For those who insist that women are pure, innocent, and pedestal-worthy, I invite them to consider the incontrovertible evidence of female evil: Spacebunny knowingly and purposefully inflicted this velutinous Lovecraftian horror upon me this morning.
It may not initially seem so bad, but just wait until you belatedly realize that you've been whistling it to yourself and recoil in spine-chilling self-loathing. Granted, it's pretty funny to see her walk around cheerfully singing it and shaking her ass, but THIS ONLY GOES TO SHOW MIND-BOGGLINGLY EVIL IT IS!
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
Women aren't attracted to Godly men
This may be among the most bitter of the various aspects of the red pill for some men, particularly Christian men, to swallow. It's a message we hear from Christians and Churchians alike, that women will be attracted to men who are faithful and godly pillars of the Church community, that being "sold out for Jesus" is not merely an attractive feature, but the most attractive aspect of a man for a Christian woman possible.
There is one serious problem with this. It is not true. And, unsurprisingly, in being false, it is an observably and intrinsically anti-Biblical concept.
Let's look at the greatest men of God, as seen in the Bible. Was Elijah a chick magnet? Were women constantly cooing over Elisha's bald pate? Did Jeremiah or Isaiah find it difficult to prophesy due to the women they were constantly having to fend off with their staffs? Sure, there was the whole rolling in filth thing, but then, personal uncleanliness didn't slow down the hippie chicks in the Sixties. Solomon had a vast and plentiful harem, but then, he was a king and a rich one at that. Hosea only married a prostitute at God's behest. Joseph was highly attractive to Potiphar's wife, but she was not a woman of God and it was clearly not his godliness that got her all hot and bothered.
Of course, that's all Old Testament. Is it any different in the New Testament? Not at all. The Apostle Paul never married, nor, insofar as we can tell, didPeter, James, Matthew, Mark, or John. Paul even makes it clear that a man who is truly sold out completely for God has no room for women in his life. That doesn't suffice to prove women aren't hot for him, and yet, at no point in any of the writings of these unmarried men of God is there any indication that women are bothering any of them with their excess attentions. Given Paul's criticism of female attire and them so much as speaking in the church, it seems unlikely that he would fail to mention them pestering him for his attention had they been doing so.
Jesus did draw in women by the droves, but then, he drew even more men to him as well. And while Herodias hated John the Baptist, there is no indication she hated him for spurning her rather than the threat he posed to her status as her uncle's wife.
So much for the Bible. Now let's observe the real world. Are sincerely religious men the objects of female fantasy? Not so much. On the basis of this metric, it is pretty clear that the sort of men women find most attractive are a) youthful billionaires b) vampires, and c) movie stars. Not only are missionaries, priests, and pastors conspicuously missing from the romance novels and chick flicks of the world, but the actual objects of female desire are notoriously immoral and unholy.
Now, this does not mean that Christian women don't want a godly husband who does genuinely love Jesus Christ. But this desire is relationship desire, not sexual attraction, as outlined previously in the logical fallacy of female attraction. And it also doesn't mean that the Christian man should not put Jesus Christ first in his life. It merely means that he should not expect his devotion to God to attract women in the same way that perfectly chiseled features, well-honed muscles, stylish clothes, social status, and irrational self-confidence do.
Christian women do find Christian men with strong faith to be attractive. But it is simply false to believe that they do so because of the strength of the man's faith, or even because of his faith. A woman follows because an attractive man leads her, not because she approves of his destination.
There is one serious problem with this. It is not true. And, unsurprisingly, in being false, it is an observably and intrinsically anti-Biblical concept.
Let's look at the greatest men of God, as seen in the Bible. Was Elijah a chick magnet? Were women constantly cooing over Elisha's bald pate? Did Jeremiah or Isaiah find it difficult to prophesy due to the women they were constantly having to fend off with their staffs? Sure, there was the whole rolling in filth thing, but then, personal uncleanliness didn't slow down the hippie chicks in the Sixties. Solomon had a vast and plentiful harem, but then, he was a king and a rich one at that. Hosea only married a prostitute at God's behest. Joseph was highly attractive to Potiphar's wife, but she was not a woman of God and it was clearly not his godliness that got her all hot and bothered.
Of course, that's all Old Testament. Is it any different in the New Testament? Not at all. The Apostle Paul never married, nor, insofar as we can tell, did
Jesus did draw in women by the droves, but then, he drew even more men to him as well. And while Herodias hated John the Baptist, there is no indication she hated him for spurning her rather than the threat he posed to her status as her uncle's wife.
So much for the Bible. Now let's observe the real world. Are sincerely religious men the objects of female fantasy? Not so much. On the basis of this metric, it is pretty clear that the sort of men women find most attractive are a) youthful billionaires b) vampires, and c) movie stars. Not only are missionaries, priests, and pastors conspicuously missing from the romance novels and chick flicks of the world, but the actual objects of female desire are notoriously immoral and unholy.
Now, this does not mean that Christian women don't want a godly husband who does genuinely love Jesus Christ. But this desire is relationship desire, not sexual attraction, as outlined previously in the logical fallacy of female attraction. And it also doesn't mean that the Christian man should not put Jesus Christ first in his life. It merely means that he should not expect his devotion to God to attract women in the same way that perfectly chiseled features, well-honed muscles, stylish clothes, social status, and irrational self-confidence do.
Christian women do find Christian men with strong faith to be attractive. But it is simply false to believe that they do so because of the strength of the man's faith, or even because of his faith. A woman follows because an attractive man leads her, not because she approves of his destination.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Why women are unhappier
There have been a number of theories attempting to explain why women self-report being less happy than oppressed women did back in the evil old days of the pre-equalitarian Patriarchy. 80 Proof Oinomancy presents a simple and cogent alternative explanation:
HT: Complimentarian Loners
Now, I’ve heard plenty of thoughts and conjecture as to the reason for the decline [in female happiness]. But I’ve yet to see someone get it right. Care to take a shot? Go ahead…I don't know how convincing I find that explanation, but it is certainly both pithy and amusing. Being of an economic bent, I tend to favor the explanation that educational trends combined with hypergamy and misleading expectations of the joys of self-supporting labor are the primary cause myself.
“Because men aren’t ‘manning up’.”
Nope.
“Because the economy is rapidly draining the pool of desirable (Alpha) men.”
Wrong.
“Because the “self-esteem” and “empowerment” trends have caused women to price themselves out of the market.”
Strike 3; you’re out.
Here’s the answer: It’s because women have stopped trying to please men in favor of trying to please women. And they’re learning just how impossible a task that is.
HT: Complimentarian Loners
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The logical fallacy of female attraction
A commenter at Susan's place raises a valid and important point:
I believe the primary reason it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between "that which I love" and "that which turns me on" is that for women, sexually turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is so delicate that it can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing a suggestion in the wrong way, crossing some invisible physical boundary, or even daring to express a modicum of unseemly delight or pleasure in her responses.(1) And, in precisely the same manner it is shut down, sexual attraction can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let's face it, none of the women whose bodies sexually responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?
This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don't know because they don't pay close attention to the process or analyze it carefully in the way that men who are interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, don't ask the prey, ask the predator.
If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by gay porn. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter of what turns her on because there are reasonably solid grounds for considering it to be unreliable. But her inability to identify what does or does not turn her on doesn't mean that she isn't conveying useful information about herself and her sexuality. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control to prevent her from giving into her less rational impulses, which means that she is likely a woman worth pursuing for LTR rather than STR.
I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions - not having sex with jerks - are perfectly in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks. The logical fallacy here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I've had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am sexually attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is sexually attracted.
(1) This may help explain why narcissists and sociopaths do inordinately well with women. They never undermine the process of a woman being sexually turned on by reacting in an unseemly manner to her responses because they could not care less about them. There are few things that shut down the female sexual response faster than a stupid BETA smile or expressing verbal satisfaction at her responses. Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.
We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM.This is good clarification and it's really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain BETA traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. As a general rule, anything that inspires the same "awwwww" reaction as children and puppies is something that belongs in the BETA LTR box and not the ALPHA juices like wine box.
I believe the primary reason it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between "that which I love" and "that which turns me on" is that for women, sexually turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is so delicate that it can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing a suggestion in the wrong way, crossing some invisible physical boundary, or even daring to express a modicum of unseemly delight or pleasure in her responses.(1) And, in precisely the same manner it is shut down, sexual attraction can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let's face it, none of the women whose bodies sexually responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?
This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don't know because they don't pay close attention to the process or analyze it carefully in the way that men who are interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, don't ask the prey, ask the predator.
If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by gay porn. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter of what turns her on because there are reasonably solid grounds for considering it to be unreliable. But her inability to identify what does or does not turn her on doesn't mean that she isn't conveying useful information about herself and her sexuality. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control to prevent her from giving into her less rational impulses, which means that she is likely a woman worth pursuing for LTR rather than STR.
I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions - not having sex with jerks - are perfectly in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks. The logical fallacy here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I've had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am sexually attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is sexually attracted.
(1) This may help explain why narcissists and sociopaths do inordinately well with women. They never undermine the process of a woman being sexually turned on by reacting in an unseemly manner to her responses because they could not care less about them. There are few things that shut down the female sexual response faster than a stupid BETA smile or expressing verbal satisfaction at her responses. Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Divorcing the State
This is a column I wrote more than eight years ago, so I thought it might be new to a lot of the readers here and therefore worth reproducing. It's an attempt to submit some basic historical facts into the discussion and thereby demonstrate that the primary cause of the Marriage 2.0 debacle and its negative societal consequences is increased government interference with intersexual relations. That is why looking to government to fix the problem is not the answer, getting the government entirely out of the situation is.
It was not until relatively recently, in historical terms, that marriage was considered the legitimate business of state government, still less the federal government. Prior to 1987, in Turner v. Safley, when the Supreme Court described marriage as “a relationship that can receive tangible benefits including government benefits and property rights,” there was still some lingering question of the federal government’s power to intervene with the formerly sovereign states of the Union in defining the concept.
The involvement of government in the form of the state in concerning itself with marriage is also relatively new. Virginia’s first legal code consisted of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Christian ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages and burials they performed. Not until 1631 did the House of Burgesses create marriage licenses.
But these licenses were not required for marriage, and not until 1853 was the Virginia licensing procedure taken away from the churches and given to the county and independent city clerks. Other states made marriage licenses mandatory sooner – in Indiana, for example, county marriage licenses were became necessary in 1800 although the state government did not become directly involved until 1958.
As is almost always the case with everything upon which government lays its venomous hands, it did not take long for the lethal effects of the transformation from a religious sacrament to a government contract to appear. Divorces per 1,000 population rose from .38 in 1900 to 2.4 in 1960, then peaked at 5.3 by 1981.
Divorce rates have fallen slightly since then, to around 4.9 per 1,000, [NB: it has now dropped to 3.4 per 1,000] but this is mostly due to the decision of young men and women to delay marriage if not avoid it altogether.
There is a significant difference between marriage – the religious commitment between a man and one or more women – as it has been known in every historical society for at least 6,000 years, and the modern concept of state-granted civil marriage. Self-styled conservative “defenders of marriage” justify their support for state involvement, mostly in the form of tax breaks and social security benefits, in much the same way that left-liberal justify everything – it’s all for the children.
As usual, however, this mistaken notion has worked out about as well as every other government intrusion into the economy and culture. The number of children being produced in the United States has dropped to its lowest level since 1909, when birthrate figures were first calculated. The number of children living with two parents is also at an all-time low, while 33.8 percent of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. So, by every metric, the idea that government can support or defend marriage is a complete failure.
And now, of course, governments from coast to coast have begun to define the concept so widely as to eliminate it altogether. However, cultural conservatives should not dread this – nor do I think they should attempt to circle the wagons in one last attempt to thwart the lavender tide by passing yet another amendment that the corrupt courts will confound with a disingenuous circumvention of logic, reason and reading comprehension.
Instead, if they are truly interested in restoring marriage and the family to their proper places as the twin bulwarks of civilized society, they must leap at the opportunity to remove the state, at all levels, from the process entirely. Marriage is a sacred trinity of a man and a woman before God, there is neither room nor reason for a fourth party to enter into the relationship, still less one that corrupts and destroys the tripartite relationship.
Marriage survived for 6,000 years without government, in less than 1 percent of that time, the government has nearly managed to destroy it in this country. There is nothing to fear from removing government from the equation – indeed, doing so will only strengthen true Christian marriage.
As for the other, non-sacramental commitments that may be announced, what of them? With or without a government document, they cannot and will not be married, exactly as they weren’t before government became involved in the process. And it is only through the illegitimate power of government to counterfeit a redefinition of the concept that these anti-traditionalists have a hope of creating these charades in the first place.
The State and Marriage is a joining made in Hell, conducted by the Devil. This is one divorce that conservatives should embrace with all alacrity and enthusiasm.
It was not until relatively recently, in historical terms, that marriage was considered the legitimate business of state government, still less the federal government. Prior to 1987, in Turner v. Safley, when the Supreme Court described marriage as “a relationship that can receive tangible benefits including government benefits and property rights,” there was still some lingering question of the federal government’s power to intervene with the formerly sovereign states of the Union in defining the concept.
The involvement of government in the form of the state in concerning itself with marriage is also relatively new. Virginia’s first legal code consisted of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Christian ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages and burials they performed. Not until 1631 did the House of Burgesses create marriage licenses.
But these licenses were not required for marriage, and not until 1853 was the Virginia licensing procedure taken away from the churches and given to the county and independent city clerks. Other states made marriage licenses mandatory sooner – in Indiana, for example, county marriage licenses were became necessary in 1800 although the state government did not become directly involved until 1958.
As is almost always the case with everything upon which government lays its venomous hands, it did not take long for the lethal effects of the transformation from a religious sacrament to a government contract to appear. Divorces per 1,000 population rose from .38 in 1900 to 2.4 in 1960, then peaked at 5.3 by 1981.
Divorce rates have fallen slightly since then, to around 4.9 per 1,000, [NB: it has now dropped to 3.4 per 1,000] but this is mostly due to the decision of young men and women to delay marriage if not avoid it altogether.
There is a significant difference between marriage – the religious commitment between a man and one or more women – as it has been known in every historical society for at least 6,000 years, and the modern concept of state-granted civil marriage. Self-styled conservative “defenders of marriage” justify their support for state involvement, mostly in the form of tax breaks and social security benefits, in much the same way that left-liberal justify everything – it’s all for the children.
As usual, however, this mistaken notion has worked out about as well as every other government intrusion into the economy and culture. The number of children being produced in the United States has dropped to its lowest level since 1909, when birthrate figures were first calculated. The number of children living with two parents is also at an all-time low, while 33.8 percent of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. So, by every metric, the idea that government can support or defend marriage is a complete failure.
And now, of course, governments from coast to coast have begun to define the concept so widely as to eliminate it altogether. However, cultural conservatives should not dread this – nor do I think they should attempt to circle the wagons in one last attempt to thwart the lavender tide by passing yet another amendment that the corrupt courts will confound with a disingenuous circumvention of logic, reason and reading comprehension.
Instead, if they are truly interested in restoring marriage and the family to their proper places as the twin bulwarks of civilized society, they must leap at the opportunity to remove the state, at all levels, from the process entirely. Marriage is a sacred trinity of a man and a woman before God, there is neither room nor reason for a fourth party to enter into the relationship, still less one that corrupts and destroys the tripartite relationship.
Marriage survived for 6,000 years without government, in less than 1 percent of that time, the government has nearly managed to destroy it in this country. There is nothing to fear from removing government from the equation – indeed, doing so will only strengthen true Christian marriage.
As for the other, non-sacramental commitments that may be announced, what of them? With or without a government document, they cannot and will not be married, exactly as they weren’t before government became involved in the process. And it is only through the illegitimate power of government to counterfeit a redefinition of the concept that these anti-traditionalists have a hope of creating these charades in the first place.
The State and Marriage is a joining made in Hell, conducted by the Devil. This is one divorce that conservatives should embrace with all alacrity and enthusiasm.
Monday, September 3, 2012
It never ends
No matter how many times they get what they want, female activists will always find a way to complain about how they're being oppressed:
Your blog claims that men who take up more space than they physically need when using public transport are practicing an "invisible and unconscious expression of power in an everyday, public space." Can men oppress women without even knowing it?The slippery slope is not a fallacy. For some, it's a fundamental approach to life.
Absolutely. I think one of the most problematic aspects of having such an extensive power structure is that a lot of people aren't even aware that how they act affects others. The fact that men get more space in classrooms, at board meetings, and so on, is part of a structural oppression that not everyone knows they're taking part in.
What would you say to those claiming that, in the grand scheme of things, this issue is a "luxury problem"?
My point is that this is part and parcel of the kind of oppression that leads to women being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The malice test
Now, it is important to keep in mind that one in four women is not four in four women. And yet, ASSPOWALT. A Statistically Significant Percentage Of Women Are Like That. So, it is rather discouraging to see that more than a quarter of young women, up to 40 percent, are purposefully malicious.
Life is far too short to involve yourself with a malicious woman. There are many personal shortcomings that can be overlooked or overcome, but pure malice isn't one of them. It isn't so much a red flag as a black one sporting a neon green skull-and-crossbones. The nice thing is, thanks to Facebook, there is an easy test for female malice. Look at the pictures she posts on social media sites. Are the pictures always good ones of her and bad ones of her friends, particularly her more attractive friends? If so, you are dealing with one of the 40 percent and should not even consider any sort of relationship with her.
The same article also provides evidence of a basic Game concept.
One in four women deliberately puts unflattering photographs of their friends wearing bikinis on social networking websites such as Facebook, according to a new study. The majority of women posting the photos said they did so after falling out with their friends. Two-fifths of women also admitted deliberately posting photographs of their friends without make-up. Even when asked to permanently delete the unflattering picture from Facebook, a fifth of women said they had refused to do so.This indicates that about 40 percent of women are overtly malicious and 20 percent are incorrigibly so. Again, that's not all women, but it is pretty close to half of them. So, if she's willing to do that sort of thing to her friends, knowingly and on purpose, just imagine what she is going to be willing to do when things aren't going her way and she is upset with you. Caveat emptor.
Life is far too short to involve yourself with a malicious woman. There are many personal shortcomings that can be overlooked or overcome, but pure malice isn't one of them. It isn't so much a red flag as a black one sporting a neon green skull-and-crossbones. The nice thing is, thanks to Facebook, there is an easy test for female malice. Look at the pictures she posts on social media sites. Are the pictures always good ones of her and bad ones of her friends, particularly her more attractive friends? If so, you are dealing with one of the 40 percent and should not even consider any sort of relationship with her.
The same article also provides evidence of a basic Game concept.
"To see that so many women deliberately commit ‘photo sabotage’ and upload unflattering pictures of friends is somewhat surprising, particularly when you consider how many said they’d be mad if the same was done to them.Of course, this is not surprising at all to those who understand female solipsism and that most women refuse to hold themselves to the same standards they hold others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)