Why I Love Abortion

Lost in the culture war clamor and feminist breast-beating is the fact that abortion has been very, VERY good for men, especially alphas who play the field. Think about the upsides:

• Abortion is a handy dandy escape hatch for men.

Sure, men aren’t the ultimate judge, jury and executioner of the fetus; that is a special privilege afforded only women — for now. (I’d like to see men have the legal right to abort their financial responsibility for any unwanted pregnancies. In the interest of fairness, you see.) But men have the next best thing — an open invitation and legal sanction for women to do the dirty work and absolve them of 18 years of imprisonment. It’s a bit of a crapshoot to rely on a woman’s whim, but it’s leagues better than accidentally impregnating a woman and having zero recourse to rectify the situation.

Anyhow, as a man, if you fuck around a lot, you’ll thank your libertine god that abortion exists as a viable alternative to forced fatherhood. Pro-choice means pro-player.

• Abortion is eugenic.

In theory, at least. In practice, as it is utilized in present day America, it’s more or less neutral, as those who would most benefit society by cleansing their wombs of the next generation are still going on to have more kids than their betters. But once people accept that our genetic heritage accounts for much of who we are (and with the science advancing in that direction by leaps and bounds it’s just a matter of time), abortion will come to be seen as a convenient method for ensuring only the prime grade A progeny make it through the vaginal canal.

• Abortion is the cure for what ails ya.

With constantly improving embryonic screening techniques for genetic or physical abnormalities, our gloriously abortifacient new world offers women and the men who love them the opportunity to prevent the misery and suffering of the doomed. For what could be more cruel than knowingly bringing to life a soul trapped in a twisted body or a stunted mind, wracked with pain and shame and exposed to a lifetime of horrible torment as objects of his affection forever elude him, his heart never to pulse with requited romantic love. I have nothing but seething hatred for those parents who willingly allow the births of babies with torturous afflictions.

• Abortion will spur anti-aging research.

The trend is couples having children later in life. But biology doesn’t care about trendiness. A 32 year old mother has a higher chance of giving birth to Quasimodo than a 23 year old mother. That is a fact. But the good times of extended adolescence are here to stay (yay!) so the growing number of older couples wanting normal healthy children, in conjunction with the child-delaying tactics of the abortion industry, will energize anti-aging research enabling people to extend every phase of their lives. If all goes well, 40 year old women may be first time mothers while still looking — and feeling — like 20 year olds.

• Abortion keeps a woman’s body looking hot.

‘Nuff said.

Many pro-choice feminists reading this post outlining my reasons for extolling the virtues of abortion will instinctively recoil in horror, despite my agreeing with them in the abstract. They will do this because my reasoning is to the benefit of men and, secondarily, society. And feminists have no desire to see to the interests of men. Where they are busy trumpeting the “autonomy” of a woman’s body and holding up coat hangers in victory signs, I am taking their arguments to their logical conclusions. But hey, ladies, you cut a deal with the devil when you wrested the power of the grim reaper, and now you have to accept the afterbirth of that decision. You have, unwittingly, made life easier for guys like me.

When you dance with the devil, the devil don’t change…
he changes you.

Read Full Post »

Who Art Thou?

The time has come for me to reveal myself.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I am Ripper… Tearer… Slasher… Gouger. I am the Teeth in the Darkness, the Talons in the Night. Mine is Strength… and Lust… and Power! I AM BEOWULF! 

I vote that the two greatest scenes of manliness in cinema are the fight between a naked Beowulf and Grendel, and the promise made by Jim Braddock to his first-born son in Cinderella Man that he’ll always put food on the table for his family. Why do I consider these scenes representative of manliness? Because they illustrate the purest and most admirable ideals of the protector and the provider — or, if you want, the alpha and the beta.

In Beowulf, Grendel attacks the town’s gathering house and Beowulf prepares to meet him in mano a mano battle. But Beowulf does something peculiar just before Grendel arrives — he strips naked. He explains he wants to meet the monster on its own terms, without shield or sword to aid him. The symbolism is profound. Besides Beowulf’s insane bravery, the act of stripping away his protective garments and weapons is an act of disdain for his own fear. He’s not just facing a monster; he’s facing his self-doubt. Armor and weapons pay tribute to that fear and doubt in the sense of security those items engender.

The deeper symbolism is the relation of his nakedness to the shucking off of all materialism and cultural adornments — a man cannot be closer to his manhood until he has unburdened himself of superfluous attachments. It’s a disdain not just for his fear, but for anything that acts to safeguard him from realizing the full measure of his manhood. The parallel to modern society could not be more apt. The West’s dizzying array of entertainment distractions, stern ideologies, false politeness, weak-willed conformism, and techno gadgets has created a bubble-like pampered existence that has sapped the manly essence from so many men.

Men need the freedom of their nakedness again.

Where Beowulf is the iconic super alpha protector, Russell Crowe’s Jim Braddock character in Cinderella Man elevates the provider beta side of manhood to respectability. He fights through painful injury so his children can have food on the table and he can pay the heating bills. He loves his wife and is faithful to her when he has opportunities to cheat. But Braddock is not all beta in the sense that it has come to mean today. He’s a boxer and a stoic. His betaness tempers his natural alphaness and that makes the difference. Beta is not respectable unless it is paired with alpha.

Had Braddock been 100% beta, he would have succumbed to the beta’s mortal weakness — the lack of ego, which is the opposite of the alpha’s mortal weakness — too much ego. He would have acceded to his fear and quit boxing, taking up a dull 9 to 5 gig to make ends meet. He would have assented to his wife shipping his kids off to her aunt’s so they could eat because his ego would not have been strong enough to be revolted by the prospect of his wife’s relatives doing the job that he couldn’t do.

Beowulf and Braddock — ambassadors for the dueling forces in every man. In order for these forces to reconcile, beta must be subservient to alpha, and alpha must make room for beta. There can be no other way that doesn’t diminish a man’s soul.

Read Full Post »

Ugly Outside = Ugly Inside

you can’t judge a book by its cover.

it’s what’s on the inside that counts.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Toss another three cliches in the trash. This article talks about studies showing that ugly people commit more crime:

“We find that unattractive individuals commit more crime in comparison to average-looking ones, and very attractive individuals commit less crime in comparison to those who are average-looking,” claim Naci Mocan of the University of Colorado and Erdal Tekin of Georgia State University.

Mocan and Tekin analyzed data from a federally sponsored survey of 15,000 high-schoolers who were interviewed in 1994 and again in 1996 and 2002. One question asked interviewers to rate the physical appearance of the student on a five-point scale ranging from “very attractive” to “very unattractive.”

How rude of people to agree on what’s ugly and what isn’t!

These economists found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent. Cute guys were uniformly less likely than averages would indicate to have committed seven crimes including burglary and selling drugs, while the unhandsome were consistently more likely to have broken the law.

Very attractive high school girls were less likely to commit six of the seven crimes, while those rated unattractive were more likely to have done six of seven, controlling for personal and family characteristics known to be associated with criminal behavior.

It’s practically a biblical injunction that thou shalt not make presumptions about the character of people based on their physical attributes. Yet here is proof that yes, we can make useful generalizations about people with the bad luck to be born with unappealing faces. Whether the ugly face itself causes criminal tendencies or the social disadvantages steer an ugly person into crime is irrelevant to the wisdom of judgment. If an ugly person is more likely to do A, people around him will respond by doing B.

Some other things you can assume about ugly people and be right more often than not:

Bitter. (wouldn’t you be if your condition was the last acceptable form of public contempt?)
Less intelligent. (smart guys and hot chicks mate assortatively)
Crappy social skills. (socially adept guys tend to have children with hot chicks)
Below the median income. (no promotions for you!)
Depressed. (imagine a life of constant, gnawing pain)
Lonely. (no one likes to be around suicidally depressed people)
Hard up. (girls and guys, though the ugly threshold for hard up-ness is lower for men)
Smells bad. (when a shower isn’t going to help your cause, why bother?)
Introverted. (naturally extroverted ugly people learn the hard way that no one wants to party with them. they eventually hide in their apartments all the time)
Belligerent. (an ugly person who doesn’t retreat to solitude and braves public scorn starts to expect the worst from people and defaults to hatemode)

There’s a reason we associate certain personality traits with physical ugliness. Grendel and Gollum ask you to understand.

Read Full Post »

Going Sexual

It’s a good idea to bring sex talk into the conversation with a girl sooner rather than later. Prying her brain wave patterns with thoughts of sexual scenarios while her attention is directed to you will anchor those pleasurable feelings to your presence. She will perceive you as a sexual man with a masculine crotch-centered aura.

Timing is important. If you’re too quick to go raunchy she’ll peg you as a creepy perv or overly eager to get in her pants.

Her: What do you think of the music in this place?

You: It’s not bad music to make sweet sweet love to.

Her: Um… ew?

That’s why you should never take a girl’s bait when she brings up sexual topics first. In actuality, she’s trying to smoke you out as a needy beta. Always tease a girl for talking about sex before the moment is right for it (i.e., before you and her have entered the lower-energy rapport stage when it is acceptable to engage in more intimate talk).

Her: I love it when a guy zorbits my boobs during sex!

You: Hey, thanks for the medical report!

At the opposite extreme, waiting too long to inject innuendo and playful sexual overtones into the conversation can cause a girl to wonder if you have eunuch issues. Men who aren’t comfortable bantering in a sexual way are often seen as asexual and timid lovers. When you finally do broach a sexual topic way too late in the interaction it will come across as desperately cloying and incongruent, similar to waiting until the end of a date to kiss a girl. As with physical touching, you’re better off slowly getting her accustomed to seeing you as a man who does not shrink from his manly desires.

Sexual talk usually arises organically from good vibing. A man and woman attracted to each other and left to their own devices will eventually drift into double entendre. There shouldn’t be a struggle to find a convenient excuse to share sexual thoughts. But in case there is, you could always take her to a venue that has props to help move the conversation in a sexual direction.

Read Full Post »

Seven New Deadly Sins Quiz

A Catholic bishop, in an interview published in a Vatican newspaper, described seven new deadly sins for the modern age. The previous deadly sins — to which these new ones will be added (giving me double the opportunity to have fun) — are lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride. I do all right on the old school seven, slipping up a little with sloth and avarice, though clearly I’d need to spend a year in the confessional and 10,000 Hail Marys absolving myself for my lust and pride sins. That is what happens when you sell your soul to the devil for a fourteen inch tool.

I’m curious how I’d fare with the new sins.

Polluting

If this is considered a deadly sin then murder 1 just suffered a major depreciation. I’m not an active industrial polluter, but I do sometimes toss empty beer bottles into the regular trash, and I don’t give a penny to environmental groups so I’m probably sinning a little in this category. I like green grass and blue skies as much as any treehugger but let’s face it, once you’re dead it doesn’t matter what condition you left the world in, so my working philosophy is to live it up and pass the bill to the next generation.

Verdict: Scofflaw

Genetic Engineering

I love the promise of genetic engineering. In my view, it’s a virtue, not a sin. Once the applied science is up to speed, I’d be all for designing babies to play Mozart after one listening and making them so smart Harvard goes bankrupt from all the kids teaching themselves. If a doctor told me with a minor gene tweak he could guarantee my unborn son the gift of a prehensile penis, I would agree to it. I fully support selectively aborting deformed or Downs Syndrome fetuses. In fact, I support exposing them at birth. It’s cruel to knowingly bring a retarded or crippled child into the world and doom him or her to a lifetime of misery.

Verdict: Evildoer

Being Obscenely Rich

Define obscene. I’d be obscenely rich if I were living in Bolivia. What if I lust for obscene wealth in my heart but live like a group house squatter? Anyhow, it’s mental masturbation. In a few weeks I have my IPO, then I will be sinning badly in this category.

Verdict: Angel

Drug Dealer

I once passed the dutchie on the left hand side.

Verdict: Transgressor

Abortion

Big fan. Gives men an escape hatch in case of emergency. I’m so pro-choice I feel like I should have the choice to abort my girlfriend’s accidental pregnancy for her.

Verdict: Satan’s Little Helper

Pedophilia

Gee, I wonder why this made the list. *rolls eyes* So let’s see… No crotch movement when I’m near prepubescent boys? Check. Not a gay priest? Check. Prefer boobs and hips on girls I want to screw? Check. Once said out loud while watching The Professional “Oh YEAH, Natalie Portman is gonna be HOT in a couple of years!”? Check… uh oh.

Verdict: Fallen Angel

Causing Social Injustice

Way too vague. I cause a social injustice every time I skip out of jury duty by pretending to have Tourette’s Syndrome (guilty motherfucker! fuck guilty fuck!). So I’m supposed to be lumped in with Stalin’s Ukrainian genocide? The Catholic Church needs to narrow its scope on this one.

Verdict: Miscreant

Total Sinner Score: Lesser Baddie. I need to work on polluting more.

Read Full Post »

The Morality Equation

In my post on morality I offered a few thoughts on the shifting sands of moral certitude:

If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering

a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?

b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?

I concluded with the following wholly scientific effort at a layman’s definition of morality:

Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing

Commenter “godparticles” picked up where I left off and admirably quantified my definition:

I would probably give more weight to S (status posturing) like this:

M=(g+E+q) x S

…where M is defined as the strength of a moral decision. I guess you could create a scale of relatedness for g, a scale of convenience for E, a scale of likely material return for q, and a scale for the explicit ingroup approbation of the moral position, decision, or action for S.

Let this serve as an innocuous example: A middle-aged, poor black man recently asked me for a dollar outside a grocery store. I was sitting in my car waiting for a friend, and he approached with the opening, “I’m not trying to start any trouble or anything, but can I get a dollar for the bus…” I don’t usually carry cash, and that’s what I told him and he left… even though I knew I had a few bucks in my wallet. I’ve been begged for more cash before after having pulled out my wallet so that wasn’t going to happen again.

So the g was 0. The E was actually high. The q was 0. And the S was 0 (no one was watching to approve). HOWEVER, if my (very liberal) friend had been in the car, the S would have increased and multiplied by the E would have led me to give him the buck.

I liked godparticles’ strengthening of my morality equation so I refined the variables and scoring and added an example of my own in the comments:

given: M = (g + E + q) x S

where M = degree of moral umbrage and the likelihood of taking action to rectify the perceived injustice.

g = genetic affinity
E = expediency (I define this as fluid morality, which is similar to moral convenience. You’re more likely to adopt a moral position when it works to your benefit or is relatively painless to act upon.)
q = tit for tat
S = status whoring

The scale for each variable is 1-10, where 1 = no impact on your decision and 10 = influence of the utmost importance.

Let’s say you’re at a party with friends and your brother (who is in attendance) blurts out a racist joke (he has an awkward sense of humor). A hush descends over the crowd. Your response hinges on a series of subconscious calculations:

g = 10 (he’s your brother!)
E = 2 (it’s tough to call out a racist joke at a party and risk dragging out the discomfort. it’s even tougher when it’s your brother’s public humiliation on the line.)
q = 1 (you’re contemplating a moral action that will prevent your loss, rather than win you gains.)
S = 6 (you risk losing the approval of your friends if you seem as if you are acceding to your brother’s faux pas. acting will not raise your status, but it will prevent you losing status.)

calculating M we get:

M = (10+2+1) x 6 = 78

If M resides on a scale from 3 to 300, where a score of 300 equals a moral action that is easy to take, quite personally beneficial, and encourages the sort of self-righteous preening that feels almost as good as sex, then in the scenario I outlined above a score of 78 means you would probably hesitate briefly before deciding to evade your moral discomfort by changing the subject and yelling out “WHO’S UP FOR SHOTS!!!”

An M of 1 means “Kill em all and let bog sort them out”.

Now I’m curious how other common moral dilemmas would rank using the morality equation. Here’s an example from the battlefront:

You and your buddy are in a bar. He notices two girls, a hottie and her friend who was born to cockblock. He tells you it’s all his and he’ll signal you to join when he needs a wingman to occupy the obstacle. He approaches and soon the girls are laughing. You get the signal and move in, doing your best to draw the CB’s attention away from her friend and to you. But your natural charm infects both girls and the cute girl starts touching your arm and tossing you the flirty eye. Your friend is losing the set but you have a good chance of acquiring his target’s digits. You think about number closing her. The morality variables look like this:

g = 2 (no genetic relation to your friend but racially he looks like you.)
E = 7 (any decision you take would be easy to act upon, but getting her # could potentially cost you your friend’s respect since he’s standing right there. because it is only one friend and not a whole group of friends you feel you can smooth out the situation later with a little one on one.)
q = 8 (if you get her # you have a shot at adding a notch. if you don’t get her number you retain the wingman services of your friend for the future.)
S = 6 (you will gain a lot of status points with your friend if you don’t number close his target for yourself. but it is just one friend.)

M = (2 + 7 + 8 ) x 6 = 102

On the morality scale of 3 to 300, there is a one in three chance that you will put your friend’s feelings before the pussy.

Ask yourself, does this result match up with your personal experience dealing with the same situation? Would a good friend opportunistically number close your target 2 out of 3 times?

Read Full Post »

Thoughts On Morality

Right now, in some small town in America, perhaps in Kansas or Iowa, a young father of a beautiful daughter just shot himself in his garage, leaving behind a broken family and unanswered questions.

Where are your tears?

Where are your sympathy blog posts?

Why isn’t your heart open to his tragedy?

WHY WON’T YOU CARE?

Yesterday, a filthy street bum died in the cold night air in a puddle of his own steaming piss and shit.

Why hasn’t he made you feel anything?

Why won’t you immortalize him in eulogy?

“i have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
– john locke

You say: “But I didn’t know the man in Kansas or the street bum! Why would I feel anything for someone I don’t know?”

P r e c i s e l y.

You didn’t know Heath Ledger, either. All you knew was his manufactured screen presence. And you cultivated a false relationship based on that. Fact: You were completely invisible to him. HEATH LEDGER DID NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU. Yet you cared. You poured out your heart for him in a way he would not have done for you if the circumstances were reversed. You felt this way because he played roles that “spoke to you” or “touched you”. There was a sensitivity in his eyes that made you feel a “connection”. You experienced good feelings when you watched his movies. Maybe your loins tingled.

That is why you care. Because Ledger brought VALUE in the form of emotional pleasure to your life. He was BETTER than the average human because he was more VALUABLE, and therefore inspired you to feel sadness for his death. We care for those who are worth something. Which leads us inevitably to:

Maxim #3: Some human beings are worth more than others, despite their equality under the law.

Let me tell you how our concentric circles of morality are arranged.

In the small inner circle, we feel the most moral regard for lovers and immediate family.
Followed by close friends.
Then extended family.
Then acquaintances.
And in the distant outer circle, our countrymen.

Substitute “race”, “ethnic religion” or “ideological allies” for “countrymen” if you are feeling especially cynical.

Beyond that outer ring of sympathy I wouldn’t shed a tear for anyone’s misfortune. A hundred thousand tsunami victims floating on the seas like bloated balloons of waterlogged flesh will not perturb me from syncing my ipod. And neither will they perturb you. Or to put it another way, try the following thought experiment:

If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering

a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?

b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?

In a worldwide conflagration where the existence of civilization is threatened watch how quickly the conventional morality falls apart. And how much quicker the moral shakeout is justified.

Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing

This is morality defined. Examine your actions over the course of your life and you will see I am right.

Read Full Post »