Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
The Deal with the Manosphere
-By Caleb Jones
This means I need to be careful about where I do and do not spend my time. For example, last year I cut back on my business blogging (though I still post regularly), slashed the time I spent on one of my other businesses by 40% and stopped posting on forums completely. It’s what I had to do.
That being said, shit has been going down all over the manosphere lately, as most of you know. One of us has even acquired not just national news, but world-wide news recently. I’m getting emails asking for my opinions on this stuff. In addition, I’m getting complaints from fellow manosphere contributors and readers when I make posts about how I don’t care about what’s going on with men in the world.
So I can’t remain silent on this any more. To be clear, everything that I’m about to say I mean with 100% conviction. What I’m about to say is not an act, satire, or marketing ploy. It’s what I really believe. This post is also longer than normal because I want to be as complete as possible. I’ve broken it up into six parts for easier reading.
Part One: I Don’t Care
I’ve said this many times, and I’ll say it again. I don’t care about creating a movement. I don’t care about changing the world. I don’t care about saving the world. I don’t care about saving men. I don’t care about saving Western society.
- I don’t care if men dumb enough to get married get financially raped in divorces.
- I don’t care if men dumb enough to assume monogamy from a woman get cheated on by their wives or girlfriends.
- I don’t care if men dumb enough to not manage their finances correctly get raped by their governments via taxes and/or oppressive regulations.
- I don’t care if men dumb enough not to move out of their corrupt, collapsing countries get overrun by third-world immigrants (coughEuropecough).
- I don’t care if men dumb enough to go to college get screwed by these insane “yes means yes” laws.
- And so on.
I. Don’t. Care.
Western society is already fucked, economically and culturally, and there is no saving it at this point. I’ve discussed the numerous reasons for this many times over several different blogs. The last chance we had to save it was around the mid 1990s, and that was a long time ago. Your only option for long-term happiness as a man at this point is to radically change your lifestyle so that you aren’t affected by the West’s slow collapse into a left-wing shithole. This is what I teach.
This idealized version of the 1950s that many right-wingers harbor not only never existed, but certainly doesn’t exist any more, and will not return for at least another 100 years (at best). Things are going to get much, much worse before they get better (if they ever get better). There is no law you can pass or person you can vote for who will change this. There will be no revolution, political or violent, that will make any meaningful difference, even if Trump becomes president. I summarize why here, though many other articles at this blog explain the West’s unfixable cultural problems. I also have written extensively about the economic reasons over at the Caleb Jones Blog.
Moreover, as I describe here, I have no interest in helping a largely left-wing society that hates my masculinity and attacks me regularly for being man with normal, natural masculine desires and goals. So, not only can’t I help Western civilization, at this point I also don’t want to. The West did this to itself. Aliens from Mars didn’t do it. Immigrants didn’t do it. The West did this to itself. Now it must reap what it has sown. There’s no stopping it, no matter how sad or mad you or I are regarding what it once was.
On top of all this, the vast majority of men in the manosphere want to commit financial and freedom suicide anyway. I’ve already demonstrated here how most men are against men every bit as much as the worst feminists. I’ve also demonstrated here how around 76% of men in the manosphere want to “settle down” someday in some married, monogamous fashion, despite knowing everything about how legal marriage and long-term sexual monogamy no longer works in the modern day West. In a recent video, Neil Strauss let slip that when he asked his mailing list of PUAs if they wanted more information on monogamous or nonmonogamous relationships, 90% said they wanted information on monogamous ones.
Clearly, most manosphere men are not willing to change regardless of the information presented to them.
1. Today’s Western society is economically and culturally screwed and there’s no fixing it.
2. Today’s Western society hates you if you’re a masculine man and doesn’t want your help.
3. The vast majority of you aren’t even willing to change any of your behaviors, despite all the pertinent information being supplied to you by hardworking folks like myself and others.
This is why I don’t care. So the next time you’re upset that I’m not “joining the fight,” or taking on the feminists, or fighting back against the blue pillers, or voting for Republicans, or becoming a men’s rights activist, or helping with a nonexistent revolution that will never happen, or whatever the hell else you want me to do, now you know why. Because of the clear reasons I’ve listed above and discussed in detail many times, these things would all be a huge waste of my time, and I really do have better things to do.
Do I agree with the views of groups like red pill, MRA (men’s rights), and MGTOW? Of course I do. If you’ve read more than two or three articles I’ve written, you already know that.
You may notice that I usually don't use the term "red pill." I do this on purpose. This is because there is no specific, widespread agreement on what this means. Ask five different red pill guys what exactly a red pill lifestyle looks like, and you'll give five different answers. With terms like MGTOW this gets even worse, since there are very angry, anti-sex MGTOWs who think any form of pickup or relationship management is evil and destructive, yet there are also plenty of pro-sex MGTOWs (like me) who think women are wonderful beyond words as long as you control yourself and adamantly refuse to do certain things with them. So if you want to avoid useless arguments and wasted time, throwing around terms like "red pill" or "MGTOW" requires one to add a sentence or two describing which version you're talking about. It's clumsy and I'd rather not spend the time.
However, just because I avoid these terms doesn't mean I disagree with their core concepts. I agree completely (and again, if you're a regular reader you already know this).
Do I disagree completely with things like third wave feminism, socialism, mass immigration, and political correctness? Of course I do. Again, if you’ve read more than two or three articles I’ve written here or on the Caleb Jones Blog, you already know that. As a matter of fact, I’m an extreme libertarian minarchist. That means if you’re a right-winger, I’m against socialism and big government more than you are.
If you’re involved in any of these movements, I agree with your philosophical views on these things and I support you in spirit, but I’m not going to spend any time or money assisting you beyond what I’m already doing, which is publishing vast amounts of self improvement information for free. You’re fighting a battle that’s already been lost. The left already beat the right quite a while ago, culminating in the last few years with the re-election of an incumbent Obama in the middle of a bad economy, the passing of socialized healthcare in the US, the legalization of gay marriage, the mass immigration of Mexicans to the US and Muslims to Europe, the recent $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill (supported by Republicans, who you right-wingers think are going to save you) and twenty other things I could list. The war is over, the left has won, the right has lost, and I’m sorry. I don’t like it any more than you do, but it’s time to face facts.
If you still want to spend your time in these Change The World™ or Save The World™ or Save Men™ movements, I think you’re wasting your time, but I certainly won’t stop you. I think you should do whatever you find meaning in. It’s your life, do what you will. I have better things to do, like improve my own life and take care of my loved ones.
Part Two: Why I’m Here
Well, if you don’t care about any of this, why the hell are you here then Blackdragon? Do you give a shit about anyone, or are you just a selfish asshole?
That’s a valid question, and I’ll answer it. I’ve answered it before, but I’ll state it here to be very clear.
I don’t care about the plight of men, since, as I just described, most men have no interest in changing in order to find happiness, despite being aware of new modern conditions.
However, I do care about the few men who are interested in changing.
I care, deeply care, about the 5% of beta males who are tired of being slaves and the 5% of Alpha Male 1.0s who are tired of the drama. Based on my educated guess that 70% of men are betas and 25% are Alpha 1.0s, that 5% of both is about 4.75% of men total. If you add in the 5% of men who are already Alpha Male 2.0 (to some degree at least) that equals about 10% of men who I care about.
That 10% is who this blog is for. That’s who my book is for. Every word I write on these topics is for you guys, betas and Alpha 1.0s tired of women’s or society’s crap or Alpha 2.0s looking for a kindred spirit. I care deeply for each and every one of you. If you’ve ever communicated with me over email, or coached with me over the phone or Skype, you can probably tell from my voice and my vibe that I care strongly about your future as a happy man in our fallen, anti-man world.
I care about you guys, but I don’t care about the other 90% of men. They don’t like me anyway. If you’re a beta and want to stay one, I’m just going to seem like a jerk to you. If you’re an Alpha 1.0 and want to stay one, when I write about stuff like nonmonogamy, avoiding legal marriage, or anti-drama techniques like soft nexting, you’re just going to get upset and it’ll ruin your day. It happens all the time with committed, higher-drama Alpha 1.0s who read my stuff.
The solution is simple. If you’re a beta or Alpha 1.0 and want to stay that way, don’t read my stuff. Seriously, just go away. You’re not in my target market and very little of what I write will resonate with you anyway. If you’re a beta who wants to stay one, go read a Twilight novel. If you’re an Alpha 1.0 who wants to stay one, go to one of the angrier manosphere sites and go scream your head off over there. This is not the place for you.
But! If you’re a beta or Alpha 1.0 and truly want a better life, a happier life, one more congruent to happiness as a masculine man, a life of freedom, happiness, money, love, and sex, instead of anger, drama, and rules, then this is the place for you. I’m here to help. That’s why I’m here: to help you.
Why am I here to help you? Is it because I’m starting an Alpha Male 2.0 “movement?”
Nope. I don’t do movements. Instead, I’m here to make money. Since many of you secretly hate capitalism, let me explain how this works.
Guys like Roosh are here to create movements. Roosh has stated several times that his income isn’t that important to him and that he doesn't really have any financial goals. I believe him. Since his goal is to create a movement and Save The World™, his operating model, as is many others in the manosphere, MRA, or red pill, is to rile up your emotions, find enemies for you to hate, and organize against those enemies.
That’s all fine, but I’m not here to create a movement. I’m here to make money. So my operating model is to provide value. If I provide value, as in actionable steps to improve your life as a man, you’ll likely buy some of my products or services at some point. Your life improves and I make money. Win / win. At the very least, you won’t buy any of my paid content but you’ll keep reading my free content, which creates traffic and buzz, and still makes me money. Again, win / win.
If I provide little or no value, I don’t make any money and I go out of business (and I would deserve it if that ever happened). That's how capitalism works. Since I love money and consider my income as one of the most important things in my life, I have to make very sure I provide value here, at my other blogs, in my books, podcasts, and other products and services.
So, just so you know, everything I do here on this blog, or any of my blogs, is to MAKE MONEY. I’ve always been very clear, honest and up-front about that. Every blog post I write, every free or paid podcast I record, every contest I have, everything I do here is to make me money. If you find that my principles and techniques bring value to you (and I know they do, since they’ve all been field-tested and proven), then buy my stuff, read my content, and spread the word. If you think I suck, then never read my stuff ever again and don’t say anything about me to anyone so you don’t create more traffic for me. Again, it’s totally up to you.
If you hate that my goal is to make money, that’s fine. If you want to be part of a movement instead, that’s fine. Feel free to stop reading this blog at any time, click on any one of the manosphere sites listed on the right sidebar, and go scream your head off over there. I’m outcome independent so it really doesn’t bother me at all. The 10% of men who are compatible with my stuff is more than enough for me to accomplish all of my financial goals in this business even if you and your friends hate me. So it’s all good. Most importantly, you need to do what works for you.
I’m not saying that movement-guys never provide value. Of course they do sometimes. I’m not saying that I never rile up emotions and talk about our “enemies.” Of course I do sometimes. I’m just saying the core objectives are different. Most manosphere guys are movement-guys. I’m a capitalist. There’s a distinct difference, even though we all agree on the same core philosophical concepts.
What if you really like my concepts, agree with most of what I say, yet still want to be involved in these manosphere movements? That’s fine, go for it. There are many avid Alpha Male 2.0s or aspiring 2.0s who are heavily involved in this Saving Men™ stuff or Saving The World™ stuff. Perfectly cool with me. I’m not going to help, but I will still help you become a better, more free and happy man. As one of my customers once told me, “You don’t want to save the world, but you’ll help create many Alpha 2.0s, and they will save the world.” Not sure if I agree with that, but I don’t mind the sentiment, and if that happens, I’ll certainly take it. The goals of pursuing something that looks like Alpha 2.0 while still trying to Save Men™ are not in opposition at all.
Part Three: My Web Sites
As with any other successful internet content creator, I have many web sites with my name attached, both as Blackdragon and/or Caleb Jones. Some of these sites just have me as the sole author, though on these sites other people can comment. On some other sites, I don’t post at all and have other people contributing instead. Over time, there will be more and more of these sites. I have at least three more on the drawing board right now.
Occasionally, I receive angry complaints about things that other people say on the sites that I own.
“So-and-so on this site is a racist! Why do you support that BD?!?”
“So-and-so on this site is a right wing extremist! Why do you support that BD?!?”
“So-and-so on this site is teaching blue pill advice! Why do you support that BD?!?”
“So-and-so on this site is a fucking socialist! Why do you support that BD?!?”
I don’t support it. Just because it’s on a site that I own doesn’t mean I support it. I can’t believe I even need to say this. The internet has been mainstream for about 20 years now, and for some bizarre reason people still haven’t figured out that just because someone owns a site doesn’t mean that person agrees with 100% of everything said on that site by other people, even if the owner doesn’t delete that content. I have no interest in going through all these web sites and deleting every little thing I disagree with. Again, I have better things to do. Hell, these sites wouldn't even work if I did that.
For example, one of the sites I own is a public forum, and a significant percentage of the advice that’s taught on there I disagree with. I also own a site devoted to female players. Again, much or most of the advice given on there I disagree with. The forum I own even has a few guys who angrily obsesses over me and lose their minds every time I make a post.
Doesn’t matter. I don’t post to either of these sites. Those sites are not there to post content I personally agree with, they’re there to make me money. They are there to appeal to a target market outside of the 10% men that I care about who I communicate with here at this blog. Therefore, I don’t care what is said on those sites as long as they appeal to the target markets of those sites (PUAs for the NextASF forum, female players for Girls With Game site).
If you really hunt around on those sites, yeah, you’ll find blue pill stuff and other crazy crap I disagree with. Doesn’t matter. If you don’t like it, don’t read those sites. Remember, I’m not part of any movement, so if you feel they “damage the movement,” I don’t give a shit. Go cry to someone who cares.
Part Four: The Manosphere Anger Problem
Now that I've covered my position within the manosphere, let's talk about the manosphere itself.
By reading around various manosphere sites and forums, it’s clear to me that around 50% of manosphere contributors are men who are angry and want to be angry. I don’t mean 50% of the manosphere readers. I’m talking about 50% (or so) of manosphere contributors, those who write blog posts, forum posts, or comments on blogs. These are men who are extremely angry and apparently enjoy being angry. Most of them are clearly betas who haven’t had sex with a hot chick in a long time. (That would make me angry too. That’s why I make sure I get laid by hot chicks on a regular basis. It's not that difficult once you take the time to practice the skill.) Others are high-drama Alpha Male 1.0s looking for reasons to be upset.
These men identify a group to hate, and join in with other men to hate the same group. The particular hated group varies based on the angry guy or angry site. These groups include:
- Liberals (as in the American definition, i.e. left-wingers)
- PUA gurus
- Blue pillers
- Other races (particularly Blacks, Jews, or Muslims)
Most of the bigger manosphere sites these days have identified one or more of the above groups, bashed the shit out of them, and have gathered other angry men who also hate those groups so they can all have a hate circle-jerk about how angry they all are.
Some of these guys are just satisfied at being angry, and love posting about how angry they are at their pet be-angry-at group. Others create exciting but useless movements to Fight Back™. They love the drama and the conflict involved. (You'll see some of these guys make angry comments on this very post and likely mention their pet be-angry-at group. Just watch.)
If your goal in life is to be angry, then by all means, join these web sites, contribute to them and enjoy being angry. I’ll be over here being happy, since I’ve constructed a life where none of those above groups can negatively affect me. Exactly how to create such a life is exactly what my blogs and books are all about.
Are you seeing the difference between creating value and riling up emotions?
Part Five: The Manosphere Blue Pill Problem
This next problem with the manosphere is perhaps the most disappointing to me. It is causing mass confusion and chaos with millions of men who are consuming manosphere content. Sadly, it’s becoming worse as time goes on.
Many times before, I have discussed the pattern that most Alpha Male 1.0s go through. To summarize, they go through an Alpha/player phase where they go way overboard and have sex with a lot of girls, then they feel remorseful, lonely, or without meaning, then they surrender to the blue pill and go monogamous, often getting legally married. They then do a 180 and actually attack red pill / PUA / MRA / manosphere as horrible, even though they spent years of their lives immersing themselves in that world and living that life. In the long run, their new Guy-Disney lifestyle never works and they eventually get divorced or break up (since Disney doesn't work even if Alphas try it). Then they start the process allllllll over again.
Now that the PUA/MRA/manosphere is maturing, big name guys in this world are getting older and leaping into the blue pill world, often doing this in extreme ways. I could, right now, list off about 15 decently-known manosphere guys who have done this, but for the purposes of brevity but I’ll keep it to three.
First there was Tucker Max, a guy who advocated an extreme player lifestyle, only to a few years later write a book about being a blue pill man and finding your “Ms. Right” so that you could settle down with her.
Then you had Neil Strauss, who was a hardcore PUA, fucked a bunch of women, then turned into a serial monogamist and had one dysfunctional monogamous relationship after the next. Then he got married, promptly cheated on his wife (big shock), discovered that monogamy doesn’t work (haven’t you ever read my fucking blog, Neil?) and wrote an entire book about how he checked into rehab to cure his “sex addiction.” No, I’m not kidding. I wish I was. (I’m reading the book right now, and will be reviewing it here when I’m done. It’s painful reading.)
Then you have Roosh, who of course became famous for his girl-banging all over the world, and has now done a blue pill 180 and is actually, and with a straight face, telling men to get married, be monogamous, have kids and I quote, “dedicate yourself to God.”
Are you getting the point yet about why I have no interest in saving men? When even the most informed of us keep making these same stupid mistakes? The manosphere is becoming blue pill. Those guys above are just three examples; I could list many more, from Mystery to Eben Pagan to AFC Adam to Charlie Sheen and on and on. All of these men have been divorced, or will get divorced, or in some cases get divorced again, because Alphas don’t have the ability to stay long-term monogamous, something I’ve been screaming to the rooftops publicly for almost a decade. None of these guys seem to be listening.
(To be honest, I have it on good authority that most of those guys have read this blog and are aware of my messaging. They just choose to ignore it. Societal Programming and Guy-Disney is just too powerful I guess.)
To be clear, I have nothing but respect for Neil Strauss, Roosh, Mystery, and all the rest of these guys. I think these are honest men who are legitimately trying to help others while trying to figure things out themselves. I have nothing personal against any of these guys and consider them my brothers. I have no hard feelings for any of them and I support what they’re doing for the most part (in spirit only of course, not in action, as I already explained above). These men paved the road for what I’m now doing on this blog, and I am forever grateful to them. If any of you guys are reading these words, thank you. Seriously, I wouldn’t be here without you.
At the same time, if you’re a manosphere reader and you want to follow men who spend their entire lives swinging from one dysfunctional extreme to the other, who never seem to have anything figured out for the long haul, then feel free to do so. I prefer to find what works and stick with it. All of my personal mentors are men like that, as I aspire to be. As always, I talk about long-term consistent happiness, not spending your life swinging from one unsustainable side of the pendulum to the other.
As I’ve said many times and discussed at great length, being a player and absolute sexual monogamy are both unsustainable conditions for a man. These are both temporary conditions that you will soon jump out of after a few years.
If you practice a “getting laid” lifestyle and that’s it, you’re in for a huge fall. It’s just a matter of time.
If you practice a “settle down with a good woman and have kids” lifestyle, you’re also in for a huge fall. Again, it’s just a matter of time. This isn't 1952 any more.
If you want to be happy in the long run, the answer is somewhere in-between these two insane extremes (MLTRs, OLTR, or something similar). I’m truly baffled as to why I often seem to be the only manosphere writer who accepts this. It’s unfortunate.
Part Six: The Political Right and Left
I’m proud to be a part of the manosphere. I think, for the most part, the manosphere helps men who need help, and I’m interested in helping that 10% of men I mentioned above. I think the majority of bloggers and writers in the manosphere are good guys who are honest and trying to help. Yes, there are a few aspergers-psychos, anger management basket cases, and dishonest assholes in the manosphere / PUA / MRA / MGTOW realms, but thankfully I’ve found those to be the exceptions rather than the rule.
I am also a libertarian. This means I’m not a left-winger. I think big government, socialism, modern-day feminism, political correctness, mass immigration, young single mothers, and the welfare state are all horrible things, and have directly contributed to the inevitable downfall of the West.
However, this also means I’m not a right-winger. I think that any government laws restricting sex, marriage, divorce, (as long as everyone is a consenting adult) are oppressive and utterly ridiculous. We should be allowed to have sex with, have kids with, date, marry, or divorce anyone we want without the government saying one damn word about it (as long as everyone is a consenting adult). The more people having (protected) sex, the better. Sex is a good thing, not a thing to be feared. Sex is good for you and makes you happy.
I also think that organized religion is, while not a necessarily bad thing, a little insane, and believing in a mythical, disapproving sky god who tracks your every movement with a clipboard is absurd to say the least. I'm not saying I'm an atheist (I'm not, at least not quite), but believing in a Judaeo/Christian/Muslim "God" is not only another form of false Societal Programming, it's one of the most insane ones society has come up with.
As I said above, the left wing has won the culture wars and the right wing has lost. Now on the losing side, right-wingers are very angry. This is why we’re getting so much right-wing anger in the manosphere from the “tradcons” (traditional conservatives). This also explains the enthusiastic support of people like Roosh and Donald Trump, which is confusing to so many. It’s not confusing to me at all.
I don’t blame them. If my team was in power and lost it, I’d be angry too. As a small-government libertarian and staunch manosphere guy, I also agree with them on most of the reasons why they’re angry.
Here’s the thing though. As a libertarian, I’m already accustomed to losing politically. When you’re a libertarian, you grow up your entire life never getting what you want and having everyone on both sides hate you. You get used to it. I’ve been a libertarian for over 20 years, and during that time (you libertarians can relate to this), you get accustomed to putting up with the left-wing’s secret hatred of money and the right-wing’s secret hatred of sex.
Right-wingers are now going to have to learn how to be out of favor like us libertarians have always been. It’s going to be a painful transition for them. You’re going to see a lot of right-wing screaming over the next decade or two, as the left-wing solidifies its control over the once great but now collapsing Western world.
I am also an individualist. Both left-wingers and right-wingers are collectivists. They believe that some greater authoritarian group (usually government, religion, or both) is perfectly justified in putting a gun in your face and forcing you to behave in ways that will make you less happy, but will theoretically be “good for society,” even if you're perfectly innocent and aren't doing anything to harm or infringe upon anyone.
Instead, I believe that as long as you don’t lie and don’t violate other people’s body or property, society should fuck off and leave you to conduct your affairs as you see fit. Society will always take care of itself. It always has. Even with all of these current problems, the entire Western world would be far better off if its governments were much smaller and had far less power. But since the West is controlled by collectivists on the right and the left who love centralized power and control over the individual, it’s headed for a fall (barring a radical technological revolution that changes everything, which I agree is possible).
Again, not that I care. As an Alpha 2.0, my money, sexual relationships and happiness will continue regardless of what happens to the Western world. A strong Mission, goals, outcome independence, entrepreneurship, diversified income, location independent income, low-consumption lifestyle, strong dating skills, nonmonogamy, recession-proof investing, international connections, high testosterone, good physical health, and everything else in the Alpha 2.0 package ensures that I’ll be happy no matter what happens to the Western world. Even if the entire West collapses tomorrow, it would be very sad and an inconvenience for me that would last several weeks, but the vast majority my income, livelihood, sex life, and happiness would continue on its cheerful path. (As a matter of fact, some of those things would actually improve.)
Which is the entire point here. Your personal happiness.
Thanks for listening.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
epi 2016-02-29 05:59:26
I also like Dr. Aziz Gazipura and Stephan Erdman.
POB 2016-02-29 06:17:23
Very nice post BD, thanks! I've got some questions if you don't mind: 1) I think most of these known PUAs who are going from extreme players to blue pill, apart from the aging=loneliness thing you already pointed, are extremely guilty prone individuals. They are sooooo successful at what their do that a 180 turn seems almost inevitable if they don't really believe they deserve it long-term. Do you agree? 2) Through my current spiritual beliefs I could be considered a deist, but my question is rather practical than philosophical: is it possible for an Alpha 2.0 to be part of any form of organized religion?
Carmichael Red 2016-02-29 06:29:36
I’ve been a libertarian for over 20 years, and during that time (you libertarians can relate to this), you get accustomed to putting up with the left-wing’s secret hatred of money and the right-wing’s secret hatred of sex.i got into libertarianism in my college days (being black doesn't make it better. it's even more isolating). i still support DEEZ NUTS but i should probably learn to be a little more apathetic like you. i am still young. talk to me in 20 years. honestly i am doing well for myself. a lot of natural wisdom to these kinda things but... this blog saved me a lot of time. i cannot for the life of me have a conversation with anyone anymore. without someone getting offended or mocking my beliefs. i blamed alot of my frustration on disloyalty (especially with men). there's no brotherhood anymore. until i read this. i'm naturally an optimistic person. very optimistic. but too much needless heart ache and the odd breakdown trying to save the world and caring about people who don't care about you and completely apathetic with you trying to help them.
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. Some will be so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight you to protect it. Were you listening to me Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress? - Morpheus, The Matrixdaily social life is disintegrating. i don't know how to explain it but you have to be on your best behavior and mold yourself to their expectations or you're finished. but then you realize that you are molding your expectations to their life which involves nothing but weddings on weekends and Say Yes To The Dress is worse than Ellen. if you don't it can literally take money out your pocket and food out your mouth. i've seen good even great men succumb to the forces. it's tough. have i contemplated it? no. but i'm stronger than most guys. it's tough to relate to you due to your personality though. i get what you're saying. but INTJ can detatch and be happy. i need to be connected. but fuck is it exhausting and fruitless. hence learning the introverted side of me. INTJs bother me with their robotic, although rational answers. but i could never write a post as on point as this. i feel everything and express you've said but cannot put it into words as succinctly as you. bravo
Kyle [ThisIsTrouble.com] 2016-02-29 06:40:39
Fantastic post. The reality of women (and life) is this: if you build a building with a foundation of a single pillar, and that sole pillar breaks...the building collapses (i.e. Strauss in The Game). If you build a building with say...FIVE pillars (women, finances, business, fitness, hobbies, travel are all ones I can think of off the top of my head), the odds of it standing up are a lot higher. Balance is key and until men realize that, they're highly prone to extreme swings back and forth.
Carmichael Red 2016-02-29 06:50:27
PS the un-racist touch is greatly appreciated. major problem in the manosphere. even among minority manosphere writers who shame their own race.
Anon. 2016-02-29 07:27:34
Do you envision in the future joining forces with other like-minded individuals? Not a community based on hate towards other communities and some irrational uniting factors no-one can explain, but rather a community v2.0 where joining is a rational decision to achieve some goals. People flock into Silicon Valley to get things done, while other people go to “holy” places to unite in their hate for non-believers. I wonder if a big enough community of rational prejudice-free people pursuing their own happiness could exist so one could disregard the existence of all other people.
Pete 2016-02-29 07:41:41
Shoulda held back.
Carmichael Red 2016-02-29 08:13:29
BD, i read your post on 75K is the key to happiness. Do you just like the autonomy of being your own boss because the way the world is. Make money for yourself and the people who are affected from your work. Do you think it's self limiting to stop at 75K? or is this just a baseline? Do you think that people worth $600M like the co-founder of Netscape who did change how the world runs can't voice his opinion without backtracking due to perception is self-limiting? Same with Zuckerberg, Page/Brin. Who could be betas with high net worths. Paul Graham wrote about how these guys can't backpack around Europe because they are too powerful and needed at their companies. Is BD more powerful than Zuck? How many people would choose to be beta and high net worth or Alpha 2.0 below 6 figures? Lifestyle businesses can't escape the forces of gravity either. PPS Kevin O'Leary is looking to run for office here in Canada.
Drembo Snargon 2016-02-29 08:35:27
"Are you seeing the difference between creating value and riling up emotions?" I see the difference you see. I also see another difference: You mention the left having won. That's how they did it. #BLM produces nothing of value and makes its dupes miserable. But it does serve to increase the left's power to make everybody miserable. Yes, exceptional men of a certain personality type can work around the decline of the West, but even for them there's a fair amount of opportunity cost, and it's going to increase over time. We're seeing a rapid increase in ideological witch hunts in tech fields. If you were losing clients because some girl read on Tumblr that you're a famous misogynist, that would affect you. If the house next door is on fire, there's a sense in which it's "not your problem" -- until the wind picks up. Yes, there's not a lot you personally can do about it all by yourself, and I do understand that you've thought through your views. I'm not wasting my time trying to persuade you. But don't tell me movements can't get anywhere by inflaming grievances. They can and they do. You're maximizing what you value; Roosh values different things. If you traded places, at the end of the day you'd *both* say "I've wasted my time on bullshit".
Darius 2016-02-29 08:45:14
I've enjoyed this article as I do with most of your work, but there's something that's been boggling me every time I see a manosphere/redpill related topic. Where does this "the world needs to be saved", "everything's going to crap", etc. comes from? I've been on this earth for just over 27 years now and the way I see it, with every passing year the world is becoming a much more wonderful place (at least my own life is definitely getting better). Sure there are things that worry me (Trump getting elected, immigration in Europe, etc.) but its not like there ever was a time in history where we didn't have to deal with similar crap and if I have to choose whether to live in a time where there's a massive invisible debt that can ruin the economy and god forbid I won't be able to afford a new Samsung Galaxy on release or to live in a world of extreme scarcity for basic needs (pretty much most of the human history), I'll take former every time. On top of that, I don't mind having a social safety net even if it adds to my taxes, this means that I can essentially do whatever the fuck I want (quit a job to start a business, move, etc.) and even if shit hits the fan I'll survive and be fine. Probably would involve a drastic cut in lifestyle qualify but nothing that cannot be recovered from. So yeah, personally I don't even see the problem because most of the problems you described here ("men get fucked over by marriage/monogamy"), in my eyes is nothing more than a predictable outcome to an idiotic decision and I'm pretty sure that there never was a time in history when being an idiot was not punished in one way or the other. ---
Do you envision in the future joining forces with other like-minded individuals? Not a community based on hate towards other communities and some irrational uniting factors no-one can explain, but rather a community v2.0 where joining is a rational decision to achieve some goals. People flock into Silicon Valley to get things done, while other people go to “holy” places to unite in their hate for non-believers. I wonder if a big enough community of rational prejudice-free people pursuing their own happiness could exist so one could disregard the existence of all other people.This kind misses the point. The way I understand Alpha 2.0 way of life, it is about being able to happily live within any society without depending on it (you're essentially doing your own thing anyway), so if you're completely satisfied in any group/community why bother flocking? What you describe is based on approval/re-assurance seeking, to have someone (whole community) tell you that you're alright, your ideas are valid and all that other mental masturbation - that's not 2.0
Will 2016-02-29 09:01:03
Speaking of Political Correctness. The Oscars. What on earth was THAT!
BlindIo 2016-02-29 09:50:43
Re: Europe: Yes, but where can we go? I have thought about moving, and may yet do so, but everywhere is the same or will be in relatively short order. Re: ANGER!!! The european immigration problem is a real issue. If it doesn't stop we will either have civil war on a larger scale than ever before in history within 10 years, or europe will be islamic territory within 50 years with a minority of or no whites at all. Re: God: Had an interesting discussion over on RoK about this recently. Went like this: According to the Monkeysphere theory (look it up, old cracked article) we can only think of less than a few hundred people as "real humans". So religion was invented in order to unify entire countries into one big tribe in our minds. If so, religion is directly responsible for taking us from the tribal stage to the nation stage, and at the same time absolutely critical to maintaining a cohesive nation. The most faithful nation wins, in other words. And if so, muslims present an even greater threat than imagined. Disclaimer: I am an atheist and consider the idea of a bearded man in the sky completely nuts, on the level of a mental disorder. But here we are. And finally, thanks for writing.
John 2016-02-29 10:06:10
Hi BD, If you're not an atheist than what could you possibly be?
Anon. 2016-02-29 10:15:45
This kind misses the point. The way I understand Alpha 2.0 way of life, it is about being able to happily live within any society without depending on it (you’re essentially doing your own thing anyway), so if you’re completely satisfied in any group/community why bother flocking? What you describe is based on approval/re-assurance seeking, to have someone (whole community) tell you that you’re alright, your ideas are valid and all that other mental masturbation – that’s not 2.0This kind of misses my point : ) For example, I value your work, particularly your explanation of colors and contrast has helped me much. To get to your writings, I had to sift through much content of lesser quality. Now I have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff on the internets, but it doesn’t make me happier to have to do that. In the 21st century it doesn’t any longer sound utopian to strive to organize one’s life not to encounter any stupid irrational people anymore. There’s quite a number of reasonable people, and worldwide communications are great. I don’t yet know how exactly, but it should be feasible. As to what I would need the community for, it’s certainly not for validation, that’s what stupid people are actually excellent for. I need it to discuss things and learn something new. Say, where else can you really discuss the topics of this blog?
Blackdragon 2016-02-29 10:37:46
They are sooooo successful at what their do that a 180 turn seems almost inevitable if they don’t really believe they deserve it long-term. Do you agree?No, I actually think the opposite. I think PUAs and players as they age start to get nervous that they don't have a serious wife, girlfriend, or kids yet. At the same time, they think "I've fucked 200 girls so I understand women. I can make a (monogamous) relationship/marriage work because I know what I'm doing." Of course I've refuted that argument a thousand times. An experienced Alpha / PUA / player has lower odds of a traditional relationship or marriage working than a beta does. (A non-traditional relationship would be okay, that's what I endorse; but that's not what these guys are doing.) But these guys, once they reach this irrational "I need more!" phase, don't want to hear any of that.
is it possible for an Alpha 2.0 to be part of any form of organized religion?Of course. Just as long as he doesn't let it dominate his life.
i need to be connected. but fuck is it exhausting and fruitless.More extroverted men can be connected without being slaves to society or Societal Programming.
PS the un-racist touch is greatly appreciated. major problem in the manosphere. even among minority manosphere writers who shame their own race.Thanks. And this racial anger is going to get worse, so get ready. I don't care about race. Never have, never will. There are so many more important traits to judge people on. Moreover, if you arranged your country into a small-goverment nation with a STRICTLY enforced Constitution, then race won't ever be a problem, because A) you won't have mass immigration and B) no one will be getting any free stuff.
Do you envision in the future joining forces with other like-minded individuals? Not a community based on hate towards other communities and some irrational uniting factors no-one can explain, but rather a community v2.0 where joining is a rational decision to achieve some goals.A community to create a movement and change? No. The West is already fucked and I don't care. A community of independently-minded guys to better improve their own, individual lives? Yes. Big yes. I have plans. More on this soon.
I wonder if a big enough community of rational prejudice-free people pursuing their own happiness could exist so one could disregard the existence of all other people.In our connected world, not quite. But you can get close, yes. Again, I'll be talking more about this soon.
Blackdragon 2016-02-29 11:05:38
BD, i read your post on 75K is the key to happiness.Not a key to happiness, but one of the baseline requirements for happiness, yes.
Do you think it’s self limiting to stop at 75K? or is this just a baseline?Correct, it's just a baseline. Many men need more than 75K for optimum happiness. I certainly do.
Do you think that people worth $600M like the co-founder of Netscape who did change how the world runs can’t voice his opinion without backtracking due to perception is self-limiting?Good question. I'm not sure. I do know that most of these guys are betas, as you said. From Obama to Zuckerberg, betas are the "thing" right now. Compare those guys to old-school Alphas like Andrew Carnegie or J. Paul Getty or Teddy Roosevelt. It's not even close.
Is BD more powerful than Zuck?Of course not. His wealth gives him vast power that I don't have, nor care to have. Now if you were to ask "Is BD more free than Zuck?" then the answer is hell yes. He's forever stuck to a massive infrastructure that runs his life. And he's married and monogamous. He has money, but no freedom. I'd hate to be him. I prefer to have money and freedom.
How many people would choose to be beta and high net worth or Alpha 2.0 below 6 figures?Most modern day men would choose to be the ultra-rich slave-beta over the lower-rich but free Alpha 2.0.
Yes, exceptional men of a certain personality type can work around the decline of the West, but even for them there’s a fair amount of opportunity cost, and it’s going to increase over timeI completely disagree. I think with furthering technology it's going to be easier for independent Alphas to navigate this new world, not harder.
If you were losing clients because some girl read on Tumblr that you’re a famous misogynist, that would affect you.Correct, but my entire point is to create a business structure for yourself where that can't happen. If you insist on building these fragile careers/businesses, then you can't complain when someone comes along and destroys it completely because of something un-PC you said on the internet. YOU choose your business or career, not your dad, and not society. YOU. You have complete and total control over that.
If the house next door is on fire, there’s a sense in which it’s “not your problem” — until the wind picks up.Correct, which is why instead of living right next door to a burning house (because the owners of that house keep throwing fire on it instead of water), I'm moving across the world where the wind can blow as hard as it likes at that house and I'll still be fine.
But don’t tell me movements can’t get anywhere by inflaming grievances. They can and they do.Really? Has gay marriage been repealed? Has alimony been repealed? Has goverment become smaller? Has Western society become more friendly to men? Has immigration reduced? Haha! Where exactly have any of these manosphere movements gotten anywhere substantive? A few gamers screaming at a few feminists on blogs is not substantive. Everything has become worse since these movements began, not better. That's got to tell you something, my friend. Seriously. I realize these movements may validate your emotions, but in terms of measuring them based on real-world results, they all get a F.
You’re maximizing what you value; Roosh values different things.Correct. That's exactly what I said.
its not like there ever was a time in history where we didn’t have to deal with similar crap and if I have to choose whether to live in a time where there’s a massive invisible debt that can ruin the economy and god forbid I won’t be able to afford a new Samsung Galaxy on release or to live in a world of extreme scarcity for basic needs (pretty much most of the human history), I’ll take former every time.Agree completely. I have an entire chapter in my book that explains exactly that. This is a great time for the Alpha (2.0) to be alive!
On top of that, I don’t mind having a social safety net even if it adds to my taxes, this means that I can essentially do whatever the fuck I want (quit a job to start a business, move, etc.) and even if shit hits the fan I’ll survive and be fine.You must be from Europe, because you're quoting standard European Societal Programming. You're just focusing on what you can see with your two eyes. You're not accounting for the all the productivity your government has destroyed in your economy that you'll never see. Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and you see what I'm talking about. (But I'm not going to get into a political debate here.)
Europe: Yes, but where can we go? I have thought about moving, and may yet do so, but everywhere is the same or will be in relatively short order.Irrational victim-talk. Asia and S. America don't have an immigration problem and never will. That's where I'll be going in the next few years. (Haven't picked an exact place yet, but I will soon.)
The european immigration problem is a real issue. If it doesn’t stop we will either have civil war on a larger scale than ever before in history within 10 years, or europe will be islamic territory within 50 years with a minority of or no whites at all.I know. Europe is fucked. Get the hell out of there. There are many less-bad places all over the world.
If you’re not an atheist than what could you possibly be?There are many choices between "Christian" and "Atheist," which are two extremes. I'm non-religious agnostic with some spiritual beliefs that can't currently be proven by science. That's all. I get a lot of questions about my spiritual beliefs so I'll post about them over at the CJ blog at some point.
BlindIo 2016-02-29 11:42:16
But which part of the world will stay good for the next 50 years? Yes, I can just move but if I eventually decide to start a family that may not be a realistic option. One option I have considered is living on a boat. Currently on a 30 footer and that works fine, the only thing it needs is a shower (and possibly washing machine but that's an optional luxury). A family sized boat can easily have that. The problem, of course, is to find a chick who is cool with that.
Minister 2016-02-29 11:54:12
Another great article! So the nextasf site, aka pua-zone.com, is yours? If I am not mistaken, you were first posting there back in 2008, when you had just started with the game. If you even capitalized on the idea of continuing the old asf, you are a business genius!
eddie 2016-02-29 14:59:23
Another insightful article....yea, I think this lifestyle isn't for everybody...only the top 10% of guys. Psychologist and Sociologists are correct...."deep down all men and women need love and connection." So as much as these PUA/Manosphere guys all talked a good game...in the end, they defaulted back to who they really were all along....it's as if they were all frauds, living a lie but had to keep up the front for fear of being shamed/ostricized from the Manosphere community. So, in essence they were just little, beta bitch boys pretending to be something they weren't. When all along, needing the love and acceptance of a female and when they finally found one, all their manosphere bullshit, rhetoric went out the window. I recall how betrayed a friend of mine felt when Gene Simmons got married...he was in shock for a whole week. So BD, at the end of the day...this shit an't for everybody....just the top 10%.
Blackdragon 2016-02-29 15:53:59
But which part of the world will stay good for the next 50 years?No part of the world will be good for 50 years straight. Utiopia paradise doesn't exsist. Everywhere will have big ups and downs, particluarly when the West finally goes to the grave. But Asia, particluarly China, will have a general upward trend for the rest of the century.
Yes, I can just move but if I eventually decide to start a family that may not be a realistic option.You can simply marry someone in your new country (OLTR marriage of course). But if you demand a Western white girl, yeah, it will be more complicated (though not impossible).
One option I have considered is living on a boat.Yes! I've researched that option thoroughly and may do that myself at some point in the future. I may even have a boat in the US but live abroad, then summer in the US on my boat.
The problem, of course, is to find a chick who is cool with that.Correct. It's possible but more complicated. As usual, pick your poison. Freedom? Or start a family which limits your options to some degree for at least 20 years? The choice is yours, but you can't have both at the same time.
So the nextasf site, aka pua-zone.com, is yours?I own it, but it's not "mine." It belongs to the posters there. They've created a community that serves their needs.
If I am not mistaken, you were first posting there back in 2008, when you had just started with the game.Way back then I was posting on Formhandle's old forum, mASF. I was still figuring things out back then. NextASF is the new version.
If you even capitalized on the idea of continuing the old asf, you are a business genius!I'm not a genius but business is my skill set, oh yes. When I see an opportunity to make money, I don't fuck around; I grab it.
it’s as if they were all frauds, living a lie but had to keep up the front for fear of being shamed/ostricized from the Manosphere communityI don't think they're all frauds (though yeah, there are some). I think they weren't thinking long-term. They were thinking about what might make them happy over a 5 year period, or at most a 10 year period, but not a 50+ year period. Even Gene Simmons, who I used to think was a hero (and somewhat still do), was guilty of this. When he was preaching nonmonogamy and never getting married, I don't think he was a fraud; I think he really believed it when he said it. The problem is he never sat down and thought, "Okay, that works for me now, but what about 30 years from now?" Neil Strauss and all those other guys didn't think about that either. But I have. The only difference between me and all these other guys is that I only employ strategies that will work in the long-term, as in period of many decades, instead of just "now when I'm young" (player/PUA) or "now when I'm older and want to settle down" (monogamy/marriage). Neither of those are sustainable lifestyles, but if you're not thinking long-term, that will never occur to you (or you won't care, or you won't want to think about it).
Chris Field 2016-02-29 16:14:28
I love this. Yours is the only site that really clicks with me. I get some value from The Rational Male, etc. but every other manosphere or red pill blog has at least one aspect I have an issue with, whether it's anger toward women, belief in monogamy, religion, etc. I don't remember how I found this site but I'm so glad I did.
eddie 2016-02-29 16:25:51
Thanks for the clarity.. but you have to admit, it's kinda foolish to go down a path, that will only lead to destruction, as in the case of a Gene Simmons. Truly, he's fully aware of the examples of Johnny Carson to Paul McCartney. It's lke preaching drug abstinence yet secretly desiring the high, then doing the drugs, expecting not to become addicted or overdose, like so many before you. So maybe not fraud... but delusional and misleading. In any event, this was a kick=ass article....my favorite parts were 1 and 2 followed by 4 and 5. Keep 'em coming... no one online has your insights or perspectives.
Kryptokate 2016-02-29 18:23:44
It's not like Gene Simmons suddenly realized how much he wanted monogamy and to marry whatever the old bag's name was that put up with the years of infidelity in exchange for his lifestyle. It's that no one else wanted him anymore, so he might as well. In 1980 he was getting, literally, thousands of 20 year old women screaming in hysteria to bang him and begging him to give him a baby. Now he has zero. That's all that changed. So what's the difference at this point if he gets married or not? He and his wife are senior citizens, despite the plastic surgery to appear otherwise, and he can get side hookers now just like he could if he didn't marry her. It doesn't really matter and he might as well keep his money in the family since they have kids together, and probably grandkids soon. I guess this just proves that guys are just as likely to pretend that it was "maturing" or having some philosophical realization that changed their minds and prompted them to want to settle down. Miraculously, this always occurs right when the demand for what they're selling is drying up on the sexual marketplace. Roosh feels badly now at 35 when he has a random one-night stand with a club chick because he knows she doesn't want him beyond that, because he can't compete with the 27 year olds. When he was 27, the same experience felt great because he was at the top of the market and that girl was probably crying that he didn't call her back. Now she leaves him to go back out to the club at midnight. This is no different from porn stars and strippers who suddenly have a "realization" and "grow up" right around the time that guys stop wanting to pay premium for their wares and they realize the market is only going down. The supposed "maturing" is the sense that one needs to sell now before there's no market left at all. Show me a guy or a girl who has their realization at their market peak, rather than when it's in decline, and I'll be impressed by their moral purity. Instead, one's moral worldview just seems to follow what best suits one best at the moment. So, right around the time that the player's SMP is declining and he's starting to realize he can't compete with the young bucks purely on sex appeal, he "matures" into realizing that settling down, committing, and starting a family is where the real value in life lies. Because now he has high RMP but declining SMP, so he shifts his focus to the market where he's most competitive. Still later when he no longer has much RMP either, he'll suddenly "mature" further and realize that hookers are the best value, and decide that the only thing in life that matters is grandkids (if he has them) and that anything but paying women outright is a waste of time and an illusion. In other words, whatever works best in a given set of circumstances is what he'll do, and the justification will follow. Smart people are just better at coming up with elaborate, articulate philosophical justifications for whatever serves their needs best in the moment. If Gene Simmons could still elicit every high school girl in town to froth themselves into a fury at his mere presence, he would not have gotten married. He can't, and that's the only reason he changed his tune and married the woman he's already lived with for decades. At this point it's not really irrational. Anyway, good post BD. There are few people as unsentimentally motivated, and as capable of detached decision-making as you. Most will never relate to it, as you describe. Only thing I disagree with is your comment that racism would be solved by your favored policies. People hate other groups because they present a perceived existential threat -- they're afraid of being overtaken by them. They hate blacks because they're afraid they've got bigger dicks and that black guys will outfuck them and take their women. They hate Jews because they're afraid they're smarter and that they will take over economically. They hate Muslims because they're afraid they will outbreed them or murder them. Hatred is based on fear, and no one hates what they aren't afraid of, which is why no one hates Canadians. Jews and black guys should take it as a compliment that they arouse so much group hatred, because deep down it is jealousy and resentment. Kind of like how women hate skinny chicks with big boobs and rally around women who look like Oprah or Ellen. In America, it is a huge taboo to admit envy and resentment, so people come up with whole ideologies to explain away hatred that is actually based on existential fear of being outcompeted.
eddie 2016-02-29 19:11:13
@ Kryptokate.... Great explanation about the racism point. Only thing I would add is people, especially women, are given to Societal Programming and group/herd thinking. Those (old white men) who are in control of the media and Hollywood have profoundly impacted people's perceptions of blacks and others. This is why so many black guys complain how hard it is to date other races... not saying it's impossible, just that there is a greater social barrier already in place due to clever indoctrination and propaganda. Of course, to eliminate or lessen the competition. About Gene Simmons and guys like him... it's not so much about access to sex...it's deeper than that... we're talking about LEGALLY losing your rights, feedom and power. So my thing is why even go down that predictable path of destruction when all the evidence and examples shows..she will eventually betray you and destroy you emotionally, socially, financially and posibbly physically by having youa arrested.
Buzz 2016-02-29 19:15:40
Could you please expand on (barring a radical technological revolution that changes everything, which I agree is possible).
Buzz 2016-02-29 19:48:19
Asia and S. America don’t have an immigration problem and never will. Why?
Carmichael Red 2016-02-29 20:07:25
Hatred is based on fear, and no one hates what they aren’t afraid of, which is why no one hates Canadians.i am a black canadian. i have been hated on by black and white canadians equally. i don't let it phase me. does not compute. i spoke heavily about this with the black guy dating post. i treat girls very binary. they like me or they don't. when they like you. they talk to you. when they don't. they don't. hatred is based on hate. which is illogical. just like love.
I completely disagree. I think with furthering technology it’s going to be easier for independent Alphas to navigate this new world, not harder.the tools an independent alpha can use created by high net worth betas is infinite. it's only gonna get better. i don't know what this is yet. I'm interested on what BD sees tech for independent, ambitious alphas is going or what could be built to aid in a more happy life. But, the advantages of online and offline marketing and advertising, google, facebook. c'mon! indie heaven if you learn how to create a product or service correctly. productivity tools are getting interesting. (slack) is okay. a little too hyped but does the job. riches in niches. i always point writers to this blog. this guy NAILED his audience.
John 2016-02-29 20:34:18
There are many choices between “Christian” and “Atheist,” which are two extremes. I’m non-religious agnostic with some spiritual beliefs that can’t currently be proven by science. That’s all.Ahh! So it turns out that you are an atheist (you are without theism, right?), since it appears that you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s). I think you just need a more truthful sense/understanding of these two terms: atheist & agnostic. In David Silverman's new book entitled "Fighting God", the first chapter explains this particular confusion/misinterpretation better than I could ever dream of. I know you are very busy, but I highly recommend you take 15 minutes to read the first chapter. Your time will be well spent doing so. I have provided you the link below. https://books.google.com/books?id=6Ds6CQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kryptokate 2016-02-29 21:24:00
@ eddie I don't disagree that's there really no reason for anyone who has more assets to ever get married to someone who has less. However, as far as circumstances go, Gene Simmons' isn't that bad...he did whatever he wanted with women for decades and only agreed to marry the mother of his children when they were both in (I believe) their 60s and there's no longer really any danger of her leaving. He capitulated to some extent, but marrying in his situation wasn't THAT bad since it probably had little practical effect on his life. Now Tucker Max and Roosh doing 180s is a different story. BD's right that those represent extreme pendulum swings that aren't sustainable. Re: racism. I agree that groupthink and media shape people's perceptions, so you can create all kinds of ideas in someone's head about a group of people that one has never even really come into contact with in real life. There is some portion of racism that is taught. But if you listen to racist white men's historical and existing complaints about blacks, there is such a clear sexual insecurity component that it's impossible to miss. The white-power dudes are totally afraid of being outfucked by black guys and it fuels their hatred. You never hear the kind of sexual imagery and terms being used when they're talking about other groups they hate, like Jews. The hatred there is focused entirely on the fact that Jewish people in America have, as a group, been much more successful and much better at making money than non-Jewish white people. It's pure jealousy. And it sometimes spins into outright paranoid fantasies on the internet. I swear these guys literally are afraid that a group of Jewish lawyers and bankers are going to outsmart them and take all their money and then they're going to go home and walk in on their wife getting gangbanged by black guys. And some part of them secretly gets some kind of anger-hatred-thrill that they enjoy, as BD said above, so then they go on the internet to stoke up their paranoid delusions because they like the drama. Oh yeah, and they hate Mexican immigrants because they're afraid they'll outcompete them for jobs because they're harder working and willing to work for less. Again, it all comes down to fear of being outcompeted and having "their" money, jobs, women, or whatever taken from them. It's an inchoate bias that people might vaguely feel without identifying it, which makes it easy for others to exploit by creating scapegoats. I know that it sucks when people have a false and unfair perception of you based on your membership in a group that they have a bias against. On the bright side, you also get to be the person who stands out as breaking their stereotype and proving them wrong.
Tim 2016-02-29 21:34:04
Ahh! So it turns out that you are an atheist (you are without theism, right?), since it appears that you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s). I think you just need a more truthful sense/understanding of these two terms: atheist & agnostic.Does the label really matter? I'm sure BD is well aware of whether or not he's technically an atheist, but it's really beside the point. It has no bearing on his quality of life or the points he making either way. Let it go.
Eldm 2016-02-29 22:30:59
About that extreme pendulum swing from hyper-playboy to traditional monogamist - remember a guy from Neil Strauss' The Game - started out as a super player (invited Strauss to a threesome) to the end of the book where he becomes a super orthodox Jew; Strauss was taken aback by the transformation - only to have himself go through the same thing.. I'd love find out the psychological reasons behind this.
Blackdragon 2016-02-29 22:47:14
you have to admit, it’s kinda foolish to go down a path, that will only lead to destruction, as in the case of a Gene SimmonsI agree 100%. Again, I'm confused as to why I'm (seemingly) the only guy talking about this. There should be 10 or 20 Blackdragon blogs, not just me. It's odd.
It’s that no one else wanted him anymore, so he might as well. In 1980 he was getting, literally, thousands of 20 year old women screaming in hysteria to bang him and begging him to give him a baby. Now he has zero. That’s all that changed.Incorrect. He was still banging plenty of chicks when he was 60 and caved to marriage. That's what started the whole thing. The problem is that he had oneitis for his live-in OLTR. He was still banging / flirting with hot younger women on their reality show, so she felt insulted. She finally gave him and ultimatum: marriage and monogamy or she leaves. He caved in and married her. As usual, oneitis is the greatest killer of men.
Roosh feels badly now at 35 when he has a random one-night stand with a club chick because he knows she doesn’t want him beyond that, because he can’t compete with the 27 year olds.I can't read Roosh's mind, but I don't think that's it. I think that's part of it, but I think the greater picture is this: Roosh (and PUAs / Alpha 1.0s like him) can't mentally acknowledge or accept anything other than the two black-and-white worlds of player or Disney monogamy. He's now tired of player (I would be too; men do indeed get tired of it), so he doesn't see any other options than monogamy. He's trapped in a black-and-white world where all options are terrible. (No wonder he's depressed.)
People hate other groups because they present a perceived existential threatI didn't say my solution would cure racism; that's part of the human condition (sadly). I meant it would cure this mass immigration problem the West is experiencing. That's an issue of big goverment, not race, though race is what both the left and the right "see" when they view that problem.
Could you please expand on (barring a radical technological revolution that changes everything, which I agree is possible). Asia and S. America don’t have an immigration problem and never will. Why?Those two topics are way off-topic for this blog. I have addressed them somewhat over at the CJ blog and will continue to expound upon them over there.
So it turns out that you are an atheistWhy do you atheists freak out every time that word is used? Do you realize it's a religion for (many of) you guys? Anyway, I believe in a higher power and spiritual concepts that science cannot prove in any way whatsoever. The vast majority of people who call themselves atheists would laugh at and ridicule my beliefs, therefore I am not what most people would call an atheist. That's my last word on the matter (at this blog anyway; I'll discuss it further over at the CJ Blog).
Strauss was taken aback by the transformation – only to have himself go through the same thing.. I’d love find out the psychological reasons behind this.Again, it's black-and-white thinking. Black-and-white thinking is much easier. It causes more pain, but it's easier. Societal Programming also plays a huge rule, as SP loves black and white (monogamy or player, Democrats and Republicans, left and right, etc). You could also play armchair psychologist and analyze guys fucked-up childhoods, etc, but that not something you can do from a distance.
eddie 2016-02-29 23:05:17
@ Kryptokate... much respect and well-stated with knowledge and wisdom. Thanks. @BD.... man, this article came at the right time for me. Thanks.
noob 2016-03-01 01:14:59
Your vast knowledge and ability to have rational objective views of basically everything, while keeping a strong opinion with mminimal emotional influence is nothing short of impressive. I honestly don't understand how you're the only person thats 'immune' to all(most) the SP stuff thats out there, discover a near perfect long term happiness model while even the big names eventually succumb to self destructing choices be it relationships, finances, life style changes that lead to eventual unhappiness.
BlindIo 2016-03-01 02:07:26
The growing anti jew sentiment is due to the fact that they are using their money to fracture society. It's not the fact that they are good at making money (for me at least, more power to them), it's what they do with that money. They can only thrive in atomized low-trust societies, so that's what they are working towards. And that may explain why they have been kicked out of every one of their host countries for the past many thousand years - eventually people wise up to their game and decide they have had enough of that shit. And of course the anti black sentiment is due to their much higher crime rates - the highest of any race. It doesn't matter why this is the case, the fact is that it is and civilized people don't want that shit.
Anon. 2016-03-01 03:33:59
“This neighborhood of black people has high crime rates” — this is not racism, this is statistical fact. “I would like to avoid that neighborhood of black people, because it’s likely it has high crime rates as well” — this is not racism, this is profiling. “Despite having interviewed that man at length and finding him professional and qualified, I refuse to hire him for the only reason he’s black” — now that’s racism. Why should one care whether it’s true that, say, Jews as a whole are engaged in some unwelcome tactics, when dealing with a single Jew? Judge a person by his or her own acts, judge a group by what its members voluntarily choose to do, but don’t judge people by traits they were born with.
BlindIo 2016-03-01 03:45:28
And yet, removing a problematic group from society requires removing the individuals in that group as well. Take the muslim immigrants. How do you tell a terrorist, not to mention a future terrorist, not to mention a child who will one day grow up to take a hundred people with him in death, apart from the rest? If the solution to this problem is to deport the immigrants as a whole, then there can't be made exceptions for individuals at the same time. And if a peaceful solution is not found now, a violent one will inevitably be found later.
Tin Man 2016-03-01 05:09:58
Thanks DB for this one ... fairly long article for you. I'm with you - I just don't care anymore. I found the RP stuff after my divorce, of course, I was already fairly angry that my disney world had unraveled anyway - so really enjoyed three things about it at the time (1) any info about PUA and attraction (2) all the evo-psych stuff and (3) just having other "men" to guide me, many who had been there and done that. My anger subsided. I now am more aware of who I am, what is important, and where I want to go. I thank the MSWorld for that, but I don't it will never be a real "movement" - and really, I don't care. I care about my kids. I care about my business. I care about my family. I care about my friends. And I care about myself and my happiness. "Take what you can, leave the rest" - that's my basic mantra about the MSWorld - before and now.
Darius 2016-03-01 05:11:45
Isn't it kinda ironic to talk about re-locating to another continent to avoid "the horrors of immigration"? --
You must be from Europe, because you’re quoting standard European Societal Programming. You’re just focusing on what you can see with your two eyes. You’re not accounting for the all the productivity your government has destroyed in your economy that you’ll never see. Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and you see what I’m talking about. (But I’m not going to get into a political debate here.)Indeed I am. My point was not to claim that European social programs are absolutely great (I don't know enough on the topic to make an objective argument here), just wanted to share a POV looking inside out from the system - it's really not that bad and personally I feel better about having these "perks" even though I never really had to use them before. @BD, one thing that I don't really grasp is what do you mean by "fucked"? (when you say the west is fucked, Europe is fucked, etc.). As in, in your mind, how bad do you think it will get? --
This kind of misses my point : ) For example, I value your work, particularly your explanation of colors and contrast has helped me much. To get to your writings, I had to sift through much content of lesser quality. Now I have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff on the internets, but it doesn’t make me happier to have to do that.Yup, I missed it, my bad for instantly interpreting your original comment based on the lowest common denominator. Your idea makes more sense now. That said I think it's helpful and even necessary to also have people in your life with different values and will challenge your ideas/beliefs. We all have strong confirmation bias and naturally tend to filter information to only "see" ideas and facts that already confirm what we strongly believe and if there's no one to challenge us once in a while, push us to question those beliefs its way too easy to get up on our own ass - most online communities (i.e. forums, subreddits) that are built around a set of values/ideas/beliefs can be used as an example of this.
BlindIo 2016-03-01 06:12:22
@Darius, The western economy is projected to collapse around 2020. There is an enormous and growing population who are entirely dependent on the public teat, and when it dries up a lot of them will have to turn to crime simply to survive. That would be a disaster on its own, but on top of that we have millions of immigrants who are here to get free stuff. They are far more violent than us and they hate us and our countries as it is. Together that's a recipe for poverty and crime like we have never seen in our lifetimes. It could potentially turn into the biggest civil war in world history. And that's not even getting into the risk of regular war between nations.
Darius 2016-03-01 07:37:25
@BlindIo, Thank you for your answer though I will admit I'm still severely skeptical. Most of these statements, such as "economy is projected to collapse by ..." are pretty much heard every several years but the way I see it had never came true. Sure, the 2008 and older big market fluctuations were somewhat bad but nothing we, as a society, weren't able to recover from - the overall quality of life is keep getting better. The problem is that every time some doomsday club predicts "a crash", "the end of the world", etc. and it doesn't come true no one holds them accountable for their failed predictions and instead it's brushed off as "oh we got lucky, next one is scheduled for XYZ". Can I claim that western economy will DEFINITELY not collapse by 2020? Of course not, but big claims require BIG evidence, not just a some speculations from people who, due to confirmation bias, look for specific clues, indications that it will come true. Increasing population and immigration from war-torn countries does worry me and I'm not sure how I feel about those. From one side I fully emphasize with them, I'd try to flee a country where my life is in constant danger and there are no prospects of improving my quality of life too - after all half the comments here are pretty much talking about the same thing; the fact that a lot of the incoming people are deeply religious scares me, in the same way that I find all people with unquestionable beliefs scary. But again, we're talking about several million of people coming into a region of ~750 million, I think someone who claims that its definitely going to be catastrophic is as delusional as someone who doesn't see the potential danger. But yeah, thank you for the answer, I really don't want to make this into a debate because frankly I don't care about spending an afternoon debating about something that's mostly inconsequential to me personally (I genuinely don't mind re-locating if I see that it's in my best interest). If you want to respond, I'd appreciate some reputable sources on the topic (not subreddits or websites dedicated solely to preaching how everything is going to the shitter), it would be interesting to educate myself on the other side of the argument. Cheers
POB 2016-03-01 08:03:20
No, I actually think the opposite. I think PUAs and players as they age start to get nervous that they don’t have a serious wife, girlfriend, or kids yet. At the same time, they think “I’ve fucked 200 girls so I understand women. I can make a (monogamous) relationship/marriage work because I know what I’m doing.” Of course I’ve refuted that argument a thousand times. An experienced Alpha / PUA / player has lower odds of a traditional relationship or marriage working than a beta does. (A non-traditional relationship would be okay, that’s what I endorse; but that’s not what these guys are doing.)Thx, it makes more sense now. I also agree with the "black and white" vision of relationships. It explains a lot of their misery when they become older. BTW I think if you're just screwing around and not making an conscious effort to build good relationships with your women (even FBs), sooner or later you'll go down that same path. Seems inevitable to me.
Blackdragon 2016-03-01 11:07:01
“This neighborhood of black people has high crime rates” — this is not racism, this is statistical fact. “I would like to avoid that neighborhood of black people, because it’s likely it has high crime rates as well” — this is not racism, this is profiling. “Despite having interviewed that man at length and finding him professional and qualified, I refuse to hire him for the only reason he’s black” — now that’s racism.Exactly. As I've explained before, if a guy on a blog or a forum quotes crime statistics or IQ studies and then immediately shuts up, that's not racism. That's just quoting fact. But that's not what I'm seeing when I read the manosphere. I'm talking about when guys throw tantrums because some white women are dating black guys, or use racial slurs like the N-word or "mudsharking," or imply Jews or blacks should be killed, etc. That's racism, regardless of the 1 or 2 facts you might be able to quote if someone challenges you. And like I said, we're going to start seeing more of this, not less.
Isn’t it kinda ironic to talk about re-locating to another continent to avoid “the horrors of immigration”?No, because the immigration problem isn't about relocating to another country. It's about massive amounts of people getting free stuff from government and bankrupting nations. When I move abroad, I will not ask for nor expect one penny from the goverment of the country I move to. I'm going to be working hard to 100% support myself. The country I move to will benefit from my economic activity, not be brought down by it. That was the original point of (US) immigration before it became twisted in the early 1970s.
one thing that I don’t really grasp is what do you mean by “fucked”? (when you say the west is fucked, Europe is fucked, etc.).Inevitable societal and/or financial collapse.
As in, in your mind, how bad do you think it will get?I don't know, because I can't tell the future with any degree of accuracy. I can't tell you exactly what will happen nor exactly when it will happen. I can only follow general trends to their logical conclusions. To answer your question, the final stage of Western collapse could take one of several forms: 1. War, as in massive amounts of small wars all over the place, both civil and external (mostly in Europe, since Europeans tend to be more nationalist and less fat/lazy than Americans). or 2. Currency crisis / hyperinflation. The Weimar Republic all over again, as in you'll need wagon full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Good luck with that. or 3. Succession. States seceding from the US and countries detaching from the EU. Some little countries do okay, most others go bankrupt. The main goverment (US federal government in Washington DC or EU in Brussels) collapses and fades away. (This is my preferred option, and the one strongly I'm hoping for.) or 4. Slow decline into irrelevance. No big "collapse" occurs, but instead the slowly West gets smaller and smaller until it's a tiny little thing no one pays any attention to. Portugal used to rule the entire world 400 years ago; it didn't "collapse," since it's still there, but now it's just a little flyspeck on Spain's ass. The US and/or greater Europe could end up the same way; still "there" but tiny and irrelevant, a little flyspeck in the wake of massive Chinese, Muslim, or other nations. My guess (and it's only a guess) is the most likely scenarios are 1 and/or 2.
BTW I think if you’re just screwing around and not making an conscious effort to build good relationships with your women (even FBs), sooner or later you’ll go down that same path. Seems inevitable to me.You're correct. The problem is most manosphere guys see only one other option besides being a player: Disney monogamy. And that doesn't work either.
BlindIo 2016-03-01 11:29:39
Racism is not a bad thing BD. It's required for survival. We do have a problem with racism today, but the problem is that we don't have enough of it and that the muslims have plenty of it. That's why we give them preferential treatment, even in violent confrontations. As is often the case, the ancient Greeks have the answer so I'll just leave this here: http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/06/racism-and-sexism-viewed-as-aristotlean.html
eddie 2016-03-01 12:08:53
#1. BD, can you expound on why the vast majority of guys are so Guy-Disney? #2. Why you think interracial dating between blacks and whites will increase? #3. Why Southeast Asia and South America is the land of promise (for you and other men) in the near future and what percentage of men will make that move (rather it's out of inspiration or desperation)?
BH 2016-03-01 12:12:18
Blackdragon 2016-03-01 12:21:05
#1. BD, can you expound on why the vast majority of guys are so Guy-Disney?Societal Programming and Obsolete Biological Wiring, as I describe thoroughly in my book.
#2. Why you think interracial dating between blacks and whites will increase?I don't. I think manosphere / right-wing racism in the US and Europe will increase.
#3. Why Southeast Asia and South America is the land of promise (for you and other men) in the near futureIt's not the land of promise. It's a relatively safe harbor against the collapse of the West. Asia and S. America will have big problems, but not to the degree the West is having or will have. The West is going from prosperity to collapse. Asia is on the rise (poverty to prosperity). Most of S. America is already in relative poverty as compared to the West so it can't "collapse" like the West can and is. It will either stay that way or slowly rise (some countries anyway, like Chile and Uruguay, perhaps Argentina if they stop being insane, etc).
what percentage of men will make that move (rather it’s out of inspiration or desperation)?A very small percentage. Most Western men over age 35 are fat, happy, ignorant, married, addicted to their political ideologies (the left who say "oh, everything will be fine" and the right who say, "we must stay and fight!"), in debt, have kids, and/or are slaves to girlfriends or wives (and I include many Alpha 1.0s when I say this). They're not going anywhere. The 90% will go down with the ship. (I'm not saying 10% will move though.)
eddie 2016-03-01 12:32:29
OK... thanks... and I have your book but haven't read it yet....I'm going to place it on my schedule for April. After, I read "The Unchained Man", which one of your products do you think I should grab next?
Duke 2016-03-01 12:33:36
Maybe I only have a rudimentary understanding of politics/economy, but it seems that this leftist thing as it pertains to the U.S. anyway, is mostly cultural. The msm and or Hollywood is leftist as fuck for sure, thus affecting the culture. The government doesn't seem leftist though, as far as helping regular people like in Europe. It is used to pay for wars and bail outs for banks "that are too big to fail," which amounts to welfare for rich people. Obama care is meant to drive the prices up so the insurance companies make more money (rich people); student loans are subsidized by the govt (tax payers) but the students are "supposed to" pay it back with usurious interest rates to private corporations (also rich people). The people that are getting free stuff are single mothers and other people in crippling poverty who get a minimal amount of food stamps and ssi for being "crazy" (lazy more like it), which amounts to just enough so that they don't raise a stink. And even that is being cut from what I've heard. In summary I think the U.S. is headed more in a socially stratified direction not a govt taking care of it's citizens' direction. Which either way is still shitty for a libertarian no matter how you slice it.
Kryptokate 2016-03-01 14:58:18
re: Guy Disney I think people really underestimate the power of media and the stories they've been told their whole lives about "true love" by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Everyone likes to think that they're too smart to be swayed by advertising and TV/movies, but companies wouldn't spend billions on advertising if it didn't work (and much of the media content we consume only exists as a platform to get eyeballs to advertisers). In fact, almost everyone is much more influenced by media than they are by their own parents or family members (though parents of young kids are in denial about this). Media has such a big influence that people aren't even aware of it, like a fish in water. It's so deeply saturated into the neural structure of our brains that we couldn't even imagine how things might seem to us without it. And people really don't appreciate that 20th century media truly created the idea of long-lasting, monogamous, forever "true love". That was not an idea that really ever existed prior to the explosion of mass media in the 20th century. And this "true love" idea" has been manufactured and sold to people not just as an ideal, not just as a possibility, but as something that is achievable and what *should* happen to normal people living a normal life. Yet no one seems to notice that they only see it in ads and movies, not in real life. People are faking it on Facebook and performing for their social circle, they're not really in love past the initial infatuation stage, and everyone used to know that prior to the 20th century. But because "true love" and the idea of "the one" has been pounded into everyone's heads on a daily basis since they were born, it's as ingrained and hardwired a (false) belief as religion. Try telling people in real life you don't believe in love -- almost across the board, Americans will react as if you just told a devout Muslim that there's no Allah. It's a HUGE taboo. People will freak out at you. They'll think you're mentally "unhealthy" or twisted. They won't trust you. You can't really voice that opinion to most people, if you don't want to be a social pariah. Because it's a religious belief. And even those of us who have rejected this belief and embraced the truth are still at some level a little sad and wistful about it. Because that's what happens when you're wired from childhood to believe in religious myths that feel safer and more secure and more rewarding than the truth. Even if you grow out of it, there's always a hole where the myth existed. And yet the idea of lifelong enduring romantic love didn't even exist in anyone's heads before the 20th century. There are enormous industries that are entirely dependent upon people believing in the religion of romantic love. The entire couple's counseling and therapy industry are basically there to deny the fact that most couple's real problem is that one or both of them no longer sexually desires the other. The jewelry and flower and wedding industries would collapse without it. So that's why Guy Disney exists. Because all of us have consumed literally tens of thousands of hours of stories and images and messages intended to convince you that it exists. And human brains are designed to pick up on social messaging. To a certain extent, it's arguable that those who are immune to such messaging have abnormally wired brains. Now, I don't think there is some cabal of elites in Hollywood/Madison Avenue who got together and deliberately decided to craft these messages. No one orchestrated the deception. I think it happened basically by accident because of the nature of how mass media emerged, which is to say that for decades, it had to be kid and family friendly. For most of the 20th century, everyone in the family had to watch the same shows on the same 3 networks, as a family on the same TV in the living room, and they went to see the same movies together. So media had to be acceptable for kids and the whole family. That meant it was bland and hid harsh truths, and all the sex (except Disneyfied, romanticized sex) was stripped out. Maybe after 10 pm you got some slightly more risque, adult situations, but just slightly. Mostly you got the Cosby Show and the Brady Bunch and advertising to support those shows that was as safe and non-offensive and non-scary to kids and parents as could be, because they all had to watch it together. That's where I think Guy Disney came from. Most people learned about what relationships are "supposed" to be like from the media, and until recently, the media was sanitized and stripped of depictions of actual sex and gender relations and all the darker parts of life. Now it's changing. Look at HBO. It's for adults, not kids. And there's nothing Disney about any of their shows. Most of them are pretty damn brutal with the reality of love and sex and infidelity and competition. There's no religion of true love on HBO. That's just one example, but all of media is fracturing into niche markets and we now have a distinct market of kids' media that is separate from media for grown-ups, and there's not many shows that are intended for the whole family anymore. And people are waking up and becoming more sophisticated and more disillusioned. The whole thing would be much less confusing and less emotionally painful if children weren't lied to in the first place. It's not that the truth is that bad, it's just bad when compared to the complete fantasy fairytale of getting to be "in love" with your "best friend" forever and ever. I don't know why parents insist on hiding the truth from their kids and feeding them fantasies. One of the big reasons I never wanted kids was because I couldn't stomach all the lying that our culture requires parents to do. @ Duke I totally agree with you. Culturally, the US is leftist, and that's because Hollywood and Madison Avenue produce our media and they're liberal. But politically and economically, the US is not leftist at all (relative to all other advanced nations), and is quite favorable to the rich with less social programs or redistribution.
Blackdragon 2016-03-01 15:08:53
After, I read “The Unchained Man”, which one of your products do you think I should grab next?All of them. 🙂 It depends on what your areas of improvement are. I have stuff on online dating, real life dating, older guys and younger women, nonmonogamous relationships, etc. Just go take a look here.
it seems that this leftist thing as it pertains to the U.S. anyway, is mostly cultural.No. Around 60% of the entire population of the US is on some kind of goverment welfare. And it's increasing, not decreasing. There's nothing conservative or right wing about that. The US goverment overspends on welfare programs and retirement programs in the trillions. Soon college will be "free" as well. This is in addition to all the leftist cultural stuff (legal pot, gay marriage, safe spaces, etc). As I've explained before, the US is a leftist country that also happens to have some neocon and corporatist policies and rhetoric. Just because we have Fox News and bail out banks doesn't mean we aren't predominantly a left-wing country. We are.
I think people really underestimate the power of media and the stories they’ve been told their whole lives about “true love” by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Everyone likes to think that they’re too smart to be swayed by advertising and TV/movies, but companies wouldn’t spend billions on advertising if it didn’t workYup. Societal Programming. It's immensely powerful. Even when it comes to men.
Thomas 2016-03-01 22:26:41
You're right on the proper course of action for men...*for now*...but wrong on the cause of the modern state of things. It was never liberalism or "left wing culture won"... The modern state of affairs was solely caused by technology...medical technology brought medically safe abortions, the Pill, widespread and effective condom use (and others), and finally the Morning After Pill, with abstinence/teenage sex education bringing up the rear (after religion backed off). And there is/was no ethical/legal/moral justification to not allow women access to all of that... Thus they prosper independently and ever more successfully...*for now*... Soon to come is the sex bots, and with that, likely more legalized prostitution as human competition (things don't look relatively morally bad when humans start fucking robots like crazy). Artificial wombs perhaps as well? Maybe...but point is, tech might swing things back to male power. Then we have more openly accepted non-religious polygamous marriages coming in the aftermath of gay marriage. There could come a time this century when nearly every human in the industrialized world is born within a large harem and more rarely monogamy.
Matt 2016-03-01 22:37:57
Dude this was great. Never read your blog before. You covered about 90-95% of my criticisms of the modern-day manosphere. I'm blaming the popularity of Return of Kings for the rise of the Mark Minter-style "raging divorcee superhater" demographic shift. The larger any movement gets, the more bottom-feeders it attracts. Not only that, the larger web sites need to pander to the bottom feeders to keep the income flowing, so we wind up with a downward spiral. I got into it around mid 2010. Back then, it was a fun locker room environment where we talked about self improvement and women, shared funny stories, joked around and had fun. Now it's all "muh jeezus" and "crank out 5 kids or you aren't a Real Man™". I can't imagine encountering the modern era of permavirgin Youth Group pastors, feminist-hating incels and political weirdos while thinking "I want to be a part of this". That being said, I'm with you on supporting that 5-10% of guys who actually want to improve themselves. Those are the guys I want to meet and exchange ideas with.
Si 2016-03-02 00:06:24
A question. You're always banging on about how much money you make from views to this site. But I use ad blockers and Ghostery so I never see any ads, and nobody can track my browsing. So how does that make you any money?
Danny 2016-03-02 02:20:20
The manosphere is so schizophrenic it's hilarious. Take roosh' latest blog post for example, talking about the difficulty of meeting girls in nightclubs. If roosh really was that pro family and monogamy, that difficulty should be celebrated because it means it would be harder to get casual sex. But no, everything is about "decline" for roosh. The "decline" of marriage and family, the "decline" of meating cute girls for casual sex in nightclubs, it doesnt even matter that they are complete opposites. He is just one of those guys that always need something to complain about. I see that alot with very analytical people. They often become very negative. Krauser is one of them too.
ThomasNordic 2016-03-02 04:56:04
Darius, I agree. There has never been more freedom. The "manosphere" seems to be about Americans, mostly, who dont actually want this freedom and should essentially just be ignored. They may have good points fighting feminists but as feminists have little power it makes no sense. They just feed of eachother for no reason Never before have men been free of the tough expectations from societies of the past to perform or die. 100 years ago, a man were expected to marry young, work hard to feed a family and if he failed, he would be considered pretty similar to some kind of defect electrical appliance. Now anyone can do as they please. Womens liberation was just as much mens, if not more. The welfare state even adds to this as it has essentially taken over obligations once residing with men. more freedom for men. Men´s biggest problem is not realising this. Its also nonsense to predict some kind of western collapse. There is not a shred of evidence for this nor any reasonable argument. Welfare states are far better than their reputation. They can work very well, when done right, not just creating security for individuals, and thus freeing men, but also helping the economy. For instance, Denmark har has very high unemployment benefits. This could spell disaster as it encourages people not to want to work (and there is some of that going on) However it also forces the state to pursue high employment. There is a reason several of the richest countries in the world are European welfare states. They will go bankrupt if they dont perform. so they perform.
POB 2016-03-02 08:15:07
The whole thing would be much less confusing and less emotionally painful if children weren’t lied to in the first place. It’s not that the truth is that bad, it’s just bad when compared to the complete fantasy fairytale of getting to be “in love” with your “best friend” forever and ever. I don’t know why parents insist on hiding the truth from their kids and feeding them fantasies.@Kripto It's not lying. Parents usually love their kids and want the best for them. It's just strong SP at work. They actually believe this stuff even if their own relationships prove it wrong. Anyway, I think you cannot just snap your children out of it, because as you've said they're bombarded every minute with conflicting information. Stuff like: you're free to have sex anytime you want vs you should find your soulmate ASAP or else you've failed. I don't have kids myself but in my opinion the best course of action would be to provide them with the basics (love, care, education, home, food, information) and to constantly remember them who's responsible for their own happiness: themselves. The rest will be up to them.
CrabRangoon 2016-03-02 08:39:43
BD, I'm looking forward to your review on Neil Strauss's new book. I imagine it's pretty painful to get through so kudos to you for making it to the end and sparing the rest of us. I have a buddy getting engaged soon that is very much an Alpha 1.0 and thinks he's going to be monogamous for life. I already told him he's fooling himself but he's not hearing it. All the while he's been secretly hitting up one of my old FB's he met once many months ago for "drinks"-she finds it as amusing as I do, and has no interest in fucking him. Seeing this behavior in real life is really funny and sad at the same time.
Blackdragon 2016-03-02 10:35:57
The modern state of affairs was solely caused by technologyCorrect. I've discussed exactly that many times. I've also discussed how things will radically change once sex robots become inexpensive and realistic. However that doesn't mean the West has shifted to the left. It has.
more freedom for men. Men´s biggest problem is not realising this.Bingo! Yep!
Its also nonsense to predict some kind of western collapse. There is not a shred of evidence for this nor any reasonable argument. Welfare states are far better than their reputation. They can work very well, when done right, not just creating security for individuals, and thus freeing men, but also helping the economy.If you're so sure about your statements, then next time I put out the call for a Blackdragon Debate on this blog, let me know if you want to debate me publicly on that. Because you're dead wrong. Any system works well for a while, including the welfare state, even communism! That doesn't mean it's long-term sustainable. (As usual, American men worship monogamy, European men worship the welfare state. False Societal Programming is so funny.)
I’m looking forward to your review on Neil Strauss’s new book. I imagine it’s pretty painful to get through so kudos to you for making it to the end and sparing the rest of us.Seriously, this damn book is soooooo painful to read. I can't remember a book more difficult to get through.
I have a buddy getting engaged soon that is very much an Alpha 1.0 and thinks he’s going to be monogamous for life.If he's a true Alpha 1.0 then I bet he actually doesn't think that; He's probably pretending. When getting engaged, it's betas think they'll be monogamous for life. Most women and Alpha 1.0s just pretend this and play the game, secretly not caring if they get divorced down the road. I explain this here.
Carmichael Red 2016-03-02 11:12:23
This may be an obvious question. BD. All I see on the comments is blah,blah,blah. A great portion of men are all talk and make the same damn mistake they were criticizing their friend for. Why don't men listen? Beyond Brainwashing. It's Genetic. It's even Biblical.
Alejo 2016-03-02 11:59:00
Most of S. America is already in relative poverty as compared to the West so it can’t “collapse” like the West can and is. It will either stay that way or slowly rise (some countries anyway, like Chile and Uruguay, perhaps Argentina if they stop being insane, etc).As an argentinean reading this I cracked laughting. Yesterday our new president (who won by just 1.5% margin) told that the last goverment left us with 700% summed inflation in the last 10 years. Everytime a turn on the news I need to grab some pop corn. I still love my country though. Tango!... <3
billyboy 2016-03-02 14:55:52
Not all liberals are the same. I don't care about politics too much, but not every Democrat is PC-Oriented, or feminist, or supports cultural tolerance, or open borders. That's the "Regressive Left" Yale Babies crowd. There are what I call Bill Maher or George Carlin liberals (yes I'm aware they are stand-up comedians). They don't give a flying fuck about feminism or political correctness or cultural tolerance. Me personally? I'm more of a centrist/ moderate as I get older. But typically lean left. What that means is I believe in free speech and think political correctness is a joke. Especially regarding religion. I have the (very anti-libertarian) idea that there is greater power in society and government with a greater degree of centralization and resource-pooling. This has been true in many historic empires. There is still massive waste and corruption, though that is a separate issue in theory. While there are thieves and exploiters in any system, there are genuinely some people, including children, that we should provide social safety nets for in our society. There are financial and health calamities that can happen outside of a person's control. There should be a bare bones safety net. Drugs, guns, religion, tattoos, clothing, consenting adults fucking, marriage --- the government should stay the fuck out of it. In terms of Islamic terrorists, we should be concerned and call a spade a spade. And people should sack up and stop being the "speech police" or the "thought police." Like I said, I would refer to myself as a "Bill Maher/ George Carlin" liberal.
Kaminsky 2016-03-02 18:53:09
@Eddie, "So as much as these PUA/Manosphere guys all talked a good game…in the end, they defaulted back to who they really were all along…." I'll take a run at explaining it. First off, I think there is an assumption that once a guy gets exposed to the RP then he is in for life. He goes through the phases, the epiphanies etc. but reverting to BP life is never seen as an option. But after about 5-8 years of manosphere, you can see that many guys simply want to be BP. They either didn't like or (more likely) couldn't handle a RP/MGTOW life (loosely defined). They like to 'check in with the boss' and get their BDSM tingles that way. They really couldn't handle being single post-40 and knowing that everyone in town will gossip about them. They couldn't really handle a life of true self-determination and freedom. Why? Because it asks way more of a person. The accountability skyrockets. It's easier to work for the man, come home to a sexless bitch and knock down 2-3 drinks a night, 6-7 on weekends. Watch ball on TV and phone it in emotionally. Being alone for stretches is scary to a lot of people. But a RP guy (loosely defined) has to be able to handle that. Envisioning a future as a childless, 68 year old living in Indonesia and perving on 19 year olds is very WEIRD. It's way safer and more comfortable to chuckle with the boys at the golf course about how who's more whipped. The RP is scary in a lot of ways. Maybe you 'die alone' or go to the third world or cut short your pension track to transform your life. You might lose BP friends. There's some heavy stuff involved. So trad-cons, white nationalists and BD's recent explanation of PUA's (who want to convert their knowledge of women into monogamy) basically all go back to the BP/Fem Imperative life. All three of these options are ways that guys who grew up under the fem imperative can simply come back to mommy with a better sense of self-esteem about it. Much like teenagers, they had a bit of rebellion (a few years of RP) but ultimately they are matriarchy drones and are more comfortable there. But this time they get to be 1. Edgy white nationalists or 2. 'The Only Real Man in the Room,' fertile trad-cons or 3. Dramatically tamed, formerly sexed up pua legends 'with nothing left to prove' top-cock status. They couldn't handle RP independence but they don't want to admit that about themselves so they found one of those three self-esteem totems to live with under the fem. imperative. Basically they are boys who want the rule of the feminine imperative without seeing themselves as the submissive bitches they truly are. They are well-behaved boys who get a nice toy to sit in the back seat with (one of the three self-images mentioned above) as mommy drives around deciding where they'll be going. TL;DR Just because the RP has such an effect on any guy who is exposed to it, doesn't mean it's for everyone long term.
Blackdragon 2016-03-02 19:57:45
Yesterday our new president (who won by just 1.5% margin) told that the last goverment left us with 700% summed inflation in the last 10 years.Yeah, your government has been literally insane for years. It's hilarious to watch. But as an American citizen living in Argentina as an expat, it might be a good move. Doug Casey lives there and he loves it. (He laughs at the government there too.) Such an odd world we live in.
not every Democrat is PC-Oriented, or feminist, or supports cultural tolerance, or open bordersI know. There are moderate lefties and extreme lefties. It's the same on the right. Hell, it's the same with libertarians too (minarchists vs. anarchists, etc). Doesn't change a word I've said though. You don't give a "flying fuck about feminism or political correctness" but you'll still vote for Bernie Sanders or the Lizard Queen, so it doesn't matter what you think, only what you do. And let me remind you that George Carlin didn't vote. He thought it was stupid. (Because it is.)
I think there is an assumption that once a guy gets exposed to the RP then he is in for life. He goes through the phases, the epiphanies etc. but reverting to BP life is never seen as an option.Well said. Red pill seems to be something for men in their 20s and early 30s, only to abandon once you hit 35+. The only exception are recently divorced older guys who flirt with it for a few years, only to go right back to the blue pill that shit on them earlier. The rest of your comment is great. Worthy of the Blackdragon Comments Hall of Fame if I had one. (Hm...idea...)
eddie 2016-03-02 20:49:35
@ Kaminsky, Thanks for the clarirty. That was pretty in-depth. Also it seems like so many of these guys are misogynists, even though they would deny it. I really think they have such a negative world view of women, which develops into a deep-seated hatred, making them incapable of truly loving a woman. Then they get online to intellectually BBC (Bitch, Blame and Complain) about the very thing their hearts long for. That's why I love BD's approach.... love women through first, understanding women. After all you can't love that which you don't first understand. Thanks again for your brilliant perspective.
Anon. 2016-03-03 02:32:59
Kaminsky, very well written. Maybe the easiest way to summarize is something like this? Betas look for mommies, while PUAs are only one tiny step ahead, they look for a mommy with big boobs? BD is asking all the right questions, particularly, what are the best ways for a man to achieve long-term happiness, and is getting (and sharing) some good answers. PUA art is an answer to an isolated question, so by itself it doesn’t bring one anywhere in life.
doclove 2016-03-03 05:12:16
Keep in mind that the Christian religious types weren't always anti-sex. At one time, they were pro-sex, but only within the confines of marriage. This means that one could only have sex with one's spouse, and that one was required to have sex upon the demand of the other spouse. But alas, most religious types in the West especially in the USA and especially within Christianity have changed from the original genuine true Christianity to the fake twisted feminist Christianity which Dalrock who is listed and linked on the right side of this blog calls Churchianity. For that matter, even the feminists were pro-sex and said have sex with anyone as long as you are not hurting them until the 1980s. Then the feminists changed to anti-sex.
POB 2016-03-03 06:35:53
@Kaminsky Very nice job man! Well done! On the other hand Alpha 2.0s seem to understand women in a way other men simply can't. I'm baffled as why so many of my FB's and MLTRs come to me for advice on their "official relationships". Of course I give them my usual "monogamy does not work/relationships are temporary" speech (which gives them the creeps). Anyway, it's damn funny when some girl who has "monogamy" in such high regard gives you a lecture, but at the same time has just sucked your cock behind someone else's back. @Anon I think PU takes care of a small percentage of our problems. One of the main issues I see with PUAs is that they think PU and seduction is all you need to be happy with women...of course we know better. If you don't practice relationships (casual AND meaningful ones), you'll fail in the long run. It's a skill, not guessing work.
Anon. 2016-03-03 14:57:29
Now that I think about it, why even the implied assumption that a PUA would be any good at relationships? Is a renowned automobile maker necessarily skilled at operating his vehicles on a slippery road in low visibility conditions?
Kaminsky 2016-03-03 17:48:55
It's fun to try to figure this stuff out so I'm happy if it makes any sense to you. It comes down to this; No matter how diverse their online squawking is, trad-cons, white nationalists, BP chumps and feminists all hold me in the exact same critical regard. They also all four have life imperatives that are surprisingly similar, no matter what website they choose to rant on. It all comes down to what Hailey, Caitlyn, Brooke and Taylor want. The white girl rules in all four of those above classes. The white girl is served directly and to the max. The male's interests are non-existent as the best case scenario, or at worst, used to stoke outright abuse, certainly not catered to in the slightest. Think of a situation where you can only hope that your interests are ignored. That's the BEST outcome to hope for. Or to simply have lost any awareness or capability to even think of your own interests. Mind boggling. Add the ex PUA's too but that's a small group. BD, Heartiste and Rollo all pointed that out and it was a major point for me to get introduced to. That was my latest epiphany served up by the manosphere; that trad-cons and feminists are indistinguishable for all intents and purposes
Felix 2016-03-03 20:04:34
Hey BD, I just went and watched and read some MGTOW stuff on a link from one of your articles. Is it just me or do they sound really bitter and angry? What I'm surprised by is that instead of learning to not give in to women and learning about psychology of women, most of those guys are disavowing all contact with women and actively encouraging others to do so because women are psycho manipulating bitches that can't be trusted. Seems like a huge over reaction to me. What's your take on the MGTOW thing?
Duke 2016-03-03 20:55:10
What I’m surprised by is that instead of learning to not give in to women and learning about psychology of women, most of those guys are disavowing all contact with women and actively encouraging others to do so because women are psycho manipulating bitches that can’t be trusted. Seems like a huge over reaction to me.I thought I was the only one that noticed this. They pretty much know the psychology of women but absolutely hate it and don't want to adjust to it. They are butthurt and bitter that women are who they are and I don't think most of them have the discipline to not give in to women. Once they get involved with a women there is no stopping until the women either gets bored in the relationship or divorces them. They are black and white minded like the former players turned born again monogamists except they are of the 'winning" the game by not playing mentality. This is why only five to ten percent of men could potentially be helped because the rest are extremists (players, monogamous, or celibate Mgtow). Moderation is the key as always.
Felix 2016-03-03 21:51:43
@Duke That's sad to realize but true. I'm just really surprised at how bitter and angry MGTOW people are. It's like being mad at the Sun for baking you in the desert. It's as if they believe that women are consciously and intentionally behaving maliciously. Woman behave like women because that's their base biological and societal programming that ensures the best way for them to survive and prosper. But that doesn't mean men has to go along with it and/or give in to their demands. They don't want to learn the psychology of women and just want to take their marbles and go home because they can't make the rules...not understanding that no one makes the rules. That there are no rules, you don't have to follow any unspoken rules. They act as if they get into a relationship with a woman they MUST sign over their property and give her access to their bank account. It's just such bizarre thought process and behavior to me. If I don't understand something, I work at it until I figure it out or find someone who has figured it out and learn from them. Then you play according to the unspoken rules and you play to win. What I can't figure out is that is it really that hard for them to tell women "No", that they have to avoid all contact with women because if they don't, then they will sign their life savings and earnings over to women? (btw - I like that, Born Again Monogamists. Lol)
Blackdragon 2016-03-03 22:06:13
Anyway, it’s damn funny when some girl who has “monogamy” in such high regard gives you a lecture, but at the same time has just sucked your cock behind someone else’s back.Yep. I've said it before and it's true: the greatest, loudest, strongest defenders of monogamy I've ever seen are women who cheat. (The second greatest are men who cheat.) Kinda says a lot about monogamy, doesn't it?
The white girl is served directly and to the max.Another good point. True.
I just went and watched and read some MGTOW stuff on a link from one of your articles. Is it just me or do they sound really bitter and angry?Yes. They are. There's a minority who are pro-sex, but the majority of MGTOWs are the group within the manosphere that hate women the most.
What I’m surprised by is that instead of learning to not give in to women and learning about psychology of women, most of those guys are disavowing all contact with women and actively encouraging others to do so because women are psycho manipulating bitches that can’t be trusted. Seems like a huge over reaction to me.It is. Though I suspect most of these guys are low sex drive men. (Which is something they have in common with male feminists.) Even if women were 100% devils made of pure evil, I'd still fuck them. I wouldn't date them, but I'd fuck them. Because I like sex. Because, you know, I'm a man.
What’s your take on the MGTOW thing?It's a flavor of MRA. Both MRA and MGTOW believe women are the enemy, but while MRAs want to fight women, MGTOWs wan't to remove them from their lives completely. As I've explained before, men like sex, so this MGTOW stuff will never, ever be a big movement and will only apply to a very tiny percentage of men. (How you would like to never have sex for the rest of your life? Or never have an emotional connection with a woman for the rest of your life? Sound fun?) Just like those who are pro-long-term monogamy, they're going against core biology that's never going to change. And as I've said, biology always wins in the end.
Felix 2016-03-03 22:36:31
What I find ironic is that they claim they don't care anymore. You do care if you're really angry and bitter. That means you care. If you don't care, you're indifferent, no emotion. There's so much negative emotion in what they're saying that it amazes me that they can say with a straight face that they women don't matter to them anymore. Have you heard some of the hypothesis they're making up about female behavior? It's all intentional and nefariously designed to take men's money. Women are asexual and just use sex for manipulating men. I can't tell if they're exaggerating or they've never given a woman a real orgasm before. Women, asexual, ROFLMAO. There's a bunch of other made up pseudo psychology but most of it isn't back up by any kind of research but they're passing it around as if it's gospel. Everywhere I look, people make up strange and crazy hypothesis about human behavior even though all it takes is to read up on evolutionary biology and psychological studies. I thank whatever that I am a INTJ because most people apparently live in a world where anybody can make up behavioral psychology and pseudo-science "facts".
Felix 2016-03-04 00:15:46
BD and everybody else, I know you've probably said it somewhere but what happens when you expose them to Alpha 2.0? The MGTOW guys seem to be also very anti-PUA. What is that about? You'd think they learn to pickup women, have sex with them, and then go their way but they hate PUAs and the whole idea of picking up women. I find that odd. It's as if they want the unicorn. If you offer them a horse, they insist on a unicorn. If they can't have a unicorn, they'd rather walk.
Stephen 2016-03-04 04:50:56
Sex negative MGTOWs are the opening stages of a male sex seperatist movement. In MGTOW circles, the period of understanding female nature and hotly hating women is called "red pill rage". Sex negative MGTOWs tend to be sincere women haters who coldly hate women and really do want nothing to do with them. They don't like women because of female nature and don't desire sex enough to want to interact with them. Many sex negative MGTOWs trully want nothing from women and if you visit their sites you find quite a lot of them do discuss other topics quite a bit. Most sex postive MGTOWs seem like more thoughtful versions of PUAs. Many of them don't want any sort of emotional conection with women (just like the sex negatives) but want to use female bodies for gratification and then go on their ways. The PUAs ran their mouths originally at the sex negatives by claiming that they couldn't get laid (some probably don't have the ability and some probably could if they wanted to) and this pissed a lot of these guys off (even the sex positives came to the defense of their sex negative brotherin). This around the time the MGTOWs launched their "pussy begging" counter attack on the PUAs. Honestly, I think the PUAs didn't completely understand the MGTOWs when they attacked them and created bad blood and also it was pointless harassing the negatives anyways. If a man trully hates women so much that he sincerely turns down sex, I'm not going to bother trying to convince him to feel differently so long as he respects my bounderies as well.
Anon. 2016-03-04 06:19:15
I thought I was the only one that noticed this. They pretty much know the psychology of women but absolutely hate it and don’t want to adjust to it.To be honest, this is a very understandable point of view. I’m a beginner, and until I know better, I’m following BD’s guidelines to the letter. First impressions: the guidelines are very effective, and I hate them. I want to see women often, but I mustn’t. I want to be open and honest with them, but I mustn’t, at least until a certain point. I want to spend money on them, but I mustn’t. One has to let go of quite much to have successful long-term relationships, BD-style. So I do see where beta-type serial monogamy is more satisfying in the short term. But long-term happiness is, by definition, the top priority. So I reluctantly do what I have to do. While singing to myself, “What a wicked Game to play”.
POB 2016-03-04 08:06:54
Now that I think about it, why even the implied assumption that a PUA would be any good at relationships?@Anon Go to the forums. It's all over the place! Everybody looks like an expert and have all the answers (smh). Of course there are PUAs who are damn good at managing all kinds of relationships (I'm a huge fan of Tubarao's stuff, guy know what he's doing just as much as BD). Unfortunately most of those guys are just going through the "phase" we discussed, and soon will be back to who they were, happily chewing a bag of blue pills. Not that I care.
klearance 2016-03-04 09:37:32
How can you respect Roosh,being intelligent as you are,BD? The guy whose strategy and advice on "game" is to find women in poor countries, something betas have been doing since beginning of times? Guy,who bans anyone with slightly different opinions (or opinions at all) then his own Manosphere is full of great bloggers, Roosh is not one of them.His talent is in agitation.
Blackdragon 2016-03-04 10:00:48
You’re always banging on about how much money you make from views to this site. But I use ad blockers and Ghostery so I never see any ads, and nobody can track my browsing. So how does that make you any money?This blog doesn't sell advertising. It sells my own content (ebooks and coaching). The links on this blog to my sales pages aren't affected at all by your ad blockers. Bwahahahahaha!
Racism is not a bad thing BD. It’s required for survival.Incorrectly thinking all other races are inferior to your race is required for survival? How is being racist against Asians, for example, required for my survival?
We do have a problem with racism today, but the problem is that we don’t have enough of it and that the muslims have plenty of it.Again I will repeat: if our goverment didn't A) regularly bomb and attack countries in the middle east and B) didn't give one penny of goverment money or services to any non-citizen immigrants for any reason ever, then none of this immigration/muslim stuff would be a problem, regardless of how racist or non-racist we were. It's not a race issue. It's a big government issue. (As is usually the case for most of today's societal problems.)
I know you’ve probably said it somewhere but what happens when you expose them to Alpha 2.0?They get mad. To them Alpha 2.0 is just another version of PUA (which you could argue it is).
First impressions: the guidelines are very effective, and I hate them. I want to see women often, but I mustn’t. I want to be open and honest with them, but I mustn’t, at least until a certain point. I want to spend money on them, but I mustn’t.That's only during the FB/MLTR phase. During the OLTR phase none of that applies; you can see her all you want, tell her anything you want, and financially take care of her if you wish. The trick is that you need to wait a while to make sure a woman qualifies for this status, instead of having sex with her three times and then declaring her your girlfriend, which is what happens in serial monogamy.
So I do see where beta-type serial monogamy is more satisfying in the short term.Yes, monogamy is always easier short-term. That's why it's so popular.
Go to the forums. It’s all over the place! Everybody looks like an expert and have all the answers (smh).Yep. On PUA forums all over the place, including the one I own, successful PUA/players with shitty, high-drama relationships or highly restrictive blue pill relationships are giving relationship advice. And people listen to them. It's sad.
Of course there are PUAs who are damn good at managing all kinds of relationshipsCorrect. Today's successful PUA fucking tons of girls is tomorrow's blue pill monogamous husband. (Just wait about 10 years.) Then he's tomorrow divorced blue pill husband. (Just wait about 5-7 years after that.)
(I’m a huge fan of Tubarao’s stuff, guy know what he’s doing just as much as BD).Tubarao is fantastic.
How can you respect Roosh,being intelligent as you are,BD?Because he's honest and doing what he thinks is right. I don't have to agree with him, but I can still respect what he's doing.
The guy whose strategy and advice n “game” is to find women in poor countries, something betas have been doing since beginning of times?Night game (for example) is a strategy that I hate and would never do, but I admit it works for a certain type of guy (if he does it right) and I admit that many men like it. Roosh-game is the same deal. I would never do it, and you hate it, but it's a strategy can than and does work for a certain group of guys. Just because I disagree with a particular strategy doesn't mean I have to hate the guy teaching it.
Guy,who bans anyone with slightly different opinions (or opinions at all) then his ownThat I do not like at all, but that's the norm in the PUA world. Pretty much ll PUAs who own blogs or forums do that (except me and a few others) . PUAs (or ex-PUAs) tend to be a high-drama, cliquish lot who can't handle dissenting views in a calm, rational, objective way. Again, just because I disagree with a particular working strategy doesn’t mean I have to hate the guy teaching it. I actually welcome people who hate/disagree with me (as long as they don't derail the conversation by meaningless drama or ad hominem), but I'm a very odd exception in this respect.
Manosphere is full of great bloggers, Roosh is not one of them.His talent is in agitation.But agitation sells, and sells very well. That was one of my points in the article. There are millions of angry guys out there who eat that stuff up and can't wait for more. The fact Roosh is one of the 2-3 guys at the top of the manosphere heap says something.
eddie 2016-03-04 13:35:52
Not sure who wrote this.."Racism is not a bad thing BD. It’s required for survival." but curious if that person can expound.
Blackdragon 2016-03-04 13:59:09
Not sure who wrote this..”Racism is not a bad thing BD. It’s required for survival.” but curious if that person can expound.It was BlindIo. His comment is several above. I don't want to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure his answer is something like: certain races (muslims) are dangerous and we need to be aware of this and keep them out or else they'll kill us. That's why I said if you stop blowing up their villages and don't give them any free stuff if they move here, they won't be killing us because they won't be coming over here in the first place. It all goes back to my story of the wolf. Saying "wolves are bad!" isn't helpful. Just stay away from wolves and don't give them any reason to come near you. Then it doesn't matter how bad they are; they won't be a problem.
Anon. 2016-03-04 14:17:19
And I was pretty sure the answer was something like needing a common enemy to unite a community and make it more efficient. My own POV is that any kind of crowd mentality is susceptible to manipulation and is therefore harmful. Peaceful religions have been exploited multiple times just by using the lines between “us” and “them” that they draw. I think the world made of 100% individualists would be better. No war crimes if you can’t assemble an army.
eddie 2016-03-04 14:30:23
Got it, thanks... btw, the was one of the best posts ever "Women are not evil" I've never seen anyone post an article like that in this space before or since. But, isn't BlindIo right in a sense...because, this is the same (religious) ideology that Hitler had and the Europeans had when they so-called colonized the world in the name of God, Gold and Glory. Which in turn made them Rulers of the world. Even some will argue, that's the invisible force behind American Racism today and the reason why it will always exist here in America...(although now it's come full circle and is now practiced on a global scale). I get what you're saying, we should stop blowing up their villages..but how is that possible when this is the strategy and method that's always been used to dominate and rule. Just today Senator Ted Cruz was talking again about carpet bombing...the DAMAGE has been done, there's no going back... it's like warring gangs...you already shot my homeboy, for nothing, therefore I must get one of yours....how then can there ever be peace....(also given the fact that racism/war is a multi-trillion dollar business).
eddie 2016-03-04 14:51:53
@ Anon... I was thinking the same thing until I examined it a little deeper... as most negative things, Racism is deeply rooted in fear and paranoia...there's even scholars who say it's a mental illness. When you are in fear (real or imagined) of your life or very existence...what do you do...find others to protect and support you..the saying is true.."there's safety in numbers." Bringing this back to the article....as BD said..women are not the enemy (https://blackdragonblog.com/2013/07/21/women-are-not-evil/).
Buzz 2016-03-04 23:49:10
Most racism is based on facts that sometimes have been exaggerated a little.. Example: a black guy beat up his white girlfriend so bad an ambulance was called. When the ambulance came he assaulted the medics. They called the police. When the police came he tried to take the cops gun. He got a bullet in the head which he richly deserved. Because of this BLM blocked a major highway at rush hour. Then the had a die in at the state fair. Then they surrounded a police station and protested for four weeks even annoying other blacks in the neighborhood. A mother should not have to worry that her son will be shot by the police every time he robs a store! Then they claim racism because more blacks are in jail for pot. Example: Famous black sports figure gets mad at a meter maid who is on foot and pushes her half a block with his Cadillac with pot in the car! These are only two examples but there are literally millions of them. I don't think this has anything to do with blacks out fucking anybody!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 00:09:24
certain races (muslims)Islam is not a race.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 02:18:57
Keep in mind that the Christian religious types weren’t always anti-sex.Yes they were.
At one time, they were pro-sex, but only within the confines of marriage.Translation: They were always heterophobic bigots who wanted to criminalize 98 percent of all heterosexual behavior, with the remaining 2 percent being sex between a monogamous husband and a monogamous wife - an extremely narrow space within which heterosexuality was allowed to exist. Please stop being a Christian apologist. It's creepy in a place like this.
This means that one could only have sex with one’s spouse, and that one was required to have sex upon the demand of the other spouse.Translation: Rape.
But alas, most religious types in the West especially in the USA and especially within Christianity have changed from the original genuine true Christianity to the fake twisted feminist Christianity which Dalrock who is listed and linked on the right side of this blog calls Churchianity.True Christianity, just like true Islam, true Judiaism, etc... are now, and have always been, heterophobic.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 03:25:53
Women, asexual, ROFLMAO.In my experience, there are only three groups who believe women are asexual, or that female heterosexuality is a myth: 1. Traditional Conservatives: Tradcons believe that sex is something that a man does to a lady in a one way street fashion. This is why many white knights and religious bible thumpers have always maintained that sex is something women should be protected from, as men who have sex with multiple women are considered "scoundrels" while women who sleep with men "for free" are considered low self esteem creatures who have submitted their bodies for "public use." I heard a Christian pastor once say that he respects prostitutes more than "sluts" because "at least the prostitute gets paid." Female gold diggers and Disney women who want to get paid for sex fall under this category as well. 2. Radical Feminists/Lesbian Separatists: Just like chivalrous white knights and conservative nice guys who think that men sleeping with women are jerks, radical feminists believe, at best, that all heterosexual intercourse is rape because power differentials between men and women make women too politically weak to consent to anything in a patriarchal system, so if there is such a thing as female heterosexuality, we've never seen it yet because women have never been free. So, at best, these women are agnostic when it comes to female heterosexuality. At worst, they believe that female heterosexuality is a fictional invention by the evil global patriarchy designed to lessen female resistance to rape. They believe that women were forced to be heterosexual because the only other choice was starving to death when women weren't legally allowed to work. When women finally entered the workplace, radical feminists believed that every woman will be a lesbian by the year 2000. When that didn't happen, radfems switched their explanation of female heterosexuality from economic coercion to psychological coercion and mental colonization by the patriarchy via false consciousness and gender roles assigned and culturally reinforced since birth. These women believe that all heterosexual sex is an inherent act of rape and violence and that vaginal lubrication and female sexual arousal is a biological defense mechanism to lessen the pain of rape. They think all women are either asexual or lesbian, thus agreeing with the conservative white knight nice guy who thinks he's chivalrously protecting women from jerks. 3. Male Misogynists: These are men like Tom Leykis and MGTOWs who say again and again that men love sex while women love money. And sex is an exchange - you have the money and she has the sex and only then can the transaction take place. Men like Leykis have repeatedly said that women have sex, not because they enjoy it, but because they don't want to work for a living. Money, not sex, is what women want. So whatever notions that men have about female heterosexuality are foolishness. These are asexual creatures who tolerate sex because they can't get a job after majoring in Women's Studies and being deeply in debt. Thus, if a woman enjoys her heterosexuality and even sleeps with multiple men, here are the reactions from the three groups: 1. Tradcons: She has low self esteem and is giving her body away as if it's worthless garbage. She needs to learn that she is worth more than this. 2. Radical Feminists/Lesbian Separatists: She is exhibiting Stockholm Syndrome due to her psychological colonization by the patriarchy. She is a willing rape victim. Women who resist their attackers are heroes, whereas the real rape victims are women who voluntarily celebrate their rape (read: consensual sex). 3. Misogynist: She is a lying gold digger who is only pretending to like sex and is showering him with it because she wants him to pay off her student loans and buy her a new car. The idea that women are heterosexuals is an idea that continues to be revolutionary. And it is this idea that is the foundation of the red pill.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 03:38:57
I want to spend money on them, but I mustn’t.Anon, can you explain why you have this desire to spend money on women? I have never had a desire to give my money to another person, so I can't really understand this. Any elaboration would be helpful, as this is a headspace that is genuinely alien to me. Even in my blue pill days, the idea of surrendering my money to somebody else disgusted me. Why do you want to give the money that you worked for away?
Felix 2016-03-05 03:45:57
@Jack Outside the Box Wow, that means that regarding sex, most people are psycho crazy. Except the women who enjoy sex and is looking for good sex. And if the guy wants to pay, so much the better. No wonder the world is so fucked up. And we also have a significant number of guys who feel so little self-worth that they feel like they have to pay for sex with dinners, gifts, flowers, etc. Good thing the sex drive is strong enough to keep the human race going even amongst all this craziness and BS psycho babble.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 03:59:11
They hate Jews because they’re afraid they’re smarter and that they will take over economically.Speaking as a white non-Jew, Jews are, on average, smarter than non-Jews. Their IQ tends to be about 10 points higher than ours. But no, that's not why people hate them. People hate Jews because of Jewish racism against non-Jews, as articulated in the Bible and the Talmud. The Talmud refers to non-Jews as "goyim" - wild animals. The Talmud is still a sacred book in Judaism. Further, this Jewish racism has manifested itself in the form of Jewish bankers and business men charging non-Jews interest, but not Jews because the Bible prohibits charging interest (usury) to a fellow Jew. There is, in fact, a Jewish conspiracy comprising about 5 percent of Jews who think that they are the master race because their holy books say this, and because they really do have higher IQs. The only reason I have no hatred for Jews is because I realize that this racism on their part is limited to only 5 percent of their population. 95 percent of Jews are not in on the Jewish conspiracy and don't think that they are the master race, regardless of what the Talmud says.
They hate Muslims because they’re afraid they will outbreed them or murder them.Correct! But I believe this is a rational fear. First of all, Islam is not a race. I hate Muslims because I believe Islam is a severe mental disorder that can potentially bring about the extinction of our species. It should be treated like a contagious disease. But Islam has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It is a sick state of mind known commonly as a "religion."
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 04:21:54
Wow, that means that regarding sex, most people are psycho crazy. Except the women who enjoy sex and is looking for good sex.And the man who enjoys sex and is looking for sex. Count him as among the few sane ones as well. Wanting sex and enjoying sex - regardless of whether you're a man or a woman - is a sign of good mental and physical health.
And if the guy wants to pay, so much the better.I strongly disagree with this. Upon learning the red pill truth that women are heterosexuals, a man should be disgusted at the thought of giving a woman a single penny for anything! An alpha male understands that his penis is her payment, not money. If a man wants to pay, he is either a blue pill sheep, or has deep and serious issues with his self esteem (thinks he's unattractive, etc...).
No wonder the world is so fucked up. And we also have a significant number of guys who feel so little self-worth that they feel like they have to pay for sex with dinners, gifts, flowers, etc.Exactly! If a guy wants to pay, he either needs therapy or reeducation (or both).
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-05 05:07:07
I also want to expound on Part 5 of BD's post. This is the one I am most embarrassed about. It really burns me to know that the manosphere is being infiltrated and taken over by puritanical Disney tradcons who want to go back to the 1950s. The MRAs have so many good things to say about anti-male discrimination in family court, false rape accusations on campus, and general cultural and legal female supremacy. But they bury all of those messages that the world needs to hear with their increasing anti-sex traditionalism and endorsement of traditional gender roles! I'm so sick of these Disney blue pillers calling themselves enlightened red pill men! These tradcons used be exclusively Jesus freaks, so we kept them out of government, academia, and various other positions of influence by using the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But they got smarter. They adapted to our secular society by stripping god out of their preachings and taking on a more worldly message - forget that god said it, here's why he said it. By focusing on the why, they managed to make their sex-hating message and endorsement of traditional gender roles completely atheistic. That new secularism of the Disney right wing, combined with a red pill community that has declared war against sex-negative feminism, has given these blue pillers the opportunity to regain their lost influence by polluting the red pill with their anti-feminist replacement - 17th century puritanism. This is why it is not enough for the red pill community to be against heterophobic feminism. We must stand in favor of sex-positivism and have concrete affirmative beliefs. Otherwise, the entire manosphere will be completely captured by Disney conservatives who hate feminists as much as they hate sex just because red pillers hate bigoted and sex-hating feminists also. If you have no affirmative beliefs, then the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend, no matter how terrible he also is. Again, this creeping traditional conservatism has forced me to separate and distance myself from the larger manosphere. I can no longer, with a straight face, claim that these men are red pill. They are blue pill Disney chumps who think women shouldn't like sex and that sex-positivism is "destroying civilization." Well, that's exactly what MGTOWs and sex-negative feminists believe as well. A feminist will say that sex is a woman worshipping a man's dick in an act of masochistic male supremacy. A MGTOW will say that sex is a man worshipping a woman's vagina in an act of masochistic female supremacy. An MRA will say that sex is an immature act leading to the destruction of our society. Red pill knowledge is virtually gone, except in spaces like this and certain segments of the PUA community. At least the 10 percent of us have a home there.
Fraser Orr 2016-03-05 08:54:17
I'm glad you put in the caveat about respecting these PUA guys, despite their shortcomings. It is very easy to look back into the past and see people who didn't have your advantages and disrespect them for their ignorance. Issac Newton, one of the most important father's of modern science, was also an alchemist who sought to turn lead into gold. Today, with the knowledge we have of chemistry we know that that is effectively impossible, and sometimes Newton's alchemic past is held to disrespect him. How easy it is to look over the pile of three hundred years worth of books and billions of hours of other people's research in contempt at the ignorant man of the past on whose shoulders your knowledge was built. Eben Pagan (AKA, David Deangelo) is a man to whom I am very grateful. I don't know much about his personal life, however I know he changed mine. And he did so with the spectacular insight that any shortcomings in my life are almost always my fault, on me, and mine to fix. "Man Transformation" changed the way I think about myself. It take is not about dating, it is about being a man, and the rather obvious observation that women really like "men". In many ways he started what your are perfecting -- namely the recognition that it is not about pickup lines and techniques (such as Mystery and Style) rather it is about changing yourself from the inside out. In fact it was in his videos that I even heard of the idea of non monogamy in the first place (though that was by no means his focus.) Maybe he went off the rails, I have no idea about his personal life. But he made a difference for me, that's for sure. I'm reminded of that Facebook Meme: "Things happen for a reason: and that reason is you and your choices."
GauchoRojo 2016-03-05 10:23:34
Hello again Blackdragon, I like the emphasis in this article on not being angry, I think that if a lot of men simply followed that advice, their personal & sex lives would end up a lot better. However, I am on some recommended reading from you, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey, who is advising for interdependence between people. His model puts interdependence as a level of maturity above independence. Your model designates independence as the #1 goal. How do you reconcile striving for independence instead of interdependence? Going off of that, have you ever met a group of people that operate on the same wavelength as you? If so, did it fall apart, do you try to keep minimal involvement with them or have you formed a posse with them? (I think you hinted at making a commune of like-minded individuals somewhere in this article) Best, GauchoRojo
eddie 2016-03-05 12:02:14
@ Jack Outside the Box, Awesome insight and clarity on Traditional Conservatives, Radical Feminists/Lesbian Separatists and Male Misogynists. It explains a lot of things, especially wjat's currently happening on collge campuses and the consensual sex is rape phenomenon. But, you have to admit, Anon and others have a solid point about spending money on women. Although, I agree with you, that in a perfect world, men shouldn't have to pay for something that nature has FREELY given women at birth. The truth is 99.999% of women have placed a high value on their vaginas...in other words, you cannot find a one, who doesn't expect something in return for sharing it with us men...whether it be for favors, gifts or money. Any women you get involved with, you will come out of pocket, in some form or fashion, willingly or unwillingly. There's always an expense or expenses incurred when dealing with a woman. Whether, it be for dating or a releationship...or a ONS...your money is spent, directly or indirectly. The only way you can avoid this unavoidable, necessary expense is to never involve yourself with a woman..which isn't possible, when you are a heterosexual male because nature has deemed it so.
eddie 2016-03-05 12:16:32
@ Jack Outside the Box I strongly disagree with this. Upon learning the red pill truth that women are heterosexuals, a man should be disgusted at the thought of giving a woman a single penny for anything! An alpha male understands that his penis is her payment, not money. If a man wants to pay, he is either a blue pill sheep, or has deep and serious issues with his self esteem (thinks he’s unattractive, etc…). And I might add.... todays' women, kinda don't need you.... women once needed men to protect them, today they have security alarms, guns, dogs and the police...women once needed men to provide for them, today they have their own careers and gov't handouts...and here's your biggie...women need your little penis... no they don't ( have not ever heard of dildos....the sizes and durability of which no man can compete).... so all you're left to argue with is they need men's companionship..of which I call bullshit...they have their girlfriends for emotional support and their gay males and beta boys (friendzone) for male companionship. All they need you for is____...... zero, nada..nothing. So in essense, if all you're offereing is penis... you can take your dick and go home. To be clear, I am not here to criticize or demean you..in fact, I respect your perspective. But, I do think on this specific area, you're being a bit unrealistic. I invite you to please prove me wrong.... Thank you....
Anon. 2016-03-05 13:25:23
Anon, can you explain why you have this desire to spend money on women? I have never had a desire to give my money to another person, so I can’t really understand this.They’re nice and cute, causing them joy makes them even more cute. Do you give gifts to children? I should perhaps add that I earn good money while living in a poor country and many things I’m accustomed to are unavailable to them financially.
Duke 2016-03-05 14:23:22
That’s only during the FB/MLTR phase. During the OLTR phase none of that applies; you can see her all you want, tell her anything you want, and financially take care of her if you wish.I'm wondering if you actually believe taking care of women financially (even as an OLTR) is even advisable or that you yourself would actually do it. If I recall correctly you said that you would always keep separate finances. Given that framework one could still take care of a woman even though some women might disagree and insist in co-mingling of assets. I understand most men have the inherent need to provide for a woman, but I can't help but feel like a simp if I were to ever do that. I guess I'll find out how that changes when I get into my forties and fifties.
eddie 2016-03-05 17:06:59
@ Anon, I should perhaps add that I earn good money while living in a poor country and many things I’m accustomed to are unavailable to them financially. Hey, Anon, what country are you living in and how long?
Blackdragon 2016-03-05 21:42:54
Again, this creeping traditional conservatism has forced me to separate and distance myself from the larger manosphere. I can no longer, with a straight face, claim that these men are red pill.You're correct. They aren't. The manosphere is becoming blue pill.
Maybe he went off the rails, I have no idea about his personal life. But he made a difference for me, that’s for sure.Eben Pagan helped a lot of guys. He was the first exposure I had to PUA. But later, he did go off the rails, as they all eventually do. He got married and monogamous in a very blue pill, beta male manner. There are some videos on YouTube he and his wife did; you can watch them if you have a strong stomach. He'll be divorced in the next few years, just like all the rest.
How do you reconcile striving for independence instead of interdependence?I am interdependent on others, such as my virtual assistants, for my lifestyle and success. This is unavoidable in our modern high tech age. However, I am independent in that I can fire and replace any of these people at any time with minimal hassle and my lifestyle continues. Compare that to a guy with a brick and mortar business with 10 full-time, salaried employees. That guy isn't independent at all, interdependent or not. Same deal when you compare me (FBs/MLTRs) with the guy with the guy who is legally married and monogamous. Sexually, he's dependent as fuck. I'm independent even though there are other people in my life.
Going off of that, have you ever met a group of people that operate on the same wavelength as you?Only in terms of politics and economics, not in terms of relationships. There are several communities of location-independent, international men who are strong libertarians or anarcho-capitalists and I'm a (distant) member of some of these groups, but even most of these guys get legally married and monogamous eventually (though not all; some do a sort of MGTOW thing and stay single for life, dating sporadically).
I’m wondering if you actually believe taking care of women financially (even as an OLTR) is even advisable or that you yourself would actually do it.I believe in long-term happiness, so if a man is truly, honestly happy in his core by taking care of a woman financially, he can do it PROVIDED A) he can afford it easily without going into debt or affecting his retirement investment plan and B) he doesn't commingle assets or get legally married. Just pay her bills if you really want to, or hand her a check once a month and let her spend it as she chooses. It's your money and your life; live as you choose. I don't believe in forcing men to pay for women, such as through religious pressures or governmental structures such as alimony or communal property. I also think you should instantly next (or downgrade) any woman who demands you should support her. Gold diggers don't deserve your money. They can fuck off. Again, if you do it, it should be of your own free will. In terms of if I would do it, I would rather not, but I'm open to doing it under certain conditions within a low-drama OLTR structure where all finances are 100% separate and I can fuck other women whenever I want. But I'm a older guy and I make a lot of money. As I said above, I would never recommend such a thing for a younger guy or a guy with a low or average income. He needs to get laid more and get his income up first.
If I recall correctly you said that you would always keep separate finances. Given that framework one could still take care of a womanCorrect.
even though some women might disagree and insist in co-mingling of assets.Such a woman would never qualify for an OLTR. Never. Seriously, the split second a woman ever says something like that to me, the first thing I think is, "Well, she'll never be an OLTR. Too bad." All the women I've had at OLTR or near-OLTR status never asked or expected me to pay anything for them. Those are the qualified ones.
I understand most men have the inherent need to provide for a woman, but I can’t help but feel like a simp if I were to ever do that. I guess I’ll find out how that changes when I get into my forties and fifties.Correct. You're too young. You can't make judgement calls about this stuff if you're under the age of 35 or so. You're just being a KJ regarding this topic when you're young. Forget about settling down and focus on increasing your income, getting laid when needed based on your sex drive.
eddie 2016-03-05 22:09:43
BD, Who is Tubarao? And may I ask, what is your opinion about the works of “Tariq Nasheed, Christian McQueen and David DeAngelo.” Thanks.
Anon. 2016-03-06 09:01:28
Hey, Anon, what country are you living in and how long?Ukraine. Since birth (1986). Want to follow in Roosh’s footsteps? : ) Girls are indeed pretty here, but it’s hard for a foreigner not to push “prospective husband” buttons.
eddie 2016-03-06 09:21:20
Yes..Ukrainian girls are really hot.
KryptoKate 2016-03-06 13:35:25
@ eddie. I assure you, a dildo most certainly does not replace an actual penis attached to an actual man's body. It feels like exactly what it is. A piece of lifeless rubber/plastic. Jack Outside of the Box is correct, good dick is its own reward.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-06 14:23:01
Eddie: First you say this:
The only way you can avoid this unavoidable, necessary expense is to never involve yourself with a woman..which isn’t possible, when you are a heterosexual male because nature has deemed it so.But then you turn around and say this:
women need your little penis… no they don’t ( have not ever heard of dildos….the sizes and durability of which no man can compete)…. so all you’re left to argue with is they need men’s companionship..of which I call bullshit…they have their girlfriends for emotional support and their gay males and beta boys (friendzone) for male companionship. All they need you for is____…… zero, nada..nothing.You have obviously failed to grasp the full implications of the red pill truth that women are heterosexuals, since you obviously assign a lower priority to female heterosexuality than you do to male heterosexuality. You say that we can't be without women because we're heterosexual men and nature has deemed this so. But then you describe all women as MGTOWs (or FGTOWs) if we refuse to enslave ourselves to them by becoming their little provider servants. You are pedestaling them and their power above you. Once you stop doing this, you'll become way, way more attractive to them - no matter how attractive to them you are now! A man who a woman can't control makes her involuntarily convulse with orgasms just thinking about him. She can't help it. The beginning of all red pill knowledge - women are heterosexuals - is the key to everything, including the key to zero pedestalization. You speak like a traditional conservative either denying female sexuality, or assigning it a lower priority (women can be FGTOWs but men can't be MGTOWs because they're heterosexuals and it's unnatural). Take the red pill.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-06 16:08:10
@ Jack Outside the Box, Awesome insight and clarity on Traditional Conservatives, Radical Feminists/Lesbian Separatists and Male Misogynists.Thanks! Yeah, there's a reason why women have, for thousands of years, been slut shaming each other and trying their best to deny the existence of female sexuality - they want power over men. But once you see that women are heterosexuals - with all the implications that that comes with - you see through their game and can finally relate to them as equals. These have been the seducers throughout history who women wish would keep quiet. This is why I have recommended elsewhere that we should work to make clitoral enlargement surgery as culturally mainstream as breast implants are today! We could even get sex-positive feminists to sell it via "double your pleasure, double your fun" gimmicks! People 50 years ago thought breast implants will never catch on.... Today, a small number of women enlarged their clitoris because it was abnormally small. It's a short step from that to persuading unusually frigid or lower sex drive women to surgically enlarge their regular sized clitoris, in the interest of true equality, of course. 🙂 It will do more for them than breast implants....and those are mainstream. Muslim men slice off the female clitoris to turn women into true asexuals. And when the inevitable female supremacy results, Muslim men fly into a rage, beat their women, throw acid in their faces for showing them in public, and pass anti-female laws. In Kazakstan (or however you spell it), 5 or more women are not allowed in the same building because they might plot against men. These Muslims are terrified of their women, and they should be - an asexual female is a dangerous creature when meeting a desperate heterosexual man!
It explains a lot of things, especially wjat’s currently happening on collge campuses and the consensual sex is rape phenomenon.Yes! Here is the radical feminist plan: Step I: Broaden the definition of rape as much as possible and narrow the definition of consensual sex. Step II: Claim that only a verbal "yes" is consent and everything else is rape (this is the present step on campus). Step III: Start claiming that a verbal "yes" is not enough because she could have said "yes" "in the heat of passion," thus allowing the man to "mentally overpower her cognitive faculties with his charm," thereby dismissing her enthusiastic consent as null and void, making all passionate sex rape. Step IV: Demand that a legally mandatory 30 minute waiting period between the "yes" and the actual sex be instituted in order to make sure that her "yes" is the result of cool-headed, rational, and intellectual desire. Step V: Watch as all heterosexual women find it impossible to get sexually aroused because all the male masculinity, passion, enthusiasm, and spontaneity of great sex becomes officially defined as rape. Step VI: Have these radical feminists - with innocent looks on their faces - say to the women, "Well, if only rape turns you on and consensual sex doesn't, that proves what your radfem sisters have been trying to tell you all along: Female heterosexuality is just a myth invented by men who want to rape you, and those men have programmed you to like it. When the sex is truly consensual, you're not turned on by men. What does that tell you? You're finally seeing through men's heterosexual lies and are breaking through the hetero-cage. We're proud of you! Come with us now and we will show you the spiritual beauty of true sex, and men have nothing to do with it! Essentially, that is the plan that these lesbians have for college campuses and the world with their "affirmative consent" policies. They are now on Step II.
But, you have to admit, Anon and others have a solid point about spending money on women.No, I don't admit it because I don't believe it.
Although, I agree with you, that in a perfect world, men shouldn’t have to pay for something that nature has FREELY given women at birth.Correction: Men shouldn't have to pay to give a woman sexual pleasure! Pleasure should be her payment.
The truth is 99.999% of women have placed a high value on their vaginas…Irrelevant! When feeling the energy and psychological power of a real man, they will take their "high prices" and shove them up their cunts! When a woman confronts a man with real inner power whom she can't control, the desire to be overwhelmed by him, his energy, and his world becomes so hot, so powerful, and so uncontrollable, that her "high price" and "I am woman, hear me roar" horseshit will be reduced to a distant memory and a cynical joke. You just have to appeal to her primal/reptilian brain! I know this, because I have slept with a decent number of married women and taken women. They publicly demand a high price for their vaginas from their husbands and public/mainstream boyfriends, but privately, discreetly, and away from their social circle of ego masturbating narcissists, their price becomes dramatically lower as they enthusiastically jump off their public pedestal and unto by dick!
in other words, you cannot find a one, who doesn’t expect something in return for sharing it with us men…whether it be for favors, gifts or money.I have found more than one. Admittedly though, these red pill women were either rich themselves, super intellectual (like my poly girlfriend), or married or taken! But I do screen very hard for red pill women like Kryptokate or Hitori (from the GWG blog). They exist, and they will renounce their social status and mainstream loyalties in private! Some intellectuals like my girlfriend will even renounce the matrix in public! Tip: Look for pagan/poly communities in your area if you don't want to sleep with married women!
Any women you get involved with, you will come out of pocket, in some form or fashion, willingly or unwillingly. There’s always an expense or expenses incurred when dealing with a woman. Whether, it be for dating or a releationship…or a ONS…your money is spent, directly or indirectly.Of course. I have to put gas in my car in order to drive to the date. I have to pay for my half of the food, etc... But these are financial expenses that are mutual burdens (she has to put gas in her car too). There are no one-sided expenses though when dealing with red pill women (intellectuals, rich, married, or taken).
Blackdragon 2016-03-06 16:15:53
Who is Tubarao?He's a relationship expert and a very good one. He's got a link on the sidebar of this blog, and he posts at the NextASF forum.
Tariq NasheedNever heard of him.
Christian McQueenI don't know much about him but what little I've seen is that he's the standard PUA guru.
David DeAngeloI discussed him above. (Eben Pagen is his real name.)
eddie 2016-03-06 18:24:50
@ Jack Outside the Box, OK... you really broke everything down.... I have a lot of re-examining to do...Thanks.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-07 04:30:54
@ Jack Outside the Box, OK… you really broke everything down…. I have a lot of re-examining to do…Thanks.No problem. I'll just respond now to the rest of what you wrote:
And I might add…. todays’ women, kinda don’t need you…. women once needed men to protect them, today they have security alarms, guns, dogs and the police…women once needed men to provide for them, today they have their own careers and gov’t handouts…And that is a wonderful thing! Well....not the government handouts part, but the fact that women don't need me is pretty great! If they need me for anything (money, protection, etc...) I'm not convinced of their heterosexuality. Are they sleeping with me because they are horny, or because I provide them with money and resources? My baseline condition for engaging in any sexual activity with a woman is her making it clear to me - in one way or another - that she doesn't need me for anything, thus reassuring me that she's having sex with me because she's a heterosexual who thinks I'm hot, not an actress who fakes it because she needs me for other shit! The radical feminists are right about one thing: A woman's economic disadvantage compared to a man's does indeed make you wonder whether she's really sexually aroused or just sleeping with him due to financial need. That's why the radfems thought in the 1970s that every woman is going to be a lesbian by the year 2000 - women started making their own money. But what happened? As soon as they started being financially independent, their sex drives soared into space because women today are finally able to choose the hot guy over the rich guy! If women needed me for anything, I too would wonder about the existence of their heterosexuality, just like radical feminists. Thank god they don't need me, since that is what confirms for me that they are truly horny and love what I do to them in bed. Otherwise, they'd never sleep with me because they have no needs! A lack of needs = sexual honesty, and that's what I demand from women!
and here’s your biggie…women need your little penis… no they don’t ( have not ever heard of dildos….the sizes and durability of which no man can compete)…. so all you’re left to argue with is they need men’s companionship..of which I call bullshit…they have their girlfriends for emotional support and their gay males and beta boys (friendzone) for male companionship. All they need you for is____…… zero, nada..nothing. So in essense, if all you’re offereing is penis… you can take your dick and go home.I addressed this earlier and pointed out how incorrect it is, but just to add - in most female social circles, it is NOT cool to be without a boyfriend, or to be sexually inactive. Only extreme feminists, political lesbians, and morbidly obese warpigs try to convince each other that they "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Most women won't be voluntarily celibate FGTOWs for the same reason that most men will never be voluntarily celibate MGTOWs - they're heterosexual and need the opposite sex in their life, by nature. Yes, women have dildos, just like men have porn and masturbate, but it's not enough. Straight women need men as much as straight men need women. Since making a conscious effort to surround myself with red pill women only, I have seen how women react when they're sexually frustrated and it's not pretty. I have seen my girlfriend's friends cry - LITERALLY CRY - that they haven't had sex in a week! A WEEK! And I have seen the look of genuine sympathy and true concern on my OLTR's face when they say that. Imagine if these women go without sex for two weeks! I truly believe some of them would go completely insane and even hurt themselves! Women are as heterosexual as men! Let's always remember that!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-07 05:14:47
They’re nice and cute, causing them joy makes them even more cute.You think an adult like you giving money to another adult gives that other adult joy? No man! That's just the impression that women give so that you will continue giving them money. Women are not sexually aroused by providers. They are happy to have a servant boy, but they have no respect for him. The more money you give to women the more sexually disgusting you are to them! You're showing weakness and neediness by giving your money away to other adults, and weakness and neediness makes vaginas dryer than the Sahara desert! At best, the woman will become your actress (prostitute). At worst, she'll smile and kiss you on the cheek while getting multiple orgasms from two men at the same time who gave her nothing but incredible sex!
Do you give gifts to children?Comparing women to children is misogynistic at best and sickeningly creepy at worst. Besides, children need your support because they can't support themselves. Women can. And they see any man who supports them as a weak and needy sucker. A strong man will give them nothing because he doesn't have to, and will get the sex precisely because of that same strength that is responsible for him refusing to give them money. Such a man is like a brick wall whom women respect and envy, which leads to incredible sexual arousal.
I should perhaps add that I earn good money while living in a poor country and many things I’m accustomed to are unavailable to them financially.Being visibly rich is definitely a disadvantage for men in this game if you want a woman who is sexually sincere instead of an actress/faker (read: prostitute). When a woman is in your presence, the last thing you want her to be thinking about is money, or connecting money to sex. Even if she isn't much of a gold digger, those parasitic instincts might awaken inside her if you show yourself to be visibly richer than her. I suggest you downplay, or even hide, your wealth. It will only hurt you.
Ukraine. Since birth (1986). Want to follow in Roosh’s footsteps? : ) Girls are indeed pretty here, but it’s hard for a foreigner not to push “prospective husband” buttons.Ah, a man on the forums once described the women in both Russia and the Ukraine as strictly trained to be asexuals since birth. They are taught by their mothers, the sisterhood, and the culture over there to suppress their sexual desires and eliminate them completely if possible so that the sex can be seen as a generosity for the man only, thus giving these women all the leverage. This man said that he told a male friend of his in the Ukraine that he believes that women are heterosexuals, which means his penis should be their reward. The man answered him, "Then you will fuck no one here. Go back to America." Damn! Russia and Ukraine are two cultures that are so deeply against female heterosexuality that most women will feel so cheap and worthless if they exchange their vagina only for the penis. Everything I said to Eddie still stands, since an alpha male can still break through all that nonsense, but if you're in Russia or the Ukraine, your game has to be way better than most successful American seducers! I do not envy your location.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-07 05:26:02
BD, Heartiste and Rollo all pointed that out and it was a major point for me to get introduced to. That was my latest epiphany served up by the manosphere; that trad-cons and feminists are indistinguishable for all intents and purposesKaminsky: Yes, they are indistinguishable, but it's ironic that Heartiste would point that out. He is a puritanical traditional conservative himself who supports female virginity until marriage, Islamic pre-arranged marriages, and traditional Disney monogamy. The hypocrite even started quoting the bible on his blog recently. He is as tradcon as they come - giving game advice to men while slut shaming and trashing the women on whom that game works. It's despicable!
POB 2016-03-07 08:52:53
To sum it up, the points I agree: 1) manosphere is becoming blue pill; 2) most PUAs have no clue on how to create and manage open relationships; 3) most PUAs view the relationship world as a black and white dichotomy: total player vs married beta; 3) there's no need to give money or pay anything to a woman, unless it genuinely makes you happy (only exception: first date, before sex); 4) you can totally disagree with what known PUAs are doing (blue pill, marriage), but still respect their works (remember, it's their own lives they are screwing); 5) if you're young, focus your energy on fucking a number of women and making more money, leave the OLTR/live-in stuff for later; 6) organized religion usually has a nice core of teachings, but people screw up the interpretation and fuck with our lives in the process (BTW, Islam is not a religion, it's a political movement with religion as background); 7) big government is the cause of 99,9% of western world's current problems;
Anon. 2016-03-07 10:13:56
Jack, thanks for taking the time to express your opinions so eloquently. While some of the things you say seem exaggerated, there’s definitely much food for thought. I don’t know whether it’s possible to surround myself with women of the red pill mentality exclusively. Will aim to do so. Your opinion on Ukraine seems to be skewed. There surely are sex-positive women, and I can’t say they’re in the minority. There may be quantitative differences compared to the West, but BD’s system is working just fine. As for income disparity, that only becomes somewhat apparent upon visiting my home, at which point her decision has already been made and it doesn’t matter : ) Anyway, will adhere to BD’s rules on spending money. (Though when fun activities such as bungee jumping, costing about 8 USD in my area, are seen as expensive, what am I supposed to do? : ) And I haven’t yet received anything even remotely resembling a request for something that would cost me money. Will treat this as a red flag should it happen, a signal I have been doing something wrong.
Tin Man 2016-03-07 11:02:37
One thing I hope never goes away from the "gathering of Men" ... blue pill, red pill whatever ... Men, for the most part, can and do disagree - first, we should question everything as a matter of course and second, disagreement is like fire to steel, burning out the impurities. That's what I've always enjoyed - since finding this little corner. We can disagree, but for the most part, we debate - not debase.
doclove 2016-03-07 11:13:45
@ Jack outside the Box On the 5 March 2016 at 2:09AM you bought into the idea that there is such a thing as rape in a marriage then in subsequent posts you illustrate how rape is being re-defined by Tradcons and Feminists. You seem to be complaining about this, but do not realize how you have been infected with the Tradcon/Feminist idiocy(even more so than me). I laugh at your Tradcon/ (Radical) Feminist Arguments.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-07 15:25:07
@ Jack outside the Box On the 5 March 2016 at 2:09AM you bought into the idea that there is such a thing as rape in a marriage then in subsequent posts you illustrate how rape is being re-defined by Tradcons and Feminists. You seem to be complaining about this, but do not realize how you have been infected with the Tradcon/Feminist idiocy(even more so than me). I laugh at your Tradcon/ (Radical) Feminist Arguments.Doclove - Hang on a minute! I have ALWAYS defined rape the way sane people have defined it for thousands of years: It is an act of physical force, physical violence, and physical brutality, unless someone is threatening you with something a little more concrete than emotional pain or social stigma if you do not comply. In the 1950s and earlier, rape was defined as not being able to exist (in the legal sense) within marriage. This means two things: 1. Husbands could freely rape their wives using the above definition that I gave - physical assault and battery - without fearing any legal consequences. 2. Husbands could blackmail their wives with divorce, starvation (women weren't legally allowed to work), threats of concrete bodily injury (the door to your home was considered a social barrier for the police, not just a physical one) or worse if they didn't choose sex, thus fulfilling the bolded part of my definition of rape. Of course I "buy into" the reality of rape within marriage. You know why? Because marriage is a fictional, bullshit social construct! Are you saying rape ceases to exist when you have a worthless piece of paper from the government??? It is you who has been brainwashed by tradcons! When feminists redefine rape, they include in that definition, not just physical violence or threats/blackmail, but "fear of social stigma," "sleeping with a man due to wanting to avoid argument," "having sex due to mental overpowerment (read: seduction, romance), having sex without getting a verbal "yes," or having sex with a man who has even one penny more than she does (power differential producing emotional intimidation and a fear of saying "no."). Feminists are insane. They want to turn 99.9 percent of consensual sex into rape. I, on the other hand, define it the way it has always been defined - physical force or threats of concrete physical or financial consequences! The fact that you believe that the reality of rape disappears when the fictional "marriage" concept enters the picture, precisely shows that you believe in marriage and that you have been brainwashed by traditional conservative nonsense!
Vitriol 2016-03-13 20:01:04
I just found this blog even though I've been around the manosphere for several years (and quickly losing interest). Ultimately, I think you're right and it's depressing. Most of these guys are dinosaurs in terms of their thinking and worldview and they're still holding on to some kind of fairy tale ending where they find a nice girl to cuddle with on the couch every night for the rest of their lives watching Disney movies. Things like marriage, long-term monogamy, and even traditional dating are already dead. Things like technology, efficient travel, and lack of long-term stable employment have killed them. The future isn't going to look like the past and very few people are going to be able to pull off the kind of relationships our parents' generations did. If you look around many of the manosphere blogs and forums you'll find plenty of guys who write up lists of conditions that a unicorn needs to possess in order to marry her, or guys who are interested in things like "relationship game" or "marriage game." It's sickening after awhile because you realize many of these guys think "oh yeah, marriage and LTRs don't work for most people anymore, but my game is going to be so rock solid I can pull it off!" Most of these guys then get really into the PUA style game, (and are really are into it for finding a wifey) and begin typing up gay little field reports of girls they talk to and run routines on, but don't even have sex with, so they can post them to their internet clubhouse circle-jerk. Guys who are actually serious about getting pussy will be willing to at least occasionally bang an escort or take a trip to a place like Bangkok or Medellin. The PUA stuff isn't exactly the most efficient means to get laid, but these guys have such a religious devotion to it, they make fun of anyone who isn't a part of their little club and assume they have the moral high ground for choosing the "correct" way to get laid with a 80-90% failure rate that includes more time wasted in sausage fests and internet keyboard jockeying than actual sex with women. So I guess I'm in agreement with you. I couldn't care less about the manosphere anymore, I don't want to get married or enter into a monogamous LTR because I know it's a recipe for disaster, and the PUA stuff isn't the best way to even get laid but it's all over the internet because a handful of guys have made big money off of it. I think after several years of reading those kinds of sites I'm done.
doclove 2016-03-14 08:44:39
@ Jack Outside the Box I've been busy, but will now belatedly respond. I'm still laughing at your ridiculous arguments because they are delusional because they have no basis in reality. Why as a man did you write from a woman's point of view? Why have you been brainwashed by the feminists and even worse the feminine imperative? Why do you not support men's rights and the male imperative? Why do you take the woman's side over a man's side despite being a man? Are you a man? First, marriage was not a bullshit fictional construct in the past, but it is now. The traditional concept of marriage is very simple. Men gave their protection and provisioning services to women in exchange for women giving sex to men while both ensured raising children who would one day turn into their parents' "Social Security and Retirement funds". Women needed men to protect and provide for them and men desired and maybe needed sex from women. Now women have their employers, government welfare and society at large act as their "true husbands". Being married to a woman now in the West and the USA in particular is nothing more than a licensed boyfriend/ girlfriend relationship with little to no upsides for men, many upsides for women, little to no downsides for women and many downsides for men. The employers, private sector and to a lesser extent public, expect women to be productive or they get terminated just like men. The government welfare scheme expects women to turn away men as providers and protectors by voting to enlarge the government. If men did not do the essential jobs, then women could not function at all not even in their own job. Women dominate in human resources office jobs, medical and education. Men dominate in military, policing, construction, oil rigging, coal mining, truck driving etc. There is nothing women are doing in their jobs that most men could not do. There are jobs which few women could do and most men can do such as military, police, oil rigger, coal mining because of the heavy physical demands. Where would the welfare queens and their bastard spawn be if there were no welfare checks cut by the government? Dying exposed and starving in the streets is the answer. Why should men work to provide and protect women when they offer nothing valuable in return? They shouldn't. What is the most valuable and only essential thing women offer men? Sex is the answer. Why do higher percentages of women oppose prostitution than men? Because they don't care about men and their desires and need as long as theirs are being met, they do not want to introduce strikebreaker women to lower the price of what the union of women provide. They want men to pay higher prices for inferior service or even better no service at all. Unlike you, here is what I know. A woman's love is more worthless than a man's. Do you know why? There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another. Men do this more often for each other and other women than women do for men. Exceptions prove the rule. I am heterosexual, but I have no illusions about women despite loving them. Comradery and being able to discuss any subject is also more difficult with women than men. Sex is the most important and essential thing women offer a man, and again exceptions prove the rule. The exceptions are but may not be limited to family, wives and girlfriends of friends and business relationships. Funny how you don't regard men individually being abused in divorce and marriage as abuse of "rape". It is also funny how you do not regard men as a group being abused at large by society as being abused or "raped" for providing for women and protecting women while women offer little or nothing in return as a group to men and are more often than not outside of sex an unnecessary burden. Will women provide and protect men? The answer is no and again exceptions prove the rule. Men in the old system got a bad deal and under the new one it is a worse deal. You can say be strong and learn seduction skills and this can work for individual men but not most men. in human history and prehistory, only 40% of the men from ancient or prehistoric times have descendants today while 80% of the women do. I read an article long ago where 18-24 year old women were shown pictures of 18-24 year old men and the women found only 20% of them attractive and 80% unattractive while it was the complete opposite for how these same men found the women. I also read that only 10% of women between the ages of 18 and 44 did not have sex within the past year while 14% of the men in the same age group reported the same. Women are also less likely to be virgins from the ages of 18 to 44 than men. In fact, 0.3% of 40-44 year old women reported being virgins while 1.2% of men did in the same age group. You are then foolish enough to believe that without more marriage and prostitution, there would be more sex for men despite Black Dragon having an article proving more people had sex in not only in the 1940s than today. Funny how there was more sex when men could demand it inside marriage than now when they can't and there was less persecution of prostitution, isn't it? Why do you pedalistize women? Why do you support women over men? Why do you support misandry? Why are you a feminist? Why do you think men should do more for women than women should do for men ? Why do you think men's attempts and contributions to protect and provision for women both individually is worth less than the sex women provide men even daring to say that there is such a thing as rape within marriage when the opposite is true and men were getting a bad deal under the old system and a worse one now knowing women would not do the same for men, and again exceptions prove the rule? Why do you regard women's lives as more valuable than men's lives even though considerably fewer would lay down their lives to save you than men? I'm still laughing at you.
doclove 2016-03-14 08:48:29
@ Vitriol You made good comments, I agree and that is why I still read this site.
eddie 2016-03-14 10:22:04
@ doclove... that was an amazing piece of clarity and insight... if no one else says it..I will say it... "thank you for your insight and contribution on this post." It deepened my understanding. By the way...do you have any books or a blog..where I can absorb more of your wisdom and perspective.... thanks.
doclove 2016-03-15 19:12:22
@ eddie Thanks, I do not have a blog or any books. I'm good but not that good at least not yet. I'm not really looking to write a book or start a blog either.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-22 16:54:23
@Doclove: Sorry for the delay. I didn't see your response until now:
Why as a man did you write from a woman’s point of view?I'm not. I'm writing from an objective point of view.
Why have you been brainwashed by the feminists and even worse the feminine imperative?I haven't. How? By pointing out that rape has an objective definition that doesn't depend on relationship status?
Why do you not support men’s rights and the male imperative?I do. But I'm not a puritanical tradcon. I support sexual liberation for both genders.
Why do you take the woman’s side over a man’s side despite being a man?Huh? I take the side of sex-positivism, hence my disgust with slut shamers and stud shamers alike.
Are you a man?Yes.
First, marriage was not a bullshit fictional construct in the past, but it is now.It's a completely fictional arrangement based on words and external validation from "the community," whereas I support internal validation and the complete privatization (read: anti-government) of one's sex life. The government has no business in my bedroom, nor should anyone desire a sex permit, or love permit, from the state (I'm a libertarian).
The traditional concept of marriage is very simple. Men gave their protection and provisioning services to women in exchange for women giving sex to menExactly! In other words, women were treated like generous lesbians, or asexuals, whose sexual desire for men (if any) was considered completely irrelevant. I don't know about you, but I don't want some dyke in my bed who reluctantly fucks me because I'm supporting her ass! I want only heterosexual, high sex drive, and sexually enthusiastic women in my life who are addicted to dick for its own sake. The only way I can be sure of that is if the woman is financially independent. Do you see what you just did? You framed sex as a favor women do for men in exchange for other things! In other words, you have just given women sexual leverage over men! I take away that leverage by calling women heterosexuals and insist that my dick is payment enough for her pussy! You are definitely a blue pill trad con!
Women needed men to protect and provide for them and men desired and maybe needed sex from women.But women never needed sex? Dude, don't you see? By taking away female heterosexuality from the discussion, you are framing sex as a favor women do for men, thus giving women all the leverage and encouraging male slavery for the pussy!!!!!
Now women have their employers, government welfare and society at large act as their “true husbands”.Good! In other words, women are no longer our parasites! I don't support welfare, but what I support even less is women "giving" sex to men (instead of framing it as receiving) in exchange for male slavery, which is what you support! You are supporting misandry because you are promoting the idea that women are generous asexuals and men are disposable machines for women's safety and comfort. Fuck that!
Being married to a woman now in the West and the USA in particular is nothing more than a licensed boyfriend/ girlfriend relationship with little to no upsides for men, many upsides for women, little to no downsides for women and many downsides for men.Correct!
The employers, private sector and to a lesser extent public, expect women to be productive or they get terminated just like men.Good!
The government welfare scheme expects women to turn away men as providers and protectors by voting to enlarge the government.Again, I don't support the existence of welfare, but I'm glad women are turning away men as providers and protectors. I refuse to allow a woman to parasite off of me and I refuse to be her unpaid bodyguard! More importantly, I refuse to allow the woman to frame sex as a favor to me in exchange for non-sexual services. I take all the leverage and power away from women by pointing my finger at them and calling them heterosexuals (which means, my penis is payment in full), whereas you do the opposite and try to frame sex as a generous favor to men at all costs! You are the real traitor to manhood!
There is nothing women are doing in their jobs that most men could not do.Except I don't want to do those jobs for women. I want women to get off their lazy asses and do them themselves. Because I'm against male slavery for women!
Where would the welfare queens and their bastard spawn beThere is no reason to insult children just because their mothers didn't get a government sex permit!
if there were no welfare checks cut by the government? Dying exposed and starving in the streets is the answerThen that should be their fate. I'm against government shielding people from stupid choices!
.Why should men work to provide and protect women when they offer nothing valuable in return?Men shouldn't work to provide and protect women period!
They shouldn’t. What is the most valuable and only essential thing women offer men? Sex is the answer.By making sex sound like a one way street, you are pedestaling women and giving them all the leverage. Surely you must see that! What about the sex that we give to women? Sex is an even exchange! If it's not, then women are our bosses, which would be an intolerable state of affairs for me!
Why do higher percentages of women oppose prostitution than men?Because they want to inflate the price of sex because they like framing sex as an asexual favor they do for men, which you apparently support.
Because they don’t care about men and their desires and need as long as theirs are being met, they do not want to introduce strikebreaker women to lower the price of what the union of women provide.Correct, but prostitution isn't the answer either. The hooker provides sex at a cheaper price than the conservative gold digger, but just like the gold digger, the hooker still frames it as the man being a heterosexual and the woman being a generous asexual. That framing is the source of female supremacy, and you're buying into it!
They want men to pay higher prices for inferior service or even better no service at all.And that's wrong. But you are still trapped in the paradigm that dictates that women "give" sex and men "receive." Once the world realizes that women "receive" sex as well, the entire matriarchy will collapse! But before that happens, men like you need education!
Sex is the most important and essential thing women offer a man,I cringe every time you frame it this way. Translation: Men are straight, women are asexual. You are parroting the source of all female supremacy! Please stop it!
Funny how you don’t regard men individually being abused in divorce and marriage as abuse of “rape”.Oh I assure you, I am more than disgusted with the divorce industrial complex and how men are treated like third class citizens within it. I know a thing or two about it.
It is also funny how you do not regard men as a group being abused at large by society as being abused or “raped” for providing for women and protecting womenThat's why they need to stop providing for women and protecting them. Once you frame yourself as a woman's servant, she'll abuse you. Stop this and see sex as someone you give to women, not something they give you, and women will start worshipping you!
while women offer little or nothing in return as a group to men and are more often than not outside of sex an unnecessary burden.You're missing the point! Even if they offered the whole world in return, I still wouldn't allow any woman to parasite off of me because I don't want sex framed as something a generous asexual does for me as compensation, but rather as something a horny heterosexual woman receives from me!
Will women provide and protect men?I hope not! No adult deserves to be protected and provided for by another adult.
The answer is no and again exceptions prove the rule. Men in the old system got a bad deal and under the new one it is a worse deal.If you're referring to traditional conservatism vs. sex-negative feminism, then you're right. But despite the bad deal offered by trad cons, you seem to want to get back to it.
You can say be strong and learn seduction skills and this can work for individual men but not most men.Now you're being a sexual socialist trashing the greedy sex creators. Most men should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
in human history and prehistory, only 40% of the men from ancient or prehistoric times have descendants today while 80% of the women do. I read an article long ago where 18-24 year old women were shown pictures of 18-24 year old men and the women found only 20% of them attractive and 80% unattractive while it was the complete opposite for how these same men found the women.Physical attractiveness is not the only attractive feature that women respond well to.
I also read that only 10% of women between the ages of 18 and 44 did not have sex within the past yearGood, I hope that percentage decreases.
while 14% of the men in the same age group reported the same.I hope that number decreases too.
Women are also less likely to be virgins from the ages of 18 to 44 than men.Still good.
In fact, 0.3% of 40-44 year old women reported being virgins while 1.2% of men did in the same age group. You are then foolish enough to believe that without more marriage and prostitution, there would be more sex for men despite Black Dragon having an article proving more people had sex in not only in the 1940s than today. Funny how there was more sex when men could demand it inside marriage than now when they can’t and there was less persecution of prostitution, isn’t it?It's not sex that I want. I want GOOD sex! Forcing your wife to spread her legs and "think of England" does not turn me on. Paying a prostitute to fake it while she thinks about the shoes she'll buy with the money doesn't do it for me. I'll say it again: The idea that women are straight (and therefore, enjoy sex for its own sake) is the key to male freedom and male liberation. It is an idea that continues to be revolutionary because it would bankrupt the matriarchy. And it's an idea that you oppose!
Why do you pedalistize women?I don't. I'm not the one who advocates giving them anything for sex, except my dick! You are.
Why do you support women over men?I don't. I'm not the one speaking in favor of marriage in which women would parasite men's bank accounts in exchange for "giving" men sex like a generous dyke! You are.
Why do you support misandry?I don't. I'm not the one who supports slaving away for women as if they are children while getting asexual sex from them in return. You do.
Why are you a feminist?If I am a feminist, it is of the sex positive variety, but I prefer "humanist," since feminism today is nothing but sex-negative man hate.
Why do you think men should do more for women than women should do for men ?That is precisely what you think, not me! You're the one who thinks men should slave for the women at home in exchange for women "giving" men sex. That's way more than she does for him! I think men should do just as much for women as women should do for men (sex in exchange for sex).
Why do you think men’s attempts and contributions to protect and provision for women both individually is worth less than the sex women provide menBecause sex is a mutual, and therefore, fair activity that both men and women provide for each other. Whereas protecting and providing money for women makes a man an unattractive chump who thinks that sex is a generous gift asexual women give to men, thus giving her all the power and leverage, which you support and I oppose!
even daring to say that there is such a thing as rape within marriage when the opposite is trueSorry, but the definition of violent rape (the only kind) does not change based on bullshit government papers!
and men were getting a bad deal under the old system and a worse one now knowing women would not do the same for men, and again exceptions prove the rule?If you think it was a bad deal for men (which I agree with), why bring it back?
Why do you regard women’s lives as more valuable than men’s livesI certainly don't! Both lives are equal.
doclove 2016-03-23 20:47:12
@ Jack Outside the Box No need to apologize. I will try to answer as best as I can. I have seen some of your other comments on other articles. I now think you mean well and your heart is in the right place, but your mind is not. You seem to be an idealist, but I am much more of a pragmatist. If you personally are leading the kind of sex life that you say you are, then you are fortunate because as Eddie in another article commented, most men are incapable of being Alphas. Even Blackdragon a long time ago has admitted as much saying that at best 50% of men will always be beta while 30% will be Alpha 1s and 20% be Alpha 2s if I remember correctly. It is for this reason I think you are delusional. Have you ever heard of the Paretto Principle in the Sexual Market Place where only 20% of the men are considered sexually desirable by women and 80% of the women are considred sexually desirable by men and Hypergamy? Yes, it is possible for a man to move from the 80% losers to the 20% winners, but that means another man is shoved into the 80% losers. Most men are designed to lose in the sexual marketplace and this is why before the dawn of civilization, only 40% of men got to reproduce while 80% of women did. This is also why there is 14% of men who have not had sex in the past year and only 10% of women as well as why if all men died at the age of 44 anywhere from 1.2% to 2.1% of men would die virgins while only 0.3% of women would. It is you who suffer from blue pill reasoning thinking that all heterosexual men could get sex if they wanted to. My red pill reasoning knows better. When marriage truly existed, yes both men and women signed away their rights to criminally charge their spouse with sexual assault and rape. For as bad as marriage was for most men, the current situation is worse and as evidence I present that less adults are having sex in the USA now than in the 1940s. It seems that we have socialized everything else for women to have their Alpha Fux and Beta Bux and give the men of this society even more of the evil shaft than under the old system. Without men to provision and protect women up until the past 50 to 100 years in the West, Women would have died in greater droves, even the majority. The West is a crumbling Disney Fantasy land. The rest of the world operates more under my paradigm than yours because it has to not because it wants to. I like your fantasy, but I know what it is -a fantasy- that few people, men especially, can indulge in. Don't worry- women vote for more government and political correctness. Women voted for the rape of Cologne which will become the rape of the West unless people of the West develop better sense especially the women. The real World will come back and nature will reassert itself and I'm not thrilled about it because I have libertarian tendencies like you but very few people can be or will be libertarian. Have a nice day with your fantasies.
doclove 2016-03-24 14:08:54
@ Jack Outside the Box I wrote a quick response yesterday. I will write a more thorough one now. I will try to respond point by point. Some preliminaries are in order though, Congratulations on moving from an Omega( greater loser with the ladies) past Beta(lesser loser with the ladies), past Alpha1( lesser winner with the ladies) to Alpha2(greater winner with the ladies. It is no easy task to move up one level much less two three. However, for most men this is not possible because of any combination of 1) they are to frightened to try, 2) they do not know how, 3) they have other priorities which must be met first or, 4) they try and fail no matter what they do because they do not have it in them to succeed which is sad but true especially the fourth one. Unlike Blackdragon and you, I'm not a fan of saying to people that your life is terrible because it is all your fault. I am a fan of saying your life sucks and it is totally your responsibility to change it or at least try to change it and no one else's responsibility. This means whether it is your fault or someone else's fault that your life is terrible, it is your responsibility alone to change it not someone else's responsibility. Women's Hypergamy is not men's fault especially the bottom 80% of men because it is 100% women's fault or more correctly 100% nature's fault, but it is men's 100% responsibility to deal with it and get the best deal out of it they can especially the bottom 80% of men, and furthermore it is not the responsibility of any woman to fix men's problems with hypergamy. I will continue with more posts below.
eddie 2016-03-24 14:28:47
@ doclove and @ Jack Outside the Box.... two of the best intellectuals on here. I'm personally enjoying the respectful, back and forth because I'm learning so much. But, I have to go with Doclove on this one....he makes more practical sense. Woud love to have BD weigh-in on both of your perspectives.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-26 02:40:34
Alright Doclove, let's see what you've got for me:
If you personally are leading the kind of sex life that you say you are, then you are fortunate because as Eddie in another article commented, most men are incapable of being Alphas.That may or may not be true. But even assuming that it is (I won't argue otherwise), I do not believe in inconveniencing and ruining the fun of the sex creators for the sake of the mass rabble of incompetent sexual socialists! My main goal in this debate is to point out the implications behind your thinking, which are puritanical and prudish to the core. So you support marriage and monogamy for betas? Okay, first let's delve into what that means: Monogamy - a form of sexual socialism and sexual rationing in which every man must stand in line in order to get only one woman (usually of low quality). He must have only one because the government (via marriage) must save the remaining women for all the other needy men. In other words, we must "share the wealth" instead of hoarding it. So everyone is guaranteed one, and only one, shitty woman. Now, as I understand it, you want to go back to this sexual Soviet Union (known colloquially as the 1950s) because otherwise, the unwashed rabble will start breaking shit and even the sex creators might be in the line of fire. Okay, let's pause for now. We'll get back to your line of thinking in a bit.
Even Blackdragon a long time ago has admitted as much saying that at best 50% of men will always be beta while 30% will be Alpha 1s and 20% be Alpha 2s if I remember correctly.Okay, let me stipulate to that. And? Does that give the masses the right to rob my dick by making monogamy the cultural norm? Just how many of my women do you think these beggars are entitled to (especially since I got my women via merit!)?
It is for this reason I think you are delusional.And as I will demonstrate, your way of thinking, if it prevails, will not only destroy the seduction community, but completely undo the sexual revolution of the 1960s and return us all to Victorian level sexual squeamishness and sexual socialism. Or as anyone who values sexual open mindedness as a cultural norm will call it - HELL!
Have you ever heard of the Paretto Principle in the Sexual Market Place where only 20% of the men are considered sexually desirable by women and 80% of the women are considred sexually desirable by men and Hypergamy?No, but I'm sure it's correct. I would still argue though that different men at different times in a woman's life go in and out of that 80%/20%. Those are overall percentages, but as BD says, everyone, including the betas, get laid eventually (especially, when it comes to betas, by women in their 30s/40s). Only the omegas remain permanently celibate.
Yes, it is possible for a man to move from the 80% losers to the 20% winners, but that means another man is shoved into the 80% losers.Why? Polyamory dictates that a woman sleeping with me does not prevent her from sleeping with you. Just because she's my girlfriend doesn't stop her from sleeping with 10 other men. Again, I'm against all monogamy/sexual exclusivity. This "zero sum game" thinking belongs in the territorial world of monogamy, not in the world of open relationships and non-monogamous pair bonding. And I will once again point out that that 80/20 rule is an overall total that remains static, but who is in the 80 or the 20 is not static. And with non-monogamous/non-territorial open relationships, the woman may even get into an open relationship with a beta and fuck him for his money while getting her real needs met by a few alphas on the side. Anyway, moving on:
It is you who suffer from blue pill reasoning thinking that all heterosexual men could get sex if they wanted to.As a capitalist, I believe, like BD, that you have a duty to yourself as a man to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and fucking try! You have no business relying on the government for marriage, or on a cultural norm dictating that attractive men should only get one woman so that there will be enough single women left for you! Fuck that welfare! Even if you are destined to fail, you must try. This defeatist nonsense coming from you is the only thing betas should be shielded against, not sexual competition without prudish cultural/governmental assistance! While it may be true that most men will fail and don't have it in them, some will make it. And those men, like myself and BD, shouldn't be then robbed of the fruits of our labor by some dude expounding fucking sexual socialist hippie philosophy dictating that we should only get one woman, regardless of our superior merit, because the losers who don't merit anything have needs too, so our women should be stolen (via marriage, slut shaming, and monogamous cultural norms) and given to the needy so the needy don't start breaking shit! Fuck that!
My red pill reasoning knows better. When marriage truly existed, yes both men and women signed away their rights to criminally charge their spouse with sexual assault and rape. For as bad as marriage was for most men, the current situation is worseWorse for who? The betas? The current situation is better for sex creators like me and BD who are really sex-positive dudes. I'm all for helping betas help themselves, get closer to being alphas, and improve their lives with women, but not at the sexual expense of the sex creators by advocating prudish and slut shaming cultural norms. Because that's when the betas start stealing from my dick in order to enrich themselves, thus cheapening my sexual/seduction labor! And that is morally repugnant in a sexually free society!
and as evidence I present that less adults are having sex in the USA now than in the 1940s.Quality, not quantity, is what counts. You count women reluctantly spreading their legs for their beta husbands in the 1940s as "more sex." Well, technically, I guess you're right. The 1940s had more sex. But that's NOT a good thing. Because bad sex shouldn't count, in my opinion. Today, people have less sex, but they have more GOOD sex. So I'll take less sex any day of the week if I can give more women screaming orgasms in exchange!
It seems that we have socialized everything else for women to have their Alpha Fux and Beta Bux and give the men of this society even more of the evil shaft than under the old system.As a libertarian capitalist (which, unlike you, also means that I'm a sexual capitalist, not just an economic one), I don't condone any form of socialism. So yes, I too am sickened by the welfare state and women stealing men's money via taxes, food stamps, etc... I'm certainly with the men's rights movement on that, as well as on every other subject where men are the victims of socialism or other types of theft (family court, paternity fraud, alimony, etc...) or injustice (false rape accusations, sex-negative/man-hating feminism, all other types of heterophobia, including traditional conservatism which is sexual socialism for the sexually poor while robbing the penises of the sexually rich, etc...). All such things should be taken away.
Without men to provision and protect women up until the past 50 to 100 years in the West, Women would have died in greater droves, even the majority.Yes, a good argument can be made that traditional conservative "family values" were needed prior to the industrial revolution and our post-modern computerized age. But I'm here to argue for today, not yesterday.
The West is a crumbling Disney Fantasy land. The rest of the world operates more under my paradigm than yours because it has to not because it wants to.Yes, a good argument can be made that third world shitholes and non-western nations need traditional conservative "family values" to survive even today. But I'm only arguing about the West here, not Nigeria.
I like your fantasy, but I know what it is -a fantasy- that few people, men especially, can indulge in.So you would take it away from the few who actually can indulge in it? Through cultural norms promoting marriage, monogamy, the traditional monogamous family, female virginity until marriage, a gender based economy, the slut shaming of women, the stud shaming of men, and so forth, you would take away the very possibility of the seduction community existing or alpha 2.0s (or even 1.0s) doing what brings them the most happiness in order to "feed the needy?" At the expense of my sexual/seduction labor??? At the expense of my merit?
Don’t worry- women vote for more government and political correctness.I don't want more government. I want less because our economy is crumbling due to economic socialism. And if, thanks to that economic socialism, we become a third world shithole ourselves, traditional conservatism will indeed reassert itself and undo the sexual liberation that alpha 2.0s hold so dear! Economic socialism will result in collapse. Collapse will lead to the sexual socialism (monogamy) that you advocate. God, I hate socialism in all its forms! And political correctness? There has never been a greater threat to sexual freedom! It is precisely sex-negative politically correct garbage about "rape culture" and other fictions that is criminalizing consensual sex via "affirmative consent" horseshit and other man-hating feminist heterophobia. This is why I side with the MRAs on feminism as well.
Women voted for the rape of Cologne which will become the rape of the West unless people of the West develop better sense especially the women.Translation: Stop stealing from the rich in order to give women "free" shit! I agree!
The real World will come back and nature will reassert itself and I’m not thrilled about it because I have libertarian tendencies like you but very few people can be or will be libertarian.So because few people can pull it off, no one should be allowed to? Okay, so let me end this with the way I began - examining the implications behind your thinking: If I understand correctly, you want traditional conservatism back. I'm assuming you want to abolish the gender neutral economy because you'd rather have women focusing on motherhood or whatever "for the good of society." Okay, let's see what the implications here are: The foundation of all sexual liberation is the gender neutral economy. Women working and being financially independent freed them (at least in terms of rational justification) from their prostitution and gold digging. This means, for the first time ever, women could be true heterosexuals. They could be sexually free to have sex with the hot guy instead of the rich guy, which assures guys like me that when a woman fucks me, she is being genuine and sincere with her enthusiasm in the bedroom, as distinguished from being a generous dyke who reluctantly fucks me because I support her ass (your 1940s more sex vision = HELL). So if we were to abolish the gender neutral economy and go back to the gender based economy all sexual liberation would be undone as well. Women would have to start looking for husbands at age 18 if they want a roof over their heads and continue to eat. As such, their sexual urges would have to take a back seat to their economic survival needs. In desperation, they would pick the man who can support them instead of the hot man, thus effectively turning every woman in the world into a sexually generous asexual due to her heterosexuality being relegated to the status of complete irrelevance! Under your system, all women would be prostitutes (read: non-sexuals). As such, all women would be framed, once again, as doing men a generous favor by sleeping with them, thus returning all the leverage to the gold diggers and effectively turning all men into slaves and workhorses for a bunch of money-grubbing and non-sexual female parasites, or into celibates! Is this the "reality" that you claim will "reassert itself?" Is this the anti-sexual traditional 1950s HELL that you wish to go back to? And you dismiss my vision and BD's vision as "libertarian fantasy" because we actually want women to be heterosexuals and scream in pleasure as we give them multiple orgasms (thus requiring them to be financially independent, and therefore, sexually free)? If female, and therefore, male sexual liberation is a "fantasy" that only a few can turn into reality, than it becomes even more precious. Your program, which would inevitably bring back slut shaming, religious prudery, and a hatred of sexual enlightenment would destroy this seduction community, make the sexual labor of sex creators like me and BD null and void, and bring us back to the anti-sexual dark ages that countries like Saudi Arabia endure today! If Saudi Arabia is your "reality," than I want no part of it! And as long as there is still breath in me, I will fight with all of my power, my strength, my mind, and my influence to make sure that it never comes to pass so that my sexual labor, and the sexual labor of all other alpha 2.0s, is not in vain! Why are you even in this seduction community if you root for its destruction and the undoing of the sexual revolution?
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-26 04:07:12
I see you have more:
I wrote a quick response yesterday. I will write a more thorough one now. I will try to respond point by point.Go for it!
Some preliminaries are in order though, Congratulations on moving from an Omega( greater loser with the ladies) past Beta(lesser loser with the ladies), past Alpha1( lesser winner with the ladies) to Alpha2(greater winner with the ladies.Well thanks! Although your congratulations seem a bit hollow and hypocritical since, under your scheme for society, my accomplishments would have been impossible, but nevermind. I appreciate the gesture.
It is no easy task to move up one level much less two three. However, for most men this is not possible because of any combination of 1) they are to frightened to try,That's on them. And I do believe in private charity, which is why the seduction community exists to help them with their fear. Let me be clear: I DO believe in helping those less fortunate - just not at the expense of those more fortunate.
2) they do not know how,See above, re: seduction community.
3) they have other priorities which must be met firstFair enough. The cool thing about women is that they will always be here when you're ready for them.
or, 4) they try and fail no matter what they do because they do not have it in them to succeed which is sad but true especially the fourth one.Well, tis better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. In any case, the one thing I object to, as I elaborated upon in my previous post, is the notion of weakening the strong in order to strengthen the weak. If the price for getting these betas/omegas laid is creating a conservative culture of monogamy, marriage, and slut shaming so that the alphas won't hoard all the women than that price is too high. And let me stress again that I advocate polyAMORY, not polyGAMY! Polygamy is just sexual exclusivity, except with more people. The abolition of sexual exclusivity will make every woman technically sexually available, regardless of whether she is in a committed relationship or not! Open non-monogamy treats every man and woman as if he or she is single, at least for sexual purposes. And no alpha 2.0 will ever beat up a beta for hitting on his woman. She may even sleep with him as long as he isn't too much of a beta. In fact, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that we must take care to distinguish between polygamy and polyamory. The former creates rules of sexual exclusivity which allows alphas to hoard all the women and beat up the betas who try to steal them. The latter allows every man and woman the freedom to sleep with anyone at any time, regardless of the presence or absence of an emotionally exclusive relationship. In that sense, I agree that monogamy is a lesser evil than polygamy. But non-monogamy and polyamory are superior to monogamy. Everyone being technically sexually open, thus preventing women from using the "I have a boyfriend" excuse, can only help betas, even if some women would screw the betas for money while enjoying themselves with alphas on the side.
Unlike Blackdragon and you, I’m not a fan of saying to people that your life is terrible because it is all your fault.Then you are disempowering the betas.
I am a fan of saying your life sucks and it is totally your responsibility to change it or at least try to change it and no one else’s responsibility.Exactly! That means you can't inconvenience or steal from those who are successful on your path to changing yourself, which is what marriage, sexual monogamy, a gender based economy, etc... sadly does.
This means whether it is your fault or someone else’s fault that your life is terrible, it is your responsibility alone to change it not someone else’s responsibility.Totally agree! I think your disagreement with me and BD then is based on semantics.
Women’s Hypergamy is not men’s fault especially the bottom 80% of men because it is 100% women’s fault or more correctly 100% nature’s fault,Um, okay. As long as they don't try to steal sex from me through slut shaming cultural norms, government marriage, or a gender based economy that would make sexual liberation impossible, I'll be gracious and not assign blame for their miserable existence. Note: When I was one of them, I never slut shamed women or campaigned for any prudish cultural norms of any kind.
but it is men’s 100% responsibility to deal with it and get the best deal out of it they can especially the bottom 80% of men,Completely agree, as long as you don't threaten the success of the already successful.
and furthermore it is not the responsibility of any woman to fix men’s problems with hypergamy.Great! So we have no business slut shaming women, going back to a gender based economy where women were forced to sacrifice their sexuality and fuck betas for food, promoting monogamous/prudish cultural norms, or doing anything else to render null and void the fruits of the sex creators' seduction labor! In that case, I believe I've won this debate!
I will continue with more posts below.Shit! Oh, um.... I mean.....please do. 🙂 I'll respond after Easter.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-03-26 04:25:05
Woud love to have BD weigh-in on both of your perspectives.Eddie: BD already did weigh in countless times. He is a promoter of non-monogamy, open relationships, and libertarianism. He is against slut shaming, the cultural normalization of monogamy, or taking away from women their financial independence (and therefore, their sexuality). He's a sex-positive libertarian like me. So I do believe he's on my side here.
doclove 2016-03-31 06:49:01
@ Jack Outside the Box First, I never doubted that under the current system concerning the Sexual Market Place, SMP, in which you are doing very well and have no intention of changing it. I don't care, and it wasn't my point. My point was that most men were doing better under the former SMP and worse under the current one. Quantity of sex is its own quality for most if not all men. No one can be told it is much better to eat filet mignon beef and only filet mignon beef if he can only afford to do so once a month or never resulting in his starving to death. You may consider cow liver and intestines to be atrocious fare to eat, but it sustains the poor man while you the rich man eat filet mignon beef. Think of eating cows as an analogy of men getting sex. Second, you say you are creator and are a libertarian and you seem to imply that you are a capitalist of the SMP. This is not capitalism of the SMP. The current system is a mix of corporatism and socialism in the SMP. Both the government and corporations work hand in hand to favor women over men. If I own a company and it becomes large enough, the government all but makes me hire people based on affirmative action be they a different race, gender, sexual orientation or maybe even religious beliefs so it forces me to hire women or suffer negative consequences even if I don't want to do so. It also gives tax benefits and favoritism in contracts to women over men. Then women can get impregnates and I the male tax payer am forced to pay for a child which is not my own. A woman can get an abortion wjthout informing me the fetus/baby is mine, but I can not deny responsibility for the baby I sired. The list goes on and on. Me thinks you are a wealthy SMP corporatist not capitalist. I wonder how many women would be able to support themselves without these hand me ups advantages. Certainly not as many as do now so I guess more women would "whore" themselves out to the highest bidder. Third, have you ever considered what would happen if civilized society disintegrated into savage society? To some degree, you are asking for it under your system and it is only a question of how bad is it going to get. Some men will kill for lack of sex such as George Sodini and Elliot Rodger, and this horrifies me. I knew someone when I was 23 in 1991 who had a younger senior in high-school brother who was very popular with the ladies in his neighborhood. One day a representative with the local criminal gang told the brother to join to which he refused. The gang member replied that if he didn't, then the gang was going to wear masks to beat the younger brother, the father and the man I knew because no one was allowed to be more popular with the ladies than the lowest gang member to which he refused. He refused again when the gang member representative said all 3 men would be beaten to hospitalization. Needless to say all 3 men were beaten by masked gang-member men, 20 in number, one night, no one was caught and the popular non gang member wasn't so popular with the ladies in the hood any more. Your superior whispering of sweet nothings into a woman's ear means nothing to a man who can and will use violence to destroy and humiliate you in front of women. Thinking violence won't make a comeback with the current trends is foolish although it may be possible, Just so you know, I abhor violence especially unnecessary violence. Did you ever wonder why felonious ex convicts seem to have less trouble bedding women even " good women" than any one else? Fourth, there is no such thing as crime if there is no civilization, civilized behavior and civilized humans. I know, I know, I know. Civilization, civilized behavior and civilized humans are a bullshit socially programmed constructs and not natural. This means Rape, Murder, Maiming, Mutilation etc. etc. etc.are also bullshit socially programmed constructs. I prefer the bullshit socially programmed Disney fantasy World which we live in to the real natural worlds of Iraq and worse Afghanistan. Trust me on this as I am a former American Soldier and a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Oh, higher percentages of your precious women in the West have invited these Savages from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc.into the West than men so their GINAS(vaginas) tingle when they get their cherished DRAMAS for let's you and him fight(over these same Women) even though most of them are not conscious of it in their forebrains but their subconscious female hind brains are being excited into a high libido frenzy. Women have a tendency to submit to the strongest man and that may not be you just like it wasn't for the non gang member 17 year old high school boy in 1991. Fifth, you call me a blue pill tradcon. I said that I never wanted any kind of marriage and have children on this blog. As a matter of fact, I advocated against it. You however said you may enter a OLTR marriage and maybe children. You seem more bluish, less reddish and more tradcon on this than me. Sixth, now that we are on the subject of marriage, we need to look further into this. It was not a perfect system, but it offered the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of human beings better than the current one. It satisfied most men's constant lusts better than the current SMP. It caused most women's GINAS to tingle and be submissive for more dominant men rather than the reverse of today where most men are forced into submission to their dominant women whose GINAS dry up more than the desserts I had the misfortune to live in because the Corporatist Socialist Society of today socially programs this bullshit into everyone. Marriage was both a pillar and a by product of civilization, civilized behavior and civilized human beings. Monogamous marriage lessened men from going on killing and raping sprees and it lessened women from playing let's you and him fight because it makes said women's GINAS dripping wet and hot with desire. If you take away incentives to be civilized in one thing-promoting marriage-don't be surprised when men and women become feral in their behavior. It would be nice to cherry pick what society wants, but that is rarely how things work. Actions have consequences. One thing leads to another. This current SMP could very well lead to a war of all against all and there are indicators that it probably will. The best case scenario is to have grass-eater men like in Japan where they allow their civilization to decay slowly and for the most part non violently. The worst case is in the African American community where it turns many of the men,not all or even most but more than enough of the men, violent and feral. Seventh, I never stated that women were asexual or lesbians. I never implied it. There are 2 theories regarding women's sexual behavior. One is that they have much lower sex drives than men but higher needs for provision, protection and social emotional validation than men. So men trade these 3 things for the sex they want. Think of the analogy of me trading fuel, oil, for your food and you trading food for my fuel, oil. We both get what we want and trade our surplus goods for our deficient goods respectively. The second theory is women want sex just as much or more than men, but will only give it up to a man who is high value and usually much higher value than she is. Since most women's provision, protection and even much of their social-emotional validation is being met quite often under the threat of coercion for men to provide it, men have found that under the current SMP women do not value what they have to offer. Either way under scenario one or two, most men are being left impoverished in the SMP by the current Corporatist-Socialist structure. The current Corporartist-Socialist SMP lets women over value themselves just like the housing bubble in 2008 and it looks like the Education/ Student Loan bubble of now by distorting the market. Will we have a soft gentle crash and restructuring of the current SMP or will we have a violent catastrophic upheaval of the current SMP? I tried to respond earlier but was too busy. General Bonaparte, you have met my General Wellington at Waterloo. I won before you decided to argue against me. Prepare for St. Helena's island. I still laugh at your notions. Have a nice day.
K 2016-03-31 13:05:10
because I don’t want sex framed as something a generous asexual does for me as compensation, but rather as something a horny heterosexual woman receives from me!I´ve always thought both lovers give and receive at the same time... is that blue or red pill?
doclove 2016-03-31 20:19:20
@ Jack Outside the Box Why am I here reading and commenting on this blog as well as other manosphere sites? It is because the old world is gone and one must deal with the new one even if it is worse than the old one and do the best he can in it. I too am against prostitute "whore"shaming slut shaming and prostitute customer "john"and stud shaming and always have been more so than most other people even though it may not always seem that way. It is very simple about certainly whores, studs and sluts and promiscuous people in general which may or may not include johns: they are fun to party with, but are not good to marry in OLTR marriages or monogamous marriages as a general rule. I like sluts and find them useful and necessary just like prostitutes whether I am getting sex from them or not. You have this horrible tendency to blame tradcons. Dalrock's blog, which is linked to in the right hand side of this blog is a true tradcon. Many of the others are feminist or feminine imperative tradcons which means they are false tradcons . I like true tradcons. I even like true feminist sex positivists. Sadly, there few of these people left anymore. I think true tradcons offer a better deal than true feminist sex positivists, but true feminist sex positivists offer a good deal too for this reason, men's sexual needs and desires are more likely to be met under true tradcons and to a lesser extent feminist sex positivists than under the current regime of the senior inner party of feminist sex negativists and their junior outer party partner of feminist tradcons. Please distinguish between the true tradcons and the feminist tradcons as well as the feminist sex positivists and the feminist sex negativists. I think true tradcons get most men less partners but more sex acts over a life time while feminist sex positivists get most men more partners but less sex acts over a life time. Both feminist sex negativists and feminist tradcons get most men less sex acts and less partners over a life time. The unholy alliance of the feminist sex negativists and the feminist tradcon(false tradcons) is the worst of both worlds with none of the best of both worlds from the true tradcons and the feminist sex positivists. Most men would live like you and have the sex life you do if they could. They can not and so they do not. most of the problem is not caused by men because most of the problem is caused by women. Most men would gladly say my dick is payment enough if they could get away with it. Virtually all heterosexual men hate with a PURPLE PASSION the hoops they are forced to jump through to get sex from women. However, women like it this way as they like to create(subconsciously not consciously in most cases) an artificial shortage of sex as it works to their advantage. The corporatist socialist system encourages rather than discourages women to act like this. Women of today are charging way too much for what they offer and it is the corporatist socialist system which is helping them inflate their price well above what they truly are worth. Do you think homosexual men do this to each other as much? I doubt it. I heard Gay men have both more sex acts and sex partners because their attitude seems to encourage more honesty about what they want. There seems to be less gold digging, less prick teasing and more respect for each others' time, efforts, money and emotions. Western women regard men's time, efforts, money and emotions as less worthy than their own and follow the golden rule of DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU or at the very least its corallary DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE UNTO YOU less often than Gay men and even Strait men do. Do you really think most Gay men between the ages of 18-24 would regard 80% of 18-24 year old college men as not attractive the way most 18-24 year old women do? To ask is almost to answer it. If I made you cringe about women's sole or primary worth to a heterosexual man being her vagina or other body parts pleasing his penis, I don't understand you. Men are easier to talk to for most men and find comradery easier. Men are more willing to lay down each other's lives for each other than women are to lay down their lives for men, and men are more willing to lay down their lives for women than women are to lay down their lives for men as general rule. Whether or not you believe in Jesus of Nazareth or his teachings, remember this is what He said: There is no greater love than for one man(human) to lay down his life for another man(human). I do not value non family women as more valuable than non family men in my life, and in fact value non family men as more valuable than non family women in my life because men are more likely to save my life by laying down their lives for men than women are. This even includes stranger men being more willing to die for men than a wife or girlfriend, and it is much more true of male friends. The only thing women outside my family can offer me a heterosexual man which I want that other men can not and should not is sex and maybe children to call my own and raise as my own should I want them. I do not blame women for this as nature designed them to love men less than men love each other and less than women love men as a general rule, and even if I am wrong about the nature or biology of this then I am certainly not wrong to say that it has been socially programmed into men to love women more than women love men as well as for men to be abused by women in the West. This abhorrent social programming should come to an end. General Blucher has arrived on the scene. "Ride my children, Ride, " said he. The cavalry crushes Napoleon's troops.
joelsuf 2016-03-31 20:22:27
Why are you even in this seduction community if you root for its destruction and the undoing of the sexual revolution?Judging from the "research" that I've conducted, the seduction community, or at least its strongest proponents, are rooting for the undoing of the sexual revolution because despite all of their "techniques" they are still weird Omega males who watch porn all the time and can't even pull chicks who weigh three times their bodyweight (or their own bodyweight, notice that most PUAs either weigh 100 pounds soaking wet or well over 300 pounds). The Return of Kings crew is notorious for producing these boys, and they literally look like manchildren who haven't even set foot into a gym. So they think that if they return to the middle ages they will have a chance. Just LOL at that, they have no idea what they are wishing for. They are also rooting for its own destruction, albeit unintentionally. RSD now does articles/lectures on self-help woo-woo instead of featuring Jeff Allen and Julien Blanc walking up to drunk chicks at a club and asking which hole they prefer (with someone looking like those two talking to chicks like that in a place like that, what did anyone expect? lol). Roosh nowadays promotes MRA and MGTOW philosophies (btw, has anyone even encountered a strict MGTOW who was one ounce masculine? I sure haven't) which IMO are just as toxic as Feminist philosophies (btw, has anyone even encountered a feminist who wasn't 50 lbs over or underweight and didn't have over 9000 tattoos like a ratchet? I sure haven't) because they have collective agenda and want everyone to think like them (something BD talks about in his other blogs but can and should be translated to feminism and the manosphere).
I´ve always thought both lovers give and receive at the same time… is that blue or red pill?Depends on who agrees and disagrees. If you post it on a bluepill community and they dislike it, its redpill. If you post it on a redpill community and they dislike it, its blue pill. This is why I laugh and do my best to troll both camps. Cuz neither are worth being taken seriously at all.
doclove 2016-04-01 12:00:19
@ Jack in the Box I will make a correction from above. I made a typo. I meant to say that Western women on average regard men's time, effort, money(wealth) and emotions as less valuable as their own and DO NOT FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE OF DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU or at the very least its negative corralary DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE UNTO YOU when it comes to heterosexual relationships with men, As a general rule there is no equality between men and women. Either the man is the master(dominant) and the woman the servant(submissive) or the woman is the master and the man the servant. Men make for better masters(dominants) than women, and even if this were not true, it is not in my best interest as a man or most if not all other men's interests to be the (submissives) servants. It's just my opinion, but it is usually better for the more loving partner to be the master than the servant, and the master should be men because men are generally the more loving partner who will be more likely to lay down their lives for women than the other way around. Always remember there is no greater love than for one human to lay down his or her life for another human. You can argue that it is not rational for men at least in the West to do this for women(provision and protect), and I agree, but humans are mostly irrational and then you are fighting over 50,00years of homo sapiens sapiens(we present humans) instinctual biology and the biological programming of over 2 million years of primate biology hard wired into us, and we humans are primates.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-01 13:45:26
I´ve always thought both lovers give and receive at the same time… is that blue or red pill?The woman receives first. The man receives as a direct result of the woman receiving. Her orgasms are the source of ours. So the man gives, the woman receives, and then the man receives. I don't know about you, but I'm not turned on at all by the woman just laying there like a cold fish. Men are the sexual givers. Women are the receivers, which is its own reward for the man. That's why betas have it backwards. They chase women hoping to receive, and therefore, frame the woman as a generous giver. So the woman buys into that frame and plays the prostitute, or gold digger. These poor betas chase women because they want to receive sex from these women, while expecting to switch roles with the woman in the actual bedroom. That's why beta game (pedestaling the woman, being chivalrous, etc...) doesn't work. Betas set up a bedroom dynamic that's exactly backwards! Confident men have women chasing them and are pedestaled by these women.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-01 14:52:55
Judging from the “research” that I’ve conducted, the seduction community, or at least its strongest proponents, are rooting for the undoing of the sexual revolutionYou're right! It really is time for the seduction community to divorce itself and split into the two competing groups that are currently within it. Group 1: Traditional Conservatives like Doclove with a massive Madonna/whore complex, which dictates that women who love sex are good for nothing but sex whereas old fashioned and low sex drive Disney good girls are good for marriage and a family and are the only types to "bring home to mom." These are mostly serious slut shamers, despite liking sex themselves and thinking that that doesn't disqualify them from being good husbands and fathers (whereas liking sex somehow disqualifies the woman), who, like you said, want to return to the middle ages while hypocritically promoting game. Group 2: Sex positive libertarians who believe marriage and monogamy doesn't work and should be abandoned, while believing that women should be rewarded for having high sex drives, since being sexually liberated is a prerequisite for both casual sex AND a serious relationship involving living together and having children (in an open/poly arrangement of course). Enlightened high sex drive women are good for everything, including "bringing home to mom," whereas low sex drive/low sex partner count "put a ring on it" Disney princesses are good for nothing. Needless to say, I'm in group 2.
because despite all of their “techniques” they are still weird Omega males who watch porn all the time and can’t even pull chicks who weigh three times their bodyweightYou hit the nail right on the head. Most of the so called "men" on Roosh's forum are lifetime virgins fantasizing about owning submissive women who are legally required to fuck them because they can't get a free woman to do it of her own free will because these guys are just losers who play video games all day. Certainly not alphas or even betas.
The Return of Kings crew is notorious for producing these boys, and they literally look like manchildren who haven’t even set foot into a gym. So they think that if they return to the middle ages they will have a chance. Just LOL at that, they have no idea what they are wishing for.Return of Kings is the worst "PUA" site on the Internet. Just a bunch of sex-negative puritans who are pissed that they can't pull women in clubs supposedly because of this culture's sex-negativity, without even realizing the contradictory hypocrisy behind those two thoughts. Heartiste is another conservative slut shamer. These men need to stop integrating their PUA community with ours. By contrast, the sex positive PUA community includes BD, JWS, Tyler Durden, and many others.
Roosh nowadays promotes MRA and MGTOW philosophies (btw, has anyone even encountered a strict MGTOW who was one ounce masculine? I sure haven’t)Barbarrossa. Bar Bar on youtube.
which IMO are just as toxic as Feminist philosophies (btw, has anyone even encountered a feminist who wasn’t 50 lbs over or underweight and didn’t have over 9000 tattoos like a ratchet? I sure haven’t)Sex negative feminists are, by definition, low sexual market value women. That's why one seducer once referred to feminism as a sexual trade union. The hot gold diggers are pedestaled by betas and get all the money from them. They love the fact that beta men drool all over them because of their looks. It's physically ugly feminists who coined the fictional "female objectification" term because, as women who are fat and ugly, they felt disenfranchised from the financial racket set up by hot gold diggers and betas. So these fat women, with their lesbian allies, set up a union called "feminism" which lets them in on the racket via tax payer dollars while claiming the moral high ground by saying that "objectifying" women is somehow insulting instead of complementary to high sexual market value females. "The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. She likes masculine admiration, however violently expressed, and is quite able to take care of herself. More, she is well aware that few men are bold enough to offer it without a plain invitation, and this awareness makes her extremely cynical of all women who complain of being harassed, beset, storied, and seduced. All the more intelligent women that I know, indeed, are unanimously of the opinion that no girl in her right senses has ever been actually seduced since the world began." - H.L Mencken MGTOWs are essentially the male equivalent of feminism/lesbian separatism.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-01 15:03:06
Doclove - you said many things. Please don't say any more until I've responded to you. You've already put enough on my plate. You should get my response by tomorrow morning at the latest.
joelsuf 2016-04-01 15:09:46
physically ugly feminism who coined the fictional “female objectification” term because, as women who are fat and ugly, they felt disenfranchised from the financial racket set up by hot gold diggers and betas. So these fat women, with their lesbian allies, set up a union called “feminism” which lets them in on the racket via tax payer dollars while claiming the moral high ground by saying that “objectifying” women is somehow insulting instead of complementary to high sexual market value females.See I don't even think its ugly sex negative feminists, but pretty much anyone who still think chicks need to be empowered etc after the 1980s. For example, Anita Sarkeesian is the current ringleader of these chicks, and she's reasonably attractive (although she is probably a man who got a sex change or a woman who wants a sex change aka a Succubus). Current day feminism is a hate group, lumped right in there with the KKK and Westboro Baptist, and SOME PUA groups (who they work with behind closed doors). My mother was a member of NOW in the 1970s, who actually needed to fight for legit women's issues like legal abortion and birth control. They were more about preventing government telling people what to do with their bodies and less concerned with "stopping objectification of women." To someone like my mother, models and porn stars ought to feel liberated that they are able to be good entertainers. She dislikes slut shaming, but will judge anyone who has lots of unprotected sex (which, paradoxically, most "sluts" do so they can imprison betas and omegas with kids and divorce rape). She looks at chicks like Sarkeesian and others who preach female supremacy and argues that they are moving backwards and want a society that is similar to the 1950s, only in this new society, men are the property of chicks. She (and I) despise that. So, IMO "old school" feminists would be on the side of the manosphere. Karen Straughan is a good example of one such woman, although she tends to be on the side of sex negative MGTOWs nowadays (gotta play the game to get attention, ya know?).
joelsuf 2016-04-01 15:25:22
By contrast, the sex positive PUA community includes BD, JWS, Tyler Durden, and many others.I don't think BD should be lumped in with anyone from RSD, those guys are one step closer to being RoK. Sure they are sex positive, but they will get just as butthurt as the RoK faggots if Chad Thundercock breaks their nose and runs off with their chick. Have no idea who JWS is, but I'm pretty sure he/they are the same. PUAs miss the mark horribly. The goal in improving yourself and going from boy to man is to BECOME Chad Thundercock, not be some weird offshoot of Chad Thundercock with weird little tricks and gimmicks. Looks, Status, Charisma, and shared values/interests = Everything and I'll never back down from that. RSD isn't there yet. They were close in 2011-2013, but now they have flown off the tracks with woo-woo and self help BS. They aren't a "scam" however. The buyer's weird expectations are the scam.
Duke 2016-04-01 15:34:17
Virtually all heterosexual men hate with a PURPLE PASSION the hoops they are forced to jump through to get sex from womenI'm going to disagree with this, because it is the single most thing that keeps men in a position of servitude. This idea is so pervasive that even an intelligent man such as yourself believes it. I think most men like to earn their women. 2pac one of the greatest rappers of all time, who could probably get any woman he wanted has a lyric in one of his songs that says "I don't want it if it's that easy" That is how most men think, and that is why men value and respect women that make them wait. If all men tried to escalate and the woman refused, and he subsequently refused to take her out on any dates, women would eventually give in. But since this is not the case, women tend to give men their fantasy by giving them the illusion of chastity by making them work for it so the man can feel as though he is earning something valuable. Guys like BD and JOTB like women and don't give a shit if women are easy or not, they simply enjoy having sex with women. Most men are not like this, and want to believe the woman is doing them a favor. Sure a large portion of these men reluctantly and begrudgingly go along with this system because they feel they have to, but most of them actually like it.
joelsuf 2016-04-01 18:30:14
I’m going to disagree with this, because it is the single most thing that keeps men in a position of servitude. This idea is so pervasive that even an intelligent man such as yourself believes it. I think most men like to earn their women.I've read a lot of doclove's posts, and he sounds like the typical sex negative MGTOW that you would find on PUAhate, wizardchan, or loveshy, all three of which were frequented by Elliot Rodger as well as George Sodini. He wants a world where only HIS KIND feel comfortable and if he doesn't get this world, he will literally fight for it. Its sad cuz up until 23 or so, I was on the same wavelength. And I didn't fully become outcome independent until last year or so. I sincerely hope he reads what myself and Jack say. I was in his shoes I know how it feels. So to an extremely outcome dependent individual like himself (and ME until last year or so), that is his inner propaganda. And it is more than likely yours too in some way although probably not as deep. Becoming outcome independent is NOT EASY (although PUAs give the illusion that it is). Chicks are not "earned." You just kinda hang out with them like any other human being and, if you are attracted, you try to hit it. No "earning" is taking place. I didn't "earn" my childhood buddies, we all just happened to like video games and sports, and spent time together. I didn't "earn" an OKcupid date yesterday, I just messaged her saying it was cool that we had the same interests, agreed to go on a date and then we went on a goddam date. I didn't feel "proud" that I "earned" her. I just felt good to hang out with a chick who liked the same shit that I liked. Someone like me, my inner dialogue when trying to hook up with a chick is like this: "I'll spend some time with this chick, I'm bored anyways. If she's down, she's down, if not I'll just find another (or 10)." doclove's (and others who still haven't broken away from the conditioning that you have to "earn" your chicks: PUAs, Betas, Alpha 1s, SOME alpha 2s) inner dialogue looks like this: "wtf is wrong with this chick? What more do I have to do to get her to agree for me to hit it? She's like the only chick for me!!! I hate doing all this WORK for this ONE chick!" See the difference?
Felix 2016-04-01 19:20:22
You can tell from their language that they put women on pedestals. Then they get upset that women treat them like doormats. Ironically, it is because they act like doormats that they get treated like doormats. And again, instead of figuring out why women are behaving that way, they defend their BELIEFS rather than use what others have learned about the psychology of women and human behavior and change their own behavior to match. I don't wanna because women should be subservient to men. Not in this day and age. Good luck with that. The rule of evolution is change and adapt or fall by the wayside.
K 2016-04-02 03:48:19
The woman receives first. The man receives as a direct result of the woman receiving. Her orgasms are the source of ours. So the man gives, the woman receives, and then the man receives.Sometimes, sure. What about the times when the man orgasms first, then continues to give an orgasm to the woman, then comes again himself? Or where the woman finds it difficult to orgasm (that particular time) and only manages to orgasm when she feels the orgasmic spasms in the penis inside her?
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-02 06:56:11
Alright Doclove, let's see what you got:
My point was that most men were doing better under the former SMP and worse under the current one. Quantity of sex is its own quality for most if not all men. No one can be told it is much better to eat filet mignon beef and only filet mignon beef if he can only afford to do so once a month or never resulting in his starving to death. You may consider cow liver and intestines to be atrocious fare to eat, but it sustains the poor man while you the rich man eat filet mignon beef. Think of eating cows as an analogy of men getting sex.Fine. I'm all for legalizing prostitution. And obviously there is nothing I can do about gold digging. Let the losers satisfy themselves that way, until they are ready to improve. My only point was that more men have the motivation to improve without a sexual safety net. It's so much easier to just bribe women with money (the way beta husbands do and did before women could work) than it is to improve your own attractiveness. Now the betas are whining because their sexual safety net is weakening due to women being allowed to work now, making fake sex (in which the woman acts for money) increasingly more difficult for them. Instead of whining, they should see that as an opportunity to become worthy of sincere sex (sex based on genuine attraction). But hey, if they can't, legal prostitution should help them out.
Second, you say you are creator and are a libertarian and you seem to imply that you are a capitalist of the SMP. This is not capitalism of the SMP. The current system is a mix of corporatism and socialism in the SMP. Both the government and corporations work hand in hand to favor women over men.Yes they do and I agree that that is despicable!
If I own a company and it becomes large enough, the government all but makes me hire people based on affirmative action be they a different race, gender, sexual orientation or maybe even religious beliefs so it forces me to hire women or suffer negative consequences even if I don’t want to do so.And I do not condone this in the slightest. No one should be forced by the state to hire women, or anyone else that they don't want to hire based on affirmative action or any other type of government fascism!
It also gives tax benefits and favoritism in contracts to women over men. Then women can get impregnates and I the male tax payer am forced to pay for a child which is not my own.More socialist trash which I absolutely abhor!
A woman can get an abortion wjthout informing me the fetus/baby is mine, but I can not deny responsibility for the baby I sired. The list goes on and on.Yes, and you and I are in agreement that all these things are terrible.
Me thinks you are a wealthy SMP corporatist not capitalist. I wonder how many women would be able to support themselves without these hand me ups advantages. Certainly not as many as do now so I guess more women would “whore” themselves out to the highest bidder.So your theory is that the sex positive culture that I support is only possible because of economic socialism and government welfare and if these things which I hate disappeared, sexual liberation would disappear also because most women wouldn't achieve financial independence in a world without socialism, affirmative action, and welfare, thus causing them to simply become sex withholding gold diggers just like before they were allowed to work. You're partially right. If we were to get rid of all government welfare (which is what I, as a capitalist, want) many women as well as men who are currently keeping themselves afloat would go under (then again, private charities would step up more aggressively than they do today), which means that a certain percentage of women who are sexually liberated today would become prudish/Disney prostitutes to the highest bidder because they are too stupid/weak to take care of themselves in a world that offers them no handouts (beyond private charity). But I'm okay with that. If I have to confine my sex life only to female winners - those who could and would make it and even financially flourish in a laissez faire capitalist system - I have no problem with that. That's what I do now anyway. The red pill women I sleep with are financially successful and many of them (although admittedly not all) did not need any handouts or affirmative action to get there. The few who did would lose in a pure capitalist system, or would be slightly less successful than they are today. But that's okay. There would still be plenty of red pill capitalist women for me, not much different from the ones I sleep with now (with many of them even richer than me). As I said before, the so called "sluts" (the ones I have sex with anyway) tend to be very financially savvy women (female doctors, corporate lawyers, women from rich families who inherited money, etc...) because since they view sex as "receiving" instead of "giving," they are motivated to become financially successful due to their high sex drives giving them absolutely no leverage over men. Yes, in a pure capitalist economy, my sex life would take a hit, but considering the types of women I sleep with anyway, it would be a minor hit. As long as women are legally allowed to work (and they should be), the true high sex drive "sluts" will find a way to be financially independent so that they can be free to enjoy themselves sexually without financial blackmail from unattractive men like in the bad old days of puritanical conservatism! Other women, in a perfect capitalist system, would get married to a beta provider and do the alpha fucks, beta bucks thing, as long as the culture is sexually liberated and encourages this (which it is). And I would sleep with those married/taken women on the side too, just like I'm doing now! All I need for my sex life to continue within my standards of acceptability is (1) a sexually liberated culture, (2) no laws against consensual sex and (3) women everywhere having a legal right to work just like men. Give me these three things and I will be sexually satisfied. But what I can't condone is the tradcon vision in which there are laws against consensual sex, the culture encourages Disney, prudery, and gold digging (the traditional family, housewife), and women are discouraged or legally restricted from working. That would fuck up my sex life - and the sex life of all sex-positive people - and that's what you seem to want!
Some men will kill for lack of sex such as George Sodini and Elliot Rodger, and this horrifies me.So your solution is to fuck up the sex life of sex-positive people like me and the women I sleep with so that omega losers don't go on killing sprees? Sorry, but I don't negotiate with terrorists, nor will I agree to lessen the influence of our sex positive hook up culture just to relieve the peer pressure of the lowest loser. That just offends me. I will not lessen my happiness or debase myself just to satisfy the lowest common denominator. You're thinking like a socialist. You seem to be saying - unless all of us are sexually successful, none of us can be sexually successful because our sexual success hurts those who don't have it because we're all in this together, blah blah, hippie horseshit, blah blah! If even one child is Africa is starving, I shouldn't throw away food. And if even one omega virgin is horny, we should make monogamy the cultural norm, thus stealing from me, so that he could get one and not shoot people! Bullshit! Here's a radical idea - how about we all enjoy our success and be as happy as we can without apology and accept that we are not responsible for the murders, or other despicable actions, of losers! I'm not going to adjust my lifestyle to compensate for another man's weaknesses. If my fellow man is weak, I will offer to help him (like with this community), but I will not cheapen or debase my sexual labor, nor will I accept that the blood of his murder victims is on me instead of solely on him just because I refused to become less happy for his sake! You're really promoting altruistic low self esteem bullshit here!
Thinking violence won’t make a comeback with the current trends is foolishI say bring it on! Nothing justifies the forced lessening of my happiness just so other people will be less violent, as if I'm somehow responsible for the actions of other adults. Don't you see that you're supporting extortion and terrorism? The omegas don't scare me. And they certainly won't dictate my actions just by virtue of their loserhood! They'll have to kill me before I give in to their threats, but more likely, they will simply be arrested and executed (assuming they don't kill themselves first).
Did you ever wonder why felonious ex convicts seem to have less trouble bedding women even ” good women” than any one else?I do understand that certain primitive women believe that they can betaize the violent felon by making him commit acts of violence on her behalf. She wants access to his power and turn him into her violent lapdog. She feels safe with him because in primitive times, he would be our dictator or king, whereas today he's just a thug. I understand that desire of certain females to betaize the violent alpha 1.0, yes.
I prefer the bullshit socially programmed Disney fantasy World which we live in to the real natural worlds of Iraq and worse Afghanistan.I prefer that too if those were my only two choices. But they're not.
Trust me on this as I am a former American Soldier and a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Oh, higher percentages of your precious women in the West have invited these Savages from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc.into the West than men so their GINAS(vaginas) tingle when they get their cherished DRAMAS for let’s you and him fight(over these same Women) even though most of them are not conscious of it in their forebrains but their subconscious female hind brains are being excited into a high libido frenzy.But this only works if western betas and alpha 1.0s take the bait and fight over these women. Sadly, many blue pill women do indeed do this, yes. Luckily, it has nothing to do with me as (1) I don't take the bait and (2) I tend to stick with red pill women or women who are already taken/married to one of these men who took the bait.
Women have a tendency to submit to the strongest man and that may not be you just like it wasn’t for the non gang member 17 year old high school boy in 1991.That's fine. But I don't anticipate a full civilizational collapse and a return to the jungle. And I tend to stay away from gang infested ghetto neighborhoods, as well as from women who fuck these types of men.
Fifth, you call me a blue pill tradcon.Your system is indistinguishable from puritanical traditional conservatism. Under your altruistic pro-beta male system, sexual liberation for alphas and high sex drive women would be impossible, unless we have a massive secret society of cheaters, which would be fine, I guess, but I prefer the option of open relationships and polyamory, which is only possible in a sexually liberated culture! Sorry.
I said that I never wanted any kind of marriage and have children on this blog. As a matter of fact, I advocated against it.And yet, under your system, such things would be a mandatory cultural norm, or even legally enforced.
You however said you may enter a OLTR marriage and maybe children. You seem more bluish, less reddish and more tradcon on this than me.No! Not marriage! Children? Yes. A serious open relationship? Yes. But never marriage (open or otherwise). The first rule of happiness is - If you have something good in your life, make sure you keep it away from the government! Yes, I want to have kids someday under a polyamorous/open relationship construct. So? There is nothing wrong with procreating or wanting a family, as long as it is without marriage/monogamy.
Sixth, now that we are on the subject of marriage, we need to look further into this. It was not a perfect system, but it offered the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of human beings better than the current one.You seem to keep espousing utilitarian philosophy. I'm not a utilitarian. I only believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people as long as no one's happiness has to be unjustly sacrificed for the benefit of others. I do not believe in sacrificing my life to the state, or to society, "for the greater good." Everyone is welcome to happiness, but not at my expense. If me being allowed to be happy means that weaker people must be sad, just by virtue of their own weakness, so be it. I will not sacrifice for them like an altruistic masochist! As John Galt said in Atlas Shrugged, "If he feels his judgment is inadequate, he will not be given a gun to improve it....If he fails to use his judgment and falls, he will be his only victim......He will have the unrestricted council of his betters in guidance in learning to think, but an end will be put to the paying of one life for the errors of another." In other words, utilitarian altruism is wrong. No one should be forced to sacrifice their life for others. You may do so voluntarily, but don't inconvenience me while doing it.
It satisfied most men’s constant lusts better than the current SMP.I doubt that, unless men got used to women just spreading their legs and going somewhere else in their heads until it was over.
It caused most women’s GINAS to tingle and be submissive for more dominant menI doubt most women were attracted to their beta husbands. They were just forced to marry them out of economic necessity. I don't want to go back to the days in which human consciousness and happiness is reduced for the sake of basic mechanical survival. It was such a dehumanizing state of affairs.
rather than the reverse of today where most men are forced into submission to their dominant women whose GINAS dry up more than the desserts I had the misfortune to live in because the Corporatist Socialist Society of today socially programs this bullshit into everyone.Not everyone. Check out BD's latest article here detailing success stories written by former betas turned into alphas. It's more possible than you think with the correct mentors/community. Also, if women's vaginas would be as dry as you say they are, we wouldn't be living in the sexually liberated hook up culture we live in now. Things aren't as bad as you make them seem.
Marriage was both a pillar and a by product of civilization, civilized behavior and civilized human beings. Monogamous marriage lessened men from going on killing and raping sprees and it lessened women from playing let’s you and him fight because it makes said women’s GINAS dripping wet and hot with desire.Yes, you're right. Marriage and monogamy did lessen all those things. It also made the happiness of men like me completely impossible back then. It is true that destroying marriage and monogamy is forcing the culture to go through an adjustment phase, but if society can be steered towards poly/open relationships and away from sexual territoriality, it is worth it. Even betas can adapt to poly. Like I said before, women who get into serious/open relationships with betas for the money while screwing alphas on the side with the beta's permission, which would be socially acceptable, and therefore, not humiliating for the beta in a more red pill society. This can work, but I realize that adaptation is a bitch.
If you take away incentives to be civilized in one thing-promoting marriage-don’t be surprised when men and women become feral in their behavior.You mean in the lower economic classes? Again, I don't favor replacing order with chaos. I favor replacing the old cultural order with a new cultural order. Chaos is temporary and it shouldn't return us to the old if we can offer the culture something better.
It would be nice to cherry pick what society wants, but that is rarely how things work. Actions have consequences. One thing leads to another. This current SMP could very well lead to a war of all against all and there are indicators that it probably will.I've observed the opposite tendency as more and more people are becoming accepting of open relationships and polyamory, and therefore, anti-territoriality! You have no faith that people can give up their primitive beliefs, whereas I see them doing so everyday and embracing a sexually non-territorial lifestyle. Please read BD's latest article involving the success stories of former betas!
The best case scenario is to have grass-eater men like in Japan where they allow their civilization to decay slowly and for the most part non violently. The worst case is in the African American community where it turns many of the men,not all or even most but more than enough of the men, violent and feral.Or, more and more men, even beta men, can start to accept a more sexually open community (violence is caused by monogamy and sexual territoriality) and more and more women can open their minds to the red pill (I'm seeing that happen too). Again, I don't support replacing old cultural norms with a chaotic vacuum, which is what you're implying. I support replacing them with new cultural norms.
Seventh, I never stated that women were asexual or lesbians. I never implied it.But they might as well be if they are going to be forced to have sex with men in order to eat, or for other non-sexual reasons.
Since most women’s provision, protection and even much of their social-emotional validation is being met quite often under the threat of coercion for men to provide it, men have found that under the current SMP women do not value what they have to offer. Either way under scenario one or two, most men are being left impoverished in the SMP by the current Corporatist-Socialist structure. The current Corporartist-Socialist SMP lets women over value themselves just like the housing bubble in 2008 and it looks like the Education/ Student Loan bubble of now by distorting the market. Will we have a soft gentle crash and restructuring of the current SMP or will we have a violent catastrophic upheaval of the current SMP?You are correct here. The current socialist/corporatist scheme is unsustainable. But you wish to replace it with traditional monogamy (sexual socialism) whereas I wish to replace it with something more sustainable - true capitalism in which there is no welfare for women and no coercion for men to provide as tax payers or in any other way. It is precisely, like you said, the corporatist/socialist society that allows women to overvalue themselves. I want to abolish it as much as you do for the same reasons that you do (it's unsustainable, women are spoiled, men's human rights to property and money are violated, etc...). The only thing we disagree on is what should replace the current socialist/corporatist system once it collapses. I say it should be replaced with true sexual capitalism and no anti-male coercion. You say it should be replaced with sexual socialism (monogamy). I will respond to your other posts tonight.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-02 23:06:53
Alright, let's continue:
Why am I here reading and commenting on this blog as well as other manosphere sites? It is because the old world is gone and one must deal with the new one even if it is worse than the old one and do the best he can in it.But.............that's my point exactly (except for the part about the old world being better). The old world is gone (and I say good riddance) and you need to learn how to live in this one. And yet, instead of doing that, you pine for the old puritanical world and want to bring it back "for the sake of the losers." Whereas I say that the best you can do in this current world is improve yourself as best as you can, adapt by abandoning sexual territoriality, and join the poly revolution!
I too am against prostitute “whore”shaming slut shaming and prostitute customer “john”and stud shaming and always have been more so than most other people even though it may not always seem that way.Actually, I'm pretty into prostitute shaming for the same reason I'm in favor of housewife shaming - prostitutes and conservatives wives (as if there's a difference) follow the old fashioned "women give, men receive" paradigm, which implicitly denies female heterosexuality, thus giving women all the cultural leverage over a sexual situation (by framing it as women's generosity). The only difference between a prostitute and a housewife is that the prostitute is cheaper. But the overall anti-male frame remains. What I said was that, as a libertarian, I do think sex for money should be legalized, especially if it will get betas to calm the fuck down! But despite my legal position, my cultural position is that I still think sex for money should be shamed though because it frames the female as superior (generous) and the male as a grateful drooling idiot. As I said before, the cultural affirmation of female heterosexuality (sex for sex) is the key to breaking the back of the matriarchy because female heterosexuality leads to equality between men and women in the bedroom, as distinguished from the prostitute, gold digger, or religious housewife model which implies female leverage over, and manipulation of, male sexuality! Prostitution is a temporary relief for betas who want a rest from their housewives trying to inflate the price of sex even more. But in the long term, prostitution is still a part of the problem because, despite being cheaper, it still follows the philosophy of male = beggar and female = generous saint. In other words, prostitution is a cheaper and more male friendly version of matriarchy. I want to smash the matriarchy, which is why so called "sluts" are the only women I want anything to do with.
It is very simple about certainly whores, studs and sluts and promiscuous people in general which may or may not include johns: they are fun to party with, but are not good to marry in OLTR marriages or monogamous marriages as a general rule.LOL! So you suffer from the puritanical Madonna/whore complex, which states that women who sexually satisfy you are only good for sex, whereas low sex drive Disney prudes who sexually frustrate you are good for love and marriage. Well, obviously I disagree. Explain why a promiscuous person (like the girl I'm in a serious OLTR with now) isn't good for OLTRs! I agree that she isn't good for monogamy because she'll cheat, but why would anyone want monogamy? What's wrong with getting into serious open relationships with promiscuous women? I'm in one right now and I'm happy! What's wrong with moving in with them and having children with them in an open/poly arrangement? As I stated before, I believe promiscuous women are good for everything (except monogamy, which no one should ever want), whereas low sex drive and non-promiscuous Disney women are good for nothing.
I like sluts and find them useful and necessary just like prostitutes whether I am getting sex from them or not.But a "slut" doesn't act superior to you. The prostitute (regular), the gold digger (plus) and the housewife (premium) all do act superior as if they're condescending to you by giving you sex and then the religious housewife (premium) wants to criminalize the prostitute (regular) because the prostitute prevents the housewife from inflating her prices! A stupid beta will pick the housewife. A smart beta will pick the prostitute. An alpha will say "fuck you" to all three and choose the "slut" instead (both for casual sex AND a serious/open relationship) because the "slut" is the only one who refuses to condescend to men, but instead wants sex because she's horny, thus leading to a symbiotic experience. I don't know about you, but that's the only type of sex I want (regardless of whether I'm in a serious relationship or a one night stand)!
You have this horrible tendency to blame tradcons.I am opposed to all people who want to abolish the sexual revolution and return to slut shaming, stud shaming, sex hating, sexual squeamishness, and puritanical/Victorian values. So yes, I oppose tradcons, just like I oppose sex-negative feminists, social justice warriors, politically correct rape hysterics, female supremacist "check your privilege" types, MGTOWs, lesbian separatists, and anyone else who isn't sex positive. Tradcons are absolutely NOT sex positive.
Dalrock’s blog, which is linked to in the right hand side of this blog is a true tradcon. Many of the others are feminist or feminine imperative tradcons which means they are false tradcons . I like true tradcons.I'm assuming that by "true" tradcons you're referring to those who aren't chivalrous? Okay, fine. But they are still sex negative. They believe in female virginity until marriage, protecting their daughters from me, family values, and all that other crap that's incompatible with a sexually open minded lifestyle. So yeah, even if they aren't chivalrous, I still want nothing to do with them.
I even like true feminist sex positivists.How can you like both tradcons and sex positivists? They are wholly incompatible!
I think true tradcons offer a better deal than true feminist sex positivists,The only way I can even think of squaring this circle is if we do the whole "traditional family values" bullshit in public, while at the same time, create an entire secret society of cheaters who will unlearn the public bullshit that gives order to betas and engage in secret sex positive harems in private, thus allowing us to have our cake and eat it too! To an extent, we actually have that today, but since monogamy is too sexually cruel and frustrating and lying and hiding is too much of a headache, I think the libertarian sex positivist movement is the best, including for betas wishing to improve themselves.
but true feminist sex positivists offer a good deal too for this reason, men’s sexual needs and desires are more likely to be met under true tradcons and to a lesser extent feminist sex positivistsI think you and I just have different turn ons, lol. If you think that tradcons offer a better deal by financially coercing women to lay their like a dead fish and spread her legs for the beta while she dreams of the alpha is a better deal, I can't say I agree, but maybe you think that bad sex is better than no sex. I guess that's fine, but I'd rather go for the real thing than the lie. I can't even get turned on if I even suspect that the woman is faking for money or may not really be into it. So I'd make a terrible beta! LOL! In fact, I did make a terrible beta, which is why I improved myself - to get a shot at the "sluts" who only fuck for pleasure and simply ignore unattractive men! I'll take an honest rejection over dishonest/condescending sex any day. But maybe I just have more self respect than most men (or just a bigger ego).
than under the current regime of the senior inner party of feminist sex negativists and their junior outer party partner of feminist tradcons.Here, we agree!
Please distinguish between the true tradcons and the feminist tradconsYou mean the chivalrous vs. non-chivalrous tradcons? Sure, I'll distinguish between them and will even admit that the non-chivalrous ones are better, but even those still want to take me back to the sexual dark ages where a woman's sex drive was suppressed by her economic survival needs. No thank you!
as well as the feminist sex positivists and the feminist sex negativists.Oh I definitely distinguish between those two!
I think true tradcons get most men less partners but more sex acts over a life time while feminist sex positivists get most men more partners but less sex acts over a life time.But the sex acts which tradcons get men aren't sincere in my opinion. They are financially coerced from the woman (whether prostitute, gold digger girlfriend, or house wife). Those sex acts suck and become boring because both people are pressured to remain monogamous even when their attraction is gone, thus leading to lots of terrible, money influenced (and therefore, insincere and passionless) sex. In this case, less is more! I think sex positivists give men more sexual partners as well as more TRUE sex acts, based on sincere sexual attraction and passion with multiple people. My awesome sex life would be impossible under a tradcon paradigm of financially coerced sex from the ugly and increasingly frigid wife.
Both feminist sex negativists and feminist tradcons get most men less sex acts and less partners over a life time.Totally agree!
The unholy alliance of the feminist sex negativists and the feminist tradcon(false tradcons) is the worst of both worldsCorrect!
with none of the best of both worlds from the true tradcons and the feminist sex positivists.Correct (but I'm still skeptical about the awesome sex life I could have with my one monogamous tradcon wife in your perfect world, lol)
Most men would live like you and have the sex life you do if they could.So........you've just admitted that most men, if they could choose, would choose libertarian sex positivism and NOT the "true" tradcon route. 🙂
They can not and so they do not. most of the problem is not caused by men because most of the problem is caused by women.Women aren't blameless, but men allow it. That's why you have communities like this which teach men to grab their balls and de-spoil these bitches!
Most men would gladly say my dick is payment enough if they could get away with it. Virtually all heterosexual men hate with a PURPLE PASSION the hoops they are forced to jump through to get sex from women.I disagree. See Duke's rather brilliant response above. As BD likes to say, most beta men like being miserable and enslaved.
However, women like it this way as they like to create(subconsciously not consciously in most cases) an artificial shortage of sex as it works to their advantage.With betas, yes. With alphas, they do not create an artificial sex shortage because the alpha will simply dump her spoiled ass and she'll get nothing (not even sex) unless she starts behaving. And that dominant attitude precisely gets women horny, thus making them want to have sex for free.
The corporatist socialist system encourages rather than discourages women to act like this.Exactly! Which is why, in many ways, the sexual capitalism of the alpha sex creators is, in many ways, incompatible with economic socialism/corporatism. Like you said, economic socialism/corporatism spoils women, forcing men to up their game. In a truly economically capitalist environment with zero welfare or government hand outs, women would be too busy working hard to be this spoiled and bitchy, or they'd marry a rich beta and fuck me on the side. Either way, the spoiled cunt that we both hate would be gone if only economic socialism/corporatism would go away. We agree here.
Women of today are charging way too much for what they offer and it is the corporatist socialist system which is helping them inflate their price well above what they truly are worth.Correct! And that is why we both agree that this system needs to go. But I want to replace it with true capitalism and sex positive libertarianism, whereas you want to go back to the sexual middle ages where every sex act takes the woman further away from her sexuality because it is financially coerced. Again, no thank you!
Do you think homosexual men do this to each other as much? I doubt it. I heard Gay men have both more sex acts and sex partners because their attitude seems to encourage more honesty about what they want. There seems to be less gold digging, less prick teasing and more respect for each others’ time, efforts, money and emotions.Yes, that's why many red pill women are referred to as "men in women's bodies." These sexually open minded women (the only kind I get involved with) essentially act like gay men! If only there could be more. Well luckily, thanks to the manosphere, there are certain women who are becoming more and more red pill as well! It's getting better in that sense!
Western women regard men’s time, efforts, money and emotions as less worthy than their own and follow the golden rule of DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU or at the very least its corallary DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE UNTO YOU less often than Gay men and even Strait men do.Especially blue pill women in relation to betas.
Do you really think most Gay men between the ages of 18-24 would regard 80% of 18-24 year old college men as not attractive the way most 18-24 year old women do? To ask is almost to answer it.But women's sexuality works differently. She'll judge 80 percent of men as unattractive on their face until she gets to know them and sees whether or not they have any seduction skills, whereas gay men tend to be more visual creatures, just like all men.
If I made you cringe about women’s sole or primary worth to a heterosexual man being her vagina or other body parts pleasing his penis, I don’t understand you.Because, just like a tradcon, you framed it as asexual women doing heterosexual men a favor, thus giving women all the leverage and supremacy in the world as gold diggers! I would frame it as men primarily offering women their dicks and then receiving a woman's humble and grateful moans of ecstasy, which give men their own orgasmic reward for giving her pleasure! That's more empowering to betas and equal to women. But if you frame it the way you just did - women doing men a favor - you're philosophically disempowering betas and showering women with female supremacy! Now do you understand?
Men are easier to talk to for most men and find comradery easier. Men are more willing to lay down each other’s lives for each other than women are to lay down their lives for men, and men are more willing to lay down their lives for women than women are to lay down their lives for men as general rule. Whether or not you believe in Jesus of Nazareth or his teachings, remember this is what He said: There is no greater love than for one man(human) to lay down his life for another man(human). I do not value non family women as more valuable than non family men in my life, and in fact value non family men as more valuable than non family women in my life because men are more likely to save my life by laying down their lives for men than women are. This even includes stranger men being more willing to die for men than a wife or girlfriend, and it is much more true of male friends. The only thing women outside my family can offer me a heterosexual man which I want that other men can not and should not is sex and maybe children to call my own and raise as my own should I want them. I do not blame women for this as nature designed them to love men less than men love each other and less than women love men as a general rule, and even if I am wrong about the nature or biology of this then I am certainly not wrong to say that it has been socially programmed into men to love women more than women love men as well as for men to be abused by women in the West. This abhorrent social programming should come to an end.I completely agree that this abhorrent societal programming needs to end. Neither men nor women should value female lives above male ones. But in any event, I don't believe that my girlfriend who loves me would be more reluctant to give up her life for me than a male stranger. I certainly would give up my life for her than I would for a male stranger, not because she's a woman, but because she's my serious girlfriend! Now, between a stranger man and a stranger woman? I admit, I'd more likely save the stranger man both for the reasons you cited and because women are too entitled in our society as it is and men are under-represented in the saving department. Mostly though, I don't see this as too much of a practical issue for me (I've never been in the military) because I don't really see a situation where I'd have to lay down my actual life for anyone, so that part is more hypothetical for me than you. Also, I've always preferred the company of women (socially speaking) over men because it's easier for me to be my natural self around them, whereas many men try to dominate me or AMOG me which leads to a social status fight which makes me weary. I'd rather socialize with a woman and then have sex with her rather than jockey for position with another man to see which one of us can betaize the other. Especially when I'm in seduction mode, instead of competing with other men, I tend to ignore them and have no problem sharing my women with them. That and, like BD, I'm an introvert who doesn't have many male friends. And since I achieved a successful sex life with women, my desire platonic friendship with men has decreased even more. But that's just how I've always been.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-03 15:55:30
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU or at the very least its negative corralary DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE UNTO YOUThat's twice now that you've quoted the bible. Just so you know, I'm not a fan of anything Jesus had to say, particularly the so called "golden rule." If I treated many blue pill women the way I'd like to be treated by them, I'd get pepper sprayed and arrested! Saying that you should treat others the way you'd like to be treated is to arrogantly believe that everyone is, or should be, like you. Example: A friend of yours is dying in severe pain and is begging you to pull the plug. Now let's say you wouldn't want that done to you, because you don't believe in euthanasia, or think it's "sinful" or whatever. Under the golden rule, you will deny his request. How about the libertarian rule - treat people the way THEY would like to be treated, not the way YOU would like to be treated because they are not you. The golden rule has been responsible for many wars and bloodshed, especially because Christians were convinced that they were doing non-Christians a favor out of love by forcefully converting them; they were treating them the way they (the Christians) would have liked to be treated, thus rationalizing genocide and murder, all because of Jesus' stupid golden rule.
As a general rule there is no equality between men and women.When I support equality between men and women, I'm referring to equality in both gender neutral matters, such as equality under the law, political equality (the same legal protections, rights, privileges, and responsibilities), professional equality, as well as equal rights and privileges when it comes to sexual lifestyles. But if you're referring to dominance and submission within the relationship, of course I believe that no relationship is 50/50. In a dance, two people can't lead. One always leads and the other follows. But this doesn't disrupt the equality between the two, because the follower is submitting voluntarily because she wants to, and she may revoke her consent and change her mind at any time. The reason she doesn't change her mind is because being the one who submits to a strong man makes her happy and I'm against disrupting people's happiness, unless they try to be happy at my expense.
Either the man is the master(dominant) and the woman the servant(submissive) or the woman is the master and the man the servant.When it comes to the individualistic micro scale (referring to sexual relationships between men and women), I agree. But both will act in accordance with their nature. If it is in the nature of the man to lead, because he's an alpha male, then that is what he will project. And if the woman is turned on by that, than submission is what she will project (albeit after lots of shit testing to make sure he's not faking). Nothing wrong with that, as long as both of them are in those roles on a purely voluntary basis because that is what they both equally chose from a position of strength (no physical coercion, legal coercion, financial coercion, or anything else like that).
Men make for better masters(dominants) than women,Many men do, yes. But, as BD said in his article about the three types of women - dominant, submissive, and independent - there are dominant/masculine (albeit heterosexual) women who are sexually attracted to submissive/feminine (albeit heterosexual) men. Hey, if a naturally submissive man wants to surrender to a naturally dominant woman, let him follow his own happiness, just like the dominant woman.
and even if this were not true, it is not in my best interest as a man or most if not all other men’s interests to be the (submissives) servants.All that matters is the happiness of these couples. Mostly, a man isn't happy unless he leads and a woman is mostly unhappy unless she follows (when it comes to gender based sexual matters), but there are exceptions. And again, even if the woman is a pure submissive, she still should have her own money and not be dependent on the man in any way, because that's the only way we know her submission is genuine, as opposed to her being forced to submit due to financial coercion. All women's sexuality must be free (just like men's) which means that women must be financially independent. I take no joy in a woman's submission unless I know it's completely voluntary, not because she's using me like a wallet with legs.
It’s just my opinion, but it is usually better for the more loving partner to be the master than the servant, and the master should be men because men are generally the more loving partner who will be more likely to lay down their lives for women than the other way around.Okay, first of all, you talk like we're living in a third world shithole, or are in the middle of a war zone, or something! Since when do we have to lay down our lives for anybody? That's what we pay cops to do! I doubt I'll ever find myself in a hostage situation where I have to choose between myself and my woman. This is largely a non-issue forged out of right wing paranoia and a scarcity mentality (mostly afflicting the working class). Second, while I agree that most men (myself included) are happier being masculine leaders than feminine followers, we should be masculine leaders because we WANT to be - because it makes us happy - not for "the good of society." See, this is the crux of our disagreement: I value the individual - the only thing that's real - above all else, whereas you value the collective - a fictional construct designed to poetically make conversations more understandable. You think individuals have a duty to sacrifice their own happiness and self-fulfillment for the sake of the group, the tribe, or humanity! Sacrifice the real - the human individual - for the fictional - humanity as a whole. Sorry, but I don't sacrifice my happiness for the sake of a collective abstraction! Most men should be leaders because it suits their personalities and most women should be followers because it suits their personalities and turns them on! No. Other. Reason. If a minority of women are natural leaders, then they should seek sexual relationships with the minority of men who are natural feminine followers! But again, this dominance/submission paradigm should be allowed only in the personal sphere. Not in the professional, political, or legal sphere, because you can't tell if someone is naturally submissive in the sexual/relationship sense if they're dependent on their partner for money and food. She needs to submit to me voluntarily with me offering her no safety nets because only when she needs nothing from me - except sex, love, and companionship - do I know her true personality and true desires. If you give your woman money or resources, you may be bribing her out of her true personality. You never know unless the both of you are equally independent in the professional, political, and legal sense. Only then can we have pure dominance/submission in it's truest form when it comes to our intimate/sexual relationships, which I support. A 50/50 relationship is, of course, a feminist myth!
Always remember there is no greater love than for one human to lay down his or her life for another human.You keep quoting Jesus! LOL! I think you've spent too much time in the military and in third world shitholes! I don't foresee a situation where any woman or man is going to have to lay down his or her life for me (unless it's a cop). And I don't foresee a situation where I will have to lay my life down for anyone else - man, woman, or child. Lighten up man! Hostage situations are rare! You talk like someone from North Korea, or Africa, or something.
You can argue that it is not rational for men at least in the West to do this for women(provision and protect), and I agree, but humans are mostly irrational and then you are fighting over 50,00years of homo sapiens sapiens(we present humans) instinctual biology and the biological programming of over 2 million years of primate biology hard wired into us, and we humans are primates.Well, I will partially concede this point. Blackdragon calls it Obsolete Biological Wiring (OBW). But this is something that can be controlled, as BD explains in his book The Unchained Man. This is where I become a sex positive feminist/humanist and reiterate that the best sex you can ever have is with a woman who submits to you enthusiastically from a position of strength and zero coercion. But if you become a beta provider, which provides your relationship with a safety net that will motivate her to stay with you even after her horniness and feelings fade, you're living a lie! If the love and passion of a relationship rests comfortably and lazily on the economic safety nets that you advocate for women (being a male provider), that love and passion will vanish with that resting. Instead of keeping the relationship honest and just have her break up with you once she's no longer interested, she will lie and say she is and force herself to fuck you once a month while cheating on you with me because she doesn't want to let go of your "provision and protection." Safety nets are the source of lies and deceptions (and monogamy). That's why we need to get rid of all of them (including monogamy) so that the only sex we get is honest and sincere sex, which is the best and most enthusiastic sex anyone can ever get! Yes, this means many betas will be forced to face the truth about themselves and may even go to prostitutes and get gold digger girlfriends while they're improving themselves, but at least that truth will give them the motivation to try, as distinguished from your philosophy - give them financial, cultural, and legal safety nets because they're just losers and don't have it in them. Well, I was a loser once. And if I had listened to you instead of men like BD, I'd still be one. No thank you! Lastly, let be also point out that not all of us have the same OBW. Even as a sexless beta, I was never territorial or insecure about women sleeping with other men. A woman's sexual experience turns me on (of BD's three types of women, I prefer the Independent and the Submissive only better than the Dominant). I've always loved independent promiscuous women. And I knew that promiscuity would be destroyed if I ever made them financially dependent on me, thus undoing the sexual revolution. Again, no thank you! Whew!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-04 04:23:54
Hey Doclove, I've been thinking a lot about your criticism here:
You have this horrible tendency to blame tradcons.Now, I've already given you my intellectual arguments against traditional conservatives, but in order for you to understand me better, let me also give you an emotional argument stemming back to my childhood, just so you can get the whole picture. Tradcons have caused me a considerable amount of emotional pain. Not only are they anti-sex, but they are obsessed with female virginity and female "purity," which they seek to preserve at all costs. In so doing, they have a hard time distinguishing between consensual sex and rape, particularly when it comes to their own precious daughters who they view as asexual princesses and paragons of chastity. As a sex positive man, this makes me sick and has emotionally harmed me when I was a boy. At the age of 13, I was a horny little bastard who wanted to lose his virginity, especially since all my friends were doing it. I watched a lot of porn and the women in the porn seemed very happy that they were having sex. So I always considered sex, in that sense, as a favor to women. For this reason, I had nothing but good intentions in seeking to lose my virginity at the age of 13. But then, I ran across something that shocked me - the tradcon father! It is not good to make a 13 year old boy feel like a rapist, or some other type of inhuman monster, just for wanting to make a man's daughter cry tears of joy after giving her multiple orgasms. Nevertheless, at the age of 13, I was the victim of lots and lots of cockblocking at the hands of conservative fathers (and mothers). Without going into too many details, the tradcon fathers treated me as if I wanted to harm their daughter in some way, as if consensual sex is indistinguishable from rape! Tradcon fathers have threatened me by reminding me of their "gun collections" if their daughter is "touched in the wrong way" by me! At the age of 14, one tradcon father even told me he'll personally rip my dick off if I even so much as kiss his precious daughter (he was a Christian minister). In other words, the biggest proponents of misandry and anti-male abuse were and are tradcons. As a boy of 13, 14, 15, and above, I was threatened, interrogated, yelled at, intimidated, harassed, and bullied by traditional conservative fathers just for being suspected of wanting to make their daughters super happy via multiple orgasms! As you can imagine, this abuse which stayed in my young teenaged mind has created some mental scars that I struggle with till this day. Basically, I have never been able to forgive conservatives for treating consensual sex like rape! NEVER! Now, this cockblocking by conservative fathers prevented me from losing my virginity until age 15, when all of my friends thought I was a loser for keeping it that long. Not only were these tradcons responsible for lots of my sexual frustration as a teenage boy (which is itself abuse, in my opinion), but they made me feel super bad about myself for wanting to make girls happy! They framed sex as something that will damage, irreparably hurt, scar, and traumatize their precious snowflake daughters. So I started asking myself at age 14 - Am I a monster? Am I truly the equivalent of a rapist or pedophile, or some other lowlife, just for wanting to satisfy my urges by making these teenage girls happy? Do I even deserve to live for being as evil as these tradcon fathers say I am??? I laugh at this now, but back then, tradcons made me feel like human garbage! And I still have the mental scars. So yes, I blame tradcons. I blame them for child abuse. I blame them for their misandry and their trauma perpetuated against teenage boys. I blame them for their mental abuse of their own teenage daughters by shielding them from happiness and brainwashing them into thinking that happiness is like rape! I blame them for threatening teenage boys with fucking guns if these teenage boys even try to give sex and happiness to their daughters, as if sex is indistinguishable from rape. I blame them for treating their daughters like asexuals as if sex is something that the man does TO them in a one way street fashion. I blame them for making me afraid for my life when I had sex as a teenager, terrified that the girl's father would come into the room and literally murder me. I blame them for child abuse, misandry, and hate! But most of all: I blame them for creating radical feminism! Radical feminism is nothing more than the public and political expression of what conservative fathers tell their daughters in private: Men are pigs. Stay away from them. Men are dogs. Sex is dangerous. Sex is harmful. Sex will make you suicidal. All sex is trauma! All sex is rape! Sex will defile you, my beautiful princess! By wanting to have sex with you, he wants to use you and hurt you! All men are scum! Sex-negative feminism/lesbian separatism, which states that all heterosexual sex is rape because "power differentials between men and women in a patriarchal society make women not politically strong enough to consent" isn't something crazy dykes pulled out of their asses! Rather, this idea - that female heterosexuality is a patriarchal myth and that sex is something a man does to a woman as a one way street - was GIVEN to radical feminists by their tradcon fathers and tradcon 1950s culture. If you are a tradcon, you are a father of sex-negative and man-hating feminism! But you say:
You have this horrible tendency to blame tradcons.Yes! Yes I do! Not only were they responsible for my sexual frustration as a young teenager, but they even made me ask the serious question - am I an abuser of women? - at the age of 14 when I wanted to make their daughters happy! Traumatizing a 14 year old boy with nothing but kind intentions by making him think he is some sort of scumbag, is child abuse! And even though I've undone all the sex-negative tradcon brainwashing, I've never forgiven tradcons for instilling hateful poison against men inside their daughters and emotionally abusing, threatening (with guns), bullying, and intimidating other men's sons for wanting to make their daughters scream in pleasure! Traditional conservatism is the sickness that gave us man hating feminism - the politicizing of what tradcons tell their daughters in private. And it is the sickness that gave us chivalry, which is currently responsible for the beta male zombie army propping up feminist man hating and sex-negativism! So yes, I blame tradcons, because these puritanical bastards deserve blame and scorn. They have no moral right to fight against sex-negative feminism. They created it. It is up to us sex-positivists to take care of both man hating feminism AND its creator - man hating/prudish traditional conservatism! Raising children (both boys and girls) to become sex-positive teenagers upon reaching puberty should be a primary goal of all sex positive soldiers in the fight against conservative and feminist heterophobia! P.S. But we are going in the wrong direction. This article by tradcon PUA Heartiste makes me sick: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/advice-for-fathers-trying-to-keep-their-teen-daughters-off-the-pole/
joelsuf 2016-04-04 19:55:04
If you are a tradcon, you are a father of sex-negative and man-hating feminism!I never thought of it that way. I've had to deal with that as well, I've had a tradcon dad accuse me of being a predator in high school too. I've been trying to address it, but I still feel like I'm imposing on attractive chicks when I talk to them. The accusation just sent some kind of message to me that I don't deserve attractive chicks. How do I overcome this?
joelsuf 2016-04-04 20:20:23
Also do you think that tradcons and radfems are part of an agenda to make sure that they still own everything and keep the world on puppet strings? I do. There's a reason why Anita Sarkeesian has made so much money off of her feminist frequency videos in just five or so years.
Johnny Ringo 2017-01-06 00:38:26
BD, I can appreciate what you mean on the Athiest/Agnostic belief. I simply tell people (in Mark Twain's words)...........I don't know. What I do know is what the objective eye can experience. Beyond limited ghost experiences, UFO appearances have been heavy in my life. A black (gigantic) triangle out in the middle of day, no sound, big as a football field, in a crowded place. No newspaper coverage. Then, worse, an experience where a craft hovered over, and literally stopped myself and 3 friends of mine from talking, until it floated over the trees. 96 gospels to 4, Islam, ancient carvings, you can debate all day. I come to this blog because the world is not what it says it is. Bruce Lee said to empty your cup, and boy was he right.
Pants 2018-04-22 15:57:19
"The last chance we had to save it was around the mid 1990s" I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by this timeframe. While I completely agree that the ship is sinking, I don't understand what happened in the mid 1990s to make you choose this date as the last chance to right the ship? "Are you getting the point yet about why I have no interest in saving men? When even the most informed of us keep making these same stupid mistakes? The manosphere is becoming blue pill. Those guys above are just three examples; I could list many more, from Mystery to Eben Pagan to AFC Adam to Charlie Sheen and on and on. All of these men have been divorced, or will get divorced, or in some cases get divorced again, because Alphas don’t have the ability to stay long-term monogamous, something I’ve been screaming to the rooftops publicly for almost a decade. None of these guys seem to be listening." I get this. I really do. I have no doubt that the only way a guy could be somewhat in a monogamous relationship is if that relationship involved with both people not living with one another and essentially seeing one another a few times a week. There was even a post on Heartiste long ago (there was an actual study involved) about how women that live with their man end up losing all interest in him after a few years, like clockwork, unless they get knocked up as it brings some sort of new change/drama to their lives. There's no doubt that the programming and conditioning of the old ways runs deep as the Disney ideal is pushed on everyone very early on. My question is this though... what happens if you're a guy that just wants kids (his own biological ones)? Without going over the constant arguments of "why would you want to bring kids into this world" narrative; let's just say I'm a selfish motherfucker and I want to raise my own kids as a big middle finger to life/society saying I shouldn't and that constant defeatist attitude. Would that be considered blue pill?