As I said to a girl recently who was trying to convince me that monogamy was good for men:
“The men who benefit from monogamy are generally not the kind of men you want to fuck.”
I don’t think much more need be said.
As I said to a girl recently who was trying to convince me that monogamy was good for men:
“The men who benefit from monogamy are generally not the kind of men you want to fuck.”
I don’t think much more need be said.
Another strange thing I’ve noticed about manosphere bloggers is that, on one hand, they recognize that pornography tends to lower women’s value on the sexual marketplace but, on the other hand, they advise men to avoid it.
If I can sit home and rub one (or more) out to a super-hot, sexy 18-year-old, why in the world would I hunt around and deal with a bunch of bullshit and spend money just to maybe fuck some flabby, cuntish, 35-year-old? Chances are, I won’t.
Therefore, because of porn, if older and less-attractive women want men in their lives at all, they’re going to have to give rather than take. And, from looking around, they seem to have started. Banging a cougar or a girl who’s a little chubby is about as easy as it gets these days. And if you’re not a complete tool-bag, they’ll pay for drinks too.
But rather than celebrate and try to protect the power that porn gives men, the vast majority of manosphere blogs and articles denigrate it instead, urging men to stay away from it. Do a simple Google search for manosphere porn and 90% of the links you’ll find will be to articles telling young men that they should “stop fapping” to porn.
Why? I’m not sure. I really don’t understand. Since most men only put up with womens’ bullshit because they want sex, doesn’t an excellent facsimile of sex which doesn’t require putting up with bullshit actually work in a man’s favor? I would think so.
Imagine if someone created a 3-D printer that printed basic working cars. Automobiles that drove and were street-legal and safe. For free. Nothing fancy, but they got you safely from one point to another. What do you think that would do to the price of Porsches? Probably nothing, they’d stay a status symbol at more or less the same price-point. But what do you think it would do to the price of Hondas? They’d go out of fucking business.
Why? Because there is price-inflexibility for the stuff that’s highly desired. It’s a status symbol, it’s (often) high quality, and it’s desired no matter what it costs vis-a-vis comparable items. However, for stuff that’s only somewhat desired — stuff that’s purchased because it’s cheap or easy to obtain — there is tremendous flexibility.
Porn has the same effect on the mating market. It has essentially no impact on the hottest women. But it dramatically reduces the bargaining power of mid-level women. And, for low-level, barely desired women, it essentially prices them out of the market completely. The most they can hope for is a pump-and-dump.
So how does it hurt men? It doesn’t. Say you sit at home and rub a few out to the hottest new porn-star rather than taking chubby old Gertrude out for dinner. What have you lost? Nothing at all. You’ve gained, in fact. What have you gained?
– Time to pursue work and/or other interests
– Safety (no DUIs, car wrecks, crime, STDs, etc)
I think you can figure out the first three, but what do I mean by perspective? Well, think about how you feel when you’ve rubbed a couple out. Relaxed, non-horny, more clear. Now, clarity doesn’t always feel good. If clarity makes you realize that your life is kind of empty, then that sucks but it’s also great. It has clued you in that your horniness has been filling your life with false “purpose” which is based on testosterone rather than rationality.
This perspective also applies to how you view women. Are you really that interested in going to all the trouble of taking Gertrude out for drinks or dinner tonight? Is she really worth the time, effort, money, etc.? After a couple of good orgasms, you can make this determination with clarity rather than through the irrational focus that your unchecked libido gives you.
Manosphere types will say, “Well, guys should be going after the hotties, not the Gertrudes of the world.” And that’s fine, but the large majority of men, no matter how awesome their “game” is, simply aren’t going to be dating 8s, 9s and 10s. Sorry, there just aren’t that many to go around.
A large percentage of men, no matter how hard they try, are going to be stuck in the middle- and low-end of the mating market. Everyone can’t be above-average.
But marrying, or even seriously dating, some bitch just because she sometimes offers you a way to get off, is an irrational action. Why do you think most, if not all, historical societies forbade pre-marital sex and made the bonds of marriage irrevocable? To trap men.
A complete inability to divorce a woman is not a contract that I would advise any man to enter into for any reason. But, by forbidding men from quenching their strong sexual desires without that lifelong, legally enforceable commitment, it causes them to become irrational and enter into a situation they wouldn’t rationally consider.
Fortunately, society has moved away from that social construct, and porn helps men make rational decisions as well. So for those who advise young men not to get married (as I do), your anti-porn stance runs directly contrary to that admonition.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for going out to socialize and occasionally bang chicks. I’m not saying stay inside like some recluse all the time. There’s a balance to everything. If you think that porn is somehow destroying your life, then by all means curtail your use. But porn itself is not necessarily bad, just like alcohol isn’t necessarily bad just because some people have a problem with it.
Again, I don’t understand the manophere’s stance on this topic. Porn benefits men by making “sex” (or a fairly good facsimile of it) free and easy. And each year that passes, porn becomes more and more realistic. As of this writing they have 60 fps, “4K” resolution porn that, when viewed on a large monitor, looks like the girl is right there on top of you.
When men know, at a moment’s notice, they can head home and rub one out with nearly the same satisfaction as actual sex, they’re more likely to walk away from bitches who treat them badly or demand to be pedestalized. Especially low-level chicks who really don’t have that much to offer other than a warm hole for the night.
In fact, thinking about it, porn benefits those low-level women too. Instead of yet another pump-and-dump from a guy who’s just horny enough to buy you dinner and tell you what you want to hear to get in your pants, you can stay home and save yourself the trouble and heartache. The guy won’t bullshit you and string you along but will simply leave if he’s “just not that into you.” He’ll go home to his porn and you can get home early and watch a Lifetime Movie of the Week rather than suffering through some mediocre sex and spending the next several days wondering if the guy is going to call you back.
So porn’s a win-win, in my opinion. I don’t think I’ll be able to convince ugly chicks it’s a win for them, but it’s clearly a win for men. To put it simply, it gives men options. Therefore, the manosphere should guard mens’ access to porn at every turn. Because women know the score and, if given the ability, will have it banned as soon as they can to maintain their historical monopolistic hold over men’s sexual access.
It’s been years and I still can’t draw my attention away from the nutty manosphere. I’ve written articles here, comments elsewhere, posts on discussion forums, questions wherever I could.
I enjoy making fun of manosphere and MRM slash MRA guys partly because I simply don’t understand them. I’ll admit it. I simply don’t understand where all that emotion comes from.
Sure, there are issues that need to be tweaked in society — any society, including ours. And if you get screwed by the system I could see how you’d be bitter. In that case, I’d recommend seeing a professional therapist. For reals.
But it seems that most manosphere guys have never been cheated on, taken to the cleaners in a divorce, been falsely accused of rape, lost a job to some sort of feminist affirmative action, or anything like that.
I just don’t get the bitterness against the system and against women. And lately, it seems, the manosphere has fully embraced the white nationalist segment of its population and become quite racist too. HBD, indeed. I’m a guy who not only read “The Bell Curve” — yes, the entire thing — but also read an entire critique of it. And a critique of the critique. I know all the theories, and most are bunk or at least highly distorted.
So is the manosphere just Conservatism applied to male-female relations? Maybe. I’m not sure. But it seems that the vast majority of manosphere bloggers are White, Christian, American or British, and young. Very young men.
I saw a poll showing that something like 80% of the manosphere was age 17-20!? Others said that there was a problem with the poll but, if it’s true, then the manosphere is made up by a bunch of boys who aren’t even old enough to drink alcohol or rent a car (probably a good thing).
Which brings me to PUA. (Or “pickup” as we used to call it back in the ’90s, or “the seduction community” when it was on alt.seduction.fast. As I’ve said before, a PUA was a guy who was really good at PU. PUA was not a thing.)
Anyway, as I’ve also said before, back in the day, “PUA” was about seducing chicks. That’s it. A kid found out about it when his girlfriend dumped him and he wanted to see what went wrong and started searching around the primitve ‘net for it. In “Speed Seduction,” Ross Jeffries used to teach about “eliciting values” from each woman you meet so you could tailor your seduction technique to that particular woman. While there were some general concepts that could be applied to most women, the idea was that everybody is different and had to be treated as such if you wanted to be successful.
These days, when a young kid is dumped by his girlfriend and makes the same internet search that I did back in 1996, he’s not greeted with “seduction techniques” to help him improve his love-life so much as he’s inundated with a massive wave of political diatribes condemning everything from feminism to multiculturalism to socialism and everything in between. Instead of being taught how to address his individual problem, he’s recruited into a swirling morass of radicalized and highly politicized propaganda against, basically, the current state of Western culture itself.
I imagine it’s something along the lines of what happens to young Muslim men. They might have some innocuous question about, say, the hair color of the virgins awaiting them in heaven or something. So they do an internet search and their question immediately leads them to radical Islamic propaganda which — if they breathe too much in — will gradually convert them into vicious tools of that propaganda.
Maybe that’s why the manosphere is so confusing and fascinating to me. Back in the day when I wanted to read about picking up chicks, I didn’t have to wade through a bunch of KKK and pro-rape commentary to do it.
But maybe it’s the new normal. And if that’s the case, then PUA is dead. Because if young men don’t want to change themselves but instead want to sit around writing articles about taking society back to the 19th century when women couldn’t vote… well.. those guys aren’t going to be out in the bars and clubs mackin’ on too many broads.
Shitty love life –> internet search –> seduction techniques –> meet women –> sex
Shitty love life –> internet search –> MRA propaganda –> write angry blog posts –> ???
Which is not to say that the manosphere doesn’t bring up some good points. For example, the concept of women “hitting the wall” when they reach a certain age. This is true. Although it’s a more gradual decline than a wall. Radical feminists might not want people to believe it, but men are 90% interested in women because of their looks. Sorry, it’s true.
But the enthusiasm and thinly veiled shadenfreude with which the manosphere presents the concept is clearly backed by hatred and viciousness. It’s one thing to say, “Guys, understand that a woman’s looks will usually fade fast.” It’s another thing to write post after post after post about it. We’re not stupid, we got it the first time.
I guess you could say that the manosphere has a collective case of Borderline Personality Disorder (DSM-V be damned). “I hate you, don’t leave me,” the manosphere says to women. “You’re evil, why don’t you like me?”
To carry the analogy further, manosphere bloggers involve themselves in “splitting,” or black-and-white thinking. All women supposedly want the same things and have the same urges. They all lose their looks at precisely the same age. They’re all the same level of emotional and irrational. The opposite of men, of course, who are also all the same as each other. Or at least we should be but for the fact that we’ve all been “feminized.” Etc.
I’ve learned in my lifetime that people who make broad-brush statements about a topic usually have very little experience with the topic of which they speak.
So instead of being presented with stuff like Speed Seduction and even to a lesser extent Mystery Method and RSD — which address individual issues and teach young men to at least kinda see each woman as a unique person worthy of some basic human respect — modern internet “dating advice” instead presents guys with radical, all-or-nothing thinking that demonizes women, blacks, gays, liberals, “sluts,” and most of the entirety of the contemporary Western world.
And the solution that the manosphere apparently proposes for society’s ills is of course utterly impossible: a return to “the patriarchy” of centuries past. Sorry, that just ain’t gonna happen. We’re more likely to return to riding in covered wagons.
So you get a bunch of teenage boys searching for ways to avoid heartbreak and they’re shunted into a weird, dogmatic cyber-world where women and society itself are the enemy and the only solution is so untenable as to be absurd. I can’t imagine the fear and despair that goes through their minds. All I can say is that I’m glad I’m not a teenage boy anymore.
The next question I’m asking is… How did things get to this point?
A year and a half or so after the meltdown, I don’t see why the manosphere still hates Hugo Schwyzer so much.
The guy talked his way into the inner Feminist sanctum, used his influence there to bang a whole lot of (probably young) chicks, and then, like Samson, pushed over the pillars supporting the structure, bringing it down and wiping himself out in the process.
The man should be thanked. Nobody took what he wrote about Feminism seriously anyway. His stuff was too perfect and too obvious — too much like something someone would write while asking himself, “What can I say to make them think I’m one of them?” Nobody who has ears to hear could have thought he was the real deal. Except those who were crushed in the collapsing temple, I guess.
I’m endlessly interested in sociology and especially the sociology of sex. Lately I was reading for the umpteenth time about “sperm competition” – the evolved nature of a man’s body to produce different types and different amounts of sperm when the possibility arises that he will be having sex with a woman who may have had recent sex with other men.
Sperm competition also involves the shape of the penis in delivering that sperm. Specifically, the glans has evolved into a sort-of barbed, mushroom shape to remove male competitors’ sperm from the vaginal canal. And of course there’s the fact that men have relatively large penises as compared to other primates.
The terms which sociologists frequently use to refer to the above are “anti-cuckoldry” tactics, prevention against “female infidelity,” women’s “extra-pair coupling,” “double mating,” and things like that. All of these terms and ideas presume womens’ agency in becoming impregnated by “rival sperm.” That is, it’s the female’s behavior and willpower that the man has evolved to counter because she is the one “allowing” other men’s sperm inside her body.
Buss is, of course, frequently cited as he seems to be the “go-to” guy regarding paternal uncertainty. He ascribes, at every turn, “female choice” and “sexual selection” to sperm competition. Even the titles of most books on the subject ascribe female agency to it (for example, “Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics” by Steven M. Platek, Todd K. Shackelford (2006)). Granted, Shackelford does make passing mention of it in another one of his books.
But, in all my readings about this topic, I have very, very rarely seen an author refer to historical wartime gang rape as being relevant to sperm competition and male sexual evolution.
Perhaps it’s too upsetting, or perhaps modern man is so used to the concept of women choosing to do what they want with their bodies that the idea never even enters authors’ heads. Or perhaps they just don’t know their history.
However, it’s quite clear that many, many extra-marital offspring were produced not through infidelity on women’s part but due to the sacking of ancient cities and the vast, weeks-long orgies that accompanied those events.
While the thought of it is quite abhorrent to modern man, the reality is that the destruction of towns, the killing of men and boys, the gang-rapes and slavery of women were all pretty common and even an accepted part of life a couple/few thousand years ago. It happened all the damn time, to put it bluntly.
Look at Babylon, look at Assyria, look at any ancient people. Chances are they decimated, or were decimated by, some other rival state at least once in their history. The sheer number of current family lineages that could be traced back to some ancient solider would likely be mind-blowing.
So it’s at least as likely, and in my opinion even more so, that men evolved those specific sexual “anti-competition” traits because victorious soldiers were genetically “competing” against dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of other soldiers who had also inseminated conquered women in the frenzy which occurred during the rape and pillage of a defeated town.
I think that to fail to acknowledge this likely fact is disingenuous. The question is, why is it not acknowledged?
It could be the case that male authors don’t want to acknowledge it because it paints historical men in a bad light (as rapists). And it could be that female authors don’t want to acknowledge it because of the disturbing idea that, for most of human history, women had very little “agency” or choice about the genetic makeup of their offspring. Therefore the concept of sexual selection – at least as it pertains to female choice – plays a greatly reduced role than previously thought in human evolution through the ages.
Because they’re all weak betas and can’t change with the changing sexual landscape.
Here’s a few recent quotes from The Rational Male blog:
“I remembered then an older man I had done some peer counseling with while in college and how this man had essentially striven his entire life to please and content his ex-wife and his now second wife of more than 30 years.”
That’s fuckin’ sad.
“This is why I say men are the True Romantics, because the overwhelming majority will devote a lifetime to the effort of actualizing a belief in a male-idealized love to find fulfillment in a woman and for that woman.”
That’s really fuckin’ sad.
“As soon as I would ‘fall in love’ I would slowly drop those activities, I’d focus on being a good bf, I would focus on providing and ‘being what she wanted’ what I thought she wanted, better said.”
That’s beyond fuckin’ sad.
“Is this what Rollo means when he says our response to women is a conditioning, and that the sadness we get from Red Pill truth is the result of behaving and believing something that is not really our nature, but the result of having someone else’s behaviors and beliefs installed into us?”
No, here’s why you feel so “sad” when you realize that chicks dig jerks: You realize that you’re a big fuckin’ pansy and you always will be. You’re a momma’s boy and you’ve just realized there ain’t no more mommas for you. That’s what’s making you “sad,” bud. You’ve realized that your boring beta self ain’t gonna cut it, and at the same time you’ve realized that you are incapable of being anything else.
Hey, nothing wrong with that. But just go. Don’t bitch about it. Don’t whine about it. Just… go.
People think I dislike men or that I’m against male empowerment. I’m not. There’s a “Dad’s Legal Center” or whatever it’s called not far from my office and I presume it’s a law firm which fights legal battles for men. That’s great and I fully support that. I think the world needs more of those, in fact. What I like about it is that those guys are actually doing something to effect change and help other guys out.
Not so, the MRA dorks. What I can’t stand are pathetic little whiners who go on and on about how “women these days just can’t understand” what wonderful and sweet dudes they are. Because chicks don’t find them desirable, therefore chicks (and society, and politics, and the media, etc) are all BAD. It’s not the dude himself, no. Of course not. It’s the rest of the world.
Admittedly, these loons would have had a better time getting laid in 1950 and before. Then, women had to look past shitty, boring, whiner personalities and go for the money — ie, the provider males. As long as these dudes could earn a buck, they could be as annoying as they naturally are and they’d still get at least a bit of action.
Look, it’s fine to wake up one day and realize you’re a weak-ass chump. Lots of guys do it. The key difference is that you should start effecting change at a rather rapid pace once that realization has dick-slapped you across the face. If you’re still a bitter beta a year later, or heaven forbid 2, 3, 5, 10 years later… you ain’t ever gonna change. You are a permanent beta chump living in a world that no longer has any respect or need for beta chumps.
If that’s the case, quit blogging. Quit whining. Accept yourself and move to Alaska to be alone and enjoy the beautiful scenery there. I’m waiting for the day when MGTOW truly and permanently GTOW rather than just threaten to.
Though I link to some here, I rarely read MRA blogs like Rational Male and Heartiste because I simply can’t stand all the pathetic whining. It embarrasses me. But sometimes when I’m in a masochistic mood I’ll read a page or two.
Here’s one that made me laugh:
His theory is that, if it weren’t for all the mean women out there who like bad boys, all (or most) guys would be sweet and wonderful and enjoy providing for women and writing poetry and buying them flowers and shit.
In short, if women would only let them, men would naturally be as caring and thoroughly pussified as, no doubt, Rollo Tomassi himself is.
“With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, I believe most men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor.”
Bahahah that’s ridiculous. I have no interest in chivalry, dedication or honor and I never have. That doesn’t make me a “natural born alpha,” it makes me a natural born asshole. How many chump-ass motherfuckers would naturally gravitate to “romantic notions of chivalry?” Fucking castrated ones, is who.
No pal, most men would not overwhelmingly default to be nice guys, buying roses and giving foot massages. Most guys would chafe at that.
And this is yet another problem with the MRA loons. They believe that all dudes are secretly big old pussies like they are. The only guys who aren’t are “natural alphas” (whatever that is) or those guys who pretend to be jerks just so chicks will dig them.
Let me tell you, the only time I was a “nice guy” was when I was about 8, to a cute blonde girl named Nikki. And that wasn’t because I was naturally sweet, it’s because I thought that’s what girls wanted. Well, even at that young age it rapidly became clear that was a losing strategy, so I abandoned it and went back to yanking on her pigtails until she cried. Watch any group of boys and that is their natural state. Not writing fucking sonnets like Tomassi did as a child.
“Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with genuine appreciation of women.”
No pal, men want to get pussy, drink beer, and enjoy their hobbies. Very few are pansy enough to preoccupy themselves with “genuine appreciation of women” unless they’re appreciating some perfect, natural tits. Those are worthy of genuine appreciation.
“Most guys would like nothing better than to honestly play the loving, white knight, romantic who women bemoan a lack of in the world.”
Sorry pal, you’re wrong. Only a small minority of men are that lame. And those who are, like the MRA tools, are rightfully excluded from the mating market.