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.
Men Will Have To Fix It
Unfortunately, I think we are still under the delusion that if women can understand the consequences of their actions, then they will change their behavior. I think this will be wrong. They will just continue to do stupid and self-destructive things, until they are brought under the guidance of men — men who understand the consequences of women’s actions.
For example, women are the only reason the Democratic Party exists. If women didn’t vote, the Party would disappear in the next election. In our two-party system, any individual is normally dissatisfied with many of the activities of their politicians. Hardly any Republicans support all the things Republican politicians or Presidents are doing. Likewise, just because someone votes Democrat does not mean that they think boys should be encouraged to cut their dicks off and start calling themselves girls. It doesn’t mean that they support mass illegal immigration, or vote fraud. But, there must be something they support, or they wouldn’t vote Democrat. For most women, it is apparently abortion, which is perhaps another example of why women shouldn’t vote. Now we have “post birth abortion,” including way-post-birth, such as the children of the infamous Lindsay Clancy, whose oldest child was five years old. Not all women support this, but it appears that about 20%-30% share the opinions of the demented members of the jury (including all the men but one), which is 20%-30% too many. Men understand this; women do not, and probably never will.
In other words, we witness women supporting Leftist parties in the US and elsewhere, which openly support mass illegal immigration, and then complain about the immediate effects of this immigration, which is a bunch of people you definitely don’t want in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood. But, somehow, women can’t add 1+1 and get 2. Men sit by and wonder when women will begin to understand the consequences of their actions, but I suspect they will be sitting by a long time because it will never happen, at least not at the general population level. Individual women might get it (and you might find that this is often with the guidance of a man), but as a whole women will not, or at least I suspect they will not.
Where this goes is that men will have to fix all the dating and marriage stuff. There will be no “negotiation” — the premise of shows like Whatever or Fresh and Fit. Unfortunately, men today are very bad at this. This especially includes Fathers, for those girls who actually have Fathers. It includes fixing all the Marriage laws, and related abominations such as Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and so forth. Women won’t fix it. Young women can’t be held responsible for the legal abominations that were introduced before they were born. But, they should be at least able to understand some of the consequences of these legal abominations, especially after Men have been explaining it to them for twenty years; but they cannot, or at least don’t want to.
Most Common Years For Divorce
Useful statistics:
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:
If you don’t know who Valerie Bertinelli is, here she is getting married to Rock Guitar God Eddie Van Halen. Never went on a date though.
Robin Wright, an actress, said that she was never asked on a date.
Melissa Leo won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, but told the Washington Post in 2010 that she was never asked on a date.
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”?)
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.
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.
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.
