Sex Nerd Update!

Just a quickie before Labor Day...

(...and who DOESN'T want a quickie before Labor Day?!?)

Wanted to let you know that I FINALLY posted the long-promised list of recent porn recommendations suitable for couples (that is, not strokers).  In full disclosure, I work at all the sites I link to (NSFW) but they are 30 year old reputable firms, and you won't get any viruses or such when you go there.

(Oh, and the one site is having a sale on video-on-demand this weekend -- all VOD titles are just $1.95 for 48 hour access.  I feel kinda obligated to give that a shout-out, just because it's a freakin' incredible deal.)

Y'all have a good weekend!

The Male Social Matrix: Back To The Sandbox

There's been a lot of talk around the Manosphere lately about the differences between how men and women relate to each other, socially.  They all dovetail nicely to my Female Social Matrix/Male Social Matrix theory nicely, so I'm going to cover them and expound upon them because I do that sort of thing.  Let's talk about the Sandbox, and what happens when a girl gets in...and why.

First, from the venerable Badger Hut, where Badger made the astute observation in his post Being An Emotional Man Does Not Equal “Talking About Your Feelings”:

Note where the only female has been stationed...

Male social dynamics have two major parts: the first in which men are tested for their fitness for membership, and the second in which having passed the test they are accepted into the group almost wholesale. I don’t see this in female social groups (in fact I see the opposite – immediate superficial acceptance, followed by an undercurrent of obfuscated and passive-aggressive challenges from the inside).

Cool, huh?  The next day, Athol did a piece about Why The Wannabe Other Man Tests You First, in which he recounts a tale of a man whose masculinity was repeatedly challenged in front of a group of friends, including his wife, and how it was handled.

Both posts bear examination, and both touch on a very sensitive subject that we don't discuss often enough.  How we socialize as men has a great deal to do with how we act and react around women, and vice versa.

As Badger says, you don't get included in the "Man Club" -- the Male Social Matrix -- just by having a penis.  If you recall my other posts about the subject, you know that men test each other at the outset of meeting each other in order to establish a dominance hierarchy.  It may be a high-order hierarchy, like a corporation or an army, or it may be a low-order hierarchy, like four guys on a fishing trip, but regardless of the situation you can't get into the sandbox until you've proven your value to everyone.

That can take many forms, depending on the men and the situation -- but once you pass the test then you get into the sandbox and follow the leader of the pack like the other boys, and everyone has a good time.  If you play particularly well, your status goes up.  If you're kind of an asshole, your status goes down -- but you aren't tossed from the group.  You just become the group's Asshole.  That role comes with certain expectations, but we'll get into that another time.

In the case of Athol's story, the social interloper made several very public, very nasty emasculating marks that were clearly a challenge to the other man, an overt play to intimidate him and impress his wife.  The man dealt with it with a subtle threat of physical violence, which countered the interloper's threat nicely.  It was followed up with yet another confrontation with a third party who reiterated the threat.  Because, y'know, sometimes someone just needs to hear that they will get their ass righteously kicked if they continue interloping with designs on another man's woman.  As it should be.

The aspect I want to address is the test-and-bonding ritual, and the role that Alpha and Beta play in the Male Social Matrix.  In essence, the interloper violated the tacit rules of the Sandbox by dickishly emasculating the married man, and severe consequences resulted.  He was attempting to be a Bull Alpha and make a move -- or at least test the waters -- on a woman who was clearly already claimed by another man.  Worse, he chose emasculation in a public venue to make his challenge, an arena where an overt display of confrontation would have been problematic due to the mixed nature of the event.

You see, had the party been men-only, then the dynamic would have changed dramatically.  If you attempt to verbally emasculate another man in a group of men, then it's either teasing banter between old friends or a direct challenge to be handled directly -- and knowing the difference between the two is an exclusion criteria for most groups of men.

But if a dude is that much of an asshole as to call you "girly" in front of a bunch of other guys, then direct confrontation is required to counter the Asshole's play for dominance.  Since it was done in mixed company, the husband had to consider the ramifications of his actions not just on the Sandbox, but what it would have meant to his wife over on the Swing-set.  Women don't like direct confrontations, they like nice, pleasant little gatherings where gossip can flourish and they can stab each other in the back like civilized women.

This Social Testing for admission to the Sandbox can take many forms, of course, but there's always an implied challenge, response, and resolution.  Think of it as the "Prison Yard Play", where a demand on a new inmate by an old inmate has to be met with violence, or you're going to be someone's bitch by evening.  If someone calls you out in front of a bunch of dudes, then either a demand for a retraction or a confrontation is in order.  And even if the Asshole in question is much, much bigger than you, and you do have a high chance of getting your ass kicked, the Alpha thing to do is to go ahead and get your ass kicked.  Because if you don't, then you tacitly admit his (admittedly assholish) emasculation of you and accept the consequences.

There's good news, though: if you do take on the Asshole and lose, you haven't really lost.  Losing to the AMOG may not be great, but it doesn't send you to the bottom of the pyramid.  Your challenge made you a "contender" for AMOG, even if the odds were long.  The reward you get is the respect from the other men in the Matrix, who have witnessed your response to the challenge and your bravery for taking it on, and who don't count your loss against you.  You might get your ass kicked, but no one else is going to say shit about you, knowing that you're willing to defend your territory.  Bull Alpha bullies depend on dudes backing down when they make a dominance play, and when that doesn't happen, more often than not they back down themselves and find something better to do.  That's life in the Sandbox.

Add just one woman into that mix, however, and the entire dynamic changes.

I'll shift sideways a little to illustrate my point.  I live in the Land O' Cotton, the glorious South, and I know a lot of black people.  I'm not a racist, most of my black friends aren't racists, and 95% of the time our cultural memes are exactly the same, even if our perspectives and presentatinos are slightly different.

I bring this up because that other 5% can trip you up if you don't understand it.  A group of black folks in the South will act one way when it's only black people within earshot.  Introduce a single white face and their entire presentation subtly changes.  It's not a negative thing -- it's not like they sneer or make negative comments or anything -- it's merely the fact that a white person is present changes the rules of social dynamics among my African-American friends.  

They're just as polite to me as each other, just as ready to engage in discussion or debate, just as likely to include me in the event . . . but there's no doubt in my mind that my presence has interrupted or interfered in the all-black social group dynamics that was there before I arrived.  It's a subtle thing, and most white people don't even realize it's there -- I didn't, really, until a white friend of mine wanted to go see a step show at a local historically black college, and I discouraged him -- because, as I told him, sometimes black folks just need the space to "be black" without any white people around.  It's not a racist thing, it's a cultural thing.

Similarly, one woman in an all-male group radically alters the dynamic.  Some women who seem determined to be included as "one of the guys" find it highly frustrating when despite their best efforts they just don't make the cut.  I knew one in college who was determined to be accepted as "one of the guys" in Tech Crew for a play, and she did everything she could to de-feminize herself (she was straight, and I think she was after one of the other dudes, but I digress . . .) in that pursuit.

But one night after rehearsal, the rest of the dudes went to an off-campus house to watch porn and play videogames . . . without her.  She was heartbroken and angry, and the next practice she demanded that they include her next time, even threatened to complain of discrimination if they didn't.  She was unsatisfied.  They were dudes, she was a chick, and no matter how much they respected her abilities, she still wasn't a dude.  She ended up quitting the next week, citing "an increased academic load", but we all knew she left because she wasn't included in the Sandbox.

A single woman attempting to infiltrate the Sandbox will sometimes understand the situation well enough to demand a male-style challenge herself.  Depending upon the males in question, they may or may not humor her.  And if she does succeed in the challenge, she will get a little grudging respect, and she will be "included" in the next "all-guys" night.  But "being included" often means "being ignored", just like you'd mostly ignore a low-status Gamma or Delta.  A woman's successful challenge to gain entry to the Sandbox usually means that she's low-status to no-status...but the dynamic in the Sandbox shifts anyway, because she's still a chick, they're still dudes, and even if she watches porn and plays videogames she's still a chick and they're still dudes.

Inclusion in an all-male group is rarely the prize that some women make it out to be.  The key difference is the amount of respect given to a woman, compared to a man, when she makes the challenge. A group of men will cede respect to the challenger, if he's male, in accordance with his style and success.  A group of men will almost never cede their respect to a female challenger, because they all realize the innate differences in approach and perspective between men and women, and they understand at a basic level how allowing her to accept the challenge is a serious compromise.  She gets just enough respect to remain in the Sandbox, but will never rise any higher in the hierarchy than the lowest Beta.

 Here's what Susan Walsh at the venerable HUS has observed:

It is my contention that most human social groups have a male domination hierarchy of some sort, with the more self-confident males near the top and the less self-confident nearer the bottom. Mind you, they don’t butt heads or beat each other up; the more dominant ones lead the group, guide the conversation, are the ones that others look up to, etc. The less dominant ones are followers, and in pathological situations, are ridiculed and taken advantage of.

Exactly.  And when a woman is present, that screws up all that beautiful male conflict resolution.  Because suddenly the dudes stop trying to impress each other and rise in the hierarchy through achievement and start trying to impress the girl, whether they're into her or not.  They can't help it.  That's their genetic programming.  Unless they're gay enough to warrant a fabulous pair of designer beach sandals and matching swimsuit/swimrobe combination, you and your buds are going to start focusing on her, not the success of the group.

Susan also helpfully points this out:

"Self-esteem theory says that we always want to maximize our self-esteem and that we derive self-esteem from two sources: achievement and affiliations (friends, groups, lovers). "

That is, MEN usually gain their self-esteem through achievement ("how good am I?") while WOMEN traditionally gain their self-esteem through affiliation ("how popular am I?").  So while the men in the Sandbox see the woman attempting to prove herself through achievement in tackling whatever fitness challenge they've come up with, the woman is focused far more on her inclusion than her success.  If success is the only way to gain inclusion into an exclusive group (which is as good as money in the Female Social Matrix), then the woman will pursue success to that end.  Men, on the other hand, will focus on the achievement and be less concerned about affiliation.  They might join a group in order to achieve something, but the focus is almost always on the achievement, not the affiliation.

I think we men understand this at a basic level.  When a girl tries to do something that usually only boys do, the natural hesitancy on the part of men isn't -- as many women, particularly feminists, contend -- because they don't want their social group to be exclusive.  That's a chick thing.  Men resent women who intrude into the Sandbox because they're usually doing it as a matter of social positioning, not because they have the same drive toward achievement that men do.  To men, what you do matters, and why you do what you do matters a whole lot.  Not so much over at the Swingset, where it's what you say, not what you do, that counts.

And then there's this other thing: the tendency of those first "female pioneers" in the Sandbox to attempt to re-write the social rules after they were grudgingly included.  In most Sandboxes that means dialing down the achievement bar to make the initiatory challenge easier . . . for other girls.  That's because they're playing by Swingset rules, which mandate that everyone strive for consensus and equality, and not by Sandbox rules that mandate that everyone be judged by their individual achievements and their individual contributions to the group.  So when that first girl comes in, after she's been around for a while and you just start to forget she's there, she'll often suggest that next time you change the challenge criteria to make it "easier", "simpler", and "more fun and fair for everyone".

And boys naturally resent that, because the point is that the Sandbox isn't supposed to be easy, simple, fair or fun for everyone.  It's serious business where boys are competing against each other, and the harder the competition the greater the respect and glory to the boy who wins.  Setting the bar lower just means giving up an individual achievement in favor of consensus and "fun".  And before you know it, another girl is in the Sandbox.  And that's when the trouble really starts.

A single woman alters the group dynamic of a previously all-male Sandbox.

TWO women destroy it utterly.

Why?  Because it only takes two women to form a node of the Female Social Matrix.  Two girls in the Sandbox are almost always going to agree with each other over the boys, regardless of the issue.  Women turn to each other for support and inspiration when things get tough, whereas men tend to buckle down or fold -- by themselves.  While that sounds like a VERY GOOD THING to those allergic to honest competition, the fact is that de-emphasizing achievement in favor of simple affiliation is disaster for how the Sandbox works.  

Two intractable figures within the group who always agree with each other and almost always suggest alternatives to leadership's dictates (because offering "helpful suggestions" to the group leadership is prized on the Swingset, but despised in the Sandbox) become a serious problem -- especially when they start using their micro-consensus as a point of leverage to change the direction of the group. More Swingset stuff, because over there the focus isn't being the Alpha Female and leading -- no one really wants that, because of the danger it attracts -- it's to be able to influence the consensus of the group while avoiding personal risks to position, without appearing to.

So when there is a two-girl FSM node in the middle of the Sandbox stubbornly insisting that the group listen to their direction and suggestions, not those of the designated-and-vetted AMOG, then it's rightly seen as a challenge to their loyalty to the group, their willingness to submit to group leadership in exchange for their respect, and their willingness to put aside their personal issues and sense of independence in order to further the goals of the group.  And that's how the group dynamic of the Sandbox gets screwed up.  Because with two women, it isn't an all-male Sandbox anymore, it's a piece of the Swingset that has gotten out of control.

That is, the male/female dynamic often overwhelms the ability of the leadership to handle it.  That's because the leadership was developed under the Sandbox rules with a mission in mind, and the Swingset isn't mission-driven -- it's process driven.  When you start trying to promote the process over the mission, you dilute the commitment and the determination of the entire group to achieve. The point isn't to make sure everyone has a good time or has a fair chance -- the point is to build the bridge, win the war, get to the top of the mountain, beat the record, win the championship, that is, to actually achieve something.

Making the entry challenge and conditions easier might actually be "more fun and more fair", even for the boys -- but you don't get the bridge built.  With two or more girls in the mix, you can bet that they will make a scene about how the bridge is getting built and not let anyone get anything done until their concerns are met, they've been listened to, their opinions have been debated and discussed, and a decision that they approve of has been made.

That's also why men, when confronted with the invasion of all-male space by women, often retreat and re-form their group instead of trying to contend with "equalizing" the Sandbox.  They want a group dynamic where achievement, not consensus and affiliation, are important.  They want to get the bridge built, not have fun -- building the bridge IS the fun.  Socializing along the way is often a pointless indulgence of lower-status Betas and Gammas, so making things "easier and more fun" (more feminine) is anathema to the all-male power structure. It's not that men "fear" women invading their spaces because they want to keep them exclusive just for the sake of exclusivity -- that's a female thing -- they want to keep them exclusive because including women into the group dynamic often, if not always, deters the group from its stated mission.  You just can't build a sandcastle at the Swingset, you have to do it at the Sandbox...so if you want a sandcastle, you need to follow the Sandbox rules.

Consider Badger's observations of how the Swingset operates: "immediate superficial acceptance, followed by an undercurrent of obfuscated and passive-aggressive challenges from the inside".  That is, the New Girl will be enthusiastically invited to take the last swing . . . and then be immediately bullied by the other girls through subtle and snide comments, secrets between the original group, and used as a pawn between the power centers of the consensus.

When you bring that obfuscatory impulse and passive-aggressive behavior into the usually straight-forward Sandbox, Ladies, you are essentially taking a nasty dump right in the middle of everything the boys have been working on.  It's the moral equivalent of having a man show up to an all-girl group and start ordering everyone around.  Or inviting a boy to give you a push on the swingset, only to have him push you off suddenly and painfully.

50 Shades Of Game: Why Feminists Hate The Book

Everyone seems to be running around being shocked – shocked, I say! – at the stunning popularity of the 50 Shades of Grey e-novel, involving a virginal young woman and a dark, dominant and kinky billionaire (of course) in a series of BDSM experiences that have panties dripping across the globe.  It’s the latest in mommy porn, and you can expect a lot more like them in the future, if my agent is to be believed.   There will be a movie.  The entire adult industry took a serious up-surge this year, thanks to 50 Shades.  There is a nationwide shortage of glass Ben Wa balls at the moment.  Mommies and middle-aged spinsters everywhere are getting a serious case of the hornies over this book. 

 Good on them.

But what disturbs the feminists is the fact that this HIGHLY popular book is, indeed, highly revelatory about the female sexual psyche, and those insights lead to some dangerous (to them) and politically inconvenient truths. Among these:

a)      Women like porn.

b)      Women like porn . . . a lot.  Romance novels, soap operas and celebrity rags are a massive industry for just this reason.

c)       Women like their “spicy” (read: explicit) porn served up with a side of BDSM, that is, Dominance and Submission.  And throughout all of these books, it ain’t the heroine who’s cracking the whip.

d)     50 Shades is an admitted rip-off of the equally-awful and equally-feminist-lambasted Twilight books, and copies the"romance" of the original along to a depressing fault. Yet this may be the biggest thing in sex so far this century.  Only, the massive popularity reflects the above-mentioned truths so well that a lot of men are starting to re-think their entire approach to sex with their wives or girlfriends.  I'll be doing another post soon about what the popularity of 50 Shades means for men, but in this one I'll cover why it's twisting the knickers of the feminist establishment and a plethora of bloggers.  Indeed, I can sum it up in one word.

       Game.

The appallingly-formulaic nature of these stories is so brutally revealing about the truths behind “what women want” that feminists are referring to this book as glorifying “violence towards women” just by its male-dominant  theme.  The fact that it's porn is secondary; the objection here from the feminists is primarily that men aren't allowed to be dominant with women.  Despite the fact that it's clear from the sales and the hype and the millions of soaked panties that seems to be precisely what the women of America want.

 What women want – that is, what gets them sexually excited, which is the part we dudes really care the most about – is dominant, Alpha-presenting men.  

Strong, silent, tall, dark, handsome, rich, debonair, passionate . . . it’s the James Bond/Dark Triad thing once again under all of that Grey.  He's the ultimate romance hero, minus the vampiric abilities.  That is, he's a Bad Boy with a Heart of Gold who is just Misunderstood deep down inside, and who just needs enough Magic Vagina in his life to coax him into blissful matrimony.  

But it's the Bad Boy part that sells.  Feminists don't want to admit that Rich is sexy.  Handsome is sexy.  Dominant is sexy.  Power is sexy.  Masculine strength is sexy.  Men who don't cater to the whims of women are sexy.  If you take the hero Grey and make him an affable and sensitive billionaire who just cares so darn much about the heroine that he does everything she says, and everyone can see the eventual high-profile divorce evolving.  The Hero has to be a Bad Boy, because panties don't get wet over Good Boys or Nice Guys.  That's why True Blood remains so popular.  Add in the supernatural, then you get a panty-drenching combination you can take to the bank, over and over again.

The truth is, feminists have a right to be concerned.  Not because these books advocate violence against women, but because it very clearly lays out just what gets most women the hottest.  And if a man knows what gets a woman hot – and let me assure you it ain’t his keen housekeeping skills – then men are going to start . . . y’know . . . actually doing that stuff.  The dominant stuff.  Not catering to the whims of women and being overly deferent and not asking permission to use the bathroom and everything.  It will be a disaster for feminism!  

Think about it: millions of women just discovered that they like dominant men and BDSM-style sex.  They fantasize about being told what to do.  They have a deep-seated sexual desire for submission in their soul, and if the right dude shows up and knows Game, they'll go nuts.  Now think of millions of men suddenly cluing in to the fact that their wives and girlfriends really, really want them to be more dominant, but know if they ask them to be or tell them to be, it won't count.  That's Solomon's Dilemma: a woman cannot ask a man to lead her, or it doesn't count.  He just has to do it and she has to decide if he's worthy of following.  If half of the Blue Pill Beta husbands out there who busted their feminist wives reading this book "just to see what the fuss is about" suddenly strapped their testicles back on and stood up for themselves to their domineering wives, we'd see a sea-change in how American culture and the SMP works.  

If the Betas/Gammas/Deltas in America learn Game, the feminists are all but done for.  If the few "happily" married women out there suddenly stop plotting affairs and exit strategies and start getting righteously boned by their reborn husbands, then they'll be a lot less likely to explode into rage over the stupid stuff feminism throws them, like Roosh's designation as a "hate group" because his kung fu actually works.  

Personally, I think we've passed Peak Feminism awhile back.  They've been intellectually coughing up blood since the Lewinski Affair, anyway, where they had to issue a painful excuse for their political ally for the High Crime of Fellatio.  Since then, the American public hasn't been able to listen to feminist pundits without remembering how they responded then, and that has undermined their influence.  This book might be the beginning of the end.

After all, if one crappy book is enough to shed forty years of feminist theory about sex and gender roles and the proper use of neckties for millions of women, then how strong can feminist  intellectual arguments be?  Not stronger than the collective power of female arousal, clearly.  That's a dilemma for feminists, because on the one hand they want to encourage sexual exploration in women...just not for the perceived benefit of men.  So the feminist consensus says that while that’s OK for women to read about that sort of thing, it’s JUST for women to read about.  Because if this information fell into the wrong hands, then . . .

Well, then the Beta Boys might learn Game.  And then the feminists lose their power.

Because, Gentlemen, we are the wrong hands.

You can dissect any of these books and the same meme comes across, no matter what the hero’s specifics.  He’s an Alpha (or Super-Alpha, depending on the ego of the writer), dominant, and he stands up to the heroine’s bullshit.  He teases her, he’s even cruel.  He negs her.  He refuses her.  He insults her.  He frequently calls her names.  He adores her, secretly, but shows it through a conflict-laden dialog that often sounds more like a challenge than a seduction.  But that just “hides his passion” for her (and only her) until he realizes it, proclaims it publicly, and takes her to her Happily Ever After (HEA): marriage.

No, really.  

They don’t make romance novels with married women as main characters, because in the female sexual psyche, that’s when romance stops.  Try to find a single married heroine in the Romance section of your bookstore.  One who ends up with her original husband at the end of the book.  You won't find it.

That should make you think.  You have to ask yourself . . . if the wedding is the ultimate-and-expected-conclusion of the idealized romantic standard for women in these books, then what does that mean for us men in the aftermath?  

Well, as most of you know, it’s not pretty.  Women know instinctively how to get married.  They apparently don’t have a clue how to BE married, usually, because the books they read never told them about that part.  They have no married-romance standard.  They have no ideal of what a "good" marriage should be -- although they sure know a good divorce when they see one.  Indeed, the entire idea of marriage is anathema to the pure feminist ideology.  But American women in general, and feminists in particular, really have little idea about how to be married, happily ever after or not.  They have Redbook, and More magazine, for gals over 40, instead, and the Divorce section of the HuffPo to help encourage them to flee the desolate institution for an imaginary wonderland of interesting billionaires with big dicks and a fetish for middle-aged divorcees.  

While we're looking at porn, they have endless fantasies of masculine control and domination and eventual matrimony that they express through romance novels and soap operas.  Even for "happily married" women, these stories are designed to take them back to when they were single, horny, and looking for Mr. Alpha Dick again, not to the middle-aged married pot-bellied clueless Beta husbands they're struggling to deal with now.  That's telling about the sexual psyche of America's collective womanhood, because right now these books are selling like they're Jenna Jameson's underwear.  Don't believe me?  Go look at the Amazon Kindle stats in the Romance genre.  Some women are buying and reading up to six books a week, now that no one can see the covers of what they're reading. I'm curious how many of them self-identify as "feminist".

Essentially, these books are screaming out that women want to be Gamed, before marriage and after, and no self-respecting feminist would ever admit to that.  That would imply that women had no control of their own sexuality, their desires, their sexual destinies.  And ceding control of their sexuality to a mere man is an unthinkable betrayal of all of their feminist forebears.  So feminists and particularly feminist bloggers have up to now either dismissed these books as “harmless fantasy” by whistling past the graveyard of the truth, or they form a harshly-expressed condemnation of the poorly-written books because of their abusive nature . . . while likely hoping that they don't alienate their own fans (who are buying these books like hotcakes) by calling them out.  Why are they so pissed off?  Because these exercises in literary mediocrity and sexual excess are telling the Truth About Women's Sexuality, and that has to remain a feminist state secret.

And the truth, Gentlemen, is that women’s sexual attraction is responsive, and that it responds the best and the most with those dominant cues associated with storybook heroes: tall, rugged, muscular, broad shoulders, commanding demeanor, decisive personality, keen wit, power, money, celebrity – you know the drill.  They want Mr. Right.  Prince Charming.  A tiger in the bedroom and a pussy in the rest of the house.  Independently wealthy, power, an inexplicably devoted to their Magical Vaginas.  They want the Primal Alpha experience, the Super Alpha cock, but the whole purpose of the romance in feminist terms is the Taming of the Primal Alpha into a female-controlled situation, i.e. “Happily Ever After”, i.e. Marriage.

You can see why their appalled, and are trying to discourage the popularity of these books.

Here’s a list of “anti-feminist” messages and “dangerous myths”  in 50 Shades from a feminist website,  Her Circle Zine by Marina DelVecchio.  It’s not exhaustive, but it gives you a good place to start.

1. The Virgin Vs. The Deviant

“Steele has to be a virgin in this book, because another experienced woman, like her roommate, Kathryn, would never give in to BDSM willingly. And as she’s a blank slate, he can teach her a kind of sex that she had never been aware of, a kind of sex that is deviant and submissive and offensive. But because she doesn’t know any better—hasn’t had any other kind of sex—virtue and intrigue can be discovered in the sex that he offers her. If deviant sex is all a woman knows—all a man knows, since Christian Grey had only been exposed to this kind of sex himself at the age of fifteen—then that is the only kind of sex that will appeal to her until she can discover the other.”

Apparently Steele just isn’t slutty enough to be that slutty at the end of the book unless she was an ignorant virgin raised in a cave by the Amish at the beginning.  Because women get very little exposure to sexuality in our culture, apparently.  And “experienced” women apparently don’t like BDSM or dominance and submission.  

That’s going to come as a big surprise to a LOT of folks out there. 

Plus, according to her Mf BDSM is “deviant” sex.  Lesbian sex isn’t “deviant” these days, cheating isn’t “deviant”, divorce isn’t “deviant” to feminists…but put a man in charge and all of a sudden you’re a deviant.  

Deviant from what?  As a sex professional, I deal with all sorts of work that would be considered “deviant” by someone.  It seems Ms. DelVecchio wants to set your sexual standards for you, and then tell you what you can and can’t do in your own bedroom, if you’re a dude.  You must treat women with tenderness and deference and generally kiss their asses to get your cherished access to the Magical Vaginas of your wives.  Show the remotest sign of backbone, and feminist doctrine calls for a nasty reaction.  Try to actually be dominant in your relationship?  You're one step away from being a rapist.

If you’re a woman, Ms. DelVecchio wants you to go out and screw someone -- hunky pool boy, interesting co-worker, a soldier on leave -- just so that you can have a frame of reference before your Magical Vagina is ever-after contracted out to a handsome billionaire.  Or -- more likely -- the schleppy Beta husband you settled for when your Prince Charming didn't appear.   

 2.       A Woman’s Love Can Change Men

“E.L. James also asks us to believe that we, as women, because we are innocent, soft, and inherently maternal and loving, have the power to alter a man’s history, to change him. If we show him real love—that he is worthy of love—he will become virtuous. Christian Grey is not a villain, but he has a dark side that only therapy will change, not a woman. “He objectifies her, don’t get me wrong,” one educated woman said to me about this book, “but he changes, because of Anastasia and the love she has for him.” “No one has the power to change anyone, but this trilogy offers us the stereotype that women are virtuous and self-sacrificing by nature, willing to give up their needs and wants in order to appease their men.”

Um…a woman does change a man.  Not necessarily her love, mind you, but no man can come out of a relationship with a woman unchanged.  Of course, what women (particularly feminists) mistake for “love” is the idea that they are actually entitled to change a man in the first place – not just change a man, but change all men into something more like . . . well, women. 

Note how Ms. DelVecchio approaches the frame: there is something wrong with the hero of the story because he doesn’t do things the way she thinks he should.  He is damaged and flawed, and while the Manosphere understands why the heroine is attracted to the Uber-Alpha stud, Christian Grey, she’s blaming the heroine's deeds and decisions all on “love”.  

DelVecchio’s essentially taking issue with the Great Rationalization Hamster, the cultural hamster that all American women listen to instead of feminist theoreticians when they want to get righteously laid without guilt or self-loathing or concern for the Patriarchy.  True Love is for vapid idiots, seems to be the feminist rhetoric.  

A life as a corporate spinster, on the other hand, is rich, fulfilling and full.

American women are not listening, however.  That's because feminism is attacking the holy concept of True Love, and woman's allegiance to True Love trumps feminism's relatively tenuous grasp on their hearts in a big way.  True Love is the one thing that gives single women hope of personal happiness,  instead of a future of corporate drudgery, loneliness, and pathetic one-night-stands. True Love leads to a solid relationship, a devoted husband, and children in most women's minds.  Feminist want to tackle that Hamsterbatory idea and replace it with Men Are Pigs.  And the idea that "the love of a good woman" can't change a man is blasphemy to the rank-and-file womanhood.

The Red Pill fact is that we do have the power to change other people – in fact, we cannot help but change other people as we influence and interact with them.  But beyond that, I have to agree with DelVecchio that women are not virtious and self-sacrificing by nature.  That’s the Hamster talking.  In this age of entitled feminism, the woman who is willing to give up ANYTHING for a man is a rare and precious thing.  Whereas the expectation that a man has to give up ANYTHING his woman asks him to is foremost in her mind.  To DelVecchio and her feminist sisters, it is only proper that Grey give up his self-crafted identity for the questionable benefit of Steele’s Magic Vagina, and not the other way around.  He's a man.  He's not entitled to control his destiny without the firm, guiding hand of a woman keeping his "baser nature" in check.

But this one is most telling:

3.       The Female Submissive

“ BothTwilight‘s Bella and Fifty Shades of Grey‘s Anastasia are virgins. Both of them find themselves overcome by the experienced and brooding heroes with dark histories. This idea that the good girl is intoxicated by the bad boy is a motif in movies and literature, but why is it so intoxicating? Why cannot our heroines be strong, experienced, and not so easily overcome by bad boys and by the darkness they embody?”

  “Feminist theory teaches that women’s bodies and place in society have been defined by men, since we all live in patriarchal societies ruled by them.  Even though two women have written these books, they are reinforcing the erotic representation of women as men would portray them. Men love the sweetness and innocence of women, but they also want to see that innocence turn to a dark and erotic form. Both Bella and Anastasia do turn. In Twilight, we see Bella’s sexual desire for her vampire hero, Edward. She tries to have sex with him for a few books, but he denies her because he may hurt her in his passion. With Anastasia, we see another virgin chained to a rack, being introduced to an anal plug and one orgasm after another. But she loves it. They’re both innocent “submissives” with sweet and quiet strength; and they are both turned, by the men they love, into dark mistresses intoxicated by sex.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! 

Ms. DelVecchio recognizes the allure of the Super Alpha for women, but thinks it’s a minor cultural thing, not a deeply-embedded biological draw.   The fact is, even hardcore feminists can fall for the “bad boy”, if their hamsters let them, no matter how strong and experienced and informed they are.  And while Ms. DelVecchio expresses confusion at why this happens, I think anyone with any familiarity with Game will recognize why. 

And that’s what is scaring feminists about this book.

Dominance.  Women like (are sexually aroused by) dominant men.  Feminist hate that. 

Dominant men means a lack of control for women, and feminists can't have that.   Even though they’re just as susceptible to the dominance cues those men produce, if feminists don't control men, who will?

(If you can, watch a confirmed feministwho isn’t a lesbian in a small mixed-gender group situation some time.  Observe their interactions with the AMOG.  They’ll fight against a dominant man on general principal, even as they find themselves subconsciously responding to the dominance cues.  And the more the man refuses to “be reasonable” and submit to her, the more turned on she gets.  Heavy breathing, dialated pupils, even kino IOIs and hair-tossing.  It’s pretty funny to observe.)

But this demonstrates the difference between what women want – that is, what they want from men in terms of social and interpersonal relationships – and what women “want”, the things that arouse them sexually.  The Blue Pill is essentially mistaking the former for the latter.  The Red Pill is essentially saying the former is predicated on the success of the latter.  

Feminists want to deny the power of Game (the use of dominance cues to arouse sexual attraction for use in seduction) because they want to deny that sexuality has anything to do with how things are supposed to work in our society.  

Game has to be bad, because it removes the control and the initiative from the woman.  Possessing a poorly-understood sexual desire that responds to the very behavior feminism sees as a threat is a serious Achilles heel, and they know it.  Women are free to make their own decisions about their sexuality, they say, and Game is an unfair and worthless attempt at re-establishing male control of women.   (Of course if Game didn’t work, they wouldn’t be getting their panties bunched about it, would they?  If this book didn't reveal any major truths about female sexuality, they wouldn't have even mentioned it, would they?) Their objection to the book is  basic and pretty revealing:  If the man controls the sexual relationship, then he’s going to want to control the rest, isn’t he?

They’re right.  Because as I mentioned in an earlier post, you can’t be “just” dominant in the bedroom.  You either carry it with you all day or you leave it at home, but you can’t be Beta all day and then flip a switch and suddenly be the Alpha she wants once the bedroom door is closed.  As I've said, you have to present Alpha in everything you do throughout the day, or it won’t hold up.  

And if you’re dominant, then that means your wife must, by default, be submissive, and they can’t have that because it denies female empowerment.  At the very least, under feminism, the two partners in a relationship are nominally co-equal (with the female holding de facto power over her male “partner” by virtue of her Magic Vagina and threats of divorce).  Only you can’t have a “co-equal” dominance in a relationship.  That’s a poor rationalization at best.  

One of you must lead, and one must follow, or you don’t get anywhere.  It's Solomon's Dilemma:  She cannot respond to your mighty Alpha mojo if she gets a vote about where and when you deploy it.  Either you are in control . . . or you aren’t.  And if you are, then they aren’t,  that doesn’t work for them or their ideology.  So feminists have a choice.  They can either admit that they “like” dominant men (or at least most women “like” dominant, masculine men) and deal with us honestly about sex, society, equality, and everything (highly unlikely) or they can get pissed off with their non-feminist sisters and blame them for the fact that women think with their crotch a lot more than they want to believe.  I wonder which way they will go?

Feminism is at an impasse with femininity.  I think it’s kinda cute.

That’s where 50 Shades and the feminist outcry that followed stems from.  Women clearly seek sexual fantasies where they are the submissives in the relationship.  They overwhelmingly identify with characters who are dominated by their men.  Go pull any bodice-ripper romance off of the shelf you like, and you’ll find the same type of Uber-Alpha dude with the broad shoulders, tall build, and chiseled jaw manhandling the same defiant, resourceful damsel over and over again.  And in the end, always, wedding bells. No matter how strong, smart, and resourceful the heroine is, it's inevitably her beauty and sexuality that get her out of trouble and into a wedding dress.  She "tames" her bad boy, be he pirate, vampire, or billionaire playboy.

Weak-willed feminists and non-feminist women say it’s just harmless fantasy – and to them, it is.  It’s a way they can stretch their sexual imaginations, they argue.  Sex isn’t all about orgasm and sweatiness, they explain, there’s romance . . . and THAT’S what women want. 

Which is Hamsterspeak for “yes I want to be dominated, but I don’t want you to dominate me”.  Sex just isn’t that compelling for most women.  They don’t have the kinds of spontaneous desire men do.  They often can exercise their need for entertainment and titillation, maybe jill-off but probably not, and count it as a sexual, sensual experience, the end.  What it reveals about them isn’t important because it’s private, which means they don't have to talk about it and reveal their weaknesses...to the men who are supposed to be in charge of pleasuring them sexually.

But for dudes sex is a different thing altogether.  It’s one of our prime motivating factors.  When you boil down competition, money, success, acclaim, respect – it’s all part of our innate masculine mating strategy to get laid as often as possible.  We will do whatever it takes to get the poon.  It’s easily the most reliable thing about men.  For men, sex is one of the top three things on our minds at any given moment.  Women score the success of a relationship based on how secure she is before sex even enters into it.  Men score the success of a relationship based on how much and what kind of sex they get.  Period. 

A woman often will use this knowledge to their advantage – using sex to influence men or get something is as old as Magic Vaginas (see how Enkidu got tricked, trapped, and “tamed” in the Epic of Gilgamesh, over 5000 years old).  Even die-hard feminists don’t hesitate to use this power in their personal relationships.  They see it as a legitimate tactic in their struggle against the Patriarchy, and a reasonable one against their poor, misguided, hapless husbands.  How much would you like to wager that the majority of feminist marriages who end up in counseling are their because of sexual starvation of the poor Beta/Gamma/Delta husband?  Keeping the initiative – the “edge” – in a sexual relationship gives a feminist power over that man. 

What Game does is change that around.  

Suddenly, you understand the things that trigger an subconscious sexual response in a woman: constantly teasing her throughout  the day, distracting her with innuendo and flirtation, elude her attempts to shit-test you, and generally be the cocky asshole that makes her pussy wet.  Once you learn Game and have hand, the sexual initiative is yours.  If she tries to “use” sex to influence you, she knows she’s going to have to commit to an awful lot in order to get the edge back.  

Just flashing her boobs won’t mesmerize a Red Pill man the way they will a Blue Pill man.  Instead of stunned adoration, he claps his hands together and says “Is it that time again already?”

Women don’t think about sex spontaneously nearly as often as men.  They think about it responsively.  If you are constantly throwing her sexual cues, she has little choice but to respond, and her hamster will dream up a good reason why she should.  Feminists hate that.  They don’t want you to know about it at all.  And books like 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse novels all scream it at you: women are sexually attracted to dominant-presenting men! therefore, in feminism, they're all bad.  At least, when anyone is watching.  

If American wives start to be sexually and otherwise satisfied with their lives and their husbands, they might stop trying to hate men.  Feminism's success is predicated on American women being uniformly dissatisfied with their sex lives.  No husband is going to be as good as a handsome stranger.  No sated wife is going to be tempting the Divorce Gods with a girls-night-out gone awry.  If Beta husbands and Gamma LT boyfriends start leading and acting all Alpha, in the bedroom and out, then feminism might lose some of its most passionate adherents, divorced women.

Please note that nowhere in the above post did I condone abuse in any way.  Abuse is wrong, every time, all the time.  But what a feminist says constitutes “abuse” often includes things like a lack of attentiveness in her future ex-husband, a lack of motivation and drive (success), and a lack of respect for women, not just physical and sexual abuse.

(Oh, and let’s not forget the double standard of emotional abuse.  If a husband is emotionally abusive (that means he does something his wife doesn’t like and makes her feel bad) then he’s a criminal under feminism.  If a woman is emotionally abusive, she’s “empowered”.)

Even as they are buying it and reading 50 Shades and ending up with damp panties and sticky fingers, the feminists  protest: they don’t want you Gentlemen to really know what makes panties damp, because they know they are virtually powerless to stop it. Knowledge of Game is no defense against Game.  If a dude comes on full-Alpha, and he knows Game, then unless you're a confirmed lesbian, he's got a chance to get into your panties.  At the moment, that chance is restricted to exciting and dangerous Bad Boy Alphas.  Not even feminists are immune to their magnetic charm (and innate Game).

I watched this happen recently:  A feminist friend (and yes, I have dozens)and career professional recently got a new boyfriend – a “bad boy” six years her junior who rode a motorcycle.  He was a young Bull Alpha working his way through his harem, picking up some MILF on the side, but she thought it was True Love (partially because he refused to say “I Love You” and she admitted she didn’t feel right dumping him until he did,  Apparently boy has Game.) 

When her shocked friends asked her about it, she didn't give a line of feminist theory.  She looked like a miserably horny 14 year old with her first crush as she said, sheepishly, “I can’t help it!  He just . . . does something to me that I need!”  No talk of Patriarchy, no discussion of his responsibility to the united sisterhood, no plans to have him spayed and neutered, she was getting humped rotten by an Alpha Bad Boy who represented everything she was fighting against and she was loving it.  The part she loved most was the “forbidden” nature of her bad boy.  He was too young, too butch, too mean, too hot, too . . . manly for her friends, and she avoided them and the judgement of the Matrix for a few weeks of horny infatuation and properly enthusiastic sex.   Her hamster insisted she was just exercising her right to sexuality, even as she ducked meetings to see him and let him do nasty things to her that no feminist should ever let a man do.She was clearly powerless against the Alpha Cock, and that upset her friends.

She didn’t get upset until her boy-toy dumped her, hard, because he interpreted her invitation to move in together as being “overly clingy”.  Plus it was clear that he wasn’t thrilled with the sexual relationship, and resented my friend’s attempt to “teach” him the “right” way to make love to a woman (the only public fight they had in my presence – she started talking to her friends about aspects of their relationship that he wasn’t comfortable with.  He made several attempts to subtly dissuade her, but she ignored him.  He finally stood up, said “when you’re done telling your girlfriends what a lousy fuck I am, you’ll find me at the bar talking to that babe.”  Hamster Nuked.  This dude has a future.)

My friend was an utterly devastated by his dumping.  Partially because she had never been dumped before, but mostly because he just ended it, without dramatics, tears, or apparent regrets.  (At least he did it in person, and not on Facebook.)  He was done with her.   

Of course she mentioned being “in love” several times, as she told everyone – and I mean EVERYone – in her life about her sad tale of woe – but she couldn’t stop talking about the sex or the animal passion he’d shown her, either.  She wanted to pursue couple’s counseling, a communication workshop, and was even willing to negotiate some concessions if she could just keep getting the Alpha Cock. him in her life. Only Bad Boy apparently doesn’t negotiate.  He rudely told her that if he wanted a wife, he wouldn't have fucked her in the first place.  Two weeks later she was still in tears over it, he was dating a much younger and prettier chick. 

. 

He had, in other words, thoroughly Gamed her.  And she ate it up.  Until he stopped, and then she was distraught.  But she didn't mention Patriarchy, Male Oppression, or any other feminist lingo in relation to her own relationship, because, apparently, feminist criticism is fine for other women’s relationships, but True Love is the only thing that matters in their own.

So that’s the first part of my 50 Shades of Grey commentary and why this really bad book is really good for men: Feminists don’t like the book because it betrays the secrets of female sexual arousal, which deprives feminists of sexual control in their personal relationships and feminism of a cogent argument against male dominance within a marriage.  It also dashes a few feminist myths and challenges expectations.  And even though it was written by a woman for women, it’s anti-woman because it shows a woman who is not in absolute control of her life enjoying sex with a man who is.

(That noise you hear is the squeaking of a million feminist hamsters getting ready to spin their wheels over this.  Oh, and our vibrator sales are up 30% over last year.  I’m sure it’s just a coincidence…)