Lightning Round – 2013/01/16

The Last Psychologist stacks so much good stuff in that I can’t summarize.

Knowing the red pill is not enough; act.
Related: Truth is universal.

It’s your fault.
Related: You’re miserable by choice.

Young people are screwed: here’s how to survive.

Drop being nice; don’t invest in women.
Related: The crime of being nice.
Related: It doesn’t matter; reality wins in the end.
Related: Schwyzer was right. Nice guys are manipulative. More.
Related: No one is entitled to commitment.

Vox tears down lies about false rape accusations.
Related: Roosh also destroys the lies.

Do not accept infidelity in your social relationships.
Science: Being committed to marriage makes marriage happier.

For women: How to pick a husband if you want to have kids.
Counterpoint: Run little hamster, run. A women arguing why depriving children of their fathers is a good thing.
Related: More rationalization.

The best explication of sin in the marriage bed I’ve read.

America! Fuck yeah!
Related: NRA approach to school violence supported by majority.
Related: We need to regulate cars the same way we regulate guns.
Related: Contacting your congressman made simple by Ruger. Molon Labe.
Related: Gun control I can get behind.
Related: Props to this kid.
Related: School shooting stopped by armed resource officer. Odd that this is not on the news?
Related: A black man asks to return to his chains.
Related: Liberal self-annihilation.
Related: I joined both the NRA and the CFA, the Canadian version, this week. Some of the few non-profit advocacy organizations I don’t detest.

The shaming of going Galt.

Our vampiric culture.
Related: I’m a monster.

We’re all criminals now.

I should probably watch They Live at some point.

The first shots?
Counterpoint: Doomsday isn’t coming.
Related: It can’t happen here.
Related: Frightening if true.
Related: “Sorry to sound tinny, but I’m pretty convinced that this sudden, intense push for gun control is directly related to the fiscal issues facing this Nation. They don’t want an armed citizenry when the SHTF. This may be government recognition that we have passed the event horizon.”

Registering precious metals a prelude to confiscation.

SSM is disturbed at the world of male sex toys.
Related: Ian on sexbots.

Hmmm… The possibility ofthe criminalization of skipping birth control.

CT West hangs it up.

Samson’s Jawbone breaking from the manosphere.
A response.

It boggles the mind; people upset because a professionally beautiful woman was called beautiful. The moral inversion of the political correctists.

Shrug.

Habits of likable people.

Science: Men are attracted to attractive women. (Shocking!)
Science: Hotter women leads to better sex.

Boys discriminated against in school.
Related: Why girls get better grades.

A map of high school sexuality.
Related: A lesson for young women.

Good for Tarantino; if only more people in the spotlight would do this kind of thing.

Study on porn rethought after researchers unable to find men who didn’t view porn.

Self-hatred in Canada.

Travelling the road to serfdom.
Related: Balancing the US budget requires reducing SS, medicaid, and medicare.

More Krugman hate, because there can never be enough.
Related: Krugman is an idiot.

Statism in action.

When teacher’s aren’t smarter than fifth-graders.

A new trend: selling yourself to pay for college.

“Basically, the reason that there are not more female libertarians is because females, as a general rule, do not like liberty.”
Related: What were they thinking?

Sometimes the old ways are best.

The spiritual but not religious are more likely to have a mental disorder.

British National Weather Service: Global warming hasn’t stopped, just “stalled”.
Related: Global warming is dead.

(H/T: SSM, MF, SDA, GLP, IPGCBH)

Establishment Conservatives and their Wives

I was reading this piece on the NRA (h/t: Instapundit). It charts the evolution of the NRA from a sportsmen lobby to the tyrant-fighting machine it is today. Anyway, while reading I noticed this line describing the old guard establishment NRA before they were ousted by the grassroots (emphasis mine):

The moderates felt rejected by both the NRA hard-liners and the Washington elite.

Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren’t being invited to parties and their wives were not happy,” says Jeff Knox, Neal’s son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. “Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert’s Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops.”

Everybody knows about the phenomenon of conservatives going the capital (or New York), rejecting their roots and become properly behaved house conservatives, representing some version of liberalism-lite as conservatism. The establishment conservatives are the bane of the conservative movement.How much of this trend is due to social pressue?

Once in the big city it must be difficult for conservatives to move in the social circles of the chattering classes filled with bigoted leftists, freedom-haters, and socialists.

How much of the spinelessness of establishment conservatives is because their wives don’t get invited to parties?

If you, your wife, and your family were being socially excluded and all that was necessary to get in the “in” crowd was to be more “reasonable”, how long would most remain “unreasonable”? How long could you put up with your wife’s complaints about your low social status and not being able to attend all the events “everybody is going to”?

I have no data, but it’s interesting to think about.

Could conservatives and conservative organizations create a conservative social circle in the political and cultural capitals that rivals the network of the chattering classes? If conservatives had their own events “everybody was going to” and wives regularly got invited to parties hosted by conservatives would we have less trouble with spineless establishment conservatives becoming one with the Cathedral?

Just a thought. Remember, it’s often the little things we don’t notice that matter lot.

Shame back

I’ve previously linked to the personal information on the Sentinel editors and reporters who published the names and addresses of gun owners in their areas. Here’s the link again.

Now, the wannabe tyrants and their lapdog enablers (lapsheep?) will use any methods possible to bully, abuse, and shame those who enjoy being free.

Thanks to the web, information is now more public than ever, so us regular free folk without newspapers and comfy editing jobs can now shame back. So, please distribute this information as wide as possible.

****

Gawker has published the names of gun owners in New York. This is public information, so they see no problem with this.

So now, in the interests of journalism, here’s some more public information.

John Cook, 39, is a senior editor of Gawker and the writer of the article publishing gun owner’s information.

His work e-mail address is: john@gawker.com
His Twitter is: http://twitter.com/johnjcook

His work address is: 210 Elizabeth Street, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10012

His home phone #: (718) 369-8243

His home address is: 528 16th St,Brooklyn, NY 11215-5912

Map

His wife is Allison Benedikt, 35, who is an editor for Slate. They got married in 2003 and have two lovely kids.

http://urbangrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/John_Cook_gawker.png

Here’s a lovely public account of John and his wife’s personal struggles.

“In the fall of 2018, all of our kids will finally be in public school, and we will have the $5,000 we pay in child care every month back in our bank account.”

Speaking of children, did you know that John was a bully back when he was in school? I guess some things never change.

Did you know New York Public School 154 is only a block from 528 16th St?

****

Did you know Gawker got death threats? I definitely disapprove of threatening violence or enacting violence on private individuals. Do not commit random violence; it hurts the cause. Information is a better weapon.

Do not threaten violence: fight fire with fire. They invade our privacy, but the internet can invade theirs better.

****

Fox has aired the Gawker’s founder’s phone number and e-mail. (H/T: Instapundit) Pass it on:

Nick Denton

Phone number: 646-470-4295
E-mail: nick@gawker.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/nicknotned
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/nicknotned

Sexbots – Redux

Today, SSM had a look at the world of sex dolls and felt both ickiness and sadness. I’m going to talk a bit about it and answer some of her questions. I have already written about the rise of sex dolls* and potential implications here, so check that out first.

Would women have any interest in these whatsoever?

I think no.

I agree; women are generally sexually attracted to dominance and indicators thereof, no sex doll can replicate that. On the other curves of 36-24-36 are not overly complicated to replicate; a pretty face is more complicated, but not insurmountable.

Is sexual activity with a sexbot a sin?  Would it be fornication?  Would it be adultery if the participant is married?  Is there anything in the Bible that would justify condemning the invention or use of sexbots?

It would be neither fornication nor adultery, in itself. On the other hand, it might violate commandments against lust. On the third hand (I’m am mutant), is it lust if it’s not towards an actual woman?

It’s a fairly similar question to masturbation, and whatever your opinion on masturbation should be your opinion on sexbots.

Would it be pedophilia if the sexbot is formed as a child?  Think I’m way off on this last one?

It would be. I think she’s dead on here. As I talked of in my previous post on the subject, illegal and physiologically impossible sex acts are going to be one of the primary drivers of sexbots.

I’ll put it simply, there are more clinical pedophiles out there than there are homosexuals. They can’t sex a real 10-year old (at least not without violating both social taboos and the law), but when they can sex something that looks like a 10-year old without actually injuring a 10-year old, why wouldn’t they?

How do you argue morally against sexual gratification without harm without using religious or socially conservative arguments about the spiritual and/or societal importance of proper sexual relations? Note that the argument for proper sexual relations has been lost for decades, so there is no real societal defence against letting pedophiles get theirs rocks off on toys. In fact, it would probably reduce harm by letting them satiate their perverted lusts on inanimate objects rather than children.

Of course, SSM has not mentioned the potential of sexbots which cry, scream, and resist to satiate the rapists and/or sadists which make up an even larger minority of the population than pedophiles or homosexuals. Then of course there’s sexbots for all the other, weirder and less predominant fetishes out there.

Do people see sexbots as being replacements for actual human life partners?

Some do view it as a replacement for actual human life partners.

Or more accurately, they have been so scarred by negative interactions with women and/or have a keen enough awareness of their own low sexual value that they no longer even desire and/or hope for a normal human relationship with a real women. Instead, they make due with the best alternative.

The better term might be substitute good.

Is that the attraction?

The attraction is simple: for the omega male (and even for the beta male) finding a mate in these times is a grinding, brutal, and confusing process of rejection, mind games, loneliness, shattered hope, hopelessness, boredom, inanity, pettiness, and humiliation. At some point he simply decides it’s not worth it.

A sex doll provides a better than masturbation simulator of the real thing.

If it’s just a sexual thing, why attach a body to it in the first place?

Because it’s a sex thing. Masturbation relieves sexual urges but is lacking a certain something. Sex dolls somewhat close the gap between sex and masturbation; they trick your mind and body (somewhat) into believing you’re with a real woman. The more realistic they get, the better the mind is tricked and the narrower the gap between masturbation and sex.

How would this affect the relationship between men and women?

Once they get realistic enough: poorly.

Relational options for low-attractiveness women would evaporate; why sex a fatty when the sex doll looks better?

A significant portion of omega (and beta) men would leave the sexual/relational market; why waste all the time, pain, and effort required to attract an average looking woman after a decade or two of loneliness, when $3000 get’s you a reasonable facsimile of companionship right now?

Average women will be strongly negatively effected. Sexual/relational options and attention provided by betas/omegas will dry up.

Alpha males and greater betas will make out like bandits, as women becoming more desperate as their options dry up.

Hot women will have their marriage options dry up, but will still be able to get sexual and relational attention from higher status males. Competition from more average women though will decrease their ability to make demands and be bitchy, so they will be forced to be more feminine and nice.

Marriage will become almost solely the domain of the religious. Why would any secular man link up with a woman for life and risk his mental health, property, stability, and freedom on a woman, when woman are so driven to desperation and a sexbot can give a reasonable facsimile of real sex?

Those of you who question if omegas and lower betas would do this, simply lack the understanding of just how brutal the sexual market place is for these folks.

Will we still have any interest in one another?

No idea about women, but a lot of men will stop caring about women. Most women are simply, by male standards, shallow and uninteresting on a friendship level; with sexual desire satiated on demand by plentiful sex (from desperate women and sex dolls) many men will simply stop trying to sift through all the vapid, flaky, emotional, attention-whoring women to find the minority of sane, level-headed, and enjoyable ones; there will no longer be enough incentive to.

If men could choose between an average, real woman and a super-hot fake woman, which would most men prefer?

For the average man, all things being equal, the former, but all things are inherently not equal. An average, real women comes with a lot of costs: the joyless, painful grind of pursuit, rejection, and dating to find her, the emotional costs of living with an emotionally volatile creature, the risk of divorce rape, the risk of her changing and becoming frigid over time, the loss of freedom a real relationship implies, the monetary costs of a relationship, etc.

Even so, I think the majority would prefer the former, if they could get it and the costs were reasonable. Unfortunately for a certain, but unspecific, number of men, they can’t get it or the costs would be unreasonable.

If (probably “when” is a more accurate question) sexbots hit the market, will people buy them?

Absolutely. They will sell well.

MEN: would you buy a sexbot?

As things stand now no. But in the future if the following four conditions are met: my Christian morality fades, my desire for a family fades, they were to get sufficiently realistic looking, and I were to find the costs (material and immaterial) of picking up women too high, I probably would.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to fix marriage?

It would. Let’s see when ending no fault divorce becomes a viable political debate.

****

I think Cail got to the heart of the issue:

If you think having sex with an inanimate object seems like it would be dispiriting — well yeah, but jerking off into a kleenex doesn’t exactly make you feel like a king. Honestly, the prospect of cleaning the thing disturbs me more than the idea of having sex with it.

That will be most men will take on the issue. A reall women is best, but if they’re gonna end up masturbating regularly anyways, why not do it better.

Of course, some disagree:

With my “no” vote, the poll is back to even. I’m honestly surprised there are that many who would bed a robot, regardless of religious affiliation. It’s a robot.

From my understanding though, Stratton has had a happy marriage from a fairly young age. I would expect this reaction from most men who have never been involuntarily celibate for an extended period of time.

Who uses the bots will depend highly on their success in sexual/relational market in early life. Those men who are successful early and either marry young or have a lot of sex in high school/college, will probably find the idea repulsive. Those who aren’t successful will find the idea more alluring than their hand.

****

* Note: When I talk of sex dolls or sexbots in this post, I am referring to all semi-realistic stand-ins for sex, which would include VR sex, realistic sex dolls, future sexbots, etc.

Lightning Round – 2013/01/09

Young men: Read This. Accumulate skills early.
Related: Facilitating is more important than attracting.

A game intro.
Science: Game works.

The Captain lays out clearly and in list form why men hate feminism.
Related: Why do some women hate feminism? Hehe… We’ve already met this contributor before, so we know what to expect.

Young men, remember to thank your elders.

Feral love: the trap of romantic love.

A guide to wife-finding.

Sex isn’t a right; you have to win it.

You are responsible for your own happiness.

The fruits of rebellion.
Related: Answering rebellion.
Related: Everybody’s into (fake) submission now.
Related: Frost has a warning for good women.
Related: Men have been bred out of the marriage market.

Hehe… Ferris Bueller Syndrome.

Rothbard had it figured out decades before the manosphere.

Gun control is a feminist attempt to castrate males.
Related: Police state progressives.
Related: How to answer the anti-freedom nuts? Baaaa.
Related: A good round-up of firearms articles. I just ordered Boston’s Gun Bible; will review when read.

Too bad it’s not legal here in Canada.

A win for the good guys in Canada.

Science: Life isn’t fair.

Science: The necessity of fathers.
Related: Cads outbanging dads?

Black America is our future.

There is no better way to destroy white males than to turn them into victims.

Ferd of In Mala Fide has finished a book. I have ordered, will review when read.
The Captain has also finished another book. Will also review when read.

SSM tries to think like a man and is horrified. To answer her questions: yes, we do sexually rank, in some way, every women we meet. Most women over a certain age and fat/ugly women are automatically and instantly subconsciously ranked in the “No” category (some go in the actively repulsive category, which may get some second looks of morbid curiousity, sort of like slowing down at a car crash).  All other women are “checked out” insofar as socially acceptable and graded in comparison to others available. It takes an active will to resist “further checking out” (ie. staring at) the most beautiful women in the room.

Arguments for and against state marriages. My view: I’d get a non-state marriage if my jurisdiction allowed it and the state should get out of marriage entirely.

The propaganda nation.

I did not work as much this break as I planned to, so this I find this relevant.

Grooming is something I need to work on.

Science: Gift game.

Don’t be a feelings slut.

Some conversation tips.
Related: Non-verbal openers.

The feminization of rhetoric.

The Social Pathologist concludes there are Peter Pan manboys. He’s probably right (at least partially), but the question is not if there are, the question is what incentive does a guy have to not be a Peter Pan manboy? The conservatives and women can hector all they want, but why should any man care if the incentives for being responsible suck?

The manosphere is in the MSM, twice. (Sure it’s Australia, but still…)

Putting this aside for the future.

Lowering the boom.

Do not donate sperm.

Fat people know fat acceptance is a lie.

Mary the anti-feminist ideal.

How many women and children does a man want? As many as he can have.

The decline of the West in infographics.

The electronic leash.

What does it feel like to be a hot girl who gets old?

For a while I was getting a small amount of google search traffic for Free Northerner scumbag. Maybe it has something to do with this.

Why to avoid the MRA.

Woman prefer 1950’s men.
Related: Be a misogynist.

A history lesson on chivalry.

Death panels? What death panels?

The evolution of the cartooning industry.

Why American government support of culture will fail.

“Our economy should not be based on consumer spending in the first place.” Exactly.

The fallacies of Keynesians.

Why a lot of economics is garbage. Kind of ironic coming Yglesias.
Related: Hehe… Krugman is a hack.
Related: So’s Tom Friedman.

Government failure in car safety regulation. Just in case you forgot how incompetent it is.

Fuck Monsanto. I generally support GMO’s, but this is not acceptable.

Haha… Newspaper which persecuted gun owners, hires armed gun men for protection. Remember, gun control has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Related: The law of unintended consequences.
Related: Where are the Journal News Employees in your neighbourhood?

(H/T: the Captain, Frost, BoingBoing, GCBH, Mangan’s, SDA, Save Capitalism)

Hypocritical Entitlement

Ian wrote about Hugo Schwyzer’s latest word vomit, so I checked it out (the link is to Google Cache: no cookie for you Gawker).

We’ll ignore the fact that he and his feminist allies have absolutely no empathy for the millions of young men hurting (yes, hurting) from involuntary celibacy. Fuck ’em, they’re just men.

We’ll ignore the fact that assholes like Schwyzer and his feminist allies have been lying to men for decades about what attracts women and then when these men follow through on the lies they’ve been told, the assholes gather around and bully them for it.

We’ll ignore how Schwyzer completely ignores the privilege women have when it comes to the availability of sex, despite him and the rest of the Uncle Tim’s being all about the exposure of privilege.

Ian does an excellent job of analyzing Hugo’s spiteful piece, so I’m not going to. Read Ian’s article.

Instead, I’m going focus on the self-righteous hypocrisy of this little bit:

Sex with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional orgasms provided for them others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent disabled men on trips to Amsterdam to see sex workers, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. NGOKC reminds us just how many young men are outraged at this reality that attractiveness, charm, and fuckability are not and never can be equally distributed.

Remember, sex is not a basic human right.

Men are not entitled to sex.

But, women are entitled to your labour (in the form of welfare, food, shelter, and health care).

Nothing seems abnormal about this, this is what you were raised on.

This is what you were raised on; words that should provoke skepticism.

One random commenter explains the general just of the mood at Jezebel:

Because they aren’t entitled to women’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel women are “privileged” when it comes to sex on demand.

You aren’t entitled to a women’s body.

But they are entitled to yours.

You work, you sweat, you break your back, you endure inanity, boredom, idiocy, and bureuacracy for 40+ hours a week. Women are entitled to about 40% of that.

Women are entitled to about 2 days of your labour, 16 hours, every week. They are entitled to take this through the threat of force, violently supported by the guns of the police.

But a half-hour a week of mutually pleasurable activity. Nope, men aren’t entitled to it.

If you attempt to deprive them of your hard work, of your labour, of your body, you go to jail. The IRS (or the CRA for Canucks) will see to it. But if you are deprived of sex, of their body, meh, fuck you (you wish).

Women are entitled to your body, but you aren’t entitled to theirs.

It’s simple: either people are entitled to the bodies of others for attaining their basic needs (of which sex would be one) or they are not.

To say otherwise is hypocrisy.

Turn it around:

Because they aren’t entitled to men’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel men are “privileged” when it comes to economic outcomes.

Wonder what the Jezebellers would think of this? (Hint: Read 1 Kings 18:1-18)

****

The next time someone demands the state pay welfare for the societal parasites, ask when the state will ensure you have your *ahem* basic needs met.

When the person reacts in a horrified manner (as they invariably will) ask why the parasites basic biological needs are more important than yours.

When they bring up consent, choice, “my body, my choice”, entitlement, or whatever other slogans they substitute for thought, ask why you don’t have a choice and why the parasites are entitled to your body.

Continue to rhetorically poke around a bit and listen to the verbal diarrhea they issue forth pretending it’s a logical argument. You won’t accomplish anything, but you might get some lulz.

****

So, am I saying women should be forced to give sex to those men who need it?

Hells no.

I’m saying no one is entitled to the body of another. Men are not entitled to women’s bodies, women are not entitled to men’s bodies.

I just want the hypocritical wankery to stop.

But I know it won’t.

Women’s entitlement to the labour of men is so thoroughly entrenched that most reading this will either miss the point or be horrified.

So it goes, back to your drudgery. Those single mothers aren’t going to feed themselves.

****

Side-note:

I wonder what Schwyzer and his ilk would think of a Tumblr called Nice Girls of OKCupid where users made disparaging comments about the profiles of fat/ugly women, sluts, ignorant women, and single mothers outlining their “great personalities”?

Oh, and to head off the initial objections to the comparison: women, the feeling you get about “creeps” is exactly the feeling men get about “fatties” and “sluts”. Not that it matters, you’ll discount men’s feelings anyway.

Holiday Break

It’s the holidays and I’ve got some stuff I’m trying to work on, so blogging will be very light for the next couple weeks.

I don’t have any major posts planned. There will be no Lightning Round on the 2nd; there might be one on the 9th, there might not, we’ll see. If you need to read something, enjoy previous Lightning Rounds here.

I might throw up some random garbage or post something substantial if the urge strikes, but don’t expect much.

Lightning Round – 2012/12/26

Happy Boxing Day

The struggles of a Christian male.
Related: Men and the Church.

A dad is the 10th most popular Christmas gift request.

Be an oak.

The female cartel.

Marriage is inevitable.

Blaming the other.
Related: It’s not rape with a women does it.

Holy Hand Grenade is a lucky man.

Don’t marry a women in her late-20s.
Related: Bad news for post-marital spinsters.

Gentleman-up. Conservative feminists.

How to be effective with a friendzone strategy.

On grooming. Something I need to work on.

Good for CT.

An opinion on gun control. Read it.
Related: Liberals are ignorant of guns.
Related: And they lie.

The NRA did not fold, but I am definitely against their idea to put armed police officers in schools. Private security guards, sure, armed teachers, excellent, but not cops.
Related: By rejecting gun freedom, you are rejecting your own humanity.
Related: Gun amnesty programs are a win-win for both cops and robbers.
Related: What you won’t hear the media talk about endlessly.

The moral of the story: outlaw divorce. Also, why does it always seem in these kinds of anecdotes that liberals poor impulse control and broken families? Is there some kind of connection?
Related: Talk about making the problem worse. There’s a crisis of masculinity, so let’s attack it further.
Related: Our disintegrating society is poisoning us.

“Tip: If you find yourself in total agreement with people you wanted to murder in the last election, you’re wrong.”

Why gun deaths are high.
Related: The Drudge paradox; who are the real racists?
Related: 5.3 Newtown massacres every hour, every day.
Related: 10 shot in Chicago on Friday. Not white and Chicago has a gun ban, so no one cares.

Simon grey smells conspiracy.

The Boy Scouts are under attack because it’s the last bastion of positive male development.

Vox’s Holiday survival guide, parts 1, 2, & 3. Only a day late, but next year.

Are the women at Jezebel incapable of telling the difference between TV and real life?

VR sex is almost here.

The culture of liberty is necessary for liberty to take hold.

Poverty won the war on poverty.

Bill thinks the earth is gonna cool.
Keoni agrees.

The EU hate’s Switzerland’s success with low taxes.

The morality of the people is important, probably more important than the economic system.

Are liberals almost beginning to discover that you can’t just switch millennia of evolution off?

Hehe… The left is funny.

Anarchism is retarded.

Wright discusses hell.

Elihu on Christianity.

The internal illogic of solutions to declining birth rates.

Science: Hypergamy confirmed.

Investment: Ape the Rich.

(H/T: Smallest Minority, SDA, M3, the Captain)