That would explain the fantasies

This is a surprising and not-often reported aspect of rape that may, or may not, be related to some basic Game concepts:

This is a topic that has been discussed a great deal in the past with counselors, rape victims and other online forums. It is however still a taboo topic for Survivors to admit.  It is usually thought of as not being PC or polite and people start getting very defensive about it. Well, exploring and trying to find out the truth is not helped by closing one's eyes to things we rather not believe.

I think that the answer to the question as to why do some females orgasm during a sexual assault or rape is that all of the various explanations have some validity, but none of them tell the entire story in the case of every individual victim of the crime. First of all, orgasms in women being raped are not frequent, but they are not uncommon either. In the study you cite, about 5% to 21% of women interviewed in the studies surveyed reported having an orgasm when they were raped.  Researchers have hypothesized that the actual figure is probably a bit higher in reality due to victims being understandably embarrassed both by the rape and by having achieved an orgasm during unwanted, forced sexual relations. Around 20% seems to be a likely, real-word figure.

I think 5 percent would be remarkable.  Around 20 percent seems absolutely astonishing to me, considering that it is estimated that only 30 percent of women climax via intercourse alone.  Now, I very much doubt we'll ever get any reliable scientific data on the phenomenon, although I suppose it is remotely possible, given the current appreciation for EL James's literary adventures combined with the potential for forcibly administered pleasure, that a number of women might agree to be raped in the interest of scientific progress.  It seems even less likely that rapists just happen to regularly target the minority of women who are capable of intercourse-only climax, even though that indicates some women must be more likely to have an orgasm from rape than from consensual sex.

If that is true, this would have some astonishing implications for intersexual relations as well as the apparent reliability of the average woman's capacity for understanding the complicated intricacies of her own sexuality.  It might also explain the otherwise inexplicable popularity of certain SF writers among the female SF/F readership.

The fascinating thing, of course, is the way that those considering the phenomenon are resolutely to avoid the obvious, which is that women respond in a sexually positive manner to male dominance, including violent male dominance.  The idea that some rapists must engage in foreplay only demonstrates the intellectual panic aroused by the statistical observations. That women would respond positively to extreme sexual dominance should be no surprise, as it is very much in line with what Game Theory would logically suggest, and yet it is due to the fact that even the most experienced Game theoretician is steeped in decades of anti-scientific equalitarian propaganda.

Sexual response is a continuum, not a circle.  So, it makes sense that the more extreme the input, the more extreme the output.  Now, for the benefit of the cognitively challenged and the terminally offended, I will trouble to point out that no amount of orgasms can be used to justify rape anymore than an instinctive  mouth-watering response to chocolate justifies force-feeding someone hot fudge sundaes, but it is both gutless and pointless to play ostrich and pretend that the reported phenomenon simply does not happen.

Equality vs the female imperative

Dalrock has done some excellent work of late on the female imperative.  On a related note, when monetary push comes to financial shove and the female imperative comes into conflict with the principle of sexual equality, guess which loses:

Women’s very unfair Christmas present: car insurance price hike

Jo Swinson, Minister for Women and Equalities, is outraged at the higher car insurance premiums young women now face, as a result of new European rules.

 As both minister for consumer affairs and equalities I want to see everyone in this country get the fairest treatment possible when they’re parting with hard-earned cash. So you can imagine how disappointed I am by the ruling from Europe that will mean that women will no longer benefit from cheaper insurance premiums – despite all the evidence still pointing to the fact that women are safer on the roads.

Historically, men – particularly young men - cost more to insure than women because industry statistics show that they have more frequent accidents and their claims are more expensive to settle.

I'm not disputing that men are statistically inclined to get in significantly more, and more expensive, car accidents than women.  In a rational world, insurance companies would be permitted to discriminate upon the basis of sex-based probabilities and require men to pay more than women for their car insurance.

However, we also know that women are statistically more likely to work fewer hours, work fewer days, use more sick days, go on maternity leave, quit, and in general, work less, and less effectively, than men.  Does this mean that women like Jo Swinson, Minister for Women and Equalities, therefore believe that EU employers are justified in discriminating upon the basis of sex-based probabilities and paying men more than women for exactly the same job?

It seems highly probable that suggestion would be considered outrageous and sexist.  After all, how can one reasonably judge the job performance of an individual woman by the job performance of all other women?  (Never mind that it is equally silly to judge the driving performance of any one man by the driving performance of all other men.)  So, what we're seeing here is that even in the eyes of an official who is employed in order to assure societal equality, the commitment to the female imperative remains the priority.

Note in particular the way that genuine equality is described as "very unfair" here.  What this means is that for most women, "equality" is merely a useful rhetorical device, and unless it is proven otherwise, should be regarded no more than that by men.

The feminized Church is anti-Christ

This man's experience should suffice to demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Churchianism is not only feminist and anti-male, it is explicitly anti-Scriptural and anti-Christ:

This encounter was one for the record books. When I arrived, there were 17 people in the room set aside for our meeting today. Some were elders, some were women from the church, but they all had one thing in common: they were opposed to what I was doing. The only exception to this was one of the elders who had taken my side previously who now sat beside his wife who was opposed to what I was doing and had obviously turned him against me again. The head pastor himself was there along with two assistant pastors who formed a kind of tribunal at the front of the room. This made me smile, but I kept any comments about my trial to myself.

I was asked to sit down in a chair that was in front of the pastoral staff and to the side of the large party to my left. As soon as I sat down, the pastor apologized for the formality and told me that he believed I had the right to face my accusers face to face as Christians should not operate in secret, but the next thing that came out of his mouth floored me. He informed me that I would not be allowed to stay in the church so as to avoid damaging the unity of the church body at large. However, he would allow me to speak not only to him and the pastoral staff, but also to my accusers uninterrupted to speak my case as to why I had done what I had done.

I spoke of many of the abuses society and the church have levied against men on a regular basis. I showed live videos of the pastor offering everything from small hints to glaring insults that the men were an inferior quality of humanity than the women in the church. I offered my perspective on why men were no longer of the same quality that they once were in our society and point to the church as one of the chief culprits in creating the very men they spoke against. I shared with them the proper role of men in the church and how I was teaching these men about the nature of women so that women were no longer a driving force in their lives, and that energy instead could be redirected toward serving God with nothing held back. I explained how the church operated under the worldly view of superior female spirituality. I explained our obsession with making women happy and how it ultimately left both men and women unfulfilled in their Christian lives. I explained women’s almost complete control of men in the home and how it is sanctioned by the church, but that if something goes wrong, the men hold full responsibility.

Several times, women in the room were told to be quiet or leave as they attempted to talk over me and one woman stormed out after her fourth attempt at interruption had failed. Once I had drawn my information to a close, I requested that they look at what I had done for the men who had been coming to my class and let the tree be judged by its fruit. Their lives had been made better by a large margin in most cases and the few who are slow learners were still making excellent progress.

I informed him that I understood that feelings had been hurt, but that the young men who had lived in this unchristian and, in many cases, sinful environment had been harmed even more than the few here who had the courage to admit their grievances to my face. That our church was seeing a huge lack in the number of men willing to participate and that attendance was often sporatic for those who did come at all (myself included). I also pointed out that there was another religion that taught that men had a place of great importance and that women needed to remember their place. That religion was Islam and the number of young men signing up for its tenants were growing every year. I reminded them that unless we want the church to fade out completely, we need to teach the young men how be actual men and not “guys”.

When men are being literally expelled from "Christian" churches by female-dominated cults for the offense of teaching Scripture, it is time for men to turn their backs on those churches.  They are not Christian churches and they do not follow Jesus Christ, they unknowingly follow the ancient Babylonian mystery religions.

The collapse of the Western Church into anti-Christian, anti-Biblical feminist Churchianity may not be the Great Apostasy, but it is certainly a very large scale apostasy.  This is what happens when the Church turns away from the eternal truths of the Bible; for that matter, it is what happens when any organization, from a non-profit charity to a Fortune 500 corporation, does so.  The speed of the collapse is remarkable; it appears that every church denomination that has permitted women to teach in the church and hold authority over men has immediately and rapidly declined.

I haven't done the research yet, but I will do so and post the results here. The danger, which should be apparent even to the most secular and atheistic reader here, is that as goes the Western church, so goes Western society and quite possibly Western civilization.

However, Christian men have to do more than simply retreat from the enemy-occupied territory of the Churchian apostates.  They also need to rescue their fellow believers from it and start new churches with teachings in full accordance with Scripture.  Thus will the seeds of the next great revival be planted.

Why men lie

Or, more precisely, why men feel justified in lying to women.

About a month ago, a female reader asked me to lay out a few ideas concerning how she could modify her behavior in order to make herself more appealing as a relationship partner for a man.  Consider this the first in the series.

Let's start with the junior high boy.  He's interested in a pretty girl his age.  He asks her to go steady.  She tells him no, but instead of telling him the truth, which is that she's not interested in him, she concocts a story.  Perhaps she tells him that she's not interested in going steady with anyone, perhaps she claims that her parents won't permit her to do so.

Either way, the lie is quickly revealed when, a week later, she is going steady with a more popular boy.  She's forgotten her little white lie, but he hasn't.

Now we're in high school. The boy is standing right next to his girlfriend when she tells her parents that after the prom, she'll be staying at her friend's house. Later that night, when he's making out with her at the hotel, she assumes that he's forgotten that she lied right in front of him; it's not that he isn't glad she lied, but he's still aware that she did... and did so smoothly and without hesitation or remorse.

Then college.  He's hanging out with a girl, she's just a friend.  He happens to know she's slept with at least three guys that he knows of, one of whom is his roommate, which is why he's astonished when, right in front of him, she shyly confesses to only having had sex with her serious high school boyfriend in front of her current boyfriend.

Now he's married.  He suggests a bit of the old rumpty-pumpty, but she demurs.  "We'll do it tomorrow," she says.  The next day, he's wondering if perhaps she's up for a nooner, or perhaps a little afternoon delight.  She doesn't show any sign of interest, so he waits for her to bring it up.  He's still sitting there, in front of the television, when she yawns, declares that she's exhausted, changes into her least sexy nightgown and slathers a creme pack on her face.

It's only when he hears her snoring that he realizes that she not only has no intention of having sex with him, she doesn't even remember what she'd said the day before.

Now, I'm not saying that men don't lie.  And I'm not saying that women necessarily even realize when they are behaving in a manner that men tend to interpret, rightly or wrongly, as lying.  What I'm saying is that at a certain point, men begin to believe that they have absolutely no responsibility to tell the truth to a woman because she has no regard or respect for it.  This is especially true when telling women the truth of what one is thinking and feeling tends to meet with reliably negative reactions.

There are, of course, reasons to tell the truth even when everyone else is lying.  Moral standards are not dependent upon the failure of others to observe them.  But if a woman wants a man to make a habit of telling her the truth, she is going to have to work very hard to indicate that she is different than most of the women of his experience, and show him that she genuinely values honesty, both in herself and others.  Men value honor, or at least respect it in others, but most have learned that they cannot expect to find it in women.  That is why so many of them feel so free to treat women dishonorably.

The feelings slut

Susan Walsh lists seven reasons why women reject over-eager men.  But she probably could have quit after number one:

1. Women understand the male role as the gatekeeper of commitment, just as we are the gatekeepers of sex.

In the same way that a man may question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date, women are wary of men who are “emotionally promiscuous.” 

Certain it is I liked her, 
And boarded her i’ the wanton way of youth: 
She knew her distance and did angle for me,
Madding my eagerness with her restraint, 
As all impediments in fancy’s course 
Are motives of more fancy; and, in fine, 
Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, 
Subdued me to her rate: she got the ring;
Shakespeare, All’s Well That Ends Well

What men need to understand is that when they leap to profess their feelings at the first opportunity, they are viewed by women as being akin to the male version of the woman who doesn't hesitate to make herself sexually available on the first date.  In other words, in the same way that men feel no responsibility to reward a physical slut with a relationship after she presents them freely with her body, women feel no responsibility to reward a feelings slut with sexual relations after he presents them freely with his emotions.

From the female perspective, the highly indifferent man is the male version of the highly chaste woman.  He is a trophy worth the hunt, the virgin for whom great sacrifices are both required and merited.  To be free with ones feelings is to be sluttish and despicable.

This shows where and how Susan and other women have gotten the "male slut" concept completely backwards.  The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin".  The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures.

Alpha Mail: what is there to flame?

Anonymous appears to want to take exception to the notion of short hair on women being man-repellant:

Sometimes this whole manosphere thing cracks me up. You love to prattle on about how you're all taking the red pill and wising up to the evils of modern women, because there are *NO GOOD WOMEN LEFT* and then you start having a discussion about women with short hair and it descends into mud-slinging about unattractive lesbians and the losers who settle for them (or at least it did the last time you touched on this) and then you wonder why there are *ONLY WITCHES* left and you're better off a MGTOW.

I'll only say this once 'cos I know I'm only going to get flamed. I have no intention of getting into a dialog with you all about how I must be fat (my BMI is just fine, thank you) or whatever. Here's my story.

I had short hair throughout my teens and early twenties. I didn't realise it at the time but my hair cutting off was *ALWAYS* preceded by being treated particularly shamefully by men. And now you all assume I'm talking about being being pumped and dumped because I'm a slut. I was a virgin until 25 because I was reading the same guide to relationships as Tina Fey. My teens and early twenties were one long story of being two-timed, stood up and somehow managing to date men that seemed ashamed to be seen out with me. It was hideous. You're now thinking I must be ugly and very unpleasant personality-wise. The truth is I'm clever and good at STEM. Years spent in laboratories studying physics, chemistry and computing meant I interacted with lots of men, but you know how STEM guys are. I'm shy too. I went on *TWO* whole dates during college (for the record those were mostly long hair years). I heard later that lots of guys on my course thought I was cute but clearly way out of their league.

When I finally met my husband I had short hair and I'd basically given up on dating. You could call me a WGTOW. He didn't mind my hair or my pricklyness towards dating because he liked me personally. And I liked being with him so I stopped cutting off my hair and it was long in time for the wedding.

I don't see why there is any reason to flame this woman.  Nor do I see any contradiction between her experience and what I have posted concerning the man-repelling aspect of short hair on women.

First, note that she didn't cut her hair off to attract men, but as an emotional response to "being treated particularly shamefully by men".  In other words, she was trying to repell them.  It sounds as if the man-repellant worked even better than I've been asserting, because she only went on two dates during college and those few men who did go out with her were ashamed to be seen with her and her ugly masculine hairstyle, which only underlined her STEMmish lack of femininity.

Second, note that she did eventually find a man who didn't mind her "pricklyness" (lack of feminine submissiveness) or short hair (lack of feminine physical attributes), which tells us that she is probably married to a gamma or low delta who must feel that he hit the jackpot to find himself married to a clever, well-educated woman who is even willing to modify her appearance in order to appear more feminine for him.  The fact that she was willing to grow out her hair for him is a positive sign for the two of them, as it means she is no longer in man-repellant mode; her own masculine tendencies and apparent lack of desire for male attention may mean that she is one of those women who are well-suited for men lacking social and sexual dominance.

Or, perhaps she's just found herself a sigma whose anti-hierarchical quirks happen to align with her attributes, which can also be a good sign for a lasting relationship.  Either way, I see her tale as fundamentally underlining my point, not contradicting it.

NB: Charlize Theron and Haile Berry are often brought up as examples proving that short hair is attractive to men.  They are indubitably attractive women, whether their hair is short or long.  But given that both women have serious and much-publicized issues with men, I wonder if they might not also be poster girls for the idea that short hair is man repellant to which women with certain psychological problems subconsciously resort.

Alpha Mail: short hair is man repellant

It's hard to know how the case against short hair on women can be made more conclusively than by women who are considering cutting off their hair specifically in order to reduce their attractiveness and feminine appeal to men.  I noticed this comment was recently added to an old post on women's hair.

Personally, I have seriously considered cutting my hair off (as in really short-pixie cut) precisely because, like some before me have said, it lowers or even completely wipes away "attractiveness". One thing is for sure: it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to objectify a short-haired woman(unless she has a freakishly sexy, hour-glass figure,and shows it off, like Marilyn Monroe did) . Short hair basically makes your face, your features stand out and forces people to look you in the eyes, treat you as a person.

As a person.  Not as a woman, not as a sexual being, just as a desexed, gender-neutral thing.  If you're a woman, you may want to keep in mind that what you're considering because you think it will be "cute" is the same thing that other women do when they intentionally want to AVOID ATTRACTING MEN.  If that comment isn't convincing, consider this one:

As a hairdresser, I am horrified at the comments & judgements that you men & women alike are passing off to women who choose to wear their hair short. But as a heterosexual, 20 yr old, 5'3, 230 lb woman who prefers short pixie style hair for myself, I pity those so ignorant enough to not take personal preferences & personal opinions into consideration.

If you genuinely don't want to be viewed as an attractive sex object, but prefer to be seen as an androgynous creature of no sexual interest to normal, masculine men, then by all means, chop it off.  Put on another 100 pounds while you're at it; even if you have a beautiful face and a nice body, the combination of the short hair and weight gain should suffice to do the trick.  But if reducing your attractiveness to the opposite sex isn't your objective, then you may want to reconsider the pixie cut that your slightly less attractive girlfriends keep saying would look so cute on you.

Conversely, if you happen to wish to attract men, you may want to consider trying what women who depend upon their attractiveness to men to make a living do and see how stripper hair works for you.