Comment Of The Week

Commenter Revo Luzione suggests a reason why the exclamation snort is not attractive when women use it:

Kate: “Many a text exchange has reached a dead end when I reply with “snort.””

That’s because elephants, rhinos, and angry Holsteins all snort before charging.

Snort!

This gets to a larger point: the snark and snideness and gleeful antagonism that works for men to attract women does not sit as well on women when they use it to try and attract men. This is because male aloofness and other male value-raising ploys — of which the Theory of Snort is a part — are designed to appeal to women’s natural hypergamous urge for higher status (read: condescending) men than themselves. In contrast, men are not attracted to women’s social status, and in fact may be put off by women with higher social or economic status than themselves. Men’s hypergamy, such as it is, seeks ever more beautiful and feminine women. And there is nothing about leaving an impression of an angry Holstein that makes women seem more beautiful or feminine.

Read Full Post »

Troll Comment Of The Week

shiva1008 hams it up:

Approaching women is a Demonstration of Lower Value. It basically says, “I know you wouldn’t give a shit about me otherwise, so I’m going to have to force you to pay attention to me.” Keep at it chumps.

The man-hating troll will deny the laws of physics if it helps it concoct a fantasy universe where no action a man does redounds to his favor, save those actions that are done for the explicit advantage of feminist crones. This is how the man-hating troll is able to rationalize that approaching women — an act of resolve and daring that most men are incapable of mustering on their own — is a sign of self-doubt instead of the sign of confidence that is so obvious to anyone not clinically insane with impotent rage.

This is why there is no point logically reasoning with a man-hating troll. What purchase can be made in the warped mind of a void entity which announces, with or without conviction, that a man hitting on a woman qualifies as coercion and an admission of insecurity? It is as if the void entity has entered a parallel plane of existence where confident and assertive men sit on their thumbs patiently waiting for women to offer them sex, and enormous hamsters gobble galaxies whole. It’s best simply to viciously mock the man-haters, and showcase their everlasting torment as an example for the others.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week

Reader BC gives some historical perspective to the alimony issue. (“Historical whaaa? I’m a feminist, I know not of such things. Please to dress it up in snark so that I can properly menstruate in the comments section at Jizzebel.”)

In Olde Timey days — like, medieval England, we’re talking about — a husband gained ownership of all his wife’s property (her dowry) when they married, and did not relinquish it when they divorced. Since women didn’t work [ed: in a cubicle] back then, the result was that a divorce would frequently leave the woman totally destitute. Alimony was a way to avoid that: a divorced man kept the dowry, but incurred an obligation to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise support his ex-wife until she remarried or died.

Two things upended the applecart. First, we started dividing marital assets at divorce. That’s a subject about which entire books could be (and have been) written, but the key point is that ex-wives ceased to be penniless; they took (oftentimes substantial) assets with them when they left a marriage. Second, women fully entered the workforce as primary wage-earners in their own right, and there ceased to be any good reason why they couldn’t support themselves.

Together, those two developments have pretty thoroughly undermined the policy rationale for alimony, and in a sane world it would have become a historical footnote occasionally pressed into service to avoid injustice in truly extraordinary cases. Instead, the American family law system in which I toil has been marinating in femcunt ideology since the sixties, and while there are a few scattered efforts at reform, the result is that alimony largely persists — not as necessary spousal support, but to make it more financially convenient for women to abandon the beta providers they swore to love, honor, and obey.

One thing you have to understand about the divorce industrial complex if you want to know how and why things traveled this far down the circles of post-nuptial hell: The spiteful degenerates who advocated for no-fault divorce and punitive alimony and child support, and the blood-sucking parasites who inevitably followed in their wake, never had fairness in mind. What they wanted, ultimately, was the reconstruction of society to extend and enshrine total female freedom of access and removal of accountability in the marital and sexual markets, while restricting and regulating as much as possible male access to the sexual market, particularly beta male access, and placing upon men responsibility for the consequences of both men’s and women’s actions within those markets.

And that is why I declare a guy like this a justifiable American hero who, if the West were ever to regain its sanity, would have a monument erected in his honor. Or at least a Truck Nutz dedicated in his name.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week: The Dark Triad In Practice

taterearl writes:

Narcissism = higher value in yourself…taking women off the pedestal
Machiavellianism = pretty much game…using women’s nature to get what you want
psychopathy = aloof and unconcerned when a woman gets flighty with her emotions

You don’t need to turn into a serial killer to get women…just understand these personality traits do have some benefit to your personality.

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

***

Runner-up comment winner

Jacob Ian Stalk has this to say about that:

The Dark Triad is the clarion call that has replaced outmoded concepts of honor, virtue, chivalry and self-sacrifice as the organizing principle which motivates and galvanizes the post-society American man. It is the ultimate expression of untrammeled individualism. A society crumbling into atomizing modernism is both symptomatic of growing psychopathy in the population and causal of more people turning toward the psychopathic dark side. When truth is exiled, the allure of cold-blooded self-concern is evident.

This, right here, is the result of 50 years of feminist influence. Decivilisation. Decivilisation by the hand of the Mother Goddess and her evil handmaidens. That’s Game – a roadmap to her altar with Google-Maps-direction-finder efficiency.

Game is like a gold ring through a pig’s snout – it lures unwary men onto the altar of the sacred feminine. Feverishly we mount her handmaidens and cast the pearls of our manhood before her swine.

No need to wonder how to get there, or look for street signs. Here’s the way, spelled out for us in 100 words or less. Go straight to the Devil. Do not pass God and do not collect salvation.

Fights to the death for a womans favour is the only possible eventuality of Game. When men unbind from each other and abandon brotherhood feminism has won. Man is reduced to his animal nature. If feminism wins, the Alpha will be kept in a cage, released only to kill the Beta, then used for sexual gratification and breeding stock.

A better roadmap to the jungle doesn’t exist than right here in these pages. The blogger knows it. The reader knows it. And the Devil knows it. If our last rallying point is a pact with the Devil then We. Are. Done.

It’s a strange mental contortion when getting all the sex and love from pretty girls one could want is considered a victory for feminism.

My take on this issue which crops up regularly on this blog can be summed up in a simple rhetorical ploy:

What do you call a man who sacrifices for a country and a culture which is indifferent to him at best and hates him at worst?

A fool.

I say, bring on the jungle.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week: The Parable Of The Gift And The Ass

Famed commenter gig (a Chateau VIP) passes along this story from a friend:

Fun story, not mine, from a friend.

He was in first or second year in college, and dating a girl still in high school. He’d started working, unlike her. So he had much more money than her. And he gave her a very nice gift for Christmas, in her view. But the girl got embarassed because she couldn’t match his gift. And they started talking about how could she “repay” him.

Well, after some talk, he came to the answer. Everything would be settled, and she would have no reason to be embarrassed, if she gave him her ass for his birthday, several months ahead. He argued that her ass was something very special for him that it would cement a very strong bond between them and make their relationship much deeper. If you know what I mean….

So he spent the next months “dreaming” about the day. And the day came. But the girl said that she couldn’t do it, it would hurt her, she was not of that type, she couldn’t do it. He decided to break up with her because of that.

fast forward a couple years. They meet again. He asks her to come to his new apartment. He didn’t ask anything, just went for the kill. And he got her ass. I did try to find some moral teaching here, but I have failed so far….

Moral of the story: You don’t barter for a woman’s sex; you occupy it.

That’s what women secretly want you to do, but they don’t like having to spell it out for you. Unfortunately, most betas are socially dyslexic and need it spelled out, which of course ruins the romance.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week

The Man Who Was…. opines:

It is one of the saddest facts of life that you only get to bang hot girls once your ability to appreciate them has decreased.

For health and longevity reasons, I have decided to try and be less cynical about humanity, or at least to welcome a bout of deliberate self-delusion once in a while as a soul restorative. But it’s hard… so very hard. The cold fish of reality never stops slapping one in the face.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week: Sexual Self-Control Is A Male Thing

Reader whorefinder posits a theory explaining why, historically, women’s sexuality has been deemed more dangerous than men’s sexuality to societal cohesion:

One thing about bitches in heat is that they really aren’t that used to it.

For all the jokes about men being led around by their dicks, men at least have the experience of being turned on a lot more and for a lot longer than women. And, because of that, how to socially deal with that.

Consequently, when a man is turned on —say, at a strip club— he doesn’t charge the stage and throw a stripper down and fuck her right there, even if he wants to. Fear of the bouncers, arrest, rape charges, etc. are there, but so is the social approbation and, generally, his experiences as a younger man knowing how his sexuality acts and not succumbing to it. This, too, shall pass.

Women, on the other hand, experience lust and turned-on-ness more rarely, and its more fleeting for them. After all, the sexual reproduction is accomplished when men ejaculate, not when females orgasm, so nature made men hornier. This is also why women complain of a mood (for sex) “being broken” by a smell, a phrase, or a sight, while men do not have that happen—because men are built to push through and get the job done.

But because women get less horny, when they do get turned on, and especially turned on well, they have much less control. A smooth player who hits all the right buttons on a girl will have her in a puppy-like state because she doesn’t know how to handle it. It’s at the root of when women say “it just happened”—she was so overwhelmed by unfamiliar instinct that she went on autopilot (almost literally), as she had no experience fighting it.

Hornier women—i.e. more masculine women—-are more in tune with the male mindset because 1) they’re led around by their vaginas more; and 2) they have experience taming their vagina cravings. They don’t act girlish because girlishness is for girls who don’t know what waking up horny every day feels like.

All this is to say that women who are able to deny sex based on some “rules” mentality are thinking instead of feeling, which means they aren’t feeling horny enough to jump on you, which means they aren’t very turned on by you in the first place.

Men have a tiger in their pants. When you have spent your whole post-pubescent life side-by-side with a tiger, you learn how to tame it so it doesn’t get you trouble. You learn to think clearly when it’s breathing down your neck. Women have an elephant in their pants; passive and docile most of the time, content to graze languorously, but when it’s roused there’s no stopping it from a destructive rampage. When her elephant is rampaging, she is helpless to think clearly.

Women only seem like they have more sexual self-control than do men, but that’s because they don’t get tempted nearly as much as men do. If women were as frequently, indiscriminately, instantly and intensely climb-the-walls horny as men are, you’d see them begin acting in some very strange ways that broke all sorts of social taboos. Women, for this reason, cannot empathize with men’s libidinous natures and psychological states. Similarly, men find it difficult to empathize with women’s needs for sexual prudence and deliberation (though men find it less difficult to empathize with women than the other way around, owing to the nature of the sexual market requiring more reality-based thinking from men than from women).

For a perfect demonstration of women’s unfamiliarity with powerful uncontrollable horniness, just watch in wonder at how crazily uninhibited in bed a “good girl” will get with you if she has little prior experience dating charming men like yourself, or dating any men at all. Women in these situations often go into a shaman-like state of complete abandon, shrieking pleasure at the top of their lungs, and unable to wind down until sleep becomes too heavy to fight off. And when they fall in love, they become utterly dependent.

whorefinder is correct, then, to say that any man struggling patiently to close the deal with an overly prudent woman is probably falling short of turning her on sufficiently. A woman who truly craves a man will surrender quicker than she anticipated to her surprisingly powerful lust impulse, and her thinking processes will then be hijacked in service to her emotions, rationalizing the pleasure-seeking actions she’s about to take, rather than turned in service to her arid reason or rules. In contrast, a woman who is able to think clearly in your company is a woman whose vagina remains dry and unperturbed.

To put it another way: You wouldn’t want to date any Rules girl who succeeded at convincing you to obey her rules.

The next post will seem to be a direct contradiction of this post, but it won’t be to those who understand that woman is cursed with dueling reproductive directives. This long duel of the female soul — eternal, unrelenting, stalemated — imbues women with a vague veneer of crazy. It’s what makes women inscrutable to high and low men, and sometimes even to the most perceptive masters of the mind.

Read Full Post »