Problems with the Mainstream PUA Prescription

When a woman complains that there are no good men out there, my rebuttal is simply:

They are right in front of your face, but you refuse to see them.

In other words, there are legions of sexually invisible men that would long to be with a woman. This is proven by the hordes of "forever alone" men on the internet, and the extremely high male-to-female ratios on dating sites.

Women believe that most single men out there are just out for hanky-panky, but I dispute that. Is it really the case with most men? You see PUA forums chock full of guys who want to improve their game. But do they really want to bang one chick after another endlessly? I don't think so. I think most men just want a loving relationship with a woman.

In a way, I blame the PUA crowd for perpetuating this myth. PUAs, by and large, emphasize hookup and bedding a large number of women. Most men who try to do so fail miserably if they weren't already somewhat attractive. Bottom line, subtle sexual overtures just don't work if you're not considered attractive, end of story. Hitting on legions of women will simply end end in failure and further reinforce the myth that men just want sex.

This is part of why PUA forms a major component of the "Misandrist Dating Advice Distraction."

1. It blames men for their problems with dating.
2. It distracts male attention from pro-male causes and diverts it into female pussy-begging.
3. It reinforces the stereotype that men are desperate and just want sex through its prescription to hit on large numbers of women.

A recent BP post questions if non-misandrist dating advice can even exist in the current cultural climate. It's a good question, because all "advice" presumes that there is something wrong with you that needs to be fixed. What if the real problem is that womens' priorities are screwed up? Should you mold yourself to those screwed up priorities? In my opinion, hell no. Sex is not worth selling yourself out, violating ethical principles, or butchering your personality to the point of being unrecognizable.

Don't take this the wrong way. I believe that there are still a fair number of women out there with decent personalities and priorities. And people (both men and women) should always work on making themselves as attractive as possible. But beyond that, it gets very murky, and that's where a positive environment (read: shaming hypergamy/adultery) can make a huge difference.

Unnecessary Effort and Ways Around It

The Problem with PUA Advice is a good short series by blogger Advocatus Diaboli explaining how many of the teachings of PUA are logical-sounding but based on false premises. One of the main myths he tackles is this idea that women are a mystery sauce, and that you have to work hard on "self-improvement" to get them. This myth keeps getting proliferated by both mainstream "dating advice" people and PUAs. In reality, as long as you have a decent getup and aren't slovenly looking, flirting will get you decent results, but you have to flirt a lot. AD describes this as "putting in 23 hours of work for every hour of pussy you get."

AD believes this labor-intensive process is not necessary, or at least should not be relied on exclusively. His solution? If you have a middle-class income, you can consistently get better-looking girls for a lot less effort by simply paying for sex. It doesn't have to be that much, either- you can get creative with it, and AD has written a lot on just how you can do that.

PUAs seem to be obsessed with getting "free" women, but they are investing large amounts of time for fleeting pussy. It strikes me as a scam where men have to put in huge amounts of effort, and women get to pick and choose. AD's alternative sounds much better.

The Problem with PUA Advice Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Modern Marriage and the Dilemma Younger Men Face

As many of you know, marriage, in its modern form, is on the rocks. Fewer and fewer people are getting married, a trend that does not look to end soon. But what about people who want to get married? What about people who want to create a stable, healthy environment for raising children in?

It looks like those people are SOL. Feminists are clearly hellbent on eliminating (traditional, male-friendly) marriage; one even admitted as much to me. How does that work out in practice? Are they pushing to ban marriage? No. But they are forcing changes in the laws ("marriage reform") that make it increasingly unlikely for a marriage to remain stable, especially in the face of societal propaganda and social exposure (read: opportunities to cheat.)

You see, what feminists have claimed to be doing all along is ridding marriage law of the parts that inhibit a woman from leaving an abusive husband. Increasingly, though, their true colors are showing through. They're all but admitting that it's about making it as easy as possible for a woman to leave marriage, no matter what:

The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

In the vast majority of cases, it's the woman who wants out. And it's great for her, too: Presuming there is no abuse, she gets automatic child custody, which usually means that she gets the house. The ex-husband has to pay child support and alimony, among other things, all based on a decision that she makes.

This would be a great system if every husband was an abusive brute, or a loser who quit his job and cooped himself up all day playing video games. But that's far from the case. Evidence shows that women are divorcing because of vague feelings of unhappiness in otherwise functional relationships. This may not be the husband's fault at all (e.g. she may have come across a more attractive male) but it's still treated as his fault.

And this is where my critique of people like Athol Kay, Hawaiian Libertarian, and the like comes in. These people claim that you can use "game" to rescue a marriage that is on the rocks. The problem with this mentality is twofold: 1) It is not possible for every man to execute "game" properly, and 2) the incentives for female-initiated divorce continue to be enriched.

So while these guys may have had some success regaining attraction from their wives, who is to say they won't get burned in the long run anyways? Sure, if I were in a marriage and had everything to lose, I would definitely try to follow Kay's and HL's advice. But I don't think that game is enough to make marriage have a reasonable risk profile for men considering it. This is the message that the Black Pill has been trying to get across in his admittedly inflammatory posts,* and I think Ferdinand is smart enough to realize it as well.

You can see the dilemma us younger men face: We want to have a healthy, loving relationship down the road (I think even BP wants it, despite his claims to the contrary) but we're faced with an environment that threatens relationship stability across the board. We're faced with an environment of reduced male mating choice, making the relationships we do get into more dull and boring. We're faced with women who, on average, aren't working nearly as hard as they should be on making themselves attractive, and as a result just don't have the "spark" that they should. We're faced with societal propaganda that both encourages and  forgives female cheating and trading up, which most women have internalized.

What to do in reponse? That is one major question of this blog.


*I think BP takes it too far when he says that "game doesn't exist." But he has a point in that game is NOT enough to rely on in marriage, especially when huge amounts of financial resources are at stake.

Problems with the "Don't Generalize" Dogma

Say a man somehow manages to get out of a toxic relationship with a woman. This may be a sexless beta-orbiter type situation where he was subjected to emotional manipulation, or it may be something more serious like an acrimonious divorce. The man is aware that this particular woman is toxic, and should be avoided. Without any exterior guidance or warning, however, he is bound to get into a similar situation again. Why is this?

The oft-cited example is of men who are brutalized in divorce court, only to line right up for marriage again. Some of these men have multiple strings of child support and alimony obligations. Other less extreme examples include the eternally-clueless beta, who keeps getting "lets-just-be-friend"-ed over and over again, without learning. Heartiste recently had an admittedly good post on this very topic, attempting to distill why it occurs.

Of course, what Heartiste doesn't mention is how many "alphas" are caught up in the same type of thinking. I know of very few "alphas" who do not get into emotionally abusive relationships with women. The core problem seems to be a societal hegemony of the "don't generalize" dogma. How many times have you been shut down by the armies of "don't generalize" people, also known as the NAWALT people, both male and female, every time you mention harmful female tendencies?

It's a problem of frame. Of course one shouldn't assume that all women are abusive because one woman is abusive. But somehow this gets twisted into seeing every new woman as a blank slate, and not remembering  the warning signs from previous experiences. I think society encourages this unhealthy attitude, which is why you see men falling into the same traps over and over again. The whole "this time it's different" belief is a natural tendency in humans that needs to be fought, not encouraged.

Roissy/Heartiste blog

I tried to follow a link to Roissy's blog a few minutes ago, but Wordpress says that the authors have deleted the blog. Is this a fluke or for real?

Edit: He's at heartiste.wordpress.com

How to become more dominant and less controlling

I earlier talked about the difference between dominant and controlling behavior, and how people often misinterpret certain behaviors as "dominant" when in fact they come from a position of insecurity, or an attempt to desperately control things.

A person who is in control, knows he is in control. He doesn't need to nitpick, or micromanage. He doesn't react negatively to criticisms, or show anger easily. He doesn't show extreme emotions very easily, instead being somewhat cheery and light-hearted. Insecure people, on the other hand, need to constantly assert their authority and jockey for status. They respond very negatively to criticism, and are generally irritable. Extreme emotions are easy to read on them. At the core, these guys don't have their shit together.

Let's take a look at four insecure, or controlling behaviors that are fairly common:

• The need to constantly be in control of a conversation, talking over others.
• Visibly negative responses to any criticism whatsoever.
• The need to say "me too" all the time about things, instead of not giving a shit.
• The development of possessive oneitises.
  

The need to constantly be in control of a conversation, talking over others.
The first item is a common, and has a remarkable tendency to correlate with guys who lack dating success. Most of these guys are completely oblivious to what they are doing, but it's very off-putting. If people seem to respond strangely to you in social situations, check to see if you're letting them talk. Most people don't want to become friends with somebody who constantly needs to have the floor to himself. If you feel this doesn't describe you, then check to see if you do it in one-on-one conversations. You might be surprised at what you find.

How to solve this? Simply slow down and let the other person speak, but don't slow down so much that people think you're bored or uninterested. It takes some tweaking but eventually you'll get the hang of it.

If you have the opposite problem, and don't know when to speak, well, don't just sit there like a wallflower, interject every now and then. It's best to survey the conversation and see what you can talk about, if anything. I know I've been in many conversations where I know little about the topic at hand, and it can be difficult, so this is easier said than done. In fact I'm still not 100% sure of how to deal with it. It's a topic for a future post.

Visibly negative responses to any criticism whatsoever.
The second item is a common feature not only among men suffering from dating difficulties, but a good number of men today. The hallmark of a secure man is one who does not respond negatively to criticism. If the criticism is legitimate, he takes it to heart. OK, maybe his ego is bruised a bit, but he doesn't take it personally. If the criticism is completely illegitimate, he can just rebuff it and explain why. Becoming a put-together person involves habitually being able to take cannonballs and brush them off as if they were feathers. It requires learning, but it can be done. If people who are trying to mess with you can see that you're not visibly affected, they lose interest in messing with you. Often, they themselves are being controlling (dominant people wouldn't care) and are trying to control an even more desperately controlling person. Don't oblige them. Show them that you're not a good target.

The need to say "me too" all the time about things, instead of not giving a shit.
The third item, or me-tooism, is a hallmark of attempting to desperately contain a situation. Say your clothing, or vehicle, or whatever is not up to snuff compared to others. What do you do? Well, you can react negatively and become a socially avoidant recluse. Or you can just not give a shit, and rebuff any attacks or snide provocations. As I said before, the people doing this stuff to you are people who suffer from controlling issues themselves. If you don't oblige them, you're doing a huge service to not only yourself, but any others who may end up in their wake. You truly have to not give a shit about what others think in order for this to work. Can you do it, 100% of the way? Probably not. But you have to build an "outer armor" or alligator skin that at least gives the appearance that you're not being affected by these attempts to insult you.

The development of possessive oneitises.
The fourth item ties into dating. "Oneitis" is a term for limerence, or a nearly jihad-like fanaticism over some (usually unattainable) girl. I'm not 100% sure about the trajectory of this psychological phenomenon, but I believe that once you start obsessing over a girl, it's already too late, and you ruined your chance to be attractive to her. You've created this object in your mind that you fantasize over, like a fetish of sorts, and it makes you increasingly unable to realistically relate to the actual real girl on the ground.

I think this ties in with the need to become firm enough inside to not develop such incredibly deep feelings for a girl. If you think about it, a oneitis is a controlling obsession, where you deathly fear not being able to have the girl in your dreams. It's happened countless times and led to suicides and worse.

So what's the general way to break controlling behavior and become more dominant, in control, and relaxed? I think the key is to not focus on one particular problem so much. If you have issues with being easily manipulated by others into feeling fearful, or angry, or embarrassed, or whatever, I think it is best to distract yourself with something else. Same with turning a girl into a fetish or desperately trying to keep up with other people.

Someone once told me that if you can't directly solve a problem, try to ignore it, and distract yourself with other things. Don't become overly focused on making your point in a conversation-- say the core points that you need to; you don't need to get absolutely everything across. In the end, most of the conversation will be forgotten anyway, and it's likely less significant than it appears at the time being. If you suffer from a oneitis, then distract yourself from her-- talk to other girls, ask out other girls, even if you massively screw up and fail. The experiences you get doing that will likely take your mind off her.

Distract, distract, distract, while paying attention to areas where you could improve-- and you'll probably desensitize yourself fairly quickly. It just takes time and will sting a bit. I hope this is better advice than the simplistic "just go out there and do it!" combined with pop-positivity that depresses people who see no way to start more than anything.

Controlling behavior vs. dominant behavior: An important subtlety

Women tend to be attracted to men who are dominant. You have probably heard of this an innumerable amount of times, especially if you've read game or pickup materials. Of course, there are plenty who dispute this, claiming that women really want a man who is equal, but in a good majority of stable cases, the man is the one in control.

How, then, does this arise, in a culture where men being dominant and controlling is frowned upon and seen as misogynistic? Are claims that men need to be dominant mythical, or is the myth in the desire for equality? How is it possible to be dominant when the laws are stacked against a man and the woman can leave him whenever she wants?

This is a complex issue, and there are many explanations for the questions I just raised, but suffice it to say that in many relationships where women are genuinely happy, the man is the dominant partner, whether the woman admits it or not. But how is that possible? Women say they don't want to be controlled-- they want to be equal, or even in the lead.

What if the truth was that women don't want to be controlled, but they want to be dominated? There is a subtlety here that is missed on many men, especially those who are trying to recover from being overly submissive pushovers.

Men who have never intrinsically known how to be dominant tend to try and control things in a way that comes off as insecure, instead of self-assured. They have a tendency to desperately try and contain things, or police women's behavior, and that doesn't come off as attractive. In fact, it comes off as petty, try-hard, and what women would call creepy.

The basic problem is that in actively trying to restrain women from doing something, you turn them off. If you tell them to their face to not do something that they want to do, they'll treat you with contempt and ignore you at best. This is especially true when it comes to behaviors that are female-group-approved, whether harmful or not.

Women tend to think in groups. It's a totally different psychology from that of most men, who tend to arrive at conclusions independently, and maybe with a little input here and there from others. With women, the consensus of the group is everything, and there is little deviation. Women will submit themselves to group reasoning, even when the results are personally harmful to them. For instance, they will tend to remain in unproductive, unfulfilling relationships if the group mandates that they must be in that relationship due to the man being "approved" by the group.

Some people call this form of groupthink the sisterhoood, and with good reason. Woe betide the man who crosses the female sisterhood-- he will be treated mercilessly and all manner of false, unfair rumors about him will spread through the grapevine.

So when you criticize a woman for acting promiscuously, or drinking too much, or partying too much, and scorn her for it, you tend to get marked as someone who is trying to inhibit her freedom, or interfere with her fun. This gets you cast onto the junk heap of men, where you might as well not have any genitalia at all because you're blacklisted as someone who won't get laid, ever. I use the example of the girl who parties too much because I have real-world experience with it, but it applies to any female neurosis that is nurtured by this society, be it the defense of bizarre and crazy laws, consistently putting out to the wrong men, waiting till infertility to have children, etc.

The reason why this criticism is rejected it because it is seen as an attempt to control female behavior, which women intrinsically don't like. They don't like being told they can't do this, can't do that, etc. To be sure, nobody likes being told that they can't do something they like doing, or should put a damper on it, but with women this is extreme. They will not - I repeat - will not listen to a man who tells them that they can't do something, or need to reign in their behavior. Their detesting of such suggestions is part natural and part cultural -- a culture that says they can do anything and doesn't put brakes on their behavior, especially when said behavior is harmful to men.

So we can see clearly that women don't like being controlled. How, then, is it possible to get them to listen to anything? With all the freedoms and liberties they have, they can just tell guys to piss right off (though they rarely respond with such intensity, the message being sent is identical).

You now understand what is unattractive to women and what is guaranteed to NOT change their behavior. They hate being told what to do and will have none of it - call it a mixture of innate and cultural female belligerence. But they can be told what to do, and they can be told to rein in their behavior. They can become normal, sane, and acceptable people. How?

By being exposed to dominant personality traits in men. These traits are less controlling, as they are charming. Male politicians have used this charm to swoon armies of female voters to their side. Of course, on the face of it, being charming doesn't sound like it is enough to convince a woman to change her mind. And it isn't. But it'll get your foot in many doors, doors that would otherwise be completely shut.

Women are by nature, emotional creatures. This is not to say that men aren't, but women are on a whole different level. The whole sisterhood thing is based on a bonding of female emotions, a subtle communication collective living in a drugged-out haze of oxytocin. It's the way women have bonded, communicated, and protected themselves since the caveman days, and penetrating it the right way is the key to getting women to side with you, both in the ideological sphere and the sexual sphere. If you align the female grapevine in your favor, you will have done something great in their eyes, and you will be loved, no matter what you do or have done. In fact, there are many examples of men committing horrific acts who are feverishly defended by women whose sisterhood grapevine they successfully penetrated.

As you can see, this is potentially dangerous, and can be used for nefarious means, which many manipulative, evil men have done in the past. But many good men have used it to their advantage as well, as it opens up access to previously inaccessible women. This gaming of the sisterhood grapevine probably goes all the way back to the stone age itself.

As I mentioned, it's not enough to be charming. What else do you have to do? Well, the most effective strategy is to combine the charm with something logical, ideally something that panders to a female prejudice of some sort. I've read about one Men's Rights Activist who is using this technique to convince women to accept mandatory paternity testing. Many women are viscerally opposed to this, because they see (or instinctively feel) it as decreasing the amount of power a woman has regarding what man she chooses to sire her child. Of course, in a logical, ethical sense, this is bankrupt, as the married father should always be the biological father. Historically, however, women have gotten away with using one man for money, and getting what they see as more desirable genes for their progeny from the men who stimulate them most during their ovulation cycle (read: not the tamed, domesticated husband). Any attempt to sell women on mandatory paternity testing based on logic and ethics will fall flat, because women don't reason that way. Of course, some women will see through it and side with you, but not enough to have en-masse backing. Most women will see it as an attempt to control the excesses of their behavior and thus will resist it and vote against any change in the desired direction.

So what this MRA does is soothes the women, like a modern sort of Shaman. He treats them with good stories, and then launches into a polemic, throwing men under the bus mercilessly, condemning the epidemic of deadbeat dads who abandon the mothers of their children. He then says that the only way to combat this is to instate mandatory paternity testing so that these men can't run away from responsibility. This whips the crowd of women up into a frenzy, and makes them fanatical supporters of mandatory paternity testing.

Of course, the truth is different. In most cases, the man is the one who is cuckolded by a woman who decided to get better genes elsewhere. But this MRA is selling what are really men's issues to women as women's issues to get women to support them and vote for them. Thanks to feminism, the sisterhood grapevine is sinisterly aligned against men, but as this MRA shows, it can be penetrated with the right mixture of charm and logic to get women to work for you instead of against you.

Is it weird? Yes. Is it unfair? Who knows, it's the way nature is set up. If you want to get women on your side, you have to feed their prejudices in a way that works for you. Merely telling them what to do is seen as controlling and undesirable. Truth be told, women love being played around with like this. It's part of their being. And they hate men who can't do this to them.

This is why you see lots of men who are very unhappy with the cards that life has dealt them in places like the Love-shy.com forum. By and large, these men have great difficulties even getting women to go out on dates with them. This is in no doubt caused in part by an inability to behave in a dominant manner. Also, a lot of the legitimate criticism of female behavior seen on the forum is attacked by multitudes of outsiders as misogynistic and narrow minded. Why is this? Well, many of the attackers are men who are white knighting, who follow a different (but similar in some ways) psychology to women. But there are several women who have condemned it, and almost all of the female members have spoken against it in some way or another. A major reason why is - you guessed it - because these out-in-the-open, direct, logical criticisms of female behavior are seen as controlling, and not dominant. The other reason is of course the feminist control of the zeitgeist, but that's a topic for another post.

For those who want to become dominant but have difficulties doing so, I don't have a simple solution. In fact, I'm going to elaborate on what causes these difficulties in my next post, to try and flesh out what needs to be done if your personal psychology is game-naive and needs to be revamped. Personally, I tend to be the one whose buttons are pressed, instead of the one doing the pressing. This needs to change if I want to stop being walked all over and taken advantage of. And I am sure there are many Gen Y men who share my predicament.

So, in conclusion...

• Women HATE being told that they need to rein in their behavior, or that they can't do something. They especially despise non-dominant men who try to control their behavior.
  
  
• Women LOVE being told that they can do anything, and that they don't need to answer to anybody. They love men who play to their prejudices-- a loophole that can be used to get them to do your bidding.
  
  
• Men who can convert their controlling behavior into dominant behavior stand to gain largely in the interpersonal and sexual arena.
  
  
• Figuring out a way to turn an insecure, controlling personality into a dominant personality is of key importance.
  

Back to Blogging and Thoughts on "All Sex is Rape"

Well, after a long hiatus, I'm back. I'll be posting more frequently. There were several reasons why I stopped, including school and a forum I'm posting on needing help. But I've got a lot of stuff to discuss, to get out of my head and flesh out in words, and it can't really be discussed elsewhere. So... be prepared for a big dumping of thoughts!

I've been posting on The Spearhead on and off. I am continuously amazed at the injustices that happen to men in the world, and how it indirectly causes women to lose respect as well, which is tragic. I don't harbor anger toward women in general, and am sad that this society is causing them to not really fulfill their potential. I feel bad for most women who seem to be swept up by society and all its ills, and then go on to inflict all their baggage on men who they could instead love. It's such a tragic waste and it's gotta affect them deep down. At the end of the day, they're unhappier than they were in the past, and the stats show it.

Speaking of happiness, I'm reminded of a Dworkin quote where she said that all heterosexual sex is rape. On the surface, it sounds just like the lunatic rantings of a person who hates sexuality, and that's what many people, especially conservatives, tend to classify it as. But that misses the bigger picture of what she was saying. Her claim was that since women couldn't work, or couldn't find an easy path to most jobs, they were forced to marry men, often men who they didn't really like or find attractive but had resources, and that this was really no different from being forced to have sex with a man at gunpoint.

This story sounds tragic, and a lot of people believed it, and that's what gave feminism its power. Now, a more careful analysis shows that this is likely not true, and more an issue of historical revisionism than anything else, but the fact that it seems like women were being oppressed by having a lifestyle imposed on them was enough to give feminism credibility.

So you fast-forward to today, and women can work. A woman who was a director for a government agency remarked in one of my classes how almost no women were there when she was in college, and now it's full of women. (I counted heads and the classroom was more than 60% women; my university is about 54% women overall.) Women can get into any career they want with little impediment, free of the supposed sexism and discrimination that prevented them from attaining such employment in the past.

OK, cool, let's run with that and take it at face value. I'm not sure about its extent because there were always lots of female nurses, and female MDs were not nonexistent either, as long ago as the 40s from an article I read. It probably stretched back much farther. The fact is that women working in an occupation was not uncommon in the past (think secretaries, typists, nurses, etc.), but let's just assume that all women were forced to stay home, married to a man they didn't like so they could support themselves.

Why, then, are they less happy now than they were in supposedly more oppressive times? If feminism's goal was to increase happiness by freeing women from the household, and that was the prime bottleneck on womens' happiness, then there should have been serious, significant gains in womens' happiness over the years. Has society gotten so much worse that women are less happy now despite gaining more claimed freedom? If that's the case we're in a serious bind. I don't think that's what's happening, though, because several other things happened during this time of supposed economic and social liberation that made things worse for men:

• Stagflation followed by a flatlining and net decrease of wages for men, while costs of goods continued to go up with inflation;
• The continual erosion of a savory academic environment, resulting in male children getting drugged for "ADHD" (criminal, in my opinion) because they're boys who can't adapt to this environment. This makes me wonder: Was ADHD such a huge problem in the past? Were hyperactive boys making classrooms so unworkable that it required drugging them with dopamine-stimulating compounds? Something is wrong with this picture. You never heard about this stuff going on in the past;
• The continual erosion of blue-collar jobs that allow lower-IQ males to be reasonably prosperous in society instead of turning to a criminal lifestyle;
• The blowing of problems like rape humongously out of proportion. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be treated as such, but in the current climate, all men are treated like rapists. Feminists have been caught red-handed fudging statistics, and several feminists have even been quoted as saying that all men are rapists. In fact, the Dworkin quote implies this. It's an insult to any man, really, but when taught to young boys, it makes them ashamed of their sexuality, and they grow up to be overly-considerate man children who women don't consider sexually attractive;
• Sexual harassment laws. I think no one has the right to unwanted sexual advances, but this is used and abused badly in our current culture. Honestly, I think that if men were respected more, and thought less as automatically guilty pigs, then sexual harassment laws wouldn't be such a problem, and people would get punished rightly for genuine sexual harassment. But in the current climate, conniving or hysterical women can take advantage of the laws (and corporate policies) to kick out or get revenge at men they don't like. If a man so much as looks at a woman the wrong way he can get in serious trouble. This is not right, and it makes men very fearful of and unattractive to women;
• Sexual liberalization which results in a "game" culture. In a future post I'm going to argue how not everyone is college bound and society shouldn't just assume it, and that there should be ways for these people to be contributors to society. Likewise, "game" culture and casually picking up women just isn't in it for a lot of men. They don't like it, and they want a girl to commit to them, and they want a decent pool of available women for this purpose. Excluding men just because they don't have "game" or aren't super fashionable or are maybe a little awkward is a dead end. It's going to cause the same sorts of problems that excluding blue collar workers from anything above Arby's will cause;
• Making marriage one false accusation away from total financial and psychological ruination for a man, taking the kids away and everything. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel comfortable with a woman having that level of power over me. Men have killed themselves over this. And you better believe men are eschewing marriage because of it. The response of governments around the world seems to be to make co-habitation similar to marriage, but all that's going to do is scare men away from cohabiting, and turn them into complete fuck-and-chuckers. It's just going to accelerate the decline into a total game culture, suffering from severe population under-replacement.
  

So this whole "patriarchy," whether it existed or not, is surely non-existent today, and the average man is not nor ever was a rapist. Maybe all this stuff has caused things to be worse for women, too. I don't know. But I do know that heaping the blame for all problems on men is sinister, especially now. I don't think that making it harder for men to find decent women, or making marriage and the workplace a booby-trap laden mess for them is going to make things any easier for women trying to find a partner. It just isn't.

If things continue the way they do, it's going to be harder and harder for women to find decent men, as opposed to players who just want to jump in the sack with them. In fact, that's the reality of life for an increasing number of women. Marginalize men and this is what you get. If women want decent men, they should push to reverse this fuck-upedness, and refuse to participate in its propagation.

Female-centric societal ills: Litigation

Recently, some comments made on a Spearhead article talk about how women, by being litigious by nature, will overpower men when the government is strong enough and willing to do so in their favor. This got me thinking, and suddenly a light bulb went off. The US is known for having a very litigious society, and I always knew it myself and despised it, but the reason why the society was so litigious eluded me. It seemed to miff other people too, who would tend to just say there was a "litigious culture" and a "greed mentality." This is funny, I think. When people are unsure of why something is bad, they jump to some bogeyman like "capitalism" or "greed" to explain the societal ill, without digging deeper down. I think it's intellectual laziness, really.

What really seems to be happening is that a culture taken over by women is a litigious culture. That's why so much of our economy is being consumed in legal costs and why we have to have so many retarded warnings on things.

You'll note the female tendency to defer to a stronger power, and use extreme language when they feel their inner mental sanctum is threatened. It's like they're a step away from suing you for your every last penny if you transgress them. This is also explains why the divorce courts have become so viciously anti-male. The litigious culture created them in their current incarnation, and of course they'll side with women.

Women also have a natural tendency for evasiveness, two-facedness and conniving, backstabbing behavior. It's built into their genes as a result of being physically weaker as a protection mechanism, so it can be a good thing, but uncontrolled (as in the current society) it can really get out of hand and do a lot of damage.

This probably explains why women pursue law school so much versus other professional professions, aside from nursing. In a way, the professional schools of nursing and law exploit natural female behavior. Nursing exploits the good side of female behavior, while law exploits the bad side. I'd never want to be a defendant against a woman lawyer.

So, a female-centric culture, large amounts of women entering law school, the female tendency to create rules and laws to constrain people, and threaten people with a greater power when they feel "transgressed" is what has resulted in the legal monstrosity we see today. It's literally eating the society alive.

At this point I wonder how much other stuff people blame on capitalism that's really just creeping cultural Marxism rearing its ugly head, successfully pointing the fingers away from itself. This country's gonna implode if people don't wake up to what is really going on.

Game en masse: The proper route?

On many men's blogs right now there seems to be quite a discussion of Game - the art of behaving in a way that is attractive to women sexually. It is said that Game is the only way out for men in today's society, if they don't want to be locked out of the dating game completely. I mostly agree with this assertion. If a man doesn't want to become permanently celibate or the slave of some domineering woman, he must use Game in order to attract even modestly attractive women. In today's society, women are taught early on that they should go for only the best men, and this goes hand in hand with their biological hypergamous nature. Men oblivious to this fact are sexually invisible.

A lot of the debate on Game seems to center around whether it is ethical or not, often from a Christian conservative perspective. You can see that quite a lot of religious MRA's and MGTOWers are worried that a mass employment of Game will result in a morally degenerate death spiral. This sentiment is expressed even more so in the conservative media, but they have discredited themselves so I will not try to argue with them. I think this whole discussion of whether Game is moral or not misses the point - when someone is fighting for food, they don't ponder the philosophical ethicism of killing an animal. They simply can't afford to. Those of more ascetic persuasion will deprive themselves longer, but eventually they'll snap too.

The fact is, female companionship is a biological need in men that cannot just be willed away by thoughts or moralistic idealism. Doubtless the need for it has been greatly exaggerated by the current culture, and this is what MGTOW is good at reducing, but the base biological need still exists. Game is a solution to a mounting problem. Have the conservatives come up with a better methodology that conforms to their moral standards? Many of them seem to be falling in the "conservative trap" of criticizing a new trend that they see as negative but not really offering a workable alternative. And telling men that "God says some men will remain single in life, that's just the way it is" is not a workable alternative. The men receiving such proclamations will go the David Deangelo route, or perhaps one even more pathological. He will certainly not go on a BETTER path.

This is not to say that worries about Game are unfounded. It can be used in a very immoral manner, to sexually conquer a large amount of women and leave them hanging. The female recepients of such immoral Game accumulate longer and longer strings of baggage until they're finally wailing about the lack of "good men" in some feminist magazine at age 35. At that point they have a 50/50 chance of picking up some equally desperate beta/omega man who has never before been blessed with female attention in his life and most likely doesn't know Game, or is one of the conservatives who thinks it's "immoral," and now ironically has to settle with a formerly promiscous woman (who may still end up cheating on him).

There are two main problems I see with a Game-centric society from the male perspective: Men who cannot employ it will be left in the dust, and it appeases the current fairly unreasonable level of reptilian female sexual desires. Both are equally troubling. What will become of all the men with, say, Asperger's Syndrome or generalized social handicaps? What about men who just aren't that good at "Game?" Will they simply be thrown under the bus of the new paradigm? I left a comment on Novaseeker's expressing this concern, and one of the responders told me that they'll simply be run over. I certainly hope he or she is wrong and my worries are

unfounded. As for the second point, I worry that a mass employment of Game will simply appease female sexual desires even more. Women like being in a fantasy world, and being Gamed keeps them in it longer. What about when everyone employs this? Will it simply escalate female hypergamy to ridiculous levels? I can see many more than the obviously socially handicapped guys being thrown under the bus if this occurs.

I've spoken with several people about this, and they all seem to agree that Game is the only way out, and there is no serious alternative in today's dating culture. They do worry about the excesses though. As one said, teaching a guy Game with no moral guidelines is like giving a guy a gun and $15,000 and telling him to do whatever he wants, with no bounds on behavior. Some guys will use the gun and money responsibly, but most will rob people at gunpoint and spend all the money on weed and booze. That's the reason why today's dating market is so messed up.

So while people who oppose Game from a chivalric point of view are simply dinosaurs, and those who oppose it from an ascetic-religious point of view are unrealistic, opposition to it is understandable. In order for Game to work it must have some sort of moral framework built around it, to prevent people from abusing it, much like teaching people fiscal responsibility instead of having them end up blowing all their money on powerball.

The moral framework that is built must be in tune with modern realities, and thus sustainable. This does not entail compromising on key moral issues, but it cannot be locked into a Victorian ethics framework. The clock only goes in one direction; there is no going back to "the good old days." I believe it is possible to teach men Game while adhering to moral principles. This includes not overly appeasing women or stroking their ego too much. Of course, this is the key area where such a neo-Game ideology can fail: Feminism's toxic effects on women and men could make a neo-Game culture unravel into even more hedonism than we have today. There's armies of manginas and bootlickers out there who will use "traitor Game" to sell out to women, and make things harder and harder for guys. Still others will revel in the power.

Also, it has been joked that feminism was the biggest shit test ever, and men collectively failed it, and it's been downhill since then. This is why I have doubts about neo-Game as far as its ability to heal society. Ultimately, women must change, or this will just cause a bull market in hypergamy, regardless of the restrictions placed on male behavior.

At this point, it's every man for himself, and the guys who aren't gettin' laid and ain't happy about it need to do something to avoid irrelevancy. Until a neo-Game paradigm permeates society, they need to learn Game, while still maintaining a moral compass. Those who can't engage in it? Well, we need to get them off the street and out of the way of the bus...