Feminist Fallacy #3: “I use men for sex”

Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses. Nine times out of ten, it’s the jerk who doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with the smitten dear who then tells herself afterward she was just using him for sex to comfort her bruised ego.

Need proof? Normally, I’d say, just get out of your fetid basement hovel and join the real world for a week or two, but this time I feel the spirit of science move me, so here ya go:

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

The jerks chicks dig for sex are also loved as relationship material. The bottleneck preventing women from fulfilling their desire for LTRs with assholes is not women’s long-term preference for niceguys, but the assholes’ preference for short term flings.

So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.

Read Full Post »

Being The Right Kind Of Asshole

Occasionally, an oh-so-sincere skeptical reader will insist that being the jerk women love doesn’t work, because he/she/it saw some guy calling a girl a bitch once, and that guy didn’t get laid.

The height of counter-argument prowess!

As this blogasmic beacon of bounteous love has written before, there is a critical distinction between being a “caring asshole” that signals to women you are desperate for their vaginas, and being an aloof “uncaring asshole” that signals to women you could do without their vaginas, which ironically makes their vaginas feel strong love.

(I will leave aside for another post examination of putative examples to the contrary, such as those supreme assholes like Chris Brown and Mexican drug lords who, full of care, beat their women to pulps yet still enjoy the undying love of their attractive targets of affliction.)

If you are having trouble dissecting the meaning of being an uncaring asshole, think upon the personality quirks that define a man who has inherited (or honed) the suite of Dark Triad traits. He is closest to the manifestation of the ideal uncaring asshole.

Reader Ripp writes:

“The Dark Triad are the component parts of the one overarching attitude that most defines and forges the successful womanizer: overconfidence.”

Agreed, academically. To qualify overconfidence:

The art of exhibiting these qualities is commonly misrepresented by being a deliberate asshole; a ‘caring asshole’. Irrational overconfidence, or ‘cockyness’, doesn’t hit the mark.

Calculated arrogance, effectively demonstrated pre-selection, a refined non-reactive attitude to shit testing and a mysterious self-serving aloofness comprises the “attitude” described above.

Uncalibrated “overconfidence” is try hard. Yielding true overconfidence at the correct moments hits the mark:

“Listen. I don’t know you…and you need to understand. I’m one charming mother fucker.”

This reader has a point. If you have to shout your overconfidence from the rooftops, you have shown the exact opposite: a lack of self-confidence.

But most Dark Triad Dudes are irrationally overconfident, if by irrational we mean that there is very little objective evidence that would buttress a case for their degree of self-regard. The reason they do well with women is because women don’t subconsciously care as much for objective measures verifying a man’s overconfidence as they care for the overconfident attitude itself. And, remember, when we’re talking about sparking vaginal tingles, it’s a woman’s subconscious you want to massage, not her conscious awareness. The subconscious is orders of magnitude more powerful than the conscious, in which the latter pretty much acts as a highly advanced rationalization machine permitting expression of the desires of the subconscious.

Again… it’s the ALPHA ATTITUDE chicks dig. You have the attitude, and you can pretty much roll with any undersized or overstuffed portfolio of objective accomplishments. If you don’t have the attitude, you will be dismayed to find that your curriculum vitae is not helping you get laid as much as the numbers you crunched told you it would help.

Naturally, it’s better to have both aligned — you’ll find it easier to maintain congruence if your objective status matches your signaling status — but if you had to choose one, choose signaling status. It’s way simpler to achieve, and more fun to apply!

I’ll give you a quick glimpse at a minute in the life of a caring asshole, so that you can better appreciate why he fails with women while his equal but different douchehead cousin cleans up with the ladies.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares too much: “Well, fuck you, nobody asked for it.”

Girl: “You just did.”

Asshole who cares too much: “I was kidding. I would never go out with a bitch like you.”

There’s no denying this guy is an asshole, and there’s no denying he would be a miserable failure with women (although, it has to be said, he’d still do better than the typical mincing betabot). So where did his assholery go wrong? For that, we need to contrast him with his uncaring asshole bro.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “My heart will go on.”

Girl: “Well, you did seem like you wanted it.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “That was before I got distracted by your sister.”

In every technical aspect, and according to every feminist by-law, this guy would qualify as an asshole. And, yet, there’s just something about him….

wait… phew… I channeled some woman’s hamster there for a minute. Strange experience.

The second guy knows about charm and delivery, and executes with purpose. That purpose being, to reflect, “Goddamn, I am a sexy beast. A stylish sniper of love. Excuse me whilst I make 1080p love to myself.”

He is as far from your typical niceguy as he is from your hothead asshole above who calls women bitches at the drop of a hat. But an asshole he is, and the right kind of asshole, the kind that women, the world over, will always and forevermore fall head over haunches for despite their squid-inking claims to the contrary.

Read Full Post »

Stealing Bait From Women Fishing For Compliments

Fishing for compliments is mostly a woman thing. ON AVERAGE, of course, ON AVERAGE. Men rarely engage in the activity; even very insecure men are loathe to fish for compliments. It’s such a transparently unmanly endeavor that the noodliest manboobs wince at the thought of begging like a chick for self-esteem boosts.

The kinds of women who make it obvious that they are fishing for compliments generally fall in three main camps:

1. Hot babes who live and die by continual positive feedback on either their beauty (from aloof men they like) or their personality/smarts (from women and men who only recognize them for their beauty.)

2. Aging beauties who need reassurances in the face of their impending expiration.

3. Women in relationships who are feeling anxiety that their men are losing interest in them.

There are plenty of other types, but these three predominate. A once-hot woman nearing 35, in an unmarried relationship with an alpha male with options who checks out other women all the time, is the equivalent of fishing for sharks in a backyard pool with chunks of seal flesh as bait. She is a fisher of flattery.

Knowing this, you can capitalize on this natural womanly compulsion for your own benefit. (You can also make yourself less attractive.)

The beta male spies a woman fishing for a compliment, and he frantically chomps down, happily letting himself be reeled into the boat. She catches him, sees what a runty specimen he is, and uses him as bait to catch bigger fish. The beta male feels the hook dig deep into his side and wonders why he is suffering such torment for giving the fisher of flattery what she wanted.

The alpha male spies a woman fishing for flattery, and he circles the bait, taking small nibbles from it without ever biting down on the hook. She tries to reel him in, but he is elusive. She now wants this fish so badly she dumps the whole bucket of beta fish chum in the water hoping to lure him closer to the boat where she can net him. But he is slippery, and toys with her by gleefully breaching the water just out of her reach.

You, the reader, would like to know how to nibble at a woman fishing for compliments that does not result in your demise or her abandoning the water to fish another day. There is no one way to successfully dance with a woman seeking approval via utilization of a plump, poisoned enticement, but there are easily-remembered short cuts. One which has worked for me over the years is a simple one-word response:

“Sure.”

As in:

Woman Being Womanly: “Don’t you think this skirt is a cute look on me?”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Woman Being Womanly: “I bet I could make you forget about her.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Womanly Being Womanly: “I’m the best you’ll ever get.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

The key here is the tone of your voice; neither sarcastic nor earnest. You want that “sure” to sound closer to an ambiguously sincere reflection bordering on a taunt, slightly higher pitched, and girded with a hint of joviality.

You want her wondering what it is you’re thinking. She has dropped bait, and she’s not quite sure you’re on the hook. But neither is she sure you’ve raced away from her hook.

This works because women love two characteristics about men: unpredictability and ambiguity. The woman who can’t readily predict or decipher your reaction, or the meaning of your words, is the woman who will make her desire more predictable and less ambiguous to you. She does not want your hostility or your sycophancy, both of which are as predictable as sunrises. She wants your mystery.

Read Full Post »

Why Apple Owns Hearts (If Not Minds)

Half Sigma has a post up profiling buyers of Apple and Android (concluding that most Android buyers are more frugal than Apple buyers.)

Android buyers may be more frugal, but it’s not because they have less money to spend than Apple buyers. The reason Apple is the elite/SWPL/hipster smartphone and tablet and laptop of choice has to do with the preferences of women. As a commenter over there wrote:

“Maybe iphones appeal to women shoppers, but the sophisticated users I know prefer the Galaxy S III or the Nexus 4.”

Apple vs Android is less about SWPL vs prole than it is about women vs men.

Firstly, proles aren’t Android customers. Most proles don’t have service plans and are still using dumb phones. Android customers are well-paid STEM men, typically younger, and often married with small kids. They are the type of men who are out of the dating market, either through marriage or nerdery. They love tinkering with gadgets and discovering multi-use purposes for them. They are numbers people, and have a natural aversion to spending more for something than what it is worth according to dry calculations they make in their heads. In other words, the core Android base are left brain thinkers who better appreciate value and function and are autistic to the appeal of pretty packaging, ergonomics and intuitive GUIs.

Devoted Apple customers are single women and the men who hang around a lot of women, like salesmen, players, scenesters, and marketers. Apple customers also include older buyers who are intimidated by rumors of non-Apple products being harder to navigate. In other words, the core Apple base are right brain thinkers who better appreciate form and are scared of advanced techie functionality (or more precisely, techie functionality that is not sufficiently concealed under a soothing layer of bubbly icons).

Apple enjoys lavish profitability because women are the primary purchasers in any modern, slowly decaying Western society. Since form has higher status than function in such late-stage societies, and since women are the drivers of trivial status whoring competitions, Apple — which, justifiably, represents the ultimate in high status tech aesthetic — owns women’s sympathies. And from this, Apple owns a significant chunk of men and their dollars.

Read Full Post »

What A Future American Right Party Can Do To Win

Dissolve the Republicans. They are worse than useless; their “me-too”ism knee-jerk quickness to dance to the Left’s funeral dirge composed on their behalf is leading them right into a hole in the ground. A future party of the right is going to have to fight a different fight — one that cuts out the beating heart of leftoidism itself and squeezes it to a mash: the propagandizers.

Commenter Porter at Mangans’s explains how to defund (and defang) the Left’s army of indoctrinators:

Dissolve their barbell on both ends. Both the very rich and their client-class eaters skew heavily democrat. A cunning Republican (I mean this, of course, hypothetically) would very publicly offer a grand bargain that bargains only him: Punitive, confiscatory, outrageous taxation on incomes over whatever figure, combined with meaningful cuts across the welfare spectrum, including elimination of the earned income tax credit. I’ll offer cuts to your constituents in exchange for higher taxes on your sponsors. It’s simply fiscal prudence with a little extra help from the wealthiest Americans.

Free the Cable Guy. Push legislation that unbundles cable packages and offers choice to the public in what channels they wish to pay for and receive. This would end the involuntary subsidies from cable customers to the left’s fringe media projects. Let each channel be subject to market demand…and let MSNBC drown.

And this isn’t as much a rep/dem issue as it is one of stanching the bloodflow to a tick…401k retirement accounts represent a torrent of tribute to Wall Street. End it. The left loves the Community Reinvestment Act. Give them more community reinvestment. Require 401 monies to be managed by institutions local to the business or employee. Much of this would flow into CDs at smaller regional banks where subsequent lending activity would occur. Wealth remains local and decentralized while Goldman bonuses are slashed to seven figures. There are no losers.

This is the way to seriously harm, if not kill, the mind virus that is the modern Left. Forget following the oh-so-sincerely-helpful advice from Democrat quarters that fielding minority candidates and assuaging women with feelgood pablum about free birth control and dropping opposition to electorate-altering amnesty is the way to success for Republicans. Would you take advice from the executioner on how tightly to knot the rope fitted around your neck?

Yes, Republicans could be more successful if they became more like Democrats (and even that is debatable, for what good is gimmedat lite compared to the real redistribution?). But then where is the Right except existing as a dangly, vestigial Kuato providing comic relief for the behemoth Left? What is the point of having an opposing party if its success rides upon how well it can mimic its ostensible ideological enemies?

No, ignore the plaintive wails for reforming the “right”. Hit the enemy where it’ll hurt them the most, even hurt them lethally. Suck dry the money spigot that breathes dark life into the Propagandizers and Indoctrinators. Do this, “””Republicans”””, and sit back in joy as the wails of the Left echo like a cacophony of squealing pigs being buried alive in your ears.

Of course, the reps of the mainstream right won’t do this. Many of them don’t really want to win; it would interfere with their cocktail glass clinking time. And, oh god!, don’t raise taxes one iota on those über rich Democrat non-patrons! But if by some miracle the right found its balls, if the spirit of Khan suddenly moved them to action, the above recipe to regain some serious power will work… at least enough to staunch the enveloping, suffocating demographic tide for a decade or two.

And then it’s GAME OVER MAN. GAME OOOOOVER.

Read Full Post »

The Predictable Call To Accept The Wages Of Slut

Way back, Chateau Heartiste wrote in regards the spreading (heh) sluttification of America:

Single moms like to talk about how they do things on their own, and they “don’t need a man”. But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company’s products or in lowered salaries for its employees. It is private welfare, but welfare just the same. Now companies can choose to offer this to their heart’s content; after all, no one is forcing me to buy their products or work there and thus subsidize the lifestyles of a bunch of single moms and harried working moms. But my advice to men who want to maximize their earning potential — work for companies that don’t offer generous payoffs in an effort to recruit working moms. It is likely you will command a higher salary with more patriarchal companies. […]

When financially self-sufficient women turn away from beta providers as a source of sexual arousal, they substitute other alpha male qualities in its place. Big government is a beta provider substitute with alpha male qualities.

Fast forward to today: GLPiggy has a post up quoting a young, newly minted feminist who wishes to strip single momhood of its social stigma.

Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

I invite readers to draw the relevant connections between these two excerpts.

Meanwhile, I suggest aspiring single moms who wish to truly Go Their Own Way (SGTOW?) practice what they preach and divest themselves of all male support, in whatever form. That means: no redistribution from unrelated men to single moms, no corporate welfare in the form of maternity leave or flex time or special insurance policy discounts, no government handouts predicated on number of children, no shamelessness exacerbating EBT cards, no punitive alimony or child support payouts, no affirmative action for the children of single moms. In short, no sexless drone provider beta male largesse to save single moms from a self-inflicted life of indigent misery.

If this were to happen, and feminists were taken at their word and bequeathed a world in which all male influence was excised from their lives and they were left to fend for themselves and their bastard spawn, empowered and self-actualized, the resulting river of blood and the symphony of children’s cries reverberating through hell’s heart itself would quickly, very quickly I predict, disabuse feminist cunts of the luxury of their man and father hatred. Lie-exalting ruling class sophistry would blow away effortlessly like hay in a hurricane.

But of course feminists don’t really want men removed from their lives; they love having de facto castrated beta males foot their bills, and the bills of their unholy unclaimed consolidated stem cell packages. A massive transfer of wealth from quasi-cuckolded beta males to feckless females is the *whole point*, the UR PURPOSE, of feminism. It is giving women what they want — money and support — to do as they please, without asking of them anything in return (typically, sex and fidelity).

In the distant future, when archaeologists (or aliens who are rummaging through the wreckage of their terraforming experiment) stumble upon a lone monolithic server storing the collected wisdom of this blog, the group of excavators will hook it up, read the ancient scrolls, and stare in quiet at their feet as a depressing realization sweeps over their collective consciousness:

“someone knew. someone saw it coming.”

And from the origin point of the universe, a great guffaw will issue, and galaxies will rattle as the mightiest HAA HAWW ever to grace the cosmic firmament blasts forth from its waiting slumber.

Read Full Post »

How To Reframe Against Leftists (And Women)

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “””conservatives””” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “””conservative””” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

Read Full Post »