Hugo Danger

Alas, poor Hugo.  How little we knew him, Horatio.  And who would have thought the old lecher had so much hypocrisy in him?  The Real Porn Wiki Leaks has the completely NSFW details about the long-expected fall of Hugo Schwyzer:

The embattled 46 year old ‘male feminist’ writer and Pasadena Community College professor who long claimed to be a reformed sexual predator and addict has announced his departure from public life, and, in an interview with The Cut cited an extramarital affair and ongoing mental health issues.

The details of this marital infidelity are not known, but in January 2013, Schwyzer, then 45, had a brief but torrid texting, telephonic and online fling with a 27 year old woman named Christina Parreira, also known is “sex worker activism’ circles as Christina Page — and in webcam/amateur porn circles as Gabriela “Ela” Stone. According to Parreira, Schwyzer acknowledged that revelation of their fling would be “career-killing” for him — Hugo has called older men who are “into” younger women – such as men in their 40s being attracted to and pursuing women in their 20s – dirty old men and “creeps.”

I honestly cannot think of a single individual I am less surprised to hear turned out to be a creepy, adulterous pervert.  As a general rule, the more a man publicly lectures others about the importance of not being creepy, and the more "feminist" he proclaims himself to be, the more likely it is that he is a creepy pervert who is barely managing to keep his urges under control.  It's exactly like the way ex-smokers preach the anti-smoking gospel and alcoholics lecture everyone on teetotalism.

So, how long does everyone expect "his departure from public life" to last?  If Carlos Danger is any guide, he'll be running for the mayor of Los Angeles soon.  This is, of course, very sad news for the androsphere, as I see no way that Roissy is going to be able to survive hearing about Schwyzer's self-immolation without laughing himself to death.

“I’m done,” [Schwyzer] wrote. “I surrender the field to the critics who wanted me gone from feminist spaces.” 

What a pathetic charade.  What a gargantuan fraud.  And what a monstrous hypocrite. But the only thing remarkable about this revelation is how it will surprise absolutely no one on either side.  I do have to salute his "off-brand" comment, though.  That could be useful in a broad range of contexts.  "Yes, I was speeding, officer, but that is very off-brand for me."

When women play the sex card

Some years ago, a woman by the name of Theresa Nielsen Hayden declared the following about a certain male individual.

"Going through Vox Day's comments here is like reading erotica written by someone who -- well, in the immortal words of Xander Harris, "You've never had any tiny bit of sex, have you?" It's really, really obvious that VD is not acquainted with actual women. I don't just mean sexual relations. I mean he's had little or no social interaction of any sort....  It's pretty clear that VD fears and dislikes women, and that his gender theories are a back-formation. It seems perfectly appropriate that he's a fan of that patently misogynistic suspected female impersonator, Ann Coulter."

Now, keep in mind, the picture above is of the woman who said this.  Moreover, she said that about a man who was not only an athlete from a wealthy, attractive family, but a founding member of an award-winning rock band with three Billboard-charting dance hits.  How does this make any sense at all?  Why would a grotesque toad like Nielsen Hayden ever claim something so patently ridiculous?

The reason is that most men are insecure about their sexual appeal.  Women know this and they instinctively attempt to play on that insecurity in an attempt to gain the upper hand.  This is fairly automatic for them, no matter how low they are on the totem pole, because they are accustomed to thinking of themselves as the pursued, ergo, the more desirable, even if this has absolutely no possible relationship to the actual male-female interaction involved.

And consider: if an obese troll like this is going to attempt to play the sex card with a man who wouldn't dream of touching her with his worst enemy's 10 foot-pole in his scariest nightmare, what will a normal girl who is actually in your league going to do?  The answer is to maintain frame.  Ideally, your response to a woman playing the sex card should be to respond exactly as if the girl looks like Ms Nielsen Hayden, with a mixture of amusement and genuine horror.

We apologize in advance for any nightmares this post may inadvertently inspire.

Because intersexual relations are insufficiently difficult

It's probably a good idea to further confuse the children of America:

Nothing says “child-appropriate material” quite like gender-bending underage superheroes. At least that’s the theory over at the Hub, the network co-owned by Discovery and Hasbro, which is trotting out its latest soon-to-be-dud, SheZow. That show follows the adventures of a 12-year-old boy named Guy who uses a magic ring to transform himself into a crime-fighting girl. Yes, you read that correctly. When Guy says the magic words – “You go girl!” – he becomes SheZow, wearing a purple skirt and cape, as well as pink gloves and white boots.

At this rate, in two more generations, the great societal problem won't be that men are on marriage strike, but rather that large numbers of young men and women have no idea what sexual roles are or how to even go about reproducing in the first place.  It would be hard to design a better system for interfering with normal psychosexual development than the present one designed by and for sexual freaks.

Alpha != winner

It should always be kept in mind that success with women is not necessarily synonymous with success in all aspects of life:

A drunken driver was having sex when he lost control of his car Monday night and crashed the vehicle, ejecting his naked female companion onto a New Mexico roadway, police report.

According to cops, Luis Briones, 25, ran a red light and slammed his Ford Explorer into another car on an Albuquerque street. The impact of the collision forced Natasha Carroll, 21, from Briones’s SUV. With a bloodied Carroll lying in the road, Briones got back into his vehicle and attempted to flee the accident scene, witnesses told Albuquerque Police Department officers. After one witness confiscated his keys, Briones “then jumped into a bush, landing and attempting to hide in a cactus.”

Carroll suffered facial lacerations in the crash and was transported to an area hospital, where she was reported to be in stable condition. The plastered Briones, cops reported, reeked of booze and was extremely belligerent post-arrest. He allegedly spit on officers, threatened them, and “refused to keep his pants on.”

This is why it is necessary to differentiate between the sexually dominant and the socially dominant.  Getting a 21 year-old woman to have sex with you while you are driving is pretty dominant.  Trying to hide in a cactus and refusing to keep your pants on, not so much.

All that story needs to make it perfect, in my opinion, is to learn that it was a first date....

A feminist success story

Sure, she died alone, an evolutionary dead end, unlamented and unnoticed under her Che Guevara posters, but the important thing is that she had a Masters degree, she blazed a trail for thousands of childless American spinsters who will die similarly alone, and most importantly, she even managed to avoid being devoured by cats.

Barbara Salinas-Norman was a Chicana activist, a bilingual teacher, an author, a publisher and an artist. She was “intelligent,” “inspiring,” a “trailblazer.” But her life had begun to unravel, and this once well-connected woman apparently died alone in her Santa Fe home, where her body lay undiscovered for several months behind an unlocked door. Her decomposed remains were found Monday at the Zia Vista Condominiums on Zia Road.  Police originally speculated that Salinas had been dead since October, but family and friends said Friday they thought the 70-year-old might have died long before that — a year or more ago. 

Salinas’ body was discovered by her brother-in-law, Louis Ponce, who said Friday that he had become concerned about her because he hadn’t heard from her for a long time....  On Monday, the couple drove to Santa Fe to check on Salinas at Zia Vista and found her body lying in a filthy living room. She was lying near a favorite poster, a takeoff on Rosie the Riveter. This version shows Rosie as a skeleton, with a red cloth on her head and her arm raised in a fist under the caption, “Sí, Se Muere!” Yes, we die....

Though she was troubled, Trujillo said, “she was very intelligent,” and they became friends. Sometimes they went to the movies. Salinas was especially fond of the movie Eat Pray Love and its star, Javier Bardem. “She was so passionate about the movie. That was her dream story,” Trujillo said. 

Shed no tears for Ms Salinas-Norman.  Her dream was to divorce her husband and she lived the dream, not once, but twice!  Sic semper feminnis....

Oh sweet Oprah

We're not just talking a lack of Game here on McRapey's part, we're talking national class anti-Game:



Clearly the pick-up artists are going about it all wrong. If you want to score with a woman, it only makes sense that your best move must be to sit around, look inoffensive, and hope that some high-T manjaw with furry arms will ask you to dance. Also, rocking a sweet sweater like that can only boost your odds. Notice how quick he is to show off his ring and to mention his wife's name. (Subtext: she's a real live woman, honest! I didn't build her in my basement or anything!) This is not exactly behavior indicative of a man accustomed to female attraction.

It's telling that a man so openly opposed to the simple concept of a socio-sexual hierarchy would have previously been opposed to the idea of The Rules. I don't know what the actual Rules are, but the distaste for them makes it apparent that what we see here is the Gamma's female-wired, narcissistic mind at work. One might understandably be in denial about the concept of the hierarchy due to distaste for one's low place in it. But to object to The Rules as well tends to indicate an intrinsically effeminate view of oneself as a Unique and Special Snowflake.

It is trivially true that every couple has to come up with their own rules that suit both parties. That's simply a practical reality. But such a step can only come well AFTER the fact and is irrelevant with regards to attracting or successfully navigating the first relationship steps with the opposite sex. And to deny that both sets of rules, relationship and pre-relationship, will necessarily be based on some sort of common male-female relations template, the formulation of which is the result of observing human behavioral patterns, is indicative of the conventional Gamma male reality warping.

Alpha Mail: Hamsters and hair length

The fact that more than two years later, women with short hair are still stumbling upon and having conniptions about the post entitled Women: don't cut your damn hair is not only amusing, but underlines the truth of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: "The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."

Their vanity and self-delusion is such that not only does the mere observation that they are intentionally making themselves look less attractive to men upset them, but causes them to throw all of their long-haired sisters under the bus without hesitation.

Consider the following examples:

Women not doing everything they can to please your sense of what is aesthetically pleasing? Oh poo, what woman would be so foolish to do something for themselves? WHY CAN'T WOMEN JUST ALL LOOK THE WAY I FIND THEM ATTRACTIVE. No one gives a shit about your opinion you sexist shit.

Which, of course, is why she's upset by it.  Because she doesn't care. She is missing the salient point, which doesn't concern my sense of what is aesthetically pleasing, but rather, the fact that I happen to share a sense of what is aesthetically pleasing with the vast majority of men.

Haha you guys are so pathetic. I have alternated between long and short hair and while I get more attention with long hair, I tend to get more quality guys with the short. Why? Probably because I'm confident and show that I don't give a fuck what people think.

Of course, when you're dating breathing fuckdolls with nothing else to offer then I can see why it would be such a big deal for you! Oh wait I forgot you're a bunch of virgins :-\

Also, any women who think they need to have long hair to find a man is equally pathetic. Think for yourselves for once! 

This is female illogic at its acidic best. She presents the illusion of dialectic in appealing to her own experience, but then waxes purely rhetorical in her attack on men and women alike. And keep in mind, this vituperation is all in defense of the perceived attractiveness of her hair length!  When it comes to her perception of her own sexual value, there is no conflict too small to justify a woman going full wasp-defending-the-nest mode in an attempt to maintain her self-justifying delusions

This woman doesn't even bother with any pretense at reason:

To all the men that equate women's attractiveness by how long hair is - you are saddos. No doubt you're all sitting in the spare bedroom of your mother's house, typing away with your sad little lives on your computers, belittling women inbetween wanking away to internet porn because you can't actually get any real sex from a real woman. And why can't you get any real sex? You're sad misogyists. Women pity you. But not really (hehe). Have fun getting rickets boys. You deserve them.

In other words, she asserts that men who dare to so much as have a preference concerning what they happen to find attractive are saddos who hate women and can't get sex from them. Fascinating. But at least she is honest and admits that when women claim to "pity" someone, they really don't.

And here is another shining example of female logic:

Hey asshole, here's a reason why women cut their hair short; because you, and men like you, are not the end all arbiters of what is attractive on a women, nor are your opinions the sun that our world revolves around.

So, such women care so little about men's opinions that they are driven to do the precise opposite of what is indicated by those opinions.  Right.

This woman, on the other hand, admits to what most men instinctively grasp is true: a woman who chops her hair off is intentionally, for one reason or another, attempting to make herself look less attractive to the opposite sex:

Personally, I have seriously considered cutting my hair off(as in really short-pixie cut) precisely because, like some before me have said, it lowers or even completely wipes away "attractiveness". One thing is for sure: it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to objectify a short-haired woman(unless she has a freakishly sexy, hour-glass figure,and shows it off, like Marilyn Monroe did) . Short hair basically makes your face, your features stand out and forces people to look you in the eyes, treat you as a person. Plus, from a strictly aesthetic point of view, you can still look gorgeous, like Halle Berry or Charlize Theron have proven, times and again.

It is true that Halle Berry and Charlize Theron are attractive with short hair. But what so many women fail to realize is that they are attractive IN SPITE of their short hair, and that they are even more attractive with long hair.  And also, they are failing to take into account that very, very few women are as attractive as these two women who are very wealthy due to their exceptional genetic gifts.

However, without question the most amusing response has been from women who are so willfully perverse and self-defeating, and care so little about my opinion, that no less than four of them declared they were cutting off their hair in response to my post. To which news I can only respond: do you know what men REALLY find unattractive? Shaving your head and having a giant spider tattooed on the top of your naked scalp! And don't you dare send me the pictures afterwards either!

Taking WRE too far

The fact that a television show is reaching the end of its run is no reason to turn it into a mockery of its former self:

Top Gear is an institution (not to mention an enormous golden goose for the BBC), but it is on the wane. The jokes aren’t as funny, the specials not as special. Most years the programme at least manages to provoke a decent outrage: damaging a salt pan, or insulting the Germans, or Muslims, or the disabled. Not this time. Viewers are deserting. Even the online commenters – perhaps the most devoted mob on the internet – are grumbling. Something has to change, but what?  Most obviously, it needs a new presenter. A woman, perhaps?

I'm sure that would work brilliantly. Did you ever notice that shows oriented towards men always seem to require female presenters, and yet one very seldom sees a male presenter replace a female one. I don't recall any male names being bandied about for The View lately.

What would a female version of Top Gear look like anyhow?

Science destroys itself

And scientists wonder why the public has so little confidence in them and their magic process:

Whether you adore Lena Dunham or think she's overrated, one thing seems to be in consensus: She's not drop dead gorgeous. She made a hit TV show about being average ("real"), she's constantly scrutinized for wearing not enough or nothing at all, and always has to address her looks on top of her talents.

But is Dunham really all that average, or even bad looking? Not according to science.

Beauty, it so happens, is not just a matter of personal taste but rather a matter of measurements, geometry and calculations -- all the stuff you loved in 8th grade math. That science says that Dunham is just like the rest of those Hollywood exquisites, if not even more attractive (gasp). Yes, the frequently body-shamed "Girls" maverick is scientifically better looking than "conventional" beauties Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lopez, Taylor Swift, Kim Kardashian, Jessica Chastain, and even Jessica Biel. 

Look, it's really not that hard.  If your hypothesis results in the conclusion that Lena Dunham is more objectively beautiful than Jessica Biel, that is not evidence that society's standards of beauty are somehow incorrect or require modification, it is evidence that YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS INCORRECT!

An outrage in Britain

How can this outrage be allowed to stand when everyone knows women simply do not lie about rape?

A compulsive liar has been jailed for 16 months after falsely claiming she had been raped 11 times in nine years.  Elizabeth Jones, 22, made her first fabricated allegation to police in 2004 when she was aged just 13, Southampton Crown Court was told.  Police said that the young woman had accused at least one individual just because she did not like them anymore, putting innocent men through a 'terrible emotional experience'.

Jones' latest victim was arrested and quizzed for nine hours before being released without charge because CCTV footage disproved her claims she was forcibly taken to a property and raped. They had an argument and she was angry with him, so decided to make her eleventh fabricated allegation of rape, police said.

The frustrating thing is that the police are further victimizing an innocent woman when she has already been raped 11 times, and when it is a well-known fact that eleventy-six million women are raped every minute around the world.  Why don't the police do something about stopping all those rapes instead of arrest-raping this poor woman?

The gamma's gambit

I've mentioned before that the gamma doesn't understand what is going on around him or the consequences of his actions.  That's precisely what we see in John "I'm a Rapist" Scalzi's response to the adorable and supposedly enjoyable attention being paid to him:

Here’s what I’m going to do: From now until the end of 2013 (and backdating to January 1st) when the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question posts an entry on his site in which he uses my name (or one of his adorable nicknames for me), I’m going to put $5 into a pot. At the end of the year, I’m going to tally it up. All the money, up to $1,000, will be donated equally to the following organizations:

*RAINN

*Emily’s List

*Human Rights Campaign

*NAACP

Now, what this means is that, since I don’t want to have to read the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit’s site, I’ll need someone to  monitor the dude’s site, and keep a spreadsheet for me. So I’m calling for volunteers. I will compensate you with signed first editions of The Human Division and The Mallet of Loving Correction when they come out, plus I’ll donate $250 in your name to go into the pot (on top of the up to $1,000 I will donate) to be disbursed to the organizations above. Email me with your interest.

As noted above, I’m backdating this to the first of the year, so the Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit in question has already caused money to go to each of these organizations. Well done him! I am sure he’s delighted to be helping to advance the causes of equality for women, gays and people of color, as well as funding an organization dedicated to helping those victimized by sexual assault. And each time he posts an entry that invokes me, one way or another, that’s another fiver into the pot. That’s 200 opportunities this year for him to prompt a contribution! I hope he takes advantage of all of them.

Now, I'm quite happy to help the poor gay little black girls to the contents of Mr. Scalzi's wallet and thereby do my own little bit for charity.  I certainly wouldn't want them to lose out on ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS by failing to play my part.  But that's of little import, what is much more interesting is the way that this latest gambit further illustrates what I've been saying about how the gamma handles conflict.

First, note that he refers to the situation as a "problem".  This is directly contrary to the stance he has publicly been taking until now, which was the unconvincing pretense that he was enjoying the conflict.  This is good, in that it shows he knows he cannot credibly continue to hide behind a facade of feigned pleasure, unfortunately, he still isn't willing to admit the extent to which his pride and his sensitivities have been wounded, much less how he is in over his head.  He hasn't been able to fully take the first step, but his foot is in motion and that is a nominally positive development.

Second, he has finally begun to grasp that he is powerless and that his actions mean nothing to me.  "Whether I ignore him or not doesn’t matter, so fine. I might as well get something productive out of it."  This, too, is indicative of a degree of progress in escaping his self-constructed alternate reality.  Remember, the opinion of others matters greatly to the gamma.  They find it hard, very hard, to imagine that the same is not necessarily true of those higher in the hierarchy.  John might still think I'm crazy to be so indifferent to the opinion of a whole hopping host of rabbits, but crazy or not, he is finally beginning to understand that this is, in fact, the case.

Third, he is still clinging to some illusions.  As NateM said: "He REALLY doesn't get you..."  The gamma never understands the ALPHA.  John has begun to grasp that his actions mean nothing to me, but he hasn't fully accepted that they truly mean nothing to me.  He can donate all of the royalties he received from his books in 2012 to those four charities or go off and fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan; it makes absolutely no difference to me.

Fourth, he's still not being entirely honest.  Does anyone believe that he truly hopes I take advantage of all 200 of them?  Does anyone believe this will be the last time we see any reference, however veiled, to the adorable RSHD?

Fifth, he's also still fighting in that inimitable passive-aggressive gamma style.  This is the appeal to the crowd.  "Look what a good person I am!  Isn't it terrible that he keeps hitting me?  Won't you please take my side?"  The rush of his fellow rabbits to affirm his goodness and what they mistakenly see as the brilliance of his gambit obscures, for the moment, that all he has managed to do is insure that they are out a collective $30,000$40,000 in 2013.  Remember, the gamma is reliably self-defeating.  Come on, rabbits, do I hear 50?  Hop to it!

Lest you be confused as to the real purpose, consider the following comment, which explains why the rabbits think their Chief Rabbit's latest hop is a brilliant one: "Yeah, that’s kinda the whole point of this subversive little enterprise. It works like the bumper stickers that announce plans to eat two animals for ever one animal veggies don’t. It gives the RSHD the power to stop tens of thousands of dollars in donations to causes to which he objects, and all he has to do is show restraint. If he doesn’t, it demonstrates that he cares more about blowing hot air than about his supposed principles."

It's all about the appeal to the audience with rabbits.  It always is.

Sixth, those who have suggested that I respond in some similar manner have demonstrated their own inability to understand the socio-sexual dynamics here.  Why would I respond to something so ludicrously irrelevant?  Does anyone really believe that a $10 million donation to the NRA would bother Mr. "I am a rapist" one-ten millionth as much the knowledge that he has been quoted, again, by me and others around the Internet?  The ALPHA response to someone saying "go ahead, punch me again, I dare you" is to call the bluff and punch him again.

Seventh, I have absolutely no doubt that wallowing in the warmth and welcome reassurance of the warren is much more fun for the gamma than the Super Bowl. 

Eighth, lest you have any doubt whatsoever of my identification of the Chief Rabbit as a gamma, consider this comment: "It seems to me that John’s new approach is a really astute response to this particular instance of bullying because it changes the frame. Ignoring the bully gives him free rein and has caused him to escalate. Trying to argue or justify yourself in the face of deliberate malice is obviously counter-productive. But raising money off the bully’s comments changes the game entirely."

That's right.  I'm not a critic.  It's not a serious matter of genuine ideological disagreement.  It's just simple bullying... which is an interesting admission of the perceived power dynamic here.

And finally, there is this: "And if this idea of yours of turning the RSHD’s insane vendetta into support for causes he hates doesn’t make his head explode, I don’t know what will!"

This reminds me of the Far Side cartoon.  Same planet, different worlds.  Suffice it to say, my head is not exploding.  It is merely shaking slowly, from side to side, in awe, at the comedy that is Man.

By the time this ends, presumably sometime around the year 2021, I expect the rabbits will be offering money directly to me as tribute.  Isn't it remarkable the lengths to which a gamma will go in his desperation to avoid the risk of being beaten in a fair fight in front of everyone?

Banning Matt aka King A

Since Matt simply doesn't understand that merely disagreeing with someone and attacking them is not tantamount to heterotopic discourse and refuses to abide by the guidelines I laid down for him, he has been banned.

I gave him multiple chances.  Four on the previous post alone.  He demonstrated that he is completely unwilling to abide by the principles of modern discourse as listed in the previous post, but insisted upon ignoring the topics at hand and showed that he was only interested in discussing my motivations, my character, how I might compare to others, (including himself), and so on.

Note the very first point in the modern discourse list: "personal detachment from the issues under discussion".  Matt is an observably postmodern rabbit, even though he attempts to appeal to modern values.  This, as I will explain in a future post, is quite common among high-functioning rabbits.

In his final comment, Matt brought up what a "Master Rhetorician" would do instead of banning him, thereby indicating that he simply does not understand that the purpose of dialectical discourse is not to demonstrate an ability to engage in superior rhetoric.  While I am interested in teaching people how to successfully engage the Rabbit People in a language they can understand, I have zero interest in putting up with someone who simply cannot rise above the rhetorical level whenever he disagrees with me or anyone else. And while I can engage in a rhetorical hopping match with him, I have even less interest in doing that.

This is especially true when I have seen his behavior on Dalrock's Rollo's, and Roissy's blog has been very similar to his behavior here.  They can tolerate him if they like, I will no longer do so.  Matt wants to be a chief rabbit, his problem is that he doesn't understand that most Game blogs are not run by Rabbit People.

Being limited to the rhetorical level, Matt does not understand that heterotopic and dialectical discourse does not rely upon permitting everyone to say whatever they want to say at all times.  Nor does he grasp that refusing to let someone repeatedly attempt to monopolize the comment section does not amount to being sensitivity-driven.  He is not being banned for his ideas or his differences of opinion or even for any subjective opinion of his behavior, but for his repeated refusal to participate in modern, heterotopic, and dialectical discourse.

For example, Matt added three more comments after the four for which he was banned.  Here is his idea of "heterotopic" discourse:

Who are these stuffed animals with which you word-joust? What kind of ciphers "lower their eyes" when some puffed-up prig makes mention of Mensa? No wonder you are so out of practice. You choose your opponents carefully and pretend the rest of us don't exist.

Erase me. Does it give you a little tingle thrill to exert such pretend power?

That's it. Yeahh. Nobody will ever know I can't manage even a mediocre comment section. On to the next "postmodern" self-flattery...

Notice here three of the distinguishing features of a rabbit.  He simply can't imagine that everything isn't about him.  More importantly he can't imagine someone taking an action that isn't rooted in how it will look to others.  And while his words superficially appear to make sense, they are fundamentally nonsensical; how could publicly announcing my actions possibly hide them from everyone knowing what they are?  Why would I pretend to "postmodern" self-flattery when it is his postmodern form of discourse that I disdain?

Where are the womyn of Middle Earth?

This critic of Peter Jackson's version of The Hobbit doesn't appear to have read the books as an adult either:

I did not read The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a child, and I have always felt a bit alienated from the fandom surrounding them. Now I think I know why: Tolkien seems to have wiped women off the face of Middle-earth. I suppose it’s understandable that a story in which the primary activity seems to be chopping off each other’s body parts for no particular reason might be a little heavy on male characters — although it’s not as though Tolkien had to hew to historical accuracy when he created his fantastical world. The problem is one of biological accuracy. Tolkien’s characters defy the basics of reproduction: dwarf fathers beget dwarf sons, hobbit uncles pass rings down to hobbit nephews. If there are any mothers or daughters, aunts or nieces, they make no appearances. Trolls and orcs especially seem to rely on asexual reproduction, breeding whole male populations, which of course come in handy when amassing an army to attack the dwarves and elves.

Perhaps for her next trick, Miz Konigsberg can lament the lack of women in movies based on the Apollo program, the medieval Papacy, and the National Football League.  Personally, I think it is absolutely obnoxious that Jackson, or more accurately, his female co-writer, dared to create characters, male or female, who don't exist in the books.

She doesn't even appear to have seen Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, or she might have noticed Aragorn marrying Arwen, Eowyn pairing up with Faramir, and Samwise marrying Rosey.

The feminist fear of competition

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services.  Moreover, it is proof that their "pursuit for gender equality" is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom.

Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit.  But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Imagine the feminist outrage if men decided to follow their example and outlaw vibrators due their negative impact on the pursuit for gender equality and the way they tend to objectify men as sexual objects....  And if they're afraid of sexbots, just wait until artificial wombs become a reality, as they almost certainly will in time.

One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective.  That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex.  As is often the case, the short-sighted advocates of "progress" have completely failed to foresee the logical, indeed, the inevitable, consequences.

UPDATE: Those who are pointing out that "the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act" isn't presently a prospective law before the Canadian parliament are completely missing the point.  It is obvious it isn't "real"; the Canadian government no more has a Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence than the Obama administration is really building a Death Star with his campaign logo in the bowl.  It does, however, have a "Minister of State (Status of Women)"; thus showing it's not quite as far off-base as one might wish.

But there was a time, only a few months ago, when VAWA was a real law and was actually in effect for 18 years.  As crazy as it sounds, an eventual debate on the legality of sexbots for male use is almost inevitable, because there is nothing too nonsensical to be utilized in defense of the female imperative.  Sexbots strike at the very heart of the female imperative; it is not an accident that the subject is beginning to arise now, even if only in a theoretical manner.

Indeed, the very fact that the fictitious ban proposed was related to nonexistent sexbots not being used by men rather than real vibrators actually being used by women alone suffices to highlight the relevant point here.  The interesting aspect isn't the fact or fiction of the proposed law, but rather, the basis of the reasoning being used to hypothetically justify it.

A portrait in Alpha

To say nothing of some exquisitely dreadful dialogue.  Frankly, I don't know how the producers of the 50 Shades of Gray movie have any choice but fire whomever they hired to play the male lead and go with Charles Dance instead.


It's that "Well, I did," that gets me every time.

This is sexy

If you are a young man seeking to understand why women don't find you as sexually appealing as you would like to be, keep in mind that the image below presently represents the ultimate in sex appeal to young women:

This is the ultimate hotness.  This is to what, if you decide to focus your efforts on maximizing your appeal to the fair sex, you must aspire.  So start working on those stupid tattoos, that incipient gut, and that soft-bodied, marshmallow physique, and don't forget the trendy hairstyle to match the sullen pout!

It is not, I admit, what most young women will tell you is of particular appeal to them when asked.  They'll usually say something about a sense of humor, about chivalrous behavior, and about being a gentleman.  But actions speak louder than words.  This is what makes them scream.  This is what makes them wet.  This is what women under the age of 25 dream of penetrating them; this is what they fantasize about.

And yet, you worry that being a jerk will turn them off?  You fear that focusing on your mission and not giving a damn what anyone thinks will leave you loveless and alone?  My young friend, the evidence suggests your concerns are not only misplaced, but wildly, even ludicrously, incorrect.

If you're asking, you don't have it

I am often quite harsh on the clueless deltas and gammas of the world.  It's often hard to believe that they are truly as stupid and inobservant as their behavior indicates them to be.  But, when we look at the other side of it and view the way in which the female hamster runs amok whenever she's dealing with a man of higher SMV, it becomes rapidly apparent that the inability to think straight affects both men and women when they find themselves in potentially sexual relationships with individuals whose SMV sufficiently exceeds theirs.

We started dating when I was 19. This was the second guy I ever kissed. Aside from all the emotional stuff that went on, the physical stuff (sort of sex?) was…Really Good. Ok, so I pretty much went from 0 to 500 in this relationship, and have no real basis of comparison, but as far as I can tell, sex type stuff was really good for both of us. Emotionally: good to ok to godawful. Chemistry: through the roof....

The guy is a starving musician trying to make it big and currently has a harem of six, not counting the ONS. She asked me to play nice. So, Monday, we were all in the same place at the same time. I’m so much on edge that I can barely think straight, but I did my best to be friendly. Boy tries to give me (and assorted other female types) a hug before he goes; I take a step back. Boy asked if he could call me to get a cup of coffee next time he’s in town.  I said: ok.

I called later that night because I wanted to understand what his intentions were.

"I called later that night...." That says it all right there.  No matter how much information the individual with the short end of the stick has, they always seek more.  Why?  Because they need more in order to rationalize away the information they already have!  If you're seeking for "clarification" or trying to "understand" or think that a "conversation" is needed, congratulations.  You're the one without hand.

This is why it is a total waste of time to attempt talking anyone out of a situation where they are being used/abused by an individual of higher SMV.  They already know the situation, they just don't want to accept it.  Of course, if you're the higher SMV individual, this shows the correct way to keep a lower SMV chewtoy on the string: just throw them something with which to rationalize every so often.

Do that and it doesn't matter what you do the rest of the time.  The rationalization hamster will take it from there.

But N doesn't matter!

I could be wrong, but I am of the opinion that most women understand a past in professional pornography is unlikely to be considered a marital plus, as is the case in this unfortunate case of belated disclosure:

My wife and I have been married for five years. I recently discovered that she made between 10 and 20 porn videos when she was 19. We got married when she was 27. We have four kids from two previous marriages. I am devastated. When I confronted her about it, she cried harder than I had ever seen. She said she was lost, and it's the biggest regret of her entire life.

Apparently she was either caught off-guard or wasn't quick enough to turn the situation around and make it all his fault for watching porn.  But consider that we're probably talking an N of somewhere between 10 and 50 on the basis of the professional activity alone.  For the sake of argument, we'll settle on 30.

If women are capable of grasping that it is extremely distasteful for a man to marry a woman with an N of 30 on the basis of her career in film, then why is it difficult for some of them to understand that providing the same sexual services free of charge is not any more acceptable to men, regardless of whether or not there were cameras involved?

A basic rule of film-making is that the monster is always more frightening when it isn't shown.  So, the idea that the pornographic past is intrinsically worse than an equally high amateur N is dubious.  After all, what's worse.  A woman telling you that she did it for the money, or because she simply wanted to.  And who is more likely to be unfaithful, the woman who historically puts out for cash or the woman who historically puts out because she just feels like it?

Love and shallowness

A commenter at HUS was lamenting the lack of male interest in women's deeper qualities and blaming female shallowness on this when I pointed out that lack of interest was actually a good thing because most women are shallow.  This didn't go over so well.

VD, it’s men like you who make me throw up. Thanks.  I totally understand feminists now. Why chase after men? Maybe you’ll be lucky and find a guy like Joe who will stay with you through thick/thin, but most men are like VD, who say, ” oh, you can read Dante while getting you hair done.”

Why thank you, I’m so honored. All I wanted in life was to be a pretty ornament hung up in someone’s kitchen. Forget men, hopefully I’ll make enough in my life to buy some vibrators/dildos because, really, what are men these days?

I can’t believe that I hoped for something more, depth, style, substance or compatibility. I can’t believe I used to put love on a pedestal as something beautiful that just happens, or believe that relationships included two people who deeply trusted in each other, who swore to be together through whatever problems may come.

I wasted all my childhood reading “Dover Beach” and Phillip Pullman’s “His dark Materials”. Love isn’t real. Life is shallow and really what’s the point of this site? this conversation? this blog? Why do we care if the world denigrates into meaningless hookups? There is nothing more.

However, there is no reason anyone should believe there is an intrinsic difference between a man who cares for his ailing wife and a man who isn't concerned about his wife's lack of interest in reading La Commedia in the Florentine vulgar.  If she prefers Sudoku, where is the problem in that?  (Now Farmville over B3, that's what I'll never understand.)  After all, for all we know, the ailing wife is a devotee of Hee-Haw re-runs while her husband, when he is not occupied with his care duties, translates Shakespeare into ancient Sumerian.  

Part of this woman's essential problem is revealed by her childhood reading. Those whose childhood foundation was more Pullman than Lewis are intellectually poisoned.  In this case, the resulting perspective is downright monstrous; I have far more contempt for this female mentality than for the shallowest smiling bubblehead out there.  She is observably an angry elitist who is furious at the world for valuing what it values rather than what she has to offer it.  The monstrosity stems from her implicit denial of the possibility that shallow people of either sex, who happen to make up most of the world, are deserving of love.  And yet, despite her cruel elitism, we can see that she simply has no clue about love or what it is.

Love doesn’t “just happen”. That is infatuation. Love is commitment. Love is a choice. Love is one sacrifice voluntarily offered after another, for years on end. But those who are full of pride, anger, and bitterness cannot be expected to have any idea what love is.

Aristophanes wrote fiction

It is simply incredible how often women refer to Lysistrata as if it is actual Greek history, rather than something more akin to the Wonder Woman comic from Marvel.  It's as if men were to seriously argue that the legal system should be modified according to criminal justice in Star Trek:

Most of the women I spoke to have resigned themselves to the fact that the hook-up culture is here to stay. They don't see the social and cultural landscape of college campuses changing anytime soon.

One friend tells me that the girls on campus would prefer a culture of dating to one of hooking up, but they would never admit it or ask for it. If girls demanded dating before hooking up, guys would be unmoved, she explained. "There are always going to be other girls for them to hook up with so we'll just get left behind."

These women are looking at the problem the wrong way, I think. They need to realize that, in spite of campus sex ratios and prevailing cultural trends, they hold the power when it comes to the hook up culture. They hold the power when it comes to sex.

This was the insight of Lysistrata, the shrewd heroine of Aristophanes' marvelous play by the same name. Lysistrata was able to diagnose a problem in her society and to take actions and overcome obstacles to solve it.

In the heat of the Peloponnesian War, Lysistrata gathered the women of various Greek city-states at a meeting and proposed that they withhold sex from their husbands until these men end the war. The women, though reluctant at first, agree. Throughout the play, though they desire sex just like the men do, they resist the temptation to break their oath with Lysistrata. The Athenian and Spartan men eventually become so desperate for sex that they begin peace talks. The women's strategy works.

Lysistrata, a tough and independent woman, understood how the sexual marketplace works, and harnessed that knowledge to get what she wanted. Many men want sex with women. As Lysistrata knew, women have the power to say yes—or no (assuming men respect their wishes, of course. There are far too many examples of times men disregard women's "no"s). They set and execute the terms to which the men surrender.

Just to be clear, the Peloponnesian War didn't end with peace talks between Athenian and Spartan men brought about by a sex strike.  One would have to be astonishingly ignorant of Greek culture to imagine that a sex strike by women could have brought the ephebophiles of either Athens or Sparta to its knees.  The war actually ended following a long siege of Athens by Sparta, which ended with Athens having its walls torn down, its navy destroyed, and its empire dismantled.

Ironically, Lysistrata was published only two years after the loss of thirty thousand sailors and ten thousand hoplites at Syracuse, which was the real cause of the Athenian defeat.

As for the hookup culture, feminists are entirely to blame.  The excess supply of women on college campuses and the corresponding increase in male value is a direct and obvious consequence of the decades-long campaign to encourage more women to pursue academic credentials.  Game theory, economics, and cartel history all suffice to explain that although women collectively hold the power when it comes to sex, individual women will never refrain from making themselves sexually available to men in female-majority scenarios.