No sympathy for the stupid

Of either sex. Morpheus notes that men these days have no excuse for being caught off-guard by female nature:

Deti, you and I grew up when this information was not widely available or accessible. There was no Internet. There was no Roissy or Rollo. No one had formulated this body of knowledge yet. We can be forgiven our mistakes out of ignorance. Men today have no excuse with the easy accessibility of reading and learning this material. Probably serves him right if this Laura Fraser divorce rapes him and he gets killed on child support once she hits the 7-10 year ennui realizing she “loves him” but “isn’t IN LOVE with him”.

This is true of women as well. They have NO EXCUSE for getting pumped-and-dumped by an Alpha player. The information is out there. The processes and mechanisms are very well understood and articulated. The female 7 who tries to lock down a relationship with a male 9 with sex has no excuse for being surprised by the outcome, no more than a delta male who marries a thirty-something single mother who is superficially out of his league does when she suddenly gets unhappy and decides she would prefer an unemployed boyfriend and a well-funded divorce.

The facts are out there. The truth is out there. If you're going to persist in delusion and denial, that's absolutely fine, but don't expect anyone to have sympathy for you when your obviously terrible decisions produce the expected consequences.

An Alpha widow

Han Solo annotates the confession of a Alpha widow:

I recently came across a photo of a sexy Brazilian man I had an affair with a few years ago. (OK, I Googled him.) [You know a woman has a robust hamster when she tries to make her nostalgic searching for photos sound like she just "came across" one.] When I saw his sly smile and unruly black hair, I couldn’t help thinking that, by comparison, my live-in boyfriend wasn’t quite as darkly seductive or exciting. [Well, that's because he isn't!  Alpha widow anyone?  Fuck phantoms* lurking in the dark?  Notice how the hot guy from her past still lurks in the dark shadows of her heart but she settled for the stable nice guy.  Changing lanes anyone?  A certain version of AFBB, perhaps?

*Fuck phantom--a phrase coined by Bastiat Blogger:  a man from a woman's sexual past who lingers in her erotic memory, often the cause of intense longing, desire and withdrawal symptoms]

I met the Brazilian in line for a film screening [...this guy sounds like the fuck phantom of the opera...] while visiting Manhattan from San Francisco. I was convinced I’d found my ideal man: intellectual, witty, artistic, and hot. We spent a passionate week together, and when I left town, I thought I was leaving behind a new long-distance boyfriend—one who, it turned out, didn’t like to call or e-mail…ever. I thought our fling was the start of a relationship; he thought it was a fling, period. [Typical delusion where the man has clearly placed the woman on the fuck ladder and she thinks she's on the relationship ladder.  See this study where women fuck hotter men and where more women than men thought they were in a committed relationship while more men than women thought it was just sex.]

Disappointing, but it fit my usual pattern. [In the sphere we're quite familiar with this "usual pattern" of women hypergamously wanting the hot guy to commit but usually ending up as a fling.] I would fall for a brilliant guy with an irresistible smile who never quite fell for me but who possessed all the qualities I liked in a man: a sense of humor, certified smarts, smoldering looks. Each time, these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep me in their narcissistic orbit. Whether or not they’d ever call was just part of the thrill, always keeping me on edge. Outwardly, I told myself I was having fun and it was just a matter of time before someone wanted to settle down; inside, I started to worry that I wasn’t lovable or exciting enough.

[Notice how she would fall for guys that wouldn't fall for her.  Of course, she hamsters out and accuses them of being jerks and narcissists.  Maybe they were but more than likely they were men that could get hotter and nicer women than her and so of course they would only view her as fling material.  Regardless of how outsiders would rank this woman and her fuck-fellows, in the only market that matters, namely the market of HIM and HER, her relationship value in his eyes was far below his value in her eyes and thus he never commits.  And since there's a recurring pattern here, it's easy to conclude that she is a habitual hypergamous chaser, always trying to catch the man of her dreams.  And notice how she thinks she's oh so close and that just next time the brooding, spontaneous hotty will finally fall in love with her.

Then she worries about whether she's lovable enough.  Well, let me tell you this straight out.  No, you're not lovable enough to the men you're choosing.  They only see you on the fuck ladder, not on the love-and-marriage ladder.  This is one of the hardest red pill truths that the more hypergamous half of women have to confront:  the man you can get to commit to you will nearly always be less hot, exciting or famous than the man you can get to fuck you.

And another important point is that you will feel low self esteem when you get flinged and flung, elated and deflated, pumped and dumped. When your expectations are too high then you will feel that you're not good enough...but this isn't just a feeling, it's the cold, hard truth of the morning walk of shame. The actual truth is that you simply aren't "good enough" in the hot bad boy's eyes or the successful "perfect" guy's to induce his commitment.]

Of course, this woman not a cliche. Her behavior is a common phenomenon that is a consequence of unrestrained female hypergamy combined with a sexually feral society. And its results are easily anticipated.

Sex education: vibrant edition

I really fail to see how anyone could possibly object to this multicultural approach to sex education. After all, in the USA, kindergarten teachers are hell-bent on teaching their students how to apply condoms to bananas:

Girls as young as ten are being sent to initiation camps in Malawi to be taught about how to have sex and in some cases lose their virginity. The girls are told by their families they are attending a camp with their friends, but when they arrive they are shown how to have sex and told they must lose their 'child dust' as soon as they can or they will get a skin disease.

When she was aged 10 Grace was sent to an initiation camp which took place not far from her home in Golden Village, where Grace lives with her grandmother, reports CNN. 'I was playing outside when my mother told me I would marry. My life was ruined': Ethiopian child bride, forced into marriage at 10, pregnant at 13 and widowed by 14, on the moment her world changed forever

During her week-long stay she said she was taught her about respecting her elders and doing household chores, but also how to have sex by the women that led the camp who are known as he women, known as anamkungwi, or 'key leaders'. She told a group of journalists visiting Malawi with the United Nations Foundation that the women  demonstrated sexual positions and encouraged girls to do 'sexual cleansing,' also called kusasa fumbi, which meant they should get rid of their inexperience with sex through practice.

I'm just curious as to what grounds American advocates of sex education could possibly find this hands-on teaching to be objectionable. It seems to me to be an obvious consequence of the trend that began in the seventies. What are we to conclude from this, that one culture's approach to sex education is less viable than another's? Perhaps it is the American secular approach that is simply too repressed for its own good.

Protect yourselves, ladies

So whatever happened to all those strong, independent women who are equal to men? It's always amusing how women's pretensions to equality disappear the moment danger appears:

"Where are our men? Why are they not protecting us?" Sanchez continued, her voice full of frustration. "Men are failing us. I feel as though we are not being protected."

Like a lot of us, she's hot as hell about what's been happening. Sanchez, though, is turning her outrage into action by reaching out to other local women, urging them to gather with her at 9 a.m. Saturday at the site where Thomas was killed, to call on city officials and also on their communities to protect them...

He pointed out that the old code of the streets, that thieves don't hurt women and children, is no longer honored.

Men have been subjected to forty years of propaganda telling them that those old codes are outdated no longer apply. They have been taught from kindergarten that men and women are exactly the same. So, women shouldn't be surprised when bad men no longer treat them with kid gloves, but prey upon them as mercilessly as they do upon other men.

Nor should they be surprised when good men won't lift a finger or run any risks to defend them.

If you want my protection, then you had damned well better be willing to admit that you are not my equal, that you are not my peer, and you had better subscribe to those old codes. One cannot appeal to that which does not exist. Men haven't failed women, women simply rejected the old codes and the male protection that was a part of it without thinking through the consequences.

Attraction is not value

Dr. Helen finds it hard to believe that men aren't attracted to female intelligence or academic credentials:

Just Four Guys has an interesting post up on “Why Women Fail with Men.” The advice basically boils down to: “Be nice. Be pretty. Don’t get fat. Be available.” The author also says: And for the eleventy billionth time: Men are NOT attracted to your job, your salary, your credentials, your professional achievements, or your accomplishments. Burnishing your curriculum vitae will not help you one iota in finding a man for a lasting relationship. Adding initials after your name denoting advanced degrees or certifications will not help you one iota in finding a man for a lasting relationship.

Okay, some of these points make sense but I have to disagree with a few of them, particularly the latter. I think that it depends on what you are looking for in a relationship. If you are a smart, successful women with lots of credentials, there are men out there who like that and actively seek smart women. What men don’t like is a phony who uses her credentials to look important. I think if a woman is smart and successful but down to earth and “real,” there are plenty of men who like those qualities, credentials included.

What do you think?

I think Dr. Helen is wrong. I think it is entirely natural that an intelligent woman with a PhD who is an accomplished writer in a happy and successful marriage finds it very difficult to believe that her husband isn't primarily attracted to what she quite reasonably considers some of her more impressive characteristics. But correlation, as we are so often reminded, is not causation.

The key is to look at the word "attracted". While a man may value a woman's intelligence, while he may value her accomplishments, he is not attracted to them. No man wants to fuck a diploma. It all starts with attraction, physical attraction, birds and bees, tight butts and firm breasts.

Here is the question Dr. Helen and other smart, accomplished women might do well to consider asking themselves. "If I didn't have my intelligence and I didn't have my accomplishments, would my husband be any less sexually attracted to me?" If the answer is no, well, then it should be obvious that while those things may be valued for themselves, they are not the attracting factors. The husbands might value those various attributes and accomplishments, but such things are the icing, not the cake.

I, personally, see high intelligence and academic credentials as an actual disattracting factor. Not all men agree with me, but I am hardly alone. I strongly prefer agreeability and a pleasant personality, and those things tend to be somewhat rare among the well-educated cognitive elite.

Don't defend the guilty

At Alpha Game, we rightly focus on the evils that women do because our mainstream media culture is resolutely anti-male. But that same anti-male culture isn't above suddenly giving certain men a pass when it suits them, men such as accused child molester Woody Allen.

It's a little harder to dismiss the accusations as Mia Farrow's bitterness at her betrayal, as some did, when those accusations are being made directly and publicly by her daughter:

[W]hen I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains....

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

It's important to not get so caught up in defending men that we forget that some men are truly the monsters that the feminists attempt to portray us all as being. Indeed, it is important that we police our own ranks, if only to avoid handing them an easy and effective rhetorical weapon with which to hammer us.

This doesn't prove that Woody Allen did it, but his sexually obsessed, neurotic career, and his behavior with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter does tend to lend credence to the charges.

Plumper princesses

Because fat teenagers don't need to learn to stop stuffing their greedy little mouths, they need to be coddled and made to feel good about themselves as they gobble ever more doughnuts and ice cream:

A teenage girl has launched a petition for Disney to make a plus-size princess in the wake of controversy over whether the company promotes an unrealistic feminine ideal. Jewel Moore, a high school junior from Farmville, Virginia, wrote on her Change.org page that since Disney has such a huge influence on young girls, it should create a princess with a curvy body to 'show support to a group of girls who are otherwise horrendously bullied by the media.'... Citing research that 'a child's confidence correlates greatly with how much representation they have in the media,' she says a plus-size Disney princess would be a positive step towards body acceptance.

What Princess Chubbawumba doesn't realize is that the objective is not body acceptance, but rather, body transformation. There is no such thing as a positive step towards body acceptance, body acceptance is nothing more than the acceptance of a negative thing.