Monday, July 28, 2014

Science confirms the DLV

Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around
In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable....researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.
Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don't find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It's very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.

Don't be nice to women you meet. No matter what your Mommy tells you, they don't find it attractive. They are attracted to men who blow them off, who demonstrate contempt for them, who regard them as being unworthy of attention. You don't have to be cruel or rude, except to the most attractive women, simply refusing to kowtow to them and looking around the room when they are talking to you is sufficient in most cases.

Civil disinterest is the best uniform approach. Treat an attractive woman exactly the same way you would instinctively treat a fat or ugly woman, and you'll significantly increase the likelihood that she'll be attracted to you. Men don't make the rules of female attraction, we are merely subject to their consequences. So learn how to play by the rules.

Why doesn't being nice repulse men? Because men are not hypergamous and therefore are not repulsed by DLV.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Magical thinking

I always find great amusement in magical thinkers, those who genuinely appear to believe that reality is defined by their description of it. This artist has taken the concept to verbose new heights:
I started the series because the world’s attempt to control women’s bodies, behavior and identity really bothered me. This kind of oppression seems so entangled in our culture that most people don’t even realize it’s there. My goal with these illustrations is to show this oppression in all its shapes, and make people question themselves about it. The project has grown, and I like to talk about other themes as well, such as racism, ableism and LGBT issues.
But "the world" isn't attempting to control women's bodies, behavior, and identity. Not the Western world, anyhow. Most of the problems the Western world presently faces, and the root cause of its future challenges, stem from the fact that historical restrictions on female behavior have been considerably loosened. In fact, the only people even attempting to restrict anyone's behavior tend to be women.

Since women are authoritarian barbarians by instinct, once freed from their civilized restraints they promptly began beavering away at destroying the foundations of civil society and civilization that were so painfully constructed over the centuries. In less than 40 years, they have destroyed their society's ability to sustain itself, in another 40, their societies will no longer exist in anything remotely identifiable with the civilization of the 1980s and before. 

But at least the grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ female denizens of the dysgenic barbarian future will be assured that they are entitled to self-respect as they are gang-raped by roving bands of grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ male denizens of the broken shards of Western civilization. And that's really the important thing.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

A lesson in online debate

This Twitter exchange should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched. It's not even a little bit difficult to expose their inability to intellectually hold their own, let alone beat us, even when using the very limited medium of Twitter.
@DavidFutrelle our all-stars like @heartiste, @Steve_Sailer, @ChuckGLP, @Aurini, @voxday would intellectually eat you alive

Vanilla Rose
@RedPillPhil Um, this is embarrassing. For you. @DavidFutrelle has ripped the writing of @heartiste, @voxday et al to shreds. Regularly.

he won't directly debate them though. He just makes snarky little hit pieces.

David Futrelle
I've written many times about @heartiste and @voxday. They're (accidentally) hilarious!

Vanilla Rose
@DavidFutrelle exposes the stupidity of the writing of @heartiste, @voxday, @rooshv and others.

Vox Day
Snarking and posturing != ripped to shreds. He's simply not in our league.

David Futrelle
Vox, you rip yourself to shreds every time you open your mouth or type words on a screen.

Vox Day
Irrelevant. Even if true, in that case, you're still not doing it. It doesn't support the claim.

David Futrelle
I'll take on any "dark enlightenment" bloggers (that's hard to say w/ a straight face) in a cat pic duel.

Vox Day
Why not take me on in an actual debate. An easy topic like: should women have voting rights?

David Futrelle
Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end. Thanks!

Vox Day
Sorry, David, you haven't won yet. Yes, you are human. Did you vote in the recent EU elections?

David Futrelle
No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?

Vox Day
I'm demonstrating to you that merely being human grants no voting rights. Do you concur?

David Futrelle
There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one

David Futrelle
There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender.

David Futrelle
... and that's preetty much the end of the argument, despite whatever spurious reason you come up with to deny women the vote. Debate over.

Vox Day
You're begging the question.
Of course, their cognitive disadvantage isn't the only reason they prefer to stay at a safe distance and snark and posture rather than attempt to directly engage and destroy our arguments in front of our supporters. Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male's distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.

Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It's all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters. But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle's reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.

This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Criminalizing omega

Women feel they should be able to go out in public spaces without sacrificing the feeling that they are still in private, which would appear to be a nonsensical position until you take Game into acccount. A woman complains about creepshots.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a creep shot is a photograph taken of an unsuspecting woman, or girl, which is then posted onto social media, blogs and websites with the hashtag #creepshot. They focus on her body – particularly her boobs, bum, legs and any visible underwear. Most of these unsolicited pictures are taken in public – whether at the gym, yoga classes (there’s a whole website dedicated to ‘girls in yoga pants’), or just walking down the street.

It’s vile. But not as vile as the feed of photographs next to it, which I can’t reproduce here. Not because they’re too graphic – most zoom in on a woman’s clothed body, although some are quite explicit and others appear to show young teenage girls – or even because they’re illegal, because they’re not. It's just that they're incredibly unethical....

It is, without question, revolting. These photographs sexually objectify women and turn them into pornography without their consent, or even their knowledge. 'Creepy' doesn't even begin to cover what these people - predominantly men - are doing.

If I ever chanced across a photograph of one of my body parts with a #creepshot hashtag on it, I'd feel completely sick. Not only would it mean that someone had sneakily photographed me in public, but it would show that an online community of creeps were, well, perving on me. It's a horrific thought. But the worst thing is there's not much I could do about it. They aren't committing a crime and unless they photograph someone underage, do an upskirt shot or take it in a private place, this is totally legal.
The hilarious thing about this is the blithe solipsism. These are the same women that devour magazines devoted to nothing but creepshots of celebrities. These are the same women who enthusiastically support the Panopticon in the name of public safety. These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.

So, it's obvious that they don't mind at all being photographed in public. It's obvious that they don't have a philosophical objection to photos of people in public spaces. What really bothers them? The idea that some bottom-feeding male they deems unworthy of their attention might be deriving a modicum of sexual pleasure from their image nevertheless.

That's how much girls hate omegas.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Alpha Mail: a similar problem

From the inbox:
I have been married for [a few] years. I have [multiple] children with my wife who it is relevant to mention is [Asian]. We live in [the Asian country].

As far as my rank on the Game scale goes, I'd say I have a lot of gamma tendencies which were probably at their worst during high school and my early years of university. All the sort of behavior that I later learned women find unattractive was exactly the way I would act. I changed as I grew up and I lost weight, was introduced to Game, got a bit more confident and things improved. I think it is important I mention this past though because I probably display these tendencies more since marriage.

After I'd begun dating my wife one of the first things she mentioned was how I had ignored her the first time we met - something I noted as a sign of improved Game. We were fine when we dating and had a good sex life and both of us would initiate intimacy and we both usually reciprocated. This was healthy but our first year was turbulent for other reasons largely related to money. Since our first child, my wife has generally not initiated intimacy and when she didn't refuse, she became a lot more mechanical and treated it like an inconvenience. It continued on well after the birth and after our child became easier to manage.

She made the same sort of excuses mentioned by the spreadsheet man. She was tired, didn't feel like it, was sick and often stomach pains were the excuse. When I get angry or frustrated she will actually tell me I should just masturbate. She once suggested I'm treating her like a prostitute and she has also broken down with water-works when pushed. This is now just as bad after our second child was born. I should add that even her desire for a second child wasn't matched by much sexual desire towards me.

When she does reluctantly become intimate she avoids kissing me, letting me touch her breasts and sometimes keeps herself partially clothed. She more importantly doesn't seem to enjoy it and I''m not selfish or quick with her or. This has frustrated me because it is sometimes weeks or months between encounters and even when she does reluctantly do it, she is as described. Recently she's also been going to sleep early on days where we planned (around children) to be intimate.

Now since we've been married I have generally maintained a good weight, I don't drunkenly try to mount her or force her in any way. I have been given signals and even hit on by other women when at other social events, whether with friends or work related. I have always refused these advances without a thought or avoided flirting back. I naturally want the marriage to work especially with children and not a chance in hell of keeping them under the [Asian country's] legal system.

I have gone about things a few ways, I have told her explicitly that I can get what I want somewhere else if she won't. She was previously jealous of other female co-workers and friends - especially before marriage. She has responded to such suggestions by telling me I would "lose everything" if I ever did while maintaining a cold shoulder towards me.

The above was a bluff of course. I don't want to cheat on her and I would be wrong if I did but I have recently been very tempted. She still maintains the same cold attitude and I have recently been hit on by someone I am attracted to. Nonetheless I've resisted these advances but I would be lying if I didn't admit to being tempted. And this is what really worries me because I am tempted by female advances where I wasn't before. I could live with my lackluster sex life before by telling myself that the children should come first and adultery is adultery however I try to rationalize it. But as you can imagine, I am at the very least reluctant to stay married to her once my children reach maturity no matter how much it ends up costing me to leave.

The only things I can think to add are that she also belittles me, telling me I'm lazy even though I work full-time and recently got promoted. She constantly holds the children up as threats and associates not obeying her wishes as somehow not caring about the children. She plays my older child against me sometimes telling me I scare him when I am angry to her. She also uses them as excuses for not feeling like sex. A lot of our marital problems can be blamed on the lack of money flow but I don't much feel like getting more liquidity for someone that treats me like she does. Living where we live and her reluctance to move also make this a bigger problem. And despite this, we are actually quite comfortable and not lacking for anything generally speaking.
This debacle illustrates the central problem with marriage 2.0. The man simply lacks any material leverage, while the woman has the entire power of the state at her back. And unfortunately, while most women prefer to be at least a little circumspect about resorting to the leverage this gives them, the wife openly revels in her dominant position in the marriage. My strong suspicion is that she married him to avoid being married to a dominant man of her own culture and since the novelty and imagined status of the Westerner has worn off, she really doesn't want to be married to him anymore.

There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all marital problems can be solved. Second, all strategies for addressing and attempting to solve marital problems have to be viewed in terms of estimated probabilities. It's not about knowing the magic word or striking the magic pose, but rather giving oneself the best chance of success. And sometimes that best chance is still a long shot, which appears to be the case here.

This man will have to decide what level of personal degradation he is willing to accept for the sake of being near his children. My belief, however, is that children are always secondary to the marriage. They are the fruit of the marriage, but both the husband and the wife who insist on always putting the children ahead of their marital partner are making a fatal mistake that will ultimately harm the children.

After some reflection, I think the emailer should simply return to his homeland by himself for two weeks to get his head clear. Being in foreign land is intrinsically unsettling in multiple ways. He should just go, without asking permission, without making a big deal of it, and without staying in close contact while he is gone. If she asks why he is going, he should tell her, honestly, that he is thinking of returning home and he wants to see what his employment prospects are there. No mention should be made of divorce or ending the marriage, no threats or ultimatums should be given, just a simple statement of intent.

She will probably react with dire theats. These must be met calmly and with civil resignation. "I understand, all the same, this is what I'm going to do." There is no point in explanations. She already knows perfectly well why he is considering a permanent return. And once there, he needs to seriously think upon whether he wants to continue to live his life that way or not, and if he wants his children to witness the ongoing humiliation of their father or not. There is no correct answer here, it is an intrinsically subjective call.

These ugly situations are much harder where children are involved, but to paraphrase the Biblical wisdom, he who seeks to gain his children will lose them. The only way to prevent a woman from using your children against you is to make it clear that doing so will accomplish nothing whatsoever, and since he's already made a very bad mistake of trying to bluff her, and having his bluff called, she's not going to believe any posturing on his part short of actually packing up and leaving for a time. The only way to nullify open threats such as these is to materially demonstrate their impotence.

It must be admitted that there is a chance that the woman will file for divorce during those two weeks. All he may accomplish here is to speed up the inevitable. But even that can be seen as a positive step of sorts. To be honest, this doesn't sound like a marriage so much as a wintry battleground.

One can't help but notice

Women who openly oppose feminism tend to be more attractive than feminists. One wouldn't need the signs to know which is which.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Slowly, we win

The language and the ideas of Game have gradually worked their way out into the mainstream and are now generating open concerns and opposition from post-feminist young women.
My[20F] boyfriend[21M] is being poisoned by The Red Pill. Help.

We have been together for over a year. He was/is my best friend and we've lived together for 3 years. Long story short, he has some pretty bad issues with depression (in cycles, we're thinking bipolar, he's about to start going to a new doctor to figure it out) and low self esteem. He's had this low period -> go read TRP -> feel shitty about himself for being a "beta" cycle twice so far.

He is letting a lot of their ideas affect the way that he thinks when he's in these low periods. Some examples are feeling like because he's a "beta" he has to work for something(sex) that "alpha" guys don't, and that makes him get even lower, along with feeling like I don't want him because he's a "beta" and that he (pretty much) isn't good enough for me.

He gets really sensitive to people's comments when this happens. An example is when I went to get his keys from him at work, after I walked out the door someone said "damn, who's girlfriend is that!"(I swear to god I'm nothing special, this comment is weird and uncalled for in the first place) And when people pointed to him, the first guy kinda laughed and said "that's not his girlfriend..".

How do I explain to him how horrible TRP actually is? When I say that they're assholes, he just says that there are so many of them, they must be doing something right.

He isn't sexist at all (except for some super common cultural stuff like gender roles, etc) and does not think negatively of women whatsoever, I can tell he's just looking for some way to "improve" himself because he feels so shitty.

We communicate EXTREMELY well and we have very controlled, civil conversations about this kind of stuff, but I'm at a loss about how to explain this to him or show him that TRP is living in some fairy tale world where if you're enough of an "alpha" all girls will "give" you sex 24/7. He's convinced that my semi-low (prefer sex every other day) sex drive is because he's a "beta" and I don't want him and am not attracted to him.
Translation: "my boyfriend gets depressed every time he realizes I've emasculated him by controlling our relationship and dictating every aspect of his life. How can I prevent him from being aware of the truth?" To claim that one is "poisoned by The Red Pill" is akin to claiming that one has been infected by reality. The deceiver sees The Red Pill as horrible because she can no longer continue to deceive her victims.

Remember, the core of gamma behavior is "about lying to oneself relentlessly about what's right in front of your eyes." Game is built upon a foundation of the relentless observation of the facts of human behavior. That is why Game and gamma delusions, and Game and delta assumptions, and Game and female deceptions, are intrinsically incompatible.

I don't care about this particular case, only about what it represents in the larger scheme of things. It means that the attempt by feminists and white knights and gammas-in-denial to marginalize Game as nothing but a skeezy form of misogyny has completely failed. Even a gyne-blinded young delta chump is aware that The Truth Is Out There.

This is what a step forward on the long march looks like.