yes means yes

Dangerous Times – Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Polygamy Polyandry

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

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

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

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

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

Some Solutions:

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

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

Dangerous Times – Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curb Your “Enthusiasm”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Political is Personal:

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

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

[…]As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it OK for Alpha Males?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dangerous Times – Part 1

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

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

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

One of these comments was the inimitable Deti:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A World of Fear

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Belief

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

“No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” True insanity

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, that’s the newest goalpost move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


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.