A victim tell

If one is looking to treat a woman in an abusive manner, apparently one has only to find a woman who loves, loves, loves 50 Shades of Grey:

Anastasia Steele's biggest defeat may not have been submitting to her abuser's sexual desires, but convincing other women that the behavior was okay. At least that's the finding of a new study in the Journal of Women's Health, which claims young adult women who read Fifty Shades of Grey are more likely to replicate the behaviors of people in abusive relationships.

In the book series, Anastasia 'Ana' Steele is constantly afraid; not only of her abusive partner, Christian Grey, but of the realization that she is losing her sense of self. Though Ana's behavior is initially survivalist, it eventually become engrained as she automatically responds to her partner's abuse. Though fictional, the storyline is a chillingly accurate portrayal of very real life relationships.

The study: In a sample of 650 women aged 18-24, researchers at Michigan State University found that Fifty Shades of Grey readers were 25% more likely to have a partner who yelled or swore at them. Readers were also 34% more likely to have a partner who displayed stalking tendencies and 75% more likely to have fasted for more than 24 hours or used a diet aid. Worse still, women who read all three books in the series were more likely to regularly binge drink and have multiple sex partners, both of which are recognized risk factors for intimate partner violence.

One thing the study couldn't determine was whether women who engaged in risky behaviors started doing so before or after reading the books.

Of course, for the purposes of a Mr. Grey stand-in, it doesn't really matter if they started doing so before or after. And frankly, just on literary grounds, anyone, male or female, who actually reads 50 Shades of Grey of their own free will and volition fully merits any subsequent abuse that might happen to come their way.

Alpha Mail: Leaving Gamma

And learning to lose the gammatude:

As a recovered gamma and now delta who is now happily married with a good wife and a family I thought I’d offer my sure fire way to stop being a Gamma and move into greener pastures. Why Gamma and not another class? First I’m qualified, and second I have a suspicion the number one reader of Game blogs and sites are Gammas looking to escape. So here it is:

Brutal self-honesty.

I’m going to break this down into four posts which cover the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of life. Everyone wants the keys to success and in America we are damned near obsessive about finding techniques we can use for self-improvement. In reality escaping Gammahood is a moral issue as it deals with honesty, but how this plays out in the four aspects of one life will be explained.

This should be helpful, because the ability of the non-Gamma to explain to the Gamma male why he is wrong and how his thinking can be adjusted is often limited. It's easy for the non-Gamma to see that the Gamma is wrong, but more difficult to communicate that wrongness to him in a manner that he is capable of hearing and accepting.

The fact that most Gammas are willfully delusional and lie first and foremost to themselves only makes the challenge more difficult. But one who has recovered from the mindset might be better able to make headway in penetrating through their psychological defenses.

Trust your instincts

This email Rollo shared from a soldier describes the experience of many a beta or delta concerning female disloyalty:

One girl, leading into Christmas break, said she was going to a techno show in a city about an hour away from our school. I was planning on studying for a final, so I didn’t bother trying to go. As the date neared I realized I felt comfortable about the final and I wanted to go out that night. I asked to go with her—she said no. And this is where I could see the hamster frantically spinning its wheel.

All her reasons were obvious bullshit. I know when a girl is seeing another guy, because I’ve been the other guy. I know what the stories are like. I ended it. I was heartbroken. I wondered constantly whether I had made the right call. I missed her desperately, and I constantly questioned whether my radar had been off. My male friends (now thoroughly blue-pill, as I was attending a liberal civilian grad school) told me I was overreacting and being paranoid and jealous and not respecting her space, blah blah blah… A whole year later a girl I was friends with let slip that my ex actually was meeting another guy in the city, and fucked him the day after I dumped her.

No surprise—but I was quite upset that a few other girls I was “friends” with had known and never told me. They could have saved me a lot of grief. But then again, they were women—I don’t quite get it, but it’s like all the girls were sticking up for each other and covering for each other, even though they weren’t really close friends. It’s almost as if they felt they needed to cover up the tactics that women use, and keep the men from knowing about them—as though there was a driving need they had to keep men in the dark as to the true nature of women.

In fact, I have never been steered in the right direction in relationships by any woman. And this will bring me around to my next point—the feminine dominated civilian environment—especially academia.

The second grad school relationship followed a path that was remarkably similar to my first—in fact, looking back, I have had three major relationships, with girls who wanted to be exclusive, and they have ended because the girls were becoming involved with other men.

There is one way, and only one way, to ensure loyalty and that is a ruthless willingness to walk away from a woman. Indeed, that is arguably the most reliable ALPHA tell from the woman's perspective; a man who is attractive and is not even remotely afraid to do without her.

I was not involved in a lot of exclusive relationships; I tended to avoid "the talk" like the plague. But exclusive or not, I ended them the moment I had any sense that the woman was even flirting with other men after having expressed some form of claim on me. I didn't usually bother "breaking up" with them, I simply stopped calling them, didn't take their calls, and directed my attention elsewhere.

Taking a call from another guy when I was there late at night or simply going for an evening run with an orbiter was sufficient reason to move on. It was rather amusing, later, to observe that my instincts were always correct; usually within a matter of months, the nexted girl would have at least gone on a date or three with the guy in question.

Trust your instincts and don't ever attempt to "keep" or "guard" a woman. If she wants to be with someone else, you don't want her. There too many girls on the girl tree to concern yourself with a disloyal one.

Prostitution is an economic phenomenon

A few years ago, I noticed that the street hookers in Spain were no longer limited to ugly Africans, but increasingly tended to be pretty Spanish girls in their late teens. So this news from Ireland does not surprise me.

Over 200 female students at Queen’s University have signed up to the Seeking Arrangement website where rich men pay cash-strapped young women, known as sugar babies, on average £5,000 for their company, or more often, for sex.

The average woman is far more concerned about her lifestyle and social status than any abstract moral concerns. So, once social status is no longer dependent upon maintaining virginity, most young women quickly determine that their vagina is an asset with a declining market value. And because women tend to overvalue credentials, "putting herself through college" is considered sufficient justification for just about anything.

But feel free to continue putting them on pedestals if you like, gentlemen. I'm perfectly aware that from the gamma perspective, even a woman who aggressively whores herself in pursuit of a useless degree from a fourth-rate university is only doing so because bad mens made her do it.

Feminist programming

The juxtaposition of equalitarians trying to reprogram impressionable little minds while watching elite male athletes perform actions that are entirely beyond female capacities would be hilarious if it weren't for the poor gamma males who will soak it up.

This kid will probably be fine, because once he starts crushing his older, athletic sister due to his physical superiority, he'll break through the programming. The problem is the fat little couch potatoes, who will never engage in activity that would expose the lie for what it is.

I ran NCAA Division One track and field. I know the full extent of female athletic capability. I've stretched with them, run with them, lifted with them, and been on my hands and knees vomiting next to them. (Speed days were so brutal that we used to pick a color-of-the-day for lunch because we knew we'd be seeing it again that afternoon.) And while they are impressive, even elite women simply can't run, jump, or throw with the men. They simply can't. They're not designed for it.

Praising female crime

Dr. Helen observes that when women commit crime, not only are they seldom punished to the same extent as men, they are even praised for it:

So when a woman is a predator, her behavior is to be understood, and channeled for personal growth. When a man is a predator, he goes to jail and even if he is innocent but suspected, there are often consequences as the campus rape panic shows all too well. Phillips points out that this stalking behavior in women is quite common. Why is it so acceptable in our society? Why do we allow men to be followed and abused?

Women tend to destroy property when they stalk, what makes this okay?

It would appear that crime is yet another female imperative, does it not?

Alpha Mail: representation is not liberty

A commenter yesterday asked me several questions related to democracy, women's suffrage, and liberty:

Don't you believe that women should not be allowed a say in government?

Yes. That is the libertarian position. I can anticipate the flaws in your thinking. First, you are incorrectly conflating democracy with liberty. Second, you are failing to grasp that libertarianism concerns maximizing liberty. This cannot be done when women are permitted a voice in government, because they favor security over liberty.

How do you reconcile this position with the lack of agency above?

I don't claim women have a lack of agency. I never have. It is the equalitarians who insist that women must be held irresponsible for their decisions and actions.

So what's the point of any kind of representation then, except for you and your ilk? Eventually people who don't find that the system works to their advantage will advocate for a different one. Women will want security over liberty, the poor redistribution, minorities special consideration, etc. So it boils down to libertarian tyranny. Liberty for all, ruthless repression for those who oppose it, and ultimately, liberty for the powerful, paternalism (at best) for the rest. Might as well be clear about it.

The commenter is hopelessly confused and is conflating several distinct concepts. Let me first make a few obvious statements:

1. Voting is not liberty. Voting is merely a tool. Liberty is an end. And as the Founding Fathers' distrust of democracy aka "mob rule" shows, the expansion of voting privileges is not synonymous with the expansion of liberty. Quite the opposite, as it happens.
2. Not being permitted to vote is not a lack of agency. A new US immigrant does not have voting rights, and yet he remains fully responsible for any crimes he commits as well as any taxes and debts he must pay.
3. Most people observably act against their own best interests. The number of obese and overweight people proves that people do not eat to their own advantage, therefore it is naive to the point of foolishness to claim that they always vote to their own advantage.

Now, all government is about "paternalism" in one form or another. The question only concerns what priority is going to be forced on the governed. Is it ideology? Is it servitude? Is it security? Or is it liberty?

Maximizing liberty for all does not mean maximizing liberty for every single individual, for the obvious reason that many individuals hate human liberty and wish to constrain it. If you would have liberty, then, it is necessary to distinguish between those who love liberty and will defend it, and those who hate liberty and wish to destroy it. There is no contradiction there, in fact, logic absolutely dictates that maximizing liberty can only come about by actively defending liberty against its foes.

For various reasons, most women are naturally opposed to liberty. They instinctively attempt to restrict the actions, speech, and even thoughts of others. Therefore, they cannot be permitted influence in any society that wishes to remain even remotely free for long. Past political philosophers understood this, as do modern politicians; it is not an accident that women's suffrage and proportional representation is literally the first point in the Fascist program.

And it does not take either a genius or a PhD to recognize that there are few movements that hate human liberty more thoroughly than feminism.

Women were able to vote in the Soviet Union and Ba'athist Iraq, but how much liberty did they enjoy? I want women to be free, which is precisely why I assert that they should not be permitted to vote. They are far too inclined to vote themselves into chains. Besides, in a West that is presently ruled by an unelected European Commission on one side of the Atlantic and an unaccountable bi-factional ruling party on the other, it is ludicrous to pretend that anyone's vote, male or female, counts for anything anymore anyhow.