Proof That Power Corrupts Absolutely

Power has an effect on the brain almost identical to cocaine.

More than a hundred years after noted historian Baron John Acton coined the phrase ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ scientists claim the saying is biologically true.

The feeling of power has been found to have a similar effect on the brain to cocaine by increasing the levels of testosterone and its by-product 3-androstanediol in both men and women.

This in turn leads to raised levels of dopamine, the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens, which can be very addictive.

We all know women are unable to control their primal attraction for powerful men. A cursory examination of the world around you will aptly demonstrate. It makes sense, if you are a man who loves the company of women, to work to become powerful OR to adopt the mannerisms of the powerful, which can have the same influence on dopamine release as possessing objectively measurable power. The behavior of powerful alpha male baboons has some game lessons for humans.

Power has almost identical effects to cocaine and too much of it can produce too much dopamine leading to more negative effects such as arrogance and impatience.

The claims by Dr Ian Robertson may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph today, he said: ‘Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly.

‘This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power.

Women don’t love *power* per se. What they feel instead is a visceral attraction for the ATTITUDE that powerful men exhibit. Attitude and personality are more important to a man’s success with women than his looks, bankroll or material possessions. You can have the latter but still fail with women if you act like a self-doubting beta. But if you have the former you can succeed with women without having the latter. Of course, having all of it is better than having either, but if you had to choose, choose jerkitude.

Arrogance, impatience, outlandishness, entitlement, aggression, sexual voracity and overconfidence — these are the male personality traits that win women over. If you don’t want to toil for 30 years to gain the social or economic power that will imbue you with these sexy characteristics, you can take a short cut and plug into the god machine directly by altering your personality to one that is sexier to women.

“Just be yourself!” is really girl code for “Just be your beta self so I can quickly screen you out!”

Fuck that. Just be your better self. Then sit back and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of screening girls in and out of your rotation.

A reader writes:

How does the elite justify its consistent fucking over of the beta males today?

Glib answer: Because they can.

Glib Lite answer: They’re power tripping.

Have you ever tried to bring a coke fiend down from his exhilarating high? It’s impossible. Nothing will bring those fuckers down until the drug wears off. And coke is so addictive that you are searching for the next bump within seconds after the first one has stopped working. Same with the elite. Their dopamine rush is going full blast. They’ve been snorting lines off whores’ asses since 1965. Best we can hope for now is that they OD and their hearts just give out.

Game is like the cocaine version of power. Same feelings, quicker rush, less work. I know guys who run their best game while doing coke. Cocaine Game. Combine any two of the three and you are unstoppable. Game + societally high status = ladykiller. Game + cocaine = ladyslayer. Societally high status + cocaine = golddigger glue. Game + societally high status + cocaine = Plunderer of Vaginas.

This is all in the Bible somewhere, isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot

What advantage accrues a man who decides to cohabit instead of marry? Well, for one (and it’s a BIG one), women tend to let themselves go once they’ve extracted marital vows from their men. Here’s a referenced study which shows that once a woman gets what she wants from a man, she doesn’t (subconsciously) care anymore about pleasing him. (Study title is hilariously droll: “Entry into romantic partnership is associated with obesity”.)

Several studies examining longitudinal changes in romantic relationship status report a differential sex effect of entry into marriage, with greater weight gain in women (9,10,30). Women may be differentially impacted by transitions in romantic relationship status; for example, through increased social obligations encouraging consumption of regular meals (31,32) and larger portion sizes (33), resulting in increased energy intake (30). Further, entry into cohabitation or marriage is associated with decreased physical activity (34) and a decline in desire to maintain weight for the purpose of attracting a mate (6). In contrast, obese women may be less likely to marry (35). Our longitudinal findings suggest that both men and women who enter marriage are more likely to become obese, consistent with findings from another large, racially diverse sample of young adults (36). Moreover, we found that individuals who lived with romantic partners for a longer duration had higher likelihood of incident obesity suggesting that shared household environmental factors may contribute to changes in obesity.

Cohabitation may not be good for society in the long run (we’ll see how Scandinavia turns out), but in the here and now it is very good for the individual man, and most people think in the latter terms. As a friendly reminder, a wife bloating up and disfiguring her womanly profile is as repulsive to a husband as he would be to his wife if he lost his job and confidence and skulked around the house with his chin buried in his chest, begging for morsels of sexual release.

Again, we come back to incentives, latent or blatant, and their influence on human behavior. Men have “hand” within cohabiting relationships, while women have hand within marriage. Women are on their best behavior — read: their least bitchiest and gluttonous — when they are cohabiting with men who can leave them at a moment’s notice with little cost to the men. A woman in such a precarious circumstance feels inchoate pressure to maximize her sexual appeal, both physical and temperamental.

Conversely, wives who are not kept in desirous thrall to their husbands — read: hubby became a mincing betaboy or lost his social or economic status, or the spark simply vanished from the passage of time and mundane familiarity — gradually slip into their worst behavior, which includes getting fat and ugly, as the science and conventional wisdom demonstrates. Now, women who do this in pre-marital relationships can easily be dumped; but within marriage, not so much, at least not without SEVERE cost to the disillusioned husband. Women know this, on a very deeply primitive apebrain level, even if they don’t discuss it or acknowledge it outright. Which leads to…

Maxim #204: Modern marriage is a waiver of liability that relieves wives of the responsibility to remain attractive to their husbands.

Corollary to Maxim #204: The modern marriage waiver of liability does not extend to husbands, who must remain optimally attractive to their wives so long as the marriage is intact and the cost of failing in this responsibility is excessive.

Let’s be clear about this, so you don’t get the wrong impression reading these issues in the stark, remorseless light in which I prefer to present them. Social, sexual and romantic incentives and disincentives don’t operate in a coldly calculating way — it’s not like a wife punches numbers into a mental spreadsheet or draws up wistful pros and cons lists before willfully deciding that an extra tub of Ben & Jerry’s won’t matter since her husband can’t divorce without losing a lot of money and the house and kids. The differential power structures of various relationship models aren’t grasped by the bit players in anything more than a gut feeling.

No, these still-human behavioral reactions work on the level of the id. Without really thinking about it, the existence of an incentive to behave a certain way subtly and slowly influences a person to act in accordance with their self-interest. What that self-interest is varies by context and circumstance. A single woman seeking love will avoid overeating and take a lot of yoga classes so that her tight bod will catch the eyes of, hopefully, some high value alpha males.

A married woman who has achieved her objective of locking a man into long term commitment backed by the strength of the state will feel imperceptible undertones or impulses that guide her along paths which take her away from staying sexually desirable and toward fulfilling her other hedonic needs. It doesn’t help her attraction for her husband that the threat of state sanction effectively neuters him by rendering his choice to remain married to her one of coercion rather than mutual delight.

Game is a useful ameliorative to these natural human instincts, (and I know how much asserting that gets under the skin of anti-gamers). But I’ve seen it in action; a husband who uses game (or charisma, if it helps your digestion) on his wife will mold her incentive structure so that selflessly pleasing him takes precedence over selfish solipsism. This will happen because, as I’ve said previously, up-front, near, tangible incentives trump downstream, far, less tangible disincentives. A sexy husband woos a wife better than a powerful state and natural inclination woos her away from him.

Read Full Post »

Ugly Women Are More Likely To Be Careerist Feminists

Chalk up another scientific confirmation of Heartiste theory: ugly women who can’t attract a desirable man switch strategies from finding a provider male to collecting the resources themselves, (and then rationalizing their life choice using the rubric of feminism).

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, ‘women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby’.

And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.

Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.

They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]

After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.

In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]

The final experiment tested the researchers’ suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.

The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.

They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.

Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated.

Here’s a picture of Hilary Rosen, the über feminist who said stay-at-home mother Ann Romney never worked a day in her life:

Hot babes usually put marriage before career, and tend to have happier love and family lives. This is why ugly feminists with multiple degrees insult stay-at-home moms so vociferously; ugly women feel, on a deep visceral level, that their ugliness is the real reason why they don’t have the things that better looking women have, so they pretend they never really wanted those things or that the women who want those things are somehow lesser women, inexperienced, provincial puppets of an imagined patriarchy who don’t understand the joys of climbing the corporate ladder. These feminists are, of course, engaged in a heated, scorched id campaign of lying to themselves.

This all ties back to the growing dystopia of single momhood and men dropping out of sexual market contention. When women work or collect government largesse, their economic independence renders men in their income bracket less desirable as mates, because women are naturally hypergamous and prefer the company of higher status, more powerful men. A vicious negative feedback loop ensues, wherein men deem that efforts to make a pittance are no longer effective at securing women’s sexual interest, and women with fewer mate options pursue careers as a substitute for the loss of acceptably higher status beta provider males. Throw in obesity disfiguring large swaths of young womanhood, the divorce industrial complex creating perverse incentives for women in loveless marriages, and a skewed sex ratio with too many men living into their prime reproductive years, and you’ve got a recipe for total societal breakdown, unprecedented antagonism between the sexes, and a playing field ripe for men to plunder using the charismatic arts known as game.

In a future post I will explain why intelligent men need to learn game and start marrying and having kids with dumber but hotter chicks in order to save Western civilization. Not joking.

Read Full Post »

Science Proves Race Is Not A Social Construct

I’ve never understood how this leftie assertion “race is a social construct” got off the ground — I mean, I have two eyes, I can see what people look like — but for whatever reason all sorts of brainwashed numbskulls cling to the meme like a life raft. How do you argue effectively against people who so brazenly defy common sense and observable reality? At some sufficiently degenerate mental nadir it becomes impossible to engage such a person rationally. You just mock them and hope they shrink away in shame.

Mockery’s great, I love it, use it a lot in my daily life. But once in a while it’s pleasing to throw an icy cold splash of scientific debunking on false beliefs. If the perpetrator of the false belief is not insane, actual science proving the contrary might give him pause about spreading his lies. But better than that, and more probable, it will win over weak-minded conformists and status whores who are gullible to the liar’s feelgood, twisted logic, thus ostracizing him from normal people.

On that premise, here’s a loaded study — loaded with implications — about a new DNA test that can ID a person’s race.

Frudakis’ test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person’s origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error. […]

But the real [reason it isn’t popular with police]? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can’t countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don’t understand how it works.

“Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it’s not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test,” says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association.

Aaaaaaaaand…. meme CEDED motherfucker. You can’t find DNA markers of social constructs, but you sure can of biological reality. The fear here, naturally considering the PC crushing potential unlocked by such technology, is exactly what Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological ASSociation *cough* dissembling shitsacks *cough* suggests: that the tech will be able to find genetic markers that correspond with certain behaviors and attributes. And at that point, the whole house of equalist cards carefully built up over the last, oh, 150 years, comes tumbling down.

The fear exists because those professing it know, deep in their squirrelly little hearts, that the propaganda they cherish and espouse is wrong, has always been wrong, and soon everyone will know of its wrongness. I think what they really fear is blowback. Or perhaps hopelessness. Or sinecures. Or all of that, plus the loss of a status cudgel to wield against their close cousin lessers.

Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: “Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup.” Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.” He adds, “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”

I bet a lot of members of the current ruling regime are thinking the same thing. Which is why they shouldn’t be in power, any longer.

ps hi Cheap Chalupas!

Read Full Post »

Another Undersexed Omega Male Shooting Spree

Welly, well… looks like we got ourselves another enraged omega male with woman troubles who decided to take out his sexual frustrations with a hail of bullets. This time, the bloodthirsty and pussy starved murderer is a Korean male, like that ronery omega at Virginia Tech who shot up a roomful of classmates in the deadliest shooting spree in American history. Man, this multiculturalism and feminist revolution is the gift that keeps on giving!

One Goh, the former student accused of shooting dead seven people at a small Christian college in Oakland, Calif., was consumed by an inability to get along with women, according to a report. […]

Goh’s former nursing instructor, Romie Delariman, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying the student didn’t fit in at a college where women make up the majority of the nursing faculty and student body.

Delariman described Goh as a good and eager student, but added, “He just can’t deal with women. … I always advised him, ‘You go to school to learn, not to make friends.'”

“He can’t get along with people,” Delariman was quoted by the newspaper as saying. “If you say, ‘How are you?’ he’ll say, ‘Why? Don’t I look OK? Did I do something to you?’ ”

Police on Tuesday said Goh’s intended target – a female administrator – escaped the shooting spree and remains alive.

If you can’t get laid at a nursing school with probably the most favorable female-male ratio on the planet, you have serious issues to work out. Half of game is just being where the women are, and the advantage of being a nursing school student, although the occupational status is low for a man, is that it practically guarantees that at least once or twice an overworked female classmate is gonna go back to your hovel after a few drinks at the local bar.

Men, like women, fall all along the sexual market value spectrum. Alpha, beta and omega aren’t hard and fast discrete taxonomies. They’re continuous categories, with lots of filler between the ideal representations of each archetype. The shooter, One Goh, clearly fell well back at the omega end of the SMV scale. He couldn’t even hold a normal conversation with anyone, let alone engage in a seductive entreaty with a girl. He needed help on how to be socially aware, how to calibrate, and how to comport himself so that his most repellent personality traits and characteristics were suppressed, allowing him to begin the process of romancing women. The fact that he couldn’t even be bothered to change his ridiculous name to something that wouldn’t automatically ostracize him from most American women is indicative of his total disconnect with social reality.

It probably didn’t help his mental state that he was surrounded by lots of chicks on a daily basis who wanted nothing to do with him. It’s like holding out a hot pizza pie in front of a starving man’s nose, and slapping his hands away when he reaches for a slice.

Game may not be able to get socially clueless omega males laid with HB10s, but it can very well get them a date with an average chick. Which could lead to them expelling that dangerous build-up of sperm in a warm hole. And that, my friends, could mean the difference between getting your insides perforated by the angry bullets of a celibate omega’s climactic will to power and living to breathe another day.

If they don’t already, I figure criminal profilers will start incorporating “hopeless with women” and “volatile blue balls at high risk of explosion” into their list of attributes to analyze suspects as part of their investigative work when these mass murder sprees occur.

Read Full Post »

The Reason Beta Males Pedestalize Women

Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds?

I’m here to provide what I believe is the most parsimonious answer to this riddle:

Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.

Put yourself in the typical beta male’s shoes. He spends a goodly chunk of his horniest years — teens to mid 20s — when holes in watermelons look like acceptable vagina substitutes, pining for ethereal hot chicks who don’t pay him a lick of attention as they swoop by him on a cloud of incandescent purity. He sees them only from afar, where his imagination is free to feverishly fill in the gaps with only the most pleasant assumptions about his dreamgirls. When the rare communication does occur, she is as nice and kind as a saint to him. He is too smitten to recognize the hint of pity and condescension laced in her polite chat.

Later, usually college, he fumbles his way through awkward social interactions with plainer janes, the great majority of which end up with him being used for emotional sponging and ball-twisting, torturous friendships. All these girls are exceedingly, superficially kind to him because, after all, why look a gift herb in the mouth? A girl loves beta male attention, as long as it’s platonic, on her terms, extractive, and focused on feeding her ego. Naturally, these girl-friends never talk about their sex lives with the beta, never reveal what really goes on behind closed doors, and never invite the beta to join them on any adventures that really matter to him. Contrary to media popularization, betas rarely hear “This one time, at band camp…” from girls in their social circles. What they often hear instead are requests for help with term papers.

Then, due more to a combination of luck and (ovulation cycle) timing rather than bold effort or charm, the inoffensive beta male might find himself in a fledgling relationship with some semi-cute shut-in nearly as awkward as he and already past her beauty prime. She really likes him and treats him well… more sincerely than the cuter girls who made a sport of cockteasing him at any rate… but like ‘Rat’ Ratner from ‘Fast Times’, he labors for months and months waiting patiently for her to put out. For reasons beyond the beta’s ken, she is an extremely modest girl. He interprets her chasteness as evidence of women’s all-round goodness and saintliness, but of course he is sorta pissed off that she won’t satisfy him without months of “getting to know each other” warming up. When he finally does bust that cherry, after painful years wandering the celibate desert, it’s all he can do to stop himself mentally affixing a halo atop his girlfriend’s head, and pronouncing all women the undistilled essence of goodness.

A few pitiable betas, like those with bitch tits, horizontally stretched navels, and receding chins who wear ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts, get trapped in sporadically sexual relationships with manjawed femcunts at grad school, mostly because long-winded bull sessions among their kind occasionally spin up enough libidinous energy to resolve in PBR-fueled late night groping, which is promptly regretted and/or rationalized by one or both parties the next morning, usually the girl.

Eventually, the beta male gets married, and his lack of experience — one to three lifetime “partners” (and I use the term loosely) is the norm — has cultivated in him a strong inability to read women’s signals, which sometimes leads him into blissful ignorance where infidelities can linger for years unnoticed, and “Surprise! I have a divorce paper!” gambits accost him like hammer blows to the head. Mostly, though, he floats through his marriage thinking the best of his wife, and worst of himself should feelings turn sour or the sex dry up. Because this is just what men are supposed to do when a woman is less than happy: take the blame. Women are the weaker sex, after all.

So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.

The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole. (He is mired down in the sticky pubes, his vision obscured, while alphas dance joyously at the tip of the glans.)

As for the women, those few who have not experienced the thrill of the alpha male often are nearly as chaste as the beta imagines, because they have never been tempted. All they know are a parade of beta males, whom they lash out at occasionally for unwittingly stifling their truest desires, but who, for the most part, they treat in a nontoxic manner that buttresses heavenly notions about their secretive natures. A woman is ever aware of the precariousness of her reputation, and this goes double in rural outposts of heavy religiosity.

And so the beta male has his crimped worldview confirmed by the asexual, undersexual women in his life. But should he ever step outside his empillowed existence… take that daring step into the gritty, grimy world where the female id roams free across fruited plains of phalluses… screw up the courage of heart to face head-on the previously unimaginable… he will find that a bigger universe has existed all along, enveloping the bubble of his life, surging with unleashed energies just out of his reach like uterine aurorae, and if his soul isn’t killed dead right then from shock, he’ll cross the boundary into this new world — he won’t really have a choice — and never look back.

Nor ever again blindly assume the purest of women’s motivations. The stronger among them do with this newfound knowledge the following: acknowledge, accept, incorporate, delimit. He rules his knowledge, but he does not let it rule him.

Such boundary crossing is rare. The beta and alpha male worlds are almost as separate and distinct now as they have been since the dawn of anonymous urban living. Though that is changing.

If betas knew what alphas experience, it would blow their minds. Completely, utterly. Out from under the judgmental Eye of Proper Society, equipped with the requisite beauty to pay the price of admission, the wild female libido is insatiable, crass, debased. It is willing to surrender to the most vile sexual plunderings, screaming in ecstatic pleasure at every enthusiastically welcome violation. Women of the sweetest daytime dispositions and most innocent countenances — smartly coifed women in demure business suits who expound drily on cost-revenue projections and wait tidily in lines for healthy lunch alternatives — will unleash vaginal hell in the arms of alpha lovers, squirting glorious love over dominant men who swap them like baseball cards, presenting like beasts in heat for throbbing units in dank dive bar restrooms, casually spreading as far as they can go in locked office rooms for illicit lovers, giggling in breathy whispers in their lovers’ ear about the clear and present danger of getting caught, deliberately effusing a fake sorrow for the cheated-on boyfriend back home unawares, bemusing wistfully about a history of letting alpha lovers snort coke off her ass while claiming another headache to evade hubby’s entreaties.

Beta males never see this world. To them, it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly how women want it.

Read Full Post »

Using Women For Ego Boosts

It’s a common complaint heard from the insufferably self-absorbed and eternally single SWPL chick:

“Why didn’t he call?”

Ladies, I’m here to tell you why that guy didn’t call. You’re not gonna like it. Most likely, he was just using you for an ego boost.

Yeah, some guys don’t call back because they’re afraid they’ll be rejected on a first “formal” date. Or the momentum was lost, and he thinks in your sobriety you’ll be less open to meeting again. We call these guys lesser betas.

Fact is, most men don’t think that way. If a guy gets your number, and he’s interested (i.e., he finds you hot enough to fuck and possibly date) and single, he’s going to call you.

I’ve seen attack bitches burning off the shoulder of Club Orion, and thanks to these experiences I can say pretty confidently that men will often not call back because all they wanted was the instant ego boost of a woman’s sexual interest, usually manifest as a phone number close or a make-out. (For the players, a one night stand that precludes any extra dating investment is their idea of a quick ego fix, not to mention pleasure fix.)

If a man doesn’t call you back, it’s because

a) he’s already dating someone and just wanted to see if he still has the pickup magic, or

b) he’s already dating someone but you aren’t hot enough to risk getting caught cheating, or

c) you were a confidence-building stepping stone to test out his game for use on hotter chicks.

That’s pretty much it.

Exceptions to the above rules exist. Some men won’t call back because they didn’t know how to end the conversation with you when you first met, and felt obligated to ask for your number. This is what true niceguys do when they aren’t interested in you. Jerks will never labor under an obligation to number close girls they don’t feel inspired to fuck. The jerk will simply walk away when he’s tired of your witty banter.

Other men are so crippled with anxiety and self-doubt that they frequently defer to thinking the number close ended on a weak note, and won’t risk calling back when a video game with instant status assuaging leveling is a mere chair roll across the floor.

But mostly, when a man doesn’t call you back it’s because you didn’t meet the threshold of further pursuit, but you did meet the threshold for boosting his ego. So the next time you’re staring at your silent phone, remember to think to yourself “Yes, it’s me, not him. I’m not hot enough for him.” If it helps the awful-tasting medicine go down, try to imagine this cruel woman-baiting by egotistical men as the analogue of you ladies outrageously flirting with beta males you have no intention of fucking for the ego thrill of their courtly supplication.

Read Full Post »