Reader Mailbag: First Things First Edition

Email #1: A confused reader seeks advice on passing a putative shit test from a younger woman.

I have been trying to get this 23 year old and I am 38. I thought I had developed a good rapport w/ her and it seemed I had. I probably still make the mistake of being on the side of too nice. [ed: your gut instinct is usually right] Things were looking pretty good (I thought) and then she said that she had a boy story for me. I said, so tell me. [ed: high risk invitation to get LJBFed] She said it was a long story, and she did not have time, as she was just leaving work. My instinct said, fuck this, then and there. Why say this and then not talk? [ed: because it was a shit test you failed] However, I visited her the next day @ her work. [ed: why did you reward a recalcitrant girl with your company? and go out of your way to do it? you really lowered your value with this move]

Her short was, Her, a 23 yr old college grad found out that college professor in her dept, age 31 that she was recently “dating,” had an older girl over. 23 year old shows up @ his place. Then, later, 31 yr old professor shows up @ her apartment @ 4am and says he cares for/loves her. After telling me this story, I said, I am 38 and know how guys work like the back of my hand and the situation is exactly what it seems. [ed: you’re falling right into her frame. why do you want to be a girl’s romance counselor on how to handle badboys?] I then said, I want to talk to you about a situation too.  So, I said can I get your # and call & talk to you. She said, I am not really comfortable with that and don’ think it would be a good idea. WTF? [ed: wtf? i’ll tell you wtf. she lost whatever interest was previously there.]

I was going to lay my intentions on the line honestly, objectively, but not needy. [ed: laying intentions on the line is beta and needy. ultimatums and heartfelt confessions don’t work on girls you aren’t already fucking] If she wanted to take a go fine, if not fine, I just wanted to tell her b/c life is short and happening now. [ed: girls never just “want you to tell them” your feelings of lust. they want you to flirt with plausible deniability. that is the way of the outcome independent man] I want to retaliate so bad and show her. [ed: ugh. so bad. so beta. she smelled it on you.] I used to get that “floaty and electric static feeling” around her, now that feeling has turned an “irritating white noise like feeling”. [ed: that’s called sexual frustration] Please help me get some face back. [ed: face back for what? for you not eliciting enough desire in her so that she wants to fuck you? i don’t see that she did anything to you that would merit a face-saving plan of attack. your best vengeance is to tighten up your game, meet a new girl, and parade her in front of this girl who rejected you] She can tell me about all about her story, and then is uncomfortable with me calling her. [ed: dude… that’s what desirable chicks DO to hapless betas. only now, in the end, do you understand] WTF? Please advise.

Please read the editorial comments above. You don’t need advice. You need a soul adjustment. Your whole mentality oozes the repellent slurry of the needy beta. I’m not at all surprised she didn’t give you what you wanted.

Look, if you’re 38 and focusing on 23 year olds, you’ll have to do much better than this. Girls expect older men to be wiser in the ways of womanhood. That’s one of the main attractiveness drivers of the older man to younger women. It’s guys like you that really motivate me to put out a book so I don’t have to keep repeating the same axioms and game advice.

***

Email #2 is from a reader who wonders where he stands with a girl giving indicators that she’s open to cheating.

I was hoping you could help me analyze a situation.

I met a girl at a coffee shop today. Objectively she’s about an 8. But I live in Bozeman Montana. The dearth of local talent makes that a 9-10 relative to what else is available.

We chatted for maybe an hour. She was plently flirty, and every time I put a compliance test out there she eagerly responded. For example I’d pause conversation for a minute or two and she’d re-initiate. After a story about back surgery I told her to stand up and turn around so I could see the scar. Followed by pulling down the back of her dress to see all of it. You get the general idea.

But maybe 10 minutes into the convo (before I started getting all this compliance) I was telling a story about when I was stationed in Germany. She told me that her boyfriend was currently stationed at the same base. I wasn’t sure if I believed he existed just yet (he does) but I also wasn’t actively hitting on her, so I took that as a sign to stay indirect.

Being a former military man myself, I’m not about to steal another soldier’s girl. But I also wasn’t about to give up for a boyfriend that may or may not exist in real life. So I kept talking. She never said anything explicitly (nor would I expect her to) but I got the impression that the distance was taking a toll on their relationship and I figured it was gonna end in the next few months.

As I was leaving, I handed her my laptop and told her to add me on Facebook. Admittedly not a good idea if you’re trying for immediate sex… but I can afford to wait a few months for their “relationship” to come to its inevitable implosion.

Here’s where things got really weird. She did add me. Then she told me that I’d find out anyways on her facebook… but she lied about the boyfriend. He’s actually her fiancee but she doesn’t wear a ring because she doesn’t like getting asked about being 19 and engaged.

I laughed, and told her if I was trying to get into her pants I would have stopped talking to her after she mentioned the boyfriend. (thinking this might have been a mistake). However she then gave me a kiss, and went back to her seat as I was leaving.

My read is that she’s willing to cheat on her fiancee (although I’m not), but she wants me to pursue her aggressively to make that happen. I think we’re probably headed for the friend zone and she’s destined for female wingman status.  Is that the same thing you see?

Before attending to this man’s particular game needs, allow me a moment of reflection on the current state of our culture:

It’s a bad sign for civilization when girls start feeling social pressure to hide their engagement rings from fear of being ostracized for getting married too young, or from a hidden desire to cheat on the down low. You could probably track a culture’s ascent and decline by the rate of engagement ring concealment.

All right, back to the business at hand. I think your read is correct, although there is a chance she was just enjoying your illicit flirty attention with no interest beyond that. The Facebook add is interesting. I don’t know too many engaged girls who would risk that kind of exposure by adding a potential lover, unless they didn’t see themselves actually going through with the tryst.

Your disqualification (when you said you wouldn’t continue talking to her after finding out about her BF) was probably neutral in its effect, and maybe even worked in your favor. I wouldn’t make too much out of that. The rest of your game seems pretty tight. Anyhow, this girl sounds like an attention whore. If you pursue aggressively, you have a shot at defiling her more than she’s already defiled herself. But will you be able to sleep at night, knowing you abetted the whoreishness of a girl engaged to a fellow soldier stationed overseas? I don’t ask this question lightly. I’ve been in your situation, and I’ve had a few pangs of guilt. But just a few. And they pass quickly.

***

Email #3 is from reader “Maverick” who wants to know if girls always push for a no-sex date or series of no-sex dates after a one night stand or fling.

Thanks for the awesome site. It has gotten me laid with dozen hotties [ed: not two dozen? i’m losing my touch] and has completely changed my outlook on women (for the better, I hope – or at least for the real). It helped me choose the bachelor life and for the past 3 years have been the happiest for me. [ed: confirmed bachelors have never been happier than right now in this moment of time] However I noticed an emerging pattern. About half of the girls I laid, or maybe talked to for a while but then “forgot” about and later reunited, essentially wanted sexless dates. It’s almost as if they feel guilty for putting out and now want some sort of commitment right away. It pisses me off. I don’t mind doing things with girls outside the bedroom, but I have needs too and because getting laid is so easy now, I’ve been a little spoiled. It’s a recurring theme too. Let’s say I hung out with girl X for a month or two, very casually, then lost contact. Initiated contact again a few months later. She comes over, we hang out, however she wants commitment, or at least “no sex tonight”. Huh? How do I get around this? Or is it just one of those facts I have to accept? A girl with some nice fake ones who pulled this exact stunt on me last night is sleeping in my bed right now

Yes, what you are describing is colloquially known as “putting the dick back in the box”. Girls will do this — that is, they will begin to play hard-to-get — for two reasons: 1. they see you as boyfriend material and 2. they feel slutty for having slept with you, but still like you. You see, despite the protestations of feminists and the slut pride crowd to the contrary, girls subconsciously know their sluttitude is unattractive to men worth cornering into relationships. So they will pull back and guard the vagina to fool the man into thinking they would make good, faithful wives and mothers. But experienced men know better.

The way to get around this peculiar female instinct is to follow classic anti-slut defense game strategy. Agree with the girl, without really agreeing with her. That is, verbally assent to her pull back, while physically continuing to push for sex. If you get resistance the whole way, try a freeze-out, where you calmly and without a trace of spite, simply turn your back and occupy yourself with some other interest, like a video game or a book.

Whatever you do, NEVER let one of these pullback girls get the better of you. That means no sexless cuddling with them and no admittance to your bed without putting out. If necessary, tell an inordinately obstinate cocktease to leave your place so that you can get some decent shut-eye.

Maxim #29: Once a girl knows she can get sexless intimacy from you, she will curse you with that for as long as you allow it to happen.

***

Email #4: A reader has a question about figuring out the timing of a girl’s ovulation cycle to tailor the appropriate degree of game response.

21-year old dude from Canada. Long time reader. Doubtless you’ve changed my life for the better. Your blog is easily my favourite (on the whole wide internets, dread/love being favourite posts). I find your writing style inspiring.

Anyway, trying to figure this (re: subject) out for the first time with the current main girl, from one of your posts in jan of this year. What I’m confused about is exactly how to apply it once you get an approximation for when she’s on the rag. Can you get ovulation it to more precise than ‘7-12’ days after she’s off it? Is the effect of ovulation going to peak on a certain day?  From what I have (she just got on the pill, so effects will be muted, depends largely on the girl of course), she reports being more consistent (3 days on the rag, 13-16 June and 14-17 July, she expects the same august). For what it’s worth, she’s what one might call ‘shy’, has never done anal (‘saving it for marriage’ of course), so instead of convincing her, I’m introducing it under the radar or what have you and doing this to get a range of dates to try setting the mood and have it be an enjoyable, organic sexual experience for her. Advice along those lines would be much appreciated as well.

Perhaps a biologist better informed about these sorts of things could chime in here? From what I know, women can get pregnant throughout their fertility window, but the odds go way up during the two days or so that the egg is in transit, which falls toward the end of that week-long window. I don’t know if you can time her ovulation to better than 7-12 days after she’s done flooding her pants with her bloody stigmata.

I do like where your head is, though. If you’re going to do anal on a girl, the best time is during her ovulation, when her tingles will be oscillating most vigorously for the mass migration of your mass member. Anal sex is the demand of the cocky asshole alpha male, so you’d want to introduce this exhilarating aspect of your sexuality to her while she’s most receptive to it.

***

Email #5: A reader who requested anonymity asked what he should do about male friends ogling his woman.

Thanks to your blog I was able to have a girlfriend, it used to be girlfriend(s) but academia got in the way and I lost the other 2. [ed: fuck academia!]

Anyways I am kind of new to the blog, I have only been following your blog for a year now so I am not sure if you covered this already; but how does one handle “male friends”? Of course my girlfriend is a pretty one and she gets attention from other men wanting to take her out and stuff. I understand that women needs orbiters, but should I continue my iron grip on my rule that she can’t hang out with them? How should I do this without looking like I see these men as a threat to my alphadom?

Male friends who hit on your girlfriend are no male friends at all. Doing so violates a man pact, and frees you to treat them like you would any male interloper who was a stranger to you.

Of course, you can tackle this unpleasantness by forbidding your girlfriend from fraternizing with your friends, but this is as liable to push her into their arms as it is to lock her down in your orbit. You ever see what kids do when their parents absolutely forbid them a sweet treat or a certain toy? They want it more than ever! At least with kids you can lock them in the basement. Can’t do that with a girlfriend.

A better way is, first, to refrain from perceiving flirtatious banter between your GF and your male friends where there may not be any; and, second, if you are convinced the flirty banter is real and not a figment of your insecurities, to play a little reverse psychology.

You: “Joe can’t keep his eyes off you!”

Her: “Joe’s not flirting with me!”

You: “Come to think of it, you two would make an adorable couple, like two puppy dogs begging for love.”

Her: “I would never date Joe.”

Joe: [chastened] “Never?”

***

Email #6: A reader (troll alert) poses a supposed paradox.

Why do girls get off on attention from beta’s, be it in real life or online dating? I get repulsed when a fat chick hits on me and actually feel worse that she thinks she’s in my league. Why don’t women feel the same?

Women do get repulsed when betas hit on them. But they don’t get repulsed when betas shower them with harmless compliments or listen like good eunuchs to their boring complaints about their badboy lovers. Plus, fat chicks are INSTANTLY repulsive to men, because men are visually oriented; in contrast, beta males are not instantly repulsive to women, because women are attitudinally oriented. It takes a little more effort from the typical beta male to thoroughly repulse a woman. There’s your answer.

***

Email #7: Testosteroney goodness.

Regarding your high t girls article.

I’m currently dating a weird specimen. She has man feature in her face (chin, jaw and facial hair) and manly shoulders. Yet she has also very feminine traits (very nice, wide hips and round ass, soft smooth beautiful skin, pulpeous lips, nice round breasts).

Could she be a high T and high oestrogene girl at the same time and whats your take on these girls?

As realtalkers will tell you, genetics and biology aren’t deterministic; they’re probabilistic. The girl with the manjaw and broad shoulders has a higher chance than the average girl of evincing male psychological traits, but it isn’t necessarily so. There’s nothing in the kingdom of biomechanics that precludes a manjawed girl from also possessing womanly hips and a feminine disposition.

We are only just beginning to unravel the blueprint of the human mind, so don’t expect pat answers that explain the origins of these sorts of accurate observational generalizations about men and women. We are still at the nexus of theory and evidence, and there’s bound to be shifting along this fault line for decades to come. Once we have pat answers, though, expect the reengineering to begin in earnest.

My own speculation is that it is possible for women to have both a high T hormonal profile and a highly feminine brain. Often, as I suspect is the case with sex changers, the mind and the body are at war with each other, having taken different paths due to some unusual prenatal hormonal or genetic broth. Thus, we see in the state of nature rare cases of feminine-looking women with manly desires and personalities and characteristics, and vice versa. But the rare cases do not refute the generalizations. In fact, they bolster them.

I’ll tell you something… if you enjoy lots and LOTS of aggressive, bed-shaking sex, you can’t go wrong with a feminine-looking girl who has been blessed (cursed?) with a male mind. Until she cheats on you.

ps “pulpeous lips”. lol.

What Kristen Stewart’s Cheating Tells Us About Good-Looking Beta Males

People are asking my opinion of the Kristen Stewart affair. She cheated on her boyfriend Robert Pattinson with her movie’s director, an older, objectively less physically attractive married man whose wife is a model. Ok, here goes.

1. She’s cute.

2. She’s a horrible actress.

3. You can be the best looking man in the world, but if you’re a beta in your core (and there is evidence in his quoted words that Pattinson is an unreconstructed beta) you will suffer a higher chance of getting cheated on by your girlfriend if she spends any nontrivial amount of time with an alpha male who has the ATTITUDE.

4. This is more anecdotal evidence that male looks and youth simply aren’t as vital to revving women’s libidos as female looks and youth are to igniting men’s libidos.

In the modern West, betaness is a disease, and I aim to deliver the cure.

Gay Fitness (And Schizophrenia Genes)

Purely speculative time-waster post follows…

The push by evolutionary scientists to find an explanation for homosexuality is confounded by the seemingly obvious fact that homos don’t naturally reproduce (leaving aside lesbians and turkey basters for the moment). Many theories are then offered which supposedly account for the steady 2-4% rate of male gayness in most (all?) societies that don’t disobey the law of reproductive fitness. The most convincing of these theories that I have read include chimerism, multiple gene influence selecting for creativity that goes haywire, hormonal imbalance in the womb, and parasitical infection of the womb or early infant. The long-standing theory of the “gay uncle” who helps increase the fitness of his nieces and nephews has been debunked, from what I understand.

But what if the premise is wrong in a hairy male ass sort of way? What if gay men actually DO have higher reproductive fitness than straight men? Allow me to probe and unpack the issue. Say that, before the modern age of widely available contraceptives and social tolerance of openly DEDICATED gay men (not just tolerance of straight men getting their low status rocks off in young farmboy butt), gay men entered into relationships with women under heavy social and psychological pressure and bore more children than average with them than did straight men with their women. Say, too, that gay men have naturally tight game and thus attract the attention of more fertile babes than do straight men. Now posit that at some exquisitely sequined level of flaming gayness, the gay becomes so strong that the option to cavort with other men in a subterranean glory hole culture to the exclusion of having sex with women or marrying them as beards renders a certain percentage of gay men evolutionary dead ends.

Would this fitness dynamic not, over eons of selection, result in what we see today: a low, but steady rate of men born with the gay gene(s)?

If I’m right about this, then a gay gene or genes may actually exist and, ironically, the total acceptance of gays by wider society may result in the disappearance of the gay male population by relieving them of the external peer pressure and the internal guilt pressure to be with women, and thus to bear children with them and pass on their snarky DNA. Or: gay pride could mean gay extinction.

Again, just speculating… I happen to think Cochran’s germ theory is the most likely explanation, and if that’s the case, and the germ or parasite remains unidentified, the gay population will go on renewing itself for quite a few more generations. But once it is identified, and barring civilizational collapse it will be, you can bet your bottom dollar that all those right-thinking SWPL moms- and dads-to-be will, as per their usual MO in… ahem… delicate matters that directly impact their lives, hypocritically abort fetuses infected with the germ, or give the antidote to their newborns. Because, push comes to shove, parents want children who will give them grandchildren, or at least have the potential to give them grandchildren. The prime directives of human nature bow to no PC king.

On a semi-related note, is schizophrenia also fitness-increasing? That is, are schizophrenic or borderline schizoid men more attractive to women by dint of their charmingly aloof and intriguingly edgy personalities?

Koanic writes:

I’m skeptical of the whole mental illness thing. I think prolonged stress and depression, combined with dietary intolerances such as gluten common in Thals [ed: neanderthals, or neanderthal admixed Euro-descended peoples], can TOGETHER produce a severely bent mental state. And I think going “insane” in that situation can be partly a deliberate choice, and a worthwhile defense mechanism. E.g., adopting a Joker persona.

But that is not the same as being genetically predestined to “schizophrenia,” something I’m not even sure happens in a normal paleolithic environment.

I think the mainstream psychological consensus is bull. This whole “usual age for onset of schizophrenia thing” just strikes me as the age at which societally induced total despair sets in and people start cracking.

That I can definitely sympathize with. I meet a lot of Thals now that are under sick levels of despair and pressure. And I remember back in my blue pill days getting near cracking territory myself at times, what with health and social failure and threat of career failure, and trying to deal with all the conflicting messages about what I was supposed to be. It’s not a fun place to be, an interesting things start happening to your mind.

Readers may correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought alleles associated with schizophrenia have been found? Some schizoids may not be faking at all; their brains may be genuinely mis-wired, almost subhuman (or suprahuman, depending on your point of view).

An allelic connection to schizophrenia does not necessarily refute what Koanic wrote above; it could be the case that both alleles and societal despair push guys like Holmes to the edge. It could also be true that schizophrenia was not fitness-reducing in the cro-magnon environment (cro-magnons being the ones theorized to have bequeathed modern humans with mental illness genes; you may thank your local witch doctor for his gift) like it is today in the modern one.

Evidence for the latter contention is the DISTURBING fact that schizophrenics, particularly after they have snapped and gone postal, get lots of attention from young, fertile babes. While this is funny from the angle of watching the cognitive dissonance it elicits from feminists, it’s depressing to those white knights who can’t bear the thought that women they desire are apt to make some really horrible choices in mating partners (yes, mating; conjugal visits allow homicidal genes to spread). I mean, how the fuck do you write flowery poetry to the girl of your dreams when you strongly suspect she’d swoon for a mass murderer with orange hair?

So there’s your connection: schizophrenia and homosexuality — two genetic experiments that probably worked in the ancestral environment because men who inherited their characteristics were more attractive to women; but today, in the modern environment, are fitness reducing.

Discuss. And be sure to pepper your comments with lots of gay sex euphemisms. Top comments will get recognition for their creativity. You don’t want to be a bottom comment.

UPDATE

Looks like my theory that a little bit of gayness, not taken too far down the glory hole (i.e., not so gay that it drives the man to exclusive homosexuality), increases male reproductive fitness, has backup. Say hello to science!

Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals.

There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals’ reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them. However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.

I do say this is rather fascinating, Watson. A gay gene(s) might persist because heterosexual men who have, presumably, a recessive or single copy version of the butt pirate gene(s) have higher reproductive fitness (chicks dig them). My theory that gays in the past, when there was stronger social and psychological pressure to date women, had a leg up on straight men at attracting women and bearing more children with them because of their higher natural level of game, is buttressed by this study.

Here’s more evidence that a gene may be responsible for rusty star spelunking:

Male and female fruitflies have been engineered to switch courtship roles, through the manipulation of a single gene.

The study, which appears in Cell, shows how a simple genetic adjustment can cause a dramatic change in sexual behaviour. “It was quite something to see,” says Barry Dickson, who is one of the authors and is based at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

Humans aren’t fruit flies, of course, but these results are suggestive.

Holmes: Another Lovelorn Beta Male Rampage

It looks like we may have another case of a beta, possibly omega, male with woman troubles expunging his feelings of worthlessness through the barrel of a gun. Could game have saved the lives of those theater-goers Holmes killed?

James Holmes struck out with three women on an adult sex website shortly before he allegedly perpetrated the Colorado movie massacre, according to a new report.

He described Holmes as “a shy, pretty socially inept person,” and said he tried at one point to introduce Holmes around the institute, taking him to another floor where a high school girl was working.

“He just had no interest,” Jacobson recalled. “I attributed all this to adolescent shyness, maybe feeling intimidated [by] people around him.” […]

On Monday, it was also learned that Holmes was turned down by three women on the casual sex website Adult Friend Finder shortly before he allegedly perpetrated the Colorado movie massacre.

The grad school dropout opened an account on the no-strings-attached sex site on July 5, and quickly reached out to three lusty ladies — but all said, “No thanks” to a hookup, the unidentified women told TMZ.com.

One of the horny honeys told TMZ that Holmes was rather innocent in his approach, claiming he was “just looking to maybe chat . . . nothing sexual.”

If you don’t have much experience approaching women and talking to them, getting shot down one after another by three sluts looking for casual sex is a grievous blow to the ego. Had Holmes had some game and approaches under his belt, he would not have been as fazed by these rejections, (nor would he have been as impelled to use a casual sex website to fulfill his sex and love needs).

In addition, this skank’s recollection implies that Holmes is the classic niceguy, unable to flirt with or entice women except through the niceguy method of chatting innocently about nothing and hoping to elicit a pity fuck through the LJBF back door.

Using the screen name “classicjimbo,” Holmes said he was straight and looking for “casual sex,” either one-on-one or with a group of three or more.

I figured maybe there was a chance this guy might be gay, which would help explain his indifference to women he worked around. But his admission here dispels that possibility (unless he’s lying out of a psychological need).

“Will you visit me in prison?” read a haunting line at the top of his profile page.

This is about the closest Holmes came to using effective game.

His account, which has been taken down in the wake of the horrific attack, lists Holmes as single, athletic and a light drinker. He described his “male endowment” as “short/average.”

An underemployed, undersexed, socially awkward niceguy beta male with incipient schizophrenia and a small ween is a carnage waiting to happen. Again, had Holmes some knowledge of game and success using it on women in the past, would he have ever bothered arming himself to the teeth and committing himself to his bloodlust? I don’t think this question is unreasonable to ask.

“Am a nice guy. Well, as nice enough of a guy who does these sort of shenanigans,” read his [profile] introduction.

Here, Holmes admits that he is a niceguy. Do niceguys generally own up to their niceguyness? I’ve observed that many of them do. They seem to hold their niceguy status as simultaneously both a moral virtue and an unlucky burden to bear. Narcissist niceguys like Holmes love the feeling of martyrdom because it erects in their minds a triumph over their self-inflicted failures.

“After the TMZ incident, I am hesitant to continue using this site. Never know who’s on the other end,” a 30-year-old from Steamboat Springs, Colo., who goes by the screen name “fancydarling,” posted at the top of her profile Monday.

These low class broads who use casual hook-up sites like Adult Friend Finder are test cases of hamsters on overdrive. Really, lady, you log onto a site practically dedicated to anonymous sex and you’re shocked to find out the men you meet aren’t model citizens nor interested in friendly chatting about throw rug patterns? Of course you’re not shocked. You’re just a woman being womanish.

Classmates who knew Holmes at Westview High told The News they had no recollection of the accused killer ever having a girlfriend.

In an increasingly r-selected society like the one America is turning into, beta males without game are going to be left in the dust. Some of them with pre-existing mental disorders may go over the edge.

On Monday, his high school buddies were shocked that the clean-cut brainiac had morphed into the wild-eyed, mop-haired man they now saw.

Does anyone ever see it coming? Serious question. I’ve yet to read an account of some mass killer that someone who knew him predicted would crack one day. That’s the thing with unassuming niceguy beta males: they’re generally invisible to people around them until they snap and go out in a blaze of lookatme! I don’t know there is any way to protect against this happening again, except to issue PSAs that educate the public on the signs to note of someone beginning the descent into homicidal madness. Or maybe make game a required course in all high schools, so that socially invisible beta and omega males get some basic dating experience under their belts before their fuses are lit.

“He looked so dazed. Then it was like his eyes were going to pop out of his head. I never saw that look from him before. This is not the kid I knew playing soccer back in high school,” Brandon Wanda, 23, told The News.

Doctors probably drugged him.

Holmes has shown all the signs of a guy who had a paranoid schizophrenic breakdown. The sudden change in appearance and behavior, and the indiscriminate nature of the attack suggest he has a real mental illness, and advocates for the mentally ill ought to stop shielding the public from the knowledge that crazies can sometimes turn out to be excessively violent beasts. But his mental illness may not be the whole story; if his condition reinforced his failure with women, the two personal insults could have operated symbiotically to drive him to the breaking point. Holmes may have been destined to go nuts, but it’s possible he could have been saved from violent schism by an intervention that helped him navigate social interactions with women; in other words, helped him not be himself. Could game have been the answer? Feminists shriek indignantly, but it’s not such an outlandish thought.

The Middle Class Quiet Riot

When this blog links to an outside source, you know by the rarity of the act that it’s something worth reading. This post is one of those must-reads, if for no other reason than that it spotlights, in the starkest terms possible, just exactly how a middle class revolution will foment, and what it means for the future of America. Stories like the one described in the link may be the tip of an iceberg about to slice an irreparable gash in the hull of the USS Proposition Nation.

Brian and Ilsa are such anarchists—grey-haired, well-dressed, golf-loving, well-to-do, exceedingly polite anarchists: But anarchists nevertheless. They are not important, or powerful, or influential: They are average—that’s why they’re so deadly: Their numbers are millions. And they are slowly, painfully coming to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it anymore.

Once enough of these J. Crew Anarchists decide they no longer give a fuck, it’s over for America—because they are America.

When middle class, law-abiding, generally good-natured and good-willed white Americans start dropping out and shirking the rules, the jig is up. Finito. Stick a fork in it. Sayonara. Goodbye to all that. The writing is on the wall. D’oh! Only in the end will you understand.

I predicted this would happen. The twin evils — the two Great Lies of our age — feminism and equalism, sustained by disconnection, distrust, debt-propped decadency and last-gasp status whoring and status hoarding, are carving out bits of America’s soul, piece by piece, and soon nothing but the enraged id will be left, uncaged, vengeful, stripped of moral compunction and ready to watch it all burn to the ground.

At this point, I don’t think there is any saving America from decline and obsolescence. We are on a trajectory eerily similar to that of past empires which have risen and fallen. It’s almost as if there’s an immutable, unchanging, universal human nature at work that has been the guiding force in world matters since we left the jungle upright.

I will say this: if there is any hope of salvation, any way out of the death spiral we’re slipping down, the Lords of Lies must be defeated, by pen or by post. It matters not how the job is done; they simply must be ousted from power and deprived of influence, or, more generously, convinced of the error of their ways and reformed to the side of Light, if America is to have a chance at redemption. The mediocre masses and the vulgarians will not abandon their memetic medication and hypocritical self-aggrandizement until they see a glimmer of new leadership, new voices, that permit them the courage to think clearly and say so with strength of conviction.

The first step begins now:

Men and women are radically different along many important psychological and physical dimensions.

Not all men are created equal.

Some men really are worth more than others.

Some cultures really are better than others.

Some people can handle the task of building and maintaining prosperous civilization better than other people.

Trust is a perishable quantity vital to an orderly, wealth-generating society. It does not grow with persuasion, coercion, sloganeering, or after-school specials. It is organically emergent and intimately tied to relatedness: cultural, moral and, yes, biological.

There is no such thing as a proposition nation, only propositions that can be affirmed or refuted.

High-minded ideals must fall when they are proven unworkable, or millions will die, soul or body, in service to their continued justification.

The gradual feminization of the culture, the workplace, academia, government, media outlets and even family life has not been an unalloyed good. Quite the opposite; the observed evidence better fits the theory that elevating the female disposition and particular talents to sainthood in all facets of life has taken us down a dystopian road, as we can see in the rise of single momhood, sky-high safety net deficit spending, limp-wristed SWPLs, male cocooning and dropping out, and stagnating technological innovation.

Privilege is a good thing. Men build nations so that they may codify their privilege and enjoy it, and pass it on to their posterity. Those who rail against this privilege should be shunned and invited to leave and build their own nations more suited to their tastes.

God may be dead, but his copybook headings hold illimitable dominion over all.

The ego is the greatest enemy man has ever faced.

These truths I’ve outlined, currently buried in a mile-deep bunker by custodians of the Temple of Lies, aren’t just idle musings. They have policy implications. Deny them at your peril.

Obedience To Authority Game

We often mischievously note here that women are more prone to herd behavior than are men. That is, on average, your typical woman is more likely to “go along to get along” than your typical man. This is why all sorts of cultural trends — from fashion to food to acceptable modes of posturing — exert stronger influences on women.

The close cousin of lemmingitis (falling in step with fads) is obedience to authority. If you are apt to align your lifestyle with whatever is the latest fashion, (and ostracize those who don’t), you are probably also apt to blindly obey high status authority figures telling you what is good for you. If true, then we might speculate that women make better cultural foot soldiers for whichever elite authority is most tangible in their lives, owing to women’s greater propensity to accept authority dictums without question.

We may add to this speculation not only personal observation and confirmatory heaps of anecdotes, but in addition scientific evidence that women are, indeed, more obedient to authority than are men. Courtesy of reader uh pointing us to this Milgram experiment replication:

Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a “cute, fluffy puppy” who was given real, albeit harmless, electric shocks. They found similar findings to Milgram: half of the male subjects and all of the females obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering the shocks.*

Always remember: All female participants in the Milgram obedience to authority experiment continued shocking the puppy despite their tears.

Half of the men stopped.

Girls love cute things, but they love powerful authority figures even more.

I’m glad to report that, thanks to the yeoman efforts of this blog, there is a growing awareness of female nature settling firmly in the minds of Westerners (and a smattering of Finns. I kid, I kid! Sort of.) Like male nature, female nature is not all bad, nor is it elevated above men’s (it’s different than men’s, but not any less degraded). Le Chateau’s campaign to RAISE AWARENESS about women’s true nature helps bring balance to the social conditioning force, which for generations has defaulted to the side of pristine women and fallen men. This grand rectification will BEGIN THE HEALING of a society teetering on the precipice of choking to death on a morass of self-asphyxiating lies, and get more than a few men laid in the process.

We know that women are more instinctively obedient to authority, but the reason perhaps eludes those of us with less experience navigating the twat trenches. This female impulse to servitude is both an evolved moral mechanism to reinforce in-group cohesion (and thus secure resource blessings to their children) and a manifestation of their desirous attachment to alpha males, of whom the most obvious archetype are those alpha males wielding authoritarian power.

This knowledge dovetails nicely with game principles. Mystery was always fond of repeating that women are evolutionarily configured to desire “leaders of men”, (along with “protectors of loved ones” and “preselected by women”). I’d expand this axiom to include leaders of women, because the man who can corral a roomful of women to do his bidding is, in many ways, a sexier specimen to women than the man who leads a battalion of men. See, for example, any fashion photographer.

Authorities are, by definition, leaders of men and women. You, the beta male who wants more choice in women, can leverage women’s instinct to obey confident leaders to your hedonistic advantage. Try this sometime (if it is out of character for you, which will be the case, I bet, for at least 80% of my male readers):

• Order, don’t ask, a girl to do something with you. Telling her she’s coming with you to Bar A or Event X is, you will find hard not to notice, far more invigorating to her libido than asking her the same.
• If you are buying a meal or a drink for your girlfriend, choose her option and unhesitatingly order it for her. I have had girls exclaim with surprised glee how awesome it was that I caught them off-guard with this bold move. (Note: Do not default to buying shit for girls you haven’t yet fucked.)
• Spontaneous sex in dangerous places. Again, command her, don’t ask. Asking a girl to have risky sex will always get a “no” answer, which is funny because not asking will almost always get you a “yes” reaction.
• Simply command a woman to do something that makes her a little uncomfortable. Authority is best proved by the victim’s follower’s degree of submission. Tell her, for instance, to skinny dip. Or pilfer a pack of gum. Or go down on you at a movie. Or bury the body in the backyard. Or betray her feminist principles (always a laugh riot).

Ordering a girl to do something, particularly something risky, may sound like an easy proposal, but don’t be fooled: it will feel a lot more difficult than it is if you aren’t used to doing it. Couple your natural aversion with the feminist tankgrrl shrikegeist enshrouding secular societies, and it can seem quite the daunting task to the average beta bear. But the rewards, I assure you, are well worth it. The man who can tap into those ancient Phlegethon viscera coursing through women’s primal souls will have the key to untold pleasures of the penis and the heart.

Women may feel distress when they have to obey an authority telling them to do something they normally wouldn’t, but that distress is an optic fiber pipeline straight to their vaginas. When they experience the one, they inevitably experience the other. You don’t need to be an actual authority figure to trigger this female lust instinct; you just need to accurately portray such authority over the women you want to desire you. And like the accomplished actor, such portrayals will eventually lodge their way into the filament of your being, and the distinction will cease to meaningfully exist.

*If you’re interested, and you should be, here’s a Milgram experiment follow-up which found ethnic and national differences in willingness to obey authority.

Porn Is A Portent Of Sexbotopia

Sexbots. The very word sends chills down the spines of low sexual market value women. They fear competition or, worse, replacement. Even hot babes will suffer blowback from widespread use by men of realistic sexbots; the pool of desirable men remaining in the human mating market will have shrunk in proportion to the women who have the looks to snag them. Expect the “Russian Phenomenon” to sweep across the American landscape: ugly, irresponsible drunkards inexplicably snagging trophy hot blonde bombshells.

Sexbots that can simulate real women are still one silicone foot in the fantasy world, but the tech is rapidly progressing. Whoever said necessity is the mother of invention was wrong; the male sex drive is the mother of invention. (Though, I suppose you could argue that satisfying the male sex drive IS necessity.) So, for now, the agog crowd can rest easy that no major sexbot invasion is about to storm our shores.

But, interestingly, we can get a preview of what a sexbot-serviced future world will look like by turning our jaundiced eye and drained dicks to the effects that porn is having on the 21st Century man.

If it is true (and I happen to believe that it is) that modern porn — ubiquitous, on-demand, high definition, free hardcore porn — is a supernormal stimuli the likes of which have never been experienced by men at any point in human history until now, then we can make a reasonable leap of logic from our current porn-saturated world to a world full of sexbots, and what the toll will be on society. Sexbots will take supernormal stimuli into uncharted territory; dopamine receptors may very well explode aneurytically.

A reader starts us off on the speculation:

Is porn turning men into lazy bums? Might explain the effects of supernormal stimuli. Money won’t much help them get a girl, the women in porn are hotter than anything they could get in the real world anyway, and it seems to have bad effects on motivation overall. Why should men do anything?  Not the recipe for a healthy society.

Assuming porn is making men lazy, apathetic and demotivated, imagine what life-like sexbots who resemble Emma Stone will do to men! I can easily foresee a future where masses of betas and omegas become shut-ins, telecommuting for their sustenance while getting their lust (and mavbe love; have you seen bronies?) needs met by artificial babes who, on the internal male balance sheet, are a more fulfilling choice of sexual partner than the chubby human female 4s and 5s with tankgrrl attitude they could get in the flesh. And with a lot less effort and shit tests.

Men’s happiness doesn’t seem to have gone down however. Though I have heard that there is a bifurcation in male happiness with lower class males losing ground while upper/upper middle class men staying the same or getting happier.  But I’d have to confirm that.

Are lazy, apathetic, demotivated men unhappy? Surveys show women are the ones getting unhappier the deeper we get into the feminist and sexual revolutions. If lower SMV men are getting their dopamine fix via porn, their overall level of happiness might not budge. The unhappiness flowing from low status would be countered by the happiness from orgasmic fulfillment and fooling the id receptors that a high quality mate has been successfully courted.

Whatever the consequence for men’s happiness, it’s a plausible hypothesis that widely available hardcore porn is both a bad omen for the maintenance of civilization and a net plus for rape and molestation rates, which go down with the rise of porn use.

If porn is having this presumed deleterious effect on men’s libidos and passions, sexbots will intensify that (possibly dysgenic) trend a thousandfold. Maybe sexbots will become a form of Danegeld, where the shrinking elite utilize them to pacify the massed lower classes with robotic intimacy. Or maybe sexbots will free the r-selection id fully from its cage, as millions of sexually sated betas, their needs met and their urgency diluted, hit the bars and clubs spitting game like champions of the Aloofness Olympics, on women who have found themselves in competition not only with other women, but with robot women. (Cue “Don’t Date a Robot!” Futurama vid.)

Alternatively, in horrified response to the swarm of sexual release outlets hijacking the minds of men, strict religious orders may institute draconian rules to shield their members from the onslaught; coupled with their higher birth rates, in a few generations we could see a much more God-fearing Western world, and these days of secular miracle and wonder will seem then a distant nightmare concocted in the heads of perverse dystopian writers.

Some free thinkers may ask, “What’s the equivalent of modern supernormal stimuli for women? What dopaminergic threats hijack the pleasure centers of women’s brains and render them incompatible civilizational partners and incorrigible entitled mating prospects?”

Answer: 50 Shades of Gray, tabloids, Facebook, OkCupid, pulp romance novels, pretty much everything on TV, high glycemic carbs.

These are the fantasy and orgasmic outlets for women. Women’s supernormal stimuli differs from men’s in form only; the function is EXACTLY the same: to provide deep, pleasurable limbic massages that can’t be had in the dull, boring, uninspiring real world human sexual market. And the effects on women’s spirits, I will argue, are actually WORSE for society than those effects caused by porn on men’s willingness to brace the support beams of civilization. For a woman whose senses are in thrall to the sexual delights of  fictional billionaire sadists, the ego uplifts of beta male supplicating social media, the instant gratification of carby calories, and the fantasy worldview reinforcing messages of gay and feminist-dominated trash TV, is a woman who is too obese, too self-absorbed and too demanding to make the sacrifices required of her to please a husband and raise a family of more than 0.5 kids.

Sexbots will only have an indirect effect on women, for women are by nature less visual creatures than men, and won’t be drawn to the corporeal pleasures offered by rudimentary AI Jude Law model #3,465. What sexbots will do is widen the already growing chasm between the sexes, until only the fittest of the fit — and fitness is whatever gets one’s genes to the next generation, whether beneficial to civilization or not — can successfully leap across it to woo a human companion in the way that our genetic overlord intended.