Monday, October 15, 2012

Crimson Arts and the Scarlet Manifesto

Dr. Peggy boasts of the wonderful results of a liberated and increasingly adulterous female population:
After years of raising boys to think more like women and women to think more like men, we are now witnessing a generation of adults who fall less into traditional gender roles than ever before. Today's young men, as a whole, are more sensitive than their fathers were. The women are more independent than their mothers. There's been a trickle-up effect: The older generations are witnessing these changes, these freedoms, as they show up in their children and grandchildren, causing a culture-wide shift that transcends age.

Research supports this: According to a study conducted earlier this year by biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher for the dating site Match.com, women are getting less traditional about relationships. Men, interestingly, are getting more so. Men want marriage, babies, and stability; women want personal space and regular nights out with friends. More poignantly, women view their sexuality based on notions of what they want to do, versus what they're told they should do.

In my work and in my life, I had been hearing more from women who were both having extramarital affairs and actively seeking them out. While they weren't necessarily proud of their actions, neither were they ashamed. Unlike men, whose cheating often follows an impulse, these women had considered their affairs. They had reasons for them.
I'm not interested in wagging my finger or responding to the obvious.  What I find interesting here is to note the way other women are repeatedly confirming what Roissy and other Game bloggers, including me, have been saying for years, despite the denials of the NAWALT crowd.

Now no one, except perhaps for the most bitter red pill Gammas, are claiming that all women are adulterous sluts prone to cheating at the drop of a hat.  But what Roissy has been repeatedly driving home is that the observably negative female behavior is increasingly driven by perverse societal structures and incentives that have unleashed the raw, chaotic power of female sexuality to the detriment of men, women, and society.

The fact that Dr. Peggy, the Jezebelles, and the assorted hairy-armed manjaws of the world are celebrating these societal changes indicates that they are real, they are destructive, and that they have to be unmade if society is to return to a stable and sustainable path.  There is no room for the moderates, both male and female, who want to protect the structural changes while decrying the negative consequences; the latter are the product of the former.

The logic is harsh, but inescapable.  As Instapundit likes to say, that which can't continue won't.  If women who are free to do what they want collectively choose to behave in a way that destroys their societies, either those societies will collapse or women will not be permitted such freedom in the future. Women may be, as Dr. Peggy says, more confident about making choices, but what use is confidence when the choices are so often self-destructive ones that lead to empty minds and barren wombs?

43 comments:

swiftfoxmark2 said...

I don't think the kind of men who go to Match.com are the average man. While your observations hold up, that a society that reject the masculine is doomed, the sample used is questionable at best.

Stickwick said...

I'm not a student of history, but this makes me think there must have been a time in the past when women were as licentious and unrestrained as they are now, and the reason for the restriction on women's behavior at other times was that people figured out it wasn't a good thing.

Feh said...

"They had reasons for them."

So... it's news that women are able to rationalize acting in accordance with their emotional impulses... like this only just started happening...

Daniel said...

What was that swiftfoxmark2? "Not all men are like Match?"

Of course not.

But the fact that such a large subset of men exist anywhere in sufficient numbers to be apparent to one of the largest dating sites on the planet is plenty.

To put it very simply, that sort of man would have been a social outlier, if not a social outcast, in previous generations.

The social standard has shifted to accommodate the "him/her man" and the "her/her woman." Match is a perfectly reasonable pool to sample for that phenomenon.

See also the widespread acceptance of "bullying" as the great social problem of the day.

Cryan Ryan said...

In a male dominated society, men would listen to all the opinions and then act as necessary.

Unfortunately, our great grandparents decided that giving women half the power would reduce the complaining.

Result: Now we have even more noise, the women have the power, (because they join with the minorities, the gays, and the manginas to form a super majority) to not only create a chaotic free-for-all, doomed to failure, but a very noisy one as well.

Women can be convinced of damn near anything. And then they vote.

whoism3 said...

I don't think there was ever a time in humanity's history where we allowed our culture to become so decadent and devoid of responsibility as to allow for this to take hold. With the advent of medical advances to extend lifespans, lack of plague's, famines and world wars depleting the population at early ages, the requirement to grow up and be thrust into responsibility at an early age vanished. While we hear no end of 'man up' articles for the peter pans, no one writes about women 'womanning up' because there is no pressure to get them out of the nest early, married and having kids. There is no pressure to train them to become ladies, rather just allow them the freedom to do as they please. And this is the result we get when women are not driven to purpose and responsibility but left to enjoy their nature unrestrained.

Barring some cataclysmic event that decimates the population or returns us to primitive living conditions that require men to become real provision providers once more and women to rely on these men for their very lives, protection and offspring.. there just isn't any outward cause to make women want to make a 'sacrifice' to become responsible at an early age. This will always fall solely on the shoulders of those pathetic 'man boys' who refuse to grow up.

Poolside watching the glow in the distance.

Lucas said...

Repeat after me: Cultural Marxism.

The purpose is to drive the society to chaos so that people earn for a "strong government" to "bring back order".

Female sexuality was unleashed PRECISELY to destroy de culture.

Lucas said...

earn = yearn

taterearl said...

@Lucas...

And some people laugh at the notion of a one world government ever happening. I have to hand it to the elites...unleashing female sexuality and silencing male sexuality is the best way to destroy a civilization.

Women "the fairer sex". Ha!

Athor Pel said...

"Stickwick said...

I'm not a student of history, but this makes me think there must have been a time in the past when women were as licentious and unrestrained as they are now, and the reason for the restriction on women's behavior at other times was that people figured out it wasn't a good thing.
October 15, 2012 9:19 AM "




There have been periods that look just like now. Read some mid to late western Roman history and it will be hard to distinguish it from what you are seeing today. It won't be an exact match but the spirit propelling it was the same.

Many pagan societies have goddesses at their center. Those societies worship the feminine and it attains a higher place in the culture than it would otherwise. The women in those societies tending to be more licentious than they would in a more masculine society.

A prime Biblical example would be Jezebel.

It's all part of a larger picture though. There are always other things going on. Just like feminism is only one part of the progressive agenda.


Check out the Old Testament book of Jeremiah. Once Jerusalem fell a group of Jewish refugees went to Egypt in hopes of saving their lives, even though the Lord through Jeremiah told them not to go.

They even took Jeremiah with them against his will. Once they got to Egypt there were more messages from the Lord delivered through Jeremiah. He told them to go back to Judah, otherwise they would be destroyed. How they responded says everything you need to know about them.


"Jeremiah 44 KJV

15 ¶ Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,

16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.

17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?"



That is one mighty rationalization hamster right there.


Orion said...

The adage that societies change successfully only if they continue to EXIST would probably be totally lost on her. Any society that fails to perpetuate itself is by definition (other than the Fred Saberhagen GoodLife) a failure. But I'm sure she would say that it will even out and equalize. Perhaps when men start getting pregnant.

Ian Ironwood said...

Y'all are giving them waaaaaay too much credit.

These women are DESPERATE. They are having affairs because they've nagged the Alpha out of their husbands and are searching for it elsewhere. They aren't "empowered", they're desperate. They've been sold a bill of goods about "feminine achievement", then when reality hits they just can't deal. So they cheat, thinking that the orgasms and intrigue will fix their miserable lives . . . and instead they end up ruining the few things they had going for them.

You want to see this end? Start exposing cheating women to their husbands and families in such a way that no sane woman would EVER consider cheating before a divorce again. Pump 'em, dump 'em, and then reveal 'em for what they are to the men they've betrayed. Make every point of the "Scarlet Manifesto" an invitation to ruin, and we'll see a LOT less "scarlet women" cheating on their faithful Beta husbands.

It's not a fiendish plan to destroy civilization. It's the desperate moves of a disenchanted class trying to screw their way to happiness. And the cheerleading for hypergamy just makes me sick.

Daniel said...

You can't nag alpha out, Ian.

taterearl said...

"It's not a fiendish plan to destroy civilization."

To the individual woman it isn't...their inner world is their civilization.

Their actions destroy civilization.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

What was that swiftfoxmark2? "Not all men are like Match?"

Of course not.

But the fact that such a large subset of men exist anywhere in sufficient numbers to be apparent to one of the largest dating sites on the planet is plenty.

To put it very simply, that sort of man would have been a social outlier, if not a social outcast, in previous generations.

The social standard has shifted to accommodate the "him/her man" and the "her/her woman." Match is a perfectly reasonable pool to sample for that phenomenon.

See also the widespread acceptance of "bullying" as the great social problem of the day.


Of course the vast majority of men who go there are looking to get married. If they wanted to simply hook up, they'd go elsewhere. The sample is tainted and probably doesn't represent even the majority of Americans.

You can't base you opinion on men as a whole solely on the results of an online dating service. That's just stupid.

ajw308 said...

Ian, go study the scope of what the KGB's Active Measures group fostered. They undermined the Western culture in everyway possible, the green (anti-industrial) movement, the anti-nuke movement and especially every possible way to destroy the family structure. It's all there.

Stickwick said...

Pump 'em, dump 'em, and then reveal 'em for what they are to the men they've betrayed.

Besides the sheer crappiness of doing this to another man, I'd think a man would want to avoid this tactic just due to the risk of getting a punch in the face if not a bullet between the eyes.

Michael Maier said...

"You can't nag alpha out, Ian."

What a silly comment.

You can learn Alpha traits and you can un-learn them, too.

Josh said...

It looks like the backlash is starting in the political sphere:

OT: female tea party leader calls for ending women's suffrage.

Lane: I'm really going to set you back here. Probably the biggest turn we ever made was when the women got the right to vote.

What do you mean?

Lane: Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.

a good ROI said...

"You can't nag alpha out, Ian."

I disagree. Maybe not nag, but throw in a couple other life changing events and I think a man's rank can be changed.

I agree with VD's scale of male rank, but I think it is sliding and does not stay the same throughout ones life, at least for many men.


Just curious, Vox would you say your own father's rank is the same as it was 20 years ago? 40 years ago? I know he has gone through some tough stuff and I think certain things, depending on the man, can move an Alpha or Beta to a different rank just like educating and making changes in one's life can change a Delta or Gamma or even an Omega.


(Not talking specifics on your father just thinking of some other male figures in my own life who seem to have slid up and down the scale. CEO, women chasing him, natural athlete to a failed business x 3 and a wife leaving him to now he might rank as a Delta, works for someone else and just seems defeated).

Markku said...

I don't think there was ever a time in humanity's history where we allowed our culture to become so decadent and devoid of responsibility as to allow for this to take hold.

There has been a Manosphere many times before. Around 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria blogs thus:

---

Such women care little for keeping at home with their husbands; but loosing their husbands' purse-strings, they spend its supplies on their lusts, that they may have many witnesses of their seemingly fair appearance; and, devoting the whole day to their toilet, they spend their time with their bought slaves. Accordingly they season the flesh like a pernicious sauce; and the day they bestow on the toilet shut up in their rooms, so as not to be caught decking themselves. But in the evening this spurious beauty creeps out to candle-light as out of a hole; for drunkenness and the dimness of the light aid what they have put on.

---

With this, as with a bait, they hook the miserable creatures that gape at the glitter of gold. For dazzling thus those fond of display, they artfully try to win the admiration of their lovers, who after a little insult them naked. They will scarce strip before their own husbands affecting a plausible pretence of modesty; but any others who wish, may see them at home shut up naked in their baths. For there they are not ashamed to strip before spectators, as if exposing their persons for sale.

---

Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness! Besides, the wretches know not how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers, unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without their knowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself, and daughters that are prostitutes; and licence in lust shows them to be the men that have begotten them. These things your wise laws allow: people may sin legally; and the execrable indulgence in pleasure they call a thing indifferent. They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery.

Daniel said...

"You can't nag alpha out, Ian."
Michael Meier
What a silly comment.

You can learn Alpha traits and you can un-learn them, too.


Nope - you miss the point. Alphas don't tolerate nagging and don't inspire it either. Nagging is an unchecked shit test, nothing more. Alphas correct the nagging on those rare days it emerges, and certainly don't abscond their position due to it!

Read Ian again. His entire principle is that women nagged alpha out, and then went seeking alpha elsewhere.

Ridiculous. An alpha (or even an alpha trait), by definition, is immune to the erosive effects of nagging.

A man who absconds his position on the hierarchy (and it certainly happens - see also situational alphas) will do it for a lot of reasons: "honey nagged it out of me" won't be one of them.

I think some of you are confusing synthetic or acquired "alpha traits" for a person in the position of alpha. Perhaps I'm not understanding your use of alpha.

If Ian meant that "women often nag a guy into avoiding alpha behavior," then that's one thing, and I'm misreading him. It still gives far too much credit to the nag.

But I doubt it.

In any case a nagging woman is a failure of male leadership.

I'm no alpha, but I've never had a problem nipping any sort of nagging (from a significant other, co-worker or even boss) in the bud. It is one of the easiest test/traps to identify and disarm.

"Don't nag - it is ugly" almost always does the trick.

My pat response to anyone who doesn't know me when they say "I hate to nag, but..." is "...then don't."

You can have a lot of problems with women without nagging ever having to be one. I suspect at some sick level, victims of nagging somehow welcome it. Maybe it makes them feel better than the shrew screeching next to them.

It is also why identifying nagging is enough to cut it off: most women don't feel emotionally good about themselves when they are recognized as being a practitioner of the harpy arts.

Mr Green Man said...

Stickwick said...

I'm not a student of history, but this makes me think there must have been a time in the past when women were as licentious and unrestrained as they are now, and the reason for the restriction on women's behavior at other times was that people figured out it wasn't a good thing.



I think it was the Spearhead that in the last month or two had some excerpts from the writings of Juvenal and Ovid during the late Republic/Augustan Empire period on this very topic. In short, there are a number of Ovid's poems that glamorize as urbane and worldly the acceptance of wifely infidelity and cuckoldry. Juvenal, Ovid's sharpest critic, talked about how the classic Roman rule -- that the husband and father of the house could kill any in his charge with full legal support -- had been rarely used in 300 years, but now was born a new type of licence where the old virtuous Roman wife was no more. To separate from whores, the Roman wife had worn her veil for life and rarely left the house of the middle or upper class; now, they had a new breed of Roman wives who openly sought out and planned affairs -- just like the women in the article.

Augustus imposed severe laws to curtail this behavior, and he made examples of a lot of people. He put lots of penalties in place -- for example, against husbands who did not hand over adulterous wives to be executed by the state, death for themselves.

But the bigger thing for people who love freedom: it set the stage for accepting the chains of imperial rule. Augustus clearly gained a lot of support because of his moral code. For a contemporary analogy, look at when the Afghanis invited the Taliban in: True, it was to curtail the rampant homosexuality in Kandahar, but it is the same idea -- eventually, the licence grows so great that society invites in a strongman to take it over just to get rid of the smell.

MaMu1977 said...

@Daniel

You must be kidding. There are plenty of men on the planet (whether through misguided chivalry or dint of henpecking) who allow themselves to be more suave, attractive and desirable to other women than their wives. Everyone knows at least one guy who's the life of the party, until his wife walks through the door. Alpha is like electricity: it's easier to divert than contain, and an unappreciated alpha has no problem with focusing his attention on other targets.


Daniel said...

Life of the party isn't the alpha, not the one who is henpecked.

You are nuts if you believe there ever was such a thing as a "henpecked alpha!"

A charming delta who turtles in the presence of his wife is certainly common enough, but that's not alpha.

Good grief, do we have to define terms again?

Anonymous said...

@Daniel: Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "situational alpha"?

Markku said...

@Anonymous

At least I would absolutely say there is no such thing. It is just, say, delta being in a leadership role. Which they can do. But if there was a true alpha personality in the same room, he would socially dominate the delta in question, whatever the situation.

denizenofgoo said...

An increase in the influence of women in
public life has often been associated with na-
tional decline. The later Romans complained
that, although Rome ruled the world, women
ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar
tendency was observable in the Arab Empire,
the women demanding admission to the
professions hitherto monopolised by men.
‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian,
Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk,
tax-collector or preacher to do with women?
These occupations have always been limited
to men alone.’ Many women practised law,
while others obtained posts as university
professors. There was an agitation for the
appointment of female judges, which,
however, does not appear to have succeeded.
Soon after this period, government and
public order collapsed, and foreign invaders
overran the country. The resulting increase
in confusion and violence made it unsafe for
women to move unescorted in the streets,
with the result that this feminist movement
collapsed.
The disorders following the military take-
over in 861, and the loss of the empire, had
played havoc with the economy. At such a
moment, it might have been expected that
everyone would redouble their efforts to save
the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of
the kind occurred. Instead, at this moment of
declining trade and financial stringency, the
people of Baghdad introduced a five-day
week.


When I first read these contemporary
descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I
could scarcely believe my eyes. I told myself
that this must be a joke! The descriptions
might have been taken out of The Times
today. The resemblance of all the details was
especially breathtaking—the break-up of the
empire, the abandonment of sexual morality,
the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry
of women into the professions, the five-day
week. I would not venture to attempt an
explanation! There are so many mysteries
about human life which are far beyond our
comprehension.

-Sir John Glubb in The Fate of Empires

Markku said...

I would not venture to attempt an explanation! There are so many mysteries about human life which are far beyond our comprehension.

The TL;DR version of my previous Clement of Alexandria quotes would be this line:

Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men

It all comes down to luxury, always.

denizenofgoo said...

“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” - Cato the Elder 234–149 B.C., quoted in Livy’s History of Rome

ancient manosphere guy detected

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder#Repeal_of_the_Oppian_law

http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-publiclife173.shtml

denizenofgoo said...

"'If each man of us, fellow citizens, had established that the right and authority of the husband should be held over the mother of his own family, we should have less difficulty with women in general; now, at home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is bruised and trampled upon, and, because we have not contained the individuals, we fear the lot ... "

mattt said...

Time to reload the Matrix!

Jules L. said...

It is also why identifying nagging is enough to cut it off: most women don't feel emotionally good about themselves when they are recognized as being a practitioner of the harpy arts.

Depends if she's nuts. She may not feel good that you're pointing out something that doesn't exist (in her mind).

denizenofgoo said...

Forgot to add:

"All other men rule over women, but we Romans, who rule all men, are ruled by our women."

perhaps the same Roman Glubb was alluding to.

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume16/TM016072.html

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Cato_Major*.html

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

"...either those societies will collapse or women will not be permitted such freedom in the future."

This is the key, is it not?

They like to talk about "the End of Men," but I predict it is the "End of Women" (as they presently exist) that we are about to witness.

stg58 said...

I jus cain't wait to show them uppity wimmin a thang or too!

Sarah said...

Markku, that Clement excerpt=awesomeness.

Anonymous said...

@Markku:

At least I would absolutely say there is no such thing. It is just, say, delta being in a leadership role. Which they can do. But if there was a true alpha personality in the same room, he would socially dominate the delta in question, whatever the situation.

Assume that a guy learns game, well enough to internalize it and be able to act alpha 98% of the time. (I believe even Roissy/Heartiste has said that no one is alpha all of the time). Given that he screws up 2% of the time, is he not really an alpha, but rather just a good beta/delta/gamma fake? To word the question another way, is a natural a la Daniel's statement above alpha all the time?

Markku said...

Assume that a guy learns game, well enough to internalize it and be able to act alpha 98% of the time. (I believe even Roissy/Heartiste has said that no one is alpha all of the time). Given that he screws up 2% of the time, is he not really an alpha, but rather just a good beta/delta/gamma fake? To word the question another way, is a natural a la Daniel's statement above alpha all the time?

98% is alpha with occasional lapse. 10%, but with the guy, like, TOTALLY commanding the other engineers when he is the project lead, is delta in a leadership position. I'd say the gray area is somewhere in the 75% region.

As a rule of thumb, if you have to qualify your alphaness with the word "situational", it is very likely that those situations are the exception, not the rule.

finndistan said...

Daniel,

But you can nag the Alpha out of a good man, a balanced man, a good father and a good husband.

And then, divorce laws, child support laws, paternity laws, an army of enforcers and punishers, yes, you can nag the alpha out of an alpha.

MendoScot said...

Procopius's Anekdota ("The Secret History") is also a good source for illustrations of female licence in the late Empire and the corrosive effect it had on society. Also, Theodora made Lucretia Borgia look like a Catholic schoolgirl.

Wait...

Anonymous said...

Bishop (Fulton) Sheen said: "The level of any civilization is always the level of its womanhood." This seems to hold in the West today and I suspect that, in any of the great civilizations throughout history, the downward slide occurred with a low "level of its womanhood."

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.