Hugo Schwyzer, a manosphere hero?

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.

Sperm Competition as the Result of Ancient Gang Rapes

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.

The “Men’s Rights Movement” should be called the “Beta Power Movement”

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.

Just admit you’re a wimp, Rollo Tomassi

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:

http://therationalmale.com/2014/05/18/the-real-nice/

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.

MRAs, PUAhaters, MGTOWs, and other red-pill failures

There a several types of men in the world.

The first are the “blue pill” men. They haven’t swallowed the “red pill” and still are caught in the lies and traps of society. We won’t discuss them here.

Then there are those men who have swallowed the “red pill.” PUAs are those who have successfully swallowed it. MRA guys, PUAhaters and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) are those who have unsuccessfully swallowed it.

PUAs (Pick Up Artists). These are the guys who have realized what they had to realize about women and are busy trying to exploit that knowledge for their own benefit, as they should.

They have varying success rates but the key part of being a PUA is a total lack of bitterness about their new red-pill knowledge. They understand that it is their job to change, not reality’s job. Because reality won’t change. They understand this at a fundamental psychological level.

MRAs (Men’s Rights) guys. They have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, and have developed a hatred toward women.

Though they’ll pretend they don’t; they’ll suggest that certain types of women are great. Women from the past, women from far-off lands, traditional women who no longer exist, etc. etc. Of course the women they meet on a daily basis — that is, 100% of the women in their world — are awful. But they don’t hate women. They just hate every woman currently alive within a 2000 mile radius ;)

And oh how they blog about that hate. Their red-pill knowledge shines through with their excellent insights into women’s minds; but they fail to understand that women are human just as they are. It is their downfall. When their negative emotions well up too far, they kill women.

PUAhate guys. They guys frequent the (currently offline) web site PUAhate.com. They too have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, but they have developed a hatred toward other men.

This hate becomes a negative obsession with men, just as MRAs develop a negative obsession with women. PUAhaters will critique the physicality, status, and finances of other men to the tiniest detail, finding everyone but the top 0.01% lacking.

Of course, to them, only the richest and most attractive men are beloved by women. If you’re not a male model (and none of them are), then no woman will want to sleep with you.

Their red-pill knowledge shines through in their insight into other men — what makes men attractive at a surface-level. But their bitterness precludes them from understanding that there are facets beyond the surface that also make men attractive.

When these men blow up, they kill mostly other men. 4 of the 6 of Elliot Rodger’s victims were dudes. The two women were something of an afterthought.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). This is a relatively new “club” with a small population but it appears to be an attempt to get away from the bitterness of the prior two camps and allow men to simply disengage from the mating market.

While this is probably an admirable alternative to wallowing in bitterness for those who have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, the group doesn’t actually live up to its name.

Its web site still seems to have a great deal of bitterness toward women. So I’d suggest that this group is merely an even more stunted version of the MRA group.

For in reality, men who’ve truly “gone their own way” no longer obsess over women. They certainly don’t sit around blogging about them. They’re off fishing in Alaska or designing sports cars or playing video games or whatever. They have truly forgotten about the mating market.

Conclusion. It is interesting that some men simply can’t handle the red-pill truth. MRAs, PUAhaters, MGTOW and likely countless others have not been able to assimilate the knowledge into their lives in a healthy way.

All have one major symptom: bitterness. Which is why, long ago, I suggested in another post not to take advice from bitter men. Why? Because they have lost. They have not been successful, they are not the winners. It’s perilous to take advice from failures, especially mating market failures.

Polyamory must sever itself from Kink to become mainstream

I consider myself to be polyamorous. I would like to see polyamory become mainstream in my lifetime. I would even like to see some sort of poly marriage to become available in my lifetime.

A half-century ago, interracial marriage became acceptable.

As I write this, gay marriage is becoming acceptable.

I would like to see polygamy become acceptable. Not just a relic from 19th century Utah. And I think it’s getting close. Because people can understand what it’s like to care for — even love — more than one person at once. It’s a familiar condition of human existence.

Unfortunately, right now the “poly community” is grossly intertwined with the “kink community” and other oddities like the transgendered community, pan-sexual communities, nudists, swingers, tantric practitioners, etc.

These other groups will not become mainstream in the near future. They are too strange for the western bourgeois middle-class to deal with any time soon.  They will linger in the shadows of society, populated by a small coterie of adherents, for many years.

Polyamory, by its nature, works best when there are lots of people who practice it.  Therefore, mainstream acceptability is required.  And it is achievable.  But if polyamory wants to achieve some sort of mainstream acceptability, like the gay community has, it will have to — for lack of a better way of putting it — shed the weirdos.

Polyamory will have to consciously kick out the BDSM crowd, the transvestites, the golden shower aficionados, the fetishists… and all those people who will wallow as second-class citizens for the foreseeable future.

It’s like, when you move out of the ghetto, you really have to boot your ghetto friends out of your life or they’ll drag you back down. Polite society won’t have them.  Same with poly. Poly is, I believe, a decade or two from mainstream acceptability if the poly community plays its cards right. And that means severing all ties with the kinksters and moving into the respectable mainstream where poly belongs and where it will flourish.

 

Run hamster run! Deluded women trying to convince themselves that their SMV isn’t declining

In the past year or so there have been several feeble female blogger attempts to refute the fact that men age better than women.  To do that they conveniently ignore about 20,000 years of evidence, common sense, the theory of evolution, and observations by every culture in the history of mankind.  Run, Hamster, RUN!

Here’s a typical one, from some nameless broad’s blog I won’t bother naming or linking to:

Average male SMV (that is, SEXUAL market value) is NEVER above average female SMV. It isn’t how the sexes work. When it comes to sex, women, on average, are the ones with the goods, at ANY age. If male average SMV was higher than female average SMV above the age of 35, then

1)Prostitution would reverse itself – men would sell, and women buy

2)Women over 35 would have a hard time getting laid, and the only thing men over 35 would need to get laid, is to “just be there”

3)Women who get laid a lot after 35 would be considered skilled players.

That is simply not the case.

If we’re talking about raw SMV, and not MMV (marriage market value) or RMV (relationship market value), then a male 7 and a female 7, despite having the same name, do not have the same SMV. He is a 7, and she is more like a 700.

Here’s my response:

1)Prostitution would reverse itself – men would sell, and women buy

It does, dumbass.  Do you see men paying for 40+ year old women?  Um, no.  Not unless the guy is 60+.  Actually, the whole “cougar” phenomenon is women who have enough cash from their divorces “buying” younger men. How many guys walk into the local brothel and say, “Give me a middle-aged chick.” Bahahhaa.  And yet, how many “cougar cruises” go to tropical destinations where the old bitches on board pay dearly for swarthy local studs?  Yeah.

2)Women over 35 would have a hard time getting laid, and the only thing men over 35 would need to get laid, is to “just be there”

That is the case. By “hard time,” we mean that older women have to be much sluttier and do more shit for the guy. Older women have to put out fast and — if the guy is hot enough — he ain’t gonna bang her at all no matter what she does. Given my own experience, it has become easier and easier for me to bang chicks of all ages as I age. My SMV has risen a GREAT deal compared to my SMV in my early- and mid-20s.

3)Women who get laid a lot after 35 would be considered skilled players.

No they would be considered “desperate.” Basically, women who get laid a lot after 35 put out the “I’m easy” and/or “I’ll do anything for you” vibe. They make the first move, offer themselves sexually and usually offer to split the bill or pay the whole thing. They have to. Because guys don’t want to fuck old women.

If we’re talking about raw SMV, and not MMV (marriage market value) or RMV (relationship market value), then a male 7 and a female 7, despite having the same name, do not have the same SMV. He is a 7, and she is more like a 700.

You wish honey.  You take two looks-matched 50 year olds — man and woman — and the man will have FAR more mating opportunities than the woman.  Don’t want to believe me?  Wait around a little.

I’m no fan of the manosphere — that much should be clear by now. But the idea that women have a high SMV after the age of 35, 40, 45… that’s utter bullshit. Anybody with even the smallest shred of common sense and the slightest inkling to actually observe the world around them can see that’s a lie.

And, as far as men go, 90% of the time their SMV rises as they age until they’re late 40s or so. Only the hunkiest and laziest of guys have higher SMV at the age of 25 than they do at 35. Guys who perhaps didn’t age well or didn’t work hard enough to make something of themselves. Yeah, if you’re a hot 25 year old dude working in a garage, you’re going to have higher SMV than a past-his-prime 40 year old dude working in a garage. But the average guy who has gained money and status and has kept his looks to a reasonable degree will be pulling more tail at the age of 40 than he did at 25.

To think otherwise is to delude yourself. I hate people who delude themselves. It’s an embarrassment to everyone. Both the men’s right’s movement and the crazy feminist bloggers are kooky beyond belief.