. Amazing thing though: along with the knowledge came the blazingly idiotic notion that I alone had apprehended this miraculous insight.

But the idiocy didn’t last long. Midway through my first Amy concert, I looked down from the sight of her wafting one more song for Him and over at my best friend Ted. I realized it was all over. Our eyes met and we both knew, fresh from the eyes of our private fantasy, that this was no bolt-from-a-blue-sky occurrence. The affliction was well-nigh universal, shot through the heart of every glazed-over, slack-jawed Christian male in the concert hall that night.

Her beauty wasn’t – quite – what you’d call striking. It was different than striking. Amy’s appeal went much deeper than mere physical perfection. And the sincere, profound beauty Amy manifested, she seemed – no surprise to us – unaware of. (She might cultivate her looks, but she’d also – somehow – remain completely oblivious to them.)

If you were to go out with Amy, you could count on her not to cake on the make-up. You could just tell. And a girl like her probably wouldn’t kiss you on the first date – although she wouldn’t make you wait much longer either. (No gratuitous prudery in Amy’s life.) And she’d never complain about the flaking paint job on your car. You’d never innocently trust in her character, then hear the guys report with leering tones on Monday morning that she’d been spotted sneaking beers in the Dairy Queen parking lot. No, you’d known where Amy’d been – on a Youth Council retreat with a gaggle of lesser companions, plotting hayrides and witnessing strategies. And as for the premarital thing … don’t even think about it.

Man, did Gary Chapman ever shatter that pipe dream.

First, I heard she was engaged. Through my grief and dismay, I discerned only a slight tarnish on my luminous Amy image. But some time later, I heard the worst.

She’d gotten married. Worse yet, by the time I’d heard, the wedding had actually taken place weeks before, meaning that – barring some unlikely scenario – the union had most certainly been consummated. That hurt. Gary had compelled Amy (through some unfair form of coercion, no doubt), to say, “I do,” to someone other than ourselves. The simultaneous dream of a million young evangelical men vanished in one night. And the ever-so-subtle sexual backlash began the very next day.

Amy didn’t help, of course. Not only did she fail to keep the subject of sex a secret, but she actually started intimating that she rather … well… enjoyed it. Stories started circulating of unsettling, injudicious comments made to magazines and concert audiences. (Did she actually mention “…getting our rocks off…” to Rolling Stone?Certainly not something “Jesus would say.”)

I noticed the backlash myself beginning with Amy’s first video. Ted could hardly contain his indignation over one salacious sequence in which Amy shed her jacket and the camera followed the garment – apparently not briskly enough – down over the inflammatory regions of her body and to the floor. “It’s almost pornographic,” he said. I watched it with him, and saw nothing remotely lewd in the move. (Just the same, our eyes never left the screen. We never blinked.)

Soon I started to notice a pattern. The guys were grumbling. The girls were growing catty. I noticed, within my own dreams, a growing dissatisfaction with my cherished mental-Amy-scenarios. My short-reel romantic visions were falling off the sprocket before I could even begin the date that inevitably followed our accidental back-stage, love-at-first-sight meeting. All because of the interloper husband, whose presence had transformed those visions from highly unlikely into now empty
fantasy. And also, quite frankly, because Amy was no longer a virgin. The script had lost its appeal. The Righteous Fox had tumbled off our rainbow.

Then it got worse. Amy mutated from the soft-focus Vermeer-lit goddess of the ‘Age to Age’ album cover into the leopard-skinned temptress of the ‘Unguarded’ album jacket. The guitars started coming out of the shadows. The drummer started using drumsticks. Finally, Amy seemed to have done what everyone had feared so long: “Gone secular.” And Amy “going secular” gave our collective discomfort a channel for expression. We turned on her with a vengeance.

It’s been years, of course, since all this took place. And in that time, many culturally plugged-in Christians have become aware of a fairly pervasive, surprisingly virulent anti-Amy backlash. Most intelligently assume that it stems from the dilemma surrounding whether a Christian performer should dilute or reduce their religiosity to broaden a potential audience. Again, the old debate over “going secular.” In light of her recent mega-stardom, it sounds logical.

Naah. It’s about sex.

It’s about this: she used to be ours, and now she isn’t. She used to be Contemporary Christian subculture’s fresh, untouched, pretty young secret. Then she gave herself away. First to a man, then to the unwashed masses over in Adult Contemporary. And now years later, many of us still haven’t forgiven her. We haven’t forgiven Amy for getting married, for daring to admit that she is a sexual being, for bearing children (lest we forget, the most glaring result of carnal relations). Most of all, we’ve never forgiven her for not choosing us.

Among the women, many of whom appear to be the most strident Amy critics of later years, I detect the venting of some long-repressed frustrations. They’re the “other girls” of our youth groups. The ones who saw the best guys hold out for a dream; causing them to attend Valentine’s banquets with their little brothers. They’re the ones the Quest left behind. The girls who, somewhere between graduation and first summer back from college, mysteriously acquired the mystery and allure we thought they’d lacked.

They’re the women we married.

They don’t make love every time with the ardor of twenty pent-up years, and they don’t “submit” quite as well as Marabel Morgan would recommend. They don’t spout spiritual wisdom every time they open their mouth. But they’re the ones who took us in after the Righteous Fox fell from grace.

Meanwhile, Amy seems to opt for surprisingly mundane activities back down on the farm. Conceiving children. Bearing children. Raising children. Hosting Bible studies. Mending a marriage. Keeping in touch with friends. Sound familiar? Maybe a few years off that rainbow, the archetype turned into — gasp — a real-life woman after all.

I didn’t repost this story as some indictment of Christian culture, but rather as an example of how plugged-in men develop idealization of their “Quality Woman.” Neither am I trying to convince anyone that “all women are sluts, never trust them.” Both of those characterizations are binary extremes, women lie somewhere in between. It’s a much healthier starting point for men to understand women from the perspective of coming to terms with their pre-conditioned idealization. Your sweet little virgin wants to fuck, and your whore still wants to be a soccer mom.

The Horse’s Mouth

Women would rather be objectified than idealized.

One of the best litmus tests for how unplugged a guy truly is is how he reacts to the words of his idealized woman. I briefly covered this idea in the Self-Righteous AFC:

You see, when an AFC clings to the mental schemas that make up an AFC mindset it requires a constant need for affirmation and reinforcement, particularly in light of their glaring lack of verifiable success with women while clinging to, and behaving in accordance with the mindset. AFCs are crabs in a barrel – once one get to the top to climb out another drags him back in. The AFC needs other AFCs to affirm his blatantly obvious lack of success. He needs other AFCs to tell him, “don’t worry just be yourself” or “she’s just not a quality woman because she can’t see how great a guy you are.”

So when an AFC finally does get a second date and then finally does get laid it becomes the ultimate validation for his mindset. “See, you just have to be a nice guy and the right ONE really does come along.” This is when the self-righteous phase begins and he can begin telling his Game / PUA friends that he’s “getting some” now without all the Positive Masculinity claptrap. In actuality he rationalizes away all of the conditions that lead up to him getting the girlfriend and the fundamental flaw that he’s settling for a woman “who’d fuck him”, but this doesn’t stop him from claiming a moral highground. His long wait is over and he’s finally hit paydirt.

This need for validation of a Beta Game mindset is very strong for guys – particularly when you consider a lifetime of being steeped fem-centrism’s conditioning. When you grow up in girl-world you want to believe the idealizations of women are actually attainable. This is what makes the ‘red pill’ so hard to swallow; men truly want the fantasy, the romanticism and love, in the context girl-world presents it to them for so long, to really exist for them. This is what makes believing women’s individualized words, rather than their globalized behaviors, so seductive for men – even for Men who’ve become self-aware in the feminine Matrix.

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

When a woman (or a man impersonating a woman) posts some self-description or personalized experience about how they conform more to this idealization than to the “silly caricatures of bitter misogynists” online, this triggers an internal conflict for men. Men want to believe that the exception to the rule could exist for them since it agrees with his initial social conditioning, but the learned, unplugged, conditioning he’s applying to see the forest for the trees, and factoring in women’s generalized, observable behaviors as a better method for determining intent, fights against this. Becoming Game-aware teaches Men that the medium is the message, but to varying degrees Men still want to believe that women are completely self-honest, rational agents, and cognizant of their internal motivations. Eventually applied behaviorism puts the truth to this deception, but it’s very hard to let go of that want for an easier answer.

In our ‘plugged in’ years, men rely on the same deductive pragmatism with women that we use to solve most other problems. Our problem solving natures predispose us to objectifying the elements of a problem to arrive at a solution. Even our neural wiring is designed to achieve this end, so it’s literally a ‘no-brainer’ to want reliable, rational data on which to base our plan to solve a problem – in this case getting laid and receiving intimate approval from a woman. Thus our next question is “what do women want?”

What Women Want

I can remember asking this very question uncounted times in my plugged-in teenage years. Hindsight being what it is, I can only laugh now when I read teenage guys still asking the same thing 4 generations later. It seems so intuitive and considerate of a woman’s sensibilities; guys think it presents the countenance that a man cares enough to create himself in her idealized image. Women and girls naturally love to answer this question because it gives them a default authority, while at the same time feeds their attention needs. It’s such a popular topic that even rom-com movies are based on the question and the zany misunderstandings that result from men’s ridiculous attempts to understand the oh-so unknowable, mysterious natures of women’s true desires. Silly, silly men.

The truth is much simpler. Women either lack the awareness and self-honesty to acknowledge what it is about men that women in general (not just individualized to themselves) want, or they deliberately misdirect and evade men’s efforts to make deductive sense of their motivations because, in truth, they want a guy who ‘gets it’ on his own without having to be told. In either case, whether due to ignorance or duplicity, the secret of the ugly, cruel truth of female hypergamy is to be protected and obfuscated as women’s first priority. So important is keeping this truth from men that the feminine imperative must socialize it into women’s collective psyches. One of the great threats that Game theory represents to feminine primacy is revealing the truth, and the atrocities that result from feminine hypergamy. What do women want? Maximized hypergamy with a man blissfully unaware of hypergamy. The perfect union of emotional investment, parental investment and provisional investment with her hypergamous nature.

However, men still want to believe that women earnestly want to communicate their intimate desires in an effort to make better men. We believe that women, the emotional, erratic, dramatic, mysterious and romantic creatures of story are also consistent, well-grounded pragmatists that rival men themselves and are only waiting for the man unique enough to listen to her. And the more her story agrees with our mental construct of what women should want, the more we want to believe she exists. If she’s convinced of the story this is all the validation most men ever need – he got it from the source, a woman who confirmed the fantasy.

Professional Mothers

It’s called birth control because someone is ‘controlling’ the birth.

There are presently 41 different types of contraception available for women, for men there are only 2 – vasectomy or a condom – your only line of defense against her ‘choice’. The only thing separating a man from a lifetime (not just 18 years) of interacting with the decider of altering the course of his life is a thin layer of latex.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #5
NEVER allow a woman to be in control of the birth.

Always have protection. I’ve had far too many guys hit me with the argument that they implicitly trust their girlfriends to be on the pill or whatever, and that she “doesn’t want kids” only to be an unprepared Daddy 9 month later after ‘the accident’. The only accident they had was not being in control of the birth themselves. In fact I’d argue that men need to use extra caution when in an LTR since the ease of getting too relaxed with her is present.

Accidental pregnancy is practically a cottage industry now. For a woman without education (or even with) and without means, an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy may be a pretty good prospect, especially when every law and social expectation weighs in her favor. These are Professional Mommies. When I counseld in Reno I knew a guy who married this woman who had 3 children from 2 Fathers who he himself had impregnated with her 4th. She was a Professional Mother.

Flush it

In 2002 the NBA issued a highly controversial and publicized warning to professional basketball players stating that players be advised to wear condoms when having sexual intercourse with women when on road games and to “flush the condom down the toilet” in order to dispose of the semen. This warning was the result of several paternity suits that year involving women these players had slept with by retrieving the condoms from the trash and ‘self-impregnanting’ themselves with the players semen. The NBA had enough occurrences of this kind to warrant a league-wide warning that year. All of these players are now 100% liable for the welfare of these children and their former partners by default because there are no laws protecting men from fraudulent pregnancies.

To what degree is protection implicitly implied? If a man does everything in his power to avoid a pregnancy (barring abstinence or a vasectomy) and can prove his intent and the woman still becomes pregnant, even by fraud, the man is still liable for that pregnancy. Women are 100% protected and men are 0% protected. I can even go so far as to quote you cases where a man marrying a single mother later divorces her and is still expected to pay future child support for a child he did not father – even without official adoption of the child by the man.

A lot of guys would like to make a moral issue of this but it’s not a question of right or wrong, it’s dealing with the facts of what IS in the environment we find ourselves in today. The fact of the matter is that unless men use prior discretion and take responsibility for the birth ‘control’, not allowing a woman to be solely responsible for it, he is 100% powerless. This means bring your own condoms and flush them yourself, and yes even (especially) in an LTR or marriage. That means standing firm even when she says “take that thing off I’m on the pill and I want to ‘feeeeel’ you.” Mothers want to be Mothers, otherwise they’d decide not to be. Single Mommies are far too common an occurrence to bet the odds with the rest of your life.

The sexual revolution had far more to do with the development of hormonal means of birth control than the legalization of abortion. Condoms have been around since before WWII, but even in the Baby Boom there were far less unwanted pregnancies or single motherhood than after the advent of the pill. The pill put the control of birth into the hands of women where before it was a man’s responsibility to put the rubber on and do so correctly if both wanted to avoid smaller versions of themselves running around the house.

The Choice of Professionals

Abortion rates skyrocketed in the decades after estrogen based birth control was developed, thus prompting a need for legal and clinical regulations of abortions as well as reforming paternity laws in the 70s. There had certainly been abortions (both the medical and back-alley variety) prior to this, but if you look at the increase in abortion statistics both before and after the advent of a convenient form of birth control moderated by the women taking it, it’ll blow your mind.

And now even with the vast variety of birth control methods available to women today and 30+ years of safe medical abortions, we still see an increase in single mother families and abortion rates. One would think that these statistics would be lower in light of all this modernization and the ‘leaps’ women have made culturally since the sexual revolution, but sadly no. In fact the single mother birth rate has climbed (adjusted for population) since a leveling off in the late 80s and abortion is just as popular as ever even when new methods such as the ‘morning after pill’ and RU286 are readily available. And conveniently, the social ills as a result are placed squarely on ‘dead-beat Dads’ rather than the women choosing to have the children.

This isn’t a scientific problem, it’s a cultural one. Mothers want to be Mothers. Men are only Fathers when a woman decides this for him even in the happiest of marriages. I think (hope) we’ll see second sexual revolution once a male form of hormonal contraception is tested and available, but you can bet dicks to donuts that every interested party from the religious to the feminist will fight this method’s release to the public at large and come up with every sort of veiled explanation for it’s demonization in order to put the agency of birth control exclusively into men’s control. I sincerely doubt men will “forget to take it” or have their ‘accidents’ in the numbers women do.

Controlling the Birth

It’s a much different task to put on a condom in the heat of the moment (reactive) than to simply swallow a pill in the morning (proactive). It’s arguable what the more difficult task is, to remember to take a pill in the morning or to apply a condom at the appropriate time. In the latter situation there are at least 2 people aware that a condom should be on prior to intercourse; is a woman equally an accomplice in her own pregnancy if she consensually has sex with a guy without a condom? They both know the assumed risks, however a woman forgetting to take her pill isn’t reviled as an ‘idiot’ or negligent as a man not putting on a condom.

Taking her birth control is up to her and rarely would a guy be certain on a daily basis that his partner was faithfully taking her pill. In fact to even ask about it would be presumptuous and bordering on rude if it’s a casual encounter. When a man and a woman fail to take the precaution of putting on a condom they’re both aware of it. When she fails to take her pill either accidentally or intentionally, she is the sole party responsible for that pregnancy, but in either case she decides the course of the man’s life should this occur.

The obvious answer is to put men in control of the birth – wear a condom. However the nature of mens birth control is reactive and even in the case where a man has the condom in his pocket, he can still be thwarted by her only saying, “don’t worry about it, I’m on the pill”; the control shifts the accountability never does.

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but there are no accidental mothers. Consider fertility statistics and that it takes a considerable amount of negligence for a woman to miss several pills on a regular basis to ‘accidentally’ become pregnant. One could also argue that even a couple engaging in condom-less sex could still be relatively confident that a woman wont get pregnant even if she’s missed several pills regularly. Again my point being that it takes effort to become pregnant. Even without any birth control at all and timing my wife’s ovulation cycles for our sex it took us 4 months to conceive our daughter. This is why I laugh at the accidental pregnancy excuse so common these days. If a woman wants to become pregnant she can do so with impunity and contrive any excuse she’d like about accidents, but the guy is an ‘idiot’ for not wearing a condom and taking responsibility for his actions, even if he’s led to believe she’s taking control of her contraception. Yet he is the one penalized both financially and socially because of her choice.