The perfect woman

Spacebunny responds to some women who are always moaning about rape and assorted feminist nonsense on Twitter. How could a man not love her?

@EVB_Now @MsVanillaRose @jessikart we're all victims. Group hug! PIV is always rape, ok?

So, get your rape on, boys. The ladies, they love the rape.

The amazing thing about that article is that this is NOT the most absurd sentence she has ever written: "Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple." Hard to top, a more innocent man might say. But at Alpha Game, we are skeptical, we are, one might say, downright cynical, about the limits of feminist stupidity.

To paraphrase Voltaire, or Sartre, or some other pessimist concerning the human condition, the only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by ∞ is to contemplate the limits of feminist idiocy. Consider this fascinating essay on "science and essentialism": "women have systematically been the inventors and creators while men stole their knowledge and skills"

If only there was a time machine and we could send this woman's essays back to the men who voted for women's suffrage. Forget women voting, we'd be living in a Gor-style society, we'd have giant flying warbirds, and John Norman would be ruling the world as our unanimously elected Dictator-for-Life.

Alpha Mail: chick lit

A reader has an epiphany:

I realized another truism in chick lit which is that if the female protagonist is described as a bit homely then she will get to sleep with handsome men, the rest will be attracted to her, and even the other women will be a little sensual around her. It's the female equivalent to the wise cracking snarky gamma using his wit to get laid.

I understand why it sells as it lets them live in a fantasy world for a while, but the danger is when they start to believe the fantasy in reality.

Say what you will about the guys who read comics, but even if they like to dress up like superheroes, at least they don't genuinely believe they can fly or shoot webs out of their fingers.

We shall gently pass by the obvious question of how this particular reader has such in-depth knowledge of this particular literature.

Why children need fathers

The feminists discovered that fish actually did need bicycles after all. And as the hordes of fatherless bastards leave women dismayed in their totally predictable failure to grow up into responsible, productive men, they're gradually learning that kids need men too:

Encouraging risk: In their approach to childrearing, fathers are more likely to encourage their children to take risks, embrace challenges, and be independent, whereas mothers are more likely to focus on their children's safety and emotional well-being. "[F]athers play a particularly important role in the development of children's openness to the world," writes psychologist Daniel Paquette. "[T]hey also tend to encourage children to take risks, while at the same time ensuring the latter's safety and security, thus permitting children to learn to be braver in unfamiliar situations, as well as to stand up for themselves." In his review of scholarly research on fatherhood, he notes that scholars generally find that dads are more likely to have their children talk to strangers, to overcome obstacles, and even to have their toddlers put out into the deep during swim lessons. The swim-lesson study, for instance, which focused on a small sample of parents teaching their kids to swim, found that "fathers tend to stand behind their children so the children face their social environment, whereas mothers tend to position themselves in front of their children, seeking to establish visual contact with the children."

Protecting his own: Fathers play an important role in protecting their children from threats in the larger environment. For instance, fathers who are engaged in their children's lives can better monitor their children's comings and goings, as well as the peers and adults in their children's lives, compared to disengaged or absent fathers. Of course, mothers can do this, to an extent. But fathers, by dint of their size, strength, or aggressive public presence, appear to be more successful in keeping predators and bad peer influences away from their sons and daughters. As psychologist Rob Palkovitz notes in our book, "paternal absence has been cited by multiple scholars as the single greatest risk factor in teen pregnancy for girls."

Dad's discipline: Although mothers typically discipline their children more often than do fathers, dads' disciplinary style is distinctive. In surveying the research on gender and parenthood for our book, Palkovitz observes that fathers tend to be firmer with their children, compared to mothers. Based on their extensive clinical experience, and a longitudinal study of 17 stay-at-home fathers, Kyle Pruett and psychologist Marsha Kline Pruett agree. In Partnership Parenting they write, "Fathers tend to be more willing than mothers to confront their children and enforce discipline, leaving their children with the impression that they in fact have more authority." By contrast, mothers are more likely to reason with their children, to be flexible in disciplinary situations, and to rely on their emotional ties to a child to encourage her to behave.

I saw the difference between male and female parental roles time and time again in a toddler gymnastics class. I was the only father there, and unsurprisingly, my child was the only one who didn't have anyone holding his hand as he crossed the balance beam or as leaped down onto the big padded map. A few days later, my child was practically running across the beam and leaping headlong from the platform. Most of the other kids, half of whom were older, were still edging fearfully across the beam, tightly clutching Mommy's hand.

Sure, you still want Mommy there to kiss the boo-boos when it all goes wrong, but children need Daddy to teach them the difference between acceptable and unacceptable risks.

The walking dog

Sir, "Sir, a woman's driving NASCAR is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Don’t be fooled. By all measures that really count with Danica, it was a great year.... She mentioned mechanical issues, bad luck and the ever-popular “learning curve” that young drivers have to go through. But a lot of teams can bemoan bad luck, mechanical woes and a dog eating their spare tire. As for that nasty NASCAR learning curve, let’s see how some other big names handled it.

Jimmie Johnson had eight races in the Busch series (now Nationwide) before moving up to the big circuit. He had three wins and 21 top-10s in his rookie season. He was 26.

Jeff Gordon raced two years in the Busch series. In his first Winston Cup year, he had seven top fives and 11 top-10s. He was 21.

Kyle Busch spent two years in Nationwide. In his rookie Sprint Cup year, he had nine top-fives and 11 top 10s. He was 21.

Joey Logano spent 15 minutes in Nationwide. He had three top fives and seven top 10s. He was 19.

Danica had 58 Nationwide races before this season, going a tidy 0 for 58. If you add Sprint, Nationwide and Indy races, she is now 1 for 221 (that winning coming in Japan).

Personally, I want to see Danica compete in MMA. Forget NASCAR, THAT would be real entertainment. And I don't see why the sports media seems to think people will be entertained by watching women compete ineptly with men. Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious to see men playing on women's soccer, basketball, and volleyball teams?

Because equality!

And let's not forget the hypergamy. Who is even remotely surprised that Ms Patrick abandoned her husband for a fellow NASCAR driver? What a pity one can't get odds on that sort of thing. Women often lament that men are less than supportive of their careers and enthusiastic about their success, well, perhaps if there was not a reasonable expectation that their success would result with the end of the marriage or romantic relationship, they would understand this lack of enthusiasm.

Alpha Mail: the magical tool

GG not only ignores the evidence of her own eyes, but insists that everyone else must do the same:

Forgive me VD, but you have the uncanny ability to come so close, so very close... and then to veer so far off into the abyss all one can do is watch you float away.

Women respond to whomever is in CHARGE. It has nothing to do with being attracted to sociopaths or sociopathic behavior. Our world, our culture, has put a whole lot of sociopaths in positions of authority. They aren't attractive because of the way they act, they're attractive because of the power they hold. If pirates ran the world, we'd love pirates. If nerds held all the cards, we'd love nerds.

The flip side of that for some women is the pity factor. We will lay down in the railroad tracks to try and "fix" a sociopath. It's not really sexual attraction, it's a symptom of female pride, we believe that our love and our sexuality should be powerful enough to cure what ails them. That's a small percent of the population, however. Most women are not that interested in martyrdom and the odds of getting yourself killed.

This is a load of complete horseshit. Women ALWAYS come up with some idiotic excuse to explain why what they are doing isn't what everyone can plainly see they are doing. It's as if GG has never seen a woman turn down dozens of perfectly decent, educated man with a decent job after another, only to volunteer for the role of sex toy for the first tattooed thug, drug addict, or criminal to show her any interest.

Is the unemployed guy who spends his days huffing paint in charge of anything? What is the guy sitting in a cell for the next 50 years in charge of? GG is simply doing what every woman does when confronted with the reality of her sex's behavior: she invents nonsensical fictions in an attempt to deflect criticism. Female behavior can be readily manipulated so long as one realizes that one of its primary motivating factors is the avoidance of criticism.

Now, it's entirely possible that GG doesn't happen to be drawn to sociopaths herself, but rather the socio-sexual dominance that sociopathy often emulates. But she does not speak for the 3.5 billion women on the planet. And this female solipsism is why no man should EVER listen to ANY woman about what another woman wants. Most women are provably unreliable with regards to their own sexual desires; they are totally useless with regards to any other woman's with the possible exception of their closest friends' favored types.

As several commentators observed yesterday, women are always in a hurry to fix sociopaths, criminals, and murderers, but they're considerably less interested in fixing the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, and the socially awkward. This tends to bely GG's insistence that it is the fixing process that is the female motivating factor. As does the fact that women's vaginas are not some sort of magical Black and Decker device; one can't help but notice that this selfless fixing on the part of women somehow always seems to involve resorting to the use of that remarkable tool.

Beat Game

From the Neal Cassady letter that Jack Kerouac described as The Great Sex Letter:

I was sitting on the bus when it took on more passengers at Indianapolis, Indiana – a perfectly proportioned beautiful, intellectual, passionate, personification of Venus De Milo asked me if the seat beside me was taken!!! I gulped, (I'm drunk) gargled & stammered NO! (Paradox of expression, after all, how can one stammer No!!?) She sat – I sweated – She started to speak, I knew it would be generalities, so to tempt her I remained silent.

She (her name Patricia) got on the bus at 8 PM (Dark!) I didn't speak until 10 PM – in the intervening 2 hours I not only of course, determined to make her, but, how to DO IT.

I naturally can't quote the conversation verbally, however, I shall attempt to give you the gist of it from 10 PM to 2 AM.

Without the slightest preliminaries of objective remarks (what's your name? where are you going? etc.) I plunged into a completely knowing, completely subjective, personal & so to speak "penetrating her core" way of speech; to be shorter (since I'm getting unable to write) by 2 AM I had her swearing eternal love, complete subjectivity to me & immediate satisfaction. I, anticipating even more pleasure, wouldn't allow her to blow me on the bus, instead we played, as they say, with each other.

From this letter, we can discern two things. First, the Chateau is correct and there is an element of sociopathy to natural player behavior. If you're familiar with On the Road or the story of its real-life inspiration, then you're aware that Cassady was not entirely all there, either in terms of sanity or conscience. But he was, sexually speaking, a definite ALPHA. Women respond powerfully and sexually to sociopaths; it's not a coincidence that women used to faint at Adolf Hitler's speeches. Certain elements of Game do involve the imitation of sociopathic behavior, and this is why some decent men would rather lose women they desire and permit their marriages to fail than behave in the necessary manner.

Second, the natural behavior that Game imitates has been around much longer than even most theoreticians of Game realize. Once one knows what to look for, one can find elements of Game in the works of Flaubert, of Dostoevsky, and even Shikibu. When one considers that the latter dates back to the 11th century, it should be apparent that there is nothing new about it, there is only the recognition of something that has been obscured and buried by feminism, and before that, the chivalric social mores of mid-20th century America.

Sociopathy is rising in America for the reason that we have lionized the Neal Cassady's of the nation while simultaneously emancipating female desire from its former social strictures. Young women are now free to pursue whomever attracts them, without any practical guidance from their parents or female elders, and history teaches very clearly that the men who most attract young women are sociopaths and societally destructive narcissists.

This is why knowledge of Game is so important to society. If its artificial practitioners refuse to utilize it, too many of them will continue to lose out to the naturals and eventually become grass-eating herbs with no interest in constructively participating in society.

A year in Alpha

Happy New Year to everyone, be ye alpha or omega. 2013 was a banner year for Alpha Game, as the historical traffic measured in Google pageviews indicates:

2011: 546,438
2012: 1,675,300
2013: 3,771,032

Despite the growth in traffic, I can't say that I'm particularly pleased with my blogging here this year. While I got a little better about posting here on a regular basis, I did not feel the quality was not entirely satisfactory. And while I was pleased to bring some excellent posts by others to your attention, I didn't feel that my original contributions were up to par. I'm hoping to do better in 2014, but regardless, I'm pleased to see how AG is developing its own community of those interested in delving deeper into intersexual relations.

2013 saw some big steps forward for Game, from mainstream reporters getting in touch with some of the more significant Game bloggers to Dr. Helen Smith publishing Men On Strike. I hope that the Game community will continue to challenge and support each other as we stand in steadfast opposition to the equalitarian feminist regime that has been imposed upon the men of the West.