Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Sluts Are Not Less Discriminating

We were drunk. Words we would later wish hadn’t been spoken came tumbling forth.

HER: Amber got a fuckbuddy. She couldn’t wait around forever for a boyfriend.

ME: What’s forever? Ten minutes?

HER: There’s nothing wrong with having a fuckbuddy.

ME: Have you ever had a fuckbuddy?

HER: I’m just saying there’s nothing wrong with it!

ME: Holy crap, you’ve had fuckbuddies?!

HER: [open mouthed stare]

ME:

Ugly-Men

HER: [getting visibly nervous] What? I’m not saying *I’ve* had fuckbuddies.

ME: Jesus, are we talking double digits?

HER: Oh, like you’re one to talk.

ME: [thinking about the girl with the purple saguaro] You know, vibrators were invented for those downtimes!

The next weeks were spent with me recalibrating the pseudovirginal goodness of my woman. Clearly I had missed some red flags. Then I wondered how widespread the fuckbuddy phenomenon was. I wistfully pondered my past conquests. Memories that were once bathed in divine light suddenly acquired a darker hue. Emily? Yep, she must have had a fuckbuddy at some point. Julia? A stable of fuckbuddies. Kim? Doubt she could even make it through the day without a cock buried to the hilt.

I give sluts a hard time when they attempt to redefine the terms of debate with sophistic pretty lies. No doubt they do this because they know, deep down inside, that being a slut is gonna lower their value in the sexual market, and that’s the value that matters most, because it resides at the core of all other values. Nonetheless, my glee at tearing apart the lies sluts tell themselves shouldn’t be confused with animosity toward the sluttastic lifestyle. Sluts provide a valuable public service to guys like me — namely, a clearer path to sexual release. I also want to be able to identify them early on so I know to cross them off my potential girlfriend list, and to double up on the condoms.

There was a time, way back when I was a stripling, that I imagined a world full of slutty girls would be a boon for beta males. Experience with sluts has shown me otherwise. While they may be less discriminating in how often and how quickly they spread their legs, their rebuke of natural female restraint doesn’t necessarily translate to a similar rebuke of choosiness. Bad news for the betas: Sluts are slutty, just not with you. Sluts share the same target acquisition system for the top 20% of males as all women do. Hypergamy uber alles.

Reader Tupac left this comment:

Even if the women only garner a few pump-n-dumps out of such men, they are now keyed in on tenor, timber, warp and weft of the day-to-day life habits of such men and in so doing acquire a more finely honed radar for lesser men who don’t “make the cut.”

True. It may seem counterintuitive, but a loose, cavernous chick will often be *less* forthcoming with her sexual favors if the man she is with exhibits the tentative meekness of a beta.

Reader Arpagus:

And thus it comes to pass that sluts tend to be *more* picky than women with few prior partners, in a kind of twisted paradoxical way. If you are beta, don’t get your hopes up because a woman has had 80 sex partners. Someone with 5 is more likely to sleep with you, perhaps even a virgin.

Sluts may be pickier than chaste women about weeding out the betas, due to their spoiling from illusory experiences with alpha males, but they are far less modest within the circle of alphas for whom they readily part their furrows. That is why, when you hear a girl has racked up 80 partners, you should make the necessary qualification: She has racked up 80 alpha male partners who used her like a convenient sperm receptacle until something better came along.

Naturally, as you slide down the female attractiveness scale (but before you hit the 2s and below), you’ll find more sluts, and sluts more willing to slum it with betas and omegas, because easy access to their wet holes is all they have left to barter. This explains the phenomenon of fat chicks getting more sex than hot slender babes. In response to someone’s contention that fat girls have all the fun, I wrote the following comment over at the FeministX blog:

more precisely, [fat chicks] are too busy getting pumped and dumped. fat chicks have higher cock counts because in their desperation to snag a loyal boyfriend they open their thunder thighs for all and sundry hoping the easy access will win a man’s heart. the higher value women can afford to be more discriminating.

There’s more bad news for betas hoping to drain their blue balls in sluts. Not only are sluts more apt to restrict their no muss no fuss sexual favors to high(er) status men, they find it harder to emotionally bond with men, particularly men who are lower status than the highest status men they fucked. This isn’t entirely the sluts’ fault. If blame is to be placed, it should go equally to the alpha males who occasionally dumpster dive with less attractive women. There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks. Once a woman has had that faint hope instilled in her, she can go months or even years rejecting more suitable beta males in favor of pining forlornly for that one alpha male who will certainly, she tells herself, come around and decide she’s a catch worthy of commitment. And the sluttier she has been, the more fly-by-night alpha males she’ll have lodged in her memory to pine over.

A few years of getting her heart broken again and again, and even the most romantically idealistic slut will turn crassly cynical. And cynicism is the venom that slowly clots the lifeblood of love.

Interestingly, this is further proof that female obesity, just as much as the other factors I’ve written about, has heavily (heh) skewed the mating market against the interests of the average man. Not only does a growing mass (double heh) of fat women result in fewer acceptable partners for men and thus more intense competition for the remaining thin babes, but the fatties have likely poisoned their ability to bond with men because of their history of getting pumped and dumped by promiscuous alphas.

The fate of America may very well hinge on getting her women to push away from the table.

730 Responses

  1. Reminds me of an old joke:

    Q: “What’s the difference between a slut and a whore?”

    A: A whore fucks everyone. A slut fucks everyone but you.

    Like


  2. i touched on this a while back, minus the anecdotes. women in the middle of the bell curve of sexual attractiveness have had more sex partners than women at the tails.

    http://chuckross.blogspot.com/2009/07/females-number-of-sex-partners-follows.html

    my quick reasoning is that 3s-7s or so hook up with men in their general vicinity on their own attractiveness scale. 5s hook up with 4s,5s, and 6s for the most part. 10s hook up with only 10s and occasional 9s. the fact that there are fewer male and female 10s than 5s (human attractivness follows a bell curve rather than a uniform distribution) means that there is less of a pool to choose from as well. same holds for unattractive women, they are naturally constrained because there’s no such thing as a zero.

    Like


  3. on August 21, 2009 at 1:39 pm Horatio Sanchez

    Roissy, this is going to be a PSA I assume? (Perhaps funded by NOW?) It should be; this should be plastered on buses, subway walls and, especially, in World of Warcraft. Once again, you go to show that living while beta just doesn’t pay off. If you want your nutsack drained and you’re an herb, not even fatties or sluts will droop to your level. What a purgatorial dilemma for the herbs and betas of the world. They just can’t win. Even thunderthighs, with her 2/10 mug and her raging libido, is seeking the alpha cock.

    This post does thy motto true: Roissy in DC, where pretty lies go to perish.

    Like


  4. The fate of America may very well hinge on getting her women to push away from the table.

    Makes no difference to me.

    [editor: that is because losers can’t be choosers.]

    At least the fat girl is capable of giving better hugs.

    [so is a beanbag.]

    Remember kids, women are not attracted to betas. Women who date betas are golddiggers and golddiggers must be stopped at all costs. I’d much rather have sluts chasing alphas around than women stealing money from betas. If you want to have a long-term relationship with a woman, one must be an alpha who is strong enough to induce submissiveness and loyalty from his woman. Otherwise, run some game, bang some hot women, or stay beta and opt out since as a beta you have NO VALUE OTHER THAN THAN SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME.

    Like


  5. Roissy,

    Let your loyal fan following know if you ever need money.

    Peace,
    RJS

    Like


  6. “There’s more bad news for betas hoping to drain their blue balls in sluts…”

    Which is why, from a save the civilization standpoint, beta’s might do well to loosen-up emotionally, maybe have another beer… And then beat the shit out of PUA’s. Barroom brawls as a pathway out of betatude perhaps. It’s already established that felonies do not disqualify a man vis a vis women. This could be a two-fer: competitive edge with the witty PUA + impressive display of ‘righteous’ ‘protective’ rage. Of course there’s the pretext problem… And the feminist ‘what-are-you-doing-who-the-f-are-you-to-try-to-protect-me problem… and the maybe the PUA has already deflected the beta’s psychologically or could just trounce him anyway problem. But, it could be, to paraphrase Braveheart, one of those we don’t have to win but we have to fight situations.

    Like


  7. ow my eyes…literally…that picture!

    How many FWB’s are girls trying to surreptitiously win first place and become a girl friend?

    Like


  8. Roissy,

    You cannot get through to delusional people, and women are delusional.

    See the problem?

    Like


  9. on August 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm Michael wears a hat

    Thats what you get for dating an American girl.

    Like


  10. cz,

    Unchecked displays of aggression are a DLV.

    Like


  11. on August 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm Michael wears a hat

    cz, from a save-the-civilization standpoint, betas turning into pseudo-alphas is a disaster. The proper mode for civilization saving is skank shaming.

    Like


  12. My suggestions:

    Stop caring about delusional people. Let them suffer for their delusions. Get what you want, even if you have to buy it.

    If you decide to buy it, grow a pair of balls and understand that customers have the real power, especially in an era of escort review boards.

    If you base your own value on the behavior of delusionals towards you.. never mind

    Like


  13. Oddly – for the Beta guys, getting all the planets to align for them on that one occaision so as to bed that hot and talented chick can be the worst thing that happens to them – for they get the same raised expectations, and are disappointed with whomever they are capable of bagging in the future.

    For some (with potential to rise significantly higher on the continuum of Beta to Alpha) it might be the inspiration to learn to raise their Game and drag themselves up by the bootstraps. For others, it is the ticket to perpetual disappointment (and could lead to Rodini-level whackiness).

    Like


  14. A little confused by the opening conversation: Is any one really under the assumption that most girls who are unmarried and in their 20’s don’t go threw at least a few fuckbuddies?

    As for the later point, right on. Sluts do discremenate against fats/uglies/betas/etc.

    HOWEVER, they tend NOT to discremenate as much against guys that straddle the edgy/creepy line. With a non-slut you truly have to jump to the edgy side…with a slut, you can be a bit creepy.

    Like


  15. Also…sluts tend to be less picky about purely SOCIAL status. As long as the guy is good looking and very masculine. IE, a slut would be more likely to fuck the macho garbage man.

    Like


  16. What measurable stuff can a woman offer you beyond sex?

    Love, company, family, kids, legacy are delusions that help aging cunts avoid poverty and abandonment. Really, what is in it for YOU?

    Like


  17. Betas–

    There is a version of non fat (or not too fat) slut that you can quite reliably f*ck.

    Divorcee cougars.

    Even they are gonna like some game, but they’re good to do initial practicing on.

    Just getting some is going to give you more confidence to use on younger girls.

    I firmly believe with PA that the number of (all varieties of) alphas isn’t fixed at the 15-20%, but can expand if more men would more macho up and as well learn to playfully tease.

    Like


  18. askjoe – from what I’ve observed the FWB scenario works like this:

    Her – We are FREINDS, and through the benefits, he’ll likely turn into a boyfriend (maybe with a qualifier of ‘if it all works out between us’) – sort of a test drive or tryout for a relationship.

    Him – I get BENEFITS, and regularly!. Oh, and I have to spend some time with her out of bed (but I can reduce that out of bed time with her as things go along) – and I can go after other pussy too!

    Like


  19. “What measurable stuff can a woman offer you beyond sex?

    Love, company, family, kids, legacy are delusions that help aging cunts avoid poverty and abandonment. Really, what is in it for YOU?”

    If this was true men would only be interested in prostitutes, who you can ‘pay to go away’.

    But most aren’t. Most want relationships of some duration, and many want family, kids, legacy.

    Like


  20. roissy,

    good post, but you’re missing one aspect of this. sluts are definitely much better at weeding out beta behavior than girls of similar attractiveness with less sexual partners. there is, however, also the fact that many betas, despite what they may think, are in no way equipped to handle sluts.

    the basic problem with the beta male-promiscuous female relationship is that it results in a switch in traditional gender roles. the male becomes insecure, clingy, and sentimental which forces the female to assume the masculine role; this reinforces her initial ant-beta feelings, which makes the male even more defensive. it’s a vicious cycle.

    [editor: this is a good point.]

    Like


  21. You cannot get through to delusional people, and women are delusional.

    That’s because nobody wants to admit the truth. That beta males are inherently unattractive to all women regardless of sexual experience, and that any woman who dates a beta male is a golddigger. Hell, hasn’t anybody noticed that the only good qualities assigned to a beta basically detail his ability to provide for a family? “He’s a good provider?” “He makes a lot of money”

    Fuck that shit. I am sick of women only liking beta males for their money. All beta males should dump their girlfriends, abandon their wives, and leave their children and never return to them. We should all simply go to work, go about our lives in a free and independent manner that promotes the maximal amount of happiness for the beta male, thus leaving women for the only creatures that can satiate their demands, alpha males.

    Like


  22. Hmm, so good girls bang Alphas, and sluts bang Alphas. A good girl is a girl that an Alpha has decided to stay with, early on, before she has banged other Alphas. A slut has been abandoned by the first Alpha that she slept with, and goes on to sleep with other Alpha’s, who also abandon her. Yet, the slut is the problem?

    Basically the fervent wish for a hefty percentage of guys on this site seems to be to restrict women to the extent that don’t realize that are possibly guys better than they out there in the world, so they can con a girl into marrying below her natural market value. Of course the inevitable result is for most women in this situation is that they realize that they married far below her going value, and she becomes unhappy in the marriage. The guys, in the meantime want to be able to commit adultery with other women at this same time. Yet when the woman is unhappy about this whole arrangement, they also want to restrict her right to get out of the arrangement.

    Marriages where the woman waits until she is older last longer, and report more happiness for both partners.

    [editor: happiness is easier to cultivate when options are limited.]

    Getting married young is a huge predictor of later divorce. So perhaps a pre-marital carousel of cock is indeed needed for a happy marriage.

    [no. what’s needed for a happy marriage is the man staying higher status than the woman, and the woman staying slender. pre-marital sluttiness acts against trust and admiration, two important factors in any successful marriage.]

    Like


  23. “I firmly believe with PA that the number of (all varieties of) alphas isn’t fixed at the 15-20%, but can expand if more men would more macho up and as well learn to playfully tease.”

    increase to what percentage? 100? every man is an alpha and can get women almost at will…..that would leave a lot of bedraggled vaginas.

    i believe the number is relatively fixed. i’d put the number of alphas at about 10%, i’d say that it could maybe improve to 20 if men used Game and/or naturals harnessed their power. just speculation, but each extra percentage point of alphas in society would have a increasingly profound impact. imagine one *extra* man having sex with 10 different women a year. a mass movement of that magnitude can’t happen without profound impacts of the type that roissy speaks when he points out that men don’t want to marry sluts.

    but this would be a fun thought experiement.

    Like


  24. I have noticed that girls I know who were sluts in their late teens and early twenties turn into raging bitches a few years later. Especially if they find a guy to marry them and “settle down”. It’s most obvious to say that they’re jaded from all those guys who fucked and chucked but I think there might be something in their personality that makes a slut more apt to turn into a bitch. But theres no doubt about it, sluts turn into bitches.

    Like


  25. Roissy…

    I have a different point of view than you. I actually agree with you on a lot of things, but I think this cold approach pickup thing is mostly a religion. I’ve read a lot of ideas about game, and I have done a lot of approaches, and it has left me deeply skeptical … not as to what women like — which I agree with you on — but on this dogma that cold approach pickup works.

    I want to link you to a post of mine debating this with pickup artists, and I am curious what you think. Keep in mind I am a guy honestly trying to defeat pretty lies on both sides, so if you can, please take the time to read it and respond.

    http://fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&fid=8&read=96702#573393

    And if any of your readers want to address this, I’d be very happy to hear what you have to say. I’ve just put in enough of my own time into this “religion” and I’ve tried it and I don’t see evidence of NEARLY the claims being made.

    Greg Magarshak

    Like


  26. Bonnie,

    People like to believe in lies, even if the truth can make their existance immeasurably better.

    However, we have now reached a stage where it is almost impossible for men to lie to themself.

    Like


  27. [editor: that is because losers can’t be choosers.]

    Losers can choose to stop playing a rigged game.

    [editor: is that really a choice?]

    [so is a beanbag.]

    Beanbags don’t hug back.

    [beanbags don’t stink or clean out your fridge either.]

    Like


  28. On a related note, I’m fucking what I believe to be a former fattie, but I would take a poll to see what you think:

    reasons why i think this:

    1) not a slim body. If I had to offer an opinion, she’s at the halfway point between “bada-boom” maylyn monroe and “plump.”

    2) redhead. Sorry Chuck, I don’t know why, but I tend to meet a lot of redheaded girls who are overweight.

    3) Loose vagina. The bigger girls always seem to have them. Probably because they give it up so much.

    4) went to her favorite bar, black bouncer was all upset she had a guy. Perhaps she just slept with him, but its also the response of a guy who thought he had a chance. And black guys often think they have a chance with big white girls.

    5) discrete care to hide ass. Former fatties I’ve had are still nervous about having large posteriors, and use dark clothing, lighting, etc. to hide it.

    6) was inordinately pleased when I carried her to a window sill to fuck her with her head hanging out the window. Along the lines of a squeal of delight rather than sqeual of panic.

    Thoughts?

    Like


  29. DA:

    “You don’t want to admit the truth. That beta males are inherently unattractive to all women regardless of sexual experience”

    Dude, *everyone* is admitting that. There is a sort of groundswell of that exact same sentiment on many “Roissy-fied” blogs right now.

    What people have tried to tell you, George Sodini Jr., is that you can do something about it *for yourself*. Stop making excuses based upon your perceptions. Sodini had a fatalistic attitude for himself. He whined about not finding love or companionship, yet there was no mention of him using dating websites or even implementing Game. He merely went to a seminar and read a book, as far as we know (he didn’t write about trying Game on his website). Yes, there will always be the David Alexanders and George Sodinis of the world, but *you* don’t have to remain stagnant forever. You know of some tools to use to change your destiny. the thing is, you have to strike while the iron’s hot.

    Like


  30. on August 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Michael wears a hat,

    I disagree with you, because at this point we don’t just have betas, we have feminized betas, which is two steps down the ladder from where they should be.

    If men stood up for themselves, and simply learned how to say no, and stick by it, civilization would be better off for it.

    I do agree though that without reining in female amorality, all you are going to get is men adapting to the female amorality themselves which is what is happening and will hasten the inevitable collapse.

    Like


  31. The sooner we get back to reestablishing the patriarchy the better. Sexual promiscuity is a double edged sword. We men encourage women to be sluts so we can have lots of sex with them, while at the same time the spreading of sluttiness eventually infects all women, like some slow, pestiferous plague, thus making it harder in the long run to find a quality woman who has not ridden the “cock carousel”, as Roissy so aptly phrases it.

    Men simply need to regain control of our society once and for all and start controlling women again. We can do it physically if we wanted to. We are simply stronger than women. Other societies do this. We used to do it in ours. We need to start doing it again. And women loved to be controlled. They want strong men. They despise betas because they are weak.

    I love enjoying the sexual pleasures of many women, but I know, like everything in life, there is price to pay too, not only for myself but for society as whole. Yet the easy availability of so many sluts makes fucking then almost impossible to resist. Ah, life is so hard with so many women to fuck.

    Like


  32. I’ve never been more aggressively attacked on the dance floor then by a fatter, uglier chick. Attacked.

    Like


  33. on August 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Doug1:

    “Betas–

    There is a version of non fat (or not too fat) slut that you can quite reliably f*ck.

    Divorcee cougars.

    Even they are gonna like some game, but they’re good to do initial practicing on.

    Just getting some is going to give you more confidence to use on younger girls. ”

    This is true.

    Like


  34. Roissy, I believe you had a post once about being followed around a club by an ugly beast while playing wingman for your friend. Either you or Rooshv.

    [editor: yes. that would be this one:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/i-was-an-attractive-woman-for-an-hour/ ]

    Like


  35. lurker:

    i vote former fattie. not offended by the redhead thing, it’s true. but you know what they say “red on the head, fire in the bed.”

    anyway, one test of former fattiness: are her pussy lips fat? i’m convinced that the pussy lips of a woman are the last bastions of fatty deposit. the boobs go first, then the extra chin, then the wenis and FUPA, but the lips man, the lips.

    check em. if they look like two ham hocks, she might be a former fatty.

    also, check her eating habits. if she tries to act like she eats sparsely but has short, intense bouts of ravenous gorging, that’s her former fatty trying to escape the hell it’s been relegated to.

    Like


  36. David Alexander, why do you have such festering indignation toward gold-diggers? You don’t seem like the type of male who would be targeted by them.
    You being zoned in on by gold-diggers =
    Rosie O’Donnell getting gang-raped by young, muscular Russian men
    Or, well, by any men.

    Really, I don’t think you have to worry about it.

    Like


  37. [editor: is that really a choice?]

    Walking away is always a choice.

    [beanbags don’t stink or clean out your fridge either.]

    Food is cheap, and it’s still better than faux love interest stealing my money. And the best combination is the fat girl who can cook and hug.🙂

    Like


  38. If women want to get the guy they really deserve, they should get them.

    Then again, what is the use of a woman over 30? Why should they expect guys to care about them?

    Slutiness is only possible in a society that put ugly older (+ 30) women on a pedestal and gives them prefferential treatment. If women actually lived in the type of sexual free market they desired, the only two uses of 40+ women would be a] fertilizer and b] fish food.

    Like


  39. on August 21, 2009 at 2:36 pm Lawyer from Hell

    David Alexander:

    “Fuck that shit. I am sick of women only liking beta males for their money. All beta males should dump their girlfriends, abandon their wives, and leave their children and never return to them. We should all simply go to work, go about our lives in a free and independent manner that promotes the maximal amount of happiness for the beta male, thus leaving women for the only creatures that can satiate their demands, alpha males.”

    The only problem I have with this position David, is that you still give a shit what women think. Why? Why does it matter? It doesn’t.

    Go have some fun. Bang some cougars and then move downward on the line, and who cares if she think’s you are a potential beta mate to support her. It doesn’t have to be if you don’t want it.

    Like


  40. You don’t seem like the type of male who would be targeted by them.

    Put it this way. Any woman who shows any interest in me is a fucking golddigger.

    [editor: your golddigger radar needs tweaking. you see, golddiggers normally target men with money.]

    It’s not merely an attempt to secure current wages (which are low), but an attempt to secure future wages (which may be much higher than now).

    [have you given any indication to women that your future wages will be much higher?]

    I am not attractive in any form and other than severe mental illness, there is no legitimate reason for a woman to be attracted to me.

    [you should find yourself a really vicious lawyer dominatrix. you’d be a dream come true for her.]

    Like


  41. Chuck: “i vote former fattie. not offended by the redhead thing, it’s true. but you know what they say “red on the head, fire in the bed.” ”

    —agreed. That’s one reason I was into her, despite the extra pounds. Redhair on a girl is an aphrodesiac for me—gives them 2 extra points on the 1-10 scale.

    Plus their pussies get wetter than any I’ve ever felt. It’s like pussy soup.

    “anyway, one test of former fattiness: are her pussy lips fat? i’m convinced that the pussy lips of a woman are the last bastions of fatty deposit. the boobs go first, then the extra chin, then the wenis and FUPA, but the lips man, the lips. ”
    —unknown. It’s only been a few fucks, and haven’t gone down on her.

    “check em. if they look like two ham hocks, she might be a former fatty.”
    —will do.

    “also, check her eating habits. if she tries to act like she eats sparsely but has short, intense bouts of ravenous gorging, that’s her former fatty trying to escape the hell it’s been relegated to.”
    —-lol. good point. We’ve only been out a few times, and no food stories, but she’s a heavy drinker. 7 alcoholic drinks last night and still standing. fatties tend to hold it well.

    Like


  42. Damn you Alpha’s making our lives much harder to live. We get used by both Alpha’s and Females yet nobody picks us up. Betas just want to make money and bang a few honeys and be left alone to play xbox.

    Stuff like this is true and it makes me sad. Game / Verbal Skills / Negs are necessary. I may not agree with everything that Roissy say (hitting women thing) but the principles is gold..

    Like


  43. on August 21, 2009 at 2:41 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    DA,

    Have you ever considered seeing a therapist?

    Like


  44. D.A:

    I’ve never really followed you…but are you black? I think there are a lot of George Sordini style white guys who would love attention from gold diggers. It just doesnt happen to most whites unless they are really, really rich.

    Like


  45. Dude, *everyone* is admitting that. There is a sort of groundswell of that exact same sentiment on many “Roissy-fied” blogs right now.

    The problem is that everybody is missing the obvious conclusion, that beta males should simply opt-out of women because even with game in some cases, they’re simply cannon fodder for golddiggers.

    [editor: you seem to be confused about the concept of golddigger. usually, golddiggers chase after men with a lot of discretionary cash. and those men are more often alphas than betas. your schtick has not only worn thin, but it’s falling in on itself with contradictions.]

    What people have tried to tell you, George Sodini Jr., is that you can do something about it *for yourself*.

    There is nothing to do but to opt-out and stay away from women.

    Bang some cougars

    Cougars can do far better than me. I think they’d like a partner who is strong enough to keep up with her.

    Like


  46. “There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night..”

    Makes me wonder if beta males get one night stands. Can the betas here shed some light? Just curious.

    Like


  47. “Unchecked displays of aggression are a DLV.”

    While shaming men out of even the possibility of aggression is fucked up. But I see you’re point. I’m just brain-storming. Obviously one should draw lines on whom one would/should white-knight-rage for, e.g. sisters, cousins, nieces. A further line would be what has to be accepted/permitted and what would have to be a punch-worthy trigger (approach, ok; French kiss ten minutes in, confrontation-time. (BTW, but I raged more about the under ten-minute to makeout on the street PU than all the other posts which strongly suggested same night banging. Why?) Or I suppose one could talk about counter-game. Or just forget it, as in who gives a shit about strangers.

    Like


  48. Michael wears a hat: “from a save-the-civilization standpoint, betas turning into pseudo-alphas is a disaster. The proper mode for civilization saving is skank shaming.”

    Takes two to tango. I’m talking skank prevention. Would you let your daughter make-out with a stranger 9 minutes and 43 seconds after his approach? How herbish.

    Like


  49. Roissy

    There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks. Once a woman has had that faint hope instilled in her, she can go months or even years rejecting more suitable beta males in favor of pining forlornly for that one alpha male who will certainly, she tells herself, come around and decide she’s a catch worthy of commitment.

    That’s why very sex hungry 6’s and 7’s can make such great fuck buddies. Especially if you’re also pretty nice to them, just slippery on being an actual bf. But sometimes act a bit like one. That takes a girl you like hanging with some. But who’s too much of a slut, and not pretty enough, to want to make your gf.

    Like


  50. [editor: your golddigger radar needs tweaking. you see, golddiggers normally target men with money.]

    So why do women date beta males that they have zero attraction for? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Their Christian duty? Or to secure another person’s wages to raise their children and have a down payment for a larger home?

    [editor: many reasons that aren’t necessarily about money. for instance, stability. comfort. security. reliability. trust. caring. handyman skills. and yes, even love.]

    [have you given any indication to women that your future wages will be much higher?]

    People would routinely throw around that I’m “so smart” or “so intelligent”, so they presume that I’m capable of much higher earnings in the future.

    [bullshit. that’s not what women size up when analyzing a man’s future earnings. they look at his choice of career, and his ambition as much as, if not moreso, than his innate smarts.]

    In other words, the female would try and get in on the ground floor and manipulate me directly to ensure that she beats other women to those future earnings. Her so-called encouragement for me to finish school is really her betting on me to become successful.

    [you should find yourself a really vicious lawyer dominatrix. you’d be a dream come true for her.]

    I’d make her miserable. They want good looking submissives who can fuck. Not impotent sub-human males.

    [oh i don’t know about that. doms love sticking big things up the asses of submissive rodentia like yourself. a woman with a strong urge to beat the living shit out of a weak man and fuck him with the strap-on of the gods, would make a good match for you. afterwards, you can meekly ask her to finish you off with tweezers.]

    Have you ever considered seeing a therapist?

    At times, but I’m uninsured and don’t make enough (come on $450 bi-weekly paychecks!), and I make too much (and have too much savings) for state subsidized plans or Medicaid. And I tried the therapy route back when I was engineering school and was suicidal and I’d argue that it wasn’t that useful except as an hourly session where I’d talk for most of the time.

    I’ve never really followed you…but are you black?

    First-generation American born Caribbean male.

    It just doesnt happen to most whites unless they are really, really rich.

    Women who date beta males are either mentally ill or golddiggers.

    Like


  51. Chuck

    increase to what percentage? 100? every man is an alpha and can get women almost at will…..that would leave a lot of bedraggled vaginas.

    No clearly nothing close to 100%. i’ve never remotely suggested that. I’ve always said that it seems to me that game is likely to work much better for higher betas than others, and for certain types of betas than others. It will work best for guys with some social intelligence and an ability to talk articulately and easily, who are plagued by excessive nice guy and female pedestaling beliefs.

    PA says he thinks maybe 40% of men could be some sort of alpha to girls if they’d macho up. Maybe that’s high. Maybe it’s 30%. But I think it can be more than the 15% currently that Roissy usually uses. The great majority of these inductees would be lesser alphas of course. Still relatively loyal lesser alphas would be considered happy settle down material by a whole lot of girls. A lot of 7s for example, and 6s. Instead of unhappy settle material. Or if you preserve the relative scale, male 7s, currently higher betas, could become functionally lesser alphas and make female 7’s happy.

    Like


  52. one of the things i don’t like about fat chicks. is now that their are so many, the “average looking” thin chick (the 5’s-6’s) now think their as hot as 7’s-8’s.

    damn them. althought they give great b-j’s…wait what?

    Like


  53. “Makes me wonder if beta males get one night stands. Can the betas here shed some light? Just curious.”

    Yes, it goes like this. You go out to bars/clubs/parties constantly. One night, on your way to getting blackout drunk, a girl in the 4-6 range approaches you out of the blue with a bombardment of IOIs. Alcohol fueled courage and swagger allow you to get her outside “for a smoke” without much incident. Outside you make out passionately for 15 minutes, say ‘let’s get out of here,’ get back to your place, and fuck. You wake up the next morning next to a bag of flesh, crusty with old make up, smelling like an ashtray. Even being the beta you are, you know there is no way you are ever calling this girl.

    Pre-game, that was how i got laid. It would happen about 5 times a year.

    Like


  54. [editor: many reasons that aren’t necessarily about money. for instance, stability. comfort. security. reliability. trust. caring. handyman skills. and yes, even love.]

    I can’t believe you of all people would post such trite and pass that off as why women deal with betas. Trust me, they don’t need any of that crap, and if they did, they wouldn’t divorce the men that provide that to them in their so-called happy little marriages. They want only want alpha cock and money to pay for their lifestyle.

    And love does not exist. There’s merely long-term lust and short-term lust.

    [bullshit. that’s not what women size up when analyzing a man’s future earnings. they look at his choice of career, and his ambition as much as, if not moreso, than his innate smarts.]

    I’ll grant you, but as with all things it depends on the woman in question. I’m useless for golddigging purposes to Wellesley Queen, but to some other woman with way less in terms of options, I’m “better than nothing”.

    oh i don’t know about that.

    That’s the thing. I don’t want to have something shoved up my ass or be beaten up by a woman. I’m much too stubborn to be a submissive, but too weak, timid, and frail to be a dominant.

    Like


  55. the takeaway lesson from all of this, again, is do like i did and relocate to europe, where not only do betas have a better shot but things are even better for us alphas.

    my summer in new york has been a smashing success thanks to an italian and a russian girl coming into my life, but man i cannot wait to get back to london.

    Like


  56. DA – “So why do women date beta males that they have zero attraction for? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Their Christian duty? Or to secure another person’s wages to raise their children and have a down payment for a larger home?”

    Men often are better off financially being married than being single. This is mainly because its easier to own property where you can build equity when you are married rather than renting and pissing your money away. Probably, more important is building trust with her family, which can lead to a larger network of people willing to help you find a job or mentor your career in some way. In addition, having a family makes you seem like a responsible, trustworthy person rather than a child molester.

    These golddigging posts are childish.

    Like


  57. DA:

    “The problem is that everybody is missing the obvious conclusion, that beta males should simply opt-out of women because even with game in some cases, they’re simply cannon fodder for golddiggers.”

    I’ve never bought this argument. All you like women for is their beauty, acrylics, and ability to take 2 dicks in the same hole on camera. Are you not just as superficial as gold-diggers then?

    Men – including you – and women react positively to beauty and the status/money thing…we all know this. So you’re just making excuses, as usual.

    Like


  58. Kevin k,

    those days are gone..

    Like


  59. doug1:

    “No clearly nothing close to 100%.”

    yeah, i didn’t mean to insinuate that you thought that, i was just trying to make an argument from the extremes. i am very interested in learning what the percentage of alpha males in a given society. even a study of primate alphas would be interesting.

    i’m wondering if we can figure something out by looking at the statistics for median number of sex partners. given that the means will be equal, but the medians different, that could give us a picture of the distribution.

    also, we *still* would have to come up with a clear definition of alpha. 6 partners a year? more, less?

    Like


  60. on August 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm Michael wears a hat

    cz: “Takes two to tango. I’m talking skank prevention. Would you let your daughter make-out with a stranger 9 minutes and 43 seconds after his approach? How herbish.”

    I wouldn’t, but I’m not a beta, not anymore. But my opinion on what is the right behavior for me and my family, may not necessarily coincide on what is best for society.

    I believe it was either Jung or Freud who observed that men in western society save their aggressive energies for the businessplace. If western men redirected their energies to maintaining the behavior of their womenfolk, industries that need that energy might outright collapse.

    Society benefits by having men dedicated at work and their wives dedicated and submissive. Placing the onus on men to curb women is foolish, because that redirects their energies away from labor. Society, as a collective, should support widespread shaming of skanks, by both men and women. Not as a male alpha activity, but as a social activity.

    Like


  61. hey guys, i have been reading roissy for a while and I have to say last night everything i have learned on this site paid off. i closed a 7 right off the street within an hour. i was just curious about the proper one night stand etiquette if you feel that you want more. first off, she was like the girl from the video posted a couple days ago, that is she was traveling here in the us from another country and was very feminine and fun. she left her number for me on the nightstand. we had sex again the next morning, and it was dont laugh here guys (intimate) this girl is only in town for another month and the spark was unmistakable ( we have lots of things in common). she repeatedly asked me the next morning, youre going to call me right ? so i was wondering if i want to see her again this weekend, do i text or call her today ? is text better. i remember reading a blog where a girl claimed to have had a similar experience with roissy ( dont know if its true, you can google it) and he texted her within two hours with ” hey, had a good time. we should do it again this time”. anyways would really appreciate some commentary on this from the roissy-ites haha, as l auster calls them now.

    Like


  62. sorry meant ” we should do it again some time”

    Like


  63. from a save the civilization standpoint, beta’s might do well to loosen-up emotionally, maybe have another beer… And then beat the shit out of PUA’s. Barroom brawls as a pathway out of betatude perhaps.

    If betas had that kind of go-get-em aggression, they wouldn’t be betas.

    Like


  64. Chuck,

    There is a difference between thinking superficially and acting on it.

    Like


  65. Tarl,

    Things have to get pretty bad before even the most motivated act.

    Like


  66. Lucifer – “those days are gone.”

    Did all the Asian women leave America?

    Like


  67. on August 21, 2009 at 3:24 pm Cannon's Canon

    “i was just curious about the proper one night stand etiquette if you feel that you want more.”

    sounds like you haven’t learned that much here after all.

    Like


  68. Kevin K,

    You are suggesting that marriage can improve upward mobility for men. I am pointing out that it is no longer doable because of economic, social and legal changes.

    Like


  69. well, i learned enough game to pulled a hot 22 year old euro into my bed, so i must have learned something. i just want to continue having her in my bed for the next few weeks🙂 i just dont want to wait too long and have her get buyers remorse, feel me ?

    Like


  70. Yess!!! That Cheryl Marie whatever blog that Roissy has started linking to sure is fascinating!

    I’m sure he’s linking to it because it’s so great, and not because he got manipulated into doing so.

    Like


  71. lurker:

    well i’m still voting former fattie, but it might just be that she’s a slut.

    black bouncer knows her name – check

    likes wild sex – check

    red head – check

    drinks a lot – check

    has fucked you a couple times without presumably pressuring you to eat her out – check (she’s likely not looking for intimacy)

    loose pussy – double check

    course, she could just be both a slut and former fatty. their Venn diagram has a large overlap.

    Like


  72. on August 21, 2009 at 3:29 pm Cannon's Canon

    1 hour close:
    once you’ve fucked a girl, you’re afforded some beta liberties with her. just don’t write her a poem.

    Like


  73. nah, cannon. i figured i would just her text her. ” hey had a good time last night, i am going to do xxx, on such a day, you should join me”. i just didnt know how soon i should do this, if there is such a thing as ” too soon”. my view is that women view the one night stand differently than men, if they dont get confirmation “soon enough” that it was more than that, i will get blacked out as just a one night stand. which is what i dont want. what do you guys think ?

    Like


  74. oh and by the way, and this is as an aside. exactly 3 hours before this happened, i got a call from my ex telling me that she had a new boyfriend, to put it mildly i was crushed. we were together for five years. i mean i was in a dark place last night ( real dark). i went to the bar, got no play, and i resolved to buy a bottle a whiskey and drink myself into oblivion and do something crazy, anything as long as it was crazy. rattle shit up if you know what i mean. it was on the way i home that i saw this euro and proceeded to apply everything i have learned on this site. how do i feel today ? VINDICATED AS A MAN. Game may or may not save lives, but I will say that it can restore and keep a man’s sanity.

    Like


  75. Roissy … or this, shorter version:

    http://fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=96732&fid=8

    I am tired of the pretty lies of the pickup artists.

    Like


  76. Good points chuck all.

    Of course, like most redheads, her pussy gets soup-wet. So perhaps what I’m attributing to “loose” may just be extra lubrication.

    Like


  77. @greg. those pretty lies you speak of got me laid last night. deal.

    Like


  78. on August 21, 2009 at 3:56 pm Back When I Was Young & Foolish

    Some sluts are honest.

    Was laying in bed with one back when I was young and foolish with a girl. She blatantly told me that while she was a slut she would never sleep with me because I liked her too much and that she wasn’t emotionally comfortable with people who liked her first. Who says that?

    Didn’t realize it at the time that I could have easily slept with this girl had I paid attention to the coaching she was giving me on multiple occasions over the course of a year. Gems she gave me:

    – “Don’t call so often”
    I called a lot.

    – “I don’t want to date you [but will sleep with you if just want to hang out]”
    I wanted to date her officially.

    – “Hey, when I argue with you, you should take a stand and not agree.”
    I tried to calm her down by agreeing with her.

    – “I just got an eight-ball. You want to come do some coke with me tonight [and fuck me when I get horny]?
    Nah, I don’t do hard drugs.

    – “I talked to my mom about you. She said to tell you that I’m too young for a real relationship.”
    You talked to your mom about me? You must really care about me. See, we should be together.

    How dumb was I? Of course, I hated her for all of this. But I only tried harder and didn’t listen to any of her advice. And spiraled into deeper infatuation which made her contemptuous of me.

    Bless her heart.

    Like


  79. i figured i would just her text her. ” hey had a good time last night, i am going to do xxx, on such a day, you should join me”.

    lost the part about having a good time last night. that categorically sounds like something a guy who doesn’t get laid a lot might say. remember, women get buyer’s remorse when they start thinking that they slipped and let a beta through.

    Like


  80. oh man, you two men have just scarred me with re: to my family, composed of a lot of (skinny) redheads.
    At least I’m only scarred in regards to the women.

    Also, nice to read further proof that the vaunted slut detection system is imperfect. (no, I’m not calling the female of the convo a slut, but his reaction suggests he was quite surprised at her apparent number.)

    Like


  81. it wasn’t the pretty lies that got you laid. It’s easy to get laid. The hard part is to become an alpha that lots of women want.

    Like


  82. read what I linked to, before commenting.

    Like


  83. looks like some uptight cunt over at auster has an obnoxious take on the mtv generation and “roissyites”, are the baby boomers ever gonna fuckin die?

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014014.html

    Like


  84. is c u n t a moderation trigger?

    Like


  85. This is mainly because its easier to own property where you can build equity when you are married rather than renting and pissing your money away.

    Or you can buy your own house with your own money that you saved up from not being married or having children.

    Probably, more important is building trust with her family, which can lead to a larger network of people willing to help you find a job or mentor your career in some way.

    Why, so I feel that I owe her family some type of favour? So that her family can lord it over me how I’m useless and that I’d starve if it wasn’t for them? That’s simply a disincentive to get married.

    In addition, having a family makes you seem like a responsible, trustworthy person rather than a child molester.

    As more beta males finally figure out that they’re not really wanted and that they’re being used, it will seem normal for males to be single.

    These golddigging posts are childish.

    No, they speak the truth.

    All you like women for is their beauty, acrylics, and ability to take 2 dicks in the same hole on camera. Are you not just as superficial as gold-diggers then?

    Yes, but I’m honest about my motives. Golddiggers are not, and they lie about their intent via socially accepted platitudes such as “love”. One day, the walls will fall, and we will expose women and get them to finally admit that they are all golddiggers when they choose to date beta males.

    Like


  86. Michael wears a hat: “Placing the onus on men to curb women is foolish, because that redirects their energies away from labor.”

    Did I say onus? Skank-shaming and skank-prevention activities are not mutually exclusive.

    Meanwhile, interesting that you mention energy, labor, and economics. As if that’s all there is. This blog is one whole huge testimony to money not making the world go round.

    “Society, as a collective, should support widespread shaming of skanks, by both men and women.”

    Again, false dilemma. We basically agree.

    “If western men redirected their energies to maintaining the behavior of their womenfolk, industries that need that energy might outright collapse.”

    Another false dilemma. But, what the hell, I’ll concede that given the current overall skankerishness –the skankorlectorate if you will, there might be a discernible hit to the GNP –Hey Rails!– for a while.

    “…Not as a male alpha activity, but as a social activity.” More agreement. But I think I see where the confusion comes in.

    Back to the start:

    “I wouldn’t, but I’m not a beta, not anymore. But my opinion on what is the right behavior for me and my family, may not necessarily coincide on what is best for society.”

    I said maybe it would be in the interests of beta’s to loosen up and try to slam some heads. Maybe.

    You said out of control aggression is DLV.

    I might have responded better to say, well, they’re DLV already –standing their with their thumbs up their ass watching it all go down. Roissy’s solution seems to be, well, go home, work up some routines, come back and make some approaches; work on game. I’m merely toying with the idea, running it up the flagpole, of, fuck it, let’s rumble. I’m thinking maybe there’s some merit to that, both for the beta in question and society as a whole, if he goes that route. ‘Course there are huge problems one when he could go off, but I’m looking for a concession on the going off. (You conceded you would for your own; it’s just a question of who is in your in-group; who is in whose in-group.)

    Or is it your proposal, civilization or individual-wise, that we should shame the wall-flowers from even feeling anything? ‘Cause then they’ll be good little boys M-F, 8-6 and one weekend a month, pay their taxes, stay on their meds, whatever? Is that it?

    Like


  87. 1 hour close

    nah, cannon. i figured i would just her text her. ” hey had a good time last night, i am going to do xxx, on such a day, you should join me”. i just didnt know how soon i should do this, if there is such a thing as ” too soon”. my view is that women view the one night stand differently than men, if they dont get confirmation “soon enough” that it was more than that, i will get blacked out as just a one night stand. which is what i dont want. what do you guys think ?

    If you f*cked her well, and it sounds as though you did, she’s not going to get “buyer’s remorse” anytime soon. The danger of waiting too long is that she’ll find someone better, esp. since she’s probably on a rather accelerated schedule wanting to fully feel the States.

    Still you want to act like a guy with options, who’s used to doing girls as quickly as you did her at least fairly often, and who’s probably seeing someone else casually – but who might just like her better. Plus she’s got a short dated expiry stamp on her.

    I’d say contact her tomorrow, text her something short like “[name] you were fun. We should hook up again soon.”

    Then when she responds, myself, I’d get on voice and talk to her. Well I’m good at that so that’s what I’d do. I’d shoot the shiite some first, rebuilding rapport. (I guess I wouldn’t do that if I wasn’t good at phone, but I am.) Then I’d make arrangements on the phone. Also be directive. “I’m going to do xxx on such a (close in day) and I think you’re who I’d like to do it with. So you’re coming, right?”

    Put yourself in her head. She wants to experience America and the city you’re in to the max she can. So try to make this first thing you do with her fit into that agenda of hers.

    Like


  88. on August 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm Cannon's Canon

    dana,
    that article you linked to is cringe-worthy. it could easily make the grade at feministing. i decided not to bother debating the author, tempting as it may be. (anhedonic and fruitless)

    Like


  89. Fuck that shit!

    The only people that think going in cold- is a waste or low value, are the men that don’t have enough balls to just FUCKING do it!

    Approaching scores of women changes a man it makes a man better- as long as you learn to read women, as long as you can adapt- one will begin to pick up on cues, to tailor the approach- going in with no fear, no anxiety, going in sober- it shows you have no fucking fear, and really what is there to fear?

    Me, you and her- we are all rotting carcasses.

    While I walk this earth I have the power to approach any female that enters my radius- I have the potential to insert them into my sphere of influence- if I play it right, I can penetrate their lives.

    A man has a dick and it is used to penetrate- but a man is supposed to penetrate a female on all levels.
    You interject into her day, her conversation; her rhythm of life will be penetrated by your presence.

    Men are meant to penetrate women with cold approaches. The sexual act of penetration in only the final stage of seduction- man approaching a strange woman on the street is where it all begins; it is beautiful when it all comes together.

    A simple hello today in a coffee shop today, a few weeks later we are in the bed naked- she wonders how we got from there to here- I know how, it is repeatable, teachable, and it can be calibrated and improved upon.

    Like


  90. Dana

    are the baby boomers ever gonna fuckin die?

    Hey, I’m a very tail end baby boomer Dana. Don’t hate us all.

    (But believe me, I can feel where you’re coming from. I agree.)

    Like


  91. I think DA (and whiskey a bit)shows the danger of systematizing human behavior in a way that it finally becomes accessible to people with asperger’s syndrome or tendencies.

    as a high systematizer i love to memorize lists of facts–greek gods and goddesses, words for scrabble, fish breeds when i had a tank–etc. people were always an inscrutable mystery to me. over time i developed enough experience to recognize distinct patterns and stereotypes in human behavior by group, women, men, blacks jews etc and they became more comprehensible and less frightening–ah! now i could memorize lists of human traits! (reading ev psych doesnt help). i could know everything about a person before i met them by finding out a few facts! yay, this is JUST like identifying a fish’s breed by fin shape! ‘cept, NOT

    the problem is, unlike your memorized train facts, individual people deviate wildly from the generally true stereotypes you can discern in them.

    while game’s description of women is undoubtedly “true”, that just means any given woman you meet is more likely than less likely to be like generic Woman that now resides in your fucked up autistic brain. LIKELY DA, not 100% certain to be exactly like a gold digging, beta hating whore that wants to use you and spit you out.

    certain “racists” are like this too–unable to temper a static generic conception of “Black Man” with his everyday experience of individual black men.

    you can’t allow your pretty accurate guidepost generalizations about people to preclude being able to relate to individuals. well, you can but i doubt any person finds any happiness that way

    Like


  92. Exactly how would skank-shaming work, in concrete terms?

    Like


  93. Lucifer – “You are suggesting that marriage can improve upward mobility for men. I am pointing out that it is no longer doable because of economic, social and legal changes.”

    Except most of the married men I known socially, through family and those I work with have done exactly that. They aren’t particularly alpha, they just married boring, sensible women and have had good financial outcomes.

    Like


  94. Lucifer asks, “Then again, what is the use of a woman over 30? Why should they expect guys to care about them?”

    To be frank, most of us don’t. This is, in my opinion, part of the problem.

    Feminists are running around telling us that we should never depend on a man. Some of you are busy proving them right. After all, it is exactly what you were programmed to do.

    Lucifer, you are the epitome of brainwashed sheeple. You don’t even try to find a relationship because that would mean having to be responsible, and maybe touch someone who didn’t look like the emaciated, masculinized queen bees you were programmed to worship.

    For the life of me, I don’t know why you think you’re a rebel.

    Like


  95. 1 hour close

    better than

    “[name] you were fun. We should hook up again soon.”

    would be:

    “[name] you were fun. We should hook up again soon, and this time maybe actually do some things together, I mean before…”.

    That’s a bit of a txt neg about her being too easy, but also telling her that you like her enough anyway to want to actually do dating things with her. That’s a dynamite twofer for most girls.

    Like


  96. the problem is, unlike your memorized train facts, individual people deviate wildly from the generally true stereotypes you can discern in them.

    I see no deviation. I merely see golddiggers in all women. Any woman who dates a beta is 100% a golddigger, and that’s true whether if it’s some stranger down the street or my mother.

    [editor: asshole, stop repeating your idiocy when you’ve been schooled on your lies. golddiggers don’t chase betas, they chase men with lots of dough who, because of their proven ambition, are more likely to be alphas than betas. so get it through your thick fucking skull and stop polluting the board with your insipid drivel, or i’m tossing you in the spam bin.]

    well, you can but i doubt any person finds any happiness that way

    Beta males will find happiness when they stop dealing with women for sexual and romantic purposes.

    [your worst punishment is that you will have to live out your life because you’re too scared to put your head down on one of those rails you’re always riding.]

    Like


  97. Greg Magarshak,

    You are exactly right…PUA’s are not alphas. Though I do think you put too much emphasis on cars/money/etc.

    Like


  98. Also Greg…you are coming close to pointing out Roissy’s pretty lie…that there really arent massive hordes of involuntary celebate guys.

    [editor: i’ve never said this.]

    I love 99% of what Roissy says but he relies on that assumption way too much. Most guys can get laid, just not by the girls the would prefer.

    [or as often as they’d like.]

    Like


  99. Most guys can get laid, just not by the girls the would prefer.

    That’s merely a ploy by the golddiggers to trick a man into a relationship.

    Like


  100. @ Roissy
    Beanbags don’t hug back.

    [beanbags don’t stink or clean out your fridge either.]

    I laughed so hard when reading this that my team, all situated near me at work, gave me this strange look. I had a friend that used to profess his undying love for chunky women.

    But when you watched him around attractive women you really saw the reason why. He was an average guy BUT he had absolutely froze when he attempted any conversations with attractive women. So instead of being able to get the 7’s that were in his ballpark based on his looks, he had to settle for the fat chicks that were happy to date a guy that on the outside appeared normal.

    Keep up the good work. You seriosuly need a book cataloging this comment section.

    Like


  101. One point chuck, it may change things:

    She refuses to be called bitch, slut, whore etc. in bed, stopping me cold twice, and mentioning while drinking she hates it. In angry terms.

    So its either 1) I am a slut, and this is my verbal ASD; or 2) I am not a slut, and offended by the term, because some think I am.

    Ps she’s also an anti-feminist, but very direct and strident nonetheless (she thinks feminists are weak whiners and women should just go do what they want to do—she ‘s ininvestment banking)

    Like


  102. Gold Digger = A woman who “dates” guys for financial reasons.

    By that definition a poor but average looking woman who dates a middle class guy is a gold digger.

    Now, a hot looking woman who dates a very rich guy is more likely to be seen as a gold digger, but her behavior is not really that different from the first example. It is just the extent, not the logic.

    [editor: average women date and marry betas for all sorts of reasons, sometimes for reasons having nothing to do with money.]

    Like


  103. The only therapy David Alexander needs is hormone replacement therapy. He’s a low-testosterone male. Start taking 250 mg. a week. Don’t worry about testicular shrinkage. Yours don’t work, anyway.

    Oh, and I am being serious. Eight weeks on test and David Alexander would finally be a man.

    If David is smart, he should be able to find a good deal from an underground lab.

    Also, don’t skip post-cycle therapy.

    Like


  104. Lurker, just because I have trouble watching a disaster happen right in front of me, I’m going to say that her having been fat is the least of your worries. You’ve got a harpy.

    She’s screwing you without a commitment. Her pussy is loose…I mean a woman with even a slight bit of personal pride, who is literate these days, is doing kegels. Whores from the pit of hell don’t have a loose pussy. That’s just laziness and overuse at the same time. If she was overused the least she could do is a few squeezes a day.

    All this and you can’t even playfully call her your bitch.

    H A R P Y.

    Do NOT get her pregnant. Burn the condoms after. Say you have some crazy Voodoo beliefs that you can’t leave any of your body fluids behind or something. Whatever it takes.

    I hope you never told her your last name, and she doesn’t know where you work or live.

    Like


  105. Game in BK,

    I prefer to pay 240$/ hour..

    Like


  106. This guy is hilarious, I was LMAO after reading this.

    Like


  107. Yeah. I am just still holding out home for the PUA community that some pickup artist would come out of the woodwork and be willing to show me how cold approach is so effective. Because I wasted years of my time buying into “looks don’t matter, money and status doesn’t matter” which in no way corresponds to my reality. It really sucks when you have this virtual “community” telling you to do crazy things when, to do them, you have to risk being seen like a loser by your social circle. Not to mention that to follow it you have to completely embrace the “dark triad” characteristics, poach other people’s girlfriends and not give a shit about what “polite society” thinks of you.

    I just feel like all these years could have been much better spent by focusing more on surrounding myself with a good social circle and making enough money for a great lifestyle (car, vacations, parties etc.) Good thing I am confident about making up for lost time🙂

    But still … I hold out hope … I am sure there ARE some really good PUAs . Maybe I can learn their secret art, how they spark attraction in the loins of that woman who is walking the other way on the street, or sitting with her girlfriends in a club swatting away guys. I really wonde what magic they possess.

    Like


  108. Ghost of Nicole,

    I have only one use for women.. I do not care about any other aspect of their existence. It is just not worth it!

    Like


  109. Im in agreement w/Roissy and others on this thread, which has basically turned into something Dave Alex always craves for-attention-but anyway, his contradictions are indeed collapsing under its own weight.

    Seems to me the singlebiggest endorsement he can give to his arguments are to become independently weathy or at the least, gainfully employed, remain single, jackoff to premium porn and live the roadgeeking/photography/railfanning lifestyle he claims to love. In this way, he can actually show other Beta Males a better way, instead of merely writing about it.

    Especially since per his arguments, it all makes such perfect sense, yes?

    So…why doesn’t Dave Alex get busy? Afterall, he’s got nothing holding him back now. No kids, no wife, not even a girlfriend. He can move anywhere in the country and start over, on his own terms. He can stil go to school-many guys like him do it all the time-and I would suggest he study film/photography w/perhaps a secondary track pardon the pun, focused on say, urban planning to satiate his thing for trains.

    Personally, I can appreciate Dave Alex’s general dislike for Blacks overall, his apparent self-hatred over this, his personal decision not to learn/apply Game, his sexual tastes and interests (which includes conspicuous lusting after White Women in a way that comes dangerously close to minstrel levels), and as well, his emphatic arguing that Beta Males are forever the target of Jezebel-like golddiggers.

    But what gets me, is that, if all of this is true, right and exact, Dave’s key arguments, wouldn’t it make sense to simply set about bringing his preferred lifestyle…you know, *to life*? Like I said, he has nothing to hold him back, not even the need to interact in realtime w/other human beings. And, if he wants to “convert the masses”-in this case, the Beta Male masses-wouldnt his own “journey” be the best way to do so?

    So, Dave Alex-wassup with that?

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

    Like


  110. Lucifer, you may tell yourself all the pretty lies you like, but you know some women have done more to enhance your life than provide you with pussy.

    Your failure to appreciate what women have done for you doesn’t mean they’ve done nothing for you. So cut the crap. You hate your mom, and need the rest of us to be useless and worthless because you got socks for Xmas or something.

    Like


  111. on August 21, 2009 at 5:05 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Roissy,

    I submit Lawrence Auster as a BOTM candidate.

    Secondly, a commenter ‘Kathleen M’ claims that people who practice Game lack social skills (my god, talk about getting something exactly wrong) :

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014014.html#postcomment

    Lawrence Auster turned that into a blog post, to nurse his bruised ego about his own Betatude, hiding behind the shaming language of a woman.

    Like


  112. I will say this:

    back in my days before escorts, I used to do a version of the cold approach. Now, it does have a very low rate of success (and some potential complications) but it does work.

    If you can talk, engage a person and are not personally repellent – it can work. You may not pull a very hot looking girl, but you can get a non-mental, non-fatty girl.

    Like


  113. Ghost of Nicole,

    If that was the case, I would not have found this website.

    Like


  114. on August 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm Michael wears a hat

    cz: “Did I say onus? Skank-shaming and skank-prevention activities are not mutually exclusive.

    Meanwhile, interesting that you mention energy, labor, and economics. As if that’s all there is. This blog is one whole huge testimony to money not making the world go round.”

    Did I say money? Economics, energy, and labor all contribute to survival and flourishing; money is just a counter. Hell, even mating behaviors have survival and flourishing at their core, but modern men and women simply have not evolved to match their behavior to modern survival methods.

    While in theory we could support a more socialist society that does not value materialistic pursuits, I doubt any such society would be successful in the long run. YMMV.

    “You said out of control aggression is DLV.”

    Put on your specs. Wasn’t me who said that.

    “I might have responded better to say, well, they’re DLV already –standing their with their thumbs up their ass watching it all go down. Roissy’s solution seems to be, well, go home, work up some routines, come back and make some approaches; work on game. I’m merely toying with the idea, running it up the flagpole, of, fuck it, let’s rumble. I’m thinking maybe there’s some merit to that, both for the beta in question and society as a whole, if he goes that route. ‘Course there are huge problems one when he could go off, but I’m looking for a concession on the going off. (You conceded you would for your own; it’s just a question of who is in your in-group; who is in whose in-group.)”

    Of course I would on my own, and would have little fear of negative repercussions. Thats because we live in a society with 80% of our males being cowed betas. The liquidity provided by having a cowed male population allows the current set of alphas to behave as they do without too much conflict: they won’t experience severe resistance from betas, and there isn’t that much to gain from open conflict between alphas.

    With an entire population of males standing up for themselves, all bets are off. Who knows what the results would be, but there would probably be enormous conflict, which is not to the benefit of society.

    “Or is it your proposal, civilization or individual-wise, that we should shame the wall-flowers from even feeling anything? ‘Cause then they’ll be good little boys M-F, 8-6 and one weekend a month, pay their taxes, stay on their meds, whatever? Is that it?”

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Like


  115. on August 21, 2009 at 5:13 pm one hour close

    @ doug. you always come through with the solid responses. thanks

    Like


  116. “you can’t allow your pretty accurate guidepost generalizations about people to preclude being able to relate to individuals. well, you can but i doubt any person finds any happiness that way.”

    Excellent point.

    “Men are meant to penetrate women with cold approaches. The sexual act of penetration in only the final stage of seduction- man approaching a strange woman on the street is where it all begins; it is beautiful when it all comes together.

    A simple hello today in a coffee shop today, a few weeks later we are in the bed naked- she wonders how we got from there to here- I know how, it is repeatable, teachable, and it can be calibrated and improved upon.”

    Unless a girl’s dumb, she’s not ‘wondering’. She liked your style and went for it.

    When I was single, I rejected all cold approaches out of hand (even if I was attracted). Now I’m partnered, so I say so. Men who would try to pick me up in a coffee shop are the kind of men who try to pick up every decent-looking girl everywhere they go all day. A few go ahead and fuck them. It grosses me out to think about it. All evidence points to my BF being a lifelong, choosy, serial monogamist, which meshes well with my own intentions.

    Like


  117. Lucifer said: “I have only one use for women.. I do not care about any other aspect of their existence. It is just not worth it!”

    I believe you, and I’m glad hiring escorts is meeting your needs.

    But can you conceive that all other people do not feel the same way, even if they do have penises just like you do? And that their opinions and experiences are just as valid as yours?

    Like


  118. Roissy,

    Can you take down the photo of the dude with his eyeballs out of his sockets? It’s fucking sick, and I can’t get it out of my head. Really, man, I’m shuddering right now. It’s like when I saw “Tub girl” some years ago….I couldn’t get it out my head for weeks, and I would get the dry heaves whenever it popped in for a visit.

    Like


  119. on August 21, 2009 at 5:25 pm Cannon's Canon

    one hour close:
    “@ doug. you always come through with the solid responses. thanks”

    just imagine if you were a girl!

    Like


  120. looks like some uptight cunt over at auster has an obnoxious take on the mtv generation and “roissyites”,

    Auster doesn’t get it. Auster will never get it. Auster will never honestly try to get it. Ironically, he will interpret game just like a lot of the feminists he hates – he will create a false, strawman version of Game and then expend a lot of energy attacking what he wrongly imagines Game is.

    Like


  121. “But still … I hold out hope … I am sure there ARE some really good PUAs . Maybe I can learn their secret art, how they spark attraction in the loins of that woman who is walking the other way on the street, or sitting with her girlfriends in a club swatting away guys. I really wonder what magic they possess.”

    I think there are, and roissey is probably one of them.

    Their ‘magic’ is that it mostly comes naturally. They are not short, neither skinny nor fat, have handsome faces and good posture, self-confidence, good social skills, are smart and funny, have ambition and charisma. Usually they also have lots of friends and a job with some sort of status (whether it’s rich stockbroker or sexy starving artist).

    Dominance factors into a little I suppose, but you can have self-confidence without dominating, intimidating, or ‘negging’ people. It’s the difference between aggressive, and assertive.

    There’s little one can do to learn these things. You can scheme all you want, and if you devote your life to improving your technique while constantly hitting on hot girls you will get numbers and have sex, perhaps with more attractive women than you might otherwise. But no one can learn to be a PUA and have anyone he chooses fall into his lap.

    Like


  122. @ Backdoor Man,

    Don’t be a wuss.

    Like


  123. Lucifer, people find this website in many ways. It’s not required that women be useless to you aside of sex, in order to read Roissy.

    When you say that, it sounds like a tantrum. I can’t prove someone’s worth to you. What someone is worth to you is a matter of opinion, which you’re welcome to, but it doesn’t make it based on anything like reality. Some people believe in faeries and elves.

    Like


  124. @ dana

    that post at VFR is downright evil. I was going to post a comment there when I read it and decided that Larry Auster is beyond salvation. He does have very good posts about NAM savagery and religion, but wrt he is as evil and destructive as a Susan Sonntag or ANdrea Dworkin

    Better to let his blog self-destruct in the Sexual/Gender relations subjects under the weight of moronic opinions like that one,

    I still recommending reading him tough. Just keeping in mind that any boy raised according to his principles will become DA, Lucifer or, at worst SOdini

    Like


  125. wrt gender/sexual relations

    Like


  126. Dana “memorized train facts”

    Award.

    Like


  127. @ backdoor man

    are your parents divorced?

    Like


  128. Ghost of Nicole,

    Most men also believe in the inherent goodness of women. I never did..

    Like


  129. Cannon’s Canon

    Bite me.

    Like


  130. asshole, stop repeating your idiocy when you’ve been schooled on your lies.

    I fail to see any reasonable assertion to prove why women deal with beta males when we’re proven that they only get wet for alpha males. Again, short of mental illness, there is no other reasonable explanation to explain why women still consort with beta males. Marrying a man because he’s a good provider is the art of being a golddigger from my perspective.

    [editor: you have selective memory and you constantly lie. you are a liar. a filthy stinking liar, just like Wendy Schwartz. you are a troll. you are a small man of little character. you know what i wrote to you earlier: women marry men for many reasons because male attractiveness traits encompass more than money. see: dating market value test for men linked at the top of this blog.]

    average women date and marry betas for all sorts of reasons, sometimes for reasons having nothing to do with money

    You keep saying whatever you want to keep yourself warm at night.

    [the vast majority of american men don’t make much money. and yet many, if not most, of these men go on to eventually marry. clearly, then, women are marrying them for reasons other than their net worth. so your thesis is instantly discredited.]

    Like


  131. gig,

    What is wrong about being:

    1. well educated.
    2. non-brainwashed and skeptical of authority.
    3. having no illusions about women.

    Like


  132. on August 21, 2009 at 5:40 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    I Google imaged Andrea Dworkin today for the first time. I thought she might be surprisingly hot, or average looking at the very least, but it turns out she’s a stunner:

    Like


  133. I have many more options to be a fwb than I do an ltr. (sucks – married men or younger men mostly). I NEVER opt for the fwb option it seems sordid and lowers my value to myself. I know I am unable to have sex without attachment and realize this type of relationship would only end badly for one person – moi. Thank gawd I’m aware enough of this fact to protect myself from acting on the ‘what if I do and he falls in love with me later’ potential. Ya no dealie – if all he wants is sex as friends now giving in ain’t gonna make him love me – he’ll only wonder how many other men I’ve done that for.

    Like


  134. his contradictions are indeed collapsing under its own weight.

    My assertions are as sound as steel reinforced concrete. Nobody wants to recognize the truth, and everybody seeks to maintain their little dream world where a girl loves us, but that will never happen. The alphas will simply have women who lust for them in the long-term. Those with game will secure lust in the short-term. Everybody else can go fuck themselves.

    at the least, gainfully employed

    No skills, no college degree. For all intents and purposes, I’m useless.

    Afterall, he’s got nothing holding him back now.

    Hint: Mom is an unemployed widow.

    he study film/photography

    There is no money in that especially for sub-human males with no social skills.

    urban planning

    That’s generally for graduate school studies. I barely passed through an associates degree program, and I did so in a shameful manner, so that’s unlikely too.

    Like


  135. Award withdrawn – I misinterpreted. I thought you meant a train of thought that was memorized, not facts about trains.

    Either way, your thoughts about categorizing and the thought process are apt. It takes a while to be comfortable with realistic groupings.

    Like


  136. DA

    I have already said this in this blog. You were made for a job. The job of EUNUCH. There is a long tradition of black eunuchs guarding the Harems of the Middle East.

    Search for those jobs on the internet.

    Like


  137. “There is a long tradition of black eunuchs guarding the Harems of the Middle East. ”

    Are you fucking with my mind?

    Show me wikipedia reference please. This seem like fun.

    Like


  138. on August 21, 2009 at 5:50 pm The Fifth Horseman

    I have already said this in this blog. You were made for a job. The job of EUNUCH. There is a long tradition of black eunuchs guarding the Harems of the Middle East.

    Search for those jobs on the internet.

    Funny, but actually true. He would get plenty of hugs that way.

    Like


  139. Yesterday I openly asked if there was much marriage in early antiquity.

    I looked around for a few minutes and found that marriage was indeed in the code of Hammurabi (about 1800 B.C. in Mesopotamia), and by the way its written in the code, it was an old institution even then.

    Ive gotta be honest here, marriage seems like almost a prerequesite for advanced civilization, and if existing civilizations begin to abandon it, those civilizations will be getting near their end unless they are willing to become police states.

    One doesn’t read much about civilizations that dont embrace marriage and when they do they find that they were/are generally primitive ones. It would be an interesting experiment to see if polyamory could really “work” in a modern state in one nation only (like Venezuala or something) before other nations embraced it. Im afraid, as Roissy has suggested, that it could lead to a dystopia over multiple generations……making the males more thuglike from one generation to the other and not leaving enough cooperative males to make everything work out there. In oil-rich Gulf States polyamory can work becuase all they do for money is pump oil out of the ground, but few places can have an economy based on something like that.

    On fuckbuddies……………………..the internet has been a blessing in this regard. If you dont mind fucking a single mom 5 with two kids living downstairs, there are quite a few of those to be had. I did that for a few years, and had a pretty good time doing it. I wouldn’t have necessarily have been proud for my pals or family to have seen these gals—–OK, I’d have been embarrassed, but I did get the ol’ rocks off quite a bit that way. As my old pal used to say, “somebody’s gotta fuck those plain chicks too”. : )

    Like


  140. David,

    Women don’t marry betas for their money, they use beta males as emotional tampons. They desperately need someone to listen to their shit, and it’s dirt simple to string along some beta males as “friends” to fulfill this deep emotional need. How the hell could you not have personally experienced this?

    Like


  141. DA:

    There are two ways in which you can be alpha. There’s the Alpha in the sense of being extremely socially dominant, witty, smooth, skilled at pushing a woman’s emotional buttons…..

    And then there is alpha in the sense of having self respect, having a backbone, being the leader in a relationship, not taking shit from anyone..

    I’m certainly not an alpha in the first sense, but I am in the second sense. And I, like the vast majority of men who aren’t that top 20% of attractivness, and the vast majority of men who do have backbone and balls, have experienced love.

    Not everyone woman needs their guy to be like Roissy- but they don’t need a guy with a spine, a pair of balls, and some self respect. But you clearly don’t have any of these. You could though…. Dave from Hawaii did and won the love back from his wife.

    The thing is, David, you’re not really qualified to talk about what it is like out there for betas, because you are not a beta. You are an o m e g a. So don’t go talking about yourself like a beta, or saying that you know women can’t love betas. Because you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about with women.

    The thing is, it’s your self-defeating beliefs which are keeping in your o m e g a status. If you think that you are subhuman trash who is incapable of being loved, then no woman will ever think of you as any better.

    Like


  142. on August 21, 2009 at 5:58 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Let’s remember that 80% of men, and 99.99% of women will never, ever comprehend what Game is about. They will come up with all sorts of explanations to grossly misrepresent Game by a mile.

    For example, the woman in the link I provided claims that Game is a refuge for men with poor social skills!!! Even worse, social con Lawrence Auster agrees.

    There are many commenters here who still can’t grasp Game, even after months of being here every day.

    So Game (excluding naturals) really is the privilege of the Outside the Box Thinker. And thus, only 20% of men and 0.01% (or less) of women can ever get a clue.

    Game is the ultimate test of who CAN think outside the box, and who can’t.

    Like


  143. Lucifer, I personally never believed in any inherent goodness in people. That isn’t relevant.

    Thing is, I don’t see a point in treating this as if it should be shocking. You behave like someone who’s shocked and disappointed, not someone who takes the folly and sadism of the masses in stride.

    Women are part of mankind. Why you feel they deserve special mention as useless to you aside of sex is beyond me. Does this then mean that men are totally useless to you?

    Like


  144. xsplat

    google “seraglio”

    Like


  145. regarding auster and his type

    people who think like mid IQ 19th century continental philosophy students often confuse morally neutral DESCRIPTIONS of how things ARE with morally charged defenses of how things should be. most often it is women who engage in this annoying form of strawmen, ie–me (in a robot voice) “woman are naturally more submissive than men”; some dumb bitch in response–“OH!!!!! so you are sayinggggg all women should be barefoot and pregnantttttttttt!!!!’111111!!!!!!”

    they also confuse proper noun concepts with the reality they describe, something auster did so blatantly in one of my exchanged with him i peed my pants laughing. (me–the trancendant feeling you get when looking at beauty is your brains chemical reaction to experiencing the symmetry of the Golden Ratio; austeria–how did that feeling come to exist COTERMINOUS with Beaty?)

    by the way, i asked him if had congress with women at all on a mangan’s thread–i haven’t checked up on the answer yet

    Like


  146. How the hell could you not have personally experienced this?

    It’s fun being the emotional tampon. You get some attention, a dinner partner so you don’t look like an idiot when you eat alone in the restaurant, and she’ll listen to you talk about your little life too. Otherwise, women don’t marry beta males for that reason, and it’s silly to marry for that reason. As a beta male, his market value is low, and thus there’s little competition for him, so you can always string him around as a sexless platonic friend. It’s the equivalent of bidding up the price of labour when there’s easily accessible cheap labour around.

    Like


  147. Ghost of Nicole,

    Let’s put it this way. If most men saw the world like me, you would not enjoy it.

    Like


  148. excuse that last typo festival please, vitriol and typing skills have an inverse reltionship with me

    Like


  149. Doug/CC: So he gets to bite you and I don’t? Am jealous😉

    You know at least one male’s obsession is homoerotic in nature and is sonot funny anymore. [I remember one wanting another to… you know.]

    I have to watch the men now, too? Driving me crazy. Well you’re not into men, and fussy with your women. But I’ll keep an eye on those crazies who want you, anyway. God knows what they’ll resort to in their stalkery obsession.

    gig: *plays a really bad version of whiskey* He has NO INVESTMENT in the harem. If you put DA guarding a harem, he would NOT REALLY CARE what would happen to the females and NOT RISK his neck, rationalising it as him being USELESS at guarding things anyway.

    dana:

    you can’t allow your pretty accurate guidepost generalizations about people to preclude being able to relate to individuals. well, you can but i doubt any person finds any happiness that way

    A principle to live by. Nicely put.

    Like


  150. K made a comment on yesterday’s post that I’d like to copy here, so everyone can see it.

    I think it might be the most definitive short explanation of what today’s betas (even the nice-looking betas) face in the attraction field:

    K wrote:

    “The qualities that men see in their fathers, or other male role models and wish to emulate; and the lessons of virtue they receive from their mothers and sisters, and what they are told ad naseum that women desire at every corner are all bullshit. That is at the core of the disenfranchisement of the modern male. Those values and beliefs that they hold as good and right and true; that they adore in their role models; that they have thoroughly internalized are largely unattractive to women. They have to learn the hard way that at the very least on some visceral, subconscious level women are attracted to practically the exact opposite of what most men want to be. The cognitive dissonance resulting in being inculcated in a cult of lies by an entire culture complicit by its blindness to it all is absolutely staggering.

    It’s literally psychologically damaging to go out and do and be everything that you have been taught is wrong your entire life to achieve any kind of bonding or relationship. This path of deception that has us doubling back on all of our romantic notions of love results in all of the pathological behavior you see before you; the deferential, the apathetic, the self-loathing, the angry”

    I hope men AND women read that and really think about it, and what it means. Its a good snap-shot of ourselves and whats going on that doesn’t get brought up enough.

    K also wrote (I’ll paraphrase) that women like the things about men that men dont like about themselves, and are ambivalent about the things about men that men are proud of and had to work to achieve. He is right again.

    Like


  151. on August 21, 2009 at 6:11 pm fuglyfuckling

    Roosh,
    “Makes me wonder if beta males get one night stands. Can the betas here shed some light? Just curious.”

    Good question, sort of points out how alpha-beta is a scale not a discrete thing. Of course they do, but every time they do it’s because they show some sort of alpha teeth. The clearest case I had – a pretty sweet older gal, had a pretty sweet straight to comfort convo, etc, but started with “Can you get me a glass of water – oh, that’s gonna cost ya, sweetie”. Another time – again beta convo, but at some point the girl was chatting up some male friends of her and I came over and butted in and took over the conversation. So, yes and no. And so on and so on. Then perhaps I’m not so beta after all, I’m in double digits and when in early 20’s, before the LTR, one night stands turning into GFs was my staple.

    Like


  152. on August 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Sofia,

    Why would an angry feminOrc like that be hot?

    Dworkin is one of the ugliest ever. Being obese + angry for one’s whole life leads to early death, of course.

    This picture is comprehensive, and tells you all that one needs to know about leftism and beauty.

    Like


  153. Roissy —

    DA makes some good points here and there, but it is now apparent that all he is is an Excuse Making Machine. He merely filters this blog for excuses why he shouldn’t do anything. It’s so obvious now. He keeps contradicting himself and acting like he hasn’t been schooled a million times regarding his excuses.

    Dana made a good point about using useful generalizations in a harmful way — as a substitute for the nitty gritty vagaries of real life.

    DA has very little experience with real life.

    It’s obvious he loves to spew his self-hatred to the rest of us here.

    But now it’s getting tiresome.

    I think now is a good time to teach DA a lesson.

    Ban him for a month.

    Without him having an outlet for his rationalizations, he will either “hit bottom” as they say in AA, or he’ll just wither and die.

    Either way, we win.

    Like


  154. on August 21, 2009 at 6:19 pm Black Military Man

    Roissy, I’m still failing to see how a woman’s abundance of previous sexual activity makes her less valuable in the sexual meat market.

    In the settling-marriage-building-a-home market – yeah, I get it.

    But in game???

    As long as one wears a condom to protect oneself from STD’s … how could it possibly matter?

    In fact, I would think it increases her value in game for players. The chaste, modest, self-controlled beta virgin females of the world are usually not deemed “hot” enough for players in the game.

    PS: Some schooling from the other side;

    http://goddessintellect.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/freak-um-fridays-educational-films/

    Like


  155. But you clearly don’t have any of these. You could though…

    I have enough self-respect and balls not to deal with women in a sexual or romantic manner when I know that I’m not wanted.

    because you are not a beta

    I’m well aware of that, and my comments are based on my observations of the world around me. I’m merely promoting my perspective from the sewers of the world of the normal and the “pretty people”.

    The thing is, it’s your self-defeating beliefs which are keeping in your o m e g a status. If you think that you are subhuman trash who is incapable of being loved, then no woman will ever think of you as any better.

    Other may consider it to be self-defeating. I consider it to be being realistic about one’s chances and one’s place in the world. Even with wealth and high income, I am merely a sub-human male and nothing else.

    Like


  156. “While in theory we could support a more socialist society that does not value materialistic pursuits, I doubt any such society would be successful in the long run. YMMV.”

    Where did that come from? I voted for Ron Paul. Look, you’re the one making the argument from utilitarianism. YMMV.

    Specs. Yes, apologies.

    “With an entire population of males standing up for themselves, all bets are off. Who knows what the results would be, but there would probably be enormous conflict, which is not to the benefit of society.

    ““Or is it your proposal, civilization or individual-wise, that we should shame the wall-flowers from even feeling anything? ‘Cause then they’ll be good little boys M-F, 8-6 and one weekend a month, pay their taxes, stay on their meds, whatever? Is that it?”

    “What the hell are you talking about?”

    Your position: skank shaming.
    Mine: both skank shaming and skank prevention (your PUA pounding responsibility may vary).

    You’ve already conceded the point. You would step in if it was your daughter. So you agree. It’s only a matter of who a man owes that duty to. Surely you’re not advocating a good for me but not for thee argument.

    Like


  157. Lucifer, again I don’t see how you are different from most western men.

    You pay directly, as do a great many men, which is why prostitution is still a lucrative business. Some men don’t even need the live service, and pay for porn. Some men legally “marry” whores and pay for it in having their bills run up, and later child support/alimony.

    One way or another, western men seem to enjoy paying hot women for their time.

    I feel left out of the mainstream, and am very happy about it. The only guys who would actually value a woman like me are the ones who have bigger things on their mind than whether or not there are going to be donuts in the break room on Tuesdays or something.

    So I like the world as it is. Anytime I’ve had real problems has been from not accepting the world as it is, and basically dumbing myself down so as not to scare or intimidate people. My life turned around completely the day I stopped being “nice”.

    So if you’re a realist, I don’t see what you’re complaining about, or why I should be suffering just because guys like you opt out of my lineage.

    Like


  158. Dworkin is not only obese but underlying ugly.

    She’s a man hating lesbian.

    she should literally be shot. No, not shot. Just beaten to a pulp by men every six months or so, for shiites and giggles.

    Our society is far to civilized.

    Like


  159. Damn, Roissey, you sound more like Tom Leykis day by day.

    Leykis. “Women are like toilets!”

    Women gasp in horror. “You can’t SAY that!”

    Leykis. “Well… I just did! I’ll say it differently if you want. Women are garbage dispensers.”

    Big GASP!

    Like


  160. you are a small man of little character.

    As a sub-human male, I am aware of that fact.

    you know what i wrote to you earlier

    ref: for instance, stability. comfort. security. reliability. trust. caring. handyman skills. and yes, even love.

    As I stated earlier, love does not exist, it’s merely short and long-term lust that can only be induced by men who use game and alphas, respectively. Mexicans can satisfied handyman skills. In regards to stability, comfort, and reliability, why do women promptly divorce their beta male husbands unless they had no use for those features?

    the vast majority of american men don’t make much money

    And that’s true for most American women. For a woman making $40K, the addition of a beta male’s wages at $50K may be enough to entice her into sticking around.

    Like


  161. There was a time, way back when I was a stripling Roissy, that I imagined a world full of slutty girls would be a boon for beta males. Experience with sluts has shown me otherwise. While they may be less discriminating in how often and how quickly they spread their legs, their rebuke of natural female restraint doesn’t necessarily translate to a similar rebuke of choosiness.

    Key section of R’s post.

    Like


  162. “Let’s put it this way. If most men saw the world like me, you would not enjoy it.”

    @ Lucifer: Luckily, you are abnormal.

    Like


  163. Dana made a good point about using useful generalizations in a harmful way — as a substitute for the nitty gritty vagaries of real life.

    Okay. So not all woman are golddiggers. The others are mentally ill (e.g. any girl who has EVER shown interest in me).

    Like


  164. Doug, if I remember correctly, getting beat up, raped, and abused is how she became a man hating Lesbian.

    Her problem is that she saw the whole world through the filter of her personal trauma. She’s part of the male-as-default-sexual-predator problem. It’s weird that she understood this way of thinking was a problem, but her solution was to become anti penetrative sex, not embracing a yin-yang idea of sex.

    Like


  165. “Not everyone woman needs their guy to be like Roissy- but they don’t need a guy with a spine, a pair of balls, and some self respect. But you clearly don’t have any of these. You could though…. Dave from Hawaii did and won the love back from his wife.”

    Ah, but Dave possessed those qualities before marriage, and was only led astray by his ideas of what being a ‘good husband’ (and the pressures of integrating your life with another person and adjusting to marriage) meant before he reverted back to what he was like when they were dating and his wife liked him.

    Like


  166. “Most men also believe in the inherent goodness of women. I never did”

    So you are angry at women because they are not better than men?

    Like


  167. DA:

    Okay. So not all woman are golddiggers. The others are mentally ill (e.g. any girl who has EVER shown interest in me).

    So what if you just want some of that hot porno sex you jerk off to all the time?

    Oh wait, now is where you switch it up and say you could only be with a woman you could bring around friends and family…

    Or maybe you take the reductio ad absurdum tack: she is “mentally ill” and therefore some kind of knife-wielding psycho who might kill you.

    Blah blah blah. The typical rationalizations of a weak-kneed, trembling, punk-bitch PUSSY.

    You are so predictable, DA. Get some new material.

    Like


  168. on August 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm Michael wears a hat

    “You’ve already conceded the point. You would step in if it was your daughter. So you agree. It’s only a matter of who a man owes that duty to. Surely you’re not advocating a good for me but not for thee argument.”

    What kind of argument is that? That because its best for me in the situation I’m in, its therefore best for society if everybody does it?

    Didn’t you ever see A Beautiful Mind? That kind of game theory was show to be sub-optimal years ago. People playing their best game as individuals only makes sense for them if they cannot collectively (society) make rules that promotes a set of behavior that would benefit the whole if almost everybody engages in it. We had that 100 years ago through the system of shaming people for undesired behavior, and punishing people through the system of laws.

    In the modern era, the slut shaming has gone by the wayside, and the system of laws has started to stab us in the back. In this system, my best game is to stand up for myself and generally do what I feel is best for me. However, should everybody do that, society would probably crack like an egg. The ‘decline’ of society that is readily visible is largely due to individuals pursuing their own best course without fear of shame, to a greater degree now than ever before.

    “Your position: skank shaming.
    Mine: both skank shaming and skank prevention (your PUA pounding responsibility may vary).”

    If your position was in fact skank prevention, we’d probably have plenty of common ground to work with. But you’re suggesting beating up the PUAs. That isn’t skank prevention, thats elimination of the people who pursue the skanks and who the skanks respond to.

    Like


  169. Bonnie:

    Ah, but Dave possessed those qualities before marriage, and was only led astray by his ideas of what being a ‘good husband’ (and the pressures of integrating your life with another person and adjusting to marriage) meant before he reverted back to what he was like when they were dating and his wife liked him

    That is true…

    “Most men also believe in the inherent goodness of women. I never did”

    So you are angry at women because they are not better than men?

    Where the fuck did you get that from Lucifer’s quote? Goodness=Moral. “Better”= competency.

    Like


  170. @Tupac:

    I meant ‘better’ in the moral sense. More likely to be inherently good.

    Like


  171. on August 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Fifth Horseman,

    I just figured for someone so blaringly feminist she might be ironically hot.

    Like


  172. Ghost of Nicole–

    Doug, if I remember correctly, getting beat up, raped, and abused is how she became a man hating Lesbian.

    Her problem is that she saw the whole world through the filter of her personal trauma. She’s part of the male-as-default-sexual-predator problem.

    I don’t give a piss.

    I don’t want to placate her or women like her. I don’t want to give them platforms upon which to pontificate safely.

    I want to have her beaten to a pulp.

    Like


  173. Ghost of Nicole

    Intimidated. Shut up. Over matched.

    Male dominated.

    Squashed.

    Like


  174. Game does appeal to the analytic/scientific mind, as it proposes to tell how it is, not how various methods of thinking (psychology, feminism, religion etc.) tell how it should be through mythmaking.

    In that sense, it appeals to men with less social cache, primarily because such men are less likely to buy into myth-making way of thinking about the sexes. Because, if they did so, they would naturally find social cache within these groups. For one reason or another, game adherents reject modern myth-cults about female/male behavior because they are not congruent with his observations.

    However, it might be in error to say game adherents are social losers; moreso, they might be more loners at first, but as game takes off, find more men (such as those here) with home they can find comraderie.

    Like


  175. Am I the only one who gets depressed reading DA’s posts?

    Fuck man! DA, you need a fucking attitude adjustment before you off yourself.

    Like


  176. Nicole

    It should be legal to discriminate to any degree desired against full up lesbian women.

    they’re almost every one man hating bitches. They are at the center of the worst of feminism.

    They should be thoroughly and pointedly discriminated against by most of society.

    Unlike gay men, who actually are largely socially useful and creative. No discrimination (except in traditional stuff like marriage) should be allowed against them at all.

    Just the damn full up lesbians.

    Like


  177. A lesbian is a woman too ugly to find a man drunk enough to take her home.

    Like


  178. Doug1,

    Ya.. gay men, unlike lesbians, are not straight haters.

    Like


  179. Not enough kids are taught that people aren’t ‘inherently good’. Of course it’s breathtakingly obvious that this isn’t true, but most people don’t have an innate ability to see human nature clearly.

    I do, and so does Lucifer, but for some reason he seems very bitter and is isolating himself from romantic or sexual relationships unless they are paid for, whereas I have used my knowledge to reject many people who I would never have trusted, and have found someone to be with and love who is honorable in an integral way. Maybe I had an advantage because I had one kind parent?

    I think it is deeply stupid to assume anything about women as a monolithic group, no matter your experiences with individuals or understanding of ‘human nature’ (which isn’t a pretty fluffy fantasy, but still has potential for people to relate to and be happy with each other). As it is to assume the same of men. Or black people, or gay people, or even German Shepherds (one bit the shit out of me at age 5 and would have killed me if they hadn’t beat it off, but I was never scared of Shepherds and I own one now).

    Like


  180. re: Tupac

    It’s all academic at this point since I can’t secure either type of female. The porn girl and the “sweet girl” don’t exist in my world since neither one would date me, and thus my concerns with each woman don’t matter.

    Like


  181. All this talk about golddiggers..

    Kanye West ft. Jamie Foxx – Gold Digger (Explicit Promo) (HQ)

    Like


  182. Doug, beating people to a pulp will not silence their ideas. In her case, you’d just be giving her more undeserved credibility.

    Besides, Andrea Dworkin died in 2005. Beating her up at this point would be redundant.

    During her life, she survived things that would make a lesser person curl up in a padded cell and never speak again. So I can disagree with her, and yet not take it personally that her perception has been twisted by some pretty bad experiences.

    Like


  183. Bonnie,

    Everyday, more men are venturing to the dark side.

    Like


  184. Nicole

    Doug, beating people to a pulp will not silence their ideas.

    Sure it can.

    Like


  185. It would make it easier for you if lesbians were all ugly, but they really aren’t.

    See famous lesbos Portia de Rossi, Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsey Lohan (who’s technically ‘bi’ but in a LTR with a boyish woman), Stephanie Adams, Amanda Moore, Kristanna Loken, Tammy Lynn Michaels (Melissa Etheridge’s wife), etc etc.

    Sorry, they just like girls better.

    Like


  186. Doug1,

    Crucifying people has been generally ineffective in silencing ideas.. would you not say that?

    Like


  187. And cynicism is the venom that slowly clots the lifeblood of love.

    This should be the byline of R.’s blog. Where some lies perish, others morph to dogma, and cynicism clots the lifeblood of love.

    Like


  188. Bonnie

    Sorry, they just like girls better.

    Discriminate against them.

    Greatly.

    Scorn them.

    Like


  189. on August 21, 2009 at 7:16 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Bonnie:

    “I think it is deeply stupid to assume anything about women as a monolithic group, no matter your experiences with individuals or understanding of ‘human nature’ (which isn’t a pretty fluffy fantasy, but still has potential for people to relate to and be happy with each other). As it is to assume the same of men. Or black people, or gay people, or even German Shepherds (one bit the shit out of me at age 5 and would have killed me if they hadn’t beat it off, but I was never scared of Shepherds and I own one now).”

    Oh, don’t worry Bonnie, I think you are unique special little snowflake . . . and I have said that to every woman I’ve been with.

    Like


  190. Bonnie, you must understand that in this blog, ugly is not being agreeable or available.

    Like


  191. @Doug1: Are you familiar with concept of martyrdom? It’s a powerful force.

    Like


  192. on August 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Bonnie”
    ““Let’s put it this way. If most men saw the world like me, you would not enjoy it.”

    @ Lucifer: Luckily, you are abnormal.”

    At the pace our society changes and accepts things, the abnormal can quickly become the new normal. Lucifer was once the light bringer.

    Just as most men may be nice guys, they can fall, and when they do it won’t be half way.

    Like


  193. Doug1 said: “Discriminate against them.

    Greatly.

    Scorn them.”

    But how much power could the scorn of straight men have when they aren’t participating in your sexual value market?

    Of course I suppose you think that the government and women should be involved. But that’s not going to happen.

    Like


  194. David Alexander,

    In one way you are living in that kanye west song..

    Like


  195. z

    Ive gotta be honest here,

    Oh, that’s good propoganda. I need to learn to preface my ideas with that.

    Take a look! I’m being honest!

    Like


  196. Anonymous Feminist —

    Most guys would like a girl relatively equal to their status level and attractiveness. For most Beta guys, that’s about a 6-7 in attractiveness, the accountant marrying the HR staffer. With relatively few partners for her (and him). This is the way things used to work.

    A woman with a lot of partners simply cannot bond to much of anyone, and like JR said, the sex roles are reversed and women generate even more contempt for betas.

    Roissy is correct, and furthermore the studies you cite don’t control for race/class/income. Increasingly, marriage is for the Upper Classes, and a house in the Hamptons plus a penthouse on the Upper East Side makes a happy marriage, usually with an age gap of about 10 years between groom (older) and bride. A forty five year old man can be perfectly happy with a 35 year old woman, particularly if it’s his second marriage and he’s already had kids, “traded up” for a younger model (only wealthy and powerful men can trade up). Women married to same age peers in their thirties “long for divorce” as Loh, Nehring, and others put it, to their “Kitchen Bitch” husbands — women don’t love or respect men who do not have higher status and dominant social behavior relative to them. Marriage of equals = quick divorce.

    The current system benefits younger women (they can be second wives of powerful men), powerful men, and women looking to maximize sex with Alphas over the course of their attractiveness age 16-38. Everyone else LOSES big time.
    ————————–
    What’s the breakdown on “sluttiness?” My own observations is that women become a lot more “active” away from home/friends-family. And that the trend is toward more “activity” in younger women, i.e women in their thirties were less “active” in that area throughout their sexual years than women in their twenties, even comparing say both years 20-25.

    Like


  197. Bonnie

    Of course I suppose you think that the government and women should be involved. But that’s not going to happen.

    I think men should reassert their age old power over women and once again seize control.

    Age old as in since before becoming homo sapiens, and at all times since, until votes for women left liberal democracy now.

    Like


  198. Bonnie

    But how much power could the scorn of straight men have when they aren’t participating in your sexual value market?

    Don’t hire any lesbians.

    And so on.

    Like


  199. Follow up — women I’ve known who were modest and fairly monogamous exhibited radically different behavior abroad. Traveling seemingly made it “not count.” As in pulling a train with a rap group abroad, not count. Yet around their own locales, quite modest.

    So it’s highly variable due to circumstance.

    Like


  200. “Oh, don’t worry Bonnie, I think you are unique special little snowflake . . . and I have said that to every woman I’ve been with.”

    Everyone is not ‘special’. People are people, and while by-and-large our patterns of behavior are innate, individual behavior varies.

    Like


  201. Doug, with that right comes a great responsibility.

    If men as a group were responsible, they would still have their power, no matter how much of it they shared with women.

    It is because human beings don’t like being responsible, that we’re in the mess we’re in today. A one gender solution is not going to solve the problem. The changes have to come from both ways.

    Women shed blood for the right to vote. If you want to shed some more to take it away, you’ll do nothing but convince women today of the same thing that women knew then: freedom costs blood.

    It might be a nice reminder, but I don’t think you’ll get what you want for it.

    Like


  202. “Don’t hire any lesbians.

    And so on.”

    Ah.

    Unfortunately they’re not easy to pick out unless they are butch.

    I do a good impression of a 100% hetero woman, but if BF and I were to break up, I could swing that way again quickly.

    Are bis as bad as lesbians to you? What about bis that are currently with men?

    Like


  203. whiskey

    Follow up — women I’ve known who were modest and fairly monogamous exhibited radically different behavior abroad. Traveling seemingly made it “not count.” As in pulling a train with a rap group abroad, not count. Yet around their own locales, quite modest.

    So it’s highly variable due to circumstance.

    Dude. Seems you are getting past the grief stage.

    Like


  204. Bonnie

    Are bis as bad as lesbians to you? What about bis that are currently with men?

    Don’t you dare get me started, woman.

    Like


  205. LOL. xspalt. Got anything better to do?

    Like


  206. Bonnie

    Are bis as bad as lesbians to you? What about bis that are currently with men?

    What’s bad to me are man hating lesbians.

    They shouldn’t be able to get away with that shiite. If they just want to go off and do their dike love quietly, I’m ok with that.

    Most bi’s aren’t fully man hating, though they often sort of veer over in that direction. I.e. they make exceptions more than lesbians do.

    I think making an example of full up lesbians would scare bi girls into better attitudes towards men.

    Yes it DOES work that way.

    Like


  207. You really think you can ‘scare’ someone into a ‘better attitude’?

    You can intimidate and dominate people. But it’s not usually going to change their true feelings.

    Like


  208. I know three women who each have had more than 200 sexual partners. All three are over 40 years old, two of them are fat, and the third is scrawny and ugly.

    Naively thinking that they must have low standards, I tried to get sex from them (I’m desparate and figured I could close my eyes and imagine someone else) and failed. It turns out they will have sex with any man within a few hours of meeting him, but only if he’s an alpha.

    Like


  209. You know those classes in which everybody enters and everybody exits without uttering a word to others who are unkown?

    The thing is, there is a somewhat cute girl there (6 or 7) I would very much like to open but I don’t have clue on how to talk to her!

    I can’t just stand up, go to her and say, hey, I’d like to met you or something because
    1) We’ve been pretending we don’t see eachother (and the rest of the class) for half a month
    2) There simply is no privacy for that
    3) I have no evidence that she would do other thing than blow me out.

    Do you guys have any idea of how to open her and built something?

    Thanks.

    By the way, giving my scarce experience with women, which is the acceptable point from each it is acceptable (in the girl’s view) to have a boner?
    I mean, during non sex leading make out, or just “having fun” while touching eachother somewhat erotically but not sexually, if it is possible?

    Like


  210. Bonnie, I can hardly even understand what I just wrote. I’m falling in an out of sobriety.

    But you seem to have as little to do as me.

    I’m a happy guy.

    Like


  211. Bonnie

    You really think you can ’scare’ someone into a ‘better attitude’?

    You naive little bunny.

    I’m sure of it.

    Clear as day.

    You know nothing.

    Like


  212. There’s no point in patronizing me. I’m here to rubberneck, and the only person on your side who is logical is nova. I don’t agree with him, but he makes sense. You don’t.

    Like


  213. “Bonnie, I can hardly even understand what I just wrote. I’m falling in an out of sobriety.

    But you seem to have as little to do as me.

    I’m a happy guy.”

    I read blogs while I’m at work. Life is good!

    Like


  214. I frown on trading smileys, Bonnie, but my father did teach me that a positive outlook is not an accident. You grow it. So smiley at you.

    Like


  215. Ugh too many threads

    Like


  216. xsplat
    z

    Ive gotta be honest here,

    Oh, that’s good propoganda. I need to learn to preface my ideas with that.

    Take a look! I’m being honest!

    xsplat:

    I picked up that lingo from a superior at work many years ago. He’d say that when assessing our group performance. He’d praise us for where we were being effective, but he would go over the “not-so-good-data” with that phrase, “Ive gotta be honest here”, as an opening remark.

    We learned to perk up our ears when we heard that phrase from him. He was about to point out what he wanted us to focus on. That was the best leader we ever had at work and we worked hard for him. He’s retired now.
    That introductory phrase is probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean by it is: “here comes what might be construed as an uncomforatble truth, but Im going to state it in plain, yet non-inflammatory language”. I probably should have written: “I think the following is an ugly reality”.

    xsplat: Ive enjoyed reading your input here, as well as many others. Getting to post one’s take anonymously on the internet, with no fear of social, personal, or professional retribution is a wonderful way for us as members of society to get to get out point of view out there and even vent a little bit, and hopefully others will take notice.

    Whiskey:
    Ive noted the “girls-gone-wild-when-in-distant-places” phenomena too. Ive suggested on this site, and at 11 minutes/master dogen’s blog (entertaining and informative reading there) that it would be good for a man practicing game to drive to another city to do it for a few weekends first. He wont fear anything blowing up on him, or running into people a mere two degrees sepearation away from family or friends, et cetera.

    Like


  217. OK, Z. I’ll take you a bit more seriously next time. If I can remember your name. That’s not completely a joke, I have real memory deficits.

    Like


  218. Bonnie

    There’s no point in patronizing me. I’m here to rubberneck, and the only person on your side who is logical is nova. I don’t agree with him, but he makes sense. You don’t.

    I will treat you in a condescending manner as much as you deserve and I feel like.

    You deserve it a great deal.

    Semi lesbo feminist.

    Like


  219. I’m just saying that it doesn’t further your cause (which is to be taken seriously, no?).

    Like


  220. Bonnie

    You really think you can ’scare’ someone into a ‘better attitude’?

    You can intimidate and dominate people. But it’s not usually going to change their true feelings.

    Only an extremely coddled little girl, who knows nothing about the real world, would ask/say such things.

    You’re ridiculous. You knowledge of the world and people is pathetic.

    Like


  221. on August 21, 2009 at 8:19 pm msexceptiontotherule

    Hey, not all psycho-women are the “wielding-a-knife type”. I’d be nice enough to make sure that the guy was asleep when I killed him. And of course he would have no idea why I was mad at him – being irrational and all, seeing as that’s how “all” women really are.

    I have no problems with women who are not only willing but enjoy having many sexual partners – some that they don’t know more than an hour beforehand – but I choose not to be one of those women. If virginity until marriage is someone’s thing, that’s how they want it to be, yay for them.

    Leaders usually will be attracted to other leaders. Women,& men who are natural leaders will always have people around who are envious of them and will do just about anything if they could just be leaders too. I don’t know about what it’s like for anyone who may fall into the “in between” (i.e. believe that they were born the wrong gender – they were born that way, it doesn’t seem likely that it could be wrong – unless they were born with both and their parents chose wrongly what should be removed…) When it comes down to the basic issues, I can fix stuff around the house myself – but I prefer that I have someone helping me, mainly because I’m 5’2 and it’s hard doing heavy lifting or getting to things that require a taller ladder than I have. A relationship isn’t supposed to be a matter of one person leading and the other following – at least not if it’s going to go the distance. Feminists miss the point sometimes when they’re out crusading for total equal status in capacities that equal is impossible. But that doesn’t mean they don’t go home to a man who takes care of them while they complain how little he does for them. My parents taught me to be a complete person individually to be able to find a good husband who was complete himself – making our relationship as a couple solid. Hell, I have my own house with stuff to fix, my own money, my own car – I don’t want to be taken care of, but I don’t really feel like taking care of a man (in the typical financial-lifestyle-blahblahblah ways) either. As a new widow, I’m not looking for any casual or lt relationships, and I’ve never been the casual type to start with so I don’t see that happening to change ever. I don’t think that I’d be interested in a person where I didn’t see them, and have them see me as being equals in what we have brought to the relationship as individuals and where we stand within the relationship. I’m also way too young to believe that I won’t want someone in my life after I’ve given enough time for myself to grieve. I don’t think I’ll ever in my life be able to “get over” or “move on” fully, rather, a future relationship will not be compared on a scale of “better than” against to the one I had, because it’s a different person and a different relationship.

    Like


  222. “You’re ridiculous. You knowledge of the world and people is pathetic.”

    I feel the same about you. We could go on like this for some time, but it’ll be very boring for the other people reading here..

    If you provided evidence or examples that back up your ‘knowledge’, I would be interested. But you’re all hot air.

    Like


  223. Bonnie

    But you’re all hot air.

    Yeah, that’s my rep here.

    NOT.

    Like


  224. I’m not impressed by your audience.

    Like


  225. LMAO as if we need to care about whether or not you are impressed.

    Like


  226. Did you ever have a first date where the woman assumed she had power over you? Like, she had a PUSSY, but all that you had was a measly cock?

    Did you ever internalize the notion that women need to be paid to fuck?

    She set the frame.

    It’s war. It’s not difficult to wage war nor to set a different frame.

    Like


  227. “LMAO as if we need to care about whether or not you are impressed.”

    Doug seems to care what I think about his ‘REP here’. LMAO.

    Like


  228. on August 21, 2009 at 8:42 pm Black Military Man

    Y’all following Nancy Grace on the Jenkins’ case?

    Nancy and the other women keep saying that he was “charismatic” and “charmed” women.

    Those two words: charismatic and charming are being bantered around a lot.

    A lawyer who worked with or prosecuted Jenkins’ in the past on a DV case said, “I find nothing at all appealing about this guy but appearantly all of you find him to be ‘charming'”.

    That garnered an ironic chuckle from the women.

    Tune in. It’s on now.

    Like


  229. on August 21, 2009 at 8:49 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Bonnie:

    ‘“Oh, don’t worry Bonnie, I think you are unique special little snowflake . . . and I have said that to every woman I’ve been with.”

    Everyone is not ’special’. People are people, and while by-and-large our patterns of behavior are innate, individual behavior varies.’

    Thank you for restating my obvious point, you clearly have a gift.

    Like


  230. Xsplat — What grief? I’ve noticed that dynamic a long time ago. It’s amusing.

    Z — Yes. Good practice away from town. And of course the other way too, LR’s statement she doesn’t date guys around her area, is a good red flag on detecting behavior.

    Like


  231. hmm two women agreed with me immediately, need to rethink all that

    Like


  232. Once again, thanks to Roissy for lifting the veil a bit more on female behavior. Isn’t it amazing that the more we know about females the less there is to admire about them?

    When you realize that “female choice” only became dominant in the last 50 years in a few countries (western world), and is quickly leading to a demise of those societies, you will understand that giving women this power is a fatal mistake for a society.

    Lucifer, Roissy, and D.A. are examples of a rational adaptation to this situation. All three will have a “good” outcome in some ways if they stick to their approaches. Roissy might have the worst outcome, if he neglects the economic aspects of his life while distracted by that bane of serious men, women. Look at what happened to Bill Clinton and Mark Anthony.

    Men who measure themselves by what women think are pathetic. Of what worth is the opinion of most women?

    Back to this post. Betas are given the short end of the stick in our society, of total female choice, in regards to females, even the sluts. So, a beta should just make money and buy sex if he wants it. D.A. is on the money. Far cheaper. Or, just forget about sex from time to time and do something more fun, like fly open cockpit airplanes.

    Roissy’s belief that sex with a lusty partner is more fun is very true, but, at what cost? And, don’t forget, they all get old and ugly.

    Like


  233. “Evil is a word used by the ignorant and the weak. The dark side is about survival. It’s about unleashing your inner power. It glorifies the strength of the individual.”

    Like


  234. on August 21, 2009 at 10:27 pm Steve Johnson

    Doug1

    Bonnie

    But you’re all hot air.

    Yeah, that’s my rep here.

    NOT.

    As far as I know, your rep here is the guy who kisses ass to any woman who posts a picture. If she doesn’t respond, you fly off the handle with “man hating lesbian”.

    Oh, and you post like 100 comments per post.

    Like


  235. Some other interesting female behavior:

    1. some women will keep a stable of ex boyfriends to fuck to keep their “dick count” down.

    2. I met this girl at a party and she came over to play Wii, but it wasn’t working, so she gave me a BJ instead. But she wouldn’t fuck, cuz that was slutty. LOL!

    3. my buddy went over to some girls house and her roommate complained that her feet were stinky, so she febreeze’d them. this is probably an aberration😉

    el chief

    Like


  236. Steve Johnson

    As far as I know, your rep here is the guy who kisses ass to any woman who posts a picture. If she doesn’t respond, you fly off the handle with “man hating lesbian”.

    Who the hell are you? Absolutely nobody around here.

    You cunt licking anti male solidarity asshole.

    Lickspittle beta feminist “male”.

    Like


  237. on August 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    Sofia,

    I just figured for someone so blaringly feminist she might be ironically hot.

    Among those over the age of 30, never. Never.

    Among women under 30, yes, they repeat these fashionable lines, but they back away from them once the ticking sound gets louder.

    Like


  238. Investigators think they have a serial kitty killer in the bag. Sean Lynde poisoned one of his girlfriend’s cats with laundry detergent, broke the neck of another, beat a third one so badly it had to be euthanized and claimed a fourth “fell off a countertop” and died, prosecutors said.The Manhattan man has also been charged with crippling another kitten and causing a sixth to disappear. “I’ve never seen this series of incidents carried out against animals in my experience,” said Assistant Director Joseph Pentangelo of the ASPCA, which nabbed Lynde.

    Read more:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/08/21/2009-08-21_cops_bag_accused_cat_killer.html#ixzz0OsNklBS0

    Like


  239. @ el chief –

    “some women will keep a stable of ex boyfriends to fuck to keep their “dick count” down.”

    True story. Some women I know have an arbitrary “slut cap” on the number of sexual partners they wish to amass over a lifetime. It can be anywhere from 3 to 100, but in order to keep the number under their cap, they will go back and fuck and/or date ex-boyfriends again during dry spell. A lot of women don’t count BJs or uncompleted penetration either – just another reason why the “magic number” women give is often either fudged or a downright lie.

    My feeling is if you don’t want to know, don’t ask. Her behavior will tell you a lot more about her potential sluttiness than any number she gives under questioning. Dana brought up some good points too about “reformed sluts.”

    @ Doug1 –

    What’s your beef with lesbians? In my observations most of them aren’t man-hating; they’re just man-indifferent and lead fairly quiet, happy lives without bothering men either way. You’ll find it’s a hard sell saying it’s ok to discriminate against lesbians but not gay men. What gives?

    Like


  240. kalliope

    What’s your beef with lesbians? In my observations most of them aren’t man-hating;

    Complete bullshiite.

    You’ll find it’s a hard sell saying it’s ok to discriminate against lesbians but not gay men. What gives?

    I don’t think so at all.

    Gay men obviously create and contribute much. They also hate little. They mostly want to be tolerated. Yeah they have their extremely promiscuous sexual byways, but that’s about it. They contribute a lot.

    Lesbian women are a scourge. A complete negative, especially so far as men are concerned.

    Beat them into wimpering hiding.

    Oh yeah.

    Like


  241. Kalli0pe–

    It’s very easy to detail for straight women not just a few, but a huge number of gay men contributions that they’ve enjoyed or taken note of.

    It’s extremely hard to do anything comparable about what straight men have enjoyed that lesbians have created. I’m not gonna say you can’t come up with clandestine something, but it’s hugely less.

    Like


  242. Lesbians are subversive and useless.

    They SHOULD be persecuted.

    And how.

    Like


  243. I’d like to nominate the entire crew of the ship “Steve Irwin” on the show Whale Wars as Beta of the Month and/or Year.

    Can you believe these Liberal pussies? Their tactics are totally ineffective.

    Pathetic.

    All the guys on the show are totally emasculated.

    Like


  244. sounds like roissy’s kinda-relationship might be rethunk.

    DA is just being wilfully perverse and provocative, more than usual. the golddiggers shtick makes no sense coming from a broke guy living in his mom’s basement.

    @berserker warrior woman- your post about valid generalities not necessarily extending to real people 100% of the time is correct. gets to what i was saying yesterday in the sluts-can’t-love-or-bond thread, and indeed most of the topics we talk about here. the concepts of game etc., and the related evo-psych-derived insights on gender and mating, are real and valid, but have to be adapted to specific cultures, contexts, and people. shoehorning real people and situations into a theoretical framework without knowledge of those details usually leads to mistakes. note that this is *not* the same as invalidating the framework.

    @doug- everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a feminist lickspittle cunt. some will be, some won’t be. better to respond to the point being made in a rational way, including using harsh language if appropriate. that bullying style has the effect of undermining your good points, on occasion. i know you’ll probably get pissed off reading this, but i mean it in a constructive way. less passion (female concept and style of arguing) and more logic, please.

    Like


  245. I want a Pogrom against Lesbians

    Yeah.

    Root them out and persecute them.

    Oh yeah.

    Useless crap bitches.

    What good are they to men anyway?

    In any way?

    Unlike gay men.

    Like


  246. @doug- what would the porn world be like without them? ya gotta concede that…🙂

    Like


  247. Maurice

    @doug- what would the porn world be like without them? ya gotta concede that…🙂

    I don’t.

    I’ve never had any interest at all, not even as smidgen, in girl girl porn, the vast majority of which is not done by lesbian women, but rather trying to be loyal to lovers straight women, new to porn.

    I concede that some men do, but some men are misguided on a host of things.

    Like


  248. DA is just being wilfully perverse and provocative, more than usual. the golddiggers shtick makes no sense coming from a broke guy living in his mom’s basement.

    Obviously, with my $900 a month salary, golddiggers can go else where, but my concern is what would happen if I was making $3000 a month? Or what would happen to other men who didn’t know better?

    Like


  249. Doug, have you been drinking?

    Like


  250. Lesbians not man-hating?!!!! hahaha

    Look into the legislation record of Sheila Kuehl in California. As California goes so goes the rest of the US in family law matters. The bitch is greatly responsible for increased levels of spousal and child support in that state, including wacky provisions like extending spousal support for life in marriages that last 10 or more years.

    Kuehl also carried bills that would have allowed divorced women to change the last names of their children without the father’s consent (that didn’t pass), and to make it easier for custodial parents to move long distance with their kids without a compelling reason. California child support levels are partly based on how much time each parent spends with the kid, so moving to say Kentucky gives a big increase in monthly payments.

    She, along with another lesbo, Del Martin, are pioneers of the domestic violence shelter industry in the US. Plenty of lesbos were involved in that movement, and advocate for anti-male policies such as denying any visitation rights to men if there’s even an accusation that they hit their ex-wife.

    (As an aside it’s somewhat amusing to note that often lesbian victims of domestic violence are unable to go to a shelter as their girlfriends are volunteers there.)

    Like


  251. @DA- admit it, you get a little smile on your face every time you type in your wilfully perverse and anti-game comments on this board. but you’re not actually fooling any of the alphas or wannabe alphas (though i have no idea why obs keeps trying to reform you), nor are you a “sub-human male.” you’re just playing a role on the Internet for your own amusement. now if you actually made $3000 a month, went to the gym, took some T supplements, and …aw, crap, now i’m doing it. never mind.. carry on.

    Like


  252. kalliOPe

    Some, yes. But not hugely.

    What use can you demonstrate lesbians have been, to their oppposite number, i.e.to men?

    Compared that is to the use gay men have been to women?

    I put it to you that lesbian women are completely subversive of men by their very intrisnsic nature, unlike gay men with respect to women, and that therefor straight men should vigourously PERSECUTE AND SUPPRESS lesbian women.

    Send them into hiding and give them no male money at all.

    Like


  253. @kalli0pe- batti, batti, bel mazeppo – la tua povera zerlina.. on that point. but she was coming back to him. ….

    Like


  254. Judith

    Thank you.

    Like


  255. I haven’t read the comments above, but is that picture real?!?!

    How the hell can someone do that?

    Like


  256. @ DA-

    It’s hardly worth responding, but why the HELL are you concerned about gold diggers when you live that far below the poverty line? You’re on here complaining nonstop about women, when by your own admission women want nothing to do with you. So what’s the issue? Enjoy your trains and porn, leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. Don’t worry about the beta males, you have nothing in common with them and no tools to help them.

    Jesus, it gets weird on this blog sometimes. Goodnight.

    Like


  257. I’m still waiting Kalli0pe

    What use are Lesbian women, in any mass as opposed to rare individual exception way, to men?

    I think they’re a huge negative.

    And should be persecuted as such.

    that’s right Kalli0pe.

    You heard me right.

    Like


  258. Kalli0pe

    PS. I’m fond of you.

    Like


  259. Sheila Kuehl should be shot.

    Yes, killed.

    Like


  260. Obesity is on the rise big time. One day soon we will all be fucking the fatties……or not fucking at all.

    She gonna get so fat, when she hauls ass she will have to make two trips!

    You better bleieve it.

    Like


  261. @ Doug-

    I’m sure I could do a Google search and come up with a list of lesbian contributions to society. But somehow I don’t think that would mitigate your hate in the slightest, so it would be a waste of my time. Am I wrong?

    Beyond that all I can say is that I’d prefer not to live in a society where people are persecuted and beaten down just because other people don’t like them.

    P.S. I’m very fond of you as well. Just sleepy, and a bit saddened by your anger.

    Like


  262. I like “lesbian” porn. No tools in the way. I’m turned on by seeing two women together. I don’t like butch lesbians. But I’ve had some great sex (one on one… sigh… never a 3some) with a couple women who were mostly lesbian in orientation. I’ve suggested that my wife have girl-on-girl sex but she’s not interested.

    Like


  263. JerrDogg–

    Sure the lesbian, really bi, interest or willingness to play ffm games is hot.

    But that’s such a tiny or even non existent part of true lesbian sexuality. You’re talking bi girls there. And probably mostly straight bi girls. Those can be all kinds of fun.

    Like


  264. Jerrdogg, I’m not lesbian in any way but I do get turned on by girl-girl sometimes too. No accounting for taste, I guess.

    Like


  265. Roissy needs to turn his blog into a ning community

    Like


  266. on August 22, 2009 at 1:20 am The Fifth Horseman

    OneSTDV,

    The picture is not real, come on.

    Have you seen the movie Men in Black? How about Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Or the Spiderman films?

    Special effects can do many things.

    Like


  267. David Alexander, I think you’re awesome. Funny and weird dude!

    If you come to Vancouver I will buy you a beer.

    Like


  268. “But that’s such a tiny or even non existent part of true lesbian sexuality.”

    I’m not sure what “true” lesbian is. I’ve seen mullet-wearing man-haters. And as far as I’m concerned they should rot in hell for being feminazi cunts. In fact I think they are literally psychopathic and it should be legitimate to discriminate against such nutballs in the workplace and they should be mocked.

    But most lesbians I know are somewhat jolly and up for an occasional tryst with a man that strikes their fancy. Yet they aren’t fully bi either because they need the woman thing and that is their dominant mode. I wouldn’t mind at all being in a FWB situation with attractive lesbians of this variety.

    Like


  269. on August 22, 2009 at 1:37 am Steve Johnson

    maurice:

    @doug- everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a feminist lickspittle cunt. some will be, some won’t be. better to respond to the point being made in a rational way, including using harsh language if appropriate. that bullying style has the effect of undermining your good points, on occasion.

    Seriously, doug makes points?

    His posts are more like this in content:

    “Doug1

    Kalli0pe

    PS. I’m fond of you.”

    Oooh, a picture of a girl in the comment avatar; doug’ll be by soon to kiss her ass… and post about 100 times.

    Like


  270. admit it, you get a little smile on your face every time you type in your wilfully perverse and anti-game comments on this board

    Usually I do, but today, I was actually somewhat depressed. While I may pursue these topics in the real world with the same zeal that I display here, I still believe that my viewpoint is still valid. I can’t see a sensible reason as to why women would then marry betas, and then promptly divorce them, take their child support and alimony payments, and attempt to have sex with alphas.

    nor are you a “sub-human male.”

    Even in the real world, I am a sub-human male. It’s not just some role that I play on the Internet, but it’s something that’s a part of me whether online or in flesh. Besides, I prefer the term over the word for a sub-beta rank of males that sends a post to moderation hell.

    but why the HELL are you concerned about gold diggers when you live that far below the poverty line?

    As I stated earlier, my wages will never attract a woman, so my complaints here are in a theoretical capacity and just an intellectual exercise. To a certain extent, the general consensus is that women are attracted to alpha males, but the extent of this theory can vary. Some would argue that game can solve the problems of most males, while others would argue that it has a limited value. I’m in the school of thought that game has limited value and doesn’t fully replicate and emulate the alpha experience*, and thus it’s good for short-term relationships, but not for inducing long-term lust in hot women. If one takes the hyperbole out of my comments and look at its basic form, I’m questioning whether given the tendency of women to be highly attracted to alpha males, and the general consensus that describes beta males as “good providers”, does it make sense for the average beta male to engage in a long-term relationship with a women who doesn’t find him sexually attractive, but thinks he’s just a “really great” friend with a good job? I’d feel that given such a set up, the answer is that it doesn’t make sense, but as illustrated by the comment stream, I’m in the minority.

    leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone

    Eh, in a perverse way, the commenters here have become like friends, especially with the relative quick replies one can receive sometimes. It’s very addictive.

    If you come to Vancouver I will buy you a beer.

    Even if I did come to Vancouver to ride Skytrain, I’d avoid you. Not because you’re a bad person, but because it’s far easier to do that and avoid disappointing you in person.

    Like


  271. we have an underground Skytrain now

    Like


  272. And another one jumps into the bandwagon:
    Where do you guys think you are?
    A serious workplace where sexual content will not be tolerated?
    Dear Doug, Quite Objectifying Females you red-blooded high T misogynist.

    This is the same blog that posted a video about Darth Vader in some park.
    Some ridiculous stick drawing with a king and… a harem.
    The same blog with really unPC jokes, images and language.

    And people are surprised its not viewed as SERIOUS BUSINESS?
    Especially with our host only commenting on society as it is and not advocating any change beyond natural forces already in place?
    So what is there to take seriously?
    When this is just a playground for the intelligent man?

    Where do you think you are?
    A feminist-dominated workplace?

    Do any of you even know what the word fun means anymore?

    I suggest you rediscover it. Not just for women but for enjoying your everyday life.

    Fine, express irritation, but this is bandwaggoning and ridiculous. And deliberate misinterpretation of the man’s motives and what he’s doing. It’s obvious as anything so why bother explaining when the audience is being deliberately obtuse?

    I’m going to go have some fun for the weekend. Like I do on and offline. Like Doug does on and offline.

    Lighten up, for pity’s sake, people.

    Like


  273. “Women shed blood for the right to vote.”

    Um, no they didn’t.

    Like


  274. your last line was the truest thing you have written.

    The fate of America may very well hinge on getting her women to push away from the table.

    And then the Betas would have it over you.

    Like


  275. Anonymous, yes they did. There were hunger strikes, and some were jailed, committed to asylums, and killed over it. Not to mention the female soldiers and sailors who’ve died since then, defending everybody’s right to vote.

    Some of you guys act as if every man in the world has a right to vote. Worry about whether or not women’s right to vote has a positive or negative impact when you’ve succeeded in making a world where every man even has the right to vote.

    Taking away women’s right to vote would start a shitstorm America would not recover from. If the government and infrastructure fell, both men and women would lose their right to vote because there wouldn’t be a government.

    Like


  276. on August 22, 2009 at 3:05 am The Fifth Horseman

    No democracy in the world restricts women’s right to vote. Even fake Democracies like Iran still put up the show of women voting.

    So that is not a serious proposal.

    Furthermore, the divorce laws are done by feminist lobbying in secret. The public does not get to vote on new divorce laws that get increasingly more anti-male, nor is the public even informed.

    So talking about taking away women’s right to vote is not productive, or a solution to the problems.

    Married women vote about 50/50. It is single women who vote 70/30 Democrat. So the solution is to keep women in marriage through removal of divorce incentives, rather than to keep women away from voting.

    Like


  277. Michael wears a hat: “If your position was in fact skank prevention, we’d probably have plenty of common ground to work with.”

    It is. We do. You’ve already admitted it.

    “But you’re suggesting beating up the PUAs.”

    Would you lay a hand on that guy gaming your daughter in Clichy Place? Yes. QED.

    “That isn’t skank prevention,

    Yes it is. It’s prevention of that which will contribute skankdom. No random make-out = significantly reduced odds of skank-dom.

    [I’m beginning to pity any females in your clan that you won’t admit this basic human fact on an anonymous internet comment thread.]

    “thats elimination of the people”

    BS. I didn’t say kill the guy.

    “who pursue the skanks and who the skanks respond to.”

    Begging the question. I’m talking intervention pre-skankdom. Even assuming skanks are born not made, there’s still that first act of skankness. I’m saying what the hell, why not jump in and rumble if you give shit about the girl? Answers (a) you’re a wimp (b) you’re thinking too much about the formal consequences (c) you really don’t give that much of a shit about the girl.

    Unless I made another reading error, you’ve already conceded that you would confront the PUA who goes for the make-out in public with your daughter in under ten minutes. What are the limits of that confrontation? If he pushed back you wouldn’t beat him? You would. So it’s only a question of how close the girl is to you to merit such intervention. Daughter; sister, niece, cousin, 2nd cousin, girl next-door (kibbutzim girl), friend of sister, etc. etc. etc. Your line may vary.

    We don’t disagree on anything in principle.

    Like


  278. Butt plug reference

    Like


  279. CZ and Michael, I think you guys are on the right track. Just remember that you’re up against a good deal of social pressure that herds women towards sluttiness.

    At this stage, I’d restrict my direct intervention efforts to my relatives and close friends who actually like me to cockblock. For the wider public, I encourage women to behave like they live on the planet Earth.

    Skank has to become unfashionable. It seems to be already moving that direction in France.

    Like


  280. Fifth brings up a good point, “Furthermore, the divorce laws are done by feminist lobbying in secret. The public does not get to vote on new divorce laws that get increasingly more anti-male, nor is the public even informed. ”

    Many laws come about this way. The state governments have boards that vote laws into existence without a popular vote, or don’t inform the public about them in a way that is truly descriptive. Then when it’s time to vote, nobody is there to tell them about it except the people who want it passed.

    Sometimes it’s a matter of a precedent being set in court, and it’s not really a law but has the force of one.

    Like


  281. @ ghost of nicole
    Women shed blood for the right to vote.

    um, what?

    Like


  282. “Many laws come about this way. The state governments have boards that vote laws into existence without a popular vote, or don’t inform the public about them in a way that is truly descriptive. Then when it’s time to vote, nobody is there to tell them about it except the people who want it passed.”

    of course. this is the tyranny of the majority that is at the heart of the encroachment of the -isms. nobody cares to call their legislators on these laws because they aren’t “sexy” and they *only* affect divorced men. and divorced men are treated like lepers in this culture – so much so that they have begun believing it themselves.

    Like


  283. Lucifer

    What measurable stuff can a woman offer you beyond sex?

    Love, company, family, kids, legacy are delusions that help aging cunts avoid poverty and abandonment. Really, what is in it for YOU?

    You’re talking about yourself, so you should replace ‘you’ with ‘me.’

    Then again, what is the use of a woman over 30? Why should they expect guys to care about them?

    You really need to stop projecting.

    Racer X

    The sooner we get back to reestablishing the patriarchy the better.

    Yes, we should also bring back slavery.

    Sexual promiscuity is a double edged sword. We men encourage women to be sluts so we can have lots of sex with them, while at the same time the spreading of sluttiness eventually infects all women, like some slow, pestiferous plague, thus making it harder in the long run to find a quality woman who has not ridden the “cock carousel”, as Roissy so aptly phrases it.

    Men simply need to regain control of our society once and for all and start controlling women again. We can do it physically if we wanted to. We are simply stronger than women. Other societies do this. We used to do it in ours. We need to start doing it again..

    Men encourage women to slut it up even though they know it’s detrimental to both men and women, and your solution is to enslave women. You are truly the master of logical thinking. A man of lesser intellect might conclude that the most ideal solution is for men to stop encouraging women to slut it up (what a crazy idea!).

    Women cannot sleep around if they have no one to sleep around with. That’s just common sense.

    And women loved to be controlled.

    Fo shizzle, dawg. I bet women are really happy in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia where they get beaten, raped, stoned and burned if they step out of line.

    Like


  284. J5, unless we’re all being lied to, it’s standard U.S. history. It’s just like White chattel slavery and the Polish resistance in WW2, not widely publicized to the masses.

    I think this is because it’s in certain feminists’ interests to pretend that it was all done peacefully. The idea that there were significant numbers of strong, powerful, politically active, death-before-dishonor type women despite the “patriarchy” would be inconvenient. Women got the right to vote because the U.S. would have gone to hell if they didn’t. No other reason.

    Like


  285. we have an underground Skytrain now

    Congrats on Canada Line. Yeah, you still managed to fuck up something simple by building a line with a new, non-compatible rolling stock, but it’s better than nothing. Hopefully, the British Columbia government will give the capital and operating funds necessary to ensure that other lines can be built so the system remains useful and relevant for Vancouver residents.

    David Alexander wants to do a Pacific Northwest trip where he rides Portland’s Tri-Met system, Seattle’s Central Link, and Vancouver’s Skytrain sprinkled with an Amtrak Cascades ride and a car rental.

    Like


  286. Hey, D. Alexander – have your Om3ga membership card, t-shirt and key ring in the mail yet? If so you can cast off any remaining Beta trappings. You’ll be happy to know once you are Om3ga, women don’t want to be around you longer than what is necessary to keep their jobs. On the up-side some Beta PUA-wannabees will want to your friend as they will appear positively Alpha when they’re with you.

    Like


  287. On the up-side some Beta PUA-wannabees will want to your friend as they will appear positively Alpha when they’re with you.

    gil, are you retarded? do you live in a cave?

    a man who hangs out with losers is not seen as alpha because of the greater status differential. he is just seen as someone who hangs out with losers. you shouldn’t need a crystal ball to see how this will affect his perceived status.

    Like


  288. I have devoted a site to alpha male anger and have been looking non-stop for something as filthy as mine. Holy fucking jackpot. This site is ruthless. Would love to exchange links to each others sites, with your permission maybe put some of your work with proper credit of course on mine. Let me know.
    I have googled alpha male blogs and all this shit always getting some pansy ass bullshit.
    I found your site doing a search on “banging a chick on the first night” I think the word banging helped seperate you from the herd.

    Like


  289. restricting the franchise:

    there is a way to do this without directly rescinding the vote from women and NAMs

    you just have to concoct some scheme that restricts it to net tax payers and leaves out net tax consumers

    its race and gender neutral and would stop the tapeworms from voting on what the host buys for dinner

    Like


  290. dana:
    you just have to concoct some scheme that restricts it to net tax payers and leaves out net tax consumers

    would be nice, wouldn’t it?

    the new irs form 1040:

    if you’re sending a payment, send to po box 000001, fresno, ca. send your ballot along with your payment.

    sweet.

    its race and gender neutral

    only the, um, net tax payers would see it that way.
    there would be massive demonstrations of, um, net tax consumers in the streets.

    led by
    the national association for single tax consumers
    and
    the national association for the advancement of tax consumers

    heh.

    on a slightly related note, why the hell is there still a “c” in naacp? what is this, 1959?

    Like


  291. fuck moderation bots.

    the short version:

    dana:
    its race and gender neutral

    only the, um, net tax payers would see it that way.
    there would be massive demonstrations of, um, net tax consumers in the streets.

    heh.

    Like


  292. ah yes, “disparate impact” would rear its ugly head

    Like


  293. bhetti

    for the record, and take this in the constructive spirit it in which it is offered please, many people find being witness to on line flirting disgusting irrespective of who is engaging in it. i read doug’s posts and find them interesting, so i can’t know when i am going to see a flirt post or a content post–if i (and anyone that seeks to avoid the spectacle of e-flirting) have to avoid all of his posts to avoid the flirting posts it sorta defeats all of the energy he puts into posting his good posts.

    just food for thought

    Like


  294. “Just remember that you’re up against a good deal of social pressure that herds women towards sluttiness.”

    Which comes fairly equally from other women, and from men.

    Started in middle school. Girls were competing with each other, but it was all for the benefit of the boys.

    Like


  295. Some blogger named Mangan is starting to “get it” with regards to Game.

    http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-roissyites.html

    That’s the blog where Roissy’s and Larry Auster’s worlds met. Auster, on the other hand, is clueless. It’s best to think of Auster as irrelaceably valuable on race/crime/immigration. But on other things he’s like a spastic, tantrumy child. I even think he overstates the Islam thing.

    He’s like those hideous goblin-oracles in “300” whose guidance to Leonidas is valuable, but they aren’t the sorts of creatures you wanna meet on any other terms.

    Like


  296. Hey, I’m having a helluva time approaching.

    I found something today I think might break the ice wall. This is weird – I visualize my energy aura as a centering exercise. I find that when I arbitrarily try to deliberately approach at a given moment, alarm klaxons go off in my limbic and my feet veer away. But when I’m pinging everyone constantly with my energy, actually approaching my target seems to become easier.

    I haven’t tested this enough to know if it will work, just throwing it out there.

    Like


  297. mad because I had to scroll through all these damn comments..hating on your sucess. yea. i said. it.

    @Black Military Man- thank you for the shoutout!

    @ Roissy- I am a female and I’m digging this site..not 100% in agreement w everything but, ehhh thats life.
    I have a “slut” friend (who is really just an abused lost female) who takes up countless hours of my time on the phone w her slutty escapades..

    “It may seem counterintuitive, but a loose, cavernous chick will often be *less* forthcoming with her sexual favors if the man she is with exhibits the tentative meekness of a beta.”

    DING DING DING DING! she’s far from discerning,but will pick up on submissive and crush your heart soul and possily your dik in a milasec. She tends to fall for and get punked repeatedly by the dominant (possibly insecure) male who throws insults at her constantly, has to be incharge etc etc….

    Love a dominant male..but love a secure man to…I strongly believe that a man can exert dominance, make his presence known without all the mindgames and lies…
    just my thoughts..I’ll be back

    Like


  298. Bonnie, the difference in the west is that there is pressure coming from girls. Men everywhere in every era of time have always been trying to convince women to give them sex. Women in advanced civilized cultures didn’t start pressuring each other to have sex before serious commitments in any significant numbers until maybe 40 years ago.

    40 years is long enough to really mess things up, but not irreversibly so. The heritage/cultural factors from before are still in place. The biological factors will be there no matter how screwed up the culture becomes. Access to birth control doesn’t do as much to promote promiscuity as many think it does. The most reliable method for women is still a female hormone, and it makes women more prone to select stable men, not less. In some cases, it even lowers a woman’s sex drive.

    Like


  299. did obsidian get a sex change?

    Like


  300. “Women shed blood for the right to vote.”

    You mean out of the vagina every month?

    “J5, unless we’re all being lied to, it’s standard U.S. history.”

    You are being lied to if you think that’s true. The crap they taught you for your Womyn’s Studies degree is not “standard history” BTW.

    “I think this is because it’s in certain feminists’ interests to pretend that it was all done peacefully.”

    Pretend? Essentially this was true.

    “Women got the right to vote because the U.S. would have gone to hell if they didn’t. No other reason.”

    Exactly backwards. Women getting the right to vote was what started the US on the road to hell.

    Like


  301. Tood is correct in that taking away the vote from women is not feasible.

    However, it’s precisely because of this being unfeasible that a political solution to these issues is nigh on impossible. Single women are overwhelmingly going to vote as a bloc on any issue concerning men/women, including reforming divorce law. The feminist groups are well funded by these single women and are all over any changes to divorce law, even minor ones. Yes it happens out of the public eye, but not out of the powerful eye of groups like NOW — groups which have huge political clout. So while I can understand the sentiment that if we had more women staying married, fewer would vote SWPL, changing the divorce regime to discourage divorce simply isn’t going to happen thanks to the huge power groups like NOW have. As a result of this. it seems clear to me that there really isn’t any political way out at this point — we’re locked into these laws until such time as the feminist lobby wishes to change them. And I’m not holding my breath on that one.

    So .. there remain personal options, but not really political ones.

    Like


  302. @ ghost of nicole
    Women shed blood for the right to vote.

    um, what?

    They menstruated in mass during the Great Suffragette War of 1903.

    Like


  303. Tarl, thank you for the predictable response.

    Please Google women’s suffrage hunger strike, and then the next round, women’s suffrage terrorist.

    Perhaps if you read it from enough regular history professors and so-called misogynists who are trying to wake men up to the reality of how far women will go, you’ll understand what I’m saying.

    Women’s suffrage happened because if it didn’t, the country was going to burn and the government would cease to be. You can’t well expect people who don’t even get to vote, to stay interested in being law abiding citizens, without the means to enforce the laws basically being imposed on them against their will.

    You also can’t expect a guy to watch his mom starve to death because some guys thought it would be a good idea to take her property after his dad died, and still be interested in being a law abiding citizen.

    What you do to the mothers, you do to the sons.

    Like


  304. Mangan is on the blogroll here. Auster does overstate the Islam thing and so do many conservatives. He’s a Christian zealot, politics are secondary. Infidels are all evil, but the competing cults are the worst kinds of infidels.

    The perceptions of the Arab world by many British observers and intellectuals in the 18th and 19th century was generally very high. You don’t start getting the Churchillian perspective of retrograde Islam until the early 20th century, which coincides with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and you don’t get the Jihad issue of today until after WWII and the withdrawal of the British Empire from the region as well. Of course the British of those days didn’t see anything wrong with colonialism, which is basically what Jihad is. Islam appearing so evil is just an example of the fecklessness of modern western observers.

    Hating the Jihad is fine, but only because we aren’t salafists ourselves and potential victims. Hating Jihad as morally wrong is only buying into the mantra of the evils of colonialism and the overarching self-loathing western culture, which socons seem to love to do.

    Like


  305. I really don’t know what’s so hard about dealing w/the divorce/family law situation here-far worse things have been dealt with before (Civil Rights, Gandhi Movement, etc, et al).

    You simply ape what the aforementioned movements did, and REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE. Meaning, you go off the grid.

    If this means you go to jail, then if the cause is right and your conviction strong enough, go for it. I’m sorry, but from where I sit a major reason why divorce and family law is so bad, is because so many Men cooperate with it. Trust me, when enough Men have had enough and simply vote w/their feet, things will change.

    I’ve said it before, a lot of White guys, and I say this w/all due respect, are simply too afraid to refuse to cooperate. White Women know this. And use it accordingly. To great effect, I might add.

    If the divorce and family law situation is really that bad, then civil disobediance is the only way to really put in a dent in it.

    Take Matt DuBay, for example. If the court says he has to pay “x” amount of dollars to a kid that he didn’t plan to have or support, the appropriate response from him was to simply refuse. And then let his case stand as a symbol of what Human Reproductive Rights is really all about. If Men are really serious about this thing, they need to be willing to do what MLK, Ghandi, and others have done. Its really as simple as that.

    Go off the grid, stop being so scared, and take a stand for Men’s Rights, which are indeed, Human Rights.

    O

    Like


  306. Exactly backwards. Women getting the right to vote was what started the US on the road to hell.

    Women can vote because men wanted it to be so. So obviously the on-ramp to the ‘road to hell’ doesn’t start there.

    Like


  307. on August 22, 2009 at 11:18 am Comment_Whatever

    Bonnie wrote:

    Which comes fairly equally from other women, and from men.

    Started in middle school. Girls were competing with each other, but it was all for the benefit of the boys.

    Lesson 1 on translating Female Speak into Male Speak.

    Whenever a Female says “male”,”man”, or “boy”, this word is modified by one of two all-important adjectives.

    There is either an understood “Alpha” or “Beta” before the male noun. This adjective isn’t stated but must be figured out from context.

    Translating Bonnie’s statement into Male Speak, we have:

    Which comes fairly equally from other women, and from men.

    Started in middle school. Girls were competing with each other, but it was all for the benefit of the Alpha boys.

    As you can see, this sentence has the benefit of actually making sense, as compared to Bonnie’s Female Speak.

    And this ends Lesson 1 on translating Female Speak into Male Speak.

    Like


  308. on August 22, 2009 at 11:22 am Comment_Whatever

    K wrote:

    Women can vote because men wanted it to be so. So obviously the on-ramp to the ‘road to hell’ doesn’t start there.

    Women can vote because RICH PEOPLE thought they would gain enormous power by giving the vote to a group of people who would support them. Women do that because women are far more risk-adverse than men, and supporting the existing order, those currently in power, is far, far safer than opposing the existing order.

    And so rich people gained vast power. Unfortunately, there does seem to have been some inevitable side-effects. Some people seem to think Beta male should fix it.

    Of course, that is Beta males job right?

    Like


  309. Nicole

    Women got automatic voting rights at about the same time in Britain and America and for the same reason. Winning the 1st World War had required the mass participation of women working OUTSIDE THE HOME in defense factories. In doing so, they became stake-holders in non-domestic politics in a way that they had not been before. In a sane system, stake-holders get a vote.
    At this same point, British and American men also got to vote without needing head of household/property owning qualifications. Again, because of the mass participation of property-less men in the war. Before that, only about 40% of men could vote (overall) in both countries) although it varied by region.
    The martyrdom of female agitators was largely irrelevant because most women of the influential classes were against women losing their place of priviledged, safe, inside lives.
    What poor women thought about political theory mattered no more than what poor men thought – until the elites needed their cooperation.

    Like


  310. on August 22, 2009 at 11:28 am Comment_Whatever

    Oops! My translation was sloppy, sorry about that:

    Bonnie translated CORRECTLY! into Male Speak:

    Which comes fairly equally from other women, and from Alpha men.

    Started in middle school. Girls were competing with each other, but it was all for the benefit of the Alpha boys.

    Needless to say, Beta Men hardly have the ability to ‘pressure’ women into being sluts. Let’s not be silly.

    Like


  311. Go off the grid, stop being so scared, and take a stand for Men’s Rights,

    Sure, but the number of men who will actually do this is tiny. It is not enough of a number to make a difference. That’s the brutal reality, and it isn’t going to change anytime soon. For as much as the guys you see on this blog and mine and so on are skeptical about marriage, most men still get married. That’s the reality.

    Like


  312. Comment, since beta males are the majority, and the majority of the consumers of porn, the majority of men marrying hoes and gold diggers, and the majority of men running around insulting women for their looks being socially inconvenient or not to their tastes, I’d say they were most of the pressure.

    If only alphas were pressuring women to be sluts then they would be as few and far between as they were 50+ years ago.

    Like


  313. Nova, as the saying goes though, shit rolls downhill. I would not want to be in some women today’s shoes when their kids realize what was done to them and react not just accordingly, but appropriately.

    Not enough guys may be willing to go to jail over it, especially since most would give anything to their children, and just resent the mom putting herself in the middle, but enough kids miss their dads and realize their moms are stupid though. Enough kids growing up without dads are going to jail. Enough kids who did have dads or had the presence of mind to thrive inspite of being deprived of dads, are seeing that the world they’re growing up in is messed up.

    Enough kids whose dads actually walked out on them see the actions of ungrateful hoes who got rid of decent men, as insane. Kids grow up and become adults, and when they do, they parse the truth for themselves.

    Like


  314. Comment, let me rephrase that…Beta males are most of the male pressure towards sluttery. As far as impact, I’d say the greatest pressure comes from other women. Numbers don’t mean the same across genders in this case.

    The pressure from men is miniscule in comparison to that from women.

    Like


  315. Novaseeker

    For as much as the guys you see on this blog and mine and so on are skeptical about marriage, most men still get married. That’s the reality.

    I have not gotten remarried for way more than a decade.

    I would only consider doing so under a serious prenup.

    Like


  316. I don’t plan on remarrying either, Doug, but the point is … we both married, once. Most men younger than us are also going to get married at least once.

    Like


  317. on August 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm Comment_Whatever

    Ghost of Nicole said:

    Comment, since beta males are the majority, and the majority of the consumers of porn, the majority of men marrying hoes and gold diggers, and the majority of men running around insulting women for their looks being socially inconvenient or not to their tastes, I’d say they were most of the pressure.

    If only alphas were pressuring women to be sluts then they would be as few and far between as they were 50+ years ago

    And see the immediate and extreme reaction a simple translation of Female Speak to Male Speak provokes?

    Learning to translate Female Speak to Male Speak promises to be far easier than learning Portuguese.

    But let’s do both!

    Like


  318. K

    Women can vote because men wanted it to be so. So obviously the on-ramp to the ‘road to hell’ doesn’t start there.

    No that is pretty much where it started.

    It was a huge step, who’s full impact didn’t become clear until the 1960s and especially 1970s.

    Like


  319. novaseeker

    I don’t plan on remarrying either, Doug, but the point is … we both married, once. Most men younger than us are also going to get married at least once.

    I wouldn’t have if I’d known then what I know now.

    Really.

    The challenge is to get the knowledge of this board more widely disseminated among men.

    The universities and media aren’t exactly helping.

    Like


  320. Doug —

    I agree, that is the challenge. But gosh it is very, very hard to convince men who have never been married once they are under the spell of some woman. Very hard, really.

    Like


  321. Ghost of Nicole

    Women got the right to vote because the U.S. would have gone to hell if they didn’t. No other reason.

    Total and utter leftist crap.

    Like


  322. dana

    i read doug’s posts and find them interesting, so i can’t know when i am going to see a flirt post or a content post–if i (and anyone that seeks to avoid the spectacle of e-flirting) have to avoid all of his posts

    Flirt nazi.

    Life is tough for you sometimes Dana, but I know you can grin, persevere, and bear it.

    Like


  323. Comment, seriously, I don’t think any translation was needed. She meant men in general, which is mostly (anthropologically) beta males. My correction was that males, whether alpha or beta, have little influence on the skank trend.

    Historically, women have always known that men would like to have no strings sex with as many, preferably hot, women as they can get ahold of. So men as a group, regardless of status, are incapable of contributing any more pressure than they always have.

    Even in times when men with enough resources could own as many hot women as they could afford, no woman who wasn’t forced to, felt compelled to give it up because of the sexual competition.

    Today, women are convincing women that it’s good for them to get out there and gain experience before settling down. Alpha males may be the “prize” they think they’ll get for this behavior. Beta males may join the cheering squad because they think it’ll profit them even though it won’t…but women are where the serious pressure comes from.

    Like


  324. Doug, if women didn’t have the right to vote, if your dad died before you had enough age and influence to defend your property, it would be open season for anybody with more guns than you.

    Nobody and no law would be there to protect her, and by proxy, your rights.

    Before women could vote this was a simple fact of life for a great many Americans, and they didn’t like it that way. They didn’t like the fact that not being male meant that you have no legal rights, or that those rights could change on the whims of whoever was in power at the time.

    The 19th amendment kicked in in 1920. Could you imagine what would have happened if women didn’t have the right to vote by the time WW2 came around?

    Do you know what happened to the south after the Civil War?

    Why do you think the suffrage movement picked up so much steam after that slice of hell?

    Like


  325. doug not one minute of my life is tough.

    and i’m in no way trying to stop you from flirting, i merely suggested it may cause decreased attention to your content filled posts. interesting reaction though.

    Like


  326. on August 22, 2009 at 12:45 pm Gunslingergregi

    Wierd they gave me medicine where now i really don’t give a fuck anymore while the drool falls down. Shit funny.

    Like


  327. “Doug, if women didn’t have the right to vote, if your dad died before you had enough age and influence to defend your property, it would be open season for anybody with more guns than you.”

    yep that’s just what the roman empire and victorian england were like– a big free for all where no one had any rights because women couldn’t vote

    Like


  328. re women voting

    “There were hunger strikes, and some were jailed, committed to asylums, and killed over it.”

    Evidence please. Sounds like more made up Jewish Feminist BS.

    Why do Modern Women have such an unbearable chip on their shoulder. It’s really fucking annoying.

    Like


  329. dana–

    and i’m in no way trying to stop you from flirting, i merely suggested it may cause decreased attention to your content filled posts. interesting reaction though.

    Do as you like of course Dana.

    However only a tiny percentage of my comments here contain any flirting. Less than 1% for sure.

    That flirting is enjoyed by some or I wouldn’t do it. Even by some are aren’t usually recipients. But it’s probably true that there are more that it irritates, particularly beta males. C’est la vie.

    Like


  330. Nicole

    The 19th amendment kicked in in 1920. Could you imagine what would have happened if women didn’t have the right to vote by the time WW2 came around?

    Not much.

    If England and American hadn’t lead the way, probably almost nowhere in the world would have had female voting after WWII.

    Well Scandanavia would.

    The principal could simply be – if you can’t be drafted to be front line infantry troops, then you can’t vote.

    Further, we don’t want women as draftable front line infantry troops. They’re inferior at it. The few that aren’t are distracting.

    Rear guard support military roles don’t count, even if we do decide to use women in those roles.

    You bitches don’t like it, let’s fight a war over it. Bitches on one side, men on the other.

    Oh, we’ll take any bitches we capture as sex slaves. Yeah that’s right, like the good old days. Slaves. Sex slaves.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Nicole.

    Like


  331. Dana says, “yep that’s just what the roman empire and victorian england were like– a big free for all where no one had any rights because women couldn’t vote”

    Well, from a slave’s perspective, it was a free for all in both those eras.

    If you don’t want to have slavery, you have to have voting rights for everybody of age. I could see raising the voting age to maybe 25 or 30. I couldn’t see taking away anybody’s voting rights without opening the door to slavery-like exploitation in order to support it.

    You just don’t have enough enforcement to control but so many disenfranchized people, or make up for their absence from the legitimate workforce, without forced labor coming from somewhere.

    Like


  332. Nicole

    Doug, if women didn’t have the right to vote, if your dad died before you had enough age and influence to defend your property, it would be open season for anybody with more guns than you.

    Nobody and no law would be there to protect her, and by proxy, your rights.

    Are you high on ganja Nicole?

    What complete and utter hogwash.

    Like


  333. Ghost of Nicole is essentially correct (and there are non-feminist scholars who agree).
    Traditionally the right to vote was part of a bundle of rights and responsibilities. By the 19-teens women had assumed enough of the other rights and responsibilities that there was no reason to not extend voting rights to them and crucially, it was clear that it would require more and more effort to quell dissent. Extending the franchise was the only realistic option. It wasn’t a nice thing men did for women, it was men realizing that was the only way forward.

    Talking about women’s sufferage as some singularly awful occurence and regretting that it can’t be undone just makes it harder for people to take anything else written here seriously.

    Do women make collectively poor voting judgements? Certainly.
    Do men? You betcha! That’s no reason to babble about trying to rescind voting rights.

    And AFAICT there’s no realistic way of restricting voting rights of those dependent on government aid (would bankers whose institutions are getting bailout money be affected? what about those in the military?) It’s easy to talk about a fuzzy group of people that you don’t think deserve voting rights, it’s hellishly difficult to define such a group in terms that would meet basic legal requirements.

    Like


  334. cunthulah:

    Comment, seriously, I don’t think any translation was needed. She meant men in general, which is mostly (anthropologically) beta males.

    Bullshit. She meant “the men women desire” which is by definition alphas.

    Whenever women make a statement about men that skews in a positive direction, they are usually talking *exclusively* about alphas.

    When women make a statement about men that skews negatively, they are usually talking *exclusively* about betas.

    Like


  335. lol @ “flirt nazi”

    Like


  336. on August 22, 2009 at 1:06 pm Comment_Whatever

    Gunslinger, were you injured?

    If you are medicated and up on your positions, it would probably be best to close them all out.

    I kinda think the S&P 500 is very extended right now and everything could fall pretty violently.

    Not saying I know anything for sure, but if your medicated you probably don’t either.

    If you are up, have made money on it, then maybe you should back out of everything.

    Like


  337. Doug says, “Put that in your pipe and smoke it Nicole.”

    You’re assuming, Doug, that your side would win in a fight over the women.

    I highly doubt it.

    Like


  338. Nicole

    If you don’t want to have slavery, you have to have voting rights for everybody of age.

    Completely ahistorical lunacy.

    Really Nicole, you aren’t THAT dumb.

    Reacquaint yourself with some history.

    Like


  339. on August 22, 2009 at 1:07 pm Comment_Whatever

    Really, trading in an impaired state can be bad bad bad.

    Like


  340. gunny:

    Wierd they gave me medicine where now i really don’t give a fuck anymore while the drool falls down. Shit funny.

    Can you hook a brotha up?

    Like


  341. Doug:

    That flirting is enjoyed by some or I wouldn’t do it. Even by some are aren’t usually recipients. But it’s probably true that there are more that it irritates, particularly beta males. C’est la vie.

    Doug, it’s not so much the flirting per se, but the gayish way you sometimes do it in.

    I think you crossed the line when you mentioned Enya.

    Like


  342. Doug, reacquaint yourself. You apparently don’t even know what a carpet bagger was, and what the reconstruction agenda had to do with delaying women’s suffrage.

    Like


  343. Cliff Arroyo

    Talking about women’s sufferage as some singularly awful occurence and regretting that it can’t be undone just makes it harder for people to take anything else written here seriously.

    The whole concept that women’s sufferage was a regrettable mistake would have been totally unthinkable to me before spending a lot of time around here, and reading a lot of Roissy. But he’s caused me to think seriously about it.

    I’m still not really advocating reversing it. I’m not really there yet. It’s more like I’m trying the idea one for size.

    I like thinking the unthinkable. Always have. I don’t believe in taboos. They’ve never constrained my thinking. Well, I do consider consequences so in that sense they certainly constrain what I actually do, or widely say non anonymously.

    The thing is Cliff, I’m REALLY against this encroaching matriarchy in all things domestic, which is a very large part of our lives. I’m for bringing back the feminist hated patriarchy and how. Not necessarily exactly how it was in 1950, though I prefer that to now. I’m willing to reconsider all kinds of things to defeat feminism. All kinds of radical things, if need be.

    Like


  344. doug–

    normally only women and larry auster read polite, apologetic descriptions of how things are as prescriptions for how things should be or orders to make them so.

    was offered as constructive criticism while the subject was under discussion, was responded to as an insult. take it as you will.

    Like


  345. on August 22, 2009 at 1:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””Comment_Whatever
    Gunslinger, were you injured?

    If you are medicated and up on your positions, it would probably be best to close them all out.

    I kinda think the S&P 500 is very extended right now and everything could fall pretty violently.

    Not saying I know anything for sure, but if your medicated you probably don’t either.

    If you are up, have made money on it, then maybe you should back out of everything.””””””””””””

    Well I sent a letter to everyone in company that was not favorable he he he

    My positions are always closed when not trading now. Thank You for concern bro.

    If ya fly to dubai I could hook ya up tupac. My sister is fyling in tomorrow. Maybe we could hook you two up he he he

    Like


  346. on August 22, 2009 at 1:17 pm Gunslingergregi

    But yea comment not gonna trade until I have the 26 screens and can bust it out without any interruption.

    Like


  347. on August 22, 2009 at 1:18 pm Gunslingergregi

    I told the guy sitting with me I don’t think I would care if I bashed your head in right now. lol
    This shit is wierd.

    Like


  348. voting rights should be given only to those who

    – are above 25. I just turned 26 and the improvement in my friends´maturity once they turned 25 is simply amazing. People below 25 are children

    – own their house, and there is one vote per house unless there is a married couple living there

    or

    – have incomes above some threshold which could be the median income in the country or in the district where people vote

    Like


  349. Nicole

    You apparently don’t even know what a carpet bagger was

    I know very well what a carpet bagger was Nicole.

    And a great deal else about the Reconstruction period.

    You apparently think that everyone who doesn’t have full voting rights is and always has been a full up slave, down through Western and other history. That’s rather stupid.

    Like


  350. on August 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm Comment_Whatever

    Cheer up Gunslinger, things are better than they may seem.

    You could buy Pimsleur tapes for your wife’s language. That would make things a lot easier for both of you.

    Don’t try to learn the written form and the spoken form at once.

    I think you may also have difficulty learning languages… like I do… but it’s also important to realize that most language ‘courses’ are useless.

    Going from a useless method to a useful one can help a lot.

    Like


  351. on August 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm Gunslingergregi

    Injured ehhh I pointed out some flaws through the use of simple math in ratios to how many people should be doing a job. Don’t think people like that. he he he

    Like


  352. on August 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea comment you are right. I just need about 40k more to daytrade and get my hectares to where I make 2k month and can trade. Hence calling sister lol I think done working.

    Like


  353. gig

    I like Dana’s idea of limiting the francise to net tax payers.

    It has an elegant simplicity, at least in conception. It also has elegant justice behind it.

    It will also automatically tend to limit the otherwise ever increasing feeding at the public trough of all wide francise democracies. A tendency that probably leads inevitably to their downfall.

    I remember as a kid learning about Greek democracy in Athens etc. but also learning about Greek political theory (whose exactly I don’t remember but it was presented as being the dominant view), which held that democracy was a political stage the polities might go through, but was inherantly unstable and unable to be sustained. I thought at the time how short sighted those classical Greeks were, or that anyway they hadn’t gotten with the modern program.

    I’m now inclined to think they were maybe right.

    Like


  354. the problem with Nicole is that despite 98% of her comments being pure, unadultered BS, she still manages to make extremely insightful comments 2% of the time

    unblike DA, who can be safely ignored, you are forced to read through her BS because there may be a pearl there

    Like


  355. “voting rights should be given only to those who
    – are above 25. I just turned 26 and the improvement in my friends´maturity once they turned 25 is simply amazing. People below 25 are children”

    assuming this is serious, then the age of military service needs to be raised too, telling people they’re old enough to get shot and killed in wars but not old enough to vote won’t work anymore.

    “own their house, and there is one vote per house unless there is a married couple living there”

    does a mortgage count or does it have to be paid off? Does a second mortgage rescind the right to vote?
    What about houses owned by people who don’t live together?
    What about same sex couples? This law would virtually require same sex marriage be made legal.

    “have incomes above some threshold which could be the median income in the country or in the district where people vote”

    defined how? proven how? how long does your franchise last after a bad economic spell?

    Like


  356. Doug, Nova,
    Both of you guys are talking about guys avoiding marriage altogether, and while I don’t necessarily disagree w/you, it doesn’t realy deal w/what I’m talking about.

    I’m talking about civil disobediance, on the part of Men, against the heavily tilted divorce and family law systems, as well as the reproductive rights system. Nor does it take a clear majority of Men, anymore than it took a clear majority of Blacks to make the point during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or a clear majority of Indians to make a similar point w/the Salt Riots. It only takes a dedicated group of Men, willing to make whatever sacrifices are necessary, to bring about pressure to bear on these issues. The simple, raw truth is, not enough Men are willing to go that far.

    It’s really as simple as that.

    O

    Like


  357. Cliff

    I just read your comment before mine, a moronic statement that things are impossible to change, a logical mosntrosity since things are changing all the time and my views are those who prevailed for 99% of human history

    Just for you, I´ll add another criteria

    – every male should be tested for T levels. “males” with T levels below the 20 th percentile should lose the right to vote

    Like


  358. Doug, taking away voting rights wouldn’t destroy feminism. Not having them, and seeing women get trampled on at the slightest political upset is part of what fueled it.

    We didn’t want to be a nation of cannibals anymore. Feminists blaming “patriarchy” for the problems is a distraction. Don’t fall for it. Women didn’t need the right to vote to fight the “patriarchy”. They needed it to add weight to what was the people, so the people could more effectively stand against the government or other groups of greedy people with power.

    The road to hell for any nation, as it has always been, is a significantly higher population of disenfranchised people than of legitimate citizens. Here, one of the main topics of discussion is how to keep men from becoming that large group of people uninvested in their society because their society treats them as expendable. Do you think making women that group will make things better?

    Is gradually making men that group really making things better for women?

    Like


  359. K

    you don’t get the Jihad issue of today until after WWII and the withdrawal of the British Empire from the region as well.

    Jihad is an integral part of Islam and has always existed.

    Islam appearing so evil is just an example of the fecklessness of modern western observers.

    It appears evil because it is evil.

    Hating Jihad as morally wrong is only buying into the mantra of the evils of colonialism and the overarching self-loathing western culture, which socons seem to love to do.

    Er, what? It’s precisely Islamic apologists who hate Western civilization. The ones who oppose Islam are (usually) the ones defending Western civilization.

    Ghost of Nicole

    My correction was that males, whether alpha or beta, have little influence on the skank trend.

    Women cannot be skanks if men won’t enable them.

    You’re assuming, Doug, that your side would win in a fight over the women.

    In what alternate fantasy universe do you see women defeating men in warfare and physical combat?

    Doug1

    Oh, we’ll take any bitches we capture as sex slaves. Yeah that’s right, like the good old days. Slaves. Sex slaves.

    I am shocked that a PUA/anti-feminist would advocate rape. Again.

    Like


  360. Tupac

    Doug, it’s not so much the flirting per se, but the gayish way you sometimes do it in. ***

    I think you crossed the line when you mentioned Enya.

    You do have to deal with how well what I do works Tupac. Both on and off of here.

    I’m not a big fan of Enya. At all.

    Some of her stuff can be good though in small doses e.g. over a big sail boat stereo while lazily broad reaching in a summer clime. Sort of along the lines of Reggae, which I generally prefer for such things. Bob Marley is eternal.

    Too much or too long gets REALLY saccharine though, for sure.

    Worrying about being hard edged masculine every second isn’t really very confidant, seems to me. I’m just really not too worried about being called “gay”. Yeah, right.

    Like


  361. gig and others,

    You want to live in a world that died and rotted away. Your choice…

    Consumers are more important for the economy than taxpayers. At the rate jobs are going away, we will soon have to pay people to spend so that the system dies not stagnate and collapse.

    Like


  362. Tokyo!!!!!!!

    I want to hear your views about that beggars-looking guy who kissed the cute Russian chick 10 minutes after meeting her

    Like


  363. Nicole

    Doug, taking away voting rights wouldn’t destroy feminism. Not having them, and seeing women get trampled on at the slightest political upset is part of what fueled it.

    No not automatically. But it would allow the reversal of all the gender laws passed since 1970. Starting with divorce and child support=alimony.

    So that e.g. gotcha ambush sluts like Rielle Hunter get zero, zip, nada mandated by the state. But rather it’s all up to the discretion of the well off male. Who must be sucked up to or sucked off on the regular to get any of his money.

    Get it?

    Like


  364. gig,

    Your views are less meaningful than those of the turkey futurists in taleb’s ‘black swan’.

    Like


  365. The problem with franchise being limited to net taxpayers is the endless slippery gerrymandering that would go into it. Are productive rich businessowners net tax consumers because police and military forces protect more of their assets than some bum’s, who has no assets to protect?

    Are middle class people net tax consumers because of all the road maintenance that goes into … you get the idea. Sessions of congress woudl be Talmudic hair splitting over who is and who isn’t a net tax payer.

    The problem with Gig’s and Dana’s proposals is the assumption of non-discrimination as the guiding principle. And the subsequent disingenuienity. “No, really, it really isn’t about suppressing poor NAM vote! Honest!”

    Eliminate non-discrimination as the society’s organizing principle, and many other things nicely fall into place. That’s an Auster philosophy, by the way. One of teh areas in whichhe is irreplaceable.

    — If this means you go to jail, then if the cause is right and your conviction strong enough, go for it.

    I agree very much with Obisdian on this matter. Civil disobedience is what men, pushed far enough, do. Accept the consequences of standingn on principle, and they can’t touch you. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

    But — and this is a big “but” — civil disobedience is only effective if you have the media and a powerful faction within the elite/govt on your side. If you don’t you’re swept aside by forces much bigger than yourself.

    It worked for Ghandi because there was strong public support for him, and keeping India was becoming financially untenable. And he got good press.

    Similar with MLK. Great press, powerful allies among the elite.

    In the Soviet Union, Ghandi and MLK would have been buried in unmarked graves somewhere in the taiga. No man, no problem.

    And in the US, civil disobeyers who have no sympathy in the media or powerful allies among the elite — polygamous Mormons — can hold their breaths until they die.

    Like


  366. gig-

    the problem with Nicole is that despite 98% of her comments being pure, unadultered BS, she still manages to make extremely insightful comments 2% of the time

    That’s very well put gig. That’s about exactly how I view Nicole.

    unblike DA, who can be safely ignored, you are forced to read through her BS because there may be a pearl there

    Nah, there we part company. I simply can’t bear reading through the vast majority of Nicole’s drivel and therefore routinely skip it.

    What I do is use crowd sourcing. The crowd here. On the rare occasions she does say something interesting, others I do pay attention and regularly read such as you and Nova etc. will pick it up and discuss it. THAT’s what will cause me to go back and read the Nicole post in question. That and only that.

    Like


  367. To all those who suffer from the delusion about being able to reverse time,

    I think you should try it, as it will make for good entertainment. The more reasonable option is adaptation, but dreams don’t die easily.

    Like


  368. doug

    perfect

    I do that also. If someone posts an excerpt of Nicole, I tend to go after the comment. Reading all her BS is hard

    Like


  369. cliff aroyo–

    assuming this is serious, then the age of military service needs to be raised too, telling people they’re old enough to get shot and killed in wars but not old enough to vote won’t work anymore.

    Sure it could. They simply age into the vote. It’s coming for them.

    Toughen up.

    Like


  370. Doug says, “You apparently think that everyone who doesn’t have full voting rights is and always has been a full up slave, down through Western and other history. That’s rather stupid.”

    That can only not be the case if the culture has strong enough disincentives to exploitation.

    U.S. culture never has. If it did, women wouldn’t have done so much to get the right to vote, and men wouldn’t have felt the need to support that. All this went down over the course of over 100 years during which it was consistently proven that doing without such a large chunk of the potentially voting population was going to kill even any illusion of it being a free country, even for men.

    Like


  371. @ PA

    My criteria worked pretty well for Europe until moronic anglo-saxons decided to extend the franchise.

    @ Lucifer

    I have bad news for you. If the nhooker says “wow, I have never seen one so huge” she is probably lying

    Like


  372. So true. I remember a couple of hot strippers I was doing for awhile. Both were obviously sluts but would play this stupid “I am chaste” game. Yeah, and your only stripping to get through college right? For God’s sake her own friends were telling me to double bag it!

    Like


  373. PA,
    True, but not all protestors had powerful elites or for that matter the media on their side. Both Ghandi and King alike were often vilified in the very same media, and elites only hopped on the bandwagon when it was largely safe, and fashionable, to do so. Trust me, there weren’t many elites clamoring to get trampled on Pettis Bridge on Bloody Sunday, or for the aforementioned Bus Boycott.

    The bottomline here is that the MRA movement talks a mean game, but doesn’t wanna put any bodies on the line where it counts. Until that happens, nothing will change.

    O

    Like


  374. Before the 1830s, almost all people in London crapped and pissed in chamber pots. The waste volume was small and was carted away to refuse dumps.

    The first flush toilets changed that, as it made waste disposal more convenient but also increased the volume of waste. Now it could be no longer carted away, but lacking sewage treatment facilities, it was dumped into rivers causing massive contamination.

    The result was massive outbreaks of water borne diseases, which in turn created the need and willingess to spend on building efficient sewage treatment and disposal facilities.

    Feminism is a lot like the flush toilet.. an innovation that cannot be handled by the old system. We require the cultural equivalent of sewage treatment facilities to handle this innovation.

    Like


  375. Nicole–

    That can only not be the case if the culture has strong enough disincentives to exploitation.

    U.S. culture never has. If it did, women wouldn’t have done so much to get the right to vote, and men wouldn’t have felt the need to support that.

    Your simplistic dichotomist thinking is mushy headed drivel.

    Some degree of exploitation =!= slavery.

    Men would have been very unlikely to have GIVEN, that’s right Nicole GIVEN women the vote if they’re realized that modern divorce and child support=alimony, leading to a 50% American divorce rate sought by women 70-90% of the time effectively, and men are guilty until proven innocent hair trigger domestic violence laws would have been the result.

    Like


  376. Obsidian, PA, Dana-

    PA said —

    Obsidian: — If this means you go to jail, then if the cause is right and your conviction strong enough, go for it.

    I agree very much with Obisdian on this matter. Civil disobedience is what men, pushed far enough, do. Accept the consequences of standingn on principle, and they can’t touch you. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

    But — and this is a big “but” — civil disobedience is only effective if you have the media and a powerful faction within the elite/govt on your side. If you don’t you’re swept aside by forces much bigger than yourself.

    It worked for Ghandi because there was strong public support for him, and keeping India was becoming financially untenable. And he got good press.

    Similar with MLK. Great press, powerful allies among the elite.

    In the Soviet Union, Ghandi and MLK would have been buried in unmarked graves somewhere in the taiga. No man, no problem.

    The way I see it best developing is this:

    First a marriage strike, especially by alphas but also as many betas as we can recruit.

    Then reluctant, very reluctant men, who have to be literally begged by women to marry them, should demand as a precondition very tough prenups. Men should make no bones about being full up 1) anti-feminist and 2) disgusted by misandrous feminist divorce and child support “reforms” which have made marriage an extremely one sided contract which can be and is regularly rewritten by feminist laws and feminist lobbied family courts to be even more one sided against men, such that nearly all divorces involving young children are wanted by women, not by men.

    So, as a result men should demand, that’s right demand, without apology and a great deal of anti feminist hostility, prenups that mimic the financial results of living together in the best states for that (NY is a good and liberal state example) upon break up. That means she DOES get full child support=alimony if she divorces while the kids are minors, but THAT’S ALL. NO ALIMONY period. She gets what she earns or was given and none of his savings or assets on splitting, period.

    Don’t like it, you’re not getting me to marry you, feminist golddigging bitch, after all. Period.

    THEN, if or rather WHEN the courts or legislatures start making such freely entered into prenups a nullity, THAT’s WHEN men start civil disobedience en mass. That’s when the injustice of the feminist lobby will be most obvious and clear to everyone.

    THAT’s the smart way of trying to get a mass movement going.

    Start with individually beneficial steps. Only go to civil disobedience when there’s no other way.

    Like


  377. YKW asks, “In what alternate fantasy universe do you see women defeating men in warfare and physical combat?”

    Warfare is one thing. Physical combat is another.

    Women could win a gender war by not breeding. You can rape a woman, but forcing her to carry to term takes work.

    Like


  378. Obsidian–

    Both Ghandi and King alike were often vilified in the very same media, and elites only hopped on the bandwagon when it was largely safe, and fashionable, to do so.

    That’s simply untrue Obsidian. Frankly that’s a rather Afrocentric reading of history.

    The left supported both from the get go. The NY Times supported King from the get go as did CBS news etc.

    Ghandi was supported by the British and American left from almost the get go, from as soon as he started having a wide following. The left had wanted Britain out of colonially ruling India for a long time. Certainly since WWI. As had the American left. Sure rightest papers were anti Ghandi and rightest papers in the South were anti ML KIng, but they didn’t have the biggest megaphones, and there was always a LOT of support for their movements. It was cast by the left as being unquestionably the moral and righteous choice.

    Like


  379. Nicole

    Women could win a gender war by not breeding. You can rape a woman, but forcing her to carry to term takes work.

    Total crap.

    You want to talk turkey Nicole?

    Do you have any IDEA how quickly women cave if they’re for example whipped?

    Women are very easy to control if men have the stomach for it.

    To any and all degrees that men the rules so desire.

    The fact is we’ve wanted women to be relatively free, most of them most of the time. I want that too.

    But don’t kid yourself.

    Women are weak little pussies before men exerting real dominance.

    Like


  380. Doug, even with the laws we have in place today, actual crime in the real sense still happens. The law doesn’t prevent all crime. It labels some activities as crimes so that victims of it will have some recourse when it happens.

    Without the laws in place, the victims would just never have a chance of seeing justice except by their own hands.

    Do you believe that if you didn’t have the right to vote, that your implied unwritten rights would be taken seriously by the courts?

    You may have that kind of faith in humanity, but I don’t.

    Like


  381. Doug asks, “Do you have any IDEA how quickly women cave if they’re for example whipped?”

    Yes Doug. I do.

    Ask my parents how well being beaten to the point of bruising and bleeding worked to control my behavior.

    No, I would be one of the ones you’d have to kill.

    Like


  382. No, I would be one of the ones you’d have to kill.

    No big loss.

    Like


  383. gig

    I want to hear your views about that beggars-looking guy who kissed the cute Russian chick 10 minutes after meeting her

    He is probably a douchebag and the woman is a raging slut.

    Like


  384. Tupac–

    No big loss.

    Exactly.

    Women have been effectively controlled by men down through all of history, until they were given the vote in a through going democracies defended by male military might, and the arising of cultural Marxism derived blank slate and radical equalist feminism.

    Like


  385. Then you would die. There are always more.

    Like


  386. Tupac, good luck then having strong sons after you kill off all the strong women.

    A woman who can’t take a beating and stand her ground is called a whore where I’m from. If you can control her by beating her, anybody can.

    Like


  387. Nicole

    Do you believe that if you didn’t have the right to vote, that your implied unwritten rights would be taken seriously by the courts?

    You may have that kind of faith in humanity, but I don’t.

    I think that men would by and large take care of the women that are loyal to them.

    I’m for bringing back patriarchy.

    I’m for women being subordinate to men. But cared for and cherished by them. In return for their loyalty.

    Like


  388. on August 22, 2009 at 2:41 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Nicole,

    I don’t know about you, but I would change my mind pretty fast if I was being whaled on… There’s only so much threshhold for physical pain a human, much less a woman, can take.

    Like


  389. Doug, we’re still controlled by men. The problem is that most of you have forgotten that. Since you forgot, most women can easily ignore it.

    …doesn’t mean it’s not still the case.

    Beating is not how you’ve controlled us. It’s how you keep other men from hijacking your women, but historically, you’ve controlled us by being the fathers of our kids and protecting us from outsider men. Without you, we’d be up shit creek.

    I think women need a reminder, not for men to become the outsiders.

    Like


  390. on August 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    That being said, there could be strength in numbers, in terms of emotional resistance. Much like during the Holocaust.

    Like


  391. cunthulah:

    Tupac, good luck then having strong sons after you kill off all the strong women.

    Strong sons are more a function of the father than the mother.

    Offing tankgrrl Hulk-a-Bitches like you wouldn’t even register on the radar.

    BTW, what is your opinion on Clio? Do you think she is or is not an alpha female?

    Like


  392. Nicole

    Tupac, good luck then having strong sons after you kill off all the strong women.

    More crap mushy headed thinking.

    First of all, the overwhelming majority of women wouldn’t have to be killed. Never had to be before. Though sure there would be some adjustment mess and bloodshed. Some.

    The main thing it would take is male resolve. That most definitely is not there at the moment.

    Like


  393. Nicole,

    Why did you even consider the possibility that they are interested in things like justice? They are just apes trying to live out their zero sum world fantasies. Their mind cannot grasp bigger concepts.

    Like


  394. Tupac

    Strong sons are more a function of the father than the mother.

    Exactly.

    Besides. We wouldn’t remotely have to kill Dana. Or Bhetti. Or aoefe. Or for that matter Bonnie, whatever drivel she says now. Or Sofia. Or OMW. etc., etc., etc.

    Maybe anony though. That would be a good thing.

    Like


  395. Sofia, would a guy beating you before he raped you make you want him?

    If not, then you’re not that weak. You also probably wouldn’t change your thoughts about other things just because someone was beating you. You might change your behavior…for awhile anyway. Your thoughts would still be yours.

    How long or whether or not my behavior would change would depend, for me, on whether I had any hope of escaping. If there was no hope and I could only look forward to feeding a monster until I died, I would likely kill myself or provoke them into killing me. Either way, they wouldn’t have me around to abuse.

    Like


  396. Well, like I said, Tupac and Doug, good luck.

    History does not support your optimism.

    Look around you.

    Like


  397. Nicole–

    Beating is not how you’ve controlled us. It’s how you keep other men from hijacking your women, but historically, you’ve controlled us by being the fathers of our kids and protecting us from outsider men. Without you, we’d be up shit creek.

    Yes Nicole, that’s true. That’s how it’s functionally worked the vast majority of the time. Men have controlled women by protecting them from worse men who would otherwise make them their sex slaves, as opposed to merely their mostly obedient wives, etc. (What actually makes the other men worse is that they aren’t in the same relationship to the women in question. Though yes there are also cultural differences that are often much exaggerated by the men in the tribe or nation in question.)

    At the end of the day though Nicole, men’s dominance over women is rooted in men’s ability to beat them up and militarily utterly cream them. Radical feminists are right about that. Tough shiite.

    Men should toughen up and become a bit less civilized. A bit. Enough.

    Like


  398. Besides. We wouldn’t remotely have to kill Dana. Or Bhetti. Or aoefe. Or for that matter Bonnie, whatever drivel she says now. Or Sofia. Or OMW. etc., etc., etc.

    Maybe anony though. That would be a good thing.

    A li’lbit of the old ultraviolence for annony, fer sure.

    Like


  399. on August 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Right, I meant to amend that as soon as I hit “submit.” I wouldn’t change my mind about anything, but I would certainly change my behaviour, and if my behaviour is going to change as the force increases anyway, I might as well submit while the actions are minimal.

    Like I said, if it was drastic like the Holocaust, there might be emotional strength in numbers. Victor Frankl wrote about the capacity for human resilience using WWII as a case study. It certainly is inspiring, even if it is a bit trite these days.

    Feminine thinking in politics is important to me, because it usually injects some pacificism into hot headed male thinking. Men have gone to war over a single woman…

    Like


  400. …and Doug, you would probably have to kill Bhetti before she would submit to slavery, especially to any non Muslim man. I bet you could beat her to within an inch of her life, and she would still spit blood and broken teeth right in your face.

    Polite and weak are not the same thing.

    Indulgent due to understanding that arguing about something is pointless, and weak are not the same thing.

    Like


  401. Nicole

    History does not support your optimism.

    Look more widely at history nicole.

    Why is it women have never before been able to bring about functional domestic matriarchy or at least the ready option for than via American divorce and child support=alimony laws, and domestic violence laws?

    Never before in history.

    It probably would require a military coup to take away the vote from women, or otherwise reversing the maisandrous laws that feminism has lobbied through. That or majority Muslim believers.

    As I said I’m thought experimenting. I’m not there yet.

    But you are perhaps getting some idea of how thoroughly and VIOLENTLY disgusted I am with the encroaching matriarchy?

    Like


  402. on August 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    However, A.J. Travis has conditionally and tentatively allowed me to be the Queen of the Beta Revolution. So, I might not care that much after all if he’s running the helm.

    Like


  403. Nicole

    …and Doug, you would probably have to kill Bhetti before she would submit to slavery, especially to any non Muslim man. I bet you could beat her to within an inch of her life, and she would still spit blood and broken teeth right in your face.

    Bullshiite. For one thing I don’t remotely want slavery for her or other women Nicole. Talking about what could be done isn’t the same as wanting to actually go remotely that far.

    As for having to convert to Islam, don’t think I haven’t thought about it.

    Bhetti believes in a patriarchal culture. She also believes in women being cherished within it by hopefully strong men. I’m fully in accord.

    Like


  404. Doug, matriarchy is a strawman in this particular argument.

    I’m saying you don’t get strong sons from weak willed women.

    The proof is all around you.

    Like


  405. @tupac- but not the ol’ in-out-in-out, or any ludwig van?

    @nicole- some detail on why your disenfracnchisement=slavery assertion is totally wrong: women (and blacks in northern states) could own property, independently choose jobs, spouses, residences, etc. and had rights enforced and protected by the laws and courts. slaves had none of this. all the franchise does is allow a citizen to choose who makes the laws. their rights are otherwise the same. ex: green card holders (legal aliens) today.

    @obs, doug, others- civil disobedience against alimony and child-support laws? HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAAHAAA! you go to jail, your wages are garnished, you go on no-hire lists, you are barred from seeing your kids, etc. and the world doesn’t care – the MSM paints them all as “deadbeat dads”. *if* the MSM viewed male civil disobedience against this as Gandhi-like (all- note spelling, please) then that dynamic you described could take hold. maybe some day it will, insh’allah, and maybe this blog is a tentative first step in that direction. but until then, we’d be viewed and treated as the branch davidians at waco.

    Like


  406. Sophia–

    Like I said, if it was drastic like the Holocaust, there might be emotional strength in numbers. Victor Frankl wrote about the capacity for human resilience using WWII as a case study. It certainly is inspiring, even if it is a bit trite these days.

    Jews completely and totally caved during the Holocaust, with rare exceptions, despite a lot of Jewish drivel propaganda to the contrary. Not to mention the degree to which women did. Young Jewish women in the Holocaust mass volunteered, when asked, to be sex slaves to stay alive longer or entirely and to get more to eat, better living conditions, etc. See the Night Porter for (historically accurate) glimpses and references to this.

    Not that I’m advocating the Holocaust or anything like. I’m just noting the way that humans actually act as opposed to the drivel that Nicole is ignorantly spouting.

    Note. What I want is a return to light and woman cherishing patriarchy. I’m simply countering her drivel.

    Like


  407. Ghost of Nicole

    A woman who can’t take a beating and stand her ground is called a whore where I’m from.

    That doesn’t even make any sense. Are you from Retard Land?

    Doug1

    I’m for women being subordinate to men. But cared for and cherished by them. In return for their loyalty.

    “I’m for niggers being subordinate to white people. But cared for and cherished by them. In return for their loyalty.”

    Like


  408. maurice–

    @obs, doug, others- civil disobedience against alimony and child-support laws? HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAAHAAA! you go to jail, your wages are garnished, you go on no-hire lists, you are barred from seeing your kids, etc. and the world doesn’t care – the MSM paints them all as “deadbeat dads”. *if* the MSM viewed male civil disobedience against this as Gandhi-like (all- note spelling, please) then that dynamic you described could take hold. maybe some day it will, insh’allah, and maybe this blog is a tentative first step in that direction. but until then, we’d be viewed and treated as the branch davidians at waco.

    I completely agree. That’s why I don’t at all buy Obsidian’s call for civil disobedience at this stage. His “going off the grid”, which is a little different and what he’s usually advocated, is really a call for all men in the country to go ghetto black in their employment habits and byways. The country would collapse it’s true, but the lives of the men going that way, the white pioneers, would collapse way earlier.

    Instead what I advocate is refusing to marry until and unless you want kids, and then doing so only with a prenup that mimics the financial effects, if she leaves you for any reason (including male cheating) of living together in states favorable for that. (Such as e.g. NY.)

    Like


  409. on August 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Doug,

    Of course there was no Jewish “uprising”, during the Holocaust. But, in terms of coming out of such persecution with a semblance of psychological balance and mental health, I would argue that was a huge feat. Considering that it’s been only 60 years since WWII, and the creation of Israel, I would say Jews don’t have much of a victim complex. Thanks to the victim complex itself, and years of “patriarchal oppression”, feminism emerged, so what I’m saying, is that to avoid that we could take a cue from the Jews. It also requires some tact.

    American blacks still have a victim complex despite it being a hundred some odd years since slavery ended. It’s just a disjuncture to show you how things could potentially end up going…

    Like


  410. Nicole

    I made a longish earlier post regarding womens sufferage that got stuck in moderation. For no reason I can imagine…
    Anyway, British and American women were not keen on voting right much before they got them.
    And you mistake the existence of formal legalistic property rights with the matter of the existence (or non-existence) of any reliable legal system at all. For much of the 19th century in many places in America things like property rights were not resolved by clever lawsuits regardless of gender.
    Ever watch the HBO series “Deadwood”? It is about a frontier town where there is “no law at all” although it is prosperous and dynamic. There was no law at all keeping women from doing anything they had the balls to do. What they did in practice was to insist that their menfolk keep them in a safe interior environment.

    Like


  411. TokyoJesusFist / you know who–

    “I’m for niggers being subordinate to white people. But cared for and cherished by them. In return for their loyalty.”

    That is how the cultural Marxist derrivied feminist aguments went. That’s what they were based on.

    If we’d never had slavery and the consequent mass importion of blacks into this country radically equalist feminism would have had a much harder time gaining ground. Some increase in rights for women sure, but much less traction for radical equalist thinking.

    Whether or not there are in fact significant IQ and other racial differences for genetic reasons the vast majority of race realists wish there were not.

    Most people do not wish that all gender differences would disappear. In any event they never will.

    Yes I do believe that women should be slightly less equal in power and influence than men. I do believe they should be subordinate to men, slightly, in a cared for way. But only slightly. Men should lead, and be unapologetic about it.

    Cultural Marxism and all radical equalist thinking is crap.

    Like


  412. Male civil disobedience on a mass scale is an interesting idea, but it’s just not going to happen. One of the reasons it won’t is that men love their kids, and for the most part aren’t going to walk away and go “off the grid” or expat themselves. This is one of the things divorcing women and feminist groups count on, they may be pushing the line on how much men are prepared to put up with, but know that men will eat a huge shit sandwich for the sake of their kids.

    The real game changer would be a male contraceptive pill. If men had that, actual real control of their reproductive rights, a lot of this nonsense would fall by the wayside. No more “whoops” babies (and you’d be surprised how often they happen even inside marriages), and men would be able to choose the timing of their fatherhood in hopefully a clearheaded way. I’d expect women to fall into line because we’d be at a disadvantage, our fertility window is relatively short, while yours is long. Men waiting even a few more years on average before breeding would lead to some very unhappy and frustrated women.

    Like


  413. Rum:

    Ever watch the HBO series “Deadwood”? It is about a frontier town where there is “no law at all” although it is prosperous and dynamic. There was no law at all keeping women from doing anything they had the balls to do. What they did in practice was to insist that their menfolk keep them in a safe interior environment.

    Like


  414. Doug1

    Cultural Marxism and all radical equalist thinking is crap.

    There is nothing marxist or radical about equality.

    Like


  415. TokyoBetaGrist:

    “I’m for niggers being subordinate to white people. But cared for and cherished by them. In return for their loyalty.”

    If you make men and women equal, you utterly neutralize sexuality.

    Like


  416. Doug says, “Bullshiite. For one thing I don’t remotely want slavery for her or other women Nicole. Talking about what could be done isn’t the same as wanting to actually go remotely that far.”

    Cool…but what you don’t seem to understand is that you can’t do something harmful to women without doing something harmful to men. Also, collective punishment of women isn’t going to cure the cultural problem or legal acrobatics that got all the overly stupid custody, divorce, and child support laws passed.

    At the root of this is the power of state government and courts have over the distribution of information, and how precedents are handled. Precedents set in one case should only be applied to another if the relevant circumstances are exactly the same.

    The system is messed up in a way that unscrupulous people take advantage of. If it is fixed then each dispute will have to be handled individually instead of applying precedents that don’t fit the circumstances of the current case.

    Like


  417. If you make men and women equal, you utterly neutralize sexuality.

    I see nothing wrong with that…

    Like


  418. Judith—

    No more “whoops” babies (and you’d be surprised how often they happen even inside marriages), and men would be able to choose the timing of their fatherhood in hopefully a clearheaded way.

    Most people especially most men would be surprised yes.

    I wouldn’t be. I know it happens all the freeking time, especially within marriages, but also outside them.

    The vast majority of unwed pegnancies aren’t really fully accidents for example. Feminists and the media simply bald face lie about that. The girl may not precisely coldly plan it, though she very well might. However most of the time accidents are accidently on purpose. She wants the baby but he doesn’t. He certainly doesn’t if he has to pay current child support=alimony amounts for it.

    Like


  419. David Alexander

    I see nothing wrong with that…

    Who gives a cr*p what you think?

    You’ve a de-sexed functional eunuch.

    Like


  420. If you make men and women equal, you utterly neutralize sexuality.

    I see nothing wrong with that…

    Cuz u a eunuch.

    Like


  421. Tupac Chopra

    TokyoBetaGrist

    You really shouldn’t use words that don’t mean anything.

    If you make men and women equal, you utterly neutralize sexuality.

    How so?

    Like


  422. You’ve a de-sexed functional eunuch.

    Technically, I’m a sub-human male who opted out* and masturbates on a nearly daily basis to pornographic videos to satiate his sex drive and possible addiction**.

    *And opted out is a proxy for too lazy and withdrawn to deal with attracting/dating/seducing/fucking women.

    **Is getting two hours of sleep before work in order to masturbate a sign?

    Like


  423. doug1,

    It is over for your racial type.. The world has changed beyond the limits of your adaptability. Runaway feminism is one of the smaller problems.

    Demography, technology, media, trade, newer options and the inability of your worldview to adapt to those changes (and their consequences) is what will do you in. It will be interesting to see how it ends though..

    Like


  424. @judith – nice post, but the problem is women lie. the change their minds, they fall out of love, or they enter into marriages for transparent financial reasons. men are usually not relaibly good at seeing this, or seeing th esignals that lead to it. there is scarcely a human creature more vicious than a woman on the warpath against the man she formerly loved. in those instances, at some base psychological level, it’s not about him, it’s about her – her disappointed childhood happily-ever-after dreams and frustrated libido.

    note: i’m not saying *all* women are like this, or become like this. it’s the same error feminists make when they say that all men are rapists or abusers because some are. that is the exact error, in fact, that led to the horror of the DV, divorce, and cs/alimony laws.

    Like


  425. David Alexander is part Bruno (in his fevered but dislocated sexuality) and part Michel (in his ascetic post-humanism).

    Like


  426. Judith–

    The real game changer would be a male contraceptive pill.

    It’s very hard to make one work without lots of negative side effects. Worse than female side effects of the pill, which for non smokers are vastly exaggerated by feminists.

    The basic biological way the pill works is by hormonally fooling the female reproductive system into thinking the women is already first stage pregnant. That naturally switches off her ability to have another egg fertilized right behind it because to allow that would usually kill her and or both fetuses.

    However what I’m eying with great interest is the valved and therefore easily reversible male vasectomy. It can in fact be reversed by a radio transmitter set to the right frequency and held right over the vasectomy plug. Such transmitters to be kept locked up in the doctor’s office or some such thing. They’re in clinical trial in Australia. I think India too.

    The trouble is to really make it do what’s wanted it’s not quite this simple. The trouble with reversing vasectomies isn’t just the problem of sewing back together the snipped vas deferens. Thought that does make it inherently very expensive. The main problem is that althought he sperm that leaks out of the snipped male tube with each orgasm is “harmlessly” absorbed by the body, in many men this process causes the body to develop antibodies that attack and kill the sperm. Maybe not all of them in all men. But it’s a problem. So a really reliable reversible valved vasectomy would have to deal with that problem.

    Can you tell I’ve given this a lot of thought? Because you’re right Judith about how important this would be.

    However, oops babies are not the only problem that men face in the faces of male oppressive divorce and child support=alimony laws.

    Like


  427. TokyoBetaGrist:

    How so?

    What do you know of sex?

    Not much probably.

    The hard penis actively penetrates the soft passive vagina.

    A woman softens her defenses to accept a determined male into her folds.

    The very nature of the sex act implies a differential.

    Like potential kinetic energy.

    Without that differential energy, there is no sexual spark.

    Otherwise, you simply have two equals masturbating themselves in isolated shells of atomized individuality.

    Like


  428. on August 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    It sounds like Tupac has read his Dworkin or taken a philosophy of sex course.

    Like


  429. I fuck a lot.

    Like


  430. Maurice says, “@nicole- some detail on why your disenfracnchisement=slavery assertion is totally wrong: women (and blacks in northern states) could own property, independently choose jobs, spouses, residences, etc. and had rights enforced and protected by the laws and courts. slaves had none of this. all the franchise does is allow a citizen to choose who makes the laws. their rights are otherwise the same. ex: green card holders (legal aliens) today.”

    Ah, but the right to choose who makes the laws is a very very big one. If more people used it, child support would be determined by cost of living, not by income of the provider parent.

    Like


  431. on August 22, 2009 at 3:44 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Hyperintellectualized fucking. Hot.

    Like


  432. Nicole

    Doug, matriarchy is a strawman in this particular argument.

    I’m saying you don’t get strong sons from weak willed women.

    The proof is all around you.

    More mush headed drivel.

    Proof of the opposite is all around us.

    It’s difficult to get strong acting, leading and dominant men, in mass numbers, in a feminist culture that everywhere celebrates female toughness, full independence from men, and leadership over men, and which both browbeats and propagandizes men to think that this is what’s right, natural, and progressive (like that’s a good thing), while all prior history is that of the odious oppression of women by men.

    Like


  433. The very nature of the sex act implies a differential.

    You ruined my little world of pretty lies with one sentence. A thousand bottles of Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker will never bring that fantasy world back.

    Like


  434. Sofia:

    Sex on LSD is what did it.

    You should try it sometime.

    Give me a call.

    Like


  435. on August 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    I’ve had sex on DMT, which I’m guessing feels a lot cleaner in terms of perception. Still trippy in a dreamlike way.

    Like


  436. DA:

    You ruined my little world of pretty lies with one sentence. A thousand bottles of Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker will never bring that fantasy world back.

    Good! Now get busy.

    Jack — relax.
    Get busy with the facts.
    No zodiacs or almanacs,
    No maniacs in polyester slacks.
    Just the facts.
    Gonna kick some gluteus max.
    Its a parallax — you dig?
    You move around
    The small gets big. It’s a rig.
    Its action — reaction —
    Random interaction.
    So who’s afraid
    Of a little abstraction?
    Can’t get no satisfaction
    From the facts?
    You better run, homeboy —
    A fact’s a fact
    From Nome to Rome, boy.

    Whats the deal? Spin the wheel.
    If the dice are hot — take a shot.
    Play your cards, show us what you got —
    What you’re holding.
    If the cards are cold,
    Dont go folding.
    Lady Luck is golden;
    She favors the bold. Thats cold.
    Stop throwing stones —
    The night has a thousand saxophones.
    So get out there and rock, and roll the bones.
    Get busy!

    — Rush

    Like


  437. Sofia:

    I’ve had sex on DMT,

    My kinda gal.

    Although I can’t imagine that was very good at all.

    Too much dissasociation from the corporeal world.

    Like


  438. Tupac–

    The hard penis actively penetrates the soft passive vagina.

    A woman softens her defenses to accept a determined male into her folds.

    The very nature of the sex act implies a differential.

    Like potential kinetic energy.

    Without that differential energy, there is no sexual spark.

    Otherwise, you simply have two equals masturbating themselves in isolated shells of atomized individuality.

    Hear, hear bro.

    It’s in this sense that the radical second wave feminists such as Catherine MacKinnon (that uber bitch out and out Marxist feminist) are onto something when they say that all male penatrive sex is by it’s very nature rape.

    No it isn’t rape because women welcome it. But what it inherantly is, if it isn’t denied at it’s essence and hence done really badly and wimpily, is the exertion of male dominance over the female. That IS the essence of the penetrative sex act. Oh yeah.

    That essence should be hightened and accentuated rather than denied and hidden, if men want to have really good sex and hence drive the fine bitches nuts. Oh yeah.

    Instead stupid chivalrous males’ predominante reaction to MacKinnon, and Susan Brownmueller etc. was to say oh no, penetrative sex is all about gentle sweet loving and intimate communicating. The pussies.

    Yeah it’s that too sometimes. Or in the afterglow.

    Like


  439. Sofia

    I’ve had sex on DMT, which I’m guessing feels a lot cleaner in terms of perception. Still trippy in a dreamlike way.

    You sound like a lot of fun Sofia.

    We should f*ck sometime. (I could play high school biology teach for you.)

    Sorry. Just kidding. (kinda)

    Like


  440. on August 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Doug,

    I’ve had an ecletic assortment of life experiences. If you’re up for fucking a crazy chick, I’m down. There is nothing more erotic than a student-teacher exchange of knowledge, so unfortunately for you, I’m expecting a real lesson plan.

    But oh wait, I’m designated Beta Queen.

    Like


  441. Doug, try to pay attention this time.

    You don’t get strong sons from weak willed women because:

    Weak willed women fall under pressure to become sluts more easily than strong willed women.

    Strong willed women determine whether it suits them better to be committed partners or more the mistress/courtesan type, and follow the path that leads them where they want to go regardless of what others around them are doing.

    Worst case, they could be misguided and told by all seemingly credible sources that a certain path will lead them where they want to go, but it is wrong. A strong willed woman, upon realizing this will suck it up, correct her navigation, and proceed doing the best she can with what she has left.

    Strong willed women try to marry or commit to strong willed men.

    Worst case, if they break up it’ll be because he thinks he can do better. A strong willed woman, though disappointed, will suck it up and try not to make things worse for their children than they need to be.

    A strong willed woman does not need to degrade her kids’ dad, or feel that doing so or denying visitation is appropriate vengeance for thinking he can do better.

    A strong willed woman is okay with life and understands the birds and the bees, and how the male and female complimenting each other thing works. She’s got no problem with that.

    So a strong willed woman is not going to emasculate her son. She will let him play in the dirt. She will encourage him to be a man, and direct him to men who will educate him properly in this…hopefully his daddy, but if dad is dead or something, she’s got male friends and relatives who care because she’s not stupid.

    Get where I’m going with this?

    The nation is full of pussies because being a strong willed woman stopped being sexy after the 50’s.

    So like I said…good luck with that not needing mothers to be strong thing.

    Like


  442. Sofia

    There is nothing more erotic than a student-teacher exchange of knowledge, so unfortunately for you, I’m expecting a real lesson plan.

    Oh that’s my specialty babe. Love that. Completely down with that. And how.

    Like


  443. Polarize me
    Sensitize me
    Criticize me
    Civilize me
    Compensate me
    Animate me
    Complicate me
    Elevate me

    Goddess in my garden
    Sister in my soul
    Angel in my armor
    Actress in my role

    Daughter of a demon lover
    Empress of the hidden face
    Priestess of the pagan mother
    Ancient queen of inner space

    Spirit in my psyche
    Double in my role
    Alter in my image
    Struggle for control

    Mistress of the dark unconscious
    Mermaid of the lunar sea
    Daughter of the great enchantress
    Sister to the boy inside of me

    My counterpart, my foolish heart
    A man must learn to rule his tender part
    A warming trend, a gentle friend
    A man must build a fortress to defend
    A secret face, a touch of grace
    A man must learn to give a little space
    A peaceful state, a submissive trait
    A man must learn to gently dominate

    Like


  444. on August 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Nicole, a lot of people here appreciate your opinion, but power in brevity. I would love to read everything you say, but as a general rule, I can’t continuously read comment tracts this long.

    Like


  445. cunthulah:

    So like I said…good luck with that not needing mothers to be strong thing.

    You’re problem is that you have reified “strong women” to be some uber-tough tankgirl beeyotch.

    Totally unnecessary.

    Someone like Clio is just fine as a maternal influence.

    The father does the rest of the teaching. It is his to impart.

    Like


  446. on August 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Nothing.

    NOTHING.

    Makes me hotter, than…

    Continental philosophy. Continental philosophy, all night long. For some reason the intellectual stimulation makes my ‘gina tingle.

    Like


  447. on August 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Oh, and it has to be in German. Deutsche ist eine uber-sexy Sprache.

    Like


  448. @sofia- genau, Schatze.

    Like


  449. Thanks for the rush Tupac.

    Like


  450. Thanks for the rush Tupac.

    NP. What do you think it was that attracted me to Clio in the first place?

    Lust by association.

    Like


  451. Doug – I’m well aware that much of current family law is absolutely unjust. The thing is I don’t see reform happening in that area until we see some changes in the culture at large. Possibly as a result of technological change (such as the introduction and widespread use of reversible vasectomies), or maybe due to a shift in societal values, once more people understand how absolutely destructive the extremes of feminism have been.

    The law lags reality, I think. Child support levels were raised to ridiculous levels during the 80s (you have Bush 1 to thank for that actually), this was partly driven by the idea that “everyone” knew of an Heroic Single Mom, struggling against the odds. Similarly it was not unreasonable to have some protection for abused women, as we all knew of some woman who got smacked around occasionally (let us not speak of the hot sex that resulted afterwards), but providing refuge to the very few in real danger is a world away from VAWA.

    Today it’s startlingly easy to get a man arrested for domestic violence, to gain custody of the children (no real sanctions against interfering with his visitation rights either), and to receive a nice monthly check for it. Yet the majority wanders around in a fog though if pressed can tell you not so pretty lies such as “women make 75 cents to the male dollar”, “mens income increases after divorce while female living standard plummet”, “a woman is beaten every 15 seconds” etc., etc.

    Strange world we live in, American women are some of the freest and most pampered people on the planet, yet the propaganda would lead you to believe that we live under something not so different to Taliban rule.

    Like


  452. Tupac, while ironically calling me a cunt says, “You’re problem is that you have reified “strong women” to be some uber-tough tankgirl beeyotch.

    Totally unnecessary.”

    When exactly did I say a woman has to be a “tankgirl beeyotch” to be strong?

    It certainly helps, but it’s not the only way…However, I’m not PC enough to sodomize the English language enough to call a woman who can’t take a beating for her country, her rights, her man, or her kids, strong.

    One doesn’t need to be a tankgirl to get her ass kicked. She does however need to be strong to not snitch to the cops, feed information to your enemies, not screw around, not have an oops or abort if she does, and other stuff that matters to guys who don’t like to get reamed by the government or other would be bullies.

    Like


  453. Good! Now get busy.

    Eh, I’d rather have the Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker than the women.

    Like


  454. Judith–

    this was partly driven by the idea that “everyone” knew of an Heroic Single Mom, struggling against the odds.

    Few media images piss me off more. The reality more often is that the slut was recklessly sport fucking a serious bad boy who her mother never would have approved of. I.e. it’s her fault and she should have to pay for it. further that bad boy probably didn’t want the kid (and certainly not if he’d have to pay 1/3 of his after tax income for it), she did, and sub consciously “forgot” to take her pill or whatever to get preggers. Or just straight up wanted to.

    Sluts having bastards should be shamed not coddled. At most the men who impregnated them should have to pay welfare levels of child support, if and only if she’d otherwise be on welfare, and only for so long as she qualifies for it. Anything else should be entirely voluntary.

    Women should have to earn support from men if they want it. That’s the basis of marriage. They shouldn’t be able to end run it, as they can today, by state coercion.

    You’re right that it’s the leftist and feminist friendly (and heavily feminist penetrated and thoroughly brow beaten) media propaganda that’s the central problem. Media and schools and unis.

    Like


  455. on August 22, 2009 at 4:53 pm Gunslingergregi

    The woman must give the space to the man so he can do his mission while she does her mission which is him in a way that does not instrude.

    Like


  456. on August 22, 2009 at 4:53 pm The Fifth Horseman

    DUI arrests of women are up 29% over the last 10 years, while those for men are down 7%.

    Note the increase in sluttification, which socialcons no doubt will still attribute to men not being chivalrous enough, and feminOrcs will attribute to police misogyny.

    Like


  457. Undiscovered Jew makes a great comment over at Mangan’s:

    http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/08/misunderstanding-roissyites.html#c5151485982673484203

    Like


  458. I’m well aware that much of current family law is absolutely unjust. The thing is I don’t see reform happening in that area until we see some changes in the culture at large. Possibly as a result of technological change (such as the introduction and widespread use of reversible vasectomies), or maybe due to a shift in societal values, once more people understand how absolutely destructive the extremes of feminism have been.

    @ Judith —

    I agree with this in principle.

    We’re not going to see (1) mass civil disobedience among men or (2) a true marriage strike. Both of those last until the guy falls under the spell of an attractive woman, and then that is that. In this regard, it’s instructive to speak with MRA vets who are in their 60s now — they will tell you in detail how this tends to work (in practice, it doesn’t).

    I do think it will have to be a cultural shift that would change the laws, but I don’t expect such cultural changes anytime soon. The culture is still very much headed in the other direction. It may never recover from this (other civilizations haven’t), but it may. Nothing is certain due to future events and technologies which are hard to predict. But one thing is fairly certain: nothing will come about as a result of a “men’s rights movement” — that’s a walk in the dark.

    Like


  459. TFH:

    DUI arrests of women are up 29% over the last 10 years, while those for men are down 7%.

    Note the increase in sluttification, which socialcons no doubt will still attribute to men not being chivalrous enough, and feminOrcs will attribute to police misogyny.

    Jibes with my experience.

    Of course, I live in an urban coastal city.

    Like


  460. Nova:

    I do think it will have to be a cultural shift that would change the laws, but I don’t expect such cultural changes anytime soon. The culture is still very much headed in the other direction. It may never recover from this (other civilizations haven’t), but it may. Nothing is certain due to future events and technologies which are hard to predict. But one thing is fairly certain: nothing will come about as a result of a “men’s rights movement” — that’s a walk in the dark.

    I have a feeling Lucifer’s arms are outstretched, becoming us into is welcoming arms…

    Like


  461. on August 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Doug1,

    The ineffectiveness of pre-nups in stipulating chuld support matters is what has struck a death blow to the institution of marriage.

    All divorce laws are very left-wing in spirit. ‘No fault’, the belief that the woman should be maintained at a certain living standard by the man, even if SHE initiated divorce, the notion that child support has to be a percentage of the man’s income, etc. are all very left-wing ideas.

    Two people should be able to form their own contract. If both believe in personal responsibility, then their contract should not be overturned by the courts.

    Why can’t a pre-nup be treated like a will and testament? In fact, I am surprised that feminOrcs are not lobbying to get wills and testaments overturned to ensure all inheritance goes to the daughters and wife, rather than the sons, based on ‘oppression of the patriarchy’, or whatever.

    Like


  462. becoming=beckoning

    I’m still drinking after last night’s party

    Like


  463. I think all domestic violence laws should be wiped off the books, especially but not only the federal VAWA, and state laws implementing it’s mandates.

    What we should have instead are simply assault laws. However those should be amended where necessary to make non injurious slapping or similar acts completely non actionable. Further mere bruising should be treated as a very minor misdemeanor, that can be stepped up in seriousness if it’s often repeated. Things like purported slapping of the domestic partner (not the child) should be totally inadmissible in child custody hearings.

    All of the domestic violence laws that make trivial acts of male “violence” into major deals, or even the mere accusation of them or purported threat of them enough to get no hearing restraining orders that force a man out of the home he paid for, are naked power grabs by feminists. Their purpose is to emascuate and neutralize any male physical dominance over women. The effect of them for men with a lot to lose, as opposed to ghetto thugs and white biker types who are in fact the types who most often do the serious injury domestic violence, is to make it fully possible for women to slap and hit and scream right in the face of a high status male, while he can do nothing without serious consequences for him. All depending on how she reacts. I.e. if she calls the cops. Once she does, she can’t even recant, for the longest time, under VAWA and it’s local implementations.

    It’s outrageous.

    Stupid male chivalry in the age of feminism should be shamed. It was different under strong patriarchy form it’s effects under galloping and unopposed, almost, feminism.

    Like


  464. I agree with you Doug.

    So does Insane Clown Posse:

    Like


  465. One thing I’d like to make clear.

    I don’t think a man should be permitted to abandon children he consented to in a marriage because he wants a younger or prettier wife. Or abandon his wife while the children are minors.

    However there are exceptions. I think female adultery is a crime against marriage that should be punishable by at his option very little female payout in divorce, which yes might effect the kids. Inevitably to sufficiently punish the woman. She can always give him custody if she’s so worried about the kids welfare. Though how much money kids are raised with really isn’t that important so long as it’s any kind of middle class. What matters are the cultural attitudes of the raising parents. Though personally I would see to it that so long as she didn’t cheat while the kids were still infants and I hadn’t seriously bonded with them, I would take good care of them myself. Though directly, not by paying the cheating bitch.

    As well I’m sorry any wife OWES her husband best efforts sex for the duration of the marriage. Non obese, keeps herself in reasonable shape, best efforts sex (unless she was obese at the time of marriage, in that case he had fair warning). How many men would marry women if they knew they’d blow up like whales or stop giving them willing best efforts sex? It simply isn’t part of the deal that men sign up for when they marry. If she stops this other than in times of brief debilitation illness, he should be able to leave her without serious financial consequence to him. I.e. she should be punished for not keeping up her end of the marriage deal. Yeah that means the kids too, at his option. Again if that is too rough, he can get custody.

    Of course if he doesn’t want custody, then he’ll have to bargain with her as to what level of child support she’ll demand in order to take the tykes off his hands. That might be a good way of doing it.

    As a practical matter, I think the number of cases in which a man walks out of a marriage for no good reason when there are young kids involved are pretty small. But I’d be willing to see something like current divorce settlements, absent any alimony as such (given how high child support=alimony is on an after tax basis), in those limited number of cases. Abuse bullshit though would have to be nixed as a reason. It’s mostly complete crap. The mental abuse of very many American women in marriage is way worse than the bullshiite “He slaaaaaaaaped meeeeeeee and I was soooooooo scaaaaaarrrred for my veeeeeeery liiiiiiiife” we hear all the time now. Utter crap.

    Like


  466. R:

    There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks. Once a woman has had that faint hope instilled in her, she can go months or even years rejecting more suitable beta males in favor of pining forlornly for that one alpha male who will certainly, she tells herself, come around and decide she’s a catch worthy of commitment.

    And Bhetti clutches her romantic novels even more tightly to her chest…

    Like


  467. Roissy said this “There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks. ”

    Really! Really? Personally I think the woman in question would doubt her worth rather than have it raised. Now if he’d stuck around for a time…that might be another matter.

    Like


  468. @Doug (Draper) – “As well I’m sorry any wife OWES her husband best efforts sex for the duration of the marriage. Non obese, keeps herself in reasonable shape, best efforts sex (unless she was obese at the time of marriage, in that case he had fair warning).”

    Well it’ll look like I’m totally kissing ass here (seen as how I’m a recipient of Doug’s affection) but I’m in FULL agreement here. Personally I think the dude has a part in igniting fires in the bedroom but I’m of the opinion a woman never says no to her man. Mind you it’s a turn on for me just the idea of never being able to say no, so that could be why I voice this opinion. Just sayin..

    Like


  469. on August 22, 2009 at 6:30 pm easterkentucky

    Fuck your social-sexual mores
    bartering pay offs and outs, twiddling sentimental on the woes, wants, wanted woes and ways of marital issues and the smell of fresh bodily fluids. Small time petty trifling about the most banal matters of human existence.

    No bane, no pain and still plenty to gain.

    Lonewolf motherfuckin dropout and down the Hemingway.

    “but will somebody please think of the children? ” They will be raised –by wolves. Only the strongest shall survive, the rest shall be ripped to shreds and itty-bitty ugly bits.

    Like


  470. i’ve been wondering lately exactly what is slutty?

    i’m 27 and my # just hit 10 (for real, no reason to lie – i’m posting this quasi-anonymously online). that number is high in the rural midwest (where i’m from)…but when if/ when i tell CA guys that number they look at me like i might as well have told them i’m a virgin!

    Like


  471. 10 @ 27 is a virtual virgin in my part of the woods.

    Like


  472. on August 22, 2009 at 7:01 pm Comment_Whatever

    The heart of the ‘anger’ at Game from ‘conservatives’ is, of course, the profound mental damage that Game inflicts on their Pedestals.

    Here are a few quotes from the blog-sphere:

    PUA only explains the behavior of ungodly women. Note, I didn’t say “non-religious” women. I said ungodly women. Doing “game” in order to attract a godly woman is like telling Christian women to wear slutty clothing and swing on a pole in public to attract godly men. It’s a false and unbiblical approach.

    From a message on In Mala Fide

    What really pisses me off about you guys isn’t your message; it’s your attitude! You all have this attitude that you have the answers; that you’re better than we are because you try to have sex with disease ridden skanks, and we don’t.

    Do whatever you want to with your time and energy; you’re an adult, so you can make those decisions for yourself. We respect your right to do something we choose not to do, so you can damn well return the favor! Now go preach to someone who wants to hear your message…

    From a message on a Hawaiin Libertarian

    The churches are filled with single women. What a beta male should do is join a church. Any church.

    From a message on Mangan’s Blogspot

    This reader boldly declares that women AREN’T worse than thirty years ago…. at least ‘good women’ are as good. Then he stretches the definition of good girl broadly.

    He says ANY CHURCH is filled ENTIRELY with Good Girls! It’s a Good Girl BANAZA!

    The Pedestal LIVES!

    Basically, these men live to enable the bad behavior of women. They can tell me whatever *bleep* they want, that is what they do.

    Like


  473. C_W:

    Alias Clio IS a good girl.

    Or so I think…

    Like


  474. just curious, Tupac, what is a bad # in your part of the woods?

    Like


  475. No such thing.

    Personally, any girl out of college is “bad” for LTR in my eyes…

    Like


  476. amanda

    just curious, Tupac, what is a bad # in your part of the woods?

    My neck of the woods is NYC. Tupac’s is Miami, or thereabouts.

    First of all understand I like sluts to play with. Or certain kinds of sluts. Just not to commit my heart to, as in e.g. living with. Not to mention marrying and having kids with.

    What’s slutty is casual sex. Sex without any kind of developing or expected commitment. It isn’t slutty when a girl is deceived. I for one can forgive a little or brief period of casual just sex slutting it up, particularly if the girl feels bad about it.

    However if she doesn’t and really likes no commitment, sex totally divorced from feeling love sex, then that’s slutty. It will over time ratchet up her numbers.

    10 at 27 could come entirely from relationship sex. It’s a fairly high turnover of relationships, but it could.

    On the other hand, if the girl in question had had say sex with only 2 guys in successive 4 year relationships until she turned 25, and then had 8 casual fling sexual partners since, only one of whom she really felt much for, then she’s on her way to full slutdome. Course by 29 she’ll probably be over 30 by this later pattern.

    You can pretty reliably say that 30 for an under 30 girl is pretty slutty. Possibly she’ll genuinely reform.

    But …. will she be capable of deep oxytocin bonding after all that? Dubious.

    Like


  477. aoefe Personally I think the dude has a part in igniting fires in the bedroom but I’m of the opinion a woman never says no to her man.
    what about when she is dryer than a desert? Can a man turn his woman down?

    *sweetheart, I just got dental surgery*

    * I don’t give a darn, you beter get to licking or in divorce court my lawyer will give you a sticking*

    Like


  478. Chic:

    My anaconda don’t want none

    unless

    you

    got

    buns

    hon

    Like


  479. chic noir

    *sweetheart, I just got dental surgery*

    I excluded period of genuine illness from the marital obligation to not turn down reasonable amounts of best efforts sex Chic. aoefe was agreeing with what I presented.

    what about when she is dryer than a desert?

    How women start out and how they end up are two very different things chic.

    Look the guy should also feel obligated to do his best to seduce his wife. He should learn game.

    What I and I’m quite sure aoefe are against is this notion that women can just willy nilly deny men sex any time she feels like it, or any time she isn’t feeling a compelling urge herself. Women can OFTEN really enjoy sex when they don’t feel any push to do it to being with. The process can pull them.

    Sure you can come up with scenarios of men abusing this female sense of duty and putting no effort in, but clued in guys will enjoy the difference that putting in effort makes.

    A background sense of obligation on the part of BOTH marital partners to sex the other in a caring, best efforts way, makes a HUGE difference chic. It gets couples over humps.

    Like


  480. for the record, I think a wife should put out often for the most part except when she is sick or mentally not there.

    Like


  481. on August 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm Black Military Man

    “The real game changer would be a male contraceptive pill. If men had that, actual real control of their reproductive rights, a lot of this nonsense would fall by the wayside. No more “whoops” babies (and you’d be surprised how often they happen even inside marriages), and men would be able to choose the timing of their fatherhood in hopefully a clearheaded way.”

    ……………This was already invented way back in the 80’s, if not before. When they did a test launch they did not get that many takers.
    Men were not interested so they let it go and did not continue any further developments.

    Like


  482. Chic, I just want to ask you one question:

    If I had some nuts, hangin on the walls, what did I have honey?

    Like


  483. chic

    interesting conceptual package deal there “sick or ‘mentally not there'”

    do you mean insane or “not in the mood”?

    Like


  484. “What I and I’m quite sure aoefe are against is this notion that women can just willy nilly deny men sex any time she feels like it, or any time she isn’t feeling a compelling urge herself. Women can OFTEN really enjoy sex when they don’t feel any push to do it to being with. The process can pull them.”

    one time early on i tried to shit test my hub with the “i don’t feel like it” act, he kept pushing and pushing until i indignantly said “stop FORCING me!”, in his best sex voice–complete with exaggerated copulatory gaze– he said “i’m not forcing you, i’m persuading you”–which immediately cracked me up and made me see how dumb it was to say no–and i never did again, in fact sometimes the resistance/persuasion game is the best part

    Like


  485. “Deeez Nuuuts”

    Like


  486. It really is shocking how negative the comments on this blog become as the threads progress: everyone hating each other, trying to “one up” each other. Attempting to create some social hierarchy in this cyber pseudo-society…that doesn’t truly exist. It’s so crazy, and makes the people who comment here look so silly to the outside world.

    Spending too much time here creates an inaccurate impression of the world.

    Thank goodness the people who comment here are not reflective of the bulk of humanity. The people who comment here know this–thus the harsh way they shriek out their opinions; I’m sure it gives them a sense of control in a world that is not accepting of them.

    At least they have this blog and their own tiny blogs to vomit out their bitterness and insanity–the rest of the functioning, successful world would have nothing to do with such nonsense.

    Like


  487. on August 22, 2009 at 8:12 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    dana

    chic

    interesting conceptual package deal there “sick or ‘mentally not there’”

    do you mean insane or “not in the mood”?

    When I went insane, my boyfriend at the time used to have sex with me in order to create some sort of semblance of normality for me. Or even some momentary joy. It worked.

    Like


  488. Sofia–

    When I went insane, my boyfriend at the time used to have sex with me in order to create some sort of semblance of normality for me. Or even some momentary joy. It worked.

    I LOVE that. That’s definitely what I would have done.

    Good loving bf.

    btw, i read about that on your blog (though you didn’t include the bf sexing you then part) and don’t hold it against you at all.

    Actually my main thoughts about that were that you were fortunate that it was so apparently easy to get out of the facility you voluntarily went into. Not always so, at least in the states.

    Like


  489. dana interesting conceptual package deal there “sick or ‘mentally not there’”

    do you mean insane or “not in the mood”?

    insane? could be, but I was thinking more along the lines of the wife’s close coworker or friend died so she isn’t in the mood because she is grieving.

    tupac If I had some nuts, hangin on the walls, what did I have honey?

    something for the rats and squirrels to much on.
    *holds up clio flavored knuckle sandwich*
    Why are you messing with me tupac???

    anon Spending too much time here creates an inaccurate impression of the world

    tell me about it. anon*smile* I like you already.

    *calls over bartender*

    anons next drink is on me sir.

    Like


  490. Anon

    It really is shocking how negative the comments on this blog become as the threads progress: everyone hating each other, trying to “one up” each other.

    What’s actually shocking to you is the non adherence to PC lies and bullshiite here.

    Truth is spoken here.

    Lies are told by the feminist loving media, schools and unis.

    There’s absolutely no bar to anyone’s version of reality being expressed here.

    Yours is just regularly and totally defeated here.

    Like


  491. doug you are really roasting tonight🙂

    Like


  492. on August 22, 2009 at 8:23 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Doug,

    Oh, trust me, it wasn’t voluntary. Think two police officers pulling me over in the dead of (Canadian!) winter, while I was running half-naked and barefoot down the street. Yeah. I got away with a lot because I was still speaking sensically, and was able to lie about some of the worst parts, to the best of my ability considering the situation I was in. The only reason they released me before the 72 hours was up was because it was into the custody of my boyfriend + parents.

    Like


  493. chic noir

    so she isn’t in the mood because she is grieving

    But you see chic that’s so wrong headed.

    At least once the shock part of the grief at a loved one’s passing has passed, but the sadness and sense of loss poinantly remains.

    A good, gentle, soft and caring sexing by her man at that time, even though she doesn’t think she wants it to begin with, will almost certainly do her a world of good.

    She can still feel sad afterwards once again. but it will become a sweeter sadness and sense of loss. More a tristesse and less a black emptyness.

    I’m speaking from personal experience here chic.

    Like


  494. @Doug

    “As well I’m sorry any wife OWES her husband best efforts sex for the duration of the marriage. Non obese, keeps herself in reasonable shape, best efforts sex (unless she was obese at the time of marriage, in that case he had fair warning). ”

    Do husbands owe the same to their wives? (in your opinion)

    Like


  495. Kim

    Yes.

    I said so above.

    Like


  496. I gotta back Doug here. I can’t tell what other couples’ sex life is like, but when I see the wife getting fat (as it seems to happen with EVERY non-upper class woman in America) it tells me she doesn’t love him.

    By the way, I’m practicing Boston’s “Amanda” on guitar. Awesome!

    Like


  497. chic noir so she isn’t in the mood because she is grieving

    doug’s response But you see chic that’s so wrong headed.

    *snatches the jin and vodka from doug’s hand*

    Doug, if a woman is crying because her friend died or walking about the house looking like she will break down in tears at any minute, she doesn’t need a helping of your third arm. Give her some time, you will survive a week or two.

    A good, gentle, soft and caring sexing by her man at that time, even though she doesn’t think she wants it to begin with, will almost certainly do her a world of good.

    or she may feel dirty afterwards doug. Women who have it when they didn’t really want to are sometimes bothered about “it” afterwards.

    I’m speaking from personal experience here chic.
    *shakes finger at doug*

    You sir have had some freaky times. Whiskey has as well but won’t share. Will you share a few stories with us please*smiles sweetly*

    Like


  498. “or she may feel dirty afterwards doug. Women who have it when they didn’t really want to are sometimes bothered about “it” afterwards.”

    what kind of mentally ill woman EVEr feels that way in an LTR?

    Like


  499. you know who,

    Jihad is an integral part of Islam

    It is, but in the past Jihad was a state enterprise. The ancient Caliphates, and individual Islamic polities engaged in expansionist warfare against their neighbors. So did the pagan Greeks and Romans, and so did the Christian Europeans. Jihad is normal, from the time of its inception until the mid-20th century. Only from the scope of people living in a modern State does it look at all bizarre or immoral.

    It appears evil because it is evil.

    Like I said, feckless. Thanks for reinforcing my opinion.

    Er, what? It’s precisely Islamic apologists who hate Western civilization. The ones who oppose Islam are (usually) the ones defending Western civilization.

    The ones who oppose Islam are defending Christianity. That’s it. To the left Islam is another cutesy Asian religion like Buddhism. They collect them, so long as they stay irrelevant as a political faction.

    ‘Multiculturalism’ is all about superficiality; no one can actually hold different beliefs, Muslims included. If there were enough conservative Muslims that actually demanded the right to own their daughters and wives as property, and indiscriminately kill infidels and had the voting bloc to potentially see it happen there wouldn’t be any apologia going on. For now retarded Muslims are entitled to wave flags and chant irrelevant bullshit and continue to vote and work for their leftist masters who don’t respect their way of life.

    ‘Moderate Islam’ is like Reform Judaism, or Mainline Protestant Christianity. It’s window dressing. If it was anything but that, or had the potential to actually be a transformative force in Western politics outside of yet another identity voting bloc, it wouldn’t be supported by left-wingers.

    Like


  500. In my experience, the more slutty a girl, the unhappier she was. Promiscuity breeds cynicism and coldness of heart. The bitchiest girls I have known, bitchy in that deep seeded, angry way, were often the types who slept around easily. There is something about sexual promiscuity that breeds unhappiness in women. So many of them had psychological and emotional issues, were on anti-depressants, had drug or alcohol problems, etc. I think sex for them was a temporary means to escape their fundamental unhappiness.

    Now no one is perfect and I do not advocate putting women on pedestals, but the happier, nicer girls were the ones who maintained some personal standards, did not sleep around, or even refused premarital sex. Yes, there are few of those left in the world. Often they had some sort of religious belief system that they followed. I heard recently that there is some kind of religious revival in Sweden, of all places. Perhaps the place that was at the forefront of sexual liberation has grown tired of it all. If so, what an irony that would be. Perhaps Europe will finally begin to replenish is native population.

    I personally find a girl who is modest, has standards, and is restrained to be far more attractive than the slutty, let it all hang out, party club type girls. These types are admittedly rare though today. And restraint does not necessarily mean prudishness or frigidity. A modest girl can still be sexual, just not in an in your face way, public or promiscuous way. Their ginas still tingled for the same reasons that any other girl’s gina tingle but they seemed to have the better sense not to act on it, for whatever reason.

    I have dated a few virgins in my lifetimes. Again, they are still out there, albeit rare. They were not asexual either; but they did not buy into our culture and wanted something different and were not willing to have sex. Oh yeah, and they were STD free too because of that. I actually think a lot of us would be surprised by just how many women are still virgins well into their twenties. It is not a lot, but more than we think. They tend not to hang out at clubs in DC on the weekends of course.

    Like


  501. on August 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm Comment_Whatever

    Sofia,

    You’ve listed such a large number of problems… easy bruising, low-energy, and mental confusion that I don’t think you ‘went insane’ anymore than someone poisoned by some chemical ‘went insane’.

    You need to look for some unifying biological source for your problems. Not in your brain, your brain isn’t ‘bruising easily’. A real, physical, non-brain source.

    Easiest is see if you have iodine deficiency. I don’t have a link to the test, but basically they check your internal temperature(under the tongue, I think?). Low T3/T4 lowers the calorie burn rate of your cells. Yes, ALL OF THEM. This lowers body temperature and impairs the functions of all your body.

    I mention this because the test is easy, and iodine deficiency can basically cause any conceivable problem except hyperactivity.

    Heart rate often spikes if you have a food allergy. Taking your pulse after meals could check that. A physicians stethoscope only costs like 25 dollars, but is hardly necessary.

    I’d have a wide-range blood workup, just to see if anything shows up completely WRONG. Your goal is not to get the good doctor into ‘diagnose’ mode, your goal is to get a wide ranging blood test to see if something is WAY off. From there, the good doctor can diagnose.

    This is really a problem that doctors… that can find their own ass…. could help you on. It is key that you get a good one, or you are just wasting time. Some doctors are morons.

    Since I play a Doctor on TV, here is some side, but cheap, ruminating:

    Easy bruising started me thinking about some sort of problem with how your body makes collagen. My college level bio knowledge says Vitamin C is necessary to make collagen correctly, and might help. It is relatively unlikely, but it tests easy. Take A LOT of Vitamin C(0.5 gram per day or higher, buy it online to get it cheap) for a month or two and see if the bruising goes away.

    Even if Vitamin C problems aren’t the core, if your blood vessels are leaking throughout your body…. that would cause a wide range of symptoms, and if the Vitamin C improves the collagen enough to stop leaking, if only by covering for another problem… well, it’s not ideal, but you are pretty far from idea right now, right?

    But the thing is, this IS NOT a mental problem. It is some MAJOR problem that is creating all these sub-problems.

    The most important thing is that this is NOT in your head. Your head is being EFFECTED, your blood vessels are being EFFECTED(and might be the main problem), and your whole BODY is being effected(low energy).

    (I have become what I most hate, a white knight.😦 )

    Like


  502. on August 22, 2009 at 9:39 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Comment_Whatever,

    I really appreciate that you’ve bothered to look at my problems on a non-superficial level. At the risk of boring the other commenters, I’ll announce that you might as well overlook this unless you’re interested in my medical history.

    I’ve been to a variety of specialists, because many of my problems started surfacing around the same time (panic attacks, what I thought was severe depression, but was rediagnosed as bipolarity, nausea, spells of physical weakness, insomnia and seizures). The problem was suspected to be neurological, so I saw a neurologist, who countered that the problem was merely psychological, or rather, psychiatric.

    The thing is, I’m not “crazy” anymore. I would say the brunt of it lasted for about a year. (I was admitted to three psychiatric wards during that time, and attempted overdosing twice.) I was taking Clonazepam, Seroquel, Lorazepam, Lamotrigine, Cymbalta (an SSRI, I think?), and Lithium.

    I’m no longer on ANY medication, and aside from a major iron deficiency, everything with me is fine. I’ve always been anemic, and have always bruised easily. The only time my health as been an issue is when all those issues converged at once. Many of those problems were co-dependent; I went through a brief phase of not eating (not oweing to anorexia, just a marriage of agoraphobia and anxiety), and that was the causal link in the physical weakness, most likely.

    Like


  503. Comment Whatever-

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of “white knighting”.

    It won’t work all by itself, but if combined with other things…

    it will. It’s also just humanly good.

    Like


  504. on August 22, 2009 at 9:58 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    Doug, Comment_Whatever:

    I don’t think you guys are difficult of white-knighting in a way that’s characteristic of the way you see betas, that is, simpering or saccharine. This is why I appreciate A.J. Travis’ rejuvenation of what he sees as beta values: chivalry, loyalty, honesty, etc. Those qualities to me, in combination with other things, is what makes a truly Alpha mate.

    Like


  505. There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night, give her the hottest sex she’s had in years, and then leave in the morning and not call back for weeks.

    Personally, I’d argue that it’s better for her to experience that one time affair with an alpha than to have sex with a beta male. At least she can die knowing that she experienced true orgasmic bliss…

    As well I’m sorry any wife OWES her husband best efforts sex for the duration of the marriage.

    I just can’t see myself having sex with somebody who is forcing herself to have sex with me in order to please me. I’m not going to say that it’s rape, but I’d much rather be with a partner who wants to have sex with me in lieu of somebody who’s simply going through with the motions. If she’s not really in the mood to have sex, then you shouldn’t bother. It’s rather beta-like behaviour from my perspective…

    But …. will she be capable of deep oxytocin bonding after all that? Dubious.

    So she’s immunized against falling in love with a beta. I fail to see the downside.

    Like


  506. anon Spending too much time here creates an inaccurate impression of the world

    “tell me about it. anon*smile* I like you already.

    *calls over bartender*

    anons next drink is on me sir.”

    Chic,

    Thanks, I’ll take that drink.🙂 If it weren’t for comments like yours interjected here to bring some normality and humor to the situation, the threads wouldn’t even be worth reading. You’re a stronger and better woman than I to keep trying.

    And for the record, any comment that begins with “Doug 1” is always skipped over by me b/c reading most of your thoughts, I realized quickly, are a total waste of precious time. I just happen to see my comment this time in blockquotes.

    Like


  507. I saw Comment_Whatever’s pic when he linked to his blog a couple of times. Dude looks like a good guy.

    Like


  508. amanda:

    i’ve been wondering lately exactly what is slutty?

    i’m 27 and my # just hit 10 (for real, no reason to lie – i’m posting this quasi-anonymously online).

    Personally, I’d write off any girl with a two-digit number when it comes to serious relationships. To rack up such a number, a girl must have multiple shamefully slutty episodes or some major issues that serially destroy her relationships. (Or both.) Why would any sane man believe that with him as #11, everything will now be magically different?

    One can squabble about the exact lowest number with which a woman should be presumed a skank, but it’s definitely below two-digit level.

    that number is high in the rural midwest (where i’m from)…but when if/ when i tell CA guys that number they look at me like i might as well have told them i’m a virgin!

    To use an (imperfect) analogy, that’s kind of like someone being jailed for, say, car theft and discovering that his new neighbors are on average guilty of far worse crimes, so that he looks almost innocent among them. It still doesn’t mean that he should be treated as a normal honest man by the people outside. There is no effective limit to how low one can sink, but this doesn’t mean that there are no natural limits beyond which one should lose respectability.

    Like


  509. anon, I’m not spending so much time here lately because of the changing climate in the place as of late & I’ve been enjoying the summer.

    anon If it weren’t for comments like yours interjected here to bring some normality and humor to the situation, the threads wouldn’t even be worth reading.

    *smiles sweetly and blushed like a school girl*

    a little humor is always good. I believe some of the decent men and not so decent men who comment and lurk here are very stressed and need a healthy release from the BS in the non e-world. I hope chic noir gives them that release sometimes.

    Like


  510. on August 22, 2009 at 10:16 pm Sofia (formerly S.)

    What’s Comment_Whatever’s blog? If anyone would care to link me. I always like reading what he has to say.

    Like


  511. PA
    I saw Comment_Whatever’s pic when he linked to his blog a couple of times. Dude looks like a good guy.

    *smiles sweetly at comment_whatever*

    agreed he looks like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. he has such an innocent look, I want to squeeze his cheeks. I imagine rudy’s friend from the cosby show looks like comment_whatever as an adult.

    Like


  512. S. – I don’t recall the name of his blog. He may have in fact accidetnally linked to it. Its topics are unrelated to this blog’s usual themes.

    Chic – I knew he’d be your type😉

    Like


  513. @PA- the little boy sitting on the table beside theo, is what Comment_whatever may have looked like as a young boy.

    bonus for agnostic and thursday- alica keys is in this episode. Oh, aggie is gonna love this episode because alica was very very young.

    Like


  514. Perseus:

    In my experience, the more slutty a girl, the unhappier she was. Promiscuity breeds cynicism and coldness of heart. The bitchiest girls I have known, bitchy in that deep seeded, angry way, were often the types who slept around easily.

    As per the main point of Roissy’s above post, slutty girls usually choose highly attractive alpha guys for their sexual escapades. Each time, they are faced with the realization that for men that they throw themselves at, they are just sex toys, and as much as the sex is fun, being rejected in favor of the next conquest (or cheated on while deluded about the real state of affairs) is very painful for them. If a woman goes through such treatment, it’s unlikely that she’ll retain a sweet and happy personality (assuming she has one in the first place).

    Not to even get into what effect it will have for here ability to develop any real attraction for a normal guy afterwards. I think I’ve already cited this passage by Houellebecq, where a character in his short novel “Whatever” describes his ex-wife, but it certainly bears repeating:

    She had certainly been capable of love; she wished to still be capable of it, I’ll say that for her; but it was no longer possible. A scarce, artificial and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals which characterizes the modern era. Veronique had known too many discotheques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes a human being, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage. Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being, rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.

    Like


  515. on August 22, 2009 at 11:53 pm HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO

    I love the passage in Vlad’s post. Is the rest of the book any good?

    Like


  516. Second Vlad and Perseus. The most unhappy girl I ever knew pulled trains, stuff like that, all the time. Had five boyfriends in three months. Very unhappy. Married, divorced, re-married, divorced again. Quite sad.

    Like


  517. tupacchopra

    What do you know of sex?

    Not much probably.

    The hard penis actively penetrates the soft passive vagina.

    A woman softens her defenses to accept a determined male into her folds.

    The very nature of the sex act implies a differential.

    Like potential kinetic energy.

    Without that differential energy, there is no sexual spark.

    Otherwise, you simply have two equals masturbating themselves in isolated shells of atomized individuality.

    Cool story, bro. What does this have to do with equality?

    Doug1

    All of the domestic violence laws that make trivial acts of male “violence” into major deals, or even the mere accusation of them or purported threat of them enough to get no hearing restraining orders that force a man out of the home he paid for, are naked power grabs by feminists. Their purpose is to emascuate and neutralize any male physical dominance over women.

    There is no reason why men should have the right to physically dominate women, aside from defending themselves from attacks and so on.

    The effect of them for men with a lot to lose, as opposed to ghetto thugs and white biker types who are in fact the types who most often do the serious injury domestic violence, is to make it fully possible for women to slap and hit and scream right in the face of a high status male, while he can do nothing without serious consequences for him.

    And of course it does not occur to you to make it equally illegal for women to hit men.

    As well I’m sorry any wife OWES her husband best efforts sex for the duration of the marriage.

    No.

    aoefe

    Personally I think the dude has a part in igniting fires in the bedroom but I’m of the opinion a woman never says no to her man

    Hell yeah bro, let’s go rape some bitches. *fist bump*

    Comment_Whatever

    Here are a few quotes from the blog-sphere:
    From a message on In Mala Fide:

    What’s wrong with that message? It’s absolutely spot-on.

    Basically, these men live to enable the bad behavior of women. They can tell me whatever *bleep* they want, that is what they do.

    You’re shifting blame. It’s PUAs etc. who enable the bad behavior of women.

    dana

    one time early on i tried to shit test my hub with the “i don’t feel like it” act

    You’re an idiot and a low quality woman.

    K

    It is, but in the past Jihad was a state enterprise. The ancient Caliphates, and individual Islamic polities engaged in expansionist warfare against their neighbors. So did the pagan Greeks and Romans, and so did the Christian Europeans. Jihad is normal, from the time of its inception until the mid-20th century. Only from the scope of people living in a modern State does it look at all bizarre or immoral.

    Jihad, by its very nature, is never-ending. It’s religious warfare commanded by Allah, valid for all times and places, for as long as infidels exist. It’s nothing like regular expansionist warfare, which is temporal.

    Like I said, feckless. Thanks for reinforcing my opinion.

    No, it’s just evil. Sorry.

    The ones who oppose Islam are defending Christianity. That’s it.

    Western civilization.

    To the left Islam is another cutesy Asian religion like Buddhism. They collect them, so long as they stay irrelevant as a political faction.

    And yet leftists work tirelessly to enable and empower Islam, and viciously attack anyone who gets in the way of that.

    Like


  518. whiskey,

    But she was an adult and did it out of her own free will.

    There is a reason that I think my interactions with professional escorts are also my most honest interactions with women.

    Like


  519. whiskey,

    But she was an adult and did it out of her own free will.

    There is a reason that I think my interactions with professional escorts are also my most honest interactions with women.

    Like


  520. Tupac Chopra,

    It is not about men’ rights and women’s rights. The real problem is that we are at war with ourself.

    Nietzsche got it right when he said that humans are neither fully animal nor fully rational. Technology (and it’s down stream effects) has however pushed us in a direction where we cannot remain what are are. At this rate, we will either go extinct or become something beyond human.

    Fairness is necessary, not because of any inherent sense of justice, but because it is rational. You cannot get maintain anything beyond an agricultural fiefdom with our current attitudes. Now you might say, why not go back? The answer is that our ability to destroy and kill others is so effective and so widespread that NOBODY CAN WIN.

    Animals and most humans operate under zero sum assumptions (I can win only if you lose). However the widespread use of technology allows us to be non-zero sum (I can win more than you, but you will still benefit). Unless this new way of thinking is internalized in our civilizations and institutions, we are doomed.

    The alpha, beta and omega concept does not work in a technological society because 19 men with boxcutters can kill over 3,000 people (many of them alphas). Lion and gorillas do not have handguns, bioweapons or a existence so utterly dependent on everyone else willingly playing nice.

    If we do not fix our own shit, the course of events will fix it for us… and neither of us are going to like that solution to this equation.

    Like


  521. Chic for what it’s worth you’re a very pretty chick! You’ve referenced your eyes and now I see why – tres gorgello.

    Like


  522. The solution to all the social problems caused by liberalism is simple: amplify liberalism’s natural state of chaos to the point of total system destruction.

    Men should dump their normal jobs, and go into careers in organized crime, leeching off the state, and full time pick up artistry. Like a combined super-lair and fight club/project mayhem.

    Large scale networks of crime lords and alphas murdering their away across the decadent remnants of western civilization, and taking whatever women they want.

    John Robb’s Global Guerrillas combined with Moldbug’s worst nightmares of total chaos.

    What’s stopping anyone from planning long term criminal enterprises and devoting themselves purely to power, warfare, and sex?

    Nothing at all.

    Western civilization isn’t worth saving. It’s worth going out with a total fucking bang. Take all you can while the chips are low.

    Our elites did it, why can’t we?

    Like


  523. epiphany

    Western civilization isn’t worth saving.

    And it’s all thanks to people like you.

    Like


  524. @epiphany

    “Men should dump their normal jobs, and go into careers in organized crime, leeching off the state, and full time pick up artistry. ”

    Hmmm… the “higher up” you go in the corporate world, this pretty much becomes your career. And attempting to climb the latter is our normal job right?

    Literally true. It’s hard to win big gov’t contracts without organized crime. Leeching off the state is lucrative. And I can tell you 50% of the board members/execs of publicly traded companies got something going on on the side.

    Like


  525. K
    Exactly backwards. Women getting the right to vote was what started the US on the road to hell.
    Women can vote because men wanted it to be so. So obviously the on-ramp to the ‘road to hell’ doesn’t start there.

    You’re assuming that the men who wanted this both knew and cared that it would lead to hell. Not so. Few, if any, could have anticipated the social evils of the coming century, and most were simply interested in immediate political gain.

    Like


  526. on August 23, 2009 at 7:08 am msexceptiontotherule

    I’m pretty sure that it’s more likely that women got the right to vote because they were …persistent…about making everyone’s lives miserable until they got to vote too. Not so much men wanting it to be so, unless they wanted it to be so, in order to be let back into the marital bed, or harped on about the issue at home and even when they were at work. A mob of protesting women walking around has to be pretty unpleasant. Perhaps they got to vote because it was the only thing that would make them quiet down and go back to taking care of the house and kids.

    Like


  527. You’re assuming that the men who wanted this both knew and cared that it would lead to hell. Not so. Few, if any, could have anticipated the social evils of the coming century, and most were simply interested in immediate political gain.

    Maybe, but some people did nopt have their eyes closed. Here’s what H.L. Mencken had to say in 1917:

    Thus there is not the slightest chance that the enfranchised women of Protestantdom, once they become at ease in the use of the ballot, will give, any heed to the ex-suffragettes who now presume to lead and instruct them in politics. Years ago I predicted that these suffragettes, tried out by victory, would turn out to be idiots. They are now hard at work proving it. Half of them devote themselves to advocating reforms, chiefly of a sexual character, so utterly preposterous that even male politicians and newspaper editors laugh at them;

    You can read it here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1270

    Like


  528. Women got the vote not because of anything they did, but because Leftists wanted to expand the franchise.

    Nicole’s take on it is such complete drivel it’s not even worth addressing the multiple errors in detail.

    Like


  529. Tarl says, “Women got the vote not because of anything they did, but because Leftists wanted to expand the franchise.”

    Durr…of course leftists wanted to expand the franchise.

    Do you think all men could vote when the nation was founded?

    Like


  530. on August 23, 2009 at 9:14 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””””MsException,
    I’m also way too young to believe that I won’t want someone in my life after I’ve given enough time for myself to grieve. I don’t think I’ll ever in my life be able to “get over” or “move on” fully, rather, a future relationship will not be compared on a scale of “better than” against to the one I had, because it’s a different person and a different relationship.””””””””’

    Poor little midget (:
    I guess we can make an exception for ya.
    Although you supposed to comit suicide and be tossed in same coffin with dead hubby.

    Like


  531. Tarl, let me explain it in a way that perhaps you can understand.

    If you could not vote, do you believe that those who could, would give a flying fart about your rights?

    I assure you, they would not. In the past, those who could vote did not give a flying fart about anybody’s rights who did not have the connections and resources to take their concerns to court.

    Cases involving property rights of non voters were sometimes taken to court by charitable lawyers, but the precedents set in most of these cases ended up benefitting people who already could vote and had money. In one case in particular concerning the property rights of a freed slave, I don’t remember what it was called, it was used by corporations and never again to defend the property rights of a freed slave.

    Much dirt was being done because if you didn’t have a vote, you didn’t have a say in what happened. Period.

    If you think that the men who suffered from not having a right to vote were suffering alone, you’re fucked in the head. Their mothers, wives, and other female relatives were suffering right along with them. They learned about the importance of having a right to vote from their husbands, dads, and brothers being shit on.

    You can minimize women’s contributions to the nation if you like, and that’s your right to your opinion…but it just makes you look like a silly baby having a tantrum like Lucifer.

    Women got the right to vote, and were interested in getting and maintaining that right because if they didn’t have it, they had no legal protection or recourse except by the whims of people who were happy to be literally owning others until shortly before that in history. Then when they were done being legally able to own others, they were happy to exploit people and have them working dangerous back breaking jobs and paying them a pittance for it. If you think the country before women getting the right to vote was some kind of idyllic utopia where everybody was middle class or above, and the haves were concerned about the health and lives of the have nots, you’re delusional.

    Like


  532. Since we’re talking about sluts, this isn’t entirely off topic: A man who paid a woman for sex is resisting child support requests after the prostitute had his baby.

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25963638-661,00.html

    Like


  533. the notion that women wanted the vote for economic or political reasons is ludicrous.

    the only true tyranny western women have ever lived under is the twin tyranny of Nature and Consequences, and if you look at “women’s issues” they are ALL about liberating women from both–not from “men” or “the patriarchy” or some political inequities

    abortion, birthcontrol, “child care”, “health care”, maternity leave, the right not to be hit after flirting shamelessly like a whore or screaming your man has a little dick.

    all about freeing women from the vicissitudes of their own physicality.

    Like


  534. Dana, female slaves and lower class women whose fathers, husbands and sons regularly died at other men’s hands are women too.

    Do you figure having a vagina renders someone unconscious of people dying around them, or their own suffering because the folks who got the bright idea of mob rule, didn’t take into account that if only the greediest sector of the mob is ruling, you still end up with twisted feudalism? Oh, only this time, the lords are people who don’t have enough culture or a strong enough heritage to understand it’s not a good idea to shit on your own plate.

    Like


  535. It’s hard to believe that here, of all places, some people are still falling for the hype of radical feminists deserving the credit for women’s suffrage.

    Whether you’re thanking or cursing them for it, if you believe that load of crap, you’re still a bleating grass eating sheep.

    The people have decided that women have the right to vote. If you don’t like it, move to a country where they don’t.

    If the mob rules, then the whole mob has to rule. Though it isn’t a perfect system, it’s the best thing going. If it’s doomed, it was doomed from Plato, not from Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

    Like


  536. When women got the vote the image in people’s minds was that of sturdy wife-frontierswoman types voting populist/religious. I don’t think anyone foresaw brainless college-cunts and cougars voting for Kennedy or Obama.

    Like


  537. pa because no one EVER imagined hordes of single women–period

    Like


  538. on August 23, 2009 at 11:05 am msexceptiontotherule

    …Gunslingergregi
    Poor little midget (:
    I guess we can make an exception for ya.
    Although you supposed to comit suicide and be tossed in same coffin with dead hubby…

    The practice of the widow joining her dead husband on the funeral pyre (or else find she’s shunned and brings shame upon her family) isn’t observed in all cultures, and definitely not by any cultures found in my heritage.

    I’m going to go break some rules now, probably the one about not feeding the ducks, as a starting point. Then maybe I’ll move on to jaywalking and taking my dog for a walk in the area owned by the county that backs up to my hoa community..as long as there aren’t any neighbors there, since most of them creep me out with what I think is supposed to be efforts to be nice…maybe..yick.

    Like


  539. on August 23, 2009 at 11:14 am Gunslingergregi

    Puleeaaseeee do not patronize me msexception🙂

    Like


  540. on August 23, 2009 at 11:16 am Gunslingergregi

    I am what some would refer to as captain save a ho. I run a non profit so far organization to rehilibate hos or even widows and give them the courage to return back to the wild.

    Like


  541. pa because no one EVER imagined hordes of single women–period

    Especially since womens’ sufferage amendment was passed in 1920, when the voting age was 21. In 1920, the median age at first marriage for women was 21.2.

    Voting for 18 year olds didn’t come around until 1971.

    Like


  542. When women got the vote the image in people’s minds was that of sturdy wife-frontierswoman types voting populist/religious. I don’t think anyone foresaw brainless college-cunts and cougars voting for Kennedy or Obama.

    @ PA —

    Cougars and such, no. But I think Mencken, among others, foresaw the folly. The gist of it being that women were primarily concerned with certain matters (pertaining to themselves, as Dana points out) rather than broader issues. This is, in fact, precisely how things played out once the second wave hit with the boomers. Feminist politics is largely the politics of female narcissism.

    Like


  543. — But I think Mencken, among others, foresaw the folly.

    Auster is right when he says that the difference between a conservatie and a traditionalist is that the latter is better equipped to fersee malign social effects of certain thngs, even in absence of present indcators.

    — Feminist politics is largely the politics of female narcissism

    I agree, though with the caveat that true feminism is essentially a lesbian supremacist movement. Garden-variety regular women feminists are, like you said, narcissists who parrot what’s fashionable, and single women who hedge their bets for when their sexual market value drops with age.

    Like


  544. Plato? Plato was opposed to universal suffrage of a one person, one vote variety. His concept of ‘political justice’ in a democracy was a system where those with more merit had more power in society and more power at the ballot box. Philosophers like himself having the most merit of all of course.

    Your contention that people are incapable of receiving ‘rights’ if they don’t have the political right to vote is unconvincing as well. Our culture views voting as a right, and enfranchising the entire population at the age of majority was a moral imperative, as was ending slavery, and the civil rights movement.

    A counter-factual scenario where American populism never arrives, and liberty is strictly viewed in a Hobbesian rather than Lockean sense doesn’t immediately mean that our otherwise puritanical culture wouldn’t still be on a crusade for egalitarian ‘liberty’ of every other stripe.

    There are plenty of historical examples where populations that could not vote (and indeed where there wasn’t any democracy at all) were relatively well treated by the standards of the period so long as they paid taxes and obeyed laws, and almost as many examples of populations being treated abhorently despite the ability to vote.

    Democracy is inherently discriminatory; majority rule. It does not promote egalitarianism, it represses it. That is something that is derived from our culture not the system. The two should not be conflated.

    The Godwinian example: German Jews could vote in the 1930s, but that didn’t stop all of the gentiles around them from seating enough Nazis to Parliament to overthrow it all, just as they promised they would. In the German Empire prior to WWI, and pre-unification Prussia, there was no democracy worth speaking of and everyone still hated Jews, but Jews paid taxes and contributed to society so the aristocrats didn’t care what bigotries the peasants and merchant class held. After WWI, the Allies in foisting a Republican form of government onto the Germans might have seemed a lot like handing ‘The People’ ballots, but in reality it was a lot more like handing them pitchforks and torches and the results should have been predictable.

    For some reason though no one involved was capable of seeing that democracy could potentially have a down side. If you took the brightest minds of the early 20th century, showed them 21st century Egypt, they would without a doubt recommend it be democratized immediately. The reliable result would of course be that the Muslim Brotherhood would soon be the rulers of Egypt just like they overrun every democratic labor and student union in the country. Much of the world would be colossally fucked by such a turn, but no one more so than Egyptian minorities.

    You’ll notice that the generation of geniuses that oversaw the democratization of Germany was roughly the same generation that saw universal suffrage come into effect. Surprise, surprise. Not to worry, more democracy is a panacea. Under democracy things are always getting better all the time, and the more people voting the better things will be! With everyone enfranchised everyone will be informed and educated and smart regarding politics!

    That was actually the prevailing thought of the mainstream left from the mid 19th century until right after universal suffrage, when Wilsonian ‘democracy’ came on the scene. The system is indeed doomed though.

    Like


  545. It is not about men’ rights and women’s rights. The real problem is that we are at war with ourself.

    Nietzsche got it right when he said that humans are neither fully animal nor fully rational. Technology (and it’s down stream effects) has however pushed us in a direction where we cannot remain what are are. At this rate, we will either go extinct or become something beyond human.

    Fairness is necessary, not because of any inherent sense of justice, but because it is rational. You cannot get maintain anything beyond an agricultural fiefdom with our current attitudes. Now you might say, why not go back? The answer is that our ability to destroy and kill others is so effective and so widespread that NOBODY CAN WIN.

    Animals and most humans operate under zero sum assumptions (I can win only if you lose). However the widespread use of technology allows us to be non-zero sum (I can win more than you, but you will still benefit). Unless this new way of thinking is internalized in our civilizations and institutions, we are doomed.

    The alpha, beta and omega concept does not work in a technological society because 19 men with boxcutters can kill over 3,000 people (many of them alphas). Lion and gorillas do not have handguns, bioweapons or a existence so utterly dependent on everyone else willingly playing nice.

    If we do not fix our own shit, the course of events will fix it for us… and neither of us are going to like that solution to this equation.

    Like


  546. Spree Killer Sodini Leaves $225,000 To Alma Mater
    http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20090818_ap_healthclubgunmanleaves225000estatetopitt.html

    Health club spree killer George Sodini has willed his estate which is estimated at $225,000 to the University of Pittsburgh. Michael Sodini, brother of George, filed the court papers Friday.

    Like


  547. Hey people,

    We cannot go back.. what has happened cannot be undone. If any of you think that we are going back to the 1850s, with the “white man” manifest destiny bullshit.. keep dreaming.. the odds for a second coming of christ are higher.

    All white conservative movements are prayers.. prayers to raise the dead and decomposed. Feminist movements are no different..

    Like


  548. The reliable result would of course be that the Muslim Brotherhood would soon be the rulers of Egypt just like they overrun every democratic labor and student union in the country.

    There’s always the Turkish solution where the country is rather democratic, but the military reserves the right to oust any remotely Islamist government that comes to power per their constitution’s commitment to secular government.

    Like


  549. Health club spree killer George Sodini has willed his estate which is estimated at $225,000 to the University of Pittsburgh.

    I wonder what the discussions are inside that institution. Are they able to take the money without qualms as just another donation? Will they face a backlash from feminists if they do? Will the moral repugnance alone stop them from taking the cash? I personally think if they could accept without the public knowing (moot point now) they would.

    Like


  550. The article above suggests that there will be claims on the money from victim’s families and a rep from Pit says they weren’t sure they’d take the money anyway. I love the emphasis on “not sure”. I still claim if they could get away with it without anyone knowing they would. They could easily rationalize it by declaring his ‘mental illness’ a development that impaired his judgement in later stages of his life but his decision to donate money to their fine institution showed he had at one point been in touch with reality. Just sayin…

    Like


  551. K, that’s kind of my point. Plato was one of the main forerunners of the idea of democracy, and it’s been snowballing ever since. Government isn’t a one size fits all thing, and the culture of the people being governed has to be taken into account.

    In the U.S. there was a “melting pot” of cultures, with different ideas of merit being tested against an economy with fewer rules and restrictions, little or no traditional checks against cheating and exploitation. Popular rights had to mean popular rule. There was no other way to ensure that everybody’s wellbeing would be looked after.

    Theoretically it is within the realm of possibility to have a caring ruling class. It just hasn’t happened yet.

    Like


  552. The Unniversity of Pittsburgh will donate the money to its “women studies” department, which will work hrd to create much more Sodinis in the future

    Like


  553. I am not a scholar about Ancient Greece, but AFAIK Athens never extended the suffrage to any of those who were originaly excluded from it. Americans, who love to universalyze the American experience, believe that the decline of Athens matches ipsis literis the decline of the US

    Like


  554. gig,

    You see it as tragedy, I see it as entertainment.

    Like


  555. In a way, it’s kind of obscene for the victims families to want his money.

    Like


  556. on August 23, 2009 at 12:47 pm Lucifer
    =
    epic comment

    Like


  557. aoefe Chic for what it’s worth you’re a very pretty chick! You’ve referenced your eyes and now I see why – tres gorgello.

    *Smiles sweetly and blushes like a school girl*

    thank you aoefe🙂

    Like


  558. Lucifer

    talk more about biochemicals. Stop cheerleading for the end of the world. You look bad in short skirts

    Some things amaze me in this blog, specially how I systematically agree/disagre with the same posters no matter the subject

    I was wondering if I should post that Lucifer´s comment at 12:47 was the ‘moronic comment of the day” and updated the page, just to read that Chic Noir considered it brilliant.

    Like


  559. Ghost of Nicole:

    “I’m saying you don’t get strong sons from weak willed women.

    “The proof is all around you.

    ….

    “The nation is full of pussies because being a strong willed woman stopped being sexy after the 50’s.”

    First of all, I believe they used to refer to strong willed women as, simply, women; the weak-willed as you’ve described it would be girls.

    Second, in another part you mention how the strong-willed (read, intelligent, mature, realistic woman) would realize that her son(s) need men for raising. Ergo women –strong or otherwise– are neither necessary nor sufficient for raising strong sons; that’s a man’s job –be it the father, a father, a coach, a drill sergeant, a gang-leader, a professor, a sensei, whatever. Cf. Camille Paglia -almost any Salon column.

    Third, why did strong-willed women stop being sexy after the 50’s? One possible answer comes to mind: because after the 50’s came the 60’s and with the 60’s came a juridicial regime that gave women –regardless of force of personality, formal power and comparative advantage. Cf. Eddie Murphy’s “Half” skit. How to deal with that? Perhaps men select(ed) for weak-willed women knowing that, if any conflicts are taken out of the house the law will be on the wife’s side. Therefore, why marry a ‘strong-willed’ (willful? uppity? dominating?) woman who will be more likely to recognize this outside the contract enforcement bias when one might marry a submissive woman who will be comparatively less-likely to recognize and take advantage (word used advisedly) of that unfair structure. Not that the tactic has worked out particularly well. I only offer possible explanation and mitigation, not excuse.

    Like


  560. CZ, unless men plan on giving birth, breastfeeding, and taking over the early nurturing of their sons, strong women are needed to do that. Weak women, aside of possibly not having the genes to even make potentially strong sons with any reliable regularity, are going to produce brats who, by the time they get to the drill sergeant or coach, will wash out because they freaked out from breaking a nail or something.

    Like


  561. gig,

    I am not cheerleading.. I am just watching the show.

    Like


  562. I just love how Nicole responds to articulate, pointed and well crafted posts that address her previous claims…

    by utterly sidestepping it entirely and bringing up a tangential issue.

    Like


  563. I’ll let you know what I think of this post as soon as I’m over my hysterical laughing…

    Might take a while…oh, god that was good!

    Like


  564. Okay, I’m back now and I’ve actually got a comment (sort of)🙂.

    I use to nag at the lesbian community for the “over analysis of their particular sexual fetishes and sexuality”. Now I find that straight men are doing the same thing.

    I’m just saying, it seems like your trying too hard to figure women out. I just picture some skinny beta guy at a table in a night club, quivering in his undies, trying to put each woman he see’s in this category or that category. He’s MISSING the oppurtunity to speak to her because she’s a little over weight and now he’s analyzing whether or not she’s a fat slut or will still reject him, or this or that…

    Like


  565. *grabs popcorn*

    Like


  566. — Now I find that straight men are doing the same thing. I’m just saying, it seems like your trying too hard to figure women out

    Men have been “overanalyzing” women since Song of Solomon or Kama Sutra. Nothing new about it here.

    I just picture some skinny beta guy at a table in a night club, quivering in his undies, trying to put each woman he see’s in this category or that category.

    Nah, “skinny betas” get discouraged very early in their teens and most just drop out entirely. The few who pull themselves up by their nutsack and try to become more attractive … actually do become more attractive and shed their betatude.

    Sites like this one are a great resource for younger guys who want to do better with girls. Teetering lesbos notwithstanding.

    he’s analyzing whether or not she’s a fat slut or will still reject him, or this or that

    Guys don’t analyze if she’s fat. They can see it immediately. As to whether or not she is a slut… it’s a good idea to know if she is one if it comes to an LTR or mariage.

    Like


  567. Nicole:

    If you could not vote, do you believe that those who could, would give a flying fart about your rights?

    The most protected group in society is children, and they can’t vote. Children are protected even to the detriment of the parents sometimes, so what you are saying does not necessarily follow.

    Like


  568. dana
    *grabs popcorn*

    *holds up box*
    have some milk duds dana

    Like


  569. ““There is no surer way to raise a woman’s hopes of winning a high quality boyfriend than to have an alpha seduce her for a night..”

    Makes me wonder if beta males get one night stands. Can the betas here shed some light? Just curious.”

    We do get one night stands but it’s due to several reasons. One of them is if a woman breaks up with a bf and she wants to see if she can get someone. She usually sleeps around with Alpha’s but if you are at the right place and time then you get a free pass.

    Another reason is if she’s with an Alpha and he persuades her to sleep with you.

    Like


  570. Ghost of Nicole,

    Ghost of Nicole, to clarify, correct, and amend: Again, you seem to be defining a basic, competency-level womanhood as “strong.” I think that’s where our disagreement is. I’ll concede any genetic point as I am trying to discuss personality traits –or are you attempting to define away that issue also by arguing that a certain physical strength or endowment not merely correlates to, but guarantees, a certain strength of personality. Genes are all? I would say correlates but does not guarantee.

    I think you are arguing that teenage/early-adulthood rites of passage for young men, which I am arguing necessarily have to be conducted by older men, is not all. Fine. Granted.

    Nonetheless, it doesn’t contradict my basic view that, personality-wise, unless the woman in question is an outlier on the left-side of the strength of personality bell curve, she should be able to, within a normally functioning culture, and barring any shocks to the system, raise a male ready, willing, and able to join the trial at the next level. Further to that point, even the strongest woman cannot guarantee that her son will pass into manhood. I think you overstate the importance of mom. It’s difficult to do, but still possible.

    Look, everyone knows the male genetic bell-curve is flatter than the female: more geniuses on one end, more retards on the other. And everyone knows that the present genetic legacy maths out to something like 80% of all the women who ever lived contributing as against 40% of all the men. All I’m saying is that personality-wise a similar reality probably holds: 80/20 Rule; as long as the woman isn’t way out there on the personality weakness scale, normal cultures have been able to turn her boy into a man. That’s not denying how great it would be to have a strong mom. But let’s not go overboard. There’s a female analogue to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman’s admonition to Private Joker about tutoring Private Pyle: “Private Joker, he’s silly and he’s ignorant, but he’s got guts and guts is enough….”

    Like


  571. Arpagus, children are protected because their parents and a critical mass of people concerned for their wellbeing are voters.

    Have a gander at what life was like for a great many children in the U.S. in the 19th and early 20th century.

    http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

    …and guess who were very active in demonstrations for child labor reform?

    It wasn’t the upper class property owning White men, that’s for sure.

    Like


  572. Animals and most humans operate under zero sum assumptions (I can win only if you lose). However the widespread use of technology allows us to be non-zero sum (I can win more than you, but you will still benefit). Unless this new way of thinking is internalized in our civilizations and institutions, we are doomed.

    @ Lucifer —

    Non-zero is an interesting theory about the future. As you probably know, Rob Wright has written a book about this.

    The issue I see with it is that people generally do not see that kind of institutional inequality as being “fair”. In other words, the idea that some are more equal than others, or that some win more than others, even though the relative ‘losers’ are better than they would be if they did not play at all, strikes many as cold comfort and institutionalized unfairness.

    Like


  573. @nicole- actually, they did – the progressive movement was all educated white males concerned about the problems of society, as they saw them, and leading efforts to change things.

    @tupac/desmond – nice gravatar. you a “Lost” fan?

    Like


  574. Ghost of Nicole

    Tarl says, “Women got the vote not because of anything they did, but because Leftists wanted to expand the franchise.”

    Durr…of course leftists wanted to expand the franchise.

    Do you think all men could vote when the nation was founded?

    Well, cunt, that kind of undermines your theory that women got the vote because the suffragettes were fighting, bleeding, dying for social justice. In fact women got the vote because of anything they did, but because leftist men wanted to increase their own political power.

    Tarl, let me explain it in a way that perhaps you can understand.

    If you understood it yourself you’d be in a better position to lecture other people about it.

    In the past, those who could vote did not give a flying fart about anybody’s rights who did not have the connections and resources to take their concerns to court.

    It is completely untrue that people who could not vote in this country had “no rights”.

    You can minimize women’s contributions to the nation if you like, and that’s your right to your opinion…but it just makes you look like a silly baby having a tantrum like Lucifer.

    The main contribution of women to this nation prior to 1920 was reproducing.

    The only person having a whiny tantrum right now is you.

    Women got the right to vote, and were interested in getting and maintaining that right because if they didn’t have it, they had no legal protection or recourse except by the whims of people who were happy to be literally owning others until shortly before that in history.

    More stupid leftist crap! The nonsense they teach in Womyn’s Studies is just astonishing.

    If you think the country before women getting the right to vote was some kind of idyllic utopia where everybody was middle class or above, and the haves were concerned about the health and lives of the have nots, you’re delusional.

    Inane drivel like this is testimony to your own delusions, not mine. You are clearly living in leftist lala-land.

    I’m not even going to respond to all the asinine strawmen you’ve created, since I have no obligation to defend positions I did not take.

    Like


  575. Maurice, the labor unions got the job done. The “progressive movement” commented from where the privileged leftists usually do.

    Like


  576. Tarl says, “Well, cunt, ”

    You could have just saved the rest of the post.

    If your history professors failed you, I’m not going to be able to make up for that.

    …and I also can’t make you value a contribution to society if you don’t want to. I’ll mention something, and you’ll just say it is unimportant.

    You’ve already reduced giving birth to unimportance.

    So just pretend like you were never born and fuck off.

    Like


  577. Nicole, child labor did no exist because women couldn’t vote, but because people were poor. People put their children to work by necessity, just like they still do in parts of the third world today. As times get better, children leave the work force. Multiple studies show that parents take their children out of the labor force as soon as they can afford it. No women’s suffrage required. Furthermore, it is cruel to deny poor people the choice to have their children work when conditions are actually so dire that it is a necessity. Closing sweatshops by law is not the solution. Child labor, as bad is it is, may be a necessary step for a country to industrialize.

    Like


  578. Arpagus, to say that the child labor didn’t exist because women couldn’t vote is as much speculation as saying that it became illegal at the time that it did because women could vote. It’s hard to say for certain without being a telepath, but the timing is just uncanny.

    18 years after the 19th Amendment, the minimum working age became federally regulated. A year before that, they fell just short of enough votes. Whether the pressure to get enough came from male or female voters is unknown, but for certain, there being female voters meant that there were more voters…which meant more pressure on Congress.

    As I said before, women’s suffrage happened because it was felt by the people, that it needed to. Child labor in sick conditions was one of the things that convinced the people that it needed to. Along with that were generally horrid conditions for even adult laborers, the inordinate amount of power that business owners weilded over others…so long as everybody couldn’t vote, the people who could were stomping on the people who couldn’t.

    Now, as I’ve said to others, I can’t make something important to you if it’s not. I do think however, that some people here are viewing this through a lense that is filtered through their current status rather than that of their ancestors.

    Those of you who were not born into Mayflower money would currently not be able to vote if some people had their way back then. Again, some of you may be optimistic enough to think that if the franchise had not expanded, the U.S. would be a better place, but I do not.

    I do not trust my fate to people who can profit from exploiting me. You are welcome to if you like.

    Like


  579. Here’s the reference for the studies demonstrating the withdrawal of third-world children from the labor force as incomes rise.

    “The Global Child Labor Problem: What Do We Know and What Can We Do?”

    Kaushik Basu and Zafiris Tzannatos

    http://wber.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/147

    This is not a matter of voting, but economics. You think like a leftist.

    Like


  580. omfg

    child labor ALWAYS existed, wtf do you think poor kids did before the industrial revolution? played nintendo?

    the industrial revolution, “child labor” and women entering the factories raised the standard of living for poor people dramatically and thats why the population started increasing astronomically.

    there was so much work for women and children that at some point it caused the original “mancession” and the men were staying home drinking gin and suffering.

    most efforts to get women and children out of the labor force are actually an attempt to reassert men into their position as heads of the household and sole providers, there will be another one.

    Like


  581. Arpagus, I’m not talking about the world. I’m talking about what was going on in the U.S. between 1780 and 1940 or so.

    I don’t presume to have the answer to the world’s problems, and I’ve said that there isn’t a one size fits all solution to everybody’s issues, and that culture has to be taken into account.

    U.S. culture was one of slavery, exploitation, and uninhibited shameless despotism and debauchery for some, and abject poverty and degradation for others. Far from the pretty words of liberty and freedom penned by our forefathers, it was a hell hole whose flag was little more than the washcloth of a whore. It was a whore nation where the pimps at the top profitted from the blood and dirt and pain of masses of people at the bottom.

    Yet she was the best whore in the world, so people came from far and wide to get a piece of her.

    You’ll have to forgive those who, as she aged and settled, wanted to put a little balm on her herpes, and wash her underwear, and make her the nation she was advertised to be.

    Like


  582. Doug,

    if you love gay men so much, why don’t you shack up with one? Then you can “create and stuff” together to your hearts content.

    Like


  583. Nicole

    I think you have a key point backwards. See, political power is never something anyone gets because they asked for it and it was then “given” to them. In the real world, emerging groups demonstrate that they have become or are becoming to important to ignore in the public sphere. In a sane system, space is made for them at the Table. In sick systems(The Middle East, for example) emerging groups are shut out. But no one “gives” voting rights to groups with little contribution to public affairs.
    As I said earlier, the elites extended voting rights in Britain and America to ordinary men and women precisely at the same time it was demonstrated that those states could not survive modern wars without their full outside-the-safety-of-hearth & home participation.

    Like


  584. Roissy’s great love turning out to be a slut: That I can live with.
    Women and the vote: That I can live with.
    That c u n t may be a moderation trigger: That I can live with.
    The return of the contrarian fist of you know who: That I can live with.
    Fears of the death of Western Civ: That I can live with.
    The threat of race wars: That I can live with.

    What absolutely has to go, without a doubt and without delay, is that freaky picture at the top of the thread. And that is all I am saying.

    Like


  585. K, you have just discovered that youknowwho/ tjf’s knowledge of Islamic society and history is on par with a two year old’s knowledge of nuclear physics.

    I discovered this when he tried to state that Islamic societies had never been successful. lol. Yes, he did try to assert that.

    Jihads/crusades/ wars for civilization/cultural dominance have long been used as pretext for rousing the commoner to battle—pure propaganda in most cases, although a few souls in history in command have been roused by the arguments as well. People (or trolls, in tjf’s case) who try to argue jihad is somehow “different’ from other rallying cries are just trying to demonize one group above others for the skae of his own postulates.

    you know, how swplers demonize western civ uber alles. and just like them, tjf displays the same ignorance, pettiness, and obtuseness that take them down—unfortunately, taking us with them.

    Like


  586. Nicole,

    To say that the child labor didn’t exist because women couldn’t vote is as much speculation as saying that it became illegal at the time that it did because women could vote.

    It simply wasn’t economically feasible to ban child labor until about that time. And parents would not have continued to let their children work under those conditions anymore, anyway, after they could afford better. So the women’s vote is at best irrelevant for child labor. At worst, banning child labor for poor people who need it to eat is downright cruel, much worse than child labor itself. But that is just the kind of thing you would expect women and leftists to do.

    Like


  587. Many thing that strike us as cruel about child labor are a reflection on what we are accustomed as a social class. Barring work that is inherently unhealthy, degrading (prostitution) or dangerous, we’d still freak out about sening our kids to do “child labor” because no one in our peer group does it.

    We’d be horrified at the thought of sending our 7-year-old to work on a keychain assembly line. But if all of our friends and neighbors were sending their 7yo’s to the keychain factory, we’d think nothing of it.

    Like


  588. Rum says, “I think you have a key point backwards. See, political power is never something anyone gets because they asked for it and it was then “given” to them.”

    I’m not the one who has that backwards.

    Like


  589. “skinny betas” get discouraged very early in their teens

    I’m a skinny o m e g a. 5’7 & 135 lbs.🙂

    I like being skinny. I fit in small places on crowded trains, underneath the bed, and while women don’t think I’m attractive, I’m still non-threatening by black guy standards…

    Like


  590. DA, i thought you were 5’8 ? that means I have 2.5 inches on you.

    Like


  591. Arpagus, it’s never “economically feasable” to pay someone a dollar an hour if you can pay someone else fifty cents.

    Heheheh…

    Like


  592. I like being skinny.

    Being skinny and smart, you’d be more likely to pass the Army Special Ops qualifications course than a “football player” type, all else being equal.

    Like


  593. Regarding Sofia’s brain

    I will second what Comment_Whatever said:

    Problems of mood may be related to problems in the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal axis (HPA) axis. These can lead to too low/high thyroid.

    Compare adrenal to thyroid imbalances
    http://www.drrind.com/therapies/metabolic-symptoms-matrix

    Hypothyroidism and Iron: Anemia and Hemochromatosis
    http://thyroid.about.com/cs/symptomsproblems/a/iron.htm
    [Hemochromatosis – iron overload – seems unlikely]

    A quick pointer to low thyroid (not necessarily clinical) is low but stable body temperature.
    For low adrenal a fluctuating temperature (tends to low), light headedness on standing up, cold hands and feet.

    The brain is an organ just like the kidneys or liver. It can be injured, out of balance, or injured just like your kidneys or liver.

    I am glad you are well and hope it stays that way.


    Disclaimer:
    All information contained here is for entertainment purposes only. Default User, his agents, employees, and successors in title may not be held responsible for anything whatsoever that might happen in whatsoever manner at any particular time. Default User makes no claims to medical expertise. Acting on anything contained in this reply is at your own risk.
    © Default User 2009 all rights reserved. Void where prohibited.
    By reading this you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

    Like


  594. Being skinny and smart, you’d be more likely to pass the Army Special Ops qualifications course than a “football player” type, all else being equal.

    You made a dangerous presumption. I’m not strong at all, and I’m certainly not smart.

    Like


  595. I’ve never seen you post anything real personal about yourself like pictures. Are you afraid of your readership?

    You’re not afraid to post shit about them, why not let us see you for a change?

    unless you’re too much of a goddamn pussy faggot.

    Like


  596. If Sodini had bought escorts sessions with his 250k, he could have got over a thousand women!

    Over a thousand woman who were 7 or above.. and no paternity suit or alimony..

    Like


  597. We’d be horrified at the thought of sending our 7-year-old to work on a keychain assembly line. But if all of our friends and neighbors were sending their 7yo’s to the keychain factory, we’d think nothing of it.

    No, we don’t do it b/c it’s stupid, you complete bluthering idiot. Children go to school, then they play and do chores. At what point would they squeaze in work on the assembly line.

    Reading the comments of the men who post here are a complete waste of time. I gave it a chance and now know I reject these ideas b/c they are lame. No one in society thinks or feels these ways: dating children, degrading women and people of different races… And why do you do it? Because you are pathetic looser men that no one wants. If any women who comments here, saw you or knew you in real life, she would have nothing to do with you.

    So go ahead and tell yourself that you “prefer” young girls if it makes you feel better about being rejected by intelligent and established women. And the only reason a younger woman would entertain you for two seconds is b/c her brain hasn’t developed enough to recognize BS crazies yet.

    You say women over 25-30 are ancient, when in reality, these are the most beautiful women in society–just look at crazy Hollywood even.

    All the men here are insane. And yes I said ALL. I’ve read comments from each of you and you are retarded at best.

    I would encourage every woman here to PLEASE spend your time reading something else or on REAL men in REAL life. Like the hottie you have your eye on that has no doubt been crushing on you.

    Let the last of these types of men die out with evolution. They have no true masculinity–as seen in the way they express themselves. Most are just whiny, old, middle-aged at best, ugly, underdeveloped in every way men.

    The top of the losers:

    #1 Doug 1
    #2 PA
    #3 Maurice
    #4 Fernidad what’s his name
    #5 all the rest tie at being stupid and boring

    I wish we could see these men in person. So I could laugh in their face.

    This blog is no longer even mildly intersesting. With all the stupidity splashed all over it, it won’t be long until the only readers left are the stupid inadequate men who post her.

    Like


  598. on August 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm Roxanne Roxanne

    Anybody else tired of this Jew named Ghost of Nicole trying to dominate the conversation?

    They do this on every influential forum.

    Like


  599. that had to be a joke post

    Like


  600. she’s a negress, not a jew

    Like


  601. The internet makes brave men of you all.

    Not one of you silly sexists would even have the balls to state these opinions in a real life conversation.

    Like


  602. @anon

    I just came on and have only read your comment, so I’m not sure if you are fussing over something specific or just at the blog in general. You are very angry. Why? You don’t have to like anything said here, in fact most of the people here love a good argument so go ahead and debate them. There are opinions voiced here which aren’t PC but believe me they’re held by more people than you believe even in your own circles.

    The men you’ve chosen not to like are actually very intelligent men who have many times in the months I’ve been here made very reasoned arguments for their positions. They aren’t blow hards trust me. Although Pa can be faulted for only liking small breasts.

    You have to look at the demographics of who this blog attracts to understand the subject matter in regards to positioning on attractiveness of women. These men are interested in either banging women prettier than they normally can get or are interested in finding out how to choose wisely when they choose someone they’d like to commit too. I think for the most part the men here are under 40. Understanding women at a evo-psych level helps more than it hurts. Yes they are tough on women in many cases but they have been hurt by women in many cases too. Their suggestions to date younger women has more to do with having a positive influence in a woman’s life than it does with anything evil. Society today gives women power that is out of balance with men’s. I feel many young women are going to wake up in their mid to late 30’s and wonder why they’re alone. They will have difficulty attaching to any man and men will not be interested in attaching to them. Heck its already happening – we don’t have to wait for the future.

    There are women who comment here for reasons of their own – some to debate (dana), some to flirt (I can’t think of any names *clears throat), some to partner (Sophia and AJ), some to impregnate (Chic and Default) and some to learn (me).

    You have a right to your opinion but before attacking like you have either leave and go on your own merry way to something you find interesting or pay better attention to what really is going on here. Your lack of logic showed and heck that’s a no no. Just sayin…

    Please take what I write in a tone of humour I find it’s a better approach than attack. (Unless you’re LR and then I go after you like a dog with a yummy bone).

    Like


  603. Congrats to PA for inspiring that screed.
    That was epic shaming language. Well done. I’ll leave it to someone else to take your post seriously and pick it apart point by point.
    How could Maurice make your top 5? He is one of the more mild mannered commenters here.

    Like


  604. aoefe, I’m not Wendy Schwartz. I really don’t care if the people who agree with the comments here think I’m logical or not, I’d be insulted if what I wrote made sense to them.

    The thing is, the author of this blog has some interesting things to say and is not unecessarily offensive all of the time. He does have the ability to challenge people to think, even if it is to conclude his thought processes are ludicrous. However, the other men who comment here are totally imbalanced and crazy.

    I personally feel like you are demeaning yourself by siding with them. If you are not under the age of 30, they think you are worthless unless you have already married and had kids. How does that make you feel? Have you read those words? It’s insane.

    I think that the women who allow themselves to be spoken to, or about, this way here, are very desperate for attention. It wouldn’t sit well with a healthy female who felt worthy deep inside.

    I like your blog, aoefe. I think you’re a really smart and good person. I’m sorry you think I’m an idiot, but that’s the way I feel.

    And, yes, I will move on. As do most normal people who come across this blog–eventually.

    I’ve given it a chance; I’ve been reading here for two or three months–trying to see the points of view here, and even engaging some of the people. And after comparing the sentiments with healthy, happy, positive and functioning males, I realize that no, it really is crazy here.

    Like


  605. @anon

    I don’t think you’re an idiot but I’d have to call myself an idiot to agree with your position since I hang around here as often as I do. I disagree with your thoughts on the blog but I have had my share of moments of disbelief and anger here too. I’m not in my 20’s so yes I’m not the flavour (or is that favoured) here. I have learned a great deal about myself and men in general by staying. I lashed out in anger to roissy himself when I first visited. He’s a talanted writer who can inpsire men and women alike to either great insight or foolish thought. I don’t get caught up in it all meaning I try not to have emotional reactions to anything said here. I think at this moment you’re only guilty of an emotional gut reaction – not a bad thing. Heck I think they prefer your type – you give them great proof of their reasoning. You will stay or you will go, I encourage you to stay. *ducks as a few slippers fly her way

    Oh and Maurice is a sweety (meant in the total alpha sense) and I don’t know why you’d list him. Doug has his moments with men OR women and can be quite harsh but is fiercly protective of ideas and those he’s loyal to (or are loyal to him).

    Like


  606. aoefe

    here here.

    Like


  607. anon

    I personally feel like you are demeaning yourself by siding with them. If you are not under the age of 30, they think you are worthless unless you have already married and had kids. How does that make you feel? Have you read those words? It’s insane.

    I think that the women who allow themselves to be spoken to, or about, this way here, are very desperate for attention. It wouldn’t sit well with a healthy female who felt worthy deep inside.

    aoefe is widely appreciated around here.

    Some guys do sometime say some exaggerated things. Letting steam off. I’ve done that on occasion.

    Or other guys do it trying to throw off excessive nice guy and female pedestaling training they’ve had all their lives before here. So sometimes they do it crudely and ineffectively. Early floundering.

    But there’s also a who lot of intelligent converation.

    It is however predominantly anti-feminist, which to a strong feminist or a takes the currently pervasive media and schools and uni’s feminism and post feminist absolutely for granted, that can be shocking. Sexist was a word you used.

    Well yeah, by some definitions of sexist, that’s right. That’s also evo psych. And the truth.

    Like


  608. For god’s sake people, the pic in the original post is FAKE! I’m amazed so many grown adults are disturbed by an obvious crappy Photoshop job.

    Also, Chic is a tall girl too? Nice🙂

    Anon – hate to break it to you, but if you’ve been reading this blog for 3 months now trying to make sense of the comments, you’re one of the crazies too. It’s too late for you honey.

    Like


  609. Heh:

    “The internet makes brave men of you all.

    Not one of you silly sexists would even have the balls to state these opinions in a real life conversation.”

    Although you’re an obvious troll, I’ll bite this once. I actually have stated these things, to women.

    I’ll tell you a little secret. Draper in Mad men is popular with the under 30 single females and he’s a huge sexist.

    Like


  610. JerrDogg

    But most lesbians I know are somewhat jolly and up for an occasional tryst with a man that strikes their fancy. Yet they aren’t fully bi either because they need the woman thing and that is their dominant mode. I wouldn’t mind at all being in a FWB situation with attractive lesbians of this variety.

    The only lesbians I have a problem with are the man hating hyper feminist (aka feminazi) variety. Who have been the nastiest core background of the feminist movement.

    Not lesbians who just want to do their own thing, esp. if they sometimes get with men. But unlike you I guess, I haven’t run into many of these who aren’t bi. maybe it’s definitional. If they’re going through a primarily lesbian stage but might move out of that, or they’re rather live with a woman but like fucking men too, then I consider them bi. They usually say they are too in my experience. Esp. if they aren’t man hating.

    Like


  611. I’ll tell you a little secret. Draper in Mad men is popular with the under 30 single females and he’s a huge sexist.

    Not so. He promotes the women who work with him and could care less if the men are gay. Just b/c he sleeps around doesn’t make him “sexist”. His wife did the same thing. EEO at it’s best.

    Whom are you quoting??

    Anon – hate to break it to you, but if you’ve been reading this blog for 3 months now trying to make sense of the comments, you’re one of the crazies too. It’s too late for you honey.

    And if I’d left sooner, I’d be accused of not giving it a chance… I’ve not read here every day, but I’ve visited when things correlate in the news: George Sodini, etc.

    And as I said before, Roissy is interesting. Crazy, but interesting. There is enough truth to what he writes.

    I am speaking to the men who comment here. They take an interesting post and use it as a platform for their sick lives and view points.

    Like


  612. @anon – “They take an interesting post and use it as a platform for their sick lives and view points”

    In some cases yes. I didn’t comment much during the Sodini threads because it seemed to bring out some looney tunes. I.e. those who felt they were owed sex by women in general.

    Like


  613. All the men anon listed are some of the men I like most. I wonder what says about me…

    Like


  614. @talleyrand

    I agree with anon on this one D. Draper is not overtly sexist he IS however very dominant with both men and woman. He doesn’t pussy foot around his wife to gain her favour. Although the one episode where he slept on the floor at her parent’s house I felt he went too far.

    Like


  615. @sofia

    You’re not normal, you’re messed in the head – doncha know. 😉

    Like


  616. Anony

    aoefe– I’ll tell you a little secret. Draper in Mad men is popular with the under 30 single females and he’s a huge sexist.

    Not so. He promotes the women who work with him and could care less if the men are gay. Just b/c he sleeps around doesn’t make him “sexist”. His wife did the same thing. EEO at it’s best.

    Yes so.

    He most definitely thinks it’s the natural order of things for men to be dominant over women, though some more than others, and he himself revels in it and excels at it.

    He does promote super competent women under him but he’s not remotely about affirmative action for women or quotes for women or it being somehow terrible if women are equally the top leaders in his firm etc. What prominent comments here with any following wouldn’t promote the clearly competent women that work for him in alignment with their demonstrated fully competitive ability?

    His wife didn’t do remotely the same sort of sleeping around that he did. She did it once with one man. He’d be utterly appalled if she did, but pretty much expects her to (with difficulty) understand and forgive his daliances. He absolutely believes in a double standard.

    Like


  617. aoefe,

    you do not owe men sex, but neither do they owe you safety.

    Like


  618. Wrong as usual, Doug. Sexism: “Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.”

    He does not discriminate. If he did, he would think women are incompetent and only good for sex, and not his equal; I would go so far as to say he would hate gay people.

    Give Betty some time, the revolution has not yet occurred; she’s pregnant, and busy with the kids.

    Don feels guilty about his infidelity; he caters to his wife’s whims. (as pointed out by aoefe)

    He is, nonetheless, a product of his environment, but HE IS EVOLVING WITH the change taking place in society–he is, in fact, perpetuating it.

    I have NO problem with men leading and directing; I prefer it (the main thing I appreciate about Roissy’s writing). That is totally separate from the BS that blows up on the comment board here.

    Like


  619. @anon – “he caters to his wife’s whims. (as pointed out by aoefe)”

    Oh I said he didn’t cater to her whims except in the episode where he slept on the floor. 🙂

    Yes you desire a leader what we’re/females are hard-wired to want. Men are hard wired to want youth because of their fertility. It’s really not hard to understand when you strip it down to the essentials.

    @lucifer – “you do not owe men sex, but neither do they owe you safety”

    I agree. No we aren’t owed protection/safety from anyone but our own man. Women don’t owe sex to anyone but our own man. Sex and protection in my books are based on exclusive relationships. Society in general owes itself protection under the law. When the laws are unjust (i.e Roe for women) then its encumbant on us to fight this in a law abiding way not in a I’ll get a gun and shoot up a room kind of way.

    Like


  620. Men are hard wired to want youth because of their fertility. It’s really not hard to understand when you strip it down to the essentials.

    aoefe,

    If that’s true, then that means no man here would ever want you. And yet you continue to support them in various ways. I realize you have your limits, but you are still supporting men who indirectly say you are worthless to them sexually–IF what you said above is true.

    And yes, you mentioned the floor episode, and I said he caters to her, which he does.

    Like


  621. @anon – “but you are still supporting men who indirectly say you are worthless to them sexually–IF what you said above is true.”

    No alpha man my age or younger will want me for more than action on the side – I wouldn’t be a great option for an ltr. Youth/beauty trumps personality/attractivness. That said I have no shortage of suitors – my age and younger but they are betas for the most part. My search is for an older (10 – 15 years) alpha man who will think I’m super hot. I’m realistic not depressed about what men want. I haven’t hit the wall for many men but for all intensive purposes for guys who post here – yep. I’m not here to attract men sexually (oh visually I suppose I am a slight exhibitionist) but to learn about what makes men tick – in the process I’ve learned about myself.

    As to supporting them I’m not. I’m supporting the accuracy of what they’re saying there is a difference.

    Like


  622. on August 24, 2009 at 2:21 am Ferdinand Bardamu

    Anon:

    “#4 Fernidad what’s his name”

    It’s FERDINAND BARDAMU, merde-for-brains. Get some culture so you can avoid acting like a boorish jackass.

    “Reading the comments of the men who post here are a complete waste of time. I gave it a chance and now know I reject these ideas b/c they are lame. No one in society thinks or feels these ways: dating children, degrading women and people of different races… And why do you do it? Because you are pathetic looser men that no one wants. If any women who comments here, saw you or knew you in real life, she would have nothing to do with you.”

    Men who buck society’s expectations are losers. How long did it take you to think that up?

    “So go ahead and tell yourself that you “prefer” young girls if it makes you feel better about being rejected by intelligent and established women. And the only reason a younger woman would entertain you for two seconds is b/c her brain hasn’t developed enough to recognize BS crazies yet.”

    If swooping younger girls was as easy as people like you claim, every man would be doing it. It would be so bad, cougars would have to pay guys to fuck them.

    “You say women over 25-30 are ancient, when in reality, these are the most beautiful women in society–just look at crazy Hollywood even.”

    Not ancient, just worn. Thirtysomethings, now THEY’RE ancient.

    “This blog is no longer even mildly intersesting. With all the stupidity splashed all over it, it won’t be long until the only readers left are the stupid inadequate men who post her.”

    You’re welcome at my place. I would love to read more of your stupidity. It amuses me greatly.

    Like


  623. aoefe

    Oh I said he didn’t cater to her whims except in the episode where he slept on the floor.🙂

    I think it’s a weakness of the show that he doesn’t pay more attention, especially sexual attention to his wife. When she looks as hot as she does and especially in that episode where she got her self up in the super sexy bustier, stockings and garter belt, all french high class whore looking, esp. at that time. A weakness because I think it’s out of character.

    Sure I can buy he has some Madonna/whore issues but it’s just so exaggerated. It’s not so exaggerated that he’s spend as little time as he often did but it was that he didn’t try to be more charming with her.

    @anon

    That’s one definition of sexist. Further while he wasn’t as discriminating against women in the workplace as was the norm, he really wasn’t trying especially hard to reverse that. Just rather to recognize talent.

    But sure many/most feminists use the word “sexist” to apply to any male attitude that men should be and are naturally dominant over women as well.

    So it is you that’s wrong as usual.

    Like


  624. @doug

    The second season he got slightly more wussy, I think fears of reprisals from the women audience because of his blatent cheating. He was still hot. I find it interesting that the actess who plays Betty was once Ashton Kutchers gf. He chose someone much older (Demi) for his wife. He says it was a soul mate connection. She hasn’t aged much and I think you can attribute thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in plastic surgery help. Oh but back to Mad Men – yes Betty is dreamy.

    Like


  625. aoefe

    The second season he got slightly more wussy, I think fears of reprisals from the women audience because of his blatent cheating.

    Yeah I completely agree, including why the change. I think I said something similar to you some months ago when we were first discussing the show.

    It also just PAINS me that he doesn’t heat Betty up more, when she’s so clearly longing for it – in just adorable ways.

    Like


  626. aoefe,

    The men who mention age ranges here, cut the age of acceptability off at 30–no matter how old the man may be. It implies the life of women is over before it’s even begun. It’s meant to intentionally hurt the women who they feel have rejected them.

    I have no doubt that you are very attractive to all the men who meet you; I don’t subscribe to strict alpha/beta ideas, and you are a lovely young woman. People are people. I’m sure men older, younger, and your age see you as a potential mate. But, If you get too deep in the philosophy here, could you, perhaps, miss a great person by assuming he doesn’t want you based on the strict and acceptable criteria here?

    People in general are attracted to vitality, but a woman in her 20’s can be more used up and worn out than a woman in her 30’s depending on lifestyle, etc., and to say that she is less desirable just b/c of biological age is illogical.

    On the issue of having children: Women can have children in their 30’s–barring the desire for 4 or 5 kids. Most of the women in my family had their children in their 30’s.

    I realize you are not considering the men who comment here for potential mates, but that’s not the only reason a woman should be offended by what’s discussed. What is expressed is demeaning, full of hate, and for women who buy into it, it can steal their quality of life. AND it’s not realistic–most men DO NOT think this way.

    I appreciate your opinion aoefe, I just wanted to share with you mine.

    Like


  627. Anon I appreciate your opinion. I have been very careful to pay attention to my outlook on life to see if it becomes jaded by being here. It has not. It’s reinforced everything I’ve seen to be true not known to be true. I didn’t understand it before and now I have a frame of reference. I’m vain – I’ll admit it. My search for an older man has more to do with my own need to be objectified on some levels. It’s as much to do with my own selfishness as to do with men’s desire for beauty. I am also being very general when I say men wouldn’t want me over younger women. I’ve seen many younger who wouldn’t be competition for me because they’re very overweight and look sloppy. I’m comparing myself to women who are younger, take good care of themselves, are slender and have half or more of a brain. (sophia is a good example). I’d lose. Good thing I don’t feel like this is a competitive place huh. 😉

    Like


  628. Talleyrand
    Heh:

    “The internet makes brave men of you all.

    Not one of you silly sexists would even have the balls to state these opinions in a real life conversation.”

    Although you’re an obvious troll, I’ll bite this once. I actually have stated these things, to women.

    I’ll tell you a little secret. Draper in Mad men is popular with the under 30 single females and he’s a huge sexist.

    It was the men here who brought up that term, not me. Don Draper is a perfect example of what men are having to do even now–adapt to the change in gender roles. And he does it elegantly I might add. If you like the show, you’re not all that opposed to feminism, Doug.

    And, I suspect the show will deal with even more issues as it progresses.

    On the subject of Betty, January Jones, she is my age–in her 30’s, and beautiful.

    NOT ancient, FB.

    Like


  629. Anon, there are many exceptional women, especially among those who don’t follow the fashionistas, the USDA, or doctors who are afraid of plants. However, even you, if you look around, must admit that there are some messed up looking 20-somethings and even teens around you. A great many women are indeed washed up before their adult life has really gone into full swing.

    I don’t think 18 is some magic age at which a person becomes more than legally an adult. Men have a kind of hormonal surge between 17 and 19, but a woman generally becomes sexually mature at 16. It’s just how nature made us. Men are generally wired to prefer a youthful look. The fact that most would also like psychological maturity doesn’t change how they’re built.

    So when reading things about looks preference, one has to take them in both their raw natural and social/cultural context. Guys may prefer the youthful look, but they don’t want to actually marry a woman who isn’t capable of being a good wife and mother.

    Another thing that is very natural for men is the categorization of sexual and social preferences. The bit of research that has been done on this so far suggests that this is built in. Women don’t often understand it unless they’ve seen enough of the data and literature on it because our sex drive responds to sexual situations in general, and then we later in the thought process decide whether certain things are feasable for us.

    So men have a kind of immediate reaction to certain visual stimulation in a social vacuum situation (viewing images of people in a lab), but their reaction to things going on in a social situation is just as rapid fire. They can for instance, see a teenage girl, and if she’s attractive, note that, but if she’s too immature, that’s where it’ll stop because they’re already carrying a logical conclusion about how that might play out in a longer term relationship. Whatever thoughts they have about her are going to be restricted to the sexual.

    This, in my opinion, is bad because there was a time when teenage girls were generally mentally and emotionally ready for marriage by the time they started to menstruate (at about 16). Now, what we’ve done by making them off limits for marriage for their first couple of years, and promoting their unsuitability for a few more, is make our young women the new slut class. We don’t have slaves for that anymore, and prostitution is illegal in most states, so we throw our daughters into that role.

    I find that far more barbaric than preparing girls for adulthood so that by the time they’re physically adult, they are psychologically as well.

    So when we’re speaking of these things, most of us are talking in terms of how we’re hoping to correct what we view as anti natural or anti civilization. There’s a balance somewhere, and young women as the slut class is not balanced.

    I’d much rather have to, when my daughter is 26ish, take her and her children back after a marriage to a guy who just wasn’t in it forever, than to watch her have a string of pump and dumps and out of wedlock children by uninvested men.

    I mean…I think about what can possibly go wrong in a scenario. From the other side too, because young women are the slut class, their similarly aged male peers aren’t being brought up to be very responsible either. A guy should feel like breaking a girl’s heart is a horrible thing to do, and if he’s not going to be serious, he should just not go there.

    So really, the extension of childhood beyond its natural end is worse for civilization than raising kids to be responsible adults by the time they’re adults. Not everything about natural is great for civilization, but viewing young women as women, and young men as men is all around a good thing.

    Because of education, responsible young adults will delay having kids until they actually have the time for that, but being in a committed stable relationship won’t interrupt that. If anything, it’s more motivation to do well…knowing that at some point, one is going to have a family to support, rather than guessing that they might someday.

    Like


  630. on August 24, 2009 at 5:48 am Cannon's Canon

    i miss “circe” from the sodini threads here, for what it’s worth. at least she used cuss words. anon is just boring. feeding her is like fucking a hot 43 year old… yeah, i’d do it, but WHY really? principle? boredom?

    correct answer: lack of better (immediate) options.

    i was disgusted to learn about all the “prefix-cons” this week via BoTM auster’s wifi-accessible rest-home server. so many intelligent minds still spazzing out into their own helmets, soaking themselves with their own spittle, just like those that the p-diddy ‘vote-or-die’ ad campaigns propagate against. this made me despondent in many senses, in that i’d never see a mainstream in my lifetime that i could relax with.

    stated, that reminded me of a famous quote…
    “there are many rights, but only one left”

    sort of like, ‘there are many women “in their 30s, but only one January Jones” (who is 31, hooray for that anecdote)’

    Like


  631. on August 24, 2009 at 5:58 am Cannon's Canon

    places i would jizz on january jones, a top five list:

    1. her pursed lips
    2. a shielding cheek
    3. a bullseye forehead
    4. titties, pressed together
    5. backshot city, using the vertebral column as a makeshift measuring device (can i clear L4 tonight???)

    oh yeah, her last shriveling excretion from those unused ovaries, via the bottom of her pussy-hole? not on the list! well, the top 20 list anyway.

    Like


  632. on August 24, 2009 at 6:13 am Cannon's Canon

    by L4, i of course meant T4. i drink banana creme myogenix-brand protein shakes post-workout, which pretty much guarantees i am putting out any four-alarm blazes or below. that, celery, and a gallon of water per day… goddamn super-soaker bazooka up in this bitch (not literally! haha)

    Like


  633. — Anon

    I normally ignore those who lack the courtesy to use a screen name, but…

    — So go ahead and tell yourself that you “prefer” young girls if it makes you feel better about being rejected by intelligent and established women.

    That’s funny.

    — You say women over 25-30 are ancient, when in reality, these are the most beautiful women in society–just look at crazy Hollywood even.

    Cue REM:
    “Everybody hurts,
    and sometimes,
    …. eeeeverybody cries”

    Don’t be sad that you wasted your 20s getting pumped & dumped… you can still have a meaningful life. There’s needlepoint, volunteering, and eharmony.

    — I would encourage every woman here to PLEASE spend your time reading something else or on REAL men in REAL life.

    The female commenters here are world class. They seem to stick around too.

    — The top of the losers: / #1 Doug 1 / #2 PA / #3 Maurice / #4 Fernidad what’s his name / #5 all the rest tie at being stupid and boring

    Wow, I’m in pretty good company.

    — This blog is no longer even mildly intersesting.

    And yet, you present this 1000-word essay in response.

    Like


  634. aoefe

    Yes they [commenters] are tough on women in many cases

    “Well they can’t help being sluts and idiots, they’re women” isn’t being tough on women. People here will seemingly take any amount of bullshit from women, because they don’t expect women to do any better.

    Ferdinand Bardamu

    Not ancient, just worn. Thirtysomethings, now THEY’RE ancient.

    It depends on the individual. Some women in their early twenties look like they’re in their late thirties or early forties. For some it’s almost the other way around (the most beautiful woman I know of is 37).

    Ghost of Nicole

    Men are generally wired to prefer a youthful look.

    Not if feminist indoctrination has anything to say about it. One of the reasons why preferring Asian women is almost taboo these days is because they look young and youthful, which means you’re automatically a pedophile if you’re attracted to them. Can’t have men going after young women when so many aging and used up feminist harpies are still without a mate.

    Like


  635. this is classic, anon:

    If that’s true, then that means no man here would ever want you.”

    you do not need to know ANYTHING else about how Women think in order to discount their intellectual acumen from the outset.

    it’s right there–the truth or falsity of a statement is contingent on whether a woman LIKES it what it means if its true. period. thats the criteria. they are not capable of objective analysis and critical thinking. all that matter is how you feel. if 2+2=4 made some girl cry, another girl would tell her 2+2=5 to make her smile.

    anon, the fact that men are primarily attracted to women under 28 or so and regard all women older than that as 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier until unacceptable isn’t tied to whether old women are happy about it. i don’t know why i beat my head against this wall all the time, i have to believe somehow women can be made to see reality but even if they CAN, they don’t WANT to.

    Like


  636. by the way, Austeria is having a field day over at his blog posting quotes from rum, nova, thursday, tupac et al

    i have stuck with him through his retarded rejection of evolution but this (his new toy, the Gamer strawman man he gleefully built and has been bashing for days) might be it–no one who is living in some bizarre alternate universe crafted by another generation’s conception of “tradition” has anything to say to the following generations–he is clueless to the nth degree

    Like


  637. i don’t know why i beat my head against this wall all the time, i have to believe somehow women can be made to see reality but even if they CAN, they don’t WANT to.

    It’s because they confuse (1) the semi-desperate men who will settle for older women as mates, broken as they have become by incessant feminist programming designed to overcome their own natural inclinations with (2) what all men would *prefer*, if they were able to swing it. Feminism has done nothing to change (2) in terms of preferences. What it *has* done is take most women who would be suitable (2) mates off the market until they become the “settle”/(1) mates — forcing men to “adapt to new gender roles” (= marrying less than ideal older women) if they wish to mate at all.

    But then again, dana, you’re just a stooge of the patriarchy, you self-loathing turncoat gender traitor.

    Like


  638. hey i’m a self loathing jew too, don’t forget that

    Like


  639. “Austeria.” I like that. When you pronounce it, it sounds like a name of a very tender flower.

    He is clueless, but it’s interesting that he is devoting so much time to bashing Game. I get the sense that he is in retreat on the subject. At first he’s been outright diosmissing it as filth. Now he’s engaging in arguments with articulate “Roissyites.” And a time or two, he’s acknowledged some point that is commonplace here, as startlingly new and interesting.

    He’ll come around. And if he doesn’t, oh well. He’s great on many other subjects. On men-women, he’s like Rainman screaming because his toys are not in perfect alignment.

    BTW, I always found his forays into sexuality wierd. The way he describes attaractive women as one would describe an ancient vase… the way he calls Sarah Palin “fetching.”

    Like


  640. he’s queer as a 3 dollar bill

    Like


  641. Auster is older and is acting as men of his generation generally do when presented with reality rather than white-washing: deny, deny, deny.

    Like


  642. on August 24, 2009 at 9:38 am mandy been here a while

    crazy anon “I realize you have your limits, but you are still supporting men who indirectly say you are worthless to them sexually–IF what you said above is true.”

    Pretty much, yep. And it is 100% fine with me.

    Unlike you, some women are not on the prowl 24/7. We don’t need to be because we, you know, actually got married in our 20s.

    Like


  643. interestingly, but older men (50+) here ALL share the Roissy worldview. All my uncles and their circle of friends view women in Roissyesque terms.

    the Austerian mindset appears only in men born after 1970. Be it economic liberalization or sexual mores, American standards take around 20 years to become the norm

    Like


  644. auster is a baby boomer

    Like


  645. @anon – “What is expressed is demeaning, full of hate, and for women who buy into it, it can steal their quality of life.”

    At one time we viewed the earth as flat eventually we had science to prove otherwise. We accepted the new knowledge although for some I’m sure it messed with their minds. Did it affect their quality of life? Nope. The world went on as it always had.

    What’s happening to you is you’re hearing truths and rejecting them because it messes with your mind. You don’t want to believe your viability is lessening as each year goes by. It puts pressure on you here and now doesn’t it? If you are chubby and over 35 you’ve got seriously limited options according to this site and that hits hard. But why not do something and work with what you have? Get slender (I have no idea if you’re chubby). Take exceptionally good care of yourself in regards to your exterior. Don’t neglect your inner physical and mental health either. Sounds shallow? Perhaps but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

    As to men in the real world not feeling this way…whatever. It’s not PC to tell women they are washed up at 35 and less hot than younger chicks. Course they want to screw the hot older ones but men are right they are settling when they choose them as ltr mates. Face it if you had a choice between a hot, handsome, firefighter and a pencil pushing accountant who would you choose? Never mind…we don’t pick on looks. Now if I’d said the accountant knew who the boss was, led the way and made you feel fortunate to have him while the firefighter called you endlessly, sent flowers to you every other hour and agreed with everything you said– who would you choose? I know you know this answer, you don’t have to think long and hard (no that’s not a euphemism). So why wouldn’t you trust that men have their very own criteria?

    Dana is totally dead on when she says women reject truth based on whether it feels good or not. It takes more courage to accept the truth even if you don’t like it. I feel the truth can set you free. Ya baby that’s a very profound statement. I want it said I invented it. heh 😉

    I couldn’t think of anything better than the earth is flat reference…I’m sure it’s stupid…but heck I’m a woman and we’re allowed to be. 😉

    Like


  646. I was talking about Brazil

    Auster got so much credit with me when he proposed “demonic possession” as a possible cause of a car crash that I flat out refuse to acknowledge the (massive) evidence that he has a unnortodhox sex-life

    Like


  647. Ghost of Nicole

    Tarl says, “Well, cunt, ”

    You could have just saved the rest of the post.

    If your history professors failed you, I’m not going to be able to make up for that.

    You mean those professors who gave me a PhD in history? It is true that some of them were leftist idiots like you, but having sat through their lectures at least enables me to recognize their total bullshit when someone like you mindlessly regurgitates it.

    …and I also can’t make you value a contribution to society if you don’t want to. I’ll mention something, and you’ll just say it is unimportant.

    Your “contributions” to this thread have been not merely unimportant but spectacularly untrue, and also a monument to the deficiencies of American “education”, which succeeds triumphantly at ideological indoctrination and fails miserably at the transmission of facts.

    So just pretend like you were never born and fuck off.

    Dittos to you.

    Cunt.

    Like


  648. The Orange County coroner had to use the serial number on her breast implants to determine it was Fiore.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Accused+killer+Ryan+Jenkins+found+dead+police+confirm/1922414/story.html

    Like


  649. on August 24, 2009 at 11:11 am Marcus Aureliette

    How could Maurice make your top 5? He is one of the more mild mannered commenters here.

    Maurice can make the Top 5 Most Awesome Posters list, no problem.

    Like


  650. Grisly

    The Orange County coroner had to use the serial number on her breast implants to determine it was Fiore

    vancouverites are SICK
    ever since the Sedin Bros
    got pummeled in the playoffs

    Like


  651. So serial numbers in breast implants only exist in Vancouver, and their existence is sick? Or what?

    Like


  652. DITTO to what aoefe said.

    Reading this blog is only damages a woman’s quality of life if she prefers to hang on to illusions about the mating game. For me, it was a breath of fresh air to hear somebody express (albeit crudely) things I saw around me every day, free of PC rhetoric. I went to college with a generation of girls raised in the postfeminist Sex and the City mentality, and watched them sleep around and eventually grow bitter and burnt out at a premature age (think 25.) What sort of wives and mothers will they turn out to be? I want better for myself and my future children, so I read a wide variety of material (beyond just Roissy) as an antidote to the brainwashing I got in college. Your assumption the women here are stupid sheep who can’t read critically is just as demeaning as your accusations toward the men.

    I’m not saying a woman can’t be hot over 30 (in that regard I disagree with some of the male posters here) but it’s a biological fact a woman’s fertility DOES decline every year and that will affect her childbearing abilities. Do you think this has NO impact on men’s preferred choice of mates? Don’t be naive. There are a few extremist weirdos here, but the vast majority of men are just passionately expressing what they experience as truth. Look past the crude language to the underlying messages.

    Like


  653. Tarl lied his ass off, and apparently thinks everyone else is an idiot, which is typical of pathological liars, “You mean those professors who gave me a PhD in history?”

    Tarl, PhD’s earned from sending in box tops don’t count. You have to actually read a few books.

    Now, you show me the book or bring me the elder who is the child of someone born before 1880, that contradicts anything I’ve stated as fact, and we can debate the credibility of the author, if you like.

    As it is, you’re basically cursing me out because my speculation of what could have been, had women not gotten the vote, is different from your speculation. Or maybe it’s not so different, and you actually believe that the Magic Mutation Fairy gave you some in born superiority you have yet to prove either in literacy or ability to have a civil discussion without freaking out because someone disagrees with your highney.

    When I trust that you and people like you would be looking out for my wellbeing if I did not have the right to vote, I will gladly hand over my voting rights.

    As it is, you’re not giving me much to go on. So if you don’t mind, I’d rather keep what little ability I and people like me have to prevent you from voting that we should all be in chains again or nearly exterminated again.

    Like


  654. Nicole, you take this blog way too seriously.

    Like


  655. Regular marijuana usage robs men of sexual highs

    Pitts’ team found an even stronger trend for increased sexual activity among female smokers, who were also seven times more likely to have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection in the last year than non-smokers. However, female smokers had no more problems in the bedroom than abstainers, Pitts’ team found.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17671-regular-marijuana-usage-robs-men-of-sexual-highs.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=science-in-society

    Like


  656. Novaseeker

    It’s because they confuse (1) the semi-desperate men who will settle for older women as mates, broken as they have become by incessant feminist programming designed to overcome their own natural inclinations with (2) what all men would *prefer*, if they were able to swing it.

    Just one amendment.

    When a guy gets to be in his late 40s plus a girl in her early 30s who’s in toned shape looks awfully good. Further the difference to him between that early 30s girl and a 23yo is a LOT less than it is for a 30yo guy. A LOT less. As well the usual incompatabilities of a 23yo because of extreme age difference become a lot more important, and that’s going to matter to him to. (Though that’s a lot less important when the girl that age is relatively mature and is genuinely attracted to much older guys for intrinsic, not ulterior reasons like money. Girls like S/Sophia and Bhetti for example.) That’s why you really don’t very often see even mega rich 48yos going LTR with 23yos very much, even though they could. (Though you may well see the ST fling with them, whether they’re formally pros or just bought stuff or not.)

    Like


  657. I use as a rule of thumb that men and women should seek to LTR with and marry, and really date as well, women about ten years younger.

    That ruberic doesn’t work perfectly for all ages of men (or women) but it works really well in the central range, where I think ideally men and women should be settling down and marrying with kids in mind soon. I.e a woman at 24 and a man at 34.

    The age spread can in fact spread a little more as the guy gets older for whatever reason (divorce etc.) provided he’s built up a got lot of status and some or a good lot of money too. Those things become real important to guys attractiveness in their 40s.

    As well young guys of say 23 really aren’t even interested in 13yo, even if the law allows it very often. Even Gannon’s formula, which actually makes some sense, that 15 or 16yo girls should be pairing up with marriage minded 25 or 26yo guys really isn’t picking out the age that’s most attractive to guys. (Actually if social prejudice were reversed though 16yo girls probably would find 26yo guys around the dreamiest.) But Gannon’s formula is most geared to the girl especially but both sexes forming the strongest possible life long bonds. It imagines a virgin girl at marriage or at most one other partner, and so on. It may be a good idea and it might be something that can work in his native Argentina, but here in the states outside some religious communities, it ain’t happening. But besides, that doesn’t get at the age most men will be most attracted to when they’re in their mid 20s.

    A classic formula that works remarkable well is that for maximum hottness and attraction, in both directions often but especially the guy’s, a girls should be half his age plus 7. I.e. x=1/2y +7.

    That doesn’t have a lot of “of course” curb appeal to it until you play with it some. Then it looks powerful.

    At 34 that solves for her being 24, or that 10 year difference. At the guy’s being 50, that solves for his new wife /LTR being 32, or an 18 year spread. That’s aggressive, he has to have a lot status, game and money to pull that off, but it’s doable. And it isn’t too far aggressive either. Make her 35 or 6 and a lot of 50yos could swing it. On the other end, when a guy is 20 the formula makes her 17. Or when he’s 26, it makes her 20. Pretty right on, isn’t it? From both directions.

    Like


  658. Kalliope, however seriously I take it or any argument I’m in is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not what I’m saying is accurate or my opinions at least somewhat rational and educated.

    I have seen no proof in U.S. history that denying such a large proportion of the adult population, the right to vote, would have somehow magically made their legal superiors feel more protective of them. That hadn’t been the case prior to then, and I don’t believe in Magic Morality Faeries.

    Like


  659. Question: I just finished reading Paul Janka’s ebook where he talks about how taking a girl out to dinner will never get you laid. Instead he says have them meet up at a bar. He will spam lots of girls and see who takes the bate. He also says this uniquely works in NYC because of how close everything is together and how many #’s he can pull because everyone is tightly packed.

    My question is: what’s the appropriate strategy for a city like LA, where (a) you don’t meet many people on the street, (b) it’s hard to meet up at a bar and then hail a cab back to your place after 3 drinks because of the logistics?

    Like


  660. “I have seen no proof in U.S. history that denying such a large proportion of the adult population, the right to vote, would have somehow magically made their legal superiors feel more protective of them.”
    —first, the right to vote wasn’t denied for years, it was granted to a class that largely hadn’t had the right to vote in world history. Most people, including men, never had the right to vote ever. The US government granted the right the vote.

    heck, by your words, children are “denied” the vote, as are pets, trees, and rocks. I was going to say dead people, but then I remembered NotMyPresident fixed that through ACORN.

    Second, the concept of noblesse oblige is true in the case of men over women, if overrated by romantics. Women who cried rape were almost 100% of the time believed, and rapists faced with an all-male jury were killed or given life imprisonment, because men do not question women on the issue (similar to abortion, men fear being seen as ogres, so avoid dissent).

    Prosecutors have long known that chances for conviction go way down the more women on the panel . Women understand that women lie, or deliberately mislead men into sex, or else don’t take personal responsibility for their actions.

    Feminists constantly have berated women who do so, mostly because the goal of feminism is punishing men, and to show that women must take respopnsibility for sex and that men and women’s sex urges are different destroys the lesbinazi complex.

    Like


  661. Ghost of Nicole

    I have seen no proof in U.S. history that denying such a large proportion of the adult population, the right to vote, would have somehow magically made their legal superiors feel more protective of them.

    1) Yes men would have been protective of women and hardly enslaved them or any other lurid nonesense you’ve conjured if women had continued to be denied the vote. Plenty of progressive things were happening with respect to the treament of women and children in parallel with women sufferage and could perfectly well have been independent of it, and sometimes was.

    2) If women didn’t have the right to vote, no they wouldn’t have been able to vote for themselves some of the super female protective at huge male cost measures they have. Such as the early 90’s divorce and child support=alimony laws, nor the vastly overreaching hair trigger and men are guilty until proven innocent and until then thrown out of their house VAWA and other domestic violence laws, or the absurdly overreaching and over sensitive, again guilty until proven innocent sexual harassment laws, and so on.

    That’s just what we want women “less protected” by Nicole and why not allowing women the right to vote is worth thinking about. Because how else change those ever ratcheting worse female oppressing of male laws. That don’t even care a rip about clear female ambush pregnancies like that of Rielle Hunter or Tom Brady’s ex girlfriend, but instead award them 1/3 of their super high income lover’s after tax income for 18-22 years, by deceiving them. By producing a baby they wanted and he didn’t? That’s so far from basic child support not to mention welfare levels that the state feels sometimes compelled to provide that it’s sickening.

    Do voting women care? Hell no.

    So maybe they shouldn’t be able to vote if they’re going to be so oppressive. But never militarily defend the country worth squat.

    Like


  662. Lurker

    Women who cried rape were almost 100% of the time believed, and rapists faced with an all-male jury were killed or given life imprisonment, because men do not question women on the issue

    I used to be like that but have since been greatly disabused of those notions.

    If those chivalrous notions were ever true, they were in a different and much more religious culture than the pervasive feminist one we’re in now. With hyper expanded feminist “take back the night” notions of date rape and so on, and shaming of all male questioning of women ever. I remember in the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas hearing the feminist mantra in the media, which the media took as a talismatic truth, that women “simply don’t lie about such things”. Yeah right. In the current environment sure they do. They convince themselves. Like the “recovered memory” hysteria.

    Like


  663. And let’s not for get one more thing: one reason divorce laws are so piss poor nowadays for men is precisely because of this noblesse oblige.

    Divorce laws were created to protect the “poor injured woman with no income” meme that male legislators bought into. Feminists understood this, and never had them repealed for “equality” but merely enforce them more rigorously.

    It is precisely because men felt protective of women that divorce, child custody, and programs supporting widows and orphans over male cads were enforced. And let’s not get started on the husband-wife legal privilege, invented so a woman would not have to testify in court and either 1) have a nervous breakdown and/or 2) fear being beaten by her evil husband for doing so.

    Like


  664. What’s happening to you is you’re hearing truths and rejecting them because it messes with your mind. You don’t want to believe your viability is lessening as each year goes by. It puts pressure on you here and now doesn’t it? If you are chubby and over 35 you’ve got seriously limited options according to this site and that hits hard. But why not do something and work with what you have?

    No, what’s happening here is degradation to women. If it were a blog all about how the only men on the planet worth their salt were handsome, firefighting men, it would just as ridiculous. The people who hold these views are limiting themselves and others by subscribing to the idea that certain people are “worth more”. And that’s wrong. It’s not an issue of being sexually attractive to men who hold these views, it’s about devaluing an entire group of people.

    I think another issue at hand is that certain types of people are pre-disposed to being drawn to extreme ways of thinking so they can feel THEY are the enlightened ones, and the rest of the world “just doesn’t get them and reality”. Think Hale-Bopp Comet, Waco, etc. Which makes sense, b/c the people (men & women) who comment here read just like the people so easily influenced in those scenarios.

    And aoefe, I’m not 35, and I’m not chubby or fat. And when I meet people for the first time, they assume I’m about 23. That’s b/c I look much more healthy than the average 20-something. I live my life in a healthy manner; the average 18 year old is “worn out” compared to me, my body, my emotions, etc. To me, sleeping with more than 1 person does not earn the title “inexperienced” as it does here.

    I personally have lived and experienced a life 100% contradictory to what the men who comment here say about women and men. I think the “older” (25 and above, according to the standards here) women who agree with what’s written here feel very badly about themselves and have just given up; you’ve obviously experienced a lot of rejection and chalk it up to the ideas expressed here for an explanation. Perhaps you, aoefe, are above 35 and a bit chubby?

    And for the women who comment here who are not YET 25, you soon will be, and then worthless too, according to this way of thinking. Whether you marry or not, according to these men, you are secondary (at BEST) to others just b/c of your age. The years go by fast.

    I’m not addressing any of the comments from the men, b/c they are not worth my time–or any other woman’s, and I suspect that’s why they are so bitter and comment the way they do.

    I’m not rejecting truth. If any of this were true, I would see it played out amongst healthy people in society. If you want it to be your truth, be my guest, it’s your l