Decivilizing: Human Nature Unleashed

Chateau Maxim #3: In the state of nature, men are expendable.

I want you to keep in mind the above law as you read my brief take on F. Roger Devlin’s outstanding (and MSM blacked out) essays on gender dynamics and the sexual revolution. The truth of that law is the explanation for everything you see around you today.

I found the link to Devlin through 2Blowhards with interesting followup commentary. You can read the essays here. Scroll over the icons, hit the down arrow, and click download for easiest access. This is a must read for anyone who wants to know why things seem to have gone off the rails. Devlin’s essays are long but I urge you to read them through, including his evisceration of Wendy Shalit, representative of those obtuse anti-porn crusading social conservatives and myopic “fourth wave feminists” who preach from a pulpit of willful ignorance, habitually missing the forest for the trees:

[…]the notion that all our problems come from women’s making sex available outside marriage—and, consequently, that a “holding out for the wedding” strategy will make everything right again—deserves a close, critical look. Wendy Shalit’s writings provide a useful occasion for doing this. Her proposals have considerable limitations, in fact, most of which flow from a single source: feminine narcissism and its concomitant unconcern for the masculine point of view.

Devlin’s essay Sexual Utopia in Power contains this nugget of truth:

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.” Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. […]

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.

And here Devlin gets to the heart of the matter:

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own {hypergamous} utopia, not that of men.

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

Many will suffer in the fallout. Their suffering will be necessary. The only alternative is a gradual decivilizing of the West until the hellhounds of human nature have broken their chains and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed.

My one beef with Devlin’s essays is that he overlooks the emergence of game as a social phenomenon in reaction to the negative trends he correctly outlines. Game was birthed in the twin crucibles of the feminist-inspired sexual revolution and the teachings of evolutionary psychology. As women have become more hypergamous, betas, feeling the pinch, have become more dedicated to learning the crimson arts. Some alphas looking for even more edge in the dating market have also taken up the cause, with a bounty of no-strings-attached pussy the result. Women call this manipulation, but in fact it is just the same old reproductive arms race, this time with laser-guided cock bombs.

Devlin continues to make the following astute observations in Sexual Utopia:

A characteristic feature of decadent societies is the recrudescence of primitive, precivilized cultural forms. That is what is happening to us. Sexual liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack reappears among humans. […]

If women want to mate simply as their natural drives impel them, they must, rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.

But, of course, women’s attitude about this situation is not especially rational. They expect their alpha man to “commit.” Woman’s complaining about men’s failure to commit, one suspects, means merely that they are unable to get a highly attractive man to commit to them; rather as if an ordinary man were to propose to Helen of Troy and complain of her refusal by saying “women don’t want to get married.”

Furthermore, many women are sexually attracted to promiscuous men because, not in spite, of their promiscuity. This can be explained with reference to the primate pack. The “alpha male” can be identified by his mating with many females. This is probably where the sluts-and-studs double standard argument came from—not from any social approval of male promiscuity, but from female fascination with it. Male “immorality” (in traditional language) can be attractive to females. Thus, once polygamous mating begins, it tends to be self-reinforcing.

There’s a reason why beta males have stopped holding open doors for women. Chivalry requires gratitude.

In Devlin’s parallel essay Rotating Polyandry, he quotes a female author from her book explaining how differently men and women view sex and love:

Most men I have talked to call it infatuation, but most of the women I have talked to call it being in love… Women in particular may believe that, if they find the right person, intense feelings can last. They’ve been taught to believe that they should only want sex with someone they love. So when a woman desires a man, she thinks she is in love, and when the desire fades she thinks she is out of love.

This leads to further quotes by Devlin describing the natural forces of female caprice that make marital dissolution practically a foregone conclusion in the absence of either social shaming and stigmatism or the supervision of a very alpha dominant husband:

They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment. […]

When a woman wants to get married, she will usually overlook a lot, and at times allow herself to be treated pretty badly. After she gets married, not only is the excitement of pursuit over, after a few years of marriage the attraction buzz has dissipated too. At that point, many women may find that marriage hasn’t even come close to meeting their expectations. Some women feel stupid for having wanted it so badly in the first place.

And then Devlin reaches the logical conclusion — frequently written here by me — that marriage is not necessary for a loving, sexual, commited relationship, and is often antithetical to it:

Men being pressured for “commitment” sometimes attempt to point this out: “Why is it such a big deal? What is going to be different after we’re married?” The men are right, of course: a wedding ceremony has no magical power to produce lifelong happiness. Unfortunately, this seems to be something women only learn from experience.

Read the rest of his essay if you can stomach it for a realistic description of what exactly goes through a woman’s mind as she is slowly falling out of love with her provider beta husband and contemplating the firestorm of divorce. If all men would read this and absorb its lessons I can guarantee you that marriage rates would tumble into the basement. There’s only so much reality a man can bear before he begins to act in accordance with his self interest. For example:

Some of the women resented their husbands’ lack of suspicion…. Although females never give males any indication that they are anything less than 100 percent faithful, [they] seem to think men are stupid for believing them. Females just think males should know that when they say “I would never cheat on you,” what they really mean is “I would never cheat on you…as long as you make me happy and I don’t get bored.”

Feeling like dropping to one knee and slipping that $20K ring on your beloved’s finger now?

Helpfully, in Sexual Utopia Devlin puts some numbers to the suspicion by men that the divorce industry is mostly a female-run enterprise:

Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them. Many young women, indeed, believe they want marriage when all they really want is a wedding (think of bridal magazines). The common pattern is that women are the first to want into marriage and the first to want out.

Devlin goes on to describe the horror show that is the legal process when wives file for divorce and husbands and fathers take it up the ass as they are mercilessly ground to a pulp in the machinery of the state. Read the whole thing and remember that one copy of Mystery Method will cost you a lot less than a trip down the altar.

As I’ve said before, my advice to the typical man is simple:

DON’T GET MARRIED.

Women by nature aren’t on your side, the law isn’t on your side, and even lapdog beta males who’ve blinded themselves to reality and unthinkingly toe the PC party line in hopes their status posturing will offer them up a scrap or two of roadworn desiccated pussy don’t have your side as a man. There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.

Thanks to Game and contraceptives, you can get the sex for free now without the imprisonment of marriage and potential financial and emotional ruin of divorce. The unsuitability of so many self-indulgent modern women for marriage doesn’t help the once-venerable institution’s cause either. As Devlin writes regarding this last point:

Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody. They are the ones who bear the primary costs of marriage. It is a woman’s responsibility to prove she is worthy of the privilege of becoming a man’s helpmeet and bearing his children. It takes a strict upbringing to form a tiny female savage into such a lady. Today, that form of upbringing is mostly a thing of the past: marriageable women are becoming difficult to find, and the costs of searching for them are getting too high.

I can tell you right now about 90% of the women I’ve fucked in the past nine months (double digits) were, barring a character transplantation, completely unworthy as marriage material. That is higher than selection effect could reasonably account.

How unsuitable is the modern woman for marriage? Devlin demonstrates that here:

Men of the older generation are insufficiently aware how uncouth women have become. I came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times past, the human race would have died out.

The reader who suspects me of exaggerating is urged to spend a little time browsing women’s self-descriptions on Internet dating sites. They never mention children, but almost always manage to include the word “fun.” “I like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go shopping!” The young women invite “hot guys” to contact them. No doubt some will. But would any sensible man, “hot” or otherwise, want to start a family with such a creature?

Now as a dedicated hedonist and realist, I am not in the market for marriage or children and so one of the things I look for in a girl is someone who isn’t dropping the hammer of expectation on me, but if I were screening women for their wife and mother potential I would have to agree that any girl emphasizing her bonafides as a lover of “fun” would not make my short list. And yet a quick glance at Craigslist shows that 75% of women in the W4M section describe themselves as exactly that. Only the foreign women who post there, especially the Russians, seem aware of what it takes to inspire a man to see them as more than a pump and dump. American women need the tutelage of their grandmothers’ wisdom to remind them how to cater to men’s better natures, but in today’s sexual market it may be too late to employ the coy strategy.

Maxim #39: If you want a wife stay clear of investing much in girls who constantly remind you they like to have “fun fun fun” and “get bored easily”.

Eventually, sexbots will drive the final nail in the rotting coffin of Western marriage.

It is only under some very special circumstances that I would counsel a man to consider the option of getting married:

1. He would be perceptibly higher status than his wife. Note that this does not necessarily mean financial status; many wealthy men have been brutalized by their wives in divorce court because at their cores they were simply fearful beta males with lots of money. A high status man is one who perceives himself to be better — as reflected in his psychological dominance — than his woman. He would be unafraid to leave her in search of other women if she were to withdraw from him sexually and emotionally. This would keep her in line… and in love.
2. The woman he would marry is much richer than him. Although this is a recipe for loss of love and eventual divorce, at least the man who marries a sugar mommy has a distant shot at collecting alimony from her in the event of divorce and using the money to party with strippers. If not, at least he won’t be taken to the cleaners, since he won’t have much to clean. Only men with supreme alpha confidence who are able to attract wealthy women without the crutch of their own equivalent load of riches should attempt this marital scenario.
3. He has GAME. A man who understands the mentality of women, their different psychological profile, and their true desires and fallen natures, can risk exposing himself to a marriage system that is rigged against his interests from the start. GAME will not only win a woman into your bed, it will keep her in love with you till death… or a beta relapse… do you part.

To all the guys who’ve gotten married and insist their wonderful loving wives would never lose their love for them, betray them, and turn their lives into hell on earth with the rubber stamp of the law, I’ve only this to say…

that’s what the unlucky men used to believe, too.

***

PS: Women are ten times more narcissistic than men by nature (and I’m not talking about the narrow clinical definition of narcissism but the more prevalent form of it as a normal gradient of the whole personality). We notice the narcissistic men more because women’s narcissism is like background whitenoise — always there and hence barely registered. A woman’s is a self-regarding narcissism that can coexist with asexual nurturing altruism, which is the kind of altruism practiced by women that single men on the prowl for sexual relief have little use for.

PPS: When a woman appears stereotypically uninterested in discussing certain matters like, for instance, politics, is it more likely the reason that

a. she’s… wait for it… uninterested in the matter or

b. she’s concerned that no one would take her opinion of the matter seriously? (funny how fashion and gossip are exempt from this hypothesis.)

best,

Your Sage Dismisser of Bullshit and Upholder of Occam’s Razor.

Read Full Post »

More Thoughts On The Poon Commandments

Some of my commenters on the Sixteen Commandments post seemed confused. I thought it would be a good idea to answer their objections.

II, keep her jealous, has to be done with care. Too much flirting with other women might lead her to dump you.
– Glorious Natural Pelt Guy

Obviously you don’t want to blatantly flirt with every women who crosses your path when your girlfriend/wife is with you. There are diminishing returns past a certain excessively slavish adherence to the commandments. Even super alphas can overplay their alpha cards. But you’d be surprised just how much you can get away with (and by “get away with” I mean “make your GF horny while she watches you flirt shamelessly with other women”).

they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known.

This is, BY FAR, the biggest mistake that men without game make.
– Usually Lurking

A man making his sexual intentions known does NOT mean going up to a random girl and asking if she wants to fuck. I should hope even gameless betas understand this basic concept.

One question: Any influence of age of the woman applicability?
– Anton

Only in degree, not kind. Of course, the closer she gets to hitting the wall, the less game you’ll need. Eventually, just showing up will suffice.

If a man’s Alpha enough to have a couple of women in “reserve” he doesn’t need any of this advice in the first place.
– GNP Guy again

He doesn’t need it because he already uses it. QED.

You’d figure that those commandments would be like a default behavior in all men, not just a province of skilled casanovas. And yet that’s not so. In fact, many — most — men take the exactly opposite approach. Why is that?
– PA

It’s an interesting question why the commandments behavior doesn’t come naturally to most men. It’s as if dressing provocatively, batting eyelashes, acting coy, and showing a little leg didn’t come naturally to women on the prowl. We know that isn’t true for the vast majority of women. All I know is if every man followed these precepts there’d be a lot more fucking in the world resulting in a lot more happy smiles on the faces of the sexually satisfied.

Not only the average guy, but no guy, can hold to these commandments at all times. Some are better than others, but everyone falls eventually.

Trying to follow these commandments is like trying to fight being human and actually feeling things. […] In an effort to fight your feelings, you have done something very “male”: tried to fix the problem.
– Tina Fey (AKA Lemmonex)

There’s no need to follow the letter of the biomechanical law every minute of every day. Simply adjusting his behavior and mental state by as little as 10% so that he acts more in alignment with his yang polarity can mean the difference between a breakup and relationship bliss. Falling once in a while is not the same as staying down, which is how many diehard betas live their lives.

Since men are the chosen in the mating dance, they have to be more aware of reality than do women. If men ignore reality, they risk involuntary celibacy. If a woman looks attractive (which is most of them during their prime fertile years), she can ignore reality to her heart’s content as unicorns and rainbows shower her in cellophane raindrops and still have suitors lined up around the block to fuck her. That is why men work to “fix the problem” where there is a problem. It isn’t a fight against his feelings, it’s an ENDORSEMENT of his feelings that he will do what it takes to satisfy his desires.

Don’t be surprised if tactics and manipulation attract the like.

Lastly, too concerned about alphaness = beta.
– Kay Gee

All goal-directed communication is manipulative. (Ask yourself: Is advertising evil?) The natural womanizer manipulates just as much as the beta spitting a routine in emulation of the natural. The difference is the natural does it instinctually. Manipulation doesn’t magically become noble just because it is done at the subconscious level, just like our immune system isn’t more noble than man-made synthetic drugs for fighting off illness. To wit: We are all being manipulated by our genes right now.

Re: too much concern about appearing alpha = beta. Natural alphas are very concerned about maintaining their status. They’re just better at coolly concealing it.

In fact, an alpha doesn’t have to fall in love to make himself look ridiculous. Just being too arrogant, and too eager for sex, even the casual kind, can lead him to serious humiliation.
– Clio

In opposition to your point, Clio, you have described a beta. An alpha knows not to be arrogant or overeager. And falling in love is not beta, but expressing feelings of love before the woman has made that leap for her man is courting with beta disaster.

I think broadly speaking he is correct in the wooing phase, but a lot of the rules will end in disaster if applied to a steady relationship. I think it’s telling that nearly all the PUA cannot maintain a relationship AND GET DUMPED. Something tells me that PUA stuff simply fails when applied to long-term relationships.
– Whiskey

Of the PUAs I know, many of them jump in and out of relationships because they like the variety. Fresh pussy is a potent addiction, and if you’ve got the skills to score it, you’ll be less inclined to strap yourself into a monogamous arrangement. Personally, I like the best of both worlds — love with an incredible woman spiced up by the occasional fling.

Men are if anything *more* emotional than women. But they are less expressive. This can paradoxically result in stronger emotions.
– MQ

Men have greater emotional peaks and valleys that often find articulation in physicality, as with impassioned fucking, fighting, and forging. Women have a steadier whitenoise hum of emotions at a higher baseline than men but with muted peaks and valleys. Women handle their emotional static by incessantly talking it out with whomever will listen, much like you would vent the pressure of a steam buildup by slowly turning the release valve. See: [REDACTED]. Or most female bloggers for that matter.

His commandments may be good for “poon” as the title states, but suck for how to “keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life” as the last sentence suggests. But what do I know? I’m just a girl.
– Hope (AKA The Putatively Rare Exception)

A woman’s psychological essence doesn’t radically change after she’s been with a man longer than three months. Her brain doesn’t rewire itself into a wholly new entity unrecognizable from the woman she was on the first date once she’s in a committed relationship. The differences between the sexes are binding, immutable core characteristics. What turns a woman on during the first few hours will turn her on in the tenth year. The commandments are equally effective for long term relationships and short term hookups. The only thing that differs is the intensity of commandment administration. If you don’t believe me, observe those men who do the exact opposite of all my commandments with the women in their lives, and watch as they rend their striped shirt garments in anguish wondering why they get jettisoned for less “virtuous” interlopers.

and ever since [my husband] started being more caring and affectionate…
– The Audacity of Hope

Being caring and affectionate and following my commandments are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing. Think about it.

Playing games inside a marriage rather than just finding a suitable partner to begin with seems to indicate the wrongness of the pairing rather than the rightness of these “commandments.”
– Hope begged for my very special lessons

The commandments aren’t about “playing games” anymore than being a good provider is about playing games. They are about acknowledging reality and giving the woman you love what she truly desires. Suitable partners don’t fall from trees on the side of the road. They must be found, wooed, and nourished in love, like a garden. Hope, I hope this helps.

Yours in universal orgasmic consciousness.

Read Full Post »

Dumping American Women

A fine writer I would want to sit down with for a few stiff drinks in a shady smoke-filled South Asian bar is Fred Reed. His website is blocked by my company’s firewall as hate speech, so you know he can’t be all that bad. He wrote recently about his trip to Bangkok:

—I got here two nights ago, out of Taipei into Bangkok’s new airport, Savannapun. It’s huge, well-designed, classy. As always when I come to these parts I think, “Holy rikshas, Batman, this place is on a roll.” Just so. There is a dynamism in much of Asia that you don’t see in Latin America. Below the Rio Grande you find a couple of modern countries, Argentina and Chile for example—almost the only examples. Yet the whole region seems stagnant, as if it already is what it is going to be. Not here. Asia rocks. Peoria hasn’t noticed but, I promise, it will, and that before long.

Fred, no beta he, has come to the conclusion, like the growing chorus of American men who have spent time overseas, that American women don’t measure up to the international competition.

By night the clubs abound in sleek lovely Thai girls preying on the gringos. Or the other way around: It isn’t always clear. They are so very pretty and make Western women look like camels by comparison—this being the universal view of Caucasian men here. […]

I mentioned Thai women. Despite the sordid reputation arising from the sex industry, Thai women are no looser than any others, and in fact most of them aren’t accessible at all to westerners who don’t speak Thai. To a close approximation, this means no westerners. But the Thai women are, well, ladies. By this I mean not that they went to finishing school, but rather that you can distinguish them from drunken sailors or abandoned mattresses. They are not crass. They dress well. They seem to regard themselves as women, not as wannabe men, and even to think that being a woman is a good thing. Thank god.

This could equally be said of Mexican women of Chinese women, of most women everywhere, except North America.

He, like myself and a lot of my friends who do well with the ladies, wonders if his negative reaction to American women is a personal hang-up.

Now, if I were the only man who took a very dim view of American women, it would be reasonable to dismiss me as a crank. In fact it would be unreasonable not to. It becomes more interesting when the judgement is nearly universal among large numbers of men—and it is.

Everywhere I go outside of the US, the American men I meet speak of their horror of sexless, hostile, ill-bred American women. Sure, there are exceptions and degrees among the gringas. Most unfortunately, exceptions is what they are. The delight with feminine foreign women is given, over and over, as a major reason for expatriation. (The other big reason is disgust with governmental regulation of everything in the US.) I have friends married to Thai, Filipina, Chinese, and Mexican wives, all delighted. Me too.

How did this come about? I don’t know, but I’m not imagining it.

Nope, it’s not us. American women really have changed for the worse. The verdict is in. Pump and dump them and find your wife in another land where women are happy to be women.

Unlike Fred, I have written before about the cultural changes that have transmogrified our women into she-devils. I offered alternatives here. Most men will not travel to other countries to taste the honey-dipped sweetness of what they could have; they will stay comfortably rooted to their miserable lives not realizing how easy it would be for them to step away from American women into a paradise of feminine delights. Most people don’t even leave the small towns they grew up in, let alone their country of birth.

Personally, I have done well with American chicks and not all of them were jaded afeminine ballcutters (some were in fact quite sweet), but seducing and loving them required a level of game and cynicism that would baffle men in other parts of the world. They may very well ask me: “All that for an American camel?”

I suspect if I spent a decent amount of time in the Eastern European country of my choosing learning their language and customs, my superior training dealing with American women would give me a huge leg up attracting foreign girls.

privet!

Read Full Post »

Hillary’s Lapdog Betaboys

Several readers emailed me a link to this Camille Paglia article about Hillary Clinton surrounding herself with beta males and how this may be hurting her campaign.

First, a reader wrote to Paglia:

I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary’s orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?

The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. […]

Hillary’s persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female — but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.

Paglia’s response in part:

I agree that the male staff who Hillary attracts are slick, geeky weasels or rancid, asexual cream puffs. (One of the latter, the insufferable Mark Penn, just got the heave-ho after he played Hillary for a patsy with the Colombian government.) If I were to hazard a guess, I’d say Hillary is reconstituting the toxic hierarchy of her childhood household, with her on top instead of her drill-sergeant father. All those seething beta males (as you so aptly describe them) are versions of her sad-sack brothers, who got the short end of the Rodham DNA stick.

This sounds right. The Supreme Cunt resents her experiences growing up with a strong-willed, domineering, verbally abusive alpha male father and her history of surrounding herself with wretched lickspittle lapdog beta males who probably had to pay to lose their virginity exemplifies her inward yearning to dominate the most important male figure in her life the way he dominated her. Just take a look at the amorphous, greasy, slimeball sexually neutered beta bitchboys she employs in her inner circle:

It is for this reason — the seething vengeance complex the Cunt On High nurses for all alpha males who remind her of her father — that Hillary cannot be trusted to act as President in the best interest of half the American population. See, for example, the way she LOATHES the military. Her Cunterrific Cuntastic Cuntery ensures that in her world it is always women first, women best, women forever victims and men relegated to an afterthought or natural born criminal perpetrators of Orwellian PC crimes, suitable only for reminding her of her ideological righteousness nurtured for decades during the height of the misandrist revolution in a fetid curdled soup of gender bender feelgood lies.

Bill Clinton, alpha male, gradually learned this, and found love and admiration in the arms of younger women unafraid of their femininity and sex roles. I respect him for that.

Ever notice how most alpha males — the guys who know how to give women what they want — are either indifferent to feminism or, when they’re not in polite company, hostile to it? And how many sniveling beta males lick up the runny shit of feminism and ask for more? Something worth pondering.

Read Full Post »

Mandatory Paternity Testing Has Arrived

A reader sent me this link pointing to a pdf about two Tennessee Democrats introducing a bill to mandate paternity testing before the putative father’s name is entered on the birth certificate:

Regardless of the relationship between a child’s parents, a genetic test shall be administered as provided in § 24-7-112 to confirm the paternity of the child before a father shall be listed on the birth certificate. In order to provide genetic testing for those who are financially unable to pay for such testing in whole or in part, the department of human services shall be responsible for payment for testing for parties financially unable to pay, in whole or in part for the purpose of providing evidence of paternity. The requirements for financial inability to pay shall be established by the commissioner of human services. The commissioner shall take into consideration the family income, the number of dependents in the family, the probable total cost of testing and the other financial responsibilities of the family.

( ) If the results of the required paternity test have not been received, or if the results have been received and showed the purported father was not the biological father of the child, no name shall be entered as the father on the birth certificate until such name can be established by genetic test. In such cases, the certificate shall be amended to include the name of the child’s father upon receipt of the results of a genetic test establishing paternity.

This is sweet sweet music to all men’s ears and a long overdue blow for justice and the American Way. Unsurprisingly, the rearguard feminists are squealing like stuck pigs:

It’s an adventure to live in a state in which so many of our legislators come from the perspective of assuming that all women are liars and all men are idiots and if the state doesn’t step in to protect said men, we’d just be out fuckity-fuck-fuck-fucking whosoever we could get our vaginas around and ruining their lives.

Tell it to this guy.

Their opposition to such a common sensical bill, if it were to pass and become law, is understandable once you realize that feminism is not about gender equality but about gender power. We all want a leg up in the genetic race to procreate, and for women the prerogative to fuck around with an alpha under any and all circumstances and have his kid while duping the beta husband or boyfriend to foot the bill for raising it is one they will not surrender without a fight. The discretion to cuckold goes straight to the core of a woman’s sexuality, so a law created to impede that powerful urge will be resisted — and probably resisted harder when she is ovulating.

Widely utilized DNA-based paternity testing — like the Pill and condom before it — will radically alter the sexual landscape. When a husband is legally permitted to walk away from a marriage and any financial responsibility for a bastard child, habits will change. I predict that women will have slightly fewer affairs than they do now, but that the real change will be their diligent use of contraceptives when they do decide to have affairs. I also predict that marriage rates will fall even farther as women think extra hard about marrying those borderline betas whose seed will monopolize their wombs.

On the flip side, those 20% of alpha males who tempt women to affairs and one night stands will be a lot more careful about rawdogging it.

Many women will say that mandatory paternity testing, like pre-nups, undermines love and marriage because it assumes that women can’t be trusted. In the words of the Great One: Trust but verify. The cold facts of human nature assures that no one is immune to vice or a vessel for virtue — we all are at risk of doing things that violate our principles. In the scheme of vices, adulterous women are a far more serious threat to family stability and social cohesion than are adulterous men. This is a double standard, deal with it. No one said life was fair. A guy can fuck around and leave nothing behind but a stain on the ceiling bedsheet; a girl can fuck around and saddle her husband with a kid that’s not his.

I bet Hillary would be against this bill. Someone should ask her.

Read Full Post »

Don’t Get Married

This article lays out pretty thoroughly just what a raw deal marriage is for men. Divorce is twice as likely to catch husbands by surprise as it is wives.

In a 2004 poll by the AARP, one in four men who were divorces in the previous year said they “never saw it coming.” (Only 14 percent of divorced women said they experienced the same unexpected broadside.)

In divorce, it’s men who suffer more financially:

The divorce system tends to award wives custody of the children, substantial child support, the marital home, half the couple’s assets, and, often, heavy alimony payments.

This may come as startling news to a public that has been led to believe that women are the ones who suffer financially postdivorce, not men. But the data show otherwise, according to an exhaustive study of the subject by Sanford L. Braver, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University and author of Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.

[…] social scientists ignored men’s expenses — the tab for replacing everything from the bed to the TV to the house — as well as the routine costs of helping to raise the children, beyond child support. Even the tax code favors women: Not only is child support not tax deductible for fathers, but a custodial mother can take a $1,000 per child tax credit; the father cannot, even if he’s paying. As “head of the household,” the mother gets a lower tax rate and can claim the children as exemptions. If the ex-wife remarries, she is still entitled to child support, even if she marries a billionaire. Indeed, every year men are actually thrown in jail for failing to meet their child-support obligations. In the state of Michigan alone, nearly 3,000 men were locked up for that offense in 2005.

The stark realities of divorce paint a picture overwhelmingly tilted against a man’s interests. Here’s an example of just how bad it can get for a beta provider who thought if he was the good man the gods of fairness would reward him with steady sex, a faithful and loving wife, and a stable family:

They’d started going on expensive vacations in Europe and Hawaii, and he figured she’d be pleased at the prospect of taking more trips together, or at least at the prospect of seeing him around the house a little more, and not buried in his basement office. He had met her in graduate school over a quarter century ago, and they’d had their ups and downs, but he was still crazy about her. And he thought that, with a little more time together, she’d be crazy about him again too.

But no. She scarcely listened to any talk of retirement, or of vacations, or of anything he had to say. She had plans of her own.

“I want a divorce,” she said.

Paul was so stunned that he thought he must have misheard her. But her face told him otherwise. “She looked like the enemy,” he says. He started to think about everything he’d built: the thriving business, the wonderful family, the nice life in the suburbs. And he thought of her, and how much he still loved her. And then, right in front of her, he started to cry.

That night, he found a bottle of whiskey, and he didn’t stop drinking it until he nearly passed out.

Things turned sh—- very fast. His wife took out a temporary restraining order, accusing him of attempting to kidnap their youngest son. The claim was never proved in court. Then, with the aid of some high-priced lawyers, she extracted from him a whopping $50,000 a month — a full 75 percent of his monthly income. Barred from the house, he was not allowed regular access to the office he used to generate that income. (On the few times he was permitted inside, his wife did not let him use the bathroom. She insisted that he go outside in the woods.)

Paul is a very wealthy man, an “alpha” by most men’s definitions (though not by my definition) — he earns over $65,000 per month — yet his high financial status ultimately did not shield him from his wife’s dr. jekyll mrs. hyde act. In fact, it may have hastened her merciless decision. Paul is a classic beta provider, and after his wife had extracted the last penny of tribute from him to raise the kids to a self-sufficient age and live the life of a bon bon eating oprah watcher, she disposed of him with the cold-hearted cruelty of a despot dispatching his enemies by firing squad. His wife is likely a Hillary supporter.

Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

If that isn’t enough to convince you of the high risk gamble that is marriage, here’s another horror story:

Long before his wife came along, a frame-store owner named Jordan Appel, 55, had built a fine house for himself atop West Newton Hill in one of the fancier Boston suburbs. He loved bringing in a wife and then adding two children. “It felt so wonderful to say ‘my wife’ and ‘my children’ and feel part of a community.” He volunteered for the preschool’s yard sale; his wife took up with a lover. Sometimes she slept with him in Appel’s own house; in time, she decided to divorce Appel. As these things go, he was obliged to leave the house, and, as it happened, the community too. Money was so tight that he ended up sleeping in a storage room above his frame shop two towns away. His ex-wife works part-time on the strength of Appel’s child custody and alimony payments, and spends time with her boyfriend in Appel’s former house. She lives rather well, and he has to make $100,000 a year to support her and the children, which amounts to 70-hour workweeks. One day, he went back to his house and discovered many of his belongings out on the sidewalk with the trash. “My body feels like it’s dissolving in anger,” he says. “I’m in an absolute rage every single day.”

Now of course, many of you will say “but this guy Jordan is a total beta letting his wife take advantage of him like that!” and you’d be right. But regardless of his personal failings, his congenital betatude is no reason to accede to injustice codified by a discriminatory legal system. Either the laws change (and I personally favor elimination of no fault divorce as a start) or men should heed my advice and stay clear of the altar. Since I am not going to lift a finger to agitate for new laws that have a zero percent chance of happening in my lifetime, I follow the second option.

Maxim #8: Marriage is a social mechanism designed to exchange sex for indentured servitude.

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Listen to me — skip all that shit and learn to get the sex for free if you don’t already. All the positive loving benefits you can get out of marriage can also be had within an unmarried relationship.

Later in the article, the question is asked what can men do to avoid divorce?

One way, of course, is to avoid marriage.

The CH method. So elegant, so simple. So effective!

[…]husbands might be wise to pay attention to the essential ratio that — according to John Gottman, PhD, a world-renowned researcher of marriage stability — governs marital success or failure: five to one. That means husbands (and wives) should direct at least five positive remarks or actions to their spouses for every negative one. Any less and the marriage is in trouble.

Dr. John Gottman, five to one you are a dumbfuck. Glorifying their wives and putting them on pedestals is exactly what cost these hopeless betas their marriages. What they need to do is challenge their wives, not kiss their expanding asses with a stream of compliments. Cockiness, humor, turning the tables, not taking her shit, flirting with other women while wifey is watching… these are the improvements in character that will keep a wife’s love for her husband strong. As long as men are following the advice of these “social scientists” they will never unlock the mystery of what attracts women to men and they will suffer the consequences.

Here is an excellent quote from the article which vividly illustrates how badly the system is rigged in favor of women:

“A father could be sitting in his own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to his marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing he knows, the court has taken his house, his children, and a lot of his money, and then forced him to pay his wife’s legal fees and even her psychologist’s fees. And he can be threatened with jail time if he resists.”

To recap:

1. divorce theft
2. monogamy
3. second class spouse under the law
4. sex once a month TOPS with the same old pussy

So.

Where’s the upside?

Read Full Post »

Feminists And Game

A commenter by the name of dizzy (judging by the spittle she sounds like a maladjusted feminist battleaxe with a neurotic fear of masculine desire) attempted to downplay the effectiveness of game in response to this post.

The guys who wrote the “game” books capitalized on an early information disparity. But the market has adjusted. Now it’s pretty common knowledge among women that the guy who’s being all charming and cocky and maybe using a few “neg hits,” learned it all from a book. (Actually, the “neg hits” are the real tell). And we’re not… what you’d call… impressed.

She is woefully behind the times.  Neg Hits are a tiny part of the player’s arsenal and, in fact, have been supplanted by much more advanced tactics.  What’s important is the attitude behind the Neg Hit, not the specific words used.  The seduction material and techniques available to the average guy now are so vast not even a bitter cunt on the lookout for game would detect when it was being used on her.

What’s more, even girls who KNOW game is being run on them STILL FALL FOR IT!  I’ve had girls say to me “Some guy read my palm yesterday!  But I still want you to read mine.”  That is the Achille’s Heel in all women — they cannot control their attraction impulses anymore than men can, so when men say and do certain things designed to light up the sex centers of her brain she will respond to them positively.

Given this, the guys who are still buying the books will end up taking home: 1) The girl who is too dumb to know to protect herself (usually, funny enough, because she’s husband-hunting and all her friends gave her a copy of that “He’s Just Not That Into You,” book, so she thinks she’s got you on the hook).

Any man who runs this stuff in the field will tell you it’s often the more intelligent women who lap up the sexy vibes created by a skilled player.  Smart, educated girls LOVE the back and forth of shit testing and teasing.  More importantly, they love to BE LED because they are exactly the kind of women who lead others around all day at their soul-sucking corporate gigs.  They YEARN to feel FEMININE again because they get so little chance during their humdrum lives to feel that way, and a player who understands the basic polarity of men and women can offer her that experience. 

2) The girl who is just dumb.

Wishful thinking.  In reality, game is LEAST effective on the really dumb girls.  For them, it’s best to go caveman.  Stupid girls respond better to ham-fisted come-ons.

3) The girl who knows what you’re up to and subscribes to the school of “use him right back.”

Another numbnut who thinks women can be like men.  Revenge fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, women are not wired to enjoy the pursuit of pumping and dumping men.  The way a woman “uses” a man is to string him along in LJBF land with the faintest promise of sex while never actually delivering the goods.  But then, a guy who runs game and has ascended the ranks in the Order of the Player knows enough to avoid falling into that trap.

4) The girl who knows what you’re up to and hates herself enough to try to convince you to stay, just stay, with her, for the night…

Riiight.  Because, you know, every other girl I’ve slept with hated herself.  That’s the ticket!  I have a better theory.  Maybe they all fall for a guy with game because… Satan made them do it.  Has about as much evidence.

The truth is that there are very few girls who hate themselves.  They may be insecure about this or that physical flaw, but in the big picture their egos are impenetrable fortresses of self-regard.  They clearly outstrip men in the ego stakes.  Anyhow, sluts who sleep around for validation don’t require game to close.  Simply acting like an asshole with them will work.

So either you “win” against someone who’s not playing, someone who is, um, handicapped (all due respect to the disabled) in the dating competition, someone who is making a fool of you, or someone who is crazy.

Third prize: you’re fired!
You may wanna re-check your assumptions, Sparky.

Good job. You’re the man.

Soon you will call me master.

Now go back to gaining money and power in order to get laid, as god intended, and I’ll get back to the kitchen and start making your sam-mich.

There is no god.
Money is not necessary to get laid.
And you can’t make a sammich without my lunchmeat.

Read Full Post »