Archive for the ‘Comment Winners’ Category

Some context is needed for this week’s edition of COTW. That venerable company embodying the masculine virtues, Starbucks, recently announced a campaign called “Race Together” (Twit tag: #RaceTogether).

Commenter elmer asked,

Do you patronize the Starbucks in your upscale Bohemian neighborhood? How will you respond to the barista’s entreaties to have a dialogue about race in America?

To which driveallnight, our unanimous COTW winner, replied,

I now request my black coffee be prepared “straight up nigga”

:lol: my sides.

Speaking of Starcucks, it’s time for a….

#HateTogether UPDATE!

Via The Seminary of Christian Sadists:

Very respectable troll. America’s aggregate T level just rose a notch, from sloppy wet vagina to erect vestigial clitpenis.

I’m afraid if the white leftoid elite and their vibrant shock troops insist on humiliating non-elite whites, their call for war will be answered with twice the venom and three times the scorched earth. They asked for it…

Read Full Post »

COTW winner is artistoftheslightlyshadydeal, who writes about the devolution of marriage:

“some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

To survive as only a plaything of the legal profession.

It will also encourage women to scheme of ways to rework the marriage contract when they feel like to get 50 shades of dick on the side and bail out of their responsibilities in the partnership.

“I married him, but I never agreed to the reverse cowgirl or to be monogamous”

“I married him but I never agreed to wash the stains out of his children’s underwear”

Marriage will evolve all right, into a dicey proposition at best unless you have money to pay for the right contract to protect yourself from evolution or change you do not want.

Pre-nuptial agreements almost become mandatory to record promises made at the beginning. But it’s a band aid on gaping wound. As soon as marriages have porous boundaries then you may as well each just retain lawyers and start a limited liability company.

“50 shades of dick” lol

I’ve used this analogy before, and I’ll use it again, because I think it’s pertinent: A wife getting fat is reneging on her end of the marital deal just as assuredly as a husband lounging on the sofa all the time doing nothing is reneging on his. Both of them have turned their backs on what the other spouse desires from them.

Gay marriage has cracked open the door to the legalistic flim-flam divorce sham machine that much wider. This commenter is correct. Enlarging the purview of marriage to include all sorts of “arrangements” and “agreements” and “evolutions” and “fluid expectations” will essentially turn the institution into a loveless business partnership, and all that requires. May as well jump to the next step and avoid the wait: Contractual, time-limited marriages that can be renewed every few years based on client satisfaction.


COTW runner-up is Ras al Ghul, who spells out the final solution for the institution of marriage.

The real social danger, is what they’re [ed: gay marriage advocates] pushing, acceptance of open marriage.

Getting the betas to accept their women sleeping around (because they’re beta they’re not going to have the opportunity the women have).

The problem, and its a very real on is that the only incentive left for beta men to get married is the illusion that they are locking the girl down.

You take that illusion away and what possible reason do they have to get married and work hard?

None. Your married, hard working married slave boys are your revenue generators for your tax base and economy, Dalrock has that delineated out clearly. Single men, single women and married women have a small percentage of individuals that make a high income.

Married men are more likely to make more, work more.

They’ve erode marriage so far, I’m sure they think this won’t matter, but in the places where gay marriage is legalized the marriage rate drops faster for this very reason.

There will always be men that think they’re special snowflakes and that they’re relationship will be different, but that number of fools is already getting smaller.

Social acceptance and legal codification of open marriage will be the killing shiv twist in the black heart of the West. There will be no turning back from that paradigm shift. Hello, Afrimerica.

Read Full Post »

COTW winner Mike writes,

Off topic, but I just finished watching Eastwood’s “American Sniper”. The fact that we live in a society which teaches our kids to idolize rappers and drug dealers, and yet I’d never even heard of this guy until today, depresses the shit out of me. It’s guys like THAT that we should be holding up to our kids as the ideal.

If anyone wants to know what a true Alpha looks like, that dude was it. From what I could see, his only flaw was that he was willing to go overseas and risk his life for a country that would have happily thrown him under the bus if he would have come back and said something to offend a fat, spoiled, worthless SJW feminist.

That kiss-off disclaimer at the end is the shiv that twists deepest. From what I know, Kyle was an honorable man… and that was his flaw. He was duty-bound to a corrupt elite and government that, not to mince words, hated his guts, and hates the guts of those like him.

One insurgent tactic to hit the enemy where it hurts is to turn the affections of the natural constituency of the US military — all those competent white men from the more vigorous remnants of the culture — against the idea that service to the traitors within is anything remotely honorable or brave. It is, quite the contrary, stupid. It’s very stupid to fight for effete pussyboys, grotesque feminists, and diversity quota ingrates sitting in cushy offices who work tirelessly day and night to put the heads of white men like Kyle on plates.

Read Full Post »

How is a wounded woman like a wounded animal? PA explains as he hoists the COTW trophy:

A nasty form of red pill involves thoughts of how to act when your woman has been through great trauma, rape or otherwise. A wounded human being is in a shitload of pain, in such cases psychic pain.

They say that you shouldn’t try to comfort a beloved dog that was injured by a car because its pain can cause it to bite you. External-source duress, usually financial, can turn a wife into a bitch.

There was an article a few years after the 9.11 attacks, about a middle aged woman, civilian employee at the Pentagon, who was badly disfigured in the resulting fires and how she copes with life. Her husband (photos from happier days were shown, they were both radiant) had left her after the disfigurement.

I was quick to fault the man for abandoning her. But now I wonder, did he try to ‘be there’ and she pushed him away? I don’t know. In the story she said she is not angry with him.

A man wants to be needed and many of us want to help the few people in our inner circle when they need us. When we were little and got hurt, our moms poured concerned affection on us, and in those recesses of our psyches lies a template for healing another’s pain.

But like the struck dog, does the traumatized woman lash out at those closest to her? Those with the hard task of ‘being there’ have to think about what she really needs. Soft care may not be it.

Yes, this is a deeply dark red pill to swallow. I’ve seen it myself, and I’ve experienced it: The lashing out of the hurt woman against those trying to comfort her. The proper response to the hurt woman is a nod of sympathy and a studied avoidance of getting entangled in her drama other than giving her time to cry it out, (and giving yourself a little distance from her bared claws).

Why is it not uncommon for traumatized women to push away their supportive lovers? It’s a mystery, but my theory is that it has to do with the natural revulsion men and women feel for sex role inversions. The caretaker and the nurturer is the woman; when a man eagerly tries to assume this role, it’s disturbing to women on a primal level. It’s similar to the aggressive career woman barging into a meeting ready to close a big deal. Men may admire her gumption in the abstract, but as a character trait it’s very off-putting to behold in a woman.

Another, related, possibility is the idea that a supportive man, in his readiness to “be there” for a hurt woman, inadvertently “betatizes” himself. He may be perceived less as a shoulder to lean on than as a cloying handmanlet who in his zeal to be helpful winds up reminding the woman of the source of her pain.

Traumatized men do this too, but it seems more common with women. Or perhaps, when it concerns women, it’s more shocking to men who witness it, given the pedestal-contoured presumptions that men hold of women’s receptivity to assistance in times of need.

Maybe there’s a reason why in large parts of the world women who are rape victims are considered sexual persona non grata. Could it be that, underneath the religious or moral justifications, men shun traumatized women because they know, instinctively, that those women will never be “right” as relationship material?

Read Full Post »

Commenter blart observes that a girlfriend who has lost interest in keeping up her appearance is probably a girlfriend who has lost interest in her boyfriend:

Many of the girls I’ve gone out with always dressed hot, wore heels, make up for me. When we broke up…they went back to their old frumpy easy-going ways.

Girls like the feeling of working for something or someone…it’s in their nature to do so. Game is the key to unlocking that desire to submit.

this is an important point. a lot of girls get lazy and do the frumpy thing while they are with a guy. they try to say it’s just that they have gotten comfortable and feel accepted and loved by their men. but comfort like that is really just a sign that she’s not concerned with pleasing you anymore. she’s not afraid to lose you and she doesn’t care about your needs or desires.

you don’t want a girl so insecure that she’s freaked out with fear of losing you every day. that’s a nightmare so you have to give them some comfort. but when a girl stops making an effort to look good for you, she is in the power position. she’s either trying to discourage you from making sexual advances because you turn her off or she just doesn’t respect you or see you as a high value man who she needs to work to please. that’s a bad situation either way.

Comfort + Anxiety. Comanxiety. Cuminsideofme? YES.

The art of seduction is about bringing balance to the force. Too much anxiety will corrode a relationship just as assuredly as too much comfort, although the precipitating chemical reactions are different. (CH suggestion: If you must choose between cultivating anxiety or comfort, choose anxiety. The sex will be hotter, at least for the short, dramatic time you have left together. Plus, it’s easier to pull a girlfriend back from the anxiety brink than it is to push her out of a slippers-and-sweatpants sexless comfort bubble.)

Stay alert to those relationship red flags which indicate a woman’s fading love and peripatetic lust. Yes, women want to achieve maximum gravitational comfort within relationships, but women are also strangely their own worst enemies in their quest for eternal love and happiness. Women will work instinctively and incessantly toward neutering and domesticating boyfriends and enlarging their LTR comfort zone until, perplexed and full of resentment, they have lost all desire for their men. It’s up to men to guide women away from the equivalent of lesbian bed death, and they do this by taking the lead in and out of the bedroom, wielding psychological tools that would make Alinsky blush.

Love is a protracted psy ops campaign with generous benefits.

I should point out the exception to Blart’s Rule about the threatening portent of girlfriends abandoning self-beautification efforts. Be equally wary when your woman has a sudden and inexplicable surge of interest in dolling herself up. She might be signaling a desire to reintroduce herself to the wilds of the dating market.

I know this sounds like contradictory advice, but there are critical distinctions. Lust-curdling comfort zone laziness is a pattern that emerges slowly in a woman. You have time to recognize it and take actions to thwart its progression. Lust-activating makeovers that aren’t a direct response to your seductive wiles are severe relationship weather bulletins. This is usually a rapid change that will appear in a woman without much forewarning, sometimes overnight, and seemingly unconnected to any pattern in your own behavior. If you’re a typical boyfriend blob, and your girl starts the day with lipstick smeared in vibrant cherry eddies across her plump lips, something she hadn’t done during the previous two years, you’ve got competition lurking in the shadows of her snapper.

Read Full Post »

Hosswire unsheaths (by proxy). The COTW is his reward (or his buddy’s):

A buddy of mine put it so well:

“I kind of feel sorry for women. Imagine if you could only get a hard-on when someone was mean to you.”

A nimble tongue tinged with acid awakens a woman’s libido in the same manner pert tits and a firm ass awakens a man’s.


COTW runner-up is trav777:

Whoever said culture matters is an idiot.

Race is not a social construct.

Society is a racial construct.

Beautiful. That last line — “society is a racial construct” — is worth inclusion in the COPROP insurgent field guide.

Read Full Post »

head games
it’s you and me baby
head games
and i can’t take it anymore

Reader Nope comments about women playing games:

Amy: “Let’s say I want to make a guy jealous…..”

1. Chicks don’t have to do this. You want him, let him know. Otherwise it’s a cruel game. He’s prolly harboring jealousy anyway but not visibly.
2. Making someone jealous on purpose is toying with them. Fuck that.
3. This is a perfect example of the fundamental differences between men and women. Men HAVE to resort to games, whereas women choose to play games because the regular way just isn’t stimulating enough, they’re bored, whatever.

You wanna make every man in the room wonder WTF? Make yourself up to your hottest, go find the ugliest, nastiest, heaviest dyke you can, and just make out with her in full view. Sweetly reject all male attention (not nuclear), then just before you bounce, abandon your dyke and grab the pointdexter in the corner, then leave together.

Easier just to not fuck with guys’ minds in the first place.

His breathless tone of indignation aside, “Nope” did make a very interesting point about gamesmanship and its relevance to both sexes as a sexual market exploit.

Men HAVE to game, women CHOOSE to game.

But before you bronze this formulation, a caveat. Men and women have different reproductive goals, and therefore different perspectives on the purpose of courtship. The value of female-specific game may seem nebulous to men, but with a long view in mind can be understood as more of a necessity to women.

Men game to give women what they want, because that’s the path to sex. Women game… to give themselves what they want, because women need to know if a man is worthy of their sex.

The point deserves belaboring. As women are the choosier sex, and as women are holistic judges of mate worth and place equal emphasis on non-visual attractiveness cues, men have to bring more to the table to get any traction with potential love interests. Therefore, game, one of a panoply of enticement strategies available to men, becomes more of a necessity than a luxury.

Women need to look pretty and fuckable to catch men’s attention. That’s it. (haters, spare us your spittle.) Women’s personality and smarts will start to matter for the long haul, but in the courtship arena they needn’t concern themselves much with “applying charisma” to attract men.

Women play games — their flavor of head games — to identify strong men. Women aren’t doing it to increase their attractiveness to men; they’re doing it because they have to deal with an information bottleneck about suitors. Men don’t have this bottleneck because most of the information they need is scanned and analyzed within a second of visual confirmation.

Women also play games because they’re bored by the parade of uninspiring betas who constitute the vast majority of men. Or they want to feed their egos with an endless buffet of external validation. These latter two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive with the primary “beta male filter” directive, but they are more frivolous and the willingness by women to indulge those urges imply an intuitive grasp of their inherently greater sexual value.

This is why the psychological strategems preferred by women, and peculiar to women’s specific needs, have come to be disparaged as the art of playing “head games”. Women play games not to appease or captivate men in the hope of mutual romantic fulfillment, but — like so many quirks of female behavior demonstrate — to gratify their egoism and to amuse themselves.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,240 other followers

%d bloggers like this: