Saturday, January 24, 2015

Portrait of a Gamma (Paladin-class)

Notice that this guy has no children, no wife, and no life, and lives alone with a cat, but he's a Paladin in his own mind: He is a true Social Justice Warrior and he is "stepping straight the fuck up"!
If these fedora vaping MRAs and game-stooges want a fight, I’ll give them one. Hell, I’ll let them take the first swing if it ever gets into the Real World (which is as unlikely as them landing the first hit). What are they gonna do, call me a Social Justice Warrior? That’s only an insult in their heads. A White Knight? I’ve got news for them: I’m a goddam Paladin to these motherfuckers, and I’ve got Smite Evils to go around. I see a Dudebro bullying a woman, a POC, or a GLBT, trying to use terror to get them to be quiet or quit gaming, I am stepping straight the fuck up.

And if any of you Dudebros are reading this, if you think I’m doing this in the hopes of getting rewardsex, stop projecting your deprivations onto me. I’m in your face because you refuse to be a decent human being. Full fucking stop. I’m engaging because it’s the right thing to do, because trying to be the strong silent example gets overwhelmed and obscured by your shit, and because I want my two darling nieces to not livein  fear of jackasses like you.
Sure you will, Internet Paladin with your "Okinawan KarateDo" and your two-year quest to "get down to 22% body fat". Sure you will. The poor guy has no idea how unattractive his white-knightly supplication is to women.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Nightmare at Central Perk

And the menace of Chandler Bing. It's no wonder the Social Justice Warriors are always so on edge. For them, the clock is always ticking on when their attitudes and actions will abruptly transform from heroic to villainesque:
Chandler, identified in Season 1 as having a “quality” of gayness about him, is endlessly paranoid about being perceived as insufficiently masculine. He’s freaked out by hugs, and by Joey having a pink pillow on his couch. (“If you let this go, you’re going to be sitting around with your fingers soaking in stuff!”)

In retrospect, the entire show’s treatment of LGBTQ issues is awful, a fault pointedly illustrated by the exhaustive clip-compilation “Homophobic Friends.” But Chandler’s treatment of his gay father, a Vegas drag queen played by Kathleen Turner, is especially appalling, and it’s not clear the show knows it. It’s one thing for Chandler to recall being embarrassed as a kid, but he is actively resentful and mocking of his loving, involved father right up until his own wedding (to which his father is initially not invited!). Even a line like “Hi, Dad” is delivered with vicious sarcasm. Monica eventually cajoles him into a grudging reconciliation, which the show treats as an acceptably warm conclusion. But his continuing discomfort now reads as jarringly out-of-place for a supposedly hip New York thirtysomething—let alone a supposedly good person, period.

When it comes to women, Chandler turns out to be just as retrograde as Joey, but his lust comes with an undercurrent of the kind of bitter desperation that I now recognize as not only gross, but potentially menacing.
Yes, I know that when I am in the mood for a scary horror movie, my first thought is to dial up an episode of Friends. It's somehow appropriate that Chandler Bing, of all people, should turn out to be the Freddy Krueger for the Millennial generation.

The best that one can say of these people is that they are differently sane.


Thursday, January 22, 2015

A defeat for feminists

It appears the anti-Page 3 activists celebrated too soon:
'Nicole from Bournemouth' today brought to an end speculation that Page 3 had been killed off. It had been widely thought the controversial segment in The Sun newspaper had been dropped after 44 years - and Government ministers welcomed the move.

The newspaper had not published pictures of topless glamour models since last Friday, instead advising readers the pictures would be available on its website. After reports the paper had decided to quietly drop the feature, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and Liberal Democrat women's and equalities minister Jo Swinson were among those to express their delight at the apparent change.

Despite claims earlier this week in The Times newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns The Sun, that the feature had been dropped, the tabloid had refused to confirm the move.

Its head of public relations Dylan Sharpe stated on Twitter last night: ‘I said that it was speculation and not to trust reports by people unconnected to The Sun.’
And so the impossible, but never-ending quest to destroy all unapproved male activities and interests continues.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Confessions of a serial rapist

Dark secrets unveiled:
I am a serial rapist. I admit it. Full stop.

Listen, I’m not a jerk. I was always in a committed relationship with my partners. This may surprise you, but I’ve always been the committed type. I had three long-term partners before my current, permanent partner to whom I have been legally married for a long time, but none of that stopped me.

When I wanted sex, I took it.

I’ll tell you a secret: it’s easier to rape when you are in a long term relationship. Consent gets pretty murky. My partners were not always into sex when I wanted it. I didn’t care. And because they valued me, and their relationship with me, they accepted it. Their own minds were murky. That’s the perfect storm.
There are an awful lot of similarly unrepentant serial rapists walking around out there. It's a scary world, people.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Banning breasts

Under pressure from feminists, the Sun gets rid of a 44-year tradition, the Page Three Girl:
The Sun, Britain’s top-selling newspaper, has scrapped Page 3’s topless women after 44 years, delighting the legion of critics who have branded the photos of bare-breasted models sexist, offensive and anachronistic. Insiders said the decision has been taken to kill off the controversial feature quietly but that the feature would continue online.

“This comes from high up, from New York,” said one senior executive in a reference to the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch.
The Sun refused to respond to any calls, emails or texts from the Guardian throughout Monday but told the Times, which is also owned by Murdoch: “Page 3 of The Sun is where it’s always been, between pages 2 and 4, and you can find Lucy from Warwick at Page3.com.” The paper reported that last Friday’s edition of the paper will be the last that would “carry an image of a glamour model with bare breasts on that page”.

A spokeswoman for the campaign group No More Page 3: “This could be truly historic news and a great day for people power.” adding it “could be a huge step for challenging media sexism”.

The change may be reversed, it is understood, if it results in a noticeable Sun sales decline.
When I was in England, I found Page Three to be cheesy and vulgar, and the girls tended to be on the plain side, but nevertheless, I think it's a huge mistake for the Sun to back down in this way. Feminists are never content with a victory; next they'll soon move on to campaign against lingerie and bikini pictures.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Don't sweat "the turning"

BETA men worry far too much about keeping their unhappy wives. If what Rollo describes is what is happening to you, my advice is not to worry about it, but focus on easing her path out of the marriage in the least mutually destructive manner possible.
Once the first (and possibly second) child arrives, a woman’s order of intimate priorities changes, “turns” to that of the child. The sex “reward”, the ‘cookie time for good boy’, for desired behavior or performance ‘turns’ off, or sex is used as an intermittent reward for desired behavior (i.e. Choreplay). Sex becomes a utility; a positive reinforcer for her Beta increasing his provisioning capacity rather than the true visceral enjoyment she had with her past lovers.

This new functionality sex represents to a wife becomes ‘turning’ on her husband who believed he would always be her most intimate priority. In the instance of a woman marrying her ‘Alpha Provider’ this may in fact be the case, but as with the hierarchies of love that Alpha doesn’t have the same concern with, and didn’t marry his wife under the same pre-expectations a Beta does.

For the man who persists in his Beta mindset (or the guy who regresses into that mindset) this ‘turning’ becomes more and more pronounced. The turning comes out of the bedroom and into other aspects of their relationship – finances, familial ties, her expectations of his ambitiousness, his asserting himself at work or with their mutual friends – on more and more fronts he’s compared to other men and the ghosts of the Alphas she knows or has known.

Even though the Beta is aware his children are now his wife’s true priority, his Blue Pill conditioning still predisposes him to sacrifices. Again, he meets with ready-made social conventions that shame his discontent; “Is sex all that’s important to you?” It shouldn’t be, because it’s really “what’s on the inside that counts”, but he can’t shake the feeling he’s slipping out of her respect.

This is when Beta Dad doubles down. His Blue Pill expectations of himself require an all-consuming, self-sacrificing predisposition. The horse will work harder. His wife may have lost respect for him by this point, but his sense of honor and duty press him on. He doesn’t want to be like his oppressive or non-present father was. He wants to ‘out-support’ his father’s ghost, or what he believes ‘other guys’ would do when their marriages get tough.

So he waits it out, but she’s ‘turned’ on him by this point. It wasn’t planned, but all of his martyr-like determination only makes her that much more resentful for having settled on this Beta. After a certain stressing point, her disinterest or indignation goes even beyond his capacity to stay committed to a losing investment.
You can only control your own behavior. No one else's. If your wife is unhappy about the choice she made, if her children and friends and family and fun are her priorities and she wants out, then by all means, let her walk! Show her to the door with a smile!

There is a saying: if you love someone, set them free. You can't control her actions, much less her desires. You can't control the legal system. You can't control your feelings. You can't control anything except your own actions.

Ironically, the more willing you are to let her go, the less likely she is to actually continue down that road. With what is she actually threatening you anyhow? Doing whatever you want to do all the time instead of what she wants you to do? Being able to follow up on any indications of interest expressed by women who are half her age whenever you're so inclined? Do you genuinely think you're going to be able to spend LESS of your future income on things you want if she only gets HALF of it?

Do the math. Whether women control 73 percent or 85 percent of the household spending (depending upon which survey you prefer to credit), keeping only half your income amounts to an effective raise between 46 to 70 percent. Effectively tax-free too!

It suddenly doesn't sound so awful when you put it that way, does it. Remember, most men come out of the divorces that their wives sought happier and better off than they were before. Being around a miserable person who despises you and blames you for their various disappointments in life isn't a desirable state of being. You can't fix feelings, so don't even try.

It is wrong for men to walk out on their wives. There are egregious examples of the archetypical abandonment of women and children that has fueled the anti-male legal bias that exists today. But conversely, a man is not obliged to knock himself out in order to keep a miserable, self-destructive woman from imploding her life. Don't ever make any sacrifices for an angry, bitter, unappreciative woman. She will only despise you for it.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Color me unimpressed

I very much doubt that an interrogation, followed by a staring contest, is the path to True Love:
This week, Vancouver-based academic wrote about her fledgling relationship in the New York Times. She explained how, over the summer, she and an acquaintance sat in bar and tried a psychological experiment from the 90s: testing the theory that by asking each other 36 questions, it was possible to fall in love.

Examples include: What’s your most treasure memory? Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die? Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing?  Each question is designed to be harder than the last.

The aim? To foster the atmosphere of intimacy that romantic relationships thrive on and accelerate the path to love. The whole thing finishes with the participants staring into each other’s eyes for four minutes. Psychologist Arthur Aron first conducted it, with more than 100 strangers in 1997. Six months later? Two of them married.
The psychologist could have gotten better results by having them each do ten shots. He'd probably have ended up with more pregnancies and more marriages.

Love is Initial Attraction + Time + Work + Commitment.