Tag Archives: Sex

Sex Ed Hypocrisy

I found this both amusing and angering:

EDMONTON – An Edmonton teenager and her mother have successfully filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging the Edmonton Public School District’s use of a Christian fundamentalist abstinence education program infringed upon their rights as non-Christians.

Dawson’s mother Kathy, an agnostic who supports sex education, signed the permission slip for Emily to attend CALM’s sexual education classes. She was shocked when Emily texted her to say the “sex ed” class was being taught by an anti-abortion activist, from the American-based Pregnancy Care Centre.

The leftist theocrats spent decades ramming “sexual education” into the public education system against the vocal opposition of Christians, the right, and anybody with any sanity because indoctrinating elementary-school children in the joys of sodomy and pedophilia is essential for the leftist goal of destroying the family.

One pro-life Christian group manages to infiltrate their sexual indoctrination sessions and make it vaguely pro-family and suddenly it becomes a human rights issue that must be dealt with in court.

It’s funny how suddenly teaching children about sex is wrong when it comes from a point of view of Christian morality rather than nihilistic hedonism.

Remember, its all about forcing their views and destroying traditional values, nothing more.

To add even more joy, this is how the article ends:

It’s absurd. CALM isn’t religion class. That’s not what parents sign up for. Sex education in our local public schools should be delivered in a scientific, non-judgmental way, by qualified professionals, not outsourced to an American-based pro-life lobby group.

Emily and Kathy Dawson have inspired an important public debate about the nature of our public schools. They deserve our thanks for their courage in speaking out.

This left-wing moralizing BS is a part of the news story. It’s not an editorial, it’s in the national news section. The priests of progressivism aren’t even trying to hide that the news is simply propaganda any more.

The gloves are coming off, they’re coming into the open, and they won’t stop until they’ve devoured your children’s souls and destroyed whatever is left of the family.

Christian Sickness

I’ve discussed the issue of purity and abstinence recently, but I’m doing it again as I’ve just come across this piece that perfectly illustrates modern evangelical sickness, read it. I’m beginning to think ‘purity’ is one of, if not the most, destructive teaching in the modern church.

In this article, a 30-something women discusses how great purity is and how hard her struggles with sexual desire are.

As a single girl in my thirties who was committed, by God’s grace, to saving sex for marriage,

Notice, ‘committed to saving sex for marriage.’ This is entirely the wrong commitment. The commitment should be to marriage.

Paul was very clear on this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

For those women (and men) burning with passion, counseling abstinence is simply wrong; in fact, it might be borderline sinful. Instead, the church should council marriage.

“Purity culture” is destroying the church.

Or maybe the greater question is, Why do we even want to fight for sexual purity when our desires seem so natural and good—and often feel too powerful to control?

She shouldn’t. These desires feel good, natural, and powerful because they are good, natural, and powerful because God made them that way.

The problem is not the desire, the problem is looking for it in the wrong spot. People should not be waiting until their late-20s, or 30′s to get married and suffer under some perverse form of purity. They should be getting married young and having good, natural, enjoyable sex with their spouses while young.

God created sex, then told us to enjoy it only within the context of marriage between a man and a woman; so if He has us wait an excruciatingly long time for it, He is (mercifully) teaching us to meet our very deepest desires in Him alone.

Waiting is the problem, a Christian should not be waiting. They should be actively preparing and looking for marriage, men and women alike, each in their own way.

She gives some advice on combating lust, of which this is the most interesting:

9. Set hard-and-fast boundaries with men—for your sake and theirs. Hanging out alone with a man never helped me; it usually stirred up desires unnecessarily.

If a man and a woman are hanging out and want each other so much they are considering sin, they should be getting to the altar post-haste. ‘Boundaries’ are a broken product of a broken church culture. If a Christian man and woman are worrying about violating their ‘boundaries’ they should be be getting married.

****

To Colleen,

You seem like a decent woman, but you have been mislead by a sick church culture, so please don’t take offense to my criticisms, instead help me to fix church culture. Council your other women readers avoid sticking to some misguided quest for a perverse form of ‘purity’, instead council them to commit to marriage, to try their hardest to find a decent Christian man and start a life.

Stop waiting and ‘being pure’, and embrace the holy desires God has given you. Find a decent Christian man, marry him, and have as much sex as you possibly can; council your readers to do the same.

The false teachings you have received on this issue have obviously hurt you according to your own words, so please help prevent other young women from falling into the same trap.

Repost: Patriarchy: Restraining Males

In light of the Isla Vista massacre, I bring an old post of mine to your attention:

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

Sexual Principles

Here’s part of a letter to an advice columnist from a mother concerning her daughter:

Boy, did I get an eyeful! It appears my 16-year-old daughter and her 17-year-old boyfriend have been contemplating sex and have already gone to the heavy petting/foreplay stage. There must have been more than 1,000 e-mails of detailed touching and adult sexual language.

Both kids have had “the talk” with their parents, and we all thought abstinence was not an issue. I have had numerous talks with my daughter about sex, relationships and consequences.

Both kids want to go to college and have goals in life. They do feel they are “soul mates” — but what teenage couple don’t think that? The boyfriend is the nicest, most respectful boy you would want your daughter to date. Teenage hormones got the best of both of them. If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.

To make a long story short, I told them I read every single e-mail. When my daughter saw tears come to my eyes, she knew they had crossed the line, as I am a very open and understanding parent. They have been warned, talked to about consequences again, and strict rules have been put in place such as no “alone time” together.

Am I silly to think I can keep them in check, and should I keep their secret?

Here’s part of Amy’s, the advice columnist, response:

If you seriously believe this couple will abstain from sex because you say so, then you might want to get started decorating the baby’s nursery.

Keeping these two apart is completely unrealistic. In addition to your wise counsel about consequences, they should also be told that if they have sex, they must use contraception. You should urge your daughter to explore her options with her doctor, and/or the couple should visit a Planned Parenthood clinic together for realistic counseling and birth control

This letter here is the perfect macrocosm of what is screwed up in our sexual/marital marketplace.

It’s likely that the daughter, boyfriend, and their parents are probably all religious given their emphasis on abstinence, but their first principles are borderline satanic.

First, we’ll get “soul mates” out of the way. There are no soul mates, there is no ‘the one’, there is only “my one and only“. The concept of soul mates is a destroyer of marriage. Given the scare quotes its likely the mother has some reservations about reality of soul mates, but hasn’t imparted this wisdom properly to her daughter.

Next, Amy is correct in her first assertion, encouraging these teenagers to abstain from sex is stupid, but her advice beyond this is non-Christian and will lead to heartache for all. Her advice is the typical hedonism that infects society as a whole and is leading to our decline.

Now, all of this was just a preface, to examine the real point. Burdened, the letter writer, who’s one line shows how deep the rot has gone.

If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.”

There are two biological adults strongly attracted to each other. They have been blessed with strong mutual attraction at a young age, and their families’ response would be to destroy their relationship because of some desire for them to be “abstinent”?

That’s insanity. That’s cruel. That’s borderline satanic.

Here is Paul on the issue:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

The proper response, the Christian response, is to get these two young adults married and starting a family.

The modern drive for ‘abstinence’ uber alles is unholy. Some precious few are given the gift of singleness, they should abstain, but most are not given this gift and calling.

God blessed most with a sexual drive and a holy desire to become one flesh with another. To demand abstinence until some point in their 20′s or 30′s from those not given to singleness is cruel, destructive, unrealistic, unbiblical, and satanic. The focus on abstinence hands the devil a strong hold over young adults in which to subvert their holy desires into unholy ones.

One of the major problems with the modern church is the unbiblical emphasis on abstinence. Abstinence should never be an issue in the church. If two Christian young adults want sex with each other, their parents should rejoice and bring them before the altar post-haste.

Is it any wonder the unchurched are repulsed by such a hideous doctrine as abstinence?

I actually wrote into Amy, hopefully she’ll publish my letter. I would not wish to see these parent’s inflict this hideous cruelty on their offspring.

****

You might, in your modernity-addled mind, object that 16-17 year-olds aren’t adults, but you’d be wrong in any sense but the technially legal. These are adults, and would have been considered so by almost any society prior to the mid-19th century. A person that has hit puberty is an adult; our infantilization of them through non-existent ‘adolescence’ is destructive. Don’t let this kind of modern insanity poison your mind.

Inner Beauty

A while back I mentioned inner beauty, saying I accept the concept itself but reject the abuses it has taken. I decided to write a bit more on this topic after reading this post on why men marry some women. (If you’re a young woman looking to marry, I would strongly suggest reading that link).

The concept of “inner beauty” typically gets short shrift in these parts, and deservedly so. Inner beauty is usually used as an appeal by either unpleasant fat people or unpleasant aging women for why people should love them despite their unpleasantness, obesity, and age. Sadly, Jim Carrey was right about how inner beauty is often used:

Despite the abuses of inner beauty, inner beauty is actually very important. As the earlier linked article pointed out:

1. Men are attracted by the physical, but marry character

a. Newly engaged men said that what attracted them to their fiancées was how classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat their future wives were.
i. While 68% gave a physical description of their fiancée, only 20% said that what attracted them was how gorgeous and sexy their fiancée was. Over 60% described their personalities, even if the women in question were very beautiful.
b. Therefore, be positive!

2. All wives are trophy wives—men marry women whom they admire and like to show off (but not for their physical appearance)

3. Dressing appropriately sends the message, “I am wife material.” Men marry women they perceive as “situational virgins” who move easily in their world.

a. Editor’s note: In other words, don’t dress like a ho. Men see a sexy outfit as an invitation to have sex.
b. Most men decide within 10 minutes of meeting a woman if she’s appropriate for marriage, or just for a casual affair.
c. Over 80% of men said or bragged that their fiancée was the kind of woman they were proud to introduce to friends and family
d. Over 70% of men said that they knew that their future bride was a “nice girl” the minute they met
e. Only 7 out of 2,000 men interviewed said that their fiancée was dressed in a very sexy outfit when they met.

For finding a husband, women’s looks are secondary, their inner qualities are what matter more. (For finding hook-ups, the opposite is true). This doesn’t mean women should ignore her looks, secondary is still important, but instead a woman looking for marriage should focus on developing the internal qualities a man would want in a wife.

****

Look at the list above of attractive features from 1above: “classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat”

All but ‘classy’ can be described as simply as ‘actively happy’.

Classy is simply a polite way of saying “not an embarrassing slut”. If you look at points 2 & 3 this simply reinforces that point. Men don’t want someone slutty for marriage, they want a nice girl.

If a woman simply develops herself into a happy, energetic person and refrains from making a slut of herself, she will be attractive.

This is true inner beauty and it shows outwardly.

****

Your outer self reflects your inner self.

Your internal attitude will reflect how others perceive you.

The manosphere talks of frame and irrational self-confidence a lot, because they know that how they think about themselves, their inner personality, comes through in the way they look, in the way they stand, and in the way they talk. Having a strong, confident frame attracts women. The men of the manosphere knows that a person’s inner self reflects their outer self.

This is a man’s inner attractiveness.

But this internal frame doesn’t just apply to men, it also applies to women. A woman’s internal attitude will greatly effect her external appearance.

A women’s positive attitude is extremely important. A genuine smile and positive outlook on life can easily and greatly increase a women’s attractiveness.

Here is something most men know, but many women seem not to understand. The vast majority of women under the age of 25 who keep themselves healthy, have a positive attitude, and smile a lot are attractive to most men.

To be unattractive usually requires effort on a women’s part.

****

To be unattractive most young women have to actively make themselves unattractive by either having a bad attitude, gaining weight, mutilating themselves through piercings or tattoos, or actively hampering their looks through too much make-up or a bad (ie: short) haircut.

Obesity is the most common reasons for young women being unattractive, but, even that is simply an outward expression of an inward attitude. I’ve written more about this before, but to summarize, obesity a symptom of two of the seven cardinal sins. An unwillingness to take the most basic care of your body shows outwardly a deep inward self-loathing.

Tattoos and piercings show internal attitudes as well. Tattoos demonstrate poor decision-making, trashy attitudes, and sexual easiness. Piercings demonstrate much the same. While these might attract men looking for easy sex, they are counterproductive in sending the message “I am wife material”.

A bad haircut (ie: short hair) displays a lack of femininity and a lack of desire to be feminine. This displays an unattractive internal reality.

Poor make-up is less permanent and less destructive, but caking it on like a whore, makes you look like a whore, which is the opposite of classy wife material. This may be showing an internal problem or it may simply just be showing cluelessness.

While these external markers may all show inner ugliness, inner ugliness will show through more directly as well. Inner ugliness will display itself in frowning, bad attitudes, argumentativeness, nagging, and the like, all of which is horribly physically unattractive.

If a woman simply keeps in shape, is happy, and doesn’t ruin herself, she will be able to attract a man.

****

There are a few exceptions to the rule, some people are are just born physically ugly and no amount of inner beauty or self-care will change that, but that is rare.

Look at this 1-10 pictoral scale, how many women (excluding the obese) like those in the 1-4 categories does a man actually see in real life?

For myself, I can only think of one example of a girl (from church) under 30 from my entirety of my regular social circles (school, friends, social activities, etc.) who would fall among the 1-4 range for a reason other than obesity. It is very rare in the course of my regular life in public areas (bussing, shopping, at church, walking around, etc) that I will see a <30 woman who would physically be a 1-4 for reasons other than obesity (or, occassionally, a hideous make-up job, bad haircut, or piercings/tattoos).

The young, in-shape women who is actually unattractive is a very rare thing.

For a woman, being a 5 or higher means the majority of men are naturally attracted to you.

So, if you are a women looking to find a husband, develop your inner beauty. Be happy, be positive, be energetic, and don’t get fat or be a slut.

****

To bring this to a more abstract, ideological level, this is one of the problems with feminism; feminism actively tries to destroy inner beauty.

They encourage fat acceptance, sluttiness, and bad attitude.

I’ve already written about fat acceptance here, re-read that.

As for sluttiness, Tracy’s new piece shows you exactly what they are encouraging there. Hardly the time of women that would be a classy, nice girl to show off to family. Radish Mag has a nice long piece on this as well.

As for bad attitudes, feminists are actively campaigning against being happy and smiling. They believe smiling is tyranny and have started a campaign called “Don’t tell me to smile”. They revel in their “bitch faces“. The possible examples are endless, but its obvious the feminists are opposed to being “positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat” or anyone encouraging the same.

So, to any women looking to get married, avoid any feminist advice, for men are looking for exactly the opposite.

****

For just one example of how feminists destroy inner beauty, we’ll take RoK’s ugliest feminist, Lindy West (trigger warning: Lindy West):

She’s obviously very unattractive, but if you look closer you can tell she has good skin and no major deformities. If we see a picture of her smiling (even if it a kinda fake smile) and hiding her fat , she jumps physically from a 2-3 to a 4:

If she lost weight and put on a positive attitude she could probably easy jump form the ugly range to the attractive range. Even so, just physically speaking she’s not the physically ugliest person I’ve seen, but her ugliness is not from her physicality, it flows from her inner self. Because she follows feminist dogma she will keep herself fat, she will continue to display a bitchy face, and her inner ugliness will continue to glower through.

As the top commenter on the RoK article stated:

These women are rotten to the core. That’s why Roosh picked them. They’re miserable, cynical, pessimistic, angry, and offer nothing of substance. They’re physical appearance was just icing on the cake. They’re ugly through and through.

It’s her inner ugliness that truly makes her repulsive.

When I wrote of Tracy Flory-Clark a lot of men expressed repulsion to her. She’s kind of plain but not physically ugly:

With a more genuine smile and eyes that didn’t have the thousand-cock stare, she could probably be fairly attractive. It’s not her outer self that’s repulsive, it’s her inner self which manifests outwardly that makes her repulsive to men.

These feminists are not ugly because of what’s outside, they have an ugly inner core.

****

So, women, unless you want to be in line with the ugliest feminist in America, develop your inner beauty. It matters a lot.

Not to mention you’ll feel better about yourself as a happy, healthy, joyful, energetic person rather than a bitter, angry, hateful one.

The Slut Event Horizon

Discussing my last post on Twitter, some objected to the following:

Only sluts will succumb to them [PUA's], and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

When posting this I thought it was almost tautological. If a women is sleeping with a man within the PUA’s 3-date rule she’s most definitely a slut. If a women is in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club, looking for love, it’s almost guaranteed she’s a slut. As I’ve already noted, when the PUA moves outside the club into daygame, his success rates are very low (even accounting for only selecting girls in the top 11-23% of women), so the gaygamer is only getting the sluttiest girls.

The question then became, what of good girls that go bad due to incentives. These aren’t natural sluts, but only sluts of circumstance. Aren’t the PUA’s ruining them?

To which the answer is, maybe in a few exceptional rare cases yes, but the PUA is using a number of selection filters, the two most important fo which for this discussion are the club, alcohol, and the 3-date rule.

A woman having sex within 3 dates is already ruined. A women in the club or getting blitzed around strange horny men is either already ruined or will be ruined in very short order whether there’s a PUA present or not.

To describe the ruining of girls, I coined the term slut event horizon. If you aren’t familiar with TV Tropes (or astrophysics), an event horizon is the point of no return, past which something/someone is irredeemable.*

So, in this case, past a certain point of sexual activity a certain women is most slut, no question.

A women having sex within 3-dates is already past the slut event horizon. A women at the club or frat party getting wasted is almost assuredly past the slut event horizon, and in the rare case she isn’t she is willingly putting herself so close to going over the edge that for any practical purpose you should treat her as such (ie. a slut is not a wife).

The PUA’s natural fodder is the woman already past the event horizon, or, rarely, so near the edge of the event horizon that to say the PUA ruined her is to blame the straw for breaking the camel’s back rather than the 400-lb obese man.

****

Here’s a chart on lifetime number of sexual partners:

About a third of women have had 0-1 partners, we can safely say these are good girls. About a quarter had 7+ partners, we can safely say these are sluts, they’ve passed the slut event horizon. Less than a tenth of women had 2 partners, we’ll call these the oops women, the ones who have probably not passed the event horizon, but made a mistake or had a boyfriend before marriage. About a third of women had 3-6 partners, we’ll call these marginal girls, they may or may not be past the slut event horizon.

69% of women are virgins at 18, that number drops to 15% by age 21. So, over half of all women lose their virginity from 18-21 years of age.

Something major happens between 18-21.

Some can be chocked up to marriage, a bit under 20% of people marry by age 21. Given that women generally marry about 2 years younger, we could estimate that about a quarter to a third of women are married by age 21. But some of those would not have been virgins at 18.**

But even given that some women are marrying, that is a lot unmarried women losing their virginity in their college-age years. Many of these are among the marginal women.

As well, over half of women aged 17-40 have had one night stands. We’ll assume nearly all n>7 women had a one night stand, which means about that a good portion (about two thirds) of the marginal women and a few of the oops women have had a one night stand, as well.

(I’m not going to get into trying to figure out how many ONS’s are caused by PUA’s, but remember, PUA’s are a very small minority of men, I would be surprised if they made up even a large minority of ONS’s).

****

When men speak of a women being ruined by PUAs, they are talking of the oops and the marginal women. The ones with a premarital sex partner or three, possibly a one night stand.

A marginal women having a one night stand, has not been ruined by the PUA, she’s either had a number of ONS’s, making the choice to repeatedly ruin herself, has had other sexual activity besides an ONS and stopped when the ONS showed her how far she sunk, or she had a one night stand and decided to continue on, choosing sluthood and ruining herself (depending on where the ONS falls).

The only group that could be said to be ‘ruined’ by the PUA would be the oops woman whose oops was a one-night stand or short-term fling. Oops women make up less than a tenth of women, and I’m betting the large majority of oops women lost their virginity to a boyfriend rather than a PUA.

So, in all, maybe, about 3% of women could be honestly considered ruined by a PUA rather than by their own choices. Not good, but hardly a major problem that must be solved right now.

On top of this, almost a third of women have sex before they are even old enough to legally be fodder for a PUA; 85% of women have had sex before they are even of age to legally allowed to be in the PUA’s natural habitat, the club. To say the PUA’s are responsible for sluttiness is asinine.

Blaming the PUA’s is, at best, scapegoating. Focusing on PUA’s will be destroy any attempt to establish a proper reactionary view of sex and the sexual marketplace before it even begins.

****

A woman does not just see a PUA then become a slut. Taking it from a PUA may be her final fall over the slut event horizon, but PUAs do not have some sort of magic power to turn women into sluts. Rather sluts come from circumstances.

There are two types of slut, the natural slut and the circumstantial slut (similar as the to the two types of slave). Keep in mind this is not an dichotomy, but a sliding scale.

The natural slut is an r-selected woman who is naturally inclined, whether by genetics or childhood environment (ie: sexual abuse or father absence), to be a slut. She will slut it up unless there are very strict societal controls over women’s sexuality, and even then she might become a harlot outside of proper society. You can not ruin this women, she is pre-ruined; she is beyond the slut event horizon. She is bad marriage risk no matter what and nothing but the overwhelming grace of God could ever make her wife material. Most of the n>7 sluts are of probably some degree of this type.

The circumstantial slut is a woman who may be slutty if the circumstances or incentives are right. Some of the sluts and almost all of the marginals and oops are of this type. Many of the good girls could become this is the circumstances were wrong.

The reason the circumstantial slut becomes a slut is because she is in the wrong sexual culture providing the wrong incentives.

In the reactionary society holding the positions on sex I outlined in my last post, these girls would never become sluts because circumstances would never be such that they would want. They would all be wife material.

She does not just fall over the slut event horizon she moves to the verge of the event horizon through small slutty behaviours and eventually one of those behaviours throws her over the edge.

Those small slutty behaviours are mostly not ONS’s, ONS’s are often the final leap over the horizon. Rather they are trained in a women through long- and short-term sexual relationships.

She loses her virginity to her boyfriend, her friend-with-benefits, or the man she wants to be her boyfriend because she sex outside of marriage is a societally accepted. She does this a few times with a few different boyfriends and maybe with that man she just met who’s really hot and at some point she, more or less accidentally, crosses the slut event horizon.

She may not start out intending to be a slut, but once she starts moving along that path it is very easy to go over it without noticing. There is no clear social line of sluttiness.

At what number does it become sluttiness? Most men and women would overlook a mistake or two. What about three? four?

If it’s not slutty in a long-term relationship, then it shouldn’t be with a short-term one? Three dates is a short-term relationship, right?

Is an ONS an automatic cross over the horizon, or can one ONS count as a mistake? two? What’s the difference between three dates and one?

There is no clear threshold of where the horizon is. Hence why some women are good girls, some are sluts, but the plurality are marginal and oops.

They’re trying to stop before the slut event horizon, but many are still turning into sluts because it is not clear where the slut event horizon sits.

This is why I say PUA’s are less destructive than LTR’s and STR’s. What a PUA does is clearly degenerate and an ONS with a PUA is clearly over the slut event horizon. Only those women already over the horizon or so close to it it doesn’t matter for any practical purpose will be a PUA’s +1, and the circumstantial sluts who do so will have been lead down this path by slippery slopes and an unclear slut event horizon.

Meanwhile, as soon as you accept the validity of STR’s and LTR’s there is no clear line of sluttiness and degeneracy. The slut event horizon is not something seen until it has already been passed. These relationships are simply training grounds for sluttery and ruin far more women than PUA’s ever have or will.

If you want to preserve women, if you don’t want women being hurt by a brutal sexual marketplace, if you want women to be wives rather than sluts, you must make the culture so it is not so easy to slide over the slut event horizon.

You have to culturally keep sex in marriage and marriage alone. Some natural sluts will still slut it up and there will still be oops women, but if you make clear that sex outside of marraige is the slut event horizon, you will have less sluts, more wives, more marriage, happier women, and more productive men.

The only reactionary attitude for sex is to confine it to marriage alone.

Anything else is degeneracy.

****

* I should note that I don’t believe in the concept of absolute irredeemability. Every person no matter how fallen can be redeemed by Christ’s blood and have a regenerated new self. So, no matter how much you have sinned, God will forgive you if you repent. Do so.

In this case, irredeemability is used to simply show someone who has allowed themselves to act in a way that would permanently mark them a material and objective slut.

** Good news for men looking for a virgin wife. About a fifth to a quarter of unmarried 21-year-olds are virgins once you take out the quarter to a third of women married at 21. 20-25% is better odds than 15%.

On Reaction and PUAs

This post on the nature of women has made the Twitter rounds and some, such as Anissimov, are calling for a war on the manosphere and/or the PUAs. (I’m not sure how many see the distinction between the two).

Before I begin, I read the story emashee posted a week or two back, and felt no pity for the subject of the post. I still feel no pity. She’s a moral agent who has made her moral choices. She’s choosing to live the life of a whore and receiving a whore’s wages.

That being said, she does seem somewhat on the verge of repentance, so I did pray she finds Jesus. She can’t change her own nature, but God can.

The only person I feel any pity for in that story is the man who’s the intended target of her story. You just know she is going to shred his heart and soul in the future, and he’s walking into it blindly (the letter is unsent). If something does come of it, the decent man will likely find a cold bed or hot divorce in the future. Dealing with girls like that is like sticking your member in a meat grinder.

As the Bible warned many a times, the path of the adulteress leads to death.

****

Now, onto my main point. I must reject the war between reactionaries and PUAs some are trying to brew.

PUA’s are not the problem; they never were the problem. They didn’t create modern society and they are not the ones maintaining it. They are simply immoral men taking what they can from the decaying ruins. They’ve been handed a bag of complete shit and been told to enjoy eating it. How can you blame them for not wanting to?

If I wasn’t a Christian, you can bet I’d be out there taking what I could myself.

In addition, Dalrock has already established shaming PUA’s won’t work.

Finally, PUAs are not hurting anyone innocent. Only sluts will succumb to them, and the sluts they are hurting would have simply slutted it up with someone with ‘natural game’ (or less game) and been hurt anyways.

There is no social cost to PUAs, casual sex was a norm before PUAs. Mystery didn’t build the clubs he practiced game in and the club sluts were already looking for sex before he first sarged. It’s not like club sluts would magically have become wives if Mystery had decided to play video games instead.

Does anyone honestly think that PUA’s were at fault for the woman’s problem in emashee’s post?

Day game might be worrisome, as it extends the reach of the PUAs beyond club sluts and might intrude on women who may be marriageble. But given that a day game conversion rate of 2.7% and a number close rate of 25% are considered great, it’s pretty clear that only the sluttiest sluts will be taken in that way. So little chance of a decent women being ruined there.

PUA’s are not ruining marriageable women; they are using sluts.

Sluts are sluts, wives are wives, and the two should not be confused. Those complaining about PUA’s ruining women miss this point and doing so leads to Sheol.

Don’t mistake me, I’m not lionizing PUAs. PUAs are degenerate scumbags.

But, except for some of the deluded “left her better than when I found her” types, they’ll usually cop to that. Acknowledging their own guilt makes them closer to repentance than the sluts and progressives who stand sanctimonious.

Putting the blame for modern sexual relations on PUA’s misses the reactionary point and allows other, more insiduous forms of degeneracy to destroy society.

****

PUA’s are not the enemy. So who is?

The enemy is the adviser counseling young men to be nice guys and wait to marry used-up sluts.
The enemy is the father who pays for his daughter to live on campus.
The enemy is the mother who protects her son from struggle.
The enemy is the preacher that teaches God will bring that perfect soul mate if you just wait.
The enemy is the college becomes a place of partying signalling rather than strict academics.
The enemy is the journalist who glorifies premarital sex.
The enemy is the aunt encouraging her daughter to date around and delay marriage.
The enemy is the person who expresses disgust at the thought of a 16-year-old marrying.
The enemy is the person who calls a 15-year-old a child.
The enemy is the public school that infantilizes young people.
The enemy is the person who encourages long-term relationships.
The enemy is the person who encourages marriage based on romantic love.
The enemy is the person who encourages delaying child-birth.
The enemy is the organization encouraging ‘family planning’.

In case you don’t realize it yet, the enemy is you.

The enemy is the culture which has been completely taken over by the long march.

It is the culture that has separated sex, romance, procreation, and marriage from each other.

It is the culture that infantilizes young men and women and encourages them to avoid responsibility.

It is the culture that has destroyed the family.

You are a product of that culture. You are that culture.

****

This is the question to those other reactionaries condemning PUA’s, have you had sex outside of marriage?

If so, you are just as strong a degenerative influence on the marriage market as the PUA’s. In fact, you are probably are more degenerative influence than the PUA’s.

The PUAs are obvious degenerates. Nobody thinks the PUA’s are doing good, not even the PUA’s themselves.

On the other hand, there are many subtle forms of degeneracy that are widely accepted and hardly noticed. By being so they are far more potent forces of degeneracy.

A healthy society rests on the family unit.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

A healthy society rests on a man leaving his parent’s household, taking a wife for himself, and raising children.

But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. (Malachi 2:14-15, ESV)

Any healthy society will be structured so as to encourage responsibility and independence in young men, so they can take wives, build a life together, and create the next generation of responsible adults.

Anything that takes away from this prime societal focus is degenerative. Small deviance will build on small deviance and eventually corrupt and destroy the civilization.

I am sure many reactionaries intellectually hold to and practice deviancies which destroying our society. We should eradicate these before we start hypocritically pointing out the degeneracies of the PUA’s.

****

So, what should a reactionary, non-degenerative view of sexual relations entail?

We must first understand that sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else. Romance belongs only in the path to marriage and marriage itself and nowhere else. Children belong in the married family and nowhere else. Marriage is for life and nigh unbreakable.

Without rock-solid marriage as a societal foundation, paternity is always in question and sexual access comes without investment. Men who don’t know the paternity of their children and have easy sexual access have no incentive to invest in the future of society, leading to the degeneration of society.

Any minor deviance from combining these four is entryism  and will lead to more minor deviance, inevitably leading to our current disordered sexual marketplace.

If you accept or practice anything else, you are a degenerate and just as bad an influence as the PUA’s, maybe even more so, because you’re reinforcing existing accepted degeneracy rather than being an unaccepted outsider.

Although romance is confined to marriage and the path thereto, marriage should not be based around romance. Eros is poor foundation for marriage. Marriage is a social obligation to your spouse and to your community to provide for each other and for your children, the future of the society.

An LTR is not marriage as it rejects the social obligations marriage entails.  Nothing is marriage but marriage.

Next, we must accept the biological fact that people physically become adults at puberty. God and/or evolution designed humans that way. If marriage is delayed more than a few years beyond puberty, young adults will generally engage in sex and romance outside of marriage. Only those with the lowest time preference (or the most sexually unattractive) will delay, and a society can not function if it depends on everybody to have low time preferences.

Anything but young marriage* will inevitably lead to our current sexual marketplace.

By young I mean actively considering in their early teens and anybody not married by their early-20s is considered an old maid or eccentric bachelor.

If you discourage teen marriage, if you think the 14-year-old a child, if you show disgust towards marriage between 15-year-olds, etc. you are encouraging degeneracy.

Once married, marriage should be nigh unbreakable: divorce should only be granted for adultery and, maybe, persistent physical violence and it should always be at-fault.

Anything else, encourages divorce, encourages the dissolution of the family, and discourages marriage, along with all the negative effects those entail. To accept anything else is to accept degeneracy.

Artificial birth control should be disallowed for the unmarried and strongly discouraged by society for the married. ‘Family planning’ should be shunned. Married couples should be encouraged to give birth to many children.

Anything else seperates sex and romance from procreation, which will inevitably lead to the speration of sex and romance from marriage. This will lead to the current sexual marketplce. It is degeneracy.

This is what society must enforce for a stable family, the building block of civilization. Anything else will lead to the decline of the family, and thereby the decline of the nation and its civilization.

****

The PUA’s are degenerates. In any functional society, they would be hunted down, exiled, whipped, and/or hanged. Cold, casual sex is harmful to the participants, to the family, and to society at large.

Engaging in short-term and long-term sexual relationships apart from marriage is also harmful. The hook-up engenders sex and separates it from marriage, romance, and procreation; relationships separates both romance and sex from both procreation and marriage, which is just as harmful.

The sexual STR is nothing more than an extended hook-up.

The LTR creates relationships not based on mutual commitment before society as a replacement good for marriage. Discouraging both marriage and stable family formation. They replace the societal commitment of marriage for the selfish pursuits of individuals. Without unbreakable commitment before the community, the relationship unit is not a stable way to raise children and it reduces the surety of paternity, which is necessary to encourage men to invest in their children.

These are particularly more insidious than hook-ups, because no one except a few damaged individuals think hook-ups are a good and beneficial way to live their life. But many people think the serial monogamy of STR’s or LTR’s are positive and acceptable. It’s a form of degeneracy we don’t see.

But most harmful of all is divorce. It destroys that marriage which is already built, ruins families, hurts children, and strongly discourages marriage.

All are destructive to society and engender the decline to our current broken sexual marketplace. We should be encouraging a return to traditional sexual mores.

But we should not be making a fight between reaction and the PUAs and should not be taking a harsh purging line for sexual degeneracy (at this point; come the restoration, we can decide what to do with degenerates).

As it stands, the PUA’s are potential allies. They see some of the truth and are effective at spreading it. The PUA sections of the manosphere function as an excellent dark enlightenment gateway. I came to Moldbug and neoreaction through the mansophere and I’m sure many others first taste of the red pill was through the PUA’s.

On a more pragmatically harsh note, the PUA’s strip the modern sexual market place down to its roughest and dirtiest and display it openly for all to see. A few years of reading of the PUA’s pillagings will likely turn many naive young men towards a more patriarchal society. A couple decades in the brutal hands of the PUA’s and I’m sure many women will be more willing to support a return to the loving, protective embrace of patriarchy.

Railing against the degeneracy of PUA’s, while accepting other sexual relationships apart from marriage is hypocritical and counter-productive. PUA’s are not the problem, they are not harming the innocent, and they are performing some minor pragmatic positives. They are the symptom of a larger problem.

We should focus on the root problems rather than the symptoms.

We should intellectually bind sex, romance, procreation, and marriage into each other and fight the infantilization of young men and women.

****

* The combination of later marriage, strict society-enforced sexual mores on women, harsh anti-divorce laws, and socially acceptable prostitution may also potentially function, but would not be optimal. 

Omega’s Guide – Women

We come to the last part of our guide, learning basic interaction with women. I left this for last on purpose; being attractive to women is primarily about demonstrating value to them and the prior advice will turn you into a (more) valuable man. (Game, or at least outer game, succeeds by mimicking the traits that demonstrate value; better to be than to mimic). If you’ve been implementing the previous parts of the guide, your value will already have increased, and you may have already noticed more success (or at least less failure) with women.

Before I begin, I’m going to be honest with you, as I’ve been rather uncomfortable about writing this part. I am mostly a failure in this area; I’m not sure if I’m even qualified to write this, but I have to, because this part is essential to any self-improvement guide for awkward males.

So, you should know that I’m not a player, a master of seduction, or any such thing. I’m not even all that successful with women. In fact, my romantic efforts have proven mostly fruitless in finding myself a wife and I haven’t been in a relationship in about four years. Everything I write here is stuff I’m still working on implementing (theory is a lot easier than practice).

What I do have is experience from being a total loser who wasn’t even in the dating game to having some success. I went from, literally, not being to speak with most women to, a couple of years later, having a couple short relationships. Now, I get occasional dates (one every few months) with moderately attractive women (6-8s). A vast improvement over the nothing I had prior.

So, the advice given here is not about game, it is not about becoming an alpha male, and it’s not about becoming king of the club. This advice will not help you find a smoking-hot 9 for a girlfriend or keep a rotating harem of 8s. I do not have the knowledge or experience to help you with that. If you’re looking for something like that try Roosh or Greene.

What this advice will help you accomplish is to go from being the loser who hasn’t had a date in three years (or ever for that matter) or is forced to date fat or unattractive girls to being a normal, socially well-adjusted man who can get the occasional date with a cute girl and, maybe, a moderately attractive girlfriend. If you’re the kind of person I’m making this guide for, that will be a large improvement over whatever you had (or more likely didn’t have) previously. Even if you’re not as total a loser as I was, some of the advice still might be useful to you.

This advice will not get into game in the sense of gimmicks, tricks, or “mind-games. It is simply about building yourself the social skills to be the kind of man a women of decent value might like to be with.

It will take a lot of work, and it will be a slow, grinding process. Don’t give up, keep trying. Simply remember how psyched you have been and will be in the future when you find yourself doing something you never thought you’d be able to do.

****

Before we being, we’ll talk on the friendzone, a trap many men near the bottom of the socio-sexual hierarchy fall into.

The friendzone is a self-inflicted misery; stay out of it. If you value a woman as a friend, and only as a friend, be her friend and expect and desire nothing else. If something happens, it happens, but do not work towards it, do not look for it, do not desire it, and do not expect it.

It is highly unlikely you will get a relationship out of a friendzone friendship and it is very costly in terms of time and emotional effort. It is simply not something any reasonable person would pursue.

So don’t.

If you are friends with a women because you want a romantic relationship with her, then be forthright. Next time you see her, tell her straight, “I desire a romantic relationship with you. I can not remain friends with you because of my romantic emotions towards you.”

Maybe you’ll get a romantic relationship, maybe you won’t, but it is far better for you (and her) if you are rejected and end the “friendship”

If you don’t get the relationship, simply cut off the “friendship”. Stop spending time, resources, or emotional energy on her. You have better things to do with all three than waste it on a forlorn and pointless hope. Do not try to change her mind (you won’t); simply accept the rejection and move on.

If she asks why you cut her off, tell her the truth. You want a romantic relationship with her, not a friendship.

You can be friends with a woman, but only if the friendship is the end in itself. If the friendship is a means to a romantic relationship, it’s not a friendship; end it.

****

The next little trouble many men who are are socially maladapted fall into is that of “nice guys finish last” while jerks get the girls.

The problem with this type of thinking is twofold: “nice” and “good” are not equivalent and the underlying factor is not jerkiness/niceness but rather a combination of manliness, charisma,and desperation.

Whatever their other flaws, the jerks who get women exude masculinity, which attracts women and often charisma (of a sort); they also rarely exude desperation. “Nice guys” are generally deficient in both, as rather than assert their own purposes, they defer to other’s, particularly women’s, purposes. This is decidedly unmasculine. Nice guys often also lack charisma, it’s boring to have someone who is always nice and agreeable with you and never challenges you.  Being nice often gives of a vibe of desperation as well. As with the friendzone predicament, if you’re willing to do many nice things for a woman, she will see you as trying to “buy” her affections because you are desperate for his attention.

You want to avoid that, but that does not mean you have to become a “jerk”. Simply, try to be a man with your own purposes and make those purposes good ones.

Be a good man dedicated to good causes; don’t be a nice guy willing to defer to everyone else.

****

With that friendzone and nice guys nonsense out of the way, we’ll get to the actual meat of the issue.

The first thing you need to do is decide, “what kind of woman do I want?” and “for what purposes?” What kind of woman or women do you want to invite into your ideal life?

“I’ll take whatever I can get” is the wrong answer. It shows both that you are low value and that you are desperate for female attention, both of which are inner failings on your part which will repel women.

Women want a man of high value; what type of high value each woman will care for will depend on her particularity, but all women want a man of high value. The type of women you want to date will likely be of high enough value to be able to demand that.

Also, every women wants to feel like she was chosen because she’s “special.” If she thinks you stuck with her because she’s the only one you could get, she’ll reject you (unless she’s such low value herself that she thinks you’re the best she can get).

So, now be honest with yourself, what kind of woman do you want in your life? What kind of relationship(s) would you like to have?

Think on it a bit.

****

Now that you have an idea of what you want, picture the type of man who has what you want. Look around at your friends, your church, your neighbourhood, your social group, etc. What type of men have the kind of woman you want?

Be that type of man.

Success with women starts well before you even say hi to any women.

It starts by being the type of man the type of woman you desire would desire.

This is nowhere near as easy as the little phrase makes it sound, but it’s the goal. You may never reach it, but work towards it.

I’ll repeat it, because I can not stress this enough:

To be successful with women, you should first be successful with the other areas of your life. Success is attractive to women.

There is no secret to attracting women, there is no shortcut, there is no magic technique; to attract a women simply requires

So keep on improving in all the other areas I’ve already written about.

****

One last piece of theory before we get to practice.

Know your value on the dating market and act accordingly. If you are a short, ugly man, you will likely never get a “9″ (barring becoming a billionaire). On the other hand, with enough self-improvement, social skills, and value-building you might get a nice “7″.

If you spend all your time pursuing those 9s who will always reject you, but ignore that sweet little 7 with a crush on you, you will die alone.

Shoot for something attainable, but don’t settle. You want to work on finding a women on the upper edge of what you are able to obtain.

Look for a winning hand, not a perfect hand. If you hold out for a royal flush, you’ll almost surely lose, but that three of a kind will let you take the pot.

****

Theory is over, now for more practical advice.

The first thing you need to do is to talk with women. You’ll never get any romantic success if you don’t start talking with women.

Start with that girl you’ve been mooning over for the past 6 months, but have been unable to talk to (you know full well who I’m talking about). Next time you see her, go up to her, say “Hi, how’s your week been?” Then simply follow along, nod your head where appropriate, and ask questions or interject with your own stories (if you can). Let her carry most of the burden of conversation.

Your first time will probably be pathetic and you’ll probably be scared the whole time.

Good; face the fear.

Next time you see her, do the exact same thing, but a little better. The next time, do the same thing. From now on every time you see that girl, go up to her, ask her how her week (or day, or month, or whatever) has been, and try your best to talk along. (Remember your Dale Carnegie).

After a few weeks have gone by and you’ve talked with her a few times, ask her out. It’s simple: “Would you like to go for coffee (or in summer, ice cream) with me this Friday at 7?

She’ll probably say no because you didn’t interest her enough with your pathetic attempts at conversation. Accept that she’s going to reject you before you ask and don’t worry about it.

She’s rejected you: that’s great. I know it hurts, but what is far more important is that you tried, you asked her out.

Accept her answer, accept that she doesn’t like you, hurt for a few days or a week or two. Then get over it.

One woman rejected you and there are millions of cute girls out there. Go find another one.

If there is a women you moon over, who you already talk with regularly, just ask her out. A simple, “Wanna go for coffee with me Tuesday night at 6?” will do. See my advice in the friend zone section above.

****

So now we’re at the point where you don’t really have any girl you particularly like, because “she” rejected you.

Good. Time to meet some women.

If you’ve been following along in the guide so far, you’ve probably been meeting lots of new people at your new social activities; I’m sure at least a few of them are pretty girls. Talk to them.

Do exactly what you did with the first girl. “Hi? How has your week been?” Nod where appropriate, ask questions about her (remember your Dale Carnegie), and talk when you can.

Your conversations with women will be awkward and painful at first. Don’t expect success right away. Simply talk as best you can. Every conversation you have will make you slightly better at it. Over time, without even really realizing it, you’ll become proficient. Just keep at it.

Talk with as many girls as you can. The more practice the better.

If you develop a particular fondness for a girl after a few conversations, simply ask her out. Same as above: “Let’s go for coffee for Sunday afternoon.”

You’ll probably get rejected a number of times before you get success. That’s fine, simply accept it and move on.

Don’t get too attached to any particular girl. If you find yourself getting attached to a girl, ask her out. From personal experience I know it is far less painful to be rejected immediately then to drag it out.

Keep talking to the girls in your social circles and keep asking out the ones you like; keep getting rejected.

As you do this, remember what you learned about body language and try (as best you can) to observe the body language of the girls you talk to. It can be a great help to pick up on her tells of whether she’s attracted to you or not.

Then, at some point one will accept your offer of a date.

****

So, now you have a date. Here’s how to go about a first date.

Depending on where you and her live and your transportation systems, you can either pick her up or meet her. Either works, but if she doesn’t have a car and you do either pick her up or meet near her. She will not appreciate having to bus or walk long distances to meet you.

Arrive on time, but do not arrive more than a minute or two early (wait in the car or around the corner if you have to). Arriving early makes you seem desperate and is rather awkward for her. If you’re picking her up, get out of your car and get her; don’t just sit outside and honk.

A good general idea for first dates is gelati/ice cream in the summer or hot chocolate/coffee in the winter for a few reasons:

  • They’re cheap, this avoids the “who pays?” awkwardness. $4 coffee won’t cause you much fiscal pain and she won’t feel bad about it. Simply pay for both of you; don’t ask her, don’t consult her. Simply tell the clerk you’re paying for both of you and ignore her “objections”.  Pay in cash if possible; little will be more embarrassing than your debit not working because the bank is undergoing maintenance.
  • The atmosphere around these is relaxed, unlike dinner dates which are more formal, and ideal for talking, unlike movies.
  • Girls love ice cream; I’ve never met a girl who didn’t like ice cream (or a vegan alternative). Go for gelato if you can though. It’s enough like ice cream that everybody loves it and it won’t be off-putting, but just foreign enough that a lot of girls haven’t tried it, giving you a tiny amount of “worldly man” edge.
  • Everybody loves hot chocolate on a cold day; it just feels right. Most places that serve coffee serve hot chocolate and vice versa. Order the hot chocolate, and let her choose whatever drink she wants.

When choosing an ice cream/coffee place choose one that is either near a larger park or is in a “walkable”, attractive neighbourhood, preferably a place you’ve been around before.

Once you have your beverages, don’t sit down, instead, go for a walk through the park/ neighbourhood. This has a few advantages:

  • You’re doing something. Awkward pauses in conversation are far less awkward when you can both simply walk and admire the scenery.
  • Walking lends itself far easier and more naturally to playfulness and energy than sitting at a table or on a couch.
  • The scenery lends itself to creating conversation topics. Point out the cool looking dog, laugh at the garish colours of that odd house, remark upon that beautiful tree; whatever. There’s a lot more to talk about when walking around then when sitting down.
  • If you know the area, if lends itself well to telling stories showing you have a full life (which is attractive to women). You can talk about the great pizza you had with your friends at Luigi’s, about the soccer game you won at the field over there, about that amusing story with your friends at that pub, or whatever other experiences you’ve had.

Note: If it’s winter or a blustery day, make sure to mention to her that you plan on going for a walk either when you ask her out or when you pick her up so she can dress appropriately. The walk will not happen if she’s not dressed for it.

Now that you’re out walking, what to talk about:

  • Do not talk about politics, economics, religion, or other controversial issues unless she brings it up first or you know (for certain) that she’s really interested in them. If you both share the same core religious beliefs, you can talk about that, but avoid deep theology, unless, of course, she brings it up.
  • Do not talk about your hobbies that women find boring (ex. video games, science fiction, Warhammer), unless you know she shares those interests. You can mention them if she asks what you like to do, but don’t spend any time on them. Nobody cares about your lvl 17 Orc Paladin.
  • Avoid talking about your job, unless it’s very interesting. If she asks mention it, but most of use have relatively uninteresting jobs; don’t bore her by dwelling on them.
  • Do ask questions. Ask about her about herself, her family, her hopes, her dreams, her hobbies, etc. (remember your Dale Carnegie), but avoid it being an interrogation. After you ask about her family, tell her a bit about yours or remark about . If you find yourself asking two questions in a row you’re probably doing it wrong.
  • Talk about yourself. Let her get to know you. Talk about your (interesting) hobbies, your sports, your family, your recent trip, what you read recently, your friends, etc. But make sure to include her in the conversation; if you’ve been talking for more than few minutes without her saying anything (unless it’s a long, but good story) you’re doing it wrong.
  • Talk about stuff you see or stuff going on around you.

All these conversation “rules” are solely to help you get conversation started (or restarted after an awkward pause). Once it’s started, let the conversation flow naturally. If you’ve got a good conversation going don’t ruin it by trying to hard or trying to stick to a set of rules. Simply go with the flow.

End the date at the right time. If things are going well and conversation is flowing, keep going, let the date continue, don’t cut it off when things are going well. On the other hand, if there’s a natural end point and you’re running out of things to say, end the date. (Ex: “There’s my car” or after a longer pause “I have things to do, we should head back”)

Don’t try to awkwardly prolong the date; end it a bit before it becomes awkward, and try to end it naturally.

Finally we get to parting. If you’re dropping her off, get out of the car and walk her to her door. If you met up, walk her to her car or bike. If you both walked, don’t just awkwardly walk away; make a definite part.

So how do you part?

That depends on a large number of factors such as how well the date went, your comfort level, her apparent comfort level, how much you like her, her apparent like for you, and your (and her) views regarding physical intimacy.

Whatever it is do not draw it out. Once you are at the parting point, make it short, a few sentences and a parting hug/kiss. Do not keep blathering away like an idiot; it makes things awkward.

If you don’t want to see her again, a hug or handshake, and a thanks for the date will suffice. Do not tell you’ll call her if you won’t. Thank her for the date and tell her you enjoyed meeting her.

If you do want another date, then tell her you enjoyed the date. Then either tell her when and how you’ll contact her again (something like, “I’ll call you in the next couple days) or if you know your schedule, lock down the next date (“I’d like to see you again, how about next Friday night?”).

Follow this with some physical contact, depending on how the date went and your comfort level. A few types of contact are always bad, such as a parting handshake or a side hug (the way I too often end a date). Here’s some good types of physical contact to end a date with:

  • A full kiss. This is high risk. If you go for this and get it, you can be sure the date went well, but not all girls are comfortable with it and there’s a good chance it could flame out. As well, some, such as myself, may think it is too high a physical ecalation for such an early time. Go for this if you’re both really digging each other and you’re comofrtable with it. If she turns her cheek, that’s fine; if she pushes away you’ve blown it.
  • A full hug. This is the safe move; it’s neutral and won’t win you any points but its positive, will rarely be rejected, and won’t lose you points (except among the most licentious of women). Make sure you lead and make it a confident chest to chest press with both your arms around her. Don’t lean over, don’t fumble awkwardly trying to avoid her breasts, don’t do a side hug, don’t make it awkward, and don’t be tenative about it. Commit to it fully and just go for it. Hold it for two or three seconds, but no longer.
  • A light kiss on the forehead or top of the head. This has some intimacy to it and can be positive, but it has a sort of paternalism to it, which may backfire on you.
  • Take her hand and give a light kiss the back of her hand, like an old school gentleman. This is usually positive, as it harkens back to chivalry and most women get a little giddy from that, but the traditionalness of it can occasionally backfire, especially with more feminist women.
  • A peck on the cheek. Fairly safe for a date that has gone well. It shows a bit of intimacy, but is not as forward as the full kiss. It can possibly end awkwardly depending on how conservative she is or if she’s not as in to you.

Then tell her “See you later” and part. Don’t wait around after the goodbye contact; it makes things awkward.

****

Now you have a second date (or third or fourth, your first few dates should all be similarly casual and give you the chance to get to know each other).

Choose something else relaxed, fun, and inexpensive, preferably something you know she likes. In a pinch, ice cream can work again, but may look a little stale.

  • If you share a hobby, doing that together would be a great idea.
  • Minigolf is good. It’s fun and relaxed. So is bowling.
  • A hike in the woods, a stroll in a large park, or a walk at the zoo or aquarium can be a good adventure. It’s relaxing, fun, and there’s plenty of interesting stuff to see, talk about.
  • Ice skating is great for the winter; it allows a great interplay between playfulness and getting to know each other.
  • Museums, art galleries, etc. can be a good trip. Make sure to choose something she might be interested in.
  • If you have a local touristy area, checking that out can be a good idea. You can walk around, admire the sites, check out the stalls, and have some casual snacks.

All of these can also work well as first date ideas.

After the first few dates, you can try dinner and a movie or, even better, cook her a meal and watch movies at your place.

After that, you’re on your own. You should know enough about her by this point to be able to figure out how to spend time together. Let things work from there.

****

Lastly, cold approaches.

This is not something you’ll be able to do right away and will always be troublesome. You’ll probably need to build up to it. I still have difficulties with it. But here’s some exercises to help you build up to it.

Start by simply looking girls in the eye and smiling (make it a confident smile), as you pass them in the streets. In fact, try to make it a habit. Do this for every girl you see for two weeks.

The next two weeks, do the same, but say hi as well. Then keep walking (unless she makes a point to start a conversation with you; in which case talk to her).

The following two weeks, do the same, but if she smiles or says hi back, ask her how her day is going.

The following two weeks, if you see a girl you think is really pretty talk to her. If the clerk at Target is cute, as her about her day. Ask the gal on the bus what she’s reading or where she’s going. Ask the girl in line with you at the coffee shop how her day has been.

If any at any time, these turn into real conversations, and it seems like she might be interested, ask for her number.

If you get it, phone her two days later and set up a date. Then go to first date protocol.

Start small, and work your way up.

****

Random Tips

  • Remember your Dale Carnegie: smile. When interacting with women, be happy, be energetic, be positive. Nobody is attracted to the morose loser. (The brooding loner can be attractive if pulled off right; but if you need my help, you aren’t going to pull it off right).
  • Remember your body language. If you can’t be confident, at least look it. Also, look to women’s body language. I can not stress enough the importance of body language.
  • Take advantages of opportunities. If a girl says she really wants to go to a new restaurant, or see a new museum exhibit, or visit some place, or try some activity, she’s handing you an opening, use it. It’s a simple, “That does sound like fun, how about we go see that local play next week?” If she hands it to you, take it.
  • No movies or dinner for your first few dates. Save movies until after you’ve known each other a while, because they don’t let you to talk during them. Save dinner until you’re actually dating, as it costs a lot, is too stereotypical (and thus “boring’), and looks try-hard.
  • Don’t be desperate. Avoid phoning her more than once a day, and don’t phone her more than once between each date for your first half-dozen dates. Don’t text her twice in a row. After a date, wait a day or two before contacting her again. You can relax on these rules once you’re in a steady relationship.
  • On the other hand, don’t go too far the other way. If you wait to long, she’ll simply not respond.
  • Try to be natural. Don’t try too hard, don’t look like you’re trying to hard. Don’t try to put on a false persona. Act natural and confident.
  • Practice. Social skills are like any other skill; you need to practice.
  • Keep eye contact.

****

Your goal:

Your goal for the week is to look every girl you pass in the streets in the eyes and smile at her.

Also, if you see “her” this week who you’ve been unable to talk to, ask her how her day is going.

If “she” is a friend or acquaintance you have talked to, ask her out.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990′s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

One More Condom in the Landfill

I was reading through some advice columns again and came across this nugget. It’s your typical story, a decent, young guy likes a girl and gets in a relationship. She’s not feeling it, so he piles on the beta-provider behaviours, so she ends it. The guy is such a great bloke that the ex’s mom loves him enough to invite him to a family day at Six Flags as a friend (probably with the ulterior motive that her daughter will date the guy again). The kid asks whether he should go and if he can get her back. The story’s not particularly interesting, but the columnist’s response is.

You are right not to go to Six Flags with your ex and her family. You are right to give her space. And though I wish I could tell you that time and absence will make her heart grow fonder, the truth is it probably won’t. Because the thing with 20-year-old girls is that 80% of the time, they don’t go for the guy who takes a bus six hours so they don’t have to drive home alone and they don’t go for the guy who sends them rice pilaf in the mail or the guy whom their moms are crazy about. They go for the guys who ignore them and cheat on them and break their hearts. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time.

And for a while, it seems like no one is happy because guys like you are pining away for girls like your ex and those kinds of girls are pining away for someone else and everyone is sad and a little lonely and wishing they could just love the people who already love them back. The good news is that eventually the 20-year-old girls turn into 25-, 30-, 35-year-old women and they’re tired of longing for the guys who don’t treat them well. And they long for the kind of guy who will go on a family vacation with them and help them move and bring them their favorite food. And you’re going to be in luck when that happens because you’re going to have your pick of the litter. In about 5 years or so, the kind of girl you like is going to be looking for someone exactly like YOU. And then it’s all just going to be a matter of timing to find the right match.

I know that doesn’t help you much now. It doesn’t do much to soothe your broken heart and make you feel less alone. And the only thing I can say to that is that it WILL get better. As long as you remain the sweet, thoughtful guy you are — the kind of guy moms love and girls want as their “friend,” it won’t be too long before they’re going to want so much more than that. And who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and you’ll find the rare breed of young woman who has no interest in dumb games and already understands the value of a guy who wants nothing more than to be a great boyfriend.

This has been said a thousand times around these parts, but I’m pointing it out again:

If you are decent guy, most everybody expects you to get shit on romantically and just take the lumps for a decade, then get the used-up, washed-out, emotionally-wrecked left-overs of the assholes’ pillaging.

Wendy just dismisses this, like it’s just the way it is. There’s no condemnation of the attitude, no real thought as to how thoroughly poisonous this is.

Does nobody else think there’s something disastrously wrong with this attitude?

Does nobody realize what a destructive message this sends to young men?

Does anybody even care?

How can we just casually accept that anti-social assholes get the prize, while the decent, honest builders and maintainers of civilization get the dregs, if they’re lucky?

This is how civilization dies, tiny cut, by tiny cut.

****

A commenter illustrates this perfectly:

this reminds me a lot of my own relationship as i left for college. my boyfriend was a wonderful person, and i just… didnt want to do it anymore.

above all, dont do what my exboyfriend did: he became a total douche. i dont know what happened, if his heart was broken so much, or if he would have turned that way regardless, but when he went off to college the year after me, he could give a shit about studying and almost failed out his first year after being top in his class, he started dating my good friend and then cheated on her all the time (and continues to, i think? yikes), after never wavering with me ever… i mean, at my joint birthday dinner, he was talking about how this random girl just started having sex with him on the lawn in front of some house at a college party. he was not that person when i knew him. so, just be you. dont get jaded, dont intentionally change just to become something you believe that girls want or whatever- just be you, and you will find someone who genuinely wants to be with you.

He’s the douche?!?

He’s just a normal guy who realized the score, being a good guy gets you rejected and your heart destroyed for no real reason at all.

Being a “douche” gets you you easy sex with strangers at a party; it gets you a loyal woman who sticks with you while you jam your cock into all varieties of foreign vagina.

She’s the one who torched a perfectly good relationship with a wonderful man so she could get her holes plugged by assholes in college. Yet, somehow he’s the douche for wanting to be one of the assholes doing the plugging rather than the loser on the outside watching the girl he loved get plugged?

You get what you incentivize.

If you learn nothing else of economics, of politics, of sociology, of psychology but this one fact, you have more understanding than most of the fools with doctorates and fancy titles. If you never get anything else from this blog, remember that phrase:

You get what you incentivize.

If you incentivize douchebaggery, you get douches. If you incentivize decency, you get decency. If being a decent fellow gets you a broken heart and being a douche gets you blown by young co-eds, any rational man is going to be douche.

So, we have more douches who fail to do do anything useful for civilization because who cares? when being an ass is enough to get you sex. We have fewer decent guys willing to pick up the burden of civilization because all it gets you is heartache and loneliness.

Thus, civilization dies as parasitism becomes the norm.

****

What’s especially, ironically funny is that a good portion of the letters at Wendy’s site are some variation of “how do I get my boyfriend to commit to me?

These short-sighted women don’t even realize they’re destroying their own chances of commitment by rejecting the commitment-minded types in their youth and chasing the douches.

So, to men here’s the warning: if you’re a decent, commitment-minded man, don’t ever commit to a woman over 30, and be wary of committing to a woman over 25. She had her chance when she was young; she chose some asshole over you (or some other decent fellow like you) to give her youth to, why should you waste yourself on her now that its gone and she’s desperate.

No matter how much your girlfriend begs for commitment, no matter how much your mother pesters you for grandchildren, no matter how much shaming older women heap upon you, no matter how much your pastor demands you man-up, do not marry an older woman. They are simply not worth it.

If you want commitment go for those young women who are decent enough, smart enough, and love civilization enough to find a decent guy and marry young.

Demand more for yourself; demand better for yourself than the leftovers of assholes.

Demand better of the girl you want than someone who will let herself be the leftovers of the assholes.

To women, here’s the warning: if you love civilization, if you want to marry a decent, commitment-minded man, find him while you are young and don’t waste your youth on assholes. If you do, you could be one of those women in her mid-30s scheming over how to get their confirmed bachelor boyfriend to commit.

Demand better for yourselves than drunkenly blowing some cheating jackass on the lawn or being the cheated-on girlfriend.

****

I know this post and this story are not particularly insightful or novel.

It’s just another brick in the wall, just another condom in the landfill.

Just another decent young man whose heart was broken being told to suck it for a decade so he might have a shot at the leftovers.

Just another overlooked story of a once-great civilization dying, tiny, unnoticed piece by tiny, unnoticed piece.

When the last, violent, death throes of whatever is left of our civilization come, I’m going to revel in their suffering, for it will be well-deserved.

Let it burn.