The Power Of The Manosphere

Mike C [linkage to blog needed?] commented on a wild and wooly discussion over at Hooking Up Smart:

From the time of the sexual liberation in the 1960s until really just recently, women were able to conduct their sexual lives with a sort of combination of impunity and secrecy.  They could fuck the alpha, hot, attractive guys on first meeting, date 2, whatever, and then down the road when it is time to play soccer Mom make the beta Dad provider court her for 6 months before giving it up.  The beta Dad provider had no idea she banged 10-20 alphas already and to him having to court her for 6 months to get sex seemed perfectly normal and appropriate.  The system worked due to the blissful ignorance of the beta Dad provider.  The Internet has allowed guys to pull the cloak away from this Secret Society that Tyler Durden has talked about.  I was totally naive to this arrangement myself until about 2005 when I started working at a bar and saw this stuff on a regular ongoing basis.

The sentence in bold is the most salient point. The Internet – the Manosphere in particular – is shining a strong light onto the previously dark world of female dating and mating patterns. Dating 1.0 was all about courtship and ensuring good guys married good girls. Dating 1.5 is the post sexual revolution/pre Internet situation where women had sex with the alphas and then married a beta provider who was ignorant about all the alpha sex she was getting.

This was all well and good for women and alpha men. Because beta men simply were unaware of the situation, there was something of a balance and relative harmony. Sure, there were reports of sportfucking and swinging and all sorts of other sexual female shenanigans, this was mostly oral folklore and could be denied or forgotten easily. Of course, herpes wasn’t so forgettable and that was the first indicator that women were getting their groove on more than beta nice guys thought. But we got through that awkward social phase.

Enter center stage, the Internet. It took about a dozen years and some nice broadband for the curtain to be pulled back only to reveal the scene of the nice girl next door getting soundly and happily plowed by a couple of male college athletes. There’s an empty bottle of tequila and several used condoms in the scene, as well. The next act reveals a married suburban mom in a hotel room where she is having a certain part of her anatomy filled by her lover, a swarthy and vigorous fellow.

At the sides of the stage, a group of women and sensitive new age guys (SNAGs – great acronym) are desperately trying to close the curtain so that the audience can’t see what’s happening on stage. But the curtain won’t close. The Internet is keeping it open. Worse, the Internet has turned up the stage lighting so that the sexual antics of women are clear, open, and obvious. Some men in the audience close their eyes in denial. These are the manginas and whiteknights.

Seeing the curtain can’t be closed, some women take over the stage to shout, “This is OK! this is normal! Not all women are like that! Sexual empowerment is good for all women! Don’t oppress a woman’s sexuality!” These are the feminists and others who bat for team vagina.

It’s all too late. Some men in the audience keep their eyes open. They pull out their laptops and start blogging, researching, posting on message boards, sharing information. Those men recall their experiences with women and the stories they have heard. Curiously, many women in the audience see what is happening on stage and want to be “empowered”. These women encourage the sexual frenzy by posting their own lurid stories and photos on their Facebook accounts and blogs.

This is the state of affairs now. It’s Dating 2.0, Darwin Dating, Combat Dating, Red Pill Dating, or any other title to indicate the new sexual reality where growing numbers of men are learning the true nature of female sexuality and female’s relationship-formation tactics. Game is spreading in the mainstream media. Manosphere blogs regularly feature scientific studies, personal stories, logical and rational rebukes to feminist dogma. Some of these stories and observations regularly spill into websites and messages boards where men congregate. Many men nod their heads in agreement.

This is the power of information and how it causes social attitudes to be changed. The curtain can’t be pulled back.

About these ads
  1. #1 by Gorbachev on September 30, 2011 - 6:41 AM

    The actions of women and apologists is to explain it away.

    The trick was: Before they could trick the mens into following along. Now, they look at the skanky ho and see… a skanky ho. And they say — wait a minute. You’re not a nice girl, like you pretend to be.

    Some girls don’t even bother to pretend, then get upset when the Nice Guy with the house in the nice neighborhood won’t marry them; or that all the men – all of them – will date her, but not have anything serious with her.

    Enter New York City: Sex Central. Any man with the smallest moxy doesn’t want anything permanent to do with these women; he knows he’s nothing more than a dick of convenience.

    So he treats her in the proper way: As a pussy of convenience.

    Cue the roaring and bellowing and pained aching whining.

    “I want my cake and I want to eat it, too!
    I’m a sexy ho!
    I’m A Feminist of Convenience!
    I’m a Good Woman!
    I’m pure and Unsullied!
    How much did you say you made last year?”

    It was once said that all women were prostitutes, and only the price differed. These days, it’s also largely true – but only the smart hos charge. The others are just must less bright.

    I blame the Patriarchy. That cabal always has it in for the Womyns.

    I hear they meet on Tuesdays somewhere in West Hollywood, LA.

    Cry for our lost princesses. Nowadays, they have to sleep on the proverbial pea and they just don’t know what to do.

  2. #2 by Gorbachev on September 30, 2011 - 6:54 AM

    I was lecturing a Korean guy the other day about Korean women. He has this idea that they’re pure and unsullied. Much more innocent than these foreigners.

    I introduced him last week to the airline stewardess who has been more or less having a fling with me for… what? A year or more? She’s also my ex (from a few years ago).

    At 28 or 29 (30?), she’s likely the hottest woman I’ve been with. Also vain, frivolous and … did I mention vain?

    He said: She seems so nice. I’ll bet she’s just waiting for the right guy.

    When I mentioned, after a lot of beer, that yes, that sweet, nice girl with the perfect tits (real, but you can never be entirely sure here) was my ex and that we’re sleeping together occasionally he didn’t believe me. Then he said, maybe, but she has no BF, so it’s only mildly shocking. Then I told him that the whole time she dated this doctor guy, she was banging me on the side. Enthusiastically.

    And then I told him: His delusions about Asian women were so absurd it was almost a joke. That I’d been with more than a few married Korean women, and I hadn’t even gotten to China yet. That married Korean women were the easiest of all.

    Then another guy chimed in and said – yup. He’s right. Never trust any woman.

    After that, he was heartbroken.

    He’s had 3 girlfriends. He’s 39 or so. The first made him wait 4 years to have sex; he was 26 when he finally did. They had sex maybe 10 times in total over 8 years. The next GF he knew was cheating, but he never said anything. The third made him wait 3 months to have sex, and was suspiciously busy all the time.

    He works 6 days a week, 10 hours a day. He’s a model BF / Husband. He’s dating a woman who – again – isn’t going to give him any until he literally pays up for it in investment.

    I pointed out to him: the odds that she’s not riding some other guy are virtually zero. She’s fucking some FWB all the time, but for *him* she’s pure and virginal.

    That kind of education hits guys like that hard. I know so many Asian guys with these delusions – especially in China.

    Almost all Chinese women know this. They meet suckers (no other word for it) like that and know exactly how to play them: Like musical instruments.

    Any feminist who gets up and calls this misogynist is a self-delusional harpy. Women play men like toys.

    Teaching men what women do just lets men play back.

    And hear the little girls cry when their tricks and schemes fall flat.

    No one – no one – connives and schemes like women.

    • #3 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 7:19 AM

      If he is dating someone his age, in the current environment the relationship is doomed.
      Because she’s probably seen more pricks than a cactus farmer. I don’t place a lot of weight in the idea that a woman can be oh so popular and oh so successful without giving up the goods…
      and women made the situation that way the moment they understood and implemented sex as a trade for favourable consideration.

  3. #4 by NMH on September 30, 2011 - 7:22 AM

    I dont think the slutty shenaningans apply to all women, or even 50% of them. It apples only to women that are the ones that are half-way attractive, ie the ones with the “perfect tits” and up.

    I’ve known several women whose poor looks and high expectations for a man would not allow them to have a sexual encounter of any sort, much less a boyfriend.

    There are a lot female omega’s out there, but there are fewer of them than male omega’s.

    What has changed is that half-way attractive women (“marriage material” women) were once pure. Feminism now has let these women take advantage of their modicum of sexuality.

    There is a word for you there, PM.

    • #5 by deti on September 30, 2011 - 8:44 AM

      I don’t believe every woman sluts around. There are enough of them to make it more or less true.

      When I look around at the failed marriages I know of, there are several primary reasons:

      1. Man’s failure to assume dominant role.
      2. Woman’s failure or refusal to submit to man’s dominant role.
      3. Man’s poor choice of wife of low character.

      Now there are even fewer marriageable women. There are some, but most are worthless. Most bring nothing to the table except sex. Most are entitlement princesses with wildly overinflated views of their SMVs. I’m also struck by how poorly they care for and groom themselves. Most are overweight. They dress poorly. They wear flip flops constantly. Their hairstyles are unflattering.

      I also note how incurious most are. They don’t know anything about anything, and they don’t want to either. They can’t carry on a conversation about anything besides Kim Kardashian. They don’t know how to cook or take care of a house. They could not think their way out of wet paper sacks.

      • #6 by NMH on September 30, 2011 - 9:48 AM

        Completely agree. 25 years ago in it was almost as bad as you described, but I was so desperate for affection and was brainwashed by the MSM that I blamed myself completely.

        We also did not have the internet.

      • #7 by P Ray on September 30, 2011 - 11:36 AM

        I’m thinking the women appear uncurious and apathetic because you are not the man they want to be with.
        To know about all the flaws or bad behaviour of a particular girl, just speak to the men she does not want to be with.
        Women know how to act when it comes to a man they want to be with.
        Which is why many are so shattered after a pump and dump, since they invested in the dog-and-pony show and have nothing to show for it.
        Maybe that’s why they do better on standardised tests and rote memorisation too – helps with their “audition”.

      • #8 by deti on October 2, 2011 - 12:47 PM

        P Ray: Yeah, I guess you’re right. I won’t take that personally.

      • #9 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:32 PM

        Remember that if a girl does not see you as someone she should do well to keep in her life and build a future with…
        she should not be surprised or angry when you can step away with the words “I’m not feeling the love”.
        The moment women have it in their mind that the man has to be the initator for relationships…
        they should not complain when the man chooses to interact with someone more receptive to their approach.

  4. #10 by deti on September 30, 2011 - 8:08 AM

    This is a crucial point for men coming onto the dating scene. In the 1980s, during feminism’s heyday and the rise of political correctness, feminists set all the rules for dating and sex. Women’s sexuality could be discussed only by feminists, manginas and white knights. If you wanted poon, you had to be a mangina or white knight (on the surface). You had sex whenever, wherever and however the woman wanted it. No meant no, and escalation or trying to overcome LMR was illegal.

    Many men had no idea why they could not get dates. Some can attract women but can’t figure out why they can’t keep the interest going. Others are married and wondering why their marriages are failing.

    Before the internet, men were limited to finding those “how to attract women” from the ads in the back of men’s magazines. They were not considered to have much credibility because feminism ruled the day. Feminism and the MSM controlled the conventional wisdom, which was that kindness, loyalty, fidelity, reliability and commitment were attractive traits that women wanted in men, and that to get women, men had to display those traits.

    But more and more men started noticing something was off. They noted their cool, confident friend who could show up at a party and leave with a girl he had just met an hour ago. The friend who always had a new woman every month or so. The married man whose seemingly happy and successful marriage imploded over the shocking revelation of her affair with her best friend’s husband. The nice wife with the checkered past. The successful husband and loving father reduced to poverty and alienation from his children when his wife goes EPL and decides she’s “not haaaaaappy” anymore.

    The internet and the manosphere blogs have revealed the seedy underside of women’s sexual natures, to be sure. But more importantly it seems to have solidified and stiffened (heh) men’s resolves not to return to the old way of running intergender relationships. Married men are telling wives in no uncertain terms that they aren’t going to put up with women’s maltreatment, deceit, underhanded behavior, fitness testing, and undermining conduct.

    Single men are telling women that since women have their own money, men won’t be investing heavily in intergender relationships. Single men are assessing the marriage risk as far too heavy and opt out of marriage altogether. Men are wising up to women’s dating methods. There will be more and more heavy sexual escalation early on, and men’s abrupt ending of relationships if sex isn’t forthcoming (because men know if she isn’t willing to have sex early, the chemistry probably isn’t there and won’t ever be there). Expect to see more and more surreptitious recording of sexual encounters — not for erotic means but as self-defense in the event of a false rape charge.

  5. #11 by deti on September 30, 2011 - 8:28 AM

    I think another important observation here is that once again, the conflict in the manosphere between its adherents on one hand and the detractors who comment here on the other is not likely to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. With apologies to the irreplaceable Brendan, and I’m paraphrasing his prose, the fundamental problem described at that linked-to Hooking Up Smart thread is that women and men want different things. That fundamental tension is what drives male-female relationships. It propels men to seek sex, the second strongest male urge. It compels women toward sex and the “nesting” instinct.

    I think this conflict is insoluble on a macro level. Feminism made it worse by casting off an old rule system that, while flawed, worked well to give sex partners to the greatest possible number of people who wanted them. It didn’t give everybody everything, but it gave most people something.

    Now there are really no rules at all. It’s every man for himself; and every woman for herself and every other woman. People will have to muddle through as best as they can. Frighteningly, marriage lasts only as long as both people want it to. The divorce laws are skewed extremely heavily to women. It’s the wild, wild west in dating now. There will be a lot of unhappy people. It’s going to get worse — a lot worse.

    I am a fan of a confident man finding a kind, good-hearted, pleasant hottie at 25 years old, and the two of them settling down for life. But most people just won’t be willing or able to implement that.

    • #12 by Ian Ironwood on September 30, 2011 - 10:17 AM

      While it’s easy and fun to blame feminism for this, consider that the real culprit is simple technological change. The Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s wasn’t about feminism — feminism was a side-effect of the Revolution. The real revolution began in the 1940s when industrialization allowed women to make their own money. Then the second part happened in the 1960s when women got control of their reproductive systems (“the pill”). Taken together, reproductive control and financial independence encouraged the development of a more sophisticated feminism. So for a couple of decades afterwards, while men were scratching their balls and wondering whatheheck happened to the status quo they’d been trained to deal with, women were developing a new approach to their sexuality, mating and marrying patterns. They were able to have their cake (sexual and financial independence) and eat it too (control of the social availability of sex).

      Sure, plenty of guys got laid back then, but the social end was a disaster. The WK and manginas capitulated because they thought begging for sex was the only game in town. The Alphas knew better, but they kept their mouths shut (mostly) and racked up pussy like it was on sale, rarely bothering to marry in fear of the exploding divorce statistics. For a few brief decades, women were on top: they had half the money and all the pussy, and they used both with gay abandon. The sense of entitlement, the feeling that just by virtue of possessing vaginas that they somehow “deserved” everything they got — sexually, socially and financially — started to become ingrained in mainstream female behavior. By 1995, things were looking pretty grim for us menfolk.

      But then the Internet happened, in a big way.

      As much as I agree with the post about the Manosphere, that’s just the most recent counter-attack. Just as the pill and industrialization slanted things in favor of women, the internet levels the playing field, and not just with dating advice.

      Consider: it is now far easier for a man to find sex at a lower cost than at any other time in history. And not just with the local village bicycle; with the power of global communications, he now theoretically has access to every available female on the planet. Two decades ago the closest we came to that was the “mail order bride” catalogs, which only an insignificant fraction of men considered seriously. Now the dating sites and chat rooms can put you in touch with sexually available females from all over the world.

      In addition to that, cheating has become far, far easier to accomplish with a dramatically diminished risk. As has prostitution. Craig’s List hookups and the thousands of other dating/hookup sites have allowed men access to a far, far greater pool of sexually available women. And let us not forget internet porn (my own business): when a dude can have access to any sexual fantasy for his whacking needs, he becomes far less likely to jump through hoops for a crappy, reluctant handjob in the car after a $300 6th date.

      So this has suddenly dramatically affected the competition cycle among women. After ruling the social/sexual scene for decades, suddenly the confused, limp-dicked men they were being so choosy about stopped calling them back. Beta husbands withdrew from their wives in favor of internet porn or clandestine affairs, and there was a decade long period where divorces due to “porn addiction” were rampant. Women who thought they were competing with only the other women in their town had to come to terms with the idea that Mr. Right was out diddling some horny cougar and saving his money for fancy electronic toys, not building a dream house and seeking out the mother of his children. After a lifetime of calling the shots, just as a whole generation of women started hearing their biological clocks go off just as they hit their stride in their careers, when they rolled over in bed to see the dude that was supposed to be there to inseminate her, the bed was empty.

      And so the outrage began among the 30-something and 40-something set who suddenly realized that they had a dozen eggs left and no sperm in sight. Men were pigs all over again. Internet porn was “destroying lives”. Prostitution and clandestine affairs and “sex addiction” were collectively held up as the culprit, along with the idea that men were half-human savage beasts who just didn’t know how things should be done. The cry “where have all the good men gone?” was so loud that the answer (“you chased them all away or broke their dicks off”) couldn’t be — wouldn’t be — heard. So the middle-aged, career-minded woman who had built a solitary life for herself, expecting her perfect beta Prince Charming to ride in, sweep her off her feet, knock her up good, and also pay all of the bills . . . was screwing a triple-divorced MILF who just wanted to get her rocks off. It was all OUR fault, that they couldn’t have a baby on their self-wrought timetable.

      And that’s where we are today. Men have begun to realize their own value as sperm donors/lifestyle providers in a highly competitive field, and — thanks to, you guessed it, feminism — they were beginning to look at the male-female sexual dynamic from the “what’s in it for me?” standpoint. Acknowledging that a woman’s primary drive was for security, and that our primary drive is for sex, even the dumb ones are starting to clue into the fact that if a girl doesn’t put out by the third date, it’s time to move on. Hell, I know plenty of dudes who won’t do a second date unless they get some on the first. The feminist-raised generation of women who felt entitled to a career first and a family later got beyatch-slapped with the specter of real competition.

      Because not only are they competing with all of the other desperate-to-reproduce women out there, they’re also competing with older women and younger women, both of whom have far more liberal ideas about sex and their own sexual availability. Older women are jaded and over the playing-house stage and just want some dick. Younger women were brought up in a world where internet porn and over-the-top sexuality made stuff that only whores would do in their grandmother’s age part of the basic list of freshman-year objectives. When you’re a 38 year old woman with an expiration date and your sitting at the same bar (or dating site) as a horny cougar who doesn’t want commitment and a horny twenty-something who views fellatio on the same par as a handshake, what the hell do you have to offer?

      Male sexual attraction breaks down between desirability and sexual availability. Traditionally what one didn’t have in one area one made up for in another. And now that even working-class women can afford boob jobs, tummy-tucks and other cosmetic enhancements, what does that leave them?

      So yes, the Manosphere is a great and powerful force in the developing social-sexual interplay. But it’s only the latest in a long series of technological events, and should be viewed within that context to be properly appreciated.

      • #13 by deti on September 30, 2011 - 12:22 PM

        Ian:
        That is one of the best explanations of technology and automation affecting today’s SMP that I have ever read. Kudos. A couple of things:

        1. Re automation, women at work and the pill: You could say betas (i.e. us) are to blame. Wives wanted housework to be easier. So innovative betas invented machines to reduce the work. Wives wanted to work for a little extra money and reduce boredom at home. So betas, to become more efficient at work, invented more machines that either men or women could operate, letting women work if they wanted. Wives wanted to have sex with their husbands without worrying about getting pregnant. The betas, loving their wives dearly, invented the pill and other reliable birth control forms to let women have sex with wild abandon.

        2. I have to agree that one of the big things right now affecting the SMP is internet porn. There wouldn’t be a huge demand for it if more betas and omegas were getting laid at all. In just 20 years it’s gone from rudimentary photos to full length movies. The internet is literally swimming in very high quality porn. It used to be you had to pay for porn but you don’t now. You don’t have to buy magazines or rent videos anymore. Nearly all of it is free. Why anyone would ever pay for porn today is beyond me.

        3. I’m convinced that one of the very first things a Man has to do to wash the blue pill out of his system is to discard once and for all the concept of ONEitis. Get that out of your life and your head. After he does that, it should be easy to accept that he does not have to tolerate the fitness tests, the princessing, the attention whoring, the neediness or the rest of it — even from a wife. A wife responds astonishingly quickly to alpha traits and DHV.

      • #14 by deti on October 1, 2011 - 12:20 AM

        Heh. Ironwood. I just got that, seeing as how you’re in the porn industry and all.

      • #15 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:39 PM

        You mean “It’s now easier for a man who is wanted to get a hookup”.
        It’s now actually harder for those men who are not wanted – for the reason that with instant communication and social networking, a woman can more easily build the fiction for herself that the man she’s with is hers alone – especially if he’s a man other women want … and then choose to spurn the good guys who really are interested.
        Remember that Tiger Woods kept at least 13 women from forming proper relationships – and at least one of them threw away an engagement to be with him.
        So you now have at least 13 women who will never be satisfied with a normal guy, and are now going to pull the “you never live up to my expectations” card with any guy they are subsequently with.
        If men are choosing to spend money to gain the affections of those women … more fool them, ’cause a woman who wanted them genuinely … would not be a burden to them.

      • #16 by Blissex on October 4, 2011 - 10:17 AM

        «Acknowledging that a woman’s primary drive was for security, and that our primary drive is for sex,»

        While I mostly agree with several of your points, this is the usual completely wrong misconception that continues to float around because of mistaken historical impressions.

        Female’s primary drive is for sex, the male primary drive is for achievement. Females have much higher libido than males, also because their orgasms can be much (much) better. Their sex drive even if much stronger is often mistaken for weaker than the male one because it is far more selective and is periodic. But a female in estrus with a chance of getting a hot bastard is a terrifying force of sexual obsession; sometimes the craving is so strong that they feel not even consciously aware of what they do.

        Females also have a drive for security, but only if they risk involuntary pregnancy or plan voluntary pregnancy. And that still is often inferior to their sex drives, leading many females to try to get security from wimpy suckers (betas) at the same time as they get wild orgasms from hot bastards (alphas), which is dangerous to the search for security, but they still do it.

        A female in estrus without risk or plan for pregnancy will just go for as many rides on the carousel as she can get, with a quite obsessive craving. A bit like a “twink” in the gay sex market, only with much greater lust. Just read any of the dozens of female-oriented magazines being published, they are all about sex and often in crassly explicit way.

      • #17 by Ian Ironwood on October 4, 2011 - 10:39 AM

        @Blissex: (Sorry, it won’t let me reply directly to your comment)

        I believe you are mistaking sexual capacity for sexual drive. When I suggest that women are security-driven, I do so because despite a particular individual’s ability to spike capacity, in aggregate the motivations pushing one gender or the other tend to settle into two distinct groupings.

        You mention that men’s primary drive is achievement, but I argue that a man’s drive towards achievement is part and parcel with his sex drive; in essence, men achieve in an attempt to improve their chances of having sex.

        Conversely, women (who I say are security driven) are attracted to highly achieving men because in most societies there is a strong correlation between achievement and a man’s ability to establish security.

        This goes back to our primate ancestors and beyond, more than likely. Look up the anthropology study often called “the primate prostitution experiment”, in which a group of monkeys was given a test which would reward them with a piece of fruit when successfully completed. First day both males and females scored almost identically. By the third day, the males were scoring exceptionally high, whereas the females were no longer participating at all. It was originally theorized that the female of the species was therefore less intelligent and less motivated than the males.

        Then a grad student came into the lab one night to pick something up and noticed that the male monkeys were, indeed, working the test like mad . . . and then trading the fruit they won to the females for sex. They were motivated by sex, whereas the females were motivated by the food security provided by the fruit.

    • #18 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:34 PM

      Most women (even Susan Walsh seems to indicate this – with the idea that nice guys need game) … want a good approach, not a good man.
      They choose to be with someone who will disappoint them, then every man including the guys who wouldn’t have done so … comes under the brush of “all men are bastards”.
      No, honey – just the ones you pick.

  6. #19 by Susan Walsh on September 30, 2011 - 8:51 AM

    Thanks for the link, I think :-)

  7. #20 by andy on September 30, 2011 - 9:22 AM

    powerful writing.

  8. #21 by Ian Ironwood on September 30, 2011 - 1:06 PM

    @deti:

    Thanks for the Kudos. While I tend to agree with your assertion about the betas helping make life easier for women with labor-saving devices that decreased the amount of hours spent on housework — and that was very important — the big change happened between 1941 and 1946, when millions of women went to work (both of my grandmothers included) in factories to produce war materiel. When women discovered they could do a lot of the industrial jobs that men could do and earn a living, they started to see themselves as independent of the need for men, in theory. It took another generation for that idea to set into the culture, and it did so very incompletely, but just as society was attempting to integrate this newfangled development along came the Birth Control Pill and things got . . . complicated.

    Industrialization nearly always leads to an increase in divorce, domestic violence and domestic problems, no matter what society it happens to. However, this also leads to far smaller families, greater income security for men and women, and an equalization in the sexual expectations of both genders . . . eventually. But thanks to internet porn and dating sites and international brides who will do ANYTHING to come to our fair country, this process has been speeded up dramatically. At this point, I’m waiting for the female-feminist response to the faite accompli of men realizing that the women in their lives don’t have a corner on the pussy market.

    So what will women, as a class, do when they finally realize they shot themselves in the ass with feminism and entitlement and such? I’m hoping for at least a modicum of humility, and a dramatic re-assessment of what practical feminism actually means.

    • #22 by deti on September 30, 2011 - 1:31 PM

      I’m convinced men are finally getting it into their heads that ONEitis just isn’t factual. There will always be another woman. In this SMP, if one woman does not like you or will not have sex with you, chances are that another one will. It’s a pure numbers game.

      • #23 by just visiting on September 30, 2011 - 1:59 PM

        What you say is true. I suspect that our ability( Men and women) to love gets impaired by it. Perhaps even our want of it.

      • #24 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:42 PM

        The best players happen to be those who had severe ONE-itis.
        So in a very real sense, women create the men they complain about, by ignoring their sincere affection.
        But then again, most prefer a good approach to a good man.

  9. #25 by dannyfrom504 on October 1, 2011 - 6:51 AM

    great post Hermano. and spot-on as usual.

    Deti is dead right about internet porn. i’ve seen and read numerous articles where more and more women are complaining about men watching internet porn rather than making an attempt to date, not realizing, THEY’RE THE REASON guys are watching web-porn.

    those ladies have made dating a waste of time. it’s MUCH easier for a guy to rub one out and go on about his day rather than to navigate the RIDICULOUS hoops ladies put men through to get laid.

  10. #26 by jack on October 1, 2011 - 4:37 PM

    Yup – female tears are like kryptonite for most men.

    Here is the litmus test:

    When a woman starts crying, you need to determine whether her tears are legitimate and heartfelt or tears that are designed to manipulate.

    To determine which, take out a coin and flip it. If the coin lands on its edge, her tears are real.

  11. #27 by RL on October 1, 2011 - 5:58 PM

    I have a question of scale. What percentage of men transfer from rAFC whiteknighting/manginas to enlightened red pill chewers? I know most guys have internet but what percentage of the male population does actually read and accept these insights into the female psychology?

    • #28 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:45 PM

      They need to have had ONEitis before. The guy who is a cheerful mangina can never wake up. The guy who can admit that some women manipulate men, can wake up.
      I’d say about 50% of the 80% of “men who are not wanted”. So, 40% of men.
      The top 20% of men can be as violent towards women as they want – their transgressions will either be ignored, excused or defended against by their female groupies.
      The remaining 40% are the ones getting multiple-married.

  12. #29 by Badger on October 2, 2011 - 1:55 AM

    “Some girls don’t even bother to pretend, then get upset when the Nice Guy with the house in the nice neighborhood won’t marry them; or that all the men – all of them – will date her, but not have anything serious with her.”

    I have come to take a great perverse joy in watching this happen, it’s a temper trantum by an adult and I make sure to label it as so. It’s funny to see someone who tried to play the system get played at the end.

    “I also note how incurious most are. They don’t know anything about anything, and they don’t want to either. They can’t carry on a conversation about anything besides Kim Kardashian. They don’t know how to cook or take care of a house. They could not think their way out of wet paper sacks.”

    This is what has, thankfully, kept me away from a good lot of the toxic women. I am very intellectual and talking to a dumb woman, especially a willfully stupid one, is gut-wrenching. I can’t even bear to put them on my bang ladder.

    But PRay has a good point that we see bad behavior from women wrt men they don’t want.

    “The Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s wasn’t about feminism — feminism was a side-effect of the Revolution. ”

    I agree – I’ve come to view feminism as a piggyback movement atop the postwar expansion and the Pill, and not as a vanguard movement of its own.

    “when a dude can have access to any sexual fantasy for his whacking needs, he becomes far less likely to jump through hoops for a crappy, reluctant handjob in the car after a $300 6th date.”

    Even when I DON’T have access to a sexual fantasy I like (porn isn’t really my bag really) I’m not spending $300 on a pre-sex date. Or even a post-sex date.

    RL,

    very few. I’ve tried to turn on my male friends to the red pill. Probably less than one out of ten will take it seriously philosophically, and less than that will put it into practice. And honestly, the big decisions are the only place it’s needed – if a guy won’t walk on a marriage ultimatum or dump a princess who humiliates him in public, all the peacocking and Internet posing won’t do a damn thing.

    We’re just going to have to get used to being a slim minority. It’s kind of thrilling actually.

  13. #30 by RL on October 2, 2011 - 1:35 PM

    The goal of your posts beyond entertainment is that although you only reach a ‘slim minority’ a change of mind of this group may have some effect if they are to follow through with the main decisions in life. Therefore your approach could be seen as implicitly.

    There a few more men who are slightly more real-world action orientated such as Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, Peter Nolan’s divorce support network, or The Fifth Horsemen’s toilet flyer idea.

    So I am wondering what is quicker? Red pill penetration of a majority of men, or a huge surge in female divorce of beta husband government because the husband got jobless (i.e. economy tanked and handouts diminished) and a subsequent to the individual beta men?

    • #31 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:52 PM

      Actually, marriages will stay together in a divorce, because many of the women have less of an incentive to divorce (less cash, y’see).
      Also, since most marriages end up sexless and loveless (at least for the man, as when a woman loses interest in the guy she’s with she doesn’t want anything to do with him except spend his money to get to the guy she wants an affair with) … no change to the lives of the guys she got married with.
      I’d actually expect a surge of cuckoldry.

      • #32 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 9:19 PM

        Oops, comment came out wrong.
        I meant to say in this current economic climate, more people in marriages will stay together vs. get divorced

  14. #33 by RL on October 2, 2011 - 1:36 PM

    … subsequent ‘return’ …

  15. #34 by greenlander on October 2, 2011 - 6:27 PM

    The main problem with “dropping out” in a MGTOW-sort of way is that you can’t escape socialist levels of taxation.

    I’m in a 48% marginal tax bracket. (35% federal, 10% state, 3% medicare.) Then I pay high consumption taxes on the remainder, and if I try to save I’m subject to inflation (which is really an indirect tax on assets caused by government-sponsored debasement of money.) I can enjoy my single life, travel, bang hos, whatever… but there’s no escape from paying for socialist crap.

    The thing that irks me the most is that the things I’m paying for (medicare, social security, medicare, food stamps, AFDC, section 8 housing, VAWA enforcement, women’s shelters, etc) actually undermine the value of being a beta, since it’s these kinds of programs that allow women to ride the alpha carousel in the first place. If my tax money were literally burned it would actually be better for myself and for society.

  16. #35 by RL on October 2, 2011 - 7:00 PM

    Ok, I have to say I don’t pay taxes because I am a graduate student in statistics/computing. However, I can feel you. Given these financial burdens there is just less incentive to early invest into the rising beta such as physician, computer scientists, lawyer etc. because most of its income will be redistributed to these women anyway. And this way they don’t need to worry about starving, and can just follows their short-term attraction triggers. I think there should be an option to decide about its own tax deductions, e.g. in UK wealthy people can decide to redirect some of their tax deductions to be invested in research as alternative route.

    • #36 by P Ray on October 2, 2011 - 8:54 PM

      Nice, you’re another hard sciences dude!
      I’d also add that the women who say they want intelligent men … often want a man intelligent enough to advance her, but in no way intelligent enough to debate with her and win.
      Because socialisation being what it is, men are told to “be grateful she is with you”,
      while women are told “you are a saint to be with such a loser”.

  17. #37 by jack on October 2, 2011 - 11:13 PM

    Oh, I was much more the white-knighter for a long time.

    Roissy saved me from myself.

  18. #38 by jack on October 2, 2011 - 11:21 PM

    greenlander is correct.

    It is impossible to be a true MRA or MGTOW and remain a liberal leftie.

    My opinion on liberal males over the age of 30:

    Just get the d$%^ed sex change and be done with it.

  19. #39 by Rollo Tomassi on October 3, 2011 - 7:47 AM

    You’ve essentially described what I call the Meta Game.

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/meta-game/

  1. Are Asian more sexually traditional? « Random Xpat Rantings
  2. Technology changes sex culture. The net gives men hand. « Random Xpat Rantings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,511 other followers

%d bloggers like this: