Monday, September 15, 2014

Even the comics

Having successfully taken over SF/F and set their targets on electronic gaming, it appears the feminist Social Justice Warriors have already conquered Comic Land:
Readers might be able to deal with Spider-Man repeatedly getting saved by a brand new hero in his own book if, as Peter Parker, there were sufficient character development. One would think that the six months after Peter Parker essentially returned from the dead would warrant considerable time for soul-searching introspection between action sequences. Instead, Peter Parker goes about his life as if nothing of much significance has happened; he has an “I sorta-kinda died — moving on,” mentality. Meanwhile, Silk comes to his aid, Black Cat embarrasses him, and Anna Maria Marconi runs his company.
Hey, what young nerd doesn't want to read all about The Sensational Silk and her strong, independent womanhood? It's not like he could be expected to identify with Peter Parker, after all.

The fact that the SJWs are gunning for the comics proves that they will leave no male bastion untouched.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

White women prefer white men

Contra Whiskey, the incessant barrage of multiracial advertising, and Mandingo porn fetishists, the objective statistics demonstrate that Asians, Whites, and Latinos are actually becoming less inclined towards mudsharking and coalburning. In 2014, the cumulative OK Cupid average for non-black men rating black women was -18.3 percent compared to +10.3 for members of their own race, while for women it was -17 percent for black men compared to +20.3 for men of their own race.

This increased preference for one's own race is up from +9 and +12.6 in 2009. The reason for the myth of white women preferring black men stems in part from the media propaganda, and from the fact that both male and female whites are less strongly anti-black than Asians and Latinos. So much for the idea of immigration improving race relations.

Interestingly enough, the strongest negative preference measured in the last five years is Asian men rating Black women in 2011 (-30) and Asian women rating Black men in 2014 (-27). The strongest positive preference is Asian women rating White men in 2011 (+25, although only one point above White women rating White men at +24), which ties with Asian men rating Asian women (+25).

It would appear that the more the media throws interracial couples in the public's face, the less the public likes the look of the concept. And it has really risen to a fever pitch in recent months; last night I saw two fictional "white man black wife" couples in advertisements in succession, which in real life is only marginally more statistically common than "leprechaun man unicorn wife" marriages.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Never trust a word they say

At least, not about what they sexually prefer:
A new study says women prefer men with big bellies.

Three out of four women say they'd rather have a man with love handles than a six pack. Almost 100 percent of the women surveyed said men with beer bellies have better personalities than those with a good body.

They also say guys in shape prioritize the gym over spending quality time with their significant others.
Yes, this is precisely why most female-oriented erotica features men with beer bellies on the cover rather than ripped abdominals.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Alpha Mail: the noblest of intentions

 A recovering Gamma attempts to explain why Gamma males always insist that women really, truly, and secretly want nice Gamma males:
After watching a low-Delta/Gamma say that no woman likes a jerk, and another co-worker pointing out that his son put a beating on his baby-mamma while pregnant, and she still can’t get enough of the tattooed meth user, and the Gamma just getting quiet and shaking his head, I got thinking about the denial of the Gamma that women can and do like men who treat them badly.

At first glance it would seem that a Gamma would readily agree that a lot or perhaps most women like “jerks” as it gets them off the hook, but not so. This all goes back to the Gamma wanting to avoid competition at all cost and always winning. By constantly inserting themselves into women’s lives as the “friend” and white-knighting they are able to always take the high road in their heads (We’ll leave out the part about it being a technique to try to actually snag a woman and the dishonesty of their real motives). If a woman rejects the advances of a friendly Gamma it’s not because the Gamma did anything wrong, but rather that the woman didn’t clearly see the Gamma’s wonderful traits. Even worse of course are those pesky dude-bros who “manipulate” women into liking them more than the Gamma. You see the Gamma always has the noblest of intentions with women and only ever loses because the other side cheats! That is why in their heads they could have had 5 different girlfriends last year if the playing field was level, but the cheaters deny them what is rightfully theirs.

Hence no girl in her secret of secret hearts that a Gamma always knows so well would ever truly want a man who treats her badly. Women always want nice guys, but somehow lose their agency as a person around dude-bros who use their awful manipulate power like Saruman or something to take away their free wills and blind them to the awesomeness of the Gamma!
It's really not that hard. What women say they like, what women think they want, and what women actually find sexually attractive are usually three different things. This shouldn't be that hard for men to understand, because what genuinely turns us on and what we want in an actual mate are often contradictory as well. If you are capable of understanding the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, you are capable of understanding the ALPHA/BETA dichotomy as well.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Alpha Mail: of fear and hierarchy

Johnny Caustic elucidates the connection between conflict-avoidance and socio-sexual status:
What this long discussion really boils down to is tolerance for (or liking for) conflict. Vox is very comfortable with conflict, downright enjoys it sometimes. You are less comfortable.

And women instantly know this about you when you say something like "I'm not interested in your opinion on that subject." That's why Stingray says, correctly, "Most women will smell your additional phrase for what it is. Fear."

So why do you say, "it has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with respect"? Because, like almost every man who isn't near the top of the sociosexual hierarchy (that's 99% of us), your behaviors that follow from that fear have become habit, and you've built up decades of justifications for them. So you don't notice the fear any more; you say it has "everything to do with respect."

Well, no it doesn't. Some of it is respect, but most of it is your aversion to conflict. You've repressed most of your knowledge of this fact. I know this because it's true of most men, including me.

I think that the single biggest (though not the only) determinant of our places in the sociosexual hierarchy is aversion to conflict. Alphas and sigmas have little aversion and often seek out conflict. (After a lifetime of this, they're pretty good at winning those conflicts too.) The rest of us have various degrees of fear, but we usually justify it to ourselves as being polite, respectful, "good men", etc. It's more comfortable to rationalize one's own behavior than seek a higher place in the hierarchy. But women aren't fooled; they read these signals instinctively and instantly know our places in the hierarchy. You aren't aware of the signal you're sending, but they sure are.

As an exercise, I would suggest you try saying things like "I am not interested in your opinion" and other "disrespectful" things that "may go a little too far." While you're doing it, pay attention to your emotions while you're saying it. It will open your eyes to what keeps deltas delta.
This relates directly to something I observed long before I first became aware of Game articulated as such. Men tend to worry about going too far in the direction they don't have to worry about. As a young man of high socio-sexual status, I often worried about the potential consequences of being too nice, which was of no little amusement to my friends who were accustomed to dealing with the aftereffects of my thoughtlessness and casual cruelty.

Meanwhile, one of my best friends, who is the sort of man who would be proud to labor seven years for the hand of a woman of whom he has only heard a description, constantly worried about whether he was being too hard on women by only laying down his coat over puddles rather than getting down in the mud and letting them actually tread upon his body. He would return from a trip with gifts, not only for his girlfriend, but for her siblings as well, then submit tamely to a tongue-lashing, apologize, and go buy a replacement if he happened to get a size wrong.

This sort of thing was a typical conversation between us:

Him: "So, do you think it would be too much if I ask her to pay me back for the first thing I bought her sister?"

Me: "The first thing? Wait, you bought a SECOND gift for her SISTER?"

Him: "Well, yeah, I had to since the size of the first one was wrong."

Me: "And let me guess, she ended up keeping the first one for herself."

Him: "Sure, because it fit her and I couldn't take it back anyhow."

Me: "Forget the money, I think you ought to just fuck her sister and move on."

So, based on your understanding of Game, guess which man was repeatedly trampled and treated badly by the women he dated. And guess which man was usually treated like a delicate piece of blown Venetian glass?

The more a woman understands you are fully prepared for conflict in the relationship, the less willing she is to initiate it with you. This doesn't mean you have to live on edge or be a preemptive jackass, only that when she decides to test your borders, you make it clear that you are entirely willing to defend them.

The advice of the Roman military strategist Vegetius is as sound for men in relationships as it is for nations: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

A useful phrase

Cailcorishev observes a link between Christian theology and the female predilection for control freakdom:
The traditional Christian viewpoint is that it's Original Sin. Eve violated her husband's headship by eating the apple without his permission and then encouraging him to follow her example, so her descendants are cursed with the temptation to commit the same sin. Ever seen a woman in a restaurant second-guessing her husband's order and commenting on how much salad dressing he uses? It's the apple all over again.
It is remarkable how hard many women find it to keep their mouths shut whenever someone is doing something in front of them. It doesn't matter what it is, the mere fact that a man is doing something is usually enough to inspire their mouths to shift into gear, regardless of whether they know anything about what he is doing or not.

There is one phrase, however, that enables a man to keep control of the situation in all circumstances. It's a reliable workhorse:

"I am not interested in your opinion."

This works whether she actually has a relevant comment or not. It's not defensive, it's not aggressive, it's not uncivil, it is just a very clear indication that the man has taken responsibility, he has the situation under control, and she should stop trying to intervene. It also doesn't give her any ammunition to argue the man's position, as she often will if he says "I know what I'm doing" or otherwise disagrees with her advice. If she doesn't get the message and tries to interject again anyhow, it can be repeated with a little more emphasis.

"What part of 'I am not interested in your opinion' did you not understand?"

This puts her back on the defensive, but makes it clear that it's her own fault. She was already informed to stay out of it, but she IS NOT LISTENING, which of course we all know is something that women consider to be A VERY BAD THING.

Rational argument in these situations serves no purpose whatsoever. I've seen women justify their criticism of men who point out they are doing exactly what the woman herself was doing in the same situation. Unless you're in the mood for hamster-wrestling, neutral resistance to her instinctive control freak tendencies.

The other tactic that can work, but is a bit more negative, is to turn and hand whatever you're doing to the woman and say: "if you want it done your way, then do it yourself." Then walk away and leave her to it. She'll be angry, but after a few instances of this, she'll learn to stop interfering unless she actually wants to be stuck with the task.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Ghosts of the Alpha Widow

Alpha Widowhood is a description of an observed behavior, not a cruel invention of the Game theoreticians meant to plague BETA husbands and give them sleepless nights:
Steve has been with me for the past 50 years and Ron for 47. Neither is the man I am married to, nor have I seen or spoken to either since our love affairs ended in my 20s. All the same, there is no denying they have both messed with my marriage to Olly, the man who has been by my side for the past 40 years.

I found myself thinking about them both as I read recent research that suggested women who played the field before marriage are unhappier with their lot than those who entered matrimony virginal.
Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

Angela Neustatter has often questioned what life would have been like had she married another man

My first reaction was: why on earth would that be? I have always believed a bit of experience, in both love and sex, to be an asset to understanding what we really want when selecting a partner for life.

Having no history to draw on — settling down with no idea what else the world has to offer — seems a recipe for disaster, not satisfaction.

And yet there is no denying that my past lovers have made their presence felt in my marriage — at times, even making me question my commitment....

[W]omen, far more than men, according to Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, Yale psychologist and author of Women Who Think Too Much, are likely to find themselves ruminating on how life might have panned out with the past loves that seemed so magical in their time. Whether the thrill might have endured and could have made for an infinitely more satisfying relationship than the one we have now.

These fantasies, as I see it, are like powerful ghosts, haunting the darker recesses of our psyche, ready to swoop in and cause trouble, when given the chance.

Certainly, my marriage became crowded with ghosts when, after my first decade with Olly, the little things that had once been no more than niggles began to take on greater significance.
Note that Alpha Widowhood is not primarily about sex, although that is where the ghosts of Alphas past are formed. Even after 40 years of marriage, the woman is still hooked on the memories of the two men in particular who made an impression on her sexual psyche; it's not even a little surprising that one of them dumped her because he found "fidelity too hard". She pines for that long-gone Alpha buzz.

And observe that it is obviously not male insecurity that is to blame when women are literally questioning their multi-decade commitments to their husbands due to their past sexual experience. The simple and observable fact is that sexual experienced women find it harder to bond to their husbands and to live up to their marital commitments. This doesn't mean it is impossible for them to do either, only that it is a material challenge that has to be recognized and surmounted by both parties, particularly the wife.

As for those who would prefer to remain in ignorance, recall that it is always considerably easier to surmount a challenge that one knows is there.