Posts Tagged ‘Red pill and blue pill’

GRAVITY

Once we finally open our eyes via swallowing the red pill, we begin to seriously take notice of the various gyno-centric propaganda we are inundated with on a daily basis.  This occurs in most mainstream movies and television shows.  It is not too often that science fiction movies make such a sickening display of the hypocrisy of feminism and the meme of the Strong Independent Woman™.

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch the movie Gravity.  I would normally not wait so long to see a Sci-Fi movie that I think has a lot of potential.  The visuals were absolutely beautiful but that was about the only thing the movie had going for it.  The story line was interesting in the fact that there was a lot of spacecraft blowing up, but it was very disappointing in every other aspect.

It was hard to not notice the dichotomy between the stars of the movie.  You have Sandra Bullock, who in many films portrays the typical strong willed and oft unpleasant career women such as is The Proposal.  That movie was the typical rom-com where the strong female lead is finally reined in by the psedo alpha Hollywood loves to portray.  The male lead is played by George Clooney.  He is the alpha who bangs various younger women in real life, he also plays the alpha role well on the big screen.

In Gravity the movie starts off with a spacewalk where Clooney and Bullock are astronauts repairing a satellite when disaster strikes and a debris cloud destroy the shuttle killing everyone in the crew except them.  Clooney plays the experienced astronaut and Bullock plays the novice mission specialist working in space for the first time.  Right after the disaster it’s a never ending drama of Bullock being only a few seconds from death.  Clooney plays it cool as Clooney does.  Bullock seems to always be in a state of a panic attack as she makes mistakes and bad decisions.  Clooney on the other and always had answers and solutions to every problem and always seemed calmed.  His amused mastery of the situation was quite noticeable.  In the middle of the movie Clooney makes a decision where he cuts himself loose from the tether holding them together and drifts off into space to die.  It was at that moment that I realized that had Bullock been a man, he would have taken more responsibility for his own and Clooney’s survival and they both would have likely survived.  As it was, Bullock was a hindrance to Clooney’s survival and her actions directly contributed to his eventual death.  It was ironic that she had given up and was faced with a lonely death in the cold vacuum of space after a string of mistakes and glaring examples of her incompetence that she had a vision of Clooney who gave her advice that she was (admittedly) unable to figure out herself that helped saved her life.  The sub context of the exchanges between Clooney and Bullock showed that she failed to master some basic skills needed by all astronauts, such as landing the spacecraft on earth without crashing.

This movie made me think of how women react in emergency situations.  I have seen plenty of emergencies materialize in front of me and participated in assisting in not a few of them.   My ex used to say that I was the perfect person to have around when shit was hitting the fan.  I attribute a lot of that to my military training.  It was common to see that women would lose their minds or just freeze up in life and death situations.  That was the rule.  The exception was a woman being proactive in hers and her companion’s survival.

As with all things about the American female, this movie shows the common underlying theme that without a man to assist her, the average woman would simply not survive.  Men are often forced into this role of protector against our will and when we refuse we are shamed to high heaven.  Woman will use state thugs, divorce court and the church to force us provide for women we derive no benefit from.  Even though women need men they, and society at large, still considers us mostly disposable to be left to just drift off into oblivion.

Lastly, I am not disparaging female astronauts.  Sally Ride, who is probably the most famous of all of them, was a true asset to the astronaut core and from what I have read was extremely proficient at her profession.  She is a woman to be proud of.

 

Kate Upton

 

Just saying.

Advertisements

Maddy 078

A fun and yet informative article on why sex everyday is very good indeed for marriages.  I would suspect this same attitude would benefit any LTR as well.  It comes on the heels of The Spreadsheet Couples troubles which would not have occurred if the woman followed Meg Conley’s advice. I have to agree with much of what this writer said and would think that her marriage, like others where the wife has a healthy attitude about sex, are likely very happy not only in their marriages but in life as well.  Of course I am a man and when my lovers approach sex like this it does make the relationship oh so much better.

The most important thing I noticed is that in the comment section you can see the truth about our society’s general attitude about sex and specifically sex in marriage.  Our society’s women by an overwhelming majority had devolved its notions of human sexuality.  I expected to read that no man should ever expect sex and how being a mother is somehow so degrading and unempowering.  Well what the fuck is modern marriage for then?  I was of course not disappointed.  No wonder our birth rates are so low and our divorce rates are so high.  Why would a man want to reproduce with such a creature that is the modern empowered woman?  Unfortunately the plugged men in often do.  The comment section essentially became a tirade by these feminists and the dutiful white knights supporting them.  It’s fun to look at these men’s profiles and see that they are fat bastards with peculiar hobbies.  I will briefly mention that if white knights would stop reproducing already or just take the red pill it would go a long way to finally killing off feminism.  However it is only when we put controls back on women’s hypergamy will we see improvements.  Unfortunately it will require the help of the AFC’s and white knights to accomplish this.

The feminists completely freaked out over one statement the author made that being a mother is “one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood”.  That statement is actually highly accurate and I would think that being a mother IS the ultimate expression of womanhood.  The feminists and the white knights, who outnumber the rational folks by a very uncomfortable margin as they always seem to do, go on and on about how it is not right and somehow immoral to see women as having children and God forbid, want to have sex and desire to please their husbands, as the normal beautiful thing it is. When you see a woman who has a positive and healthy attitude about sex, you see her man as also happy and wanting to give her happiness and pleasure.  It’s a self feeding circle of marital bliss.  Several of these women also criticized the author’s over simplification of men’s basic needs, where she said that if we are well fed and well fucked, men are usually pretty happy.  I think many of these types of comments were made by women who simply didn’t want to have sex with their husbands.  I don’t think I can disagree with that statement because nothing says I love you to a man like an awesome sammich before or after some really good sex.

What is ironic is that the women who could not have children for whatever reason really fly off the handle.  Many comments open discuss this.  These women have finally realized that that they cannot have it all as they face the wall and spinsterhood.  Some will snag their beta, but as the words used in the comments, many remain unmarried.  I sense a lot of guilt and regret in those comments, but solipsism and the feminine imperative keeps them from acknowledging their own responsibility for their very own failures.  Many of these commentators then make claims that defy nature and biology.  What these women fail to realize is that their attitudes are hurting their own happiness.  When there is relational equality, there is bad sex and unhappy partners.  You can almost see the bitter tears through the comments.  What the comments from the women boiled down to was that they had all sorts of insecurities about not being attracted to, and attractive to their husbands, being infertile, not being able to orgasm and of course the whole working mother thing and all of its related stresses.  The ideology that these women so believe in is the very same belief system that is the source of all of their unhappiness.

Another issue I want to take to task is that you have many women’s comments speak of how hard it is to work and be a mother and wife.  It is easy to see that all of the working mothers really hate on the SAHM.  Maybe if they reduced their expenditures and did things more traditionally like, oh the woman stays at home and raises the children and takes care of her husband.  It is really out there to think like that, I know.  Modern women will have nothing to do with this notion because raising a family and keeping your man happy is degrading and goes against the branding of the Strong and Independent Woman™.

It has been shown over and over again, and this article just proves it yet again, that the typical modern woman hates everything about masculine sexuality.  That is the medium of the message that you will read in every article from the one above to this one where essentially the same things are discussed.

poss-sella

Ironically I found the above picture from a magazine article from the 1960’s on the same feminist’s blog.  These women there also criticize the wisdom of the advice given and even go so far as to claim that those values never really existed.  It when I read women talk about these issues I again am reminded that Feminism really is a mental disorder.

The commentators overwhelmingly bash on the one red pill guy who just happens to agree with me, yet he and his ardent supporters of rational thinkers were greatly outnumbered.  As I stated yesterday to a white knight defending feminine imperative:

It could be he was trying to gain their approval in an effort to test the waters because he thinks spanking might be a good idea (unlikely), or he was entering into their frame as a white knight so that he could show these women how great and special he is because he not like that sadistic monkey over at The Reinvention of Man who like to spank his lovers asses red and then have wild sex with them (likely)

Or as Rollo puts it:

“What interested me most about this ‘discussion’ wasn’t just the intensity of the responses, but also how quickly and comfortably the Plugins were in their need to set the “troglodytes” straight. You see, in our disconnected lives it’s much more difficult to express our ideology without real-time social repercussions. We can get fired from a job, kicked out of our social circle, excommunicated from church or not be asked back to the lady’s bridge club when we venture a disenting perspective on a great many topics.”

Essentially the majority of the comments by women call childbearing unnatural, degrading, and unnecessary.  I wonder what how they would react if their mothers though of them as disgusting little parasites, as some of these women called little babies.  Apparently these women failed their biology and sex-ed classes.

One woman tried to enter some logic into the exchange and actually gets close to seeing it.

Cameron Mcmahan , I feel sorry for you…Advice for future…When you are a guy, you cannot make any comment which can in the farthest sense be considered anti-feminist…No matter how valid it is….

I think that the point Mr. Cameron Mcmahan is trying to make is that every species has the main target to survive. There have been many scientific researches about it and have been extrapolated to human species…Why are peacocks beautiful?? Why does lion have a mane?? Why in every species the male is given the extra plumes to impress females?? That is nature’s law…. If you believe that human species is different then that is your opinion and it is equally valid whether me or Mr. Cameron Mcmahan agree with it or not.

Fertile or Infertile, the pleasure of holding , developing and if possible creating a life and a baby IS unbeatable…I have never felt as invincible as on the day the doctor held those tiny feet and told me that you are a mom now…I have friends who have adopted children and they felt the same way when they held their baby for the first time…

I don’t believe that both genders should be treated equal … because they are not “comparable”… I do not believe that creating a good marriage and having children is anyway demeaning…I, for one, am proud to have that role… And yeah, I have been a working woman for a pretty long time and DID give it up entirely by choice and to all the feminists, there is nothing bad about it…

If you do not wish to have children or cannot have children, its ok…you dont have to defend it…you do not need to prove anything to anyone…The fact that you are defending it just goes to show that you have some doubts about your decisions…

So this begs two questions. Is childbearing one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood, or is it THE ultimate expression?  And, would marriages be better if the wife was more giving in sex as an expression of her commitment, love and respect for her husband?

Sexless Marriage Series #2

The Spreadsheet Couple who received so much notoriety as of late as shown some very disturbing trends in how a large portion of American men and women think about sex, especially sex in marriage.

One issue as Dalrock recently brought up is the vagina’s power that women often then misuse with most men.  I agree that the nets reactions was based on the sudden loss of the wife’s V-power and all women’s sudden worry that their men would wake up and realize how tenuous their own power plays really were.  Go read Dalrock’s article and come back.

I will however disagree with Dalrock’s observations that women were only half hearted in their support of the wife.  The articles were essentially all the same, essentially telling us that this guy creates a spreadsheet because his wife didn’t want to have sex and that although she should have used better excuses, no man, and especially this lame ass, should ever expect sex from his wife or any women.  What I read was pretty much all female and most male writers supported the wife directly.

Another issue is the very disturbing trend that I have seen reading the comments on the various articles.   This trend is one of male entitlement to sex, specifically as it relates to the sexual dynamics within a marriage.  Feminist have been telling women that their body is theirs to do with as they please regardless of consequences or context.  At first this was directed towards abortion and the feminist’s belief that only women have a right to decide whether to kill their babies or not.  Of course the fathers feeling in the matter are irrelevant.  However, this same attitude spilled over into the sexual arena.  Now we read stories such as this where a wife consistently denies sex to her husband and he is then compelled to document her refusals and reasons in a spreadsheet.  Instead of working on her marriage WITH her husband, she runs off and posts the spreadsheet and her brief story in the net hoping to garner the support of her sisters.  We then see women and their male supporters come out of the woodwork in droves supporting this woman using the same logic that a woman has an absolute right and even an obligation to refuse sex to her husband anytime she does not feel like it.  The modern woman and mangina really do believe that a woman should NEVER put out if she did not immediate desire sex and that sex should ONLY occur if she wants it.  Of course a lot of blame was laid at the husband’s feet because he approached his wife everyday for sex.  Apparently men are not supposed to do that either.

Now we all know, or should know, that you don’t “ask” a woman for sex, you initiate sex with her.  Oh, I can hear those feminists yelling rape already. Speaking of which, the feminists and manginas often state that anytime any man, husbands included, cajoles, pesters or negotiates for sex it is rape when the woman finally gives it up so her man will shut up about it.  Although I find having to pester any woman for sex unacceptable and I would never do that, I do not think such a thing is rape.  I need to write about what rape is and what it is not.  I know that essay will piss a lot of people off.

So what are a woman’s rights and obligations in regards to her husbands or boyfriends sexual desires and needs?  As I stated before, MEN NEED SEX.  I am not talking about duty sex which is lame and is usually less satisfying than looking at porn and jerking off, I am talking about good mutually enthusiastic and satisfying sex.  Without regular quality sex men will normally drift away from his spouse emotionally.  In time he may want nothing to do with her.  This happened to me. My now ex wife always maintained the belief that men are not owed sex and we ended up drifting far apart, so much so that I had zero desire to even try to reconcile with her after she left.  Needless to say our sex life was lame, I looked at porn, she pulled a Jenny Erickson and left.  On the other hand an ex girlfriend of mine not only told me she believed her job was to keep me utterly satisfied, our sex life was such that I had no thoughts of looking at porn and we even adopted the practice that every orgasm we each had would be with the other person.  No more going solo.  She didn’t care if I looked at porn, but we both wanted to share ourselves with each other all of the time.  Simply put, she derived satisfaction by tending to my needs and I derived satisfaction tending to her.  Yes there were times I didn’t want to have sex but because I cared for her I did it willingly and enthusiastically and I’m sure there were times she didn’t want to have sex also.  Ok maybe not, but she still would have had sex anyways.  Another thing to mention is that by cuming inside her pretty much every time I think the bond between us was greatly increased.  Also, regular sex keeps our man parts in good working order and we do feel discomfort and even pain if we have to go too long.  Either way men’s bodies are designed to have sex and ejaculate very regularly.

As Dalrock puts it:

A wife who almost never wants to have sex with her husband is a terrible wife.  As with a slut, only a foolish man would (knowingly) fall in love with a frigid woman.  However, unlike the slut she isn’t even desirable.  A frigid wife is powerless, undesirable, and (romantically) unlovable.  This recognition is what so horrified women around the world when the spreadsheet went viral.

We know that some women will refuse sex often, even when she wants it in order to leverage the power of her pussy.  However this is not the way God or nature intended things to work.  Reading Dalrock’s statement above we see that a frigid wife is a bad wife, a woman not even deserving of our love.  He is right.  Even the ones who “claim” they do cook, clean, etc. unless they are tending to her husband’s sexual needs she is still a bad wife.  You can hire out most of a wife’s other duties, but sex should not be one of them.  Sex is the only bio-chemical bonding a couple will experience.  I have yet to meet or hear about a sexless couple that is happy with two normal adults.  Although no woman seems to understand her own body as well as she should, that is fine because the amateur gynecologist is here.  Reading the comments from Scarymommy’s article it is easy to deduce that sex reinforces the bond between a loving monogamous couple such as a husband and wife.  You will read many of the wives report that they feel so much closer to their husbands with the more sex they have with them.  Without getting into the science, let me say that the science backs this up.  I just made a Walsism, oops.  Anyways, I will save the scientific details for another essay I am working on because it’s that important and it’s interesting.

A wife owes her husband sex.  Even in other committed and monogamous relationship sex is owed to the other partner.  We explored the health benefits and the benefits to the relationship.  Let’s now look at another issue the feminist will certainly scream about.  Us men we work hard for ourselves and our families.  Oftentimes we sacrifice our happiness by not doing things we would rather do or work a job we would enjoy more but the pay would be much less.  Also when we get married we EXPECT that there will be regular and enthusiastic sex with our wives as much as reasonably possible.  For the promise of our commitment, which men honor way more than the modern women does, we want sex, which is also part of the promise and commitment on the part of the woman.  What we do not want is to be the second man eating off of the same plate, which all too often happens.  Married women and women in committed monogamous relations have a responsibility to have a genuine desire, and to actually have sex with their men.  She owes it to him for his commitment to her and in exchange for his work.  If she no longer is sexually attracted to him then she should end the marriage and refuse to take any of his assets when she leaves.  In other words a woman might have to fake it, yes I know, but if she truly loves him her negotiated desire will likely change to the genuine desire which is so important in any couples relationship.  When a woman marries or otherwise commits to a man she loses her right to continually say no.  If she has a medical condition that makes sex difficult she needs to address it immediately.

One thing about control and feminism as it pertains to this instant issue.  Feminism and by extension pretty much all American women desire to control men’s sexuality.  They will use their frigidity, or refusals to have sex, their anti-porn stance, and of course the all too common tactic of using sex as currency.  All of this boils down to not just women attempting to control men’s sexuality but women controlling the whole man.  If you have a woman like this it’s simply better to leave.  It will suck at first but in the end a man will be better off.  I have noticed that many frigid women and women who use sex as power have deep emotional issues and unresolved baggage in their lives.  All you have to do is talk to a feminist pansexual woman for only a few moments to smell the psychosis.  One study pegged over 20% of American women fall into this category.  Unfortunately these same women can behave themselves long enough to snare an unwitting man into a relationship with them.  As I said before the man should just leave her.  If for whatever personal or financial reasons a man decides to stay, he will have to game the shit out of her hard and be at the peak of his own emotional strength.

His name is Robert Lindsay.  Yesterday I posted an essay about his criticism of Game and his personal attacks on various writers in the sphere.  I commented on the essay he wrote pertaining to the same subject.  I thought we had a good back and forth going on at first as I was thinking he just did not get some of the basic premises of Game theory and so forth.  However after reading more about him I see that he is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and probably some sort of narcissistic disorder because he thinks everything in the world should be fair and men shouldn’t have to change or be engaging in order to succeed with women all the while attempting to learn Game himself.  It’s weird actually.  I guess he wants to still be able to be a dweeb and score with hot chicks.  It was no surprise that I found out he is a radical liberal and a Communist.  Like all liberals he lives in a fantasy land and he is a hypocrite because anyone who disagrees with him is an asshole then banning them if they have a “hostile tone”.  I have to LOL this one.

Anyways, throughout his blog in almost every article he bans someone and anyone he disagrees with.  I suppose I should have not been surprised that he banned me for disagreeing with him and then calling me an asshole.  I truly wanted to help him because looking at his picture and reading his articles; he needs all the help he can get.  But like it has always been stated, some men you just can’t help.

Below are my comments to him and his responses.  There is value in that it may help those trying to overcome their misunderstanding or objections to Game. Or we can just have a quick laugh at the weird guy’s expense.  Whatever dude.

 

Robert Lindsay

August 5, 2014 at 4:41 AM

To me, a 10 is simply a woman in the Top 10% of attractiveness. That’s all there is to it, real simple.

Game isn’t futile. But the notion that all men can be Alphas is insanity, and this what the whole lunatic PUAshpere is all about. It’s madness.

Nevertheless, I think most guys would do better to learn some of the principles of Game and to try to be more Alpha. The more you learn Game and the more Alpha you act, I think the more success you are going to have with women.

That whole PUAsphere is absolutely repulsive. I don’t even see how you guys can read any of that shit. SMFH.

Also, how come 100% of Game and PUA sites are run by reactionaries?! Why do all Game and PUA sites have be part of some shit called the Alt Right (the modern reactionary movement). Game is simply the truth. Why don’t progressive men need to learn this stuff too? I mean the truth is that many of us Left guys have always known a lot of this stuff, and personally I have been practicing a lot of this Game stuff for 35 years now, but still, it is sickening that the only websites we can go to to talk about how to get girls are run by reactionary shits and misogynist fucks. Sickening.

 

monkeywerks

August 5, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Really dude?  The common sites promoting game promote nothing more than positive masculinity and self improvement in one flavor or another. Maybe it’s that that you really have a problem with? Improving one’s self often leads to more attention from women. Its cause and effect. For the moralist they can choose the best women to date, have sex with, marry, etc. For amoral men they may choose to bang as many of these women as they can.

The biggest issue I see that you have is that you seem to think that these writers think much less of men who would be considered “beta” or “lesser alphas”. Now I can see why it’s funny to make fun of men who are “omegas” and such. (I use these terms loosely of course). The omegas seem to want to keep their head in the sand and deny the existence of many of our current problems by just wishing they did not exist. Many of these same men will choose to criticize Game in all of its formats instead of spending their time improving themselves or going out and actually meeting women.


Anyways back to my point. Roissy, Vox, Deti, and all of the others seem to have a genuine interest in helping the betas and even the omegas improve themselves and improve their success with women. I have been an avid reader of many sites in the sphere for quite some time and very rarely if ever do I see the vitriol you expressly state exists.

Although I have always had pretty good experiences meeting women I do not consider myself a womanizer or great alpha by any means. However I still met many a HB8 and above and married a woman who objectively was considered a HB9. She is tall, blue with long blonde hair and has a high IQ. Unfortunately it was my BETA mindset and her feminist ideology that led to the failure of the marriage. Not that I’m sorry about it because it’s what I learned from these sites that helped me to realize what a catch I am and helped me to be even more successful at meeting new higher quality women.

As for the other issues you bring up, I will say that your take is very debatable and conflict with my own personal observations and experiences. Even my wife had to prove herself to me when we first started dating because I was dating several other women at the same time. She didn’t like it of course but I think that it increased her attraction to me. That’s the way it works in reality it seems.

Robert Lindsay

August 6, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Trust me, I have no truck with masculinity of self-improvement and trust me, Game sites go far beyond that.

You want to give me a reason why all PUA sites are swarming with the most horrible misogyny? You want to give me a fucking reason why I have to be a Godddamn reactionary to sharpen my pickup skills? You want to give me a reason why most Game sites not only hate women but also hate men who don’t make much money (See the Libertarianism) and people who aren’t White (notice that at this point most of the PUA idiots are White nationsists if not overt fucking Nazis). You want to give me a reason why most of these PUA tools are insanely narcissistic if not sociopathic? You want to give me a reason why all PUA advocate treating women like shit? You want to point out these PUA sites that don’t advocate being a promiscuous player Alpha and instead teach you how to settle down with your wife? You want to name me one fuckin site like that?

Ok, now you see my beefs.

You may not believe this but I read these sites myself, and of course I practice Game myself. If you knew about my life, you would realize that I was already practicing “Game” in the late 1970’s in my teens (all of us were – we had to be). A lot of this is stuff you already know or have been doing anyway. There is some new stuff there and I have been taking notes from all of these Game sites all the time. I agree that they have a lot of cruel and awful truths to tell, and I agree that your life tends to go better with Game.

Now you see that I am part of the Loyal Opposition maybe you will calm down.

I am very happy you used Game to have a happier and more productive relationship with your current girl and with the ones who came before. I myself am using Game to improve my relationships. My beef is not with Game per se but with some of the subaspects of it and mostly with the fucktards who peddle it.

You seem to be implying that most men would do better if they tried to be more “Alpha” in their behaviors, no matter how the Alpha – Beta – Omega scorecard plays out when the whistle blows. I agree. Alphas, Betas and Omegas can probably all improve their lives with women by employing variations of Game.

As you can see, we are actually on the same page here.

monkeywerks

August 6, 2014 at 1:18 AM

Angry much? For one Dalrock promotes relationship game within a Christian context while also promoting a more moral execution of game theory. He does not advocate male promiscuity. I would love to emulate his marriage. Rollo Tomassi is another who speaks a lot about gender dynamics while leaving out politics and most personal experiences. That is 2 sites instead of just 1 like you asked for.
As for your accusation of misogyny well I think your opinion is quite subjective because your premise is faulty. How about we talk about misandry?
The blacks have their own sites. Furthermore blacks and whites approach mating and gender dynamics differently. Learn about black’s intergender dynamics pre and post Reconstruction Acts then report back. Your findings will surprise you. Also, there is no rule saying I have to write my essays in such a way as to encourage readers from other races. That’s just pure PC bullshit. Otherwise none of these sites are fundamentally racists. Point to a specific example of blatant racism, if you can.


As for your issue of Game being reactionary. We all react to outside forces. When there is a bad storm coming I close the windows to my house. Game is a reaction to feminism (of all flavors) and the harmful effects it created and the harmful ideologies it inspired in women and to mangina type men. You come out strongly saying that the men who successfully use game in their mating strategies are sociopathic, well considering that the newspeak for otherwise normal behaviors is now considered bad I’m not surprised you make that accusation. It’s wrong though to the extent that the behaviors are developed and controlled. Most powerful and successful men have some or many of these so called traits. Its natural human behaviors in a certain subset of our population. You do not have to like the fact for the fact to be true.


Poverty is a state of mind. I actually currently broke, but I’m not poor. I have made money and I have struggled financially as I’m currently doing so now. My current situation does not affect my ability to meet high quality women to any great degree. When I have more money, sure its easier but that’s just common sense. More money makes you more attractive to women. However for those of us with less we have to compensate with our awesome personality.

Simply, game works. Men without game don’t get laid, at least not very often and usually not with quality women. Love it or hate it, that’s just the way it is.

You have obviously invested heavily in your opinions and your subsequent hate of all things Game related even though you use it. Some of my most important advisers I do not like personally. However that does not change the validity of their info or knowledge. I see value for what it is, where it is.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest of you to criticize Game and its advocates while practicing the techniques it promotes. If not for those men we would not have learned what we have and our lives would be less rich for it. You should be grateful they spend the time they do to write and compile the information they put out, sometimes at a personal expense.


As the old saying goes, love the player, hate the game.


I see you trying to couple your liberal ideology with game theory and it various flavors. I see that this may be creating a sort of dissonance in you. Us smart guys sometimes have a problem with this. However your resistance to things is a normal symptom of taking the red pill and in time it will pass. It’s a hard thing to reevaluate ones belief system and find out that there oh so many pretty lies.
There is more I can write but I’m tired. One last thought. I have read many of the comments to your articles and what I see is a lot of men who refuse to accept the truth and the reality about how the world works and thus probably do not succeed to any great degree with women. Life’s not fair and it certainly as hell aint equal.

 

Robert Lindsay

August 6, 2014 at 2:40 AM

Look I am banning you. Your presence here suffices to prove to me that almost all of you Game characters are assholes. You are also violating the Comments Rules. Hostile tone.

HAND!

By: MonkeyWerks

This is a response to this essay by The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo which I found quite interesting as it correlates to events in my personal life.  I was going to comment on her blog but, well, I can be quite verbose so I posted here.  She is worth checking out though.  She has written several very good articles I am sure would be of interest to all of you as well.

Both men and women do in fact change during the course of a marriage, especially a long one of many years.  However I do not think they change from who they fundamentally are. After thinking about this subject a few years back I determined that people do not change who they are, they really just become better versions of themselves.  If a woman has a certain set of beliefs, values and ideologies, she will normally, and I have never seen anything to the contrary, keep and modify those long held beliefs and ideologies and wrap them up in different packaging in order to justify whatever decisions she makes or had made in the past. I see this most often in women who start going to church or those who become “born again”.  These women will oftentimes use the bible to justify whatever decision they need to make even ones that ultimately hurt her family and in many circumstances actually contradict long held biblical doctrine and teachings.

In my personal experiences the women I have met and knew intimately held the same core beliefs from their late teens up to their present ages 10 and 20 years later.  Those beliefs allowed them to make irresponsible decisions in the past and are the same beliefs that heavily influence their present behaviors but with the added justification and moral cover of their “new” found religious beliefs.  This provides them the moral cover for such irresponsible and harmful decisions such as justifying adultery or frivolously divorcing their husbands.

As for Matt Walsh, I think Walsh caters to women and the feminine imperative to the detriment of positive masculine values which in turn is utterly harmful to whatever future we may have as a society.  Yes I am giving him far too much credit in his influence, but what he writes about and HOW he states things is the message that is far too common in supposed conservative circles.  Walsh will discourage a man from divorcing his wife who is not performing her duties in the marriage (sex) yet from the other side of his mouth gives women the moral cover telling them it’s ok to divorce your husband just because he looks at porn, because looking at porn=adultery, which of course is usually just a symptom of the wife not doing her wifely duties (sex), getting fat, being a bitch in general, etc.  He thinks all women are princesses yet we have never in history seen more feral females than what is now the prevalent female persona in our society. Women today are anything but special snowflake princess angels.

Women will divorce their husbands who, for no other reason, no longer get their juices flowing and who are great men, husbands and fathers and who are very committed to their marriages and work their asses off for their families.  The modern church supports all of these women whatever their excuses may be for nuking her marriage and blowing up her family.  She commits adultery, it’s ok, your husband was not paying enough attention to you, he lost his job, it’s cool with us, little princess needs a new husband who makes more, you were promiscuous before marriage and yet you refuse to give your husband head because you blew an entire football team one night at a party, its ok, your forgiven and shame on your husband for demanding you do that for him.  Don’t you know that husbands are not entitled to sex with their wives.  It makes no difference that he took a HUGE chance in marrying a reformed (cough) slut, and you never told him the truth about your sordid sexual past anyways and lied when you told him you only had sex with that one guy when your partner count could be a who’s who of your old neighborhood, high school and college campus. I can use numerous examples but we have all heard and read about the stories.

I want to highlight a particular section of the authors essay and respond to it in detail.

SEXUAL CHANGES I think, are probably the most common kind of change that occurs in a marriage, with usually one spouse deciding that they don’t like or need sex anymore, and refusing to try to fix the problem because it would inconvenience them to be told that they have an obligation to meet their spouse’s sexual needs. 

ROM: This happens pretty much exclusively with the wife.  She is no longer attracted to her husband and really just found sex with him repulsive.  Many women see no need to having sex with their husbands after they have children.  Today’s churches do not correctly teach what the bible clearly states about sexual obligations and responsibilities of both husbands and wives.  The husband owns his wife’s body and likewise his wife owns her husband’s body and that they NEED to come together (have sex) often enough to diminish or eliminate sexual temptations.  What the modern femcentric church and our society teach women is that men should NEVER have any expectations to sex with their wives, or any woman for that matter.  This deprives the other spouse what is lawfully theirs and is inherently sinful.  This will often times lead men to look at porn and in some cases actual affairs.

What seems to be common, although unspoken about in any church or by any marriage counselor is that many of these woman have had sexual adventures prior to the marriage. She may have had 1 or 50, it matters by degrees.  If she is an alpha widow with even only 1 or 2 previous sexual partners who were the proverbial hawt alphas she can be as damaged, by her inability to pair bond, as the woman who has had numerous casual sexual encounters. 

There are even marriages where a wife (although it can be the other way as well) tells her husband to have a mistress, and to be ok with allowing someone else to meet his needs in that way.  I was listening to Dennis Prager, a Jewish radio talk show host, (and the inspiration for this post), when he pointed out that the U.S. is practically the only country or culture who looks down on this kind of behavior, that in most other countries, having mistresses is a normal (acceptable if kept quiet) thing. 

ROM: It had been well documented that women like men who other women like.  Its called pre-selection.  Most women will not overtly tell you to cheat, but they want to know that you can at any time.  This makes them really tingle down there.  In most other countries men and women do not hold to the outdated puritanical view of sexuality and nudity as we American do, however this does not necessarily mean that they have more sex or are more promiscuous.  (I have to research this still) It means that they accept the nude human form for its innate beauty.  Yes, I could totally be a nudist, although I am pretty conservative on most other things.  Women will line up for 5 minutes from an alpha man before settling for 10 years of a beta chump.  Male infidelity is also so much less harmful than female infidelity for a host of reasons, the man unknowingly raising a child not his own just one of them. 

Obviously, if you’re Christian, you know this is not the way God intended for marriage to be.  Monogamy can be wonderful if you have a spouse who understands what they’ve committed to, and is able to maintain a healthy sex life in your marriage.  Or monogamy can mean a life sentence of sexual frustration, or even celibacy! 

ROM: Even in the bible there is NOT ONE MENTION requiring a man to remain a virgin until marriage.  In fact many of the men in the bible had actual or soft harems.  Is it realistic to emulate that in today’s society?  Sure it is.  Is it Christian?  Probably not?  Could it benefit a marriage where the wife rejects her husband’s sexual needs?  If the marriage has devolved to this point and the man is just trying not to get divorce raped, yes.  I would state though that it is better to first NEVER MARRY and then if married to such a woman, its past time to leave her.

One important thing to realize however is that healthy stable women will take care of their husbands needs out of love for him, self sacrifice and submission.  This is true even for non-believing women who practiced discretion in their lives regarding their sexual urges prior to being married.

There is something beautiful and wonderful about one woman who you love above all others fulfilling your every desire and fantasy. I do still believe that is what God intended.  He did not intend for women to become “born again” sluts who now act like their pussy is gold and the only position now acceptable is missionary once a month.

Both men and women are designed to have sex and enjoy it…ALOT!!  Celibacy forced or otherwise is unnatural and even harmful. 

Either way, when one spouse changes in this way, it is incredibly unfair to the other, and usually leads to affairs and divorce.

ROM: Any man who is not getting what he needs from his wife in quantity and quality, aside from childbirth, sickness, and only a few other justifiable reason should consider leaving his marriage after balancing the risks vs. rewards of divorce.  In this modern feminist environment no man owes a woman anything, especially when he is not getting his basic needs met.

The best thing to do in this situation is to try to convince the spouse to go to counseling to save the marriage, to understand what marriage even means.  Most times, the spouse who loses sexual interest doesn’t understand how much it truly affects the other.  Counseling can sometimes open their eyes so to speak, however, there are many times that even counseling doesn’t prompt the spouse to change, and the other is left with a lifetime of misery and frustration – or choosing to divorce and find someone who cares about their needs. (original authors emphasis)

ROM: Marriage counseling is an absolute waste of time for men. Most women do not have any sense of empathy for what their husbands need from them.  Men who go to counseling will only get henpecked by not 1 but 2 people (his wife and the counselor) about all the things he is doing wrong, which if changed still will not fix the marriage in the majority of cases. Women will never outright state what she needs from a man.  He is expected to “Just Get It”.

Religion caused the breakup of my marriage.  My feminist ex-wife joined a church that matched her feminist beliefs but with a cover of “Jesus loves you and you can do no wrong” and “you are forgiven so you don’t have to take responsibility for your action” or “suffer the consequences”.  Of course this covers 90% of Protestant denominations.  When her church’s teaching conflicted with my mission, goals and plans for my family I finally told her we are, as a family, going to join another church.  Yes of course her input would not only sought out but encouraged in that search.  Instead she argued some nonsense that was preached the previous Sunday.  She left the next morning and she never came back except to get her stuff.  I can’t make this stuff up.

The last time I checked the bible stated pretty plainly the man was the spiritual head of the family.  I guess her church never got around to that particular lesson in the 5+ years she attended there.

If your wife changes and becomes a better version of herself based upon long held feminist ideologies, beliefs and values, and external influences such as religion, a particular church, her workplace or friends are causing her to behave irresponsibly and detrimentally to the family and the marriage, it may be time to call it quits.

Although I personally detest divorce, I would never discourage a man from leaving his wife if she “changes” and is no longer an overall asset to his life or his mission.  Too many men remain married to nagging, obese, overbearing and unpleasant women who shorn their hair and take deliberate action to eliminate whatever femininity they used to posses.   Marriage 1.0 is forever gone and along with it any duty a man may have had towards his wife.  Modern women do not think they have any responsibility in the marriage save for telling her husband what he is doing wrong and as one woman actually told me “the only problem I have with what you’re doing right now is that it’s not what I want you to be doing”.  Needless to say we are no longer together.  I was surprised at her honesty though.  In most cases I would always counsel against men ever getting married.  It’s just not worth the risk, and it can be just as or more rewarding to remain single than risk losing it all in divorce court.

Changes in behaviors never occur in a vacuum.  There are usually outside influences.  We need to be observant in the behavior changes in our wives.  It could indicate a bigger problem is afoot.

To the author, you seem like you give of yourself and your body freely to your husband as he desires.  If you do, I commend you from the bottom of my heart.  I hope you can influence the younger woman you meet to do the same.  Even though I do not always agree with all of your observations I do enjoy reading your perspective on these important topics and hope that you continue to share your words with us.  By the way, Thank You for the concern you showed for me a few months ago, a little caring even from a stranger meant a lot to me.

By: MonkeyWerks

I was directly criticized by Jesse Powell in this article on Secular Patriarchy concerning an essay I wrote explaining how women never fully appreciate the sacrifices we make for them as men and how a man living a simpler life free from the obligations and insistent demands of a woman might be something worth working towards.  Because of the issues he raised, I think a response was warranted if for no other reason but to point out he is an uber white knight beta and to expose the movement as one that promotes beliefs that are really quite harmful.  Plus I wanted to stretch my legs, ok my fingers, a bit before I wrote about more important topics.

I have never had one of my essays ripped apart by a pseudo feminism writer before.  Maybe I’m finally getting to the big time.  I actually had to read some of his articles to see what this person or movement was all about because I do try to be intellectually honest.  I was bit shocked at what I read, although I probably shouldn’t have been.  When I first started reading I thought a woman wrote it.  I now know the article criticizing me came from a man although the writing sounded very female-eqe at first.  The shaming language was as such that I normally expect from a female writer who have nothing more substantial to say than for me to “man up” and give everything that I own now and in the future to my ex wife or to any other woman who blesses me access to their warm and moist nether regions.

Apparently the ideology Secular Patriarchy promotes is nothing more than feminism in sexy panties where the woman benefits from the sweat, labors and protection of the man while having to give very little in return.  Actually this is what mainstream feminism and most American say women really want, however they usually only respond sexually to the skittles man.  The only differences between regular feminism and SP are that the woman stays at home and does not contribute to the household finances and the man must somehow “protect” the woman even up to needlessly putting his own life in danger.  As one commentator pointed out that Powell made a grand pretense that no (male) expense should be spared for women’s (supposed) protections.  This assertion goes along with a really disturbing statement I found that Powell made in that he promotes the idea that men SHOULD be so against rape that even in the case of a false rape accusations he believes that men should still be willing to be imprisoned, to serve the greater good, which is serving women at ANY cost (to men).  Powell believes that men should simply put all women on pedestals, worship them, and for men to serve all women, and as the woman sees fit mind you.  He goes on to explain that men should work their tails off to provide for woman’s lifestyles and all of the woman’s wants, desires and comforts without requiring them to contribute or even reciprocate.  He calls this unconditional chivalry.  He actually states that women are superior to men in many ways.  His value of men is so low that his beliefs do not even spare men from being falsely accused of crimes.  Personally, I would rather 1000 alleged rapist go free instead of even 1 man be falsely accused or imprisoned.

Sunshine Mary invited him to debate his beliefs on her site in April of 2013.  The comments there were lively and tended to destroy the assertions he was attempting to make.  Powell claims to be an atheist and states that he loves women and serves God, but it’s obvious that his god is really women the feminine imperative, and the ideology he promotes.  He further elaborates this point, but it becomes clear that his beliefs that what he states is unbiblical and goes against the natural order of things.   It’s interesting that even atheists try to distance themselves from him.  He does seem very schizophrenic in his theology.  Seeing as he is a ardent supporter of Mark Driscoll’s incessant “man up” and white knightery sermons its no surprise that many of his beliefs promote the feminine imperative in such a grotesque fashion.

Although it became pretty painful to read because he had genuine problems common with nice guys and beta males but he just took the wrong road in trying to fix the problems. I was able to learn a good bit about him by reading several of his articles.

He admits to being a feminist since a very young age and being raised by a domineering feminist mother who likely subjected his father to never ending belittlement.  I am sure the example his father set for him growing up was that of a passive and submissive man.  He states that he was a feminist until his mid 20’s when he started believing in Secular Patriarchy.

He apparently had a rough time in high school where he did not have many friends, and that he also had difficulty meeting girls and getting them to go out with him.  He also stated that he was afraid of the girls in school reacting adversely to him expressing his “strong” feeling the girls “inspired” in him.  He goes on to explain he never had a girlfriend until he was 17 years old and failed with women until he became involved in the patriarchy movement in his mid 20’s.  I think it should be noted that his experiences with women in 11th and 12th grade influences his belief system today so much so he dedicates an entire essay to it.  Below are a few excerpts that illuminate why Powell thinks the way that he does:

Of course it is not enough to just admire and think good thoughts about women from afar. At some point I have to “get close” to women and try to actually get a woman to like me and form an actual real relationship with a woman. This is where things got a bit more difficult. I had partial success I would say in high school but not real success. There was always a barrier I couldn’t overcome or get through. I was not “good enough.” I did not have enough to offer. I could not compete with my competition.

My rejection by women in high school was the beginning of me wanting to “improve myself” and to try to figure out a way I could actually be of value in a woman’s life. I loved women plenty, I could definitely give my love to a woman and be nice to her and be concerned about her and care about her and stuff like that but that wasn’t enough. I had to have something “more” that I could offer, what this “more” was exactly was not so easy for me to figure out and was even harder for me to actually develop and possess. Still I had to be more and possess more and give more somehow.

Being rejected by the woman I was primarily interested in in high school gave me a greater respect for women and for her needs and her legitimate interests as a woman in particular. Being rejected by her instilled in me a greater sense of duty and commitment to her and towards women overall. I failed her, I didn’t have enough to offer her, I didn’t love her enough in the concrete ways I should have loved her. I was too focused on myself and not enough focused on her well being as a woman.

More from his essay:

In high school I never viewed myself as being “dominant,” the thought would have turned my stomach I am sure. I would have thought of such an “assertion of power” as being cruel and a betrayal of the woman I loved and wanted to be in a relationship with and I would have assumed such a power assertion would have been a great threat and a great turn off to the woman likely leading me to be promptly dumped which would have been a big disaster for me….

Nobody in my life; neither my family nor anyone at school nor any messages from the wider culture; ever taught me how to be a man. Nobody gave me the slightest clue how to treat women or what my role in relation to women was or that I had any kind of duties towards women whatsoever. On the contrary I received negative messages about masculinity meant to undermine me and weaken me and attack any positive protective or assertive impulses I had within myself towards women.

(Emphasis mine)

He explains how until his “conversion” he would “do anything to get whatever woman he liked to like him and be his girlfriend” and admits that there was a “shield” that prohibited him in getting too close to his love interests.  He speaks about how he thinks he could not compete with the other boys because “he was not good enough” or did not have enough to offer women.  He goes on explaining that after high school any relationships he did find himself in “fizzled” very quickly and his ability to meet women was even weaker than when he was in high school.

His conversion to this belief system is based on his inner conversations of what he THOUGHT he had to offer a woman (and what he incorrectly thought women wanted) in any relationship with him.  He ended up having “strong desires” to take care of and provide for a few particular women he had strong feelings for, which he ends up admitting was idealistic.  He then decided that he wanted his future wife to stay home, raise children and take care of the home while he worked.  In his words he wanted to “take care of” and “give a good life” to the woman he loved.

He explained that he “kept an eye on“and “noticed” the girls he was interested in.  The way he explained it gave me the stalker creepy feeling.  I can just imagine how he makes the women who are the target of his attentions feel.  The biggest thing I noticed in his essay about how high school girls shaped his current belief system concerning women in general is that it is an internal dialogue he has had with himself over the years and yet he still remains perplexed that reality does not follow his internal thoughts and desires on how women SHOULD act towards him.  Instead of having a different and more positive dialogue with himself he essentially states that he has determined that if he just serves women enough, is a nice enough guy they might just like him…someday.

What happened is Powell was an Incel and instead of learning game and the other related skills to improve his success with women he modified his lifelong indoctrination of the feminist belief system he was exposed too to include “taking care of” and overtly worshiping at the altar of the feminine goddess, thinking that maybe that will get him what he wants, a woman to love him.  He became an uber white knight and now promotes an ideology he called “unconditional chivalry”. I just cannot see him actually engaging with real women and testing his theories out.  It seems that instead of going out in the world, learning new skills and adapting one’s own personality in such a way as to get some success with women he turned his belief system into his own personal religion.

 

My Response to Him

I figured I would respond to him because the beliefs he espouses are potentially harmful as to how they sound pretty good on the surface with the woman staying at home, raising children, doing yoga to stay hot and sexy and supposedly making sammiches, but the underlying theme of his beliefs are quite sinister indeed as they are nothing but pretty lies covering up how feminism and all of its different denominations have perverted what should be the natural order to how men and women interact and relate in successful and happy relationships and in a successful society.  Another reason I was compelled to respond is that far too many men believe in this nonsense to one degree or another.  It should be clear by now, at least to readers of the sphere’ that in order for men to attract women they need to adopt a certain set of behaviors.  We call this Game.  Powell’s romanticized view of chivalry and men’s servitude towards women will do nothing for men (and in fact women) but lead them to heart break.

Women in general have an attitude of what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.  I have noticed this in not only my relationships, but in the relationships of other couples I know as well.  Sometimes it is overt and sometimes this attitude is quite subtle but it is always there.

As one of my oft repeated saying from an ex states “you are just not doing what I want you to be doing”, women demand from us our resources and will often use every trick and deception to acquire them.  The woman in question wanted me to make a six figure income again even though at the time it would have had adverse health consequences for me and of course taken up all of my time.  The issue with her was not that she was lazy and wouldn’t help.  She was a very motivated and ambitious woman, which I happen to like.  The issue was the amount of income I would need to generate to pay for discretionary expenses such as her 2 horses.  Also she was adamant about have a large amount of money in saving right away (within 24 months).  It’s good to have a large savings but if you read my other essays where I described parts of our relationship you will see that there was already assets and cash set aside, it was just disproportionally hers.  She didn’t want to invest HER assets in our future plans as much as she wanted me to invest mine.  In this day and age I have no problem letting a woman do half the work, nor am I concerned if a woman makes more money than me.  I brought more than enough to the table in many other ways to more than make up for my lesser income.  In the end she wanted me to provide her a lifestyle that would have enslaved me.  It takes more than big tits and a nice ass.  Thanks but no thanks.

The woman that Powell speaks of is the proverbial Proverbs 31 woman who, by and large, do not exist in any discernibly large numbers in today’s society.  To give proper credit where due, I would say my ex wife tried hard to be that woman but her feminized church and feminist beliefs prohibited her from realizing her potential greatness.  The modern woman will always desire more and more stuff, which necessitates her husband producing more and more resources so she can have more stuff.  She will also demand through her action that her husband Game her hard at all times. It sounds like a bad deal for any man in any marital or cohabitation environment.

Powell was unable to grasp the basic understanding of my essay in that women as a gender do not understand the sacrifices we make for them and our children, nor do they appreciate the amount of work required to generate the substantial resources required to keep them fed, clothed and reasonably happy.  That’s ok though, we have, as men, been under appreciated for a few generations now.  However, we as men do have the choice to either give of ourselves to worthy women or not give anything to unworthy women.  We have no duty in either case.  I realized some time ago I am no longer obligated to give my resources to any particular woman.  Once a woman decided she no longer wanted to part of a man’s life (read have sex with the man) she no longer gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor.  I think it’s best for the majority of men to just be single and have sex with various women, or even in a committed monogamous relationship while not having to pay for women’s shit, or taking it for that matter.  If the man desires children than its best to raise the child(ren) in an intact family structure and live with the children’s mother, but still remain unmarried and protect his assets and freedom.

The main crux of my original essay was, as I will now explain Barney Style, is that instead of men working so hard they cannot enjoy their lives and have the time to pursue their other interests while still relatively young, why not consider living such a lifestyle where a man needs to only work part of the time (or as little as reasonably necessary) to provide adequate resources for himself and in my case my children only.  As in my experiences I have found a man can be quite happy doing this.

It may take some actual work at home if so inclined, such as growing your own food in a large garden, raising some livestock, learning to can and preserve food, learn another skilled trade that you always wanted to learn, etc, it is work that a man CHOOSES to do that benefits him and him alone and work that he really enjoys.  If a man has a wife or SO and she assists him in HIS mission, goals and endeavors, great!  Make it a family affair I say, so much the better, four hands are better than 2.  However in many circumstances the woman desires material goods that are unnecessary and from my observations these women have zero desire to assist the man in creating the resources.  In many cases it takes a man working so much more than necessary in order to acquire the resources to purchase the material goods, which were as originally stated, unnecessary in order to satisfy the woman.

Seeing as I do not rely on any particular woman to assist me, nor would I ever do so, I do these things myself and with my children.  I have friends that often assist and they share in production and the bounty of our activities.

The important thing is that my essay was primarily about how women today do not appreciate men’s sacrifices.  They demand the men in their lives to produce in ever increasing increments so that they may live a life of ease and comfort, all the while sacrificing the man, his health in many cases and the mans time.  Why would a man give his agency, his production, resources and his leisure time to a woman who will in the end not fully appreciate it?  Some men do choose to do this to their detriment; however I choose to live for me instead.  My children obviously benefit from my works by learning valuable skills they can use in the future if they so choose to emulate their fathers quest for personal independence.  They also have the coolest pets and eat natural foods. Powell criticizes me for “squandering” my time instead of directing all of my time to activities that would always benefit a woman.  He states that it is somehow a theft of the woman’s provisioning and it is immoral.  In response, it is the highest form of morality for a man to live foremost for himself and his mission.  In this case selfishness is the higher form of nobility.

I do have to point out that the basis of his morality is unclear and spurious seeing as he is an atheist and the moral teaching he propagates conflicts with traditional Christian beliefs.

Entropy is my God said it best in his comment on SSM’s site:

@MR JESSE POWELL

I hear a lot of blather about chivalry from a man who is too cowardly to find and dedicate himself to pure atheism, and too sure of himself and his ideas to subsume himself in a belief system with concrete tenets. Both paths take fortitude. It takes zero fortitude to stand up for what you feel (You are a special snowflake) is right. Proof is evident in all women; they worship their feelings as a god unto themselves. And for the mathematically vigilant when I say all, I say all in the statistically relevant all. By this I mean at least 95% of all women, two standard deviations from mean, all worship their feelings as divine. Begin Screeching NAWALT now.
I hereby call you a coward and would if possible, challenge you to a duel. Our pedantic and homosexualized country does not allow that though so I will curtail my response to your blatant hatred of men, and by proxy me, to this post.
Allow me to destroy your milquetoast ode to romance novels via two ways.
1. If you were man enough to embrace Christianity, first by believing that the bible isn’t the inherent and unflawed word of the ONLY God, then you would have a solid foundation upon which to base some claims on men toward women. They would not be “Chivalry” though as it is a recent addition to the lexicon and was never mentioned in any version of the bible. So if you were a Christian your thesis fails, falls flat on disbelief, and is mired in Phariseeism.
2. This is far more exciting, you fail as an atheist. You have no god, you have no moral code of absolutes. Everything is relative, nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Many so called intellectuals claim to be atheists and wonder around in a dazed myopic trance of legalism while surfing a sea of moral ambiguity. Some claim to be hedonists and do whatever it takes to feel good. All of these are abominations to the true atheist, to the one who doesn’t worship anything, to the one who literally worships nothing. Your panacea of good will and chivalry will crumble like a house of dried feces in the winds of changes that prepare to sweep this nation.

Our country for certain, but perhaps the entire world, is about to face the consequnces of our actions. We have bankrupted the entire planet. As system dynamics teaches, the more complex a system the greater the change to the system outputs when any one input is removed. We may be about to lose several. When moral codes run into the unbreakable wall of real hunger, of thirst, of sickness, and real cruelty, we will see how long your “Chivalry”, brought about only due to an unprecedented surplus of wealth, can survive. We have all been living like hogs in a vat of moral detritus. I long for the punishment to arrive, if nothing else so that the iron bar of reality comes crashing down on the paper mache you and those like you have built.

I despise your sanctimony when you have no backing for any of it. If you are an atheist then there is nothing upon which to assert any beliefs at all, ever. You prefer what you prefer and I prefer what I prefer. You prefer that men owe a never ending debt to women for all time. What you fail to take into account is the fact that no one who shares your belief system (no moral absolutes) has any, repeat, any reason to abide by this. Your silent and heartfelt prayer, to the spongy pink god of your own feminized soul, is that you can leverage the power of the state to enforce your baseless beliefs. Let me say that again, your only hope, and greatest joy, just like all other cowardly statists, is to enforce your putrid will through the leviathan of the state. You are Stalin, you are Mao, you are Hitler. You pray for an ever powerful, never-ending government body that will continue to enforce your petulant feminized whims.

(Emphasis mine)

Continuing, he goes on to point out that a woman would not have to trade her sexual intimacy or as I also put it “her cleverly disguised feigned interest in the man’s mission” in order to secure a man’s resources if I just accepted his shaming criticisms and gave freely to the woman without any expectations of positive reciprocal actions on her part.  He believes it is ALL men’s duty to do this even in light of today’s social constructs with promote frivolous divorces, divorce theft of men’s wealth and his children and the far too numerous social programs that only benefit women and harm men.  He turns the whole issue on its head when he states that a woman’s immoral behaviors in a relationship are in fact the fault of the man because he does not give freely of his time and resources to the woman and because he does not act in what Powell would define as chivalrous.  He then goes on and on about men serving women and that by serving women he hopes that they will be romantically interested in him.  As for his mission in life he believes that a woman should be a significant part of the man’s mission and that men succeed through and only because the help of a woman.  However, he then changes his mind and criticizes me because I expected my wife to assist in our family business.  He seemed to miss the part in the bible that states very clearly that a woman is a man’s helpmeet.  She was created to assist the man in his mission, not become it.

Apparently he believes that somehow by working and assisting men a woman harms herself.  He misconstrues the reality of the situation.  Both my ex wife (T) and ex girlfriend (C) worked very hard.  In fact I set up (T) in her own business once it became clear that she was unwilling to assist me in my business.  As for (C), this is a woman who reroofed her own house.  Her biggest complaint and attraction to me is that most men are incapable of doing what is historically men’s work and she fell in love with me because not only can I do all of these things I have awesome tools to do it with.  I think she loved my tools more than me, and me with my tool belt.  I do believe she would find Powell’s remarks particularly offensive.  Both woman agreed with me that woman are generally ill suited to do some types of work such as firefighting, combat roles in the military and law enforcement for example, but that does not preclude woman from swing a hammer or turning a wrench.  I suppose he would also object to a woman being a secretary or receptionist jobs well suited to women especially if she is attractive.

 

One thing to consider is that in my line of work I do not need to work 40 + hours per week to generate the necessary income that would support a simpler lifestyle.  This is a choice that Powell takes issue with because it challenges the feminine imperative necessitating that a man work at his maximum rate until he keels over from exhaustion in order to provide a life of relative ease and comfort for his wife and children without any help from her.

The woman being frugal in Powell’s example is indicative of a woman being responsible with resources she was entrusted with.  Furthermore her responsible handling of her husband’s resources benefits the family unit as a whole and is a good show of proper submission and discipline.  The family as a whole benefits from the wife’s responsible actions. In general this woman would be part of a small minority of women in today’s society.

Powell strongly believes that a woman has no obligation to assist a man in his mission and insists that a man makes the woman his mission.  He tells us that a woman should EXPECT a man to work for her and if he refuses to do so or asks for her assistance he is shameful and somehow less than a man.  He ambiguously states that men should support a woman’s “heroic mission”, whatever that may entail.  Maybe he doesn’t know either.

So in closing, yes women are generally selfish, although a minority may not be overtly and will try to control their worst impulses.  However a woman basic hypergamy will always compel her to seek out the best deal at all times.  The games rigged so men can choose not to play, or they can play it on their own terms.  What Powell does not like is that men have the right to choose what they do with their time and resources.  Although happening slowly, men are becoming aware that most women simply do not deserve, regardless of however entitled women may feel that they do, all that a man used to be willing to do for them.

It is abundantly clear that Powell has no understanding of how a woman’s mind (or her gina tingle generator)really works.  He seems smart enough and its obvious he has least been exposed to the written works of Dalrock, The Rational Male and Heartiste, but he is blinded by his ideology and upbringing to the truth.  It is not surprising he had, and I am only speculating here, still has problems relating to most women.  It is an unassailable fact that bowing down to women will not get you laid or married for life. The best thing for him to do would be for him to honestly convert to Christianity and find a good marriage believing church to attend in a small town.  He will probable still suck his wife’s ass in the end.  Alternatively, he can shuck off his ideological Blue Pill upbringing as so many of us have done and learn Game. Normally I will not promote or prescribe such things such as marriage and cohabitation in this modern anti-marriage and anti-family climate but in his case I do not think he would be able to fully expunge his feminist beliefs and romanticized views of woman from his mind. Because of this, it is unlikely that he could handle the Red Pill truths we oft discuss here.  Not all men are meant to be alphas and not all men can handle the truth and reality.

Related Articles:

On Man’s Role and Man’s Duty: a counterpoint guest post by Mr. Jesse Powell. – Sunshine Mary
The Cart Before the Chevalier – Alpha is Assumed
Tradcon Arch-Mangina Jesse Powell Gets Rejected By The TWRAs
Hail to the V
What we need is more chivalry!
Chivalry: Falling In Love With Shame
Can Nazbol Misandrists Really Be This Stupid
The gift transformed into a debt.Rejecting outmoded responsibility
Men, You Are A Husband To All Women
WHAT A REAL GENTLEMAN DOES
Chivalry only comes from a position of strength.

 

Ayn Rand Good woman

 

I found this excerpt from Ayn Rand that I think has some very good wisdom.  I experienced this in a woman I met about a year ago.  One of the things I found most attractive in her was that she reflected me in many ways.  I did not understand that at first.

Another thing that I noticed after we were together for some time and after I began writing was that through our relationship I did have a sense of increased self esteem, in particular how she totally surrendered her body to me.

Perhaps this was because my experience with my ex-wife was completely opposite.  My ex-wife used sex as a weapon and didn’t know that a woman’s submission and surrender to her husband would make her happier than she could have ever imagined.

The statement by Rand also speaks a lot about male hypergamy and the male imperative.  When I met my wife she was the hardest in the group of women I was dating to win over, but I did win her over.  Out of the 3 other men who were chasing her I am the one who conquered her heart and her body.  I think that maybe I saw her for more than what she was.  It does take a strong women to keep up with me and love me because she still had to earn my love, which she did in many ways.

I referenced two different women I have been involved with recently in this essay, both having unique strengths and flaws.  I think the key when considering a woman to love is to find one that encompasses the traits that make you feel masculine in all ways.  Something to ponder.

A little Christmas Cheer for the STBX.

As for the girls, like you, I also don’t think they need their father.  You mentioned some nonsense to me before about how daughters needing their daddy’s but I am sure you were just trying to manipulate me into doing something for you at the time and you could not have really meant what you said.  Your present actions speak louder than some wayward conversation we may have had in the distant past anyways.  You and I both know that the courts think the same way and that fathers are an unnecessary component to any child upbringing.  Also the courts are never concerned with the wellbeing of men or how they will be able to survive nor should they be.

Maybe you have another man to replace me that you think would be better for them, or maybe he romances you better than I ever did.  Women in their 30’s are easily finding good husbands to marry them, and you are still relatively attractive for your age so you should have no problem meeting that perfect man to marry you.  And you won’ t even have to settle for any man you’re not head over heels in love with like you had to do with me.  Either way, as you expressed to me numerous times you want me out of their lives, so I am out, and I am making this choice willingly.  That means I don’t want to know anything about them and of course I don’t want any of the responsibility.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too you know.

So I decided that because you don’t want me in their lives I should just forget about them and just go back to the life I was living before we met, which was actually quite fun and exciting before meeting you.  I figure I can enjoy being a bachelor like I did before, partying with various young women doing what I want without consequence and I won’t have to worry about kids or anything else but myself.  It’s not like I would ever get the full commitment of any woman in my life.  I have even been thinking again about getting a vasectomy which I seriously wanted to do before I even met you.  That way I won’t have to be concerned with any more sudden and unplanned surprises.  Anyway it’s not like you really wanted to have sex all that much, nor will we ever do so again in the future.  As for remarriage, I see no point as it was a mistake the first time marrying any woman, because this is what always happens to us men or at least 90% of us because you women often are the ones who decide you don’t need us anymore for whatever reason.  Plus it’s just not popular to marry anymore.  We are only good for sperm donations and its time men should realize this and quit complaining.  The Rules have changed after all, plus I am sure you feel regret for not being able to have more fun when you were young.  I knew the risks, as did you.

Divorce is a good thing because your happiness is the most important thing you can ever strive for and Tara, you do deserve happiness irregardless of what you might have to do to get it and regardless of what anyone may think or say about what you are doing.  You have your pride after all.  Some people won’t understand all the crap and abuse you had to go through being married to me and how you say I committed adultery by looking at porn.  They may even try to tell you the kids will be messed up from their parents splitting up.  Don’t listen to them.  They do not know what they are talking about.  I know before you left me you had thought a lot about how much better your life would be without having a husband (like me) to think about.  Now that you left you are living the dream and soon you will be able to cash in.  All the power to live your life as you see fit is yours.  You have seen so many other woman succeed at what you’re doing such as your mother and my mother and things are good for both of them so why won’t they be for you too.  Both of them ended up very well I think.  Their children are no worse for going through the experience and most of their hardships were only temporary.

I thought this would be the best present I could give you and the girls.  As soon as you file for divorce and expedite its review, you can take everything I have left and rape me with child support payments I cannot afford, nor will I ever pay.  Then I will have to leave the area or maybe even the country for somewhere that’s more interesting so I can be free from you and the man.  I know if I sell the rest of my stuff I can live comfortably in Thailand for a few years or more.  I see no reason to stick around here seeing as I won’t have any more contact with you or my progeny as per your desires.

This letter is not a joke or a parody, quite the opposite.  This letter is just my acceptance of the present reality of the situation, our current laws, and your general dislike and disregard for me.  I suppose it’s the last stage of my grief and all of that so I am now good to finally move on.  I am happy I have finally gotten to this point.  Again this is not a joke, I feel much better about my being single again.  Aren’t you relived that I finally accept the inevitable and will give you the girls 100% so I can go off and party and do my own thing and leave you alone?  That is what you told me you wanted after all so as a gift I am giving it to you.  Sorry I didn’t have a bow.

BTW, Merry Christmas.

By: MonkeyWerks

I was thinking about the frame the relationship was in.  Because of her stated reasons for ending the relationship were primarily financial, which was only a part of it, I thought I would delve deeper into the financial frame our that was set in our relationship.  To start financially I am in a pretty bad place, one that I have never been in before.  My challenges although seemingly complex can be dealt with but I just needed time, like in the neighborhood of 1-2 years to be back to where I was.

She made more money than me, a lot more actually.  I did not have a problem with and it did not make me feel inadequate by any means.  I felt that I would be where I wanted to be financially in a reasonable amount of time.

Although I was working at making sure I kept the correct frame to our relationship so it may succeed long-term,  I noticed that C was resisting that frame because of my lack of financial resources and her general resistance to any form of headship or leadership by a man.  I thought that what I was doing was correct because it would help to build happiness and contentment in our relationship.  About mid-point to our relationship we talked about being together long-term, living together and me running one of my business’s out of our new house.  She had the money to make it happen and I had the brains.  Neither of us could move forward without the other.  That was the reality of the situation, but it was win/win.  It was not the first thing I would have liked to do because it reduced some of my overall control over our relationship and I would have to Game her much harder and more consistently in order to maintain a high level of attraction and satisfy her hypergamous nature and inclinations.  This would have taken a huge amount of effort and that comfortable place in any relationship would never been experienced.  I do understand her need to feel secure in all respects but everything she did throughout her life and her decisions actually hurt her overall long-term security and happiness.  This was something I was attempting to help her avoid, and I now realize how White Knightish this mindset was.

I was willing to consider this option due to the time saved if I did something similar on my own.  She benefited by my knowledge and my commitment to her.  I would be giving her that last chance at a successful relationship if she did not fuck it up.  I benefited by making an environment where I could immediately start thriving and rebuilding what I had previously lost. I would also have had a good home environment for my two daughters, at least that was what I led myself to believe at the time.

She even brought up the idea of her having a child which I told her she was insane because she is waaaay to old and of course I noted her questionable past.  That might have been when I put the brakes on this plan.  She also wanted me to retire her in 2-3 years and pay over $14k/yr for the maintenance of her 2 horses.  It was the issue with her horses that ultimately caused the plan to fail in her mind.  See the article on women with horses and you will understand this better.

Even when my business was doing well, due to reoccurring expenses my take home pay was just a little over what was needed to live the basic yet good lifestyle my family and I lived at the time.  I took the remaining funds and reinvested them into the company in things such as new equipment and research and development.  I taught my ex-wife to clean like a Marine in the beginning of our marriage because she did not know how because I wasn’t going to clean the fucking house. I led her to set up a cleaning business when the opportunity presented itself.  I also taught her how to run such a business instead of just letting her sit on her ass and get fat.  The money she made from her business went into the household expenses.  This gave her something profitable to do and took some stress off of me.  The problem with this plan was that I did not control the money that was made.  I didn’t even check on her accounts often enough.  So my plans flaws encouraged her in some ways to not only become independent of me but it gave her that little bit of encouragement for her to break up the marriage when she saw fit to do so.

What I should have done was control the money she made and gave her an allowance as needed.  Now this brings up the issue with C.  C makes more money, she repeatedly stated I needed to make much more than her so she could become the dependant one and help me with my businesses.  What she really wanted to do was to quit her job and ride her horses all day.  She would often state that when a woman makes more than the man there are problems because it makes the man feel insecure. This might be true for a STHD or ultra beta maybe, but I did not feel threatened by this situation.  She was seeing my income level as not only a point of qualification for long-term provisioning but possibly as a means to justify to herself that entering my frame was ok.  One of her biggest fears by giving me control was that I would be unwilling to pay for her horses.  She would always tell me she felt that I would consider them “frivolous” expenses, which I did actually.  My thoughts were if the extra money was there and the effort to generate the funds were minimal I MIGHT not give a shit, but working by the hour, no fucking way was I going to waste $14k/yr on animals as a hobby or entertainment.  If she wanted her horses she would have to work and still pay half of the household expenses.  She is not young or hot enough to demand anything else.  I would always discuss with her options and plans but if a decision needed to be made, I would make regardless of how much she bitched about it, and I would never apologize for leading my household.  She did not like this and even if I was to pay for her horses the same problems would still be there and I would end up in her frame.  Much of our disagreements stemmed from her lip service to being a good submissive woman.  I knew deep down I could never Game her into submission because she was permanently fucked up and no amount of Game or alpha would fix that.

The only way things could have worked is if I controlled all the finances in the relationship regardless of who generated the majority of it.  I would also have to pretty much rule the roost in all other areas without question.  Although she made good money at her job, she was still irresponsible with her cash flow.  She paid a lot of taxes in her bracket by being single.  Her horses consumed about 30% of her income on average and although she could have lived quite comfortably on the rest she was still always cash poor, which I never understood.  She did have some non-liquid assets, but those assets were in large part originally generated by her now deceased first husbands (fiancé of 13 years) estate.  She stated that because she cook, clean, and ran the books for this man she helped build the estate, although it was his skills that actually built the companies he owned.  For example she was over $105k in consumer (credit card) debt when we met.  There was no reason for her to have generated this level of debt and although it is very common for single women in this day and age to have such large debt, the amount seemed far more than the norm to me.

I taught her a process to greatly reduce her debt and then eliminate it like a good white knight.  Just because I happened to be broke did not mean my mind was broke or that I did not have the skills to manage finances in a responsible way. Even though, I guess I failed in her eyes to “prove my worth” to her by not rebuilding my company up fast enough and by my desire to live a more simple life with greatly reduced expenses.  It’s all bullshit from her I realize, but I wanted to point this out.  I guess she figured that because she chose a career and animals over a man when she was younger that she would still be able to control every man she was involved with.  If I had money she would have been butter to me, but because I did not desire to chase the almighty dollar I was apparently of little long-term use to her.

If I did not express my thoughts about my desire for a simpler financial life I am fairly confident she would have seen me as someone who could fulfill her Hypergamy and would have chosen to lock me down via marriage or at a minimum cohabitation as she expressed quite plainly soon into our relationship.  But it was her Hypergamous nature that compelled her to end the relationship.  However, I do find it baffling that such a woman (at 45yrs old) is still being that choosy when she has very obviously hit the wall and her prospects for a committed and loving LTR are just about gone, if not totally expired.  I have noticed this in other similarly situated woman, as many other men also have.  She told me several times I was to be her last relationship, which I did not believe for an instant.  I guess its cougarville and a bunch of cats for her next, or she will have to rush to find that beta provider, which she has already has I am afraid.  I know I am the last alpha she will have the opportunity to be in a real LTR with, and I do think she honestly realized that.  I was still in the LTR (beta) mindset after my marriage failure and she took full advantage of that and my heartbreak and worked hard to show me she could be a good replacement for my ex-wife.  I was playing the odds at the time and the older women do seem very enthusiastic to get with a man even if he is only a little alpha.  Now I don’t disagree with being in a loving committed and monogamous relationship if a man’s needs are being met and the woman is pleasant, but such a relationship is becomes dangerous for a man as soon as he is not getting his needs and desires met and who does not set the frame to HIS reality in such a relationship.  When men fail to set the frame we have Oneitis and the relationship is in the woman’s frame which does nothing but to encourage her hypergamous nature and increase the likelihood of the man being left due to the loss of attraction his woman will have for him.

In the end she did me a favor by ending our relationship when she did.  For various reasons, which I will explain in later essays, I wished to remain in the relationship, even though I knew for a fact I could do so much better.  I am now convinced that my mindset was doomed to failure and my unhappiness would almost be guaranteed later as she aged more and started menopause.  I had even tried to unsuccessfully convince myself that she was a better choice for various reasons than chasing young hotties because of her maturity and business skills.  Now I realize the fallacy in the way I was thinking.  The Red Pill has helped me to see this and those principles greatly reduced the shock and negative emotions I would have otherwise felt from her ending our relationship.  At last it is over and this relationship will have to go out like yesterdays garbage.  At least I am not burdened by any desire to reconnect with her again.

I write these essays based on my experiences so other man can see these common issues in their relationships.  Most of these things I write about are issues that are occurring or have occurred in my past and it was not until after the issue, relationship, or the chance to fix something had expired that I realized the dynamics that were involved.  Of course I am learning not to do the things that I found to be detrimental.  By documenting these things, other men can have the information to make changes in the ways that is most profitable for them and their relationships.

This is a working group so we can all learn.  I would like input on this from my readers.  Where did I go wrong?  Where did I go right?

I want to note that she was obviously never bride material and she would never have gotten a ring from me, but I was willing to take a limited calculated risk to commit to her for at least a few years while I got back on my feet.  If we did not work out we would both still realize profits from the venture and that’s how I looked at it.

 

I think there is some good advice here for those so inclined.  The rest of this woman’s site is actually pretty  illuminating.