emma watson

Yes Means Fear

Not surprisingly the latest “anti-rape” Yes Means Yes law just passed for California university campuses has been the topic du jour in the manosphere this week. I usually like to allow mainstream news like this to percolate in the ‘sphere before throwing my hat into the ring, but I think it’s gotten a lot of mulling over on various blogs now.

Just as a point of order, I’ll repeat that as a policy I never do politics, religion or race on Rational Male – unless those topics relate to intergender relations or the interests of red pill truths and/or the manosphere in general.

That said it’s impossible not to consider the politics, social perspective and the underlying motivations of this new law. Dalrock has already done three posts to this effect, and I wouldn’t want to take any of that thunder away from him. So if you’re wanting a more in depth social / religious perspective I suggest heading over there and read his last posts.

For the most part Dal dissects the Ezra Klein article Roosh vlogs about here regarding how terrible, but ‘necessarily terrible’ this new law is. I’m not sure what I could add here that hasn’t already been debated with regard to speculating about its long term effects, however I do think this law is less about rape prevention, or even the redefining of ‘what rape is” and a lot more about the need for total control of both the male sexual imperative and optimal feminine hypergamy.

Although Yes Means Yes is law on California University campuses it is merely the first of many coming mandates with the latent purpose of legally mandating men’s cooperation with feminine hypergamy and women’s sexual pluralism (AFBB).

I could elaborate on the details of how Yes Means Yes is essentially worthless without some metric by which to document ‘consent’ at each stage of an intersexual encounter (yes, it’s in the law), but this would be pointless, because the actual intent of this law is to create an environment where men are led into a false sense of security with a woman as they move from stage to stage.

The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she said yes. You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure she meant to say yes, and wasn’t consenting because she was scared, or high, or too tired of fighting. If you’re one half of a loving, committed relationship, then you probably can Be Pretty Damn Sure. If you’re not, then you better fucking ask.

The problem with Ezra’s scenario here is he’s presuming a baseline of two honest agents with each other’s mutual interest at heart, in rational discourse between both men and women in a “loving relationship” with no ulterior motives either in the now or in the future. Being ‘Pretty Damn Sure’ is not enough and that’s what makes YMY so dangerous. It presumes male guilt before, during and after any sex ever occurs, and Ezra knows this…

…men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

Sadie Hawkins’ World

And thus we understand the latent purpose of this law – instilling fear in men. Nominally the law is about making men so fearful that they concede all aspects of any intersexual discourse to a feminine imperative. This is Sadie Hawkins’ world. One in which only women are allowed to make any intersexual approach to a man for fear that his doing so will be construed as rape, or an intent to rape, even before he initiates anything.

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

The more a feminine-primary social order embraces, endorses and openly promotes feminine hypergamy as the normative, correct, social paradigm, the more it will be necessary to legally force men to comply with it.

As it stands now, the Feminine Imperative is having an increasingly difficult time enforcing its primacy through social conventions and popular culture shaming men into compliance with it. Increasingly men are becoming aware of the raw duplicity of open hypergamy and are becoming less and less cooperative with what really amounts to their participation in their own hypergamous cuckoldry – which women triumphantly crow about in as public a manner as is practical now.

A common refrain from the manosphere has been that the only reason a man should consider marriage is if he wanted to raise children – a functioning, cooperative, child-rearing environment being the only evident ‘advantage’ marriage offers men – but in light of potentially more laws cut from this cloth and the glaringly evident risks of having his children legally removed from him under the flimsiest of pretenses I can’t say as I agree with this anymore.

In Sadie Hawkins’ world there are no “advantages” for men in marriage – only liabilities enforced by fear.

It’s no longer about buying the cow when you can get the milk for free anymore. It’s about the cow milking itself and giving it away to Alpha Fucks in its peak years and then expecting you to buy her just before she’s gone completely dry. And all under the assumed risk of accusations of nonconsensual sex at her disposal should you choose not to comply at any time.

The latent purpose of Yes Means Yes is to lock feminine hypergamy into a legal mandate while ensuring fear (I should say Dread) is the motivator for men’s compliance in it.

Brave New Hypergamy

Deti is a permanent fixture in the manosphere, and though he doesn’t have his own blog, he regularly hit’s ’em out of the park with his comments here and on various other blogs.

Deti on Dalrock:

Proponents of “Yes means yes” also are Game deniers and Game haters. The funny thing is that this law will only increase Game and swell the prevalence of its practitioners. Jerks, players, and cads will be the only ones with the balls and the resolve to press forward. Less adept men will give up, because they cannot run the risks of an encounter going bad. They can’t risk criminal records, loss of jobs, loss of family, loss of money and time. The risks aren’t worth the puny rewards.

What marriage is now is what social interaction between men and women will become – a man merely looking at a girl too long will bring a complaint to police, and a man will have to answer merely for his gaze. He could be fined or even imprisoned.

The proponents of Yes means Yes think it will reduce Game and assault; will remove the ambiguities. they think it will foster and encourage the growth, development and proliferation of healthy relationships and marriages. They think it will create safer places for women to seek relationships (or not). It will do none of these things.

“Yes means yes” will only increase Game because the only men willing to try will be those with proven successful sexual track records. It will only create more ambiguity. It will only cause more “good men” and providers to drop out or hoard their earnings, refusing to put them to the service of women. It will leave only the jerks, thugs, cads and players in the SMP as the only men willing to navigate the sexual minefield. These men won’t marry because they don’t have to. The men who would be willing to marry won’t be in the marketplace because they dropped out, and they won’t prepare to marry in the first place because they never got the signals to prepare for it and there’s no point in trying anyway. Marriage rates will continue sliding; the age at first marriage for men and women will continue inching up.

Women will continue to get pumped and dumped. The unhappy ones, ones who regret the encounters or they didn’t go exactly as hoped or planned, will quickly and quietly drop their “lack of consent” claims when video recordings of the encounters in question surface, together with smiling photos and confirmatory texts. A few such women and their institutions of higher learning will be defendants in defamation lawsuits. Some of those videos will make their way to the internet; most won’t.

Welcome to our brave new sexual world. I think that our interlocutors really ought to think this all the way through before supporting it and deciding this is what they want.

There’s an idea that the work around to Yes Means Yes is simply to have sex with a girl off campus. Ergo the incidence of “campus rape” declines and the law is spun as a victory for feminists and evidence of a successful enactment of a functional law.

Yes Means Yes will be a ‘success’ insofar as it curbs campus rape because it is uniquely based on male fear. Again, from Klein’s piece:

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

Read this again, “…to create a WORLD where men are afraid.”

Ezra believes this ‘useful fear’ is a horrible-but-necessary tool with which to fight what ever definition of rape he subscribes to, but what he doesn’t realize is that fear has uses and implications which go well beyond rape prevention.

The ‘big deal’ is the latent purpose of the law and the motivating ideologies behind it. The law won’t actually curb rape, but it will be successful in creating a world where men are afraid by ambiguously and progressively redefining what rape is and what harassment should encompass – all while legally enforcing men’s compliance in feminine hypergamy.

It’s just as easy to say, ‘well, men will simply not cooperate and go their own way”, and while that would certainly predicate what Deti is proposing, the most salient part is that this law has already successfully changed the gender landscape to one based on fear of the Feminine Imperative. For all my female critics decrying my advocating men use Dread (or at least not discouraging it passively) in their relationships, you can see here in stark contrast that it is overwhelmingly the feminine which is not only comfortable in using dread, but openly mandating legal assurances of its use.

The Feminine Imperative is so fixated upon the insecurities inherent to women’s individual capacity to optimize their hypergamy, so entitled are women to an Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks sexual strategy, it will enact legal mandates to ensure that optimization.

Fem-Centrism

When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality, I took a lot of shit for being a conspiracist in making the assertions I made:

…the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

Doesn’t sound so crazy now does it?

A few other things to consider; just this week we’ve seen companies like FaceBook and Apple offer a female-only benefit of freezing women’s eggs for future insemination to its potential female employees. On the face this perk is intended to attract ‘professional’ women to the tech field by assuring them they can eventually “have it all” – once they’ve conquered the “male-dominated work world®”.

While that may help assuage the bad PR the tech industry has with finding any women to work for them, the latent purpose is still ensuring feminine hypergamy and the goals of a female-primary social order can be fulfilled, regardless of how realistic those expectations are.

Also consider my favorite whipping girl Emma Watson’s appeal to the United Nations a few weeks ago initiates a campaign which asks men to take “The HeForShe Commitment” pledge: “Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.” This essentially distills to the common “lets you and him fight” convention women will use, but in this instance it amounts to a plea for Feminine Imperative compliant men to police the actions of noncompliant men.

When we consider these two recent developments along with the Yes Means Yes law, the veneer of the Feminine Imperative’s purpose comes off in ways which make it recognizable as the driving social paradigm of our time. The more that control is made obvious, the more a need for legal enforcement and male compliance will be necessary as societal efforts to enforce it break down.

Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled‘ to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 

50 Shades of Emma

Sorry, but this was too good not to post today.

Back in February Aunt Giggles felt compeled to call me to the carpet for allegedly attacking poor little Emma Watson over this FaceBook, fem-popularized, meme.

In all honesty my intent with that post was to draw attention to a larger social convention, and Watson’s public declarations of ‘bringing sexy back’ that made androgynous, pixie-cut asexual women feel good about themselves was really just a convenient illustration. I mean, we all know what a horrible Man I am for revealing that it is in fact men who define what’s sexy about women, and questioning Emma’s sexiness and her commitment to “The Less you reveal the more people can wonder.”

Well, as curious as I am to report this, it appears that Emma has had a change of heart about her commitment to ‘revealing less’. You see Emma is actually more than comfortable with full frontal nudity now, so long as it’s in portraying Anastasia in the upcoming movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey.

“I’ve been saying since I was 16 that if it’s the right role and important for character development and the story, then of course I’ll do it,” the 22-year-old actress told Hello!

Ah! Such dedication to her craft, and she decided at 16 that she’d do it under the right circumstances. Run hamster, run! The celeb nude aficionados on 4 Chan are ready to welcome your craft with open arms. To think we’d live to see the day that it might no longer be necessary to clone Emmas face over the girls in bondage porn.

“It’s very exciting that people are starting to see me in a different way. It means that they’re allowing me the space to grow and develop and reincarnate myself.”

I wonder if that reincarnation will include growing out her hair to look sexier for the role? We can only hope. Then again, Emma’s not the only one with “dedication to her craft”, there are a lot of other starlets who’ve got more ‘sexy experience’ and are far readier to claw her eyes out to be sexually dominated:

Emma could also have some stiff competition when it comes to winning the honor of playing Anastasia Steele since many of the other fan favorites for the part have shown that they’re comfortable filming nude scenes. Kristen Stewart went topless in On the Road, and Emilia Clarke’s dragon queen character gets naked in almost every episode of Game of Thrones.

Emma Watson’s competition for the 50 Shades of Grey movie could also include Emmy Rossum, who has stripped down in Shameless. But perhaps Emily Browning should be the biggest favorite for the role of Anastasia Steele. The alluring actress was Stephenie Meyer’s top pick to play Bella in Twilight, but Emily never auditioned for the part. Instead the star of the family film Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events went on to shock her fans by starring in the 2011 movieSleeping Beauty, which is nothing like the Disney fairytale. The film actually feels a lot like 50 Shades since it’s about a bizarre sexual fetish, but instead of being tied up before having sex, Emily’s character is drugged so that she passes out. Needless to say, she was required to shoot a lot of nude scenes for her risqué role

,…and the God of Biomechanics laughed atop his throne of genitalia,…

Sexy

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

As a relative rookie to blogging I’m starting to develop a better sensitivity to what people find important enough to share with a global audience. One annoying phenomenon I’ve encountered is that I find myself deeply concentrating on some topic and crafting a well thought (at least I think) analysis around it only to be shaken out of my brooding by something that I think needs to be more immediately addressed. Such was the case with Emma Watson’s above diatribe regarding the quandary of sexiness. This bit of her inane post-pubescent aphorisms is being shared around Face Book (generally by older and less attractive women) as some confirmation of what I can only presume is men’s inability to fully comprehend sexiness, beauty and the feminine mystique. Fat acceptance and body image issues aside, it’s ironic that the same women nodding along in agreement are reposting Emma’s wisdom on their wall right next to their most recent GNO (girls night out) party photos in mini skirts themselves.

Any cursory browsing of 4Chan will probably turn up a Rule 34 thread with Emma’s face clone-tooled over some random porn star’s face while getting double penetrated. She’s easily one of the most available celebrity porn fakes. That may have a bit to do with her Harry Potter role and various fetishes, but the short version is guys want to bang Emma, and barring the actual experience, they reaaally want to see her naked. It’s a pity that Emma doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but she’s in the majority; precious few women know what turns men on, and still fewer have any capacity to effectively be so.

Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

In the same sense that women lack the capacity to truly appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to ensure her reality, most women also lack a fundamental understanding of the male sexual impulse. As I’ve stated in prior threads, until women are steeped in 17 times their normal testosterone levels, they will never understand the male experience with regards to sex. When a woman utters the words “I don’t understand why sex is such a big deal for guys”, she’s speaking the truth. She can’t know, but along with that comes a disconnect between her lack of understanding the male sexual impulse and her fem-centric social conditioning of what sex should be like for him.

“I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing.”

Considering Emma’s boyish pixie cut (eerily similar to a younger Sinead O’ Conner’s) this should come as no surprise to anyone. What Emma doesn’t get is that sexy isn’t always slutty. She doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but few women do because it is Men who’ve classically defined what is sexy and feminine in women. What has historically worked as sexy, and what has been historically confirmed as feminine is defined by the response and effect that particular behavior set evokes from Men. What we consider today as sexy behaviors and appearance were characteristics ‘selected-for’ that endured to become gender indicative aspects of being feminine. The inverse of this is true for women; women define what is sexy in men.

The problem women have with being sexy in the last 50+ years is illustrated in Emma’s next point:

“I know everyone wants a picture of me in a mini-skirt. But that’s not me. I feel uncomfortable. I’d never go out in a mini-skirt. Personally, I don’t even think it’s that sexy.”

On a rudimentary biological level, Emma actually does know what is sexy (i.e. what turns Men on about women), but she is “uncomfortable” in being so. People want to change her into someone who is comfortable with being sexy because they see such potential – ergo the popularity of Emma’s Rule 34 popularity. Her refusal or discomfort in being so is where the feminine imperative picks up the banner and runs with it. Here is an arguably beautiful young woman (by men’s standards) who wont conform to what men’s appetites want to make of her. Like all contemporary women, she wants to define what sexy should be for men using metrics that she is comfortable with. The problem, as with all things fem-centric, is that this social push to redefine for men what they should find sexy slams headlong into Men’s biological imperatives. Despite feminizations incessant efforts to the contrary, we still want to fuck the girl who most closely resembles the Playboy centerfold and our erections are the litmus test.

Show Up Naked, Bring Beer

Another great irony of our age is that we still cling to the idea that it’s women who are the best seducers of humanity. In the same misdirection that women would like to believe that they are the more romantic gender, so too would they like to believe they are the most effective seducers. Both of these are far from the truth. It’s Men with the greatest art that have gone down in history as the greatest seducers of the genders. So much more is required of Men to be effective seducers than women.

In this age female seduction amounts to show up naked, bring beer.

Men are stimulated primarily by the physical, but there’s a lot more a woman can do to be seductive. Quite honestly I think seduction is a lost art for women. Very few women know how to be sexy, much less seductive. Even fewer ever feel a need to be seductive. This is due to an environment that, for the past 50 years, has simplified sexual exchange for women to the point that all she need do is stay somewhat fit and wear a thong occasionally. So many men have become so acclimated to just these visual prompts as sexual cues that women don’t really need to learn seduction. There is no greater reward for being sexy or seductive beyond what she’s already capable of prompting in a man, so seduction practices aren’t reinforced for her.

Now add to this the feminine priority westernized culture has placed on women’s sexuality. Any woman feeling a need to be seductive for a man is cast in the role of putting his sexual value above her own. Remember, according to Cosmo and Oprah it is he who needs to be sensitive to her needs. Her sexuality is a GIFT he qualifies for, not something she should ever feel a need to sell to him by means of seduction.

Women don’t need to seduce men anymore. The feminine-priority dynamic has put a default value on women’s sexuality. Those hot enough to simply wear something revealing never need seduction, and those not hot enough can’t sell it anyway. And the girls who’re in between – the one’s who’d benefit most – are discouraged from learning seduction since it’s denigrating to women who should already be on a pedestal to begin with.

Ever since the sexual revolution there’s been less and less motivation for women to develop seduction skills. If anything there’s a resentment for ever having needed them in the past. I’d argue that feminine seduction skills have been replaced with emotional and psychological manipulations (see BPD) in order to make men comply with their imperatives as a result of having abandoned those seduction behaviors.

It’s Men who are learning seduction skills now. How many men do you suppose have read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene in comparison to women? It’s men who’ve created a global community dedicated to seduction techniques. Perhaps this is the best evidence of the gender reversal the community discusses so often? Women’s sexuality has been elevated to such a degree that it’s men who find it necessary to collectively study seduction.