"Rape harder"

Black knights are taking the fight to the rape fantasists on campus:

College men accused of date rape are fighting back with ethically dubious techniques including hacking, outing their attackers, and videotaping their sexual encounters, in addition to bringing an increasing number of successful law suits to vindicate themselves, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Last week, at the University of Chicago, individuals allegedly trying to keep “the Hyde Park community safe from people who publicly accuse other people of committing varying levels of gender-based violence without any proof whatsoever…” hacked into a website of the school’s student organization and posted the name and photo of an alleged rape survivor as well as this threat: “Hopefully the class of 2018 is paying attention because otherwise the UChicago Electronic Army is going to have to rape harder.”

....As colleges are pressured to be more aggressive in finding students guilty of date rape, it appears that a few male students are beginning to follow the advice on various web sites to surreptitiously videotape their sexual encounters to be able to prove afterwards, if necessary, that the act was consensual.

For example, four students at Hofstra University were accused of gang raping a fellow student, but were freed when a cell phone video indicated that the sexual encounter was consensual.

Likewise, a San Francisco lawyer, charged with raping three women, had the charges regarding two women dismissed because he had videotaped those encounters, and another man was found not guilty of an alleged gang rape after a Cook County, Illinois, jury was shown a videotape arguably showing some signs of consent as pointed out by an expert witness.

If you're a male college student, then you'd damned well better be sure that you've got everything on video, because these days that's the only way you're going to be able to prove that you weren't raping her, otherwise they will absolutely kick you out of school and quite possibly try to see you charged in criminal court on nothing more than her word.

Most college women lie about rape because they are are encouraged to do so. Almost all the sob stories you will hear from them are nothing but attention-seeking fiction. And there is nothing "ethically dubious" about self-defense.

Be yourself

A light bulb goes off for a commenter at Rollo's place:

I think I get it!

For years I have been bitter about this need to “perform” about how this shows that women do not love us as we love etc.. And just now I was reviewing my old relationships and I recalled something.

In each of my relationships, prior to meeting the women I eventually fell in love with, I was constantly working on myself, I would get in shape, hang out with friends, explore my environment and work on myself and my music etc. As soon as I would “fall in love” I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and “being what she wanted” what I thought she wanted, better said.

But here is my Eureka moment, what I recalled each time was being unhappy, what I recall each time was feeling boxed in and kind of dull.. of feeling trapped.

Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?

So I think I finally understand it for myself… the talk of putting yourself first, of “performing” etc is really just a way of saying “you don’t have to do what people say you’re supposed to do in a relationship – you don’t have to drop everything for her, you don’t have to stop doing what you like and love and you don’t have to kiss her ass”

Be the man that attracted her in the first place, not the mythical man you think she might be idealizing. Every time I get away from who I am and what I do, not only do I end up feeling out of sorts and discontented, but usually things don't go as smoothly in my family life.

A marital relationship with a woman should be a capstone on your self-determined identity forged over the years, not a complete transformation of your being. The more you attempt to turn yourself into some sort of nebulous Husband or Father figure, the less you will be yourself. And you are precisely what she was drawn to in the first place! So focus on being that guy, not some figment of your interpretation of her imagination.

"Be yourself" is terrible advice for men who are failing to attract women. But it is very good advice for men who have proven themselves to be attractive to women.

A history of women and videogames

Actually, this history could easily have started sometime between 1977 and 1982 instead of 1995. I can remember some girls playing Pong when it first came out. But I can't recall a single girl ever playing an Atari 2600 game, not at the stores and not in anyone's house, much less Intellivision. To be honest, I don't recall there being any association between "loser" and "videogame" until 1983. For the most part, girls really weren't even aware that they existed until then.

Science restates the obvious

It's fascinating to see how many people refuse to believe the evidence of their eyes until a scientific study gives them permission:

Straight men of all ages tend to have their romantic sights set on women in their mid-twenties, while women prefer men who are about the same age as they are, according to a new study.

The survey out Friday, financed by the government-backed research funding group Academy of Finland, gathered data on 12,000 Finns and found that women, on average, are looking for partners who are about their age or slightly older. But men across the age spectrum have a sexual preference for women in their mid-20s. This remains true for men of all ages—men in their early-20s or younger are attracted to women older than themselves and older men are attracted to younger women.

The findings are similar to data culled from the dating website OKCupid, which found that male users of the site of all ages, by far, are looking for women in their early-20s.

This is news? It's simply hypergamy vs the sexual imperative. Never forget, it is MEN that are the romantic sex; WOMEN are the pragmatic one.

As ever, insistence on equalitarianism forces divergence from reality AND science.

Gamma Delusion: the play

A demonstration of Gamma male delusion in five acts:

ACT I

    GUY: I WILL NOT DATE YOU IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST Woman: Great! Thank you. GUY: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO REACT THAT WAY Woman: Oh, but I AM.

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT II

    GUY: OH HEY THERE BABY YOU LOOK LIKE YOU COULD USE COMPA- Woman: I'm a feminist. GUY: NOOOO THE BURNING MAKE IT STOP (flees) (Woman smiles)

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT III

    GUY: HEY THERE BAB- Woman: Feminist. GUY: LIKE A REAL FEMINIST OR ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO GET RID OF ME Women: Why not both?

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT IV

    GUY: HI THER- Women: Feminist. GUY: THIS WHOLE BAR CAN'T BE FULL OF FEMINISTS (Every women in bar nods) GUY: HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

ACT V

    GUY: I STRUCK OUT AT THE BAR BUT I HAVE THIS LOTION AND MY HAND Guy's Hand: Feminist. GUY: OH COME ON Lotion: Me too. GUY: NOOOOOOOO

    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) September 25, 2014

Gamma males have to believe that most women are feminists because their primary strategy for winning female favor is self-abasement and supplication. This can work if your object is for women to say nice things about you, but it's considerably less effective in causing women to be attracted to you.

As many readers know, I'm married to a highly attractive woman. And I've always dated women at the upper end of the spectrum "despite" the fact that I have always been notoriously anti-feminist; a woman once wrote an actual column in our university newspaper decrying me and my two housemates as "sexist pornographers" and a poem I wrote that was published in the university Poetry annual caused half the staff to resign afterwards.

Its last line was, "Why, then, does she let me fuck her?" It was a paean to female inconsistency and the women who publicly indicate that they want nothing to do with you, but nevertheless show up for sex in the small hours of the morning.

It's just that inconsistency that causes the Gamma to inflate his delusion bubble. He takes women at their word, which of course is why he reliably fails with them. He doesn't realize that there are few things hotter to a feminist than a contemptuous man of high socio-sexual rank who sneers at her false pretensions to equality. In short, the Gamma is a man who fails every shit test he encounters because he doesn't understand the nature of the test or female attraction triggers.

As for the Gamma fantasy of all women being feminists, well, it's just that, a fantasy. Because all women are not ugly man-haters bitter about their lack of sexual desirability or manipulative idiots playing victim.

Alpha Mail: too slow, sport

A reader hasn't learned the Window of Opportunity concept yet:

I got burned by a chick today. Met her a week ago at a well known clothing store.  I had to buy an article of clothing as the one I had was starting to fall apart.  She suggested some articles, we found one that worked.  Then she asked, "Is there anything else your little heart desires?"  She asked the same thing two days later after helping me.  She asked what I was doing afterwards and I told her nothing (I was a bit slow on the uptake).  I asked her and she said she was going to watch some shows on Netflix. 

Fast forward to two days later I go back for another sale they're having and to ask her out.  She formally introduces herself.  I never tell her my name (though she could look it up due to me being a preferred customer).  We joke for a bit and I ask her what her plans are.  She's hanging out with friends afterwards (not going to get into specifics but it was a closed get together).  Should've asked her for a future date out but didn't. 

The following day I go into get some shoes.  Someone else helped me out BUT she made a point to come over and talk to me.  We weren't alone long enough for me to ask her out.

I get a call today, the shoes are in.  I go over there and although someone else greets me at the store, she, basically, jumps in and  asks what I need.  We shoot the breeze again and I ask her out for a beer.  It turns out she has a boyfriend and she doesn't think he'd look too highly on that.  I made a comment to the effect of, "Well, that's a shame."  As I'm leaving, she smiles and says, "Goodbye!" followed by my name. 

Now, I've asked several friends, including two of whom are women, their take on the situation.  One called this chick out for flirting with me even though she has a boyfriend.  The other, disappointingly (as I believed she would've called her out too) said I could've found out she was taken a week ago and then hastily added, "but I'm sorry."

Per the hierarchy, I think I'm a low beta or high delta.  I can tell you that sixteen months ago I wouldn't have ever thought of asking someone out like her or even have known how to joke around.  I credit you, Tomassi, Dalrock, and DG for that.  So thanks one and all.  Also, I'm in my late 20's.  Are there any real generational gaps I should be aware of vis-a-vis women?  What are your and the readers' thoughts on her?  Additionally, did I move too slowly?

First, let's get things straight. You're a delta. Your behavior was about as conventionally delta as it is possible to be. A woman sent you clear signals of interest, with a mild spice of challenging contempt, and you failed the test about as flawlessly as possible. The clear sign of the delta: waiting for permission and encouragement to approach.

Second, she is a flirt and she's seeking dominant men. Her repetitive use of the phrase "little heart" is intentionally belittling. Any time a woman uses a term like that and the first phrase out of your mouth doesn't involve "massive tool" or "giant penis", you've lost. The correct Alpha response would be something on the order of "my little heart is good but my giant penis thinks we should go for drinks when you get off". Never let a woman saddle you with a deprecating term without reframing. It's very simple: whatever term they use, apply the opposite.

Of course, men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status can play the opposite game. I was once in the gym doing shoulder press with two 80-pound dumbbells, thereby inspiring a gym bunny to call out: "Geez, what are you compensating for?" I didn't interrupt the set, but immediately called back "very small penis!" which cracked her and everyone else up.

Third, you're missing the point. She may or may not have a boyfriend, (although if she is pretty she has a few orbiters on the string at the very least), but she was potentially looking to trade up. Hypergamy dictates that girls with boyfriends are often going to flirt with men they think might be a better deal. If you can't deal with that, then go find a woman who is 1 or 2 points below you in attractiveness and content yourself with her being loyal, faithful, and true. Any girlfriend who perceives herself as being at or above your level is going to occasionally flirt with the idea of trading you in. That's not because she's an unfaithful slut unworthy of your protection and manly chivalry, it's because she is a woman and that is what women do.

Fourth, in case it isn't clear by now, yes, you moved far too slowly. Stop looking for "the right moment". The right moment is always NOW. Women have windows of opportunity, and the more attractive she is, the faster that window closes. She might have gone out with you the first time or two. Once you showed that you're just a lowly delta in need of encouragement in order to find the courage to approach, she lost whatever interest she had.

Alpha Mail: the BETA shield

A reader observes white knights actively defending women from the consequences of their own actions:

A woman-writer posts about getting creeps asking for one-on-one sessions. She jokes that they can have one... for a million dollars, ha ha! So I don't know this person, but I gently point out that this is not the best idea. She's basically admitting she's a prostitute and inviting these same "creeps" to talk her down on the price. This is actually a relatively well known parable that she's put herself into....

Well the reaction is all too typical. Her beta orbiters swoop in to protect her from the insinuation that she need ever have any sense. They have to one up each other showing how cultured, refined, and right-thinking they are with regards to feminism, humanism, and chauvinism. I can't imagine what it must be like... going through life having a veritable team of full time cheerleaders that would do everything in their power to protect you from ever having to think, to reason, or develop a moral compass. But that's what this is....

It is of course even worse in the church. R. C Sproul is a pretty good guy for the most part, but in his survey of the Old Testament a falls apart when he gets to Job. When Job's wife says, "curse God and die," it wasn't such a bad thing, really, and (according to Sproul) we shouldn't get hung up on it. After all, she has such a caring heart that she just wants to have her husband's suffering alleviated. (Never mind that she is basically repeating the words of Satan from a few verses earlier... and never mind that alleviating suffering in this case basically boils down to euthanasia.) The woman's been dead for thousands of years and yet Sproul has to stick up for her.

Women in a Bible study who have lived a sheltered life will respond poorly to anyone that points out what's going on with this. They will even go to the point of defending the abortion of kids with Down Syndrome-- after all, preventing suffering is what our heart is all about, they say. It's unreal the lengths that they will go to avoid having to take a firm moral position on anything.

I have no idea if this revulsion to responsibility is instinctive or socialized, but it is very bad news. It means you cannot rely on women to train children in any aspect of morality, theology, or ethics. But culturally, we defer to them in those matters on the assumption that they tend to be more spiritual than men. The reality is that we've delegated these things to a class of people that have an almost perfect shield against any sort of consequences or responsibility.

One thing about GamerGate is that reveals just how big a thing this really is. Zoe Quinn cheats on her boyfriend and she instantly has every major media outlet at her service to provide shielding. This is why it's futile to argue with women about anything. Not only do they have the option to use unfair tactics and then get a pass on it, but they always always always outnumber you. Tramps, sluts, and even dead women can easily maintain a coalition of twenty people that will routinely shout you down.... It's unreal.

I don't recommend arguing with women about these things. I recommend simply treating this sort of woman with the same disdain and lack of respect you would treat the logic presented by a retarded child attempting to defend his decision to defecate in his own bed. No individual, male or female, who refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions, can be considered a moral adult or an intellectual peer. I don't automatically defer to women on anything, and I certainly don't regard them as peers sans evidence of actual higher brain function.

Now, I trust my wife to train our children because she has reliably demonstrated both the aforementioned brain function as well as acceptance of her moral culpability for her actions. But she is not most women; she has never made a habit of attempting to evade the consequences of her decisions, good or bad. She is observably a moral adult and expects to be treated accordingly. It is a mistake to assume all women are moral children, even if it is a less egregious one than assuming that all women are not only moral adults, but are also morally and spiritually superior to men.

As with men, the proof is in the observable actions. Women can and often will behave like moral adults when they are expected to do so. It should not be surprising that when they are permitted to behave like moral children and permitted to evade negative consequences, many of them elect to do so instead.

And as for being outnumbered, what of it? Being outnumbered doesn't matter so long as you outgun the other side, both literally and intellectually.

Whatever happens, we have got
The naked truth, and they have not.