Welcome to my blog. Its purpose is to explore various topics regarding sex, marriage and family — an area with many problems today, as has been amply explored by the “red pill community.” They have done an excellent job of analysis and description. But, little has been said about solutions, and this persistent lack has been troubling me, so I will take it up. I tried doing a little bit via YouTube, the preferred medium these days it seems, but I am not suited to it. So, I will join with Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi and others in print. Like Dalrock, I am happily married, for seventeen years, and have a son. (Yes, it really is “happily,” perhaps because my wife is Japanese, and her English even now is bad enough that she is isolated from Western media and the society of Western women.) Perhaps I would like to have my son, when he is older, to have some kind of woman available besides wasted harlots.
In general, I am a Traditionalist. This is different than today’s TradCons, which Dalrock (among many) have rightly eviscerated. But one thing you can say about Traditional solutions is that they have actually worked, in real life, for a long period of time, and produced good results. You could invent some kind of new solution, but Utopian dreams sometimes don’t work out. I am not a Christian, although I find that they are my natural allies, so I am Christian-friendly. Ezra Pound once did a broad review of spiritual traditions, including many in the East. He eventually decided to become a Christian (specifically, an Anglican), not because he was not aware of the many failings of the Anglican Church in his day, but because he realized that, if he wanted to gain the advantages that come from cooperation with like-minded people, he would have to join some kind of existing community.
I say often that “you have to tell women what to do.” They seem to be incapable of organizing their actions without external leadership. This leadership may come in the form of individual vision, or it may come in the form of social norms, in-group behavior, and the artificially-created “social norms” and “in-group behavior” manufactured by the Cultural Marxists in music, television and movies. Women have a choice of which leadership they choose. But, they seem to lack the masculine capability of analysis and description, awareness of longer-term cause and effect, and also based on this, invention of definite solutions, independent of existing norms. Without someone else to do these things, who they can follow, they are rudderless. Some women are quite intelligent, but this ability is usually channeled entirely toward the Rationalization Hamster, and also lies, manipulation, and deceit. (This is basically the Rationalization Hamster applied to others.) But along with this, women are open to suggestion. If some men start telling women what to do, and it seems to them an attractive proposition, some women will follow.
And so, although you can lament the present condition of women in the U.S. and the West today, unless you tell them what to do, they will not change. It is not enough to say “I don’t like this and I don’t like that.” Eliminating options and identifying problems are important steps toward figuring out What To Do, but do not create a solution in themselves. Along with this, men have to clarify what they want. Today, we lament the fact that most women today are unfit to be wives and mothers, and are frankly dangerous and destructive in those roles. And yet, we seem to like having a large supply of sluts on ready call, so we have been perhaps a little hesitant to say: don’t be sluts. Obviously, we are going to have to make some decisions here. Are you ready for a world in which women are sexually unavailable until after your wedding day?
Unfortunately, by focusing on analysis and description of present conditions, men are, in a way, telling women what to do. Men say that “all women are like that.” Women hear this, and, following what they are being told by men, as is their nature, behave in the manner that such men say they behave. While it is true that women certainly have the potential to be “like that,” and today that potential is reality, it is also true that, in the past, they were not like that. Just as there is “women’s nature,” there is also “men’s nature.” For example, men have the potential for domination and plunder, that we see in every gang or group of bandits, and which anthropologists have recorded in primitive human societies around the world. And yet, most men today are not like that. The difference is part of what we call: civilization.
Thus, I want to focus on concrete, specific solutions. For example, there is near-universal agreement that today’s laws regarding divorce, sexual assault, domestic violence and other interactions between men and women are grossly anti-male and dysfunctional today. But, you rarely hear anyone say what, then, the laws should be. If you were to change it, what would you do? In the past (before 1970), for example, divorce required either mutual consent and terms acceptable to both parties, or, for a unilateral divorce, abridgement of certain conditions, notably adultery or serious domestic violence, with evidence that would hold up in jury trial. In another example from history, divorce among the ancient Romans would result in the man keeping the children. This served as a double preventative: most women would avoid divorce if it meant being separated from her children; and also, a man looking for a younger, sexier wife would probably be handicapped by having custody of his children. This would naturally require someone to handle childcare; and what better (or cheaper) person than the children’s natural mother? At the same time, a younger, sexier women would probably not be very interested in caring for another woman’s offspring.
Besides not telling women what to do, men today are bizarrely, pathologically politically inactive. Men need to join together and get things done to change the laws, just as men have always done to produce any change. Look around you: who is going to do it, if not men? At the very least, men should support existing men’s rights organizations. It is true that they have been woefully ineffective. But, more money would probably help fix that. Any man who is unwilling to give $25 to an existing MRA organization deserves everything he gets. This is evidence of extreme learned helplessness. Think of it like doing political pushups. If you can’t do even one pushup, you are in bad shape my friend. Get over your learned helplessness. Give another $25 to the YouTube Redpill personality of your choice. Divorce law is State law, so eventually there will have to be an MRA organization for each state, which lobbies and informs State legislators: the Ohio Society for Men’s Rights. If all concerned men were giving $100 a year in total to the cause, there would be enough money around that other men would have the funding to establish such organizations. Unfortunately, most men cannot risk too much opprobrium, as it jeopardizes their livelihoods. Thus, we need specialists, whose livelihood is itself based on objecting to the status quo, and who can serve as professional lightning rods.
Men are the builders of civilization, not only in steel and concrete, but also in laws and principles. Women nurture the creations of the men of their choice. So: start building.
We Never Dated
GenX was, for the most part, pretty slutty. However, “going on dates” was not something that people did. I managed to get married, and cohabited with a couple other women before then, but I can’t remember “going on a date.” I’m not the only one:
What Is The Value of High-IQ Women?
Sigma Frame asks: What Is The Value of High-IQ Women?
First, let’s separate “midwit” high IQ (around 120 IQ, or Top 10%), with seriously high IQ, 130+ and maybe 150+.
In the past, I have known two high-IQ women, 130+ and 150+ (my estimate). I could have married either of them. Although the sample size is small, I find that very high IQ women are not that feminist. Both probably would have been happy to be stay-at-home Moms with 3+ children. They are smart enough to know that working all day is … a lot of work … and where do children fit in? They don’t. They are smart enough to figure this out.
However, the economic market value of high-IQ women is high, so they are theoretically giving up more by being a stay-at-home Mom than more average women. (One went to Harvard, the other to Tokyo University, which is sort of like Harvard if all the students were Asian, and it was free.) They tend to be channeled into careers, unless there is some sort of marriage offramp, and there usually isn’t. Usually, they can’t marry anyone who has an IQ within 20 points, because such men are rare, they have other options, they would rather have a stay-at-home Mom than a career girl, and the women are simply too busy with their careers to ever meet such a man.
The 150+ girl actually did become a stay-at-home Mom, without any career, because she was smart enough to do that. To give you an idea, IQ 150 or higher occurs in about 1:2330 White Men in the US; and due to differences in gender dispersion among women, there are about 3.08 Men with IQ 150 or more for every woman. So, about 1:7000. At 160, you find about one in 120,000 women. (Just to give you an idea, of all the high school girls in the country, how many can admit to getting into Tokyo University “without studying very much”?) Actually, I know one other woman who graduated from Tokyo University, who married my friend and also became a Stay-At-Home Mom. She was more like 8/10, and liked to dress well, so let’s just say my friend is very fortunate.
The greatest value of a High IQ woman, in my opinion, is good genes. The second is that they will raise their children to be like them. The third is that they are great fun to talk to, if you also have a high IQ, and probably not that much fun if you don’t, since they will always look at you like you are stupid, even if they are nice about it.
The downside is that they are typically 5/10 with little interest in clothing or fashion, but also smart enough to eat good food and get some exercise. For most men, they are both invisible and somewhat troublesome to talk to, not because they are in fact causing any trouble, but their simple existence reveals a pretty big IQ gap with every word. For me, I like women who get into Tokyo University “without studying very much,” (since I got into Dartmouth as a high school junior, early acceptance, without studying very much, and there are not very many of us), but most men don’t like that.
Whatever work they do in the world is not that important, with a few exceptions like Margaret Thatcher (no tested IQ known; estimated at 154). Margaret Thatcher was a strong anti-feminist, by the way, because she was smart enough to figure that out.
High IQ women can have a career if they want, after the children are out of the house. Phyllis Schlafly (Masters in Government from Harvard; JD from Washington University, mother of five) is the model in this regard.
We will talk about the midwit woman, much more common, soon.
Take Your Husband’s Name
Stats on women who take their husband’s name after marriage.
Secular Purity Culture
We reviewed the “Purity Culture” era of the 1990s and 2000s, and concluded that they did a few things right, and a few things wrong. They focused too much on “Purity,” and not enough on Marriage. In the past, young women lived at their father’s house, in a state of chastity, until marriage. But, they also got married young — around Age 18-21, with some stragglers out to about Age 25.
21 year old women weren’t “pure.” They were getting pounded out regularly, on their way to a second grandchild.
Lemme explain how this works …
The Purity people didn’t always have their daughters living with their fathers. They often went to college, which just makes things difficult (although some Christian colleges really were good places to find a husband). But mostly, they didn’t have an offramp to Purity — Marriage, around Age 19.
Now we are seeing the same things in Secular culture. It’s now No Dating Until You Are 30. They are getting the Purity right, sometimes, but there’s no end game.
Herd Followers
As you watch these silly people, it becomes clear that most people are Herd Followers. This is the way it is, and the way it has always been. They despair because they can tell the Herd is not going in a direction that is going to work very well. However, they can’t take any action that separates them from the Herd. It seems so hard to do anything. You have to change the direction of the entire herd.
A young woman today, or her father, can just get married at 18. Preferably, as a virgin. You can just do that. Skip right to the finish line. No college, no student debt, no Feminist Merit Badge, no “dating,” no hookups, no situationships that didn’t develop into something more, no failed “relationships.” Don’t even start with that stuff. Just skip to the finish line.
Instead of a big wedding, or student debt, just put the money toward a down payment on a new residence. It might be a one-bedroom apartment. So what?
No Dating Until 30
It’s painful to watch people make one mistake after another. Today, many parents are finally figuring out that “dating” is a dysfunctional mess. The solution: “No Dating Until You Are 30.”
The correct solution is Courtship, which you can read about in any Jane Austen novel. Basically, a woman is “presented to society” around Age 16. She is marriageable. She lives at her father’s house in a state of Chastity, until marriage — ideally around Age 18-20, with a few stragglers until around Age 25. Any woman who makes it to 26 without being married is on the Spinster Track. No sex before marriage — but you only have to wait until around Age 19. What’s so hard about that? Then, a woman has at least three children during her peak childbearing years, 16-32. That is, three children before Age 32, not starting at Age 32. Maybe five.
Some women are even internalizing this, without parental coercion. Yes, it’s a joke … sort of.
Of course this presents a problem. Why does it take people a decade to figure these things out?
Dating Is Worse Than Prostitution
“Dating” appeared around the late 19th century, as young women left the home to work in cities. Young men were going to cities to work, and there was nobody for young women in rural farming towns. All of this was nicely chronicled in Labor of Love (2016), by Moira Weigel.
Before 1900, any young woman living independently in a big city was considered a prostitute. This was the general label given to such women. When you hear statistics that “London in 1850 had 80,000 prostitutes,” they basically mean young single women. It was just assumed that a young single woman, living alone, would end up sort of like a whore; and eventually, would end up trading sex for favors and money, in some way. Anyway, they weren’t marriageable. When more young women came to big cities, and were seen walking about with men they weren’t married to, they were sometimes arrested for prostitution. Women claimed they were doing it “for love.” To police, they seemed like very cheap prostitutes.
“Dating” replaced “Courtship.” Courtship was still dominant before the 1940s, but the First Sexual Revolution in the 1920s undermined it considerably. The First Sexual Revolution was a combination of cheap manufactured condoms (for the first time), jazz, and alcohol. “Dating” became dominant after 1950. People are now figuring out that “dating” is inherently dysfunctional.
The Mating Dance
From Jim’s Blog.
If you do not perform the mating dance correctly, will not have sex, family, children, and grandchildren.
Men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose.
Women are frightened by male attention. They don’t want it and they do want it. They are afraid of it and run away, and they desire it and pursue it. They are only sexually excited by men who scare them.
When a man meets a woman who he sexually desires, his natural impulse is to be nice to her, and to put her at her ease. When a woman meets a man who she sexually desires, her natural impulse is to hit him with a shit test, to give him a hard time, to be aggressive and hostile. They want to see what a man is made off, just as a man wants to look at her boobs. If a woman retreats from attention, this indicates that fear and discomfort has outweighed sexual desire. If she is aggressive, this indicates that desire has outweighed fear and discomfort. If she is nice, you are likely being friendzoned.
Which means that boys are apt to find female behavior confusing and stressful. Outright rejection is distressing, and, in an environment where a shit test is apt to be backed by state violence, a shit test is terrifying and you are likely to fail. Which is even more distressing, plus you might go to jail.
It is striking that those women who are most feminist, most indignant about patriarchy, most likely to call the cops on you for sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and all that me too stuff, the ones who tell us that what they actually want is sensitive men who share the housework and all that, are the ones thirstiest for men who are cruel, dangerous, and violent, or for men who can plausibly create the appearance of being dangerous, the girls most contemptuous to nice guys, most hostile to nice guys, and most dangerous to nice guys, being apt to respond to niceness with claims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and all that. It is precisely the feminists who are usually the ones cruising for a beating and a banging. The feminists say they want kind, emotionally, available, and respectful men who communicate well. Perhaps they believe it, but if you fall for that, they will probably wind up charging you with rape and all that, and believing that also. Women are drawn to dominant, confident, risk taking males, and want a man who can and will dominate them, and dominate them even though it is exceedingly dangerous to do so. Women like to believe they have tamed a monster.
Women say, and believe, they want a man who is kind, sensitive, gentle, and communicates well. What she actually wants is a serial killer who is kind, sensitive, gentle, and communicates well, who threatens to kill her and abducts her to hold her hostage. Women want fried ice.
If you empower women to protect them from bad men, who will protect them from themselves?
And if you empower women, you disempower men, and women just do not want sex, or love, or children, or family, from a disempowered man. We see a massive drop in female desire for love, family, marriage, and children, because woman just do not want powerless husbands.
And at the same time, we see a massive drop in male testosterone and sperm production levels, and an unprecedented outbreak of erectile dysfunction among young men, because they are frightened and emasculated.
A woman is incapable of being attracted to a man who does not frighten her. Most men are incapable of being attracted to a woman who frightens them.
And, similarly, men who have internalized a belief in female equality, or consider it inescapable and unavoidable because feminism has heavy handed state backing, are giving up on irl sex and going their own way. A ship and a household has to have one captain. Men try egalitarian relationships, they blow up, men give up on having a relationship with a woman.
Men are giving up, and women are losing interest.
Girls like to play games over text. Participating in these games will get you nowhere, because you are competing with the man who is six foot six, has six pack abs, and a six figure income. The difference between you and him, however, is that he is probably not going to show up physically for Miss Average. Remember that a male who is physically present is a thousand times as scary as a male somewhere out over the internet, and women are attracted to men who scare them, so to have a fair chance at a woman, you have to be present in person. So, you keep the network communications to the absolute minimum needed to organize an irl meeting. Interacting over the internet in excess of this is a losing game. Over the internet, a woman is going to exposed to a whole lot of men who are six foot six, have six pack abs, a six figure income, and a dick like whole salami, which they will show her. She is not going to be exposed to too many such men irl, so irl, you have a shot. Women on the apps are looking for attention and validation, and the more they get, the more they despise the men who give it to them. Keep them on short rations. Most women like to have ten guys chasing them over the internet that they have no intention of ever meeting. They keep your message unopened for a long time so that they have lot of pending notifications on their phone. A pile of unopened notifications is a status symbol she can use against her friends. If you cannot make irl contact quickly , more chats are not going to help.. You merely going to be ammunition in woman’s war on women.
Of course, in a society where women are free to fuck Mister One in Thirty, most men are not going to have sex, family, children and grandchildren anyway, but it seems that about two thirds of young men are unable to perform the mating dance in the first place.
Under today’s extremely adverse conditions — (the economy is run by men who hate you and want to ruin you and are willing to set their own wealth on fire provided yours burns also, interaction between men and women is governed by Karen HR land whales who want to cockblock males from hitting on any women other than themselves, and Miss Average is free to fuck thirty different Mister One in Thirtys) — you are going to be pushing shit uphill even if you do know the mating dance, but if you do not know the mating dance, you are toast.
A woman wants a man who will make her do stuff, whether it is a long walk on the beach, a sandwich, or picking up his clothes, washing them, hanging them on the line, and then folding and sorting them. Despite emancipation and all that, that is still what they want, that being the ancestral environment of successful reproduction. It is just that emancipation has made it far more difficult and dangerous to give women what they want, what they are going to harshly shit test you into giving them. The more feminist and emancipated a woman is, the thirstier she is for what emancipation and feminism have denied her.
Without male authority, women become tense, unhappy, neurotic, and depressed. Women and dogs need a master. Women are angry and getting angrier, because men keep failing shit tests, and men keep failing shit tests because often they can only passed by measures that constitute sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, and so on and so forth. And the leftist feminist women are angrier, and their shit tests harsher, they can only be passed by considerably greater violence and illegality than those of right wing conservative women. As a result, while the fertility rate of conservative women is, horrifyingly, a mere 1.8, the fertility rate of leftist women is, even more horrifyingly, something like 0.3 or 0.5.
The more feminist the woman, the more she cruises for actual violence and rape. I don’t understand why. It does not make sense to me. The more conservative the women, the less dangerous and drastic the measures necessary to pass the shit test, while feminist women require stuff that is seriously dark and disturbing. You can pass a conservative woman’s shit test without doing anything morally wrong, though you may well have to do things that the state and state sponsored feminism might think wrong, but passing a leftist woman’s shit test is likely to need some messed up stuff.
When the male or the female bungles their role in the dance, the other party is likely to see it as icky at best, and as flat out rejection at worst.
OK, back when we were reproducing successfully how was it done?
CorruptingKnowledge argues that the female is the sexually proactive sex. Which on the face of it seems like an absurdity and blatant nonsense. Trouble is, he is trying to communicate in words that which cannot be communicated in words, and so everything he says is necessarily and unavoidably untrue, confusing, and misleading.
We have to be shown, not told.
The old Walt Disney Cartoon “the moth and the flame” shows the mating dance in symbolic, cartoon, exaggerated, and simplified form, making it readily understandable.
What the Walt Disney Cartoon shows is that female sexual behavior has to be controlled, or they will destroy society.
In the cartoon Disney has a bunch of moths representing male society, has a romance between the Hot Chick Moth, and the mister beta bucks, husband material, nice guy, boyfriend moth, and the flame, Alpha Male Flame. Mister Beta Bucks Nice Guy moth gives hot chick moth less attention that she desires, and she senses the performance that Alpha Male Flame is putting on, so she puts on her own performance, which literally sets the house on fire.
All the actions — Alpha Male Flame burning down the house and continually almost killing Hot Chick, the male moths preventing house from burning down, Nice Guy Moth repeatedly rescuing hot chick moth from Alpha Male Bad Boy Mister Very Wrong Flame are performed by males. Were a feminist to analyze this cartoon, she would tell us that Hot Chick Moth is merely a prize that sets events in motion, an object, not a person. Hot Chick Moth, however, instigated everything. Even though she engaged in no actions at all, she is the one that quite deliberately causes all the actions. In this sense, women are the proactive sex. Hot Chick Moth wanted the drama, and quite intentionally sets it in motion. She intended the drama, the danger, and most of all, intended the danger to herself.
This is intelligible when Disney shows it, but utter nonsense when CorruptingKnowledge attempts to tell it. It has to be shown, not told. Also, Disney is clearly telling us that female sexuality is dangerous, explosive, uncontrollable, and nonetheless needs to be controlled, for the good of society, for the good of men, and for the good of women, while CorruptingKnowledge, despite telling us that women are retarded and need to be beaten every day, tends to mess up an become unintelligible when explaining facts that imply that women need to be unemancipated, that female domestic, reproductive, and sexual services need to be the property of males, that women are not fit stewards of their own bodies. Every so often he is sufficiently purple pilled to make a topic that is already very difficult to understand entirely incomprehensible.
What CorruptingKnowledge means is true, but what he actually says is, unfortunately, ludicrously false, because of limits of speech in explaining game.
This is a near universal problem in the Red Pill community, since they are all namefags, and terrified of being cancelled, deplatformed, and demonetized. Or, like the Tate brothers charged with rape, human trafficking, etcera.
I remember a time when older people knew this stuff, but it could not be said, and so very few younger people learned it. And then those older people, the heroic World War II generation, the people who came of age before 1914, died off, and no one knew it, except a few like myself who were exposed to the fading remnants of the older civilization during their coming of age.
And then the PUA community rediscovered the mating dance and female nature, but trouble is, it is difficult to explain, and is still dangerous to explain it entirely plainly.
Of course Hot Chick Moth’s sexual proactivity is cartoonishly exaggerated, and thus easy to see. Real life sexual proactivity is a bit subtler. Even I often fail to notice it, and a lot of men are much more oblivious than I am. Thus, for example, if a chick is cruising for a day pickup in the street, she wears sexy and conspicuous clothing, ambles slowly or remains stationary in place, and continually looks around. Because she is dressed sexy, men will look at her, and because she continually looks around, from time to time, their eyes will meet. She then looks away, quickly, but not too quickly, and what the man is supposed to do is quickly respond with a big smile before she looks away. You have to be quick, you cannot afford to wait to see if she is going to take her time about looking away. When the man smiles, she smiles back, then looks away, and the man is supposed to walk up and say hello. So ostensibly the man is being sexually proactive and the female is not, though in reality this is not necessarily true.
If the woman is sexually attracted when you say hello, she is going to hit you with a shit test. I see mgtow influencers complaining how some woman was nasty to them for no reason. They should be asking themselves why tsundere is such a trope in anime. It is noticeable that it is the younger and handsomer mgtow influencers that have this complaint.
The Tates explain the mating dance and female nature rather more plainly that most, and as a result, are now facing flagrantly bogus rape charges. The reason that they are now being extradited to the most oppressive tyranny in the developed world is: sound advice. The “conservatives” that hate the Tates for “undermining traditional conservative values” also hate Trump for “undermining traditional conservative values”. These never were conservative values, and these “conservatives” never were conservatives. Those who blame men for the misbehavior of women have seeking the overthrow and destruction of our civilization for two centuries. They are pissed by Tate defending the double standard, because women being equal to and interchangeable with men is supposedly a conservative value.
The problem has always been that women are incompetent to make exercise sexual choice at any age. It is not their fault, and it is not the fault of the men they bang. It is the fault those who should have kept them under control letting them get out of control. In Walt Disney’s little cartoon, “the moth and the flame”, whose fault is it that the house catches fire? That cartoon expresses actual conservative values. It is the failure to exercise care, supervision, and control over hot chick moth, which she correctly feels is failure to cherish.
The trouble, however, with Andrew Tates advice, is that he spends ninety percent of your time telling you that ninety percent of women are having sex with one percent of men, so therefore you should pay him money to learn to be one those one percent. It is all infomercial with far more commercial than information. You are not going to get useful information about game from talking heads. Text gives you better information, because the people writing text know you are not going slog through a never ending commercial.
Of course he not being persecuted for never ending commercials — he is persecuted for stuff like this, and this
The PUA lifestyle, winning at the game of players and bitches, the promised reward for giving the talking heads money, actually is not that great, as demonstrated by the very high burnout rate. No matter how alpha you are, there is always someone more alpha than you. A rotating collection of whores is not a harem. The point of owning more than one women is to own more than one woman. Hence burnout.
But all this is still only words, and actually understanding what these words mean is difficult if you do not already understand what they mean.
Talking heads are useless for learning game. The one area where the video form is actually useful is field reports. Before and after reading about game, watch field reports.
Correct performance is pre verbal and pre rational, ill suited for a blog post.
To understand the words, you need to see the thing, and to understand what you see, then you need the words.
Video links on odyssee
And males and females are being indoctrinated by media, by school, and by HR in the workplace, that performing their role properly is horrible, shocking, and icky — plus men, who take the actively proactive role, are told that performing the actively proactive role in the dance will get them fired, shamed, financially ruined, and imprisoned, and women, who take the superficially seemingly passively proactive role in the dance, are firmly discouraged from doing so — see all the Karens complaining about PickMe.
A whole lot of women drop hints on a man that he should ask her over to his place, and he does not ask her over, and she concludes he does not actually want to fuck her, or he already has a woman at his place, or he does not have a place and has no room in his life for a woman to perform the role of wife, when in fact the problem was that he was mighty slow to take a hint. I have been slow enough often enough, and I am way better than most men at picking up on female signals.
Sometimes, very rarely, a woman, frustrated by continual failure to get an invite, will just show up and start doing wife stuff, but she is never going to say in so many words “Hey, can I come over to your place for some privacy with you.” She wants an invite — or better still to be commanded, or better still, to be carried off, or better still, forcibly carried off by an alpha male and his lieutenants, and then delivered the place of one of them — she is surprisingly comfortable with the alpha male assigning her to one of his lieutenants. But when a woman gets forcibly carried off, it is usually a result of her rather patiently and persistently trying to get carried off and targeting one particular alpha male to carry her off. The movie “High Plains Drifter” depicts Callie Travers and Sarah Belding playing that role in the dance.
In a leking species, the males do sexual display to attract females, so males brightly colored, extravagantly ornamented, and all that. In species that form families, the females tend to be showy, to attract male support and protection.
And we are subject to massive media and criminalization offensive intended to disrupt, in part because of Karens engaged in intrasexual competition.
Mating is failing for nineteen men out of twenty.
Tom Torero and Johnny Berba committed suicide — because namefags, and psychologically frail, came under attack, plus burnout.
If you reject societal and cultural norms, and do not have religion, you get tend to get lost, particularly when burnout hits — faith solves this problem. You turn back to older, saner, and healthier cultural norms. When you come under attack, you know you have the backing of the ultimate alpha Male.
The PUA text pages have a huge amount of information on minimaxing game, because they needed a never ending stream of content, but this is kind of irrelevant, for what is needed is not to do it as well as possible, but to do it at all.
Sexcession
We continue to archive writings from Jim’s Blog:
— * — * —
It is a sexual recession. Man and women are not getting sex and children.
It is a sexual secession. Men and women are going separate ways (which results in no one getting sex and children)
Surveys show men and women are both hurting — less sex for everyone, though more women are getting sex than men. Women, however, are disappointed in the sex, because not getting love and investment, just booty calls.
Leftists worst hit, libertarians quite badly hit, conservatives doing less badly, reactionaries least affected, though everyone is hurting.
Surveys also show this is most severe on the left, least severe on the right. Particularly for women, with leftist women most severely affected, conservative women least affected, Anecdotal data indicates that this reflects political orientation with respect to sexual sovereignty and female equality, so in this post I am taking the anecdotal data as true, since survey data supports it in a variety of ways, and it is predicted by red pill theory and evolutionary psychology. If you believe your instincts regarding relationship formation are evil, and that the ancestral form of sexual relationships and the ancestral way that they were established is wicked, not going to get relationships.
The apps like Tinder are no longer the problem.
When Tinder first appeared, Miss Average was totally wowed to discover that she could get nailed by a six foot six athlete with six pack abs and six figure income.
Then she gradually woke up to the fact that she was just another booty call.
Men and women on the apps gamified, minimaxed, and optimized their tactics — Which, since the game of players and bitches is a prisoner’s dilemma game, a negative sum game, made the experience on the apps worse for everyone. As everyone got better at taking advantage of the apps, the outcomes were worse for everyone.
So now the chicks are getting off the apps. Which you might think is good news for those of us who are under six foot six, or lack a six pack abs, or a six figure income. But they are not getting sex, not getting into sexual relationships, and in a startlingly large number of cases are remaining virgin, or claim to be remaining virgin. Which would be good news were it not that the way the wind blows they are likely to continue not having sex till their eggs and their faces wither.
Women are complaining men are not hitting on them.
Why are men not hitting on them?
Some men, primarily leftists, thinks that men pursuing women just oppresses women. It is creepy. It is abuse according to the Duluth model. So the leftist male waits for a relationship to “organically” emerge from friendship and political solidarity. And, surprise, surprise, this does not happen. Movies are always trying to depict relationships “organically” emerging and it always feels gratingly forced, artificial, and unnatural. Because over the past six million years, that is not how men and women did it.
The mating dance is that men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. So you drag her back to your lair and tell her to make a sandwich and warm the bed, and if she runs off screaming your performance was not up to scratch.
One factor deterring men from hitting on women is the Duluth model. “Believe all women”. In practice of course, on matters related to sex and reproduction, women don’t know the truth and do not care. And in any case the Duluth model does not mean “believe all women”. It means that police and courts should believe her if she says a man is being bad to her, and disbelieve her if she denies a man is being bad to her. The Duluth model defines patriarchy as a criminal offense, and if the women is complicit in a patriarchal interaction, then so much the worse for her. It essentially criminalizes the the natural and normal sexual and romantic interaction between a man and a woman.
Women complain men are not hitting on them. But when a man hits on them, and they are sexually attracted to that man, they are still going to give him a hard time. Which under our current laws exposes a man to considerable danger.
All happy families are alike. Each unhappy family is unique.
A man wants sex. A woman wants sex with investment, A man wants investment with ownership.
In a K selected species, nature and nature’s God wants the transfer of resources from men to women, and from parents to children, but, without patriarchy, without male ownership of a woman’s sexual and reproductive services, without what the Duluth model calls abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, none of that is going to happen, and the result is that the species goes extinct.
Leftists think that there is some other way a family can be happy, that can be happy and not be what the Duluth model calls “abuse”. This does not work. If you are happy with your woman, you are a criminal abuser, and if she is happy that she makes you happy, she is complicit in your criminal abuse. Leftists try to find some other way to make it work, and it just is not working for them.
Men and women can get together as equals for a hookup, just as gays get together as equals for a hookup. But because of reproductive biology, cannot get together as equals for family formation. And hooking up results in girls becoming distressed and crazy.
Women want sex that leads to the establishment of one flesh.
Without male ownership, women do not receive male investment. Without male investment, sex makes them unhappy. They stop engaging in sex, or they go crazy, and eventually crazy and evil. They complain, but in the world of “point deer make horse”, they lack the words to express their unhappiness, and express it in words that are back to front from the reality, using instead the word of patriarchy as abuse, of sex as exploitation, of love and family as exploitation and oppression. They are unowned, are angry because unowned, but instead complain of being owned, their words blatantly untrue, and weirdly disconnected from concrete events.
I see a whole lot of false charges of sexual harassment etcetera.
When a man is sexually attracted to a woman, his natural reaction is to stare at indicators of fertility, such as her boobs, and to be nice to her.
When a woman is sexually attracted to a man, her natural reaction is to hit him with a shit test to see what he is made of. And the Duluth model makes being hit with a shit test quite dangerous for men. Often the only way to pass a shit test is to do what men have been told to consider is assaulting a woman or sexually harassing her. If you are not willing to break the law, it is hard to score with women. And if you fail the shit test, the woman is going to feel you are creepy. And if she feels you are creepy, you must have sexually harassed here, sexually assaulted her, or raped her. Thus, in practice, the vast majority of sexual harassment charges, as near to all of them as make no difference, are actually lack of sexual harassment charges.
Women want men to hit on them, but if you hit on a woman and she is sexually attracted to you, she is going to give you a hard time. You must be unafraid, and it is hard to be unafraid when the consequences can be so dire. If she is not interested in you, will give you a bad time, and if she is interested in you, and very much wants to be approached by men like you, will give you a worse time. She is going to give you a shit test for the same reason as you are going the stare at her boobs.
I know this because of what I have seen in front of my nose. Do you doubt me? Well then explain the strange fact that women in workplaces that are overwhelmingly female are far more likely to complain of sexual harassment than women in overwhelmingly male workplaces. Making the woman the victim and complainant in sex cases, rather than the male who has proper authority over her sexual and reproductive services, results in them complaining about what we do not want them to complain about, and failing to complain about what we do want them to complain about.
the red pill, the reactionary
The reactionary prescribes lifting weights, losing fat, adding muscle, game, and dominance to make a woman submit.
Emotions? What are emotions? A man should be stoic. A man is a rock, and a woman is a storm. The storm does not shake the rock. The only emotions he knows are hungry and horny, and it is a woman’s job to fix both of those.
The bible prescribes that husband should cherish his wife, and a wife obey and fear her husband. That works. Get on with what works, what has always worked.
What the leftist thinks is Duluth model, the red pilled reactionary thinks is the scriptural model, commanded by the scripture, by nature, and by nature’s God.
The reactionary model focuses on dragging a woman to your lair and exercising ownership, so tends to wind up in relationships.
the libertarian
the libertarian interprets the problem as a market failure. Low value women, noticing that they can get high value semen, are setting an insanely high price upon relationships. So, the only male option is to not buy until the price comes down. Eventually women will respond to failure to attain a relationship by adusting their price. Unfortunately markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent So: “Men going their own way”.
A very short analysis — but if you model individuals as rational and sovereign, there is not a lot to say.
This is an inadequate model for men, and a much worse model for women.
The failure in this prescription is that it prescribes that women, being rational sovereign individuals, should respond to market forces. Nothing men can do. But, of course, women are not sovereign rational individuals, and are never going to respond to market forces. Women expect men to forcefully solve this problem for women. For that was men’s job in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation and successful female reproduction.
Women are not setting an insanely high price on relationships. They are setting an insanely high price on casual sex, because they can easily get that price, and because the libertarian is reluctant to exercise ownership, a woman’s pussy is going to perceive living with a libertarian as casual sex.
Women do not agree to ownership — they cannot, rather they react to stimuli in ways that lead to ownership, and a libertarian is disinclined to generate those stimuli, because he models people a sovereign individuals. Back when the marriage ceremony worked, it did not work because of “I do”. It worked because of “Who giveth this woman to this man” and “I now pronounce you man and wife”. Indeed “I do” did not exist until the sixteenth century in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the eleventh century in Roman Catholicism.
Libertarians perceive women as making impossible demands in a relationship, because they are modeling women as rational sovereign individuals engaged in negotiating a relationship, when in fact is they are just unconsciously and instinctively testing for strength just as a man feeling up a woman’s boobs is unconsciously and instinctively testing for fertility. She thinks, and he thinks, that she is demanding a better deal in the relationship, when in fact she is asking for a spanking. If he concedes her demands, she feels he is weak, and abandons him, if he retreats from her demands, she feels abandoned, and abandons him.
In the ancestral environment, females that successfully reproduced were transferred from the authority of nurturing and protective parents, to the authority of a nurturing and protective husband. As a result, the female mind is not designed to operate outside male authority, supervision, care, and protection, and, absent these conditions, goes off the rails. They just cannot handle emancipation and remain entirely sane.
the leftist numale
The leftist prescription is — complicated. The leftist is full of many words that contain little meaning. He suffers from analysis paralysis.
The leftist prescribes a radically different kind of self-work. He believes that the traditional masculine traits the right worships (stoicism, emotional repression, dominance, financial provision) are precisely what repels modern women and makes him miserable.
His action plan to get a girlfriend involves:
- Therapy and Emotional Literacy: He believes he needs to become a safe, emotionally vulnerable, and communicative partner. He thinks women are tired of men who can’t process their own feelings, so he works on articulating his emotions rather than suppressing them.
- He rejects the “Sexual Marketplace”: He refuses to view dating through the lens of “value” or “leagues.” He tries to build connections based on mutual interests, shared political values, and friendship first, rather than treating sex as a prize to be won through performance.
- Feminist Praxis in Dating: He actively works to dismantle his own internalized misogyny. This doesn’t mean he thinks wanting sex is evil; it means he believes sex should be an enthusiastically consensual, mutual experience. He thinks the reactionary’s path (coercion, manipulation, or “imposing” patriarchy) is not only unethical but deeply unattractive to the kind of woman he actually wants to date—a woman who is his equal, not his subordinate.
- A loving, committed, heterosexual relationship is perfectly moral and desirable. He wants that. Provided, of course, it works exactly like a gay relationship. A relationship built on power-over dynamics, financial control, emotional manipulation, and unilateral decision-making (i.e., patriarchy) is what is abusive.
Therefore, his solution to the personal crisis is to build a relationship that explicitly rejects the “patriarchal deal.” He wants a partnership based on egalitarianism, shared household labor, and mutual care. He thinks the only way to get a girlfriend and keep her—while also having a fulfilling sex life and eventually children—is to offer her a deal that doesn’t require her to submit. He offers her freedom, respect, and genuine co-leadership.
Which sounds like it should work, because that is what women believe they want. But, in practice, this works out very like a booty call, because it is modeled on gays hooking up. And Miss Average is not going to attend our leftist’s booty call unless he is mister one in thirty. This sort of sex results in women becoming unhappy, crazy, and destructive.
You will notice that in any leftist sexual relationship, every single one, if there is equally and fairly shared household labor, the man winds up living on the couch and soon after the marriage breaks up. Living together requires that the woman does woman’s work and the man does man’s work, and also requires that household work lands unfairly and disproportionately on the woman. If women do not get exploited, they do not feel owned. If they do not feel owned, they get difficult. Women want to serve. Well, actually they do not want to serve. Who wants that? But they want to feel that their man needs their service and can make them serve. Resistance to household tasks is always a shit test by the woman, and man always has to pass the shit tests a woman gives him. They neglect housework because they rather like being made to do it, and they rather like their man noticing that he needs it done. She needs and wants to be cherished, but she also wants a man who can treat her like a rented mule, and from time to time needs proof that he can and will.
On the one hand, women genuinely do want the princess treatment, and genuinely do need to be cherished. If not cherished, go crazy and evil. On the other hand, I have never seen a successful long lasting relationship with a genuinely equitable distribution of housework. Women ask for a fair and equitable distribution of housework and child raising duties, but if they get what they ask for they become distressed, difficult, crazy, and eventually evil, and eventually move on. Failure to cherish sends them crazy, but failure to exploit also sends them crazy.
In the ancestral environment of reproductive success, in ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation, a relationship that gave a women secure support for herself and her children involved totally unfair assignment of household tasks. If a woman was in a position to insist on a fair share of the housework, she was in a position to defect on her man, and if she was in a position to defect on her man, he was going to defect on her first.
The leftist is so terrified of coming across as “creepy,” so afraid of violating consent, and so worried about objectifying women that he often becomes paralyzed. He may wait for explicit, written-in-stone consent before making a move, killing any sexual tension. He may treat women with such careful, distant reverence that he forgets to flirt or express desire, and he gets firmly placed in the “friend zone.”
He doesn’t think it’s morally wrong to have a girlfriend; he thinks it’s morally wrong to pursue one the way the right does. So he waits for a relationship to “organically” emerge from friendship and political solidarity.
When a rightist hits on a woman, and she gives him a a hard time, he concludes it is a shit test and he should pass it. When a leftist hits on a woman and she gives him a hard time, he concludes that hitting on women is oppressive and exploitative, and he should stop it.
In summary: The leftist addresses his personal crisis not by withdrawing (MGTOW) and not by dominating (Red Pill). He addresses it by trying to become the “ideal feminist man”—emotionally intelligent, egalitarian, and conscientiously non-threatening.
The fatal flaw in this approach is that: Women are only attracted to men who make them afraid. Any behavior that turns women on is threatening. Which in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation tended to get them into the environment of successful reproduction — that environment being under the authority of a strong man. Going crazy and difficult if not cherished would move them out of the authority of a man who was not nurturing and caring, and going crazy and difficult if not intimidated and exploited would have moved them away from weak men. The telos of this female nature is to get her into the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, by having her act disruptively if not in that environment, but we have a social order that demonizes and criminalizes households resembling that environment.
This problem is more serious for Asian women than white women, because white women have a longer and later fertility window, and indicating that they are evolved for the transfer from parents to husband to take place at a later age than for Asian women, hence Asian women are even worse maladapted for emancipation than white women. Which is why Japan and Korea have been hit harder than the west by emancipation, especially Korea.
My authority for this interpretation of our crisis
The hostility and disruptive behavior we are seeing from women, particularly in Korea, is because they are not getting the environment of their telos — the ancestral environment of successful reproduction.
This interpretation of our current crisis is based on anecdote and personal interaction (I have been studying female nature intently since I was twelve) but is supported by surveys of female self reported mental health and happiness — bad, getting rapidly worse, worse for leftists and postChristians, and worse in proportion as they are soaked in the urban monoculture, the odd fact that self reported workplace sexual harassment is way higher in overwhelmingly female workplaces, and the fact that both survey and anecdote shows a total failure of all households with equitable assignment of housework and childcare — the failure rate does not appear to be merely higher, but total, which is odd and dramatic.
The odd data on housework only makes sense if women need to perceive themselves as the property of a man who cherishes them, as owned, and failing that, go off the rails.
This makes sense if women are mentally adapted to function in the ancestral environment of successful female reproduction, where they were property — cherished and valued property, but property. This is what I see in my interaction with women. The data on workplace sexual harassment complaints, and the data on housework and childcare, only make sense if I am seeing things as they truly and universally are.
Women Want Fried Ice
We have been collecting some of the marriage and family writings from Jim’s Blog here.
One of the interesting points here is that a woman wants a man that possesses her completely (and thus punishes transgressions to monogamy), because those are the only conditions under which a man will invest his time, money and attention on the woman and her children. Otherwise, men and women both will trend toward the “betray/betray” default in the prisoner’s dilemma. You can’t invest into a situation — any situation, whether a woman or the ownership of an automobile — if you can’t have some security that you will enjoy some kind of later benefit for your investment. This is basic theory of Property Rights. The “betray/betray” default is one in which there are no children; or, that women are left alone to raise their children.
***
Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want.
So it is fortunate that they do not act in a rational or goal directed manner to get what they think they want.
Everyone longs for and seeks the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction, the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
It is the intention of nature and the will of nature’s God that resources shall be transferred from men to women, for women have the hardest and most important job in the world, and resources transferred from parents to children, for it is all about survival and reproduction.
And no one will plant trees or build on land he does not own, so for the necessary transfer of resources to take place, women must be the property of men, and children must be the property of their mothers and fathers, the boys till they are old enough to become independent, the girls till they are old enough to become the property of their husbands.
For a strongly K selected species, male ownership of women has to be part of the system.
Without this arrangement, if women go unowned, fertility will drop below replacement.
Youtube channels like “based camp” and “psycore” produces a lot of interesting and entertaining stuff about restoring fertility that dances around close to forbidden truths, but, being namefags, can never tell the plain truth. Women want to be property, the property of a strong, and dangerous, man. Women and dogs are only happy if they have an owner.
For women, successful reproduction was accomplished when they were owned by a man, and used as his instrument of reproduction. In the ancestral environment, before agriculture, the stable isotope ratios in the bones indicate that humans lived primarily on meat, including the meat of other predators. We were the apex predator — we not only ate deer, sheep, goats, and cattle, we also ate significant amounts of wolf and lion. And when I say “humans” were the apex predator, I mean of course, men. Men were the apex predator, and they fed women and children that securely belonged to them. And women and children that did not securely belong to some man starved or were eaten by the lions.
Then we switched to agriculture. And when we were switching to agriculture, the sex disparity in reproduction went right up — with far fewer Y chromosome lineages being part of the reproduction pool than mitochondrial lineages. Which indicates that women lived off land that belonged to some man or to the men of a patrilineal clan — that to have land to garden, they needed to marry a male heir, who likely obtained it or kept it by the sword.
And female behavior and emotional responsiveness is adaptive for that environment. It is maladadaptive for emancipation. And even if female behavior was adaptive for emancipation, the necessary transfer of resources is inconsistent with emancipation, irrespective of female nature. The shepherd takes care of his own sheep, but hunts the wild deer. If women appear to be crazy, it hardly matters, for in an environment of emancipation, sanity just is not going to work for women. You necessarily get defect/defect equilibrium, the game of players and bitches, in which game everyone loses. And in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction female sanity hardly matters either, for if she does the crazy thing, she will just get smacked and told to do the sensible thing. Women have not been under selective pressure to make sensible decisions about sex, family, and reproduction for at least four million years.
If women responded rationally to the incentives of female emancipation, we would probably be in even worse shape than we are, because it is female irrationality that makes it possible to personally unemancipate women by will and force of character, even without support from tribe, church, and state. The incentive of emancipation is for men to defect on women, and women to defect on men. Love, faith, and fidelity is irrational. So if you are rational, your lineage will vanish. The game of prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations has no rational solution, and yet we have no alternative but to solve it.
If women are emancipated, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is difficult, dangerous, and deeply irrational. If, however, men have secure property rights in female sexual, reproductive, and domestic services, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is rational self interested behavior, enforced by family, religion, and the state.
The Damsel in Distress trope
The female audience objects, strongly, to the Damsel in distress trope. Always has, always will.
But when they the talk about why the don’t like it they lie, and their lies are gross and infuriating in their obviously untruth, and gross and infuriating in that women entirely believe their own lies.
Movie makers listening to those lies produce female characters that no one wants to watch, women even less than men. Hence the strange phenomenon that the “””modern audience””” never shows up.
I have personal experience of rescuing women in real life, and in real life women do not want to be rescued.
And it is not hard to understand why. In the ancestral environment, being abducted by the powerful and somewhat cruel bad guy is to hit the reproductive jackpot, to be transferred from a weak hand to a strong hand. To be rescued is to be stolen, thus to be transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand.
In female porn (“romance literature”) the main female character is never rescued. Sometimes alpha male A defeats alpha male B, usually by killing B, and as a result, alpha male A acquires the main female character. But the female audience does not want Alpha male A to acquire the main female character before he finally and decisively defeats alpha male B, as this looks like the main female character being stolen, thus being transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand. And in female porn, wish fulfillment never rests on the female coming into the possession of a classic hero, coming into the possession of someone with the classic heroic virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. It is always all about coming into the possession of a strong owner.
The reason that women do not like the Damsel in Distress trope is that men fantasize about winning righteously and virtuously, while women fantasize about the winners getting hold of them. Women are the weaker vessel. But they cannot say this, or even think this, so they say outrageously false nonsense. And when movie makers and game designers listen to this nonsense, no audience shows up. Instead of listening to what women say about the Damsel in Distress trope, the movie makers should have tried reading female porn to see what happens when the supervillain seizes the main female character and puts her on a leash in his lair. The part of a woman that operates her mouth does not seem to be in communication with the part that spreads her legs.
Cornerstone 