The Manosphere: A New Hope for Masculinity cover

Just got the rough draft of the cover design for the book and I thought I'd throw a low-res version up here for comment.

Front cover design

It's hard to see at this rez, but the black letters in the Mars sign say "XY-XY-XY".

Tentative release date (dependent upon a number of factors including approval from Adam & Eve editors) is set for December 9th.  Which means that when the rough is done and ready for comment, there will only be a week or so for revisions before press date.  Of course, that date CAN be moved . . . but I'd love to get it out by then. Not only is it in time for Christmas, but that's both my eldest son's and Papa Ironwood's birthday -- the two most important men in my life. This book is dedicated to them.  Even if I won't let my 13 year old read it yet.

Here is the proposed copy for the "back cover" promotional blurb.

Welcome To The Manosphere.

Have A Cigar.

The Manosphere is a loose collection of hundreds of blogs focused on male issues and masculine interests.  A relatively recent phenomenon, author, blogger, porn reviewer and sex nerd Ian Ironwood introduces you to this seething section of the blogosphere where a vitally important debate is happening between men, about men, for men, and by men as men.  As feminist authors declare the End of Men, seeing them as the weaker sex in today’s socioeconomic climate, the men they’ve written off are beginning to gather and discuss the current crisis in masculinity with renewed interest in their traditional masculine past and with their eye on the future of men in our culture.. 

It has been forty years since feminism began its assault on male interests and masculinity, and while it has been a productive ideology for women, feminism has not, as The Manosphere makes clear, done much positive for men, and is responsible for a lot of negatives in our culture.  If feminism foresaw the need for a reassessment of masculine cultural memes in the formative 1960s, this is the belated result.  But feminists are not going to be happy.

In the Manosphere regular, ordinary men are reconsidering what it means to be male in the 21^st century and formulating a new approach to life, sex and gender that often ignores feminism or actively sees it as an obstacle to gender relations.  Armed with the anonymity of the internet and access to resources and open discussion with other men, the Manosphere is linking thousands of men around core topics of masculine concern, including women, sex, economics, religion, social justice, education, children, marriage, family and divorce. 

Designed to be both an introduction and a survey for the man new to the dirty snowball of the ‘Sphere, The Manosphere: A New Hope for Masculinity explores both the blogs where men are redefining what it means to be male and the greater ailing culture of Western masculinity attempting to redefine itself in a post-industrial, post-feminist landscape.  The men of the new millenia are exploring the meaning of "male liberation" -- but don't expect a sudden surge of male aprons and househusbands to sprout.  Within the Manospere, a “liberated” man is free from the social expectations and cultural obligations traditionally associated with the gender.  Free, in short, from the psychological oppression of feminism as it has evolved.

Encompassing the diverse masculine groups including Pick Up Artists (PUAs), Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Wise Old Men (WOMs), and Old Married Guys (OMGs), both the overthrown Patriarchy and the snarky, rude, irreverent and openly-disrespectful-of-women Puerarchy, the Manosphere is a common ground where all men find help in their struggles -- particularly their struggle against a society where being male is often treated as either a crime or a medically-treatable condition.  The Manosphere: A New Hope for Masculinity seeks to take an androcentric look at recent history in gender relations and the future ahead – a future where men work for their own interests, toward their own goals, without judgment or condemnation . . . and more and more commonly without any desire or intention to marry.  

Is this the beginning of a new social trend of self-awareness and the pursuit of masculinity?  Just how are the men of the 21^st century contending with the problems of sex, love, relationships, mating, dating, marriage and divorce?  How are reproductive rights viewed through a male perspective?  How has Game changed the way the Sexual Market Place works?  How is 50 Shades of Grey indicative of a deep disturbance in the “Force” of feminism?  Just what, exactly, is the Red Pill . . . and why is it known as the “female Viagra”?  And what will the Manosphere mean for men of the 21^st century and the women who love them?

Join Ironwood as he takes you on a testosterone-laden journey into the mind of modern man . . . and through the looking glass of the masculine soul as seen by The Manosphere.

Questions, comments, insights?

A Brief Red Pill Election Analysis

I don't like to get political any more than I like to get religious on this blog, due to the fact that I'm in the minority in the Manosphere on both counts, but of course the more I try to stay away from those subjects, the more they seem to come up.  But as masculinity and men have both religious and political context in our culture, it becomes unavoidable.  Below is my as-objective-as-possible assessment of the election, minus any gloating, hand-wringing, or other overtly political crap.  I'll also note that I've written political blogs (progressive and libertarian) before under other names, so I'd like to think I know my ass from a hole in the ground, but that's not why I'm posting.

Considering the US Presidential election in purely Red Pill terms, the Ironwood Observation holds true: in an electorate in which women are the majority, the male candidate with the highest subjective and objective Sex Rank wins.  This has held true at least since the Nixon-Kennedy election.  In every single presidential election, the dude who came across more Alpha and caused more wet panties won.

In this case, you had exotic Barack Obama up against wholesome Mitt Romney.  Both candidates were handsome men on the surface, with slightly exaggerated features and strong charisma.  Objectively, both were strong Alphas in the 7-9 range.  Add preselection points for being happily married, positive beta assessments for being visibly active fathers who put family first, and its easy to see why the polls showed a virtual dead heat going into the race.

But the devil is in the details, and when it came down to it, Obama just had better Game than Romney when it came to courting the female voter.  Not only is he a proponent of what are traditionally seen as "women's issues", he presents more strongly than Romney.  That is, when a woman's subconscious "tries on" the idea of sleeping with a choice of Romney or Obama, there's a huge appeal to the latter and not much enthusiasm from the former.  Here's why.

First, let's handle the issue of race, because it's the most obvious and blatant factor.  While many women fantasize about affairs with rich, powerful, handsome men -- and Romney certainly fits the bill in all three departments -- Mitt is the kind of dude you'd hook up with at a golf course groundskeeping supplies sales convention, drunk-and-on-the-road, a decent screw but hardly anything to jill off to later.

Barack, on the other hand, has the exotic-sounding name ("Mitt" is just too country club) and the chocolate skin.  That has automatic appeal to black female voters, of course, and plenty of Latina, Asian, and white female voters.  There is of course what some have cynically called the "Mandingo Effect", which some Republican commenters blamed on Obama's first victory in swing-states North Carolina and Virginia, that is, the much-ballyhooed secret desire amongst white women to have affairs with (presumably) more-alpha, sexually superior black men.  Obama's poise, oratorical skills, and high social status permit the "Mandingo Effect" even in the subconscious of the most conservative women, it is argued.

Liberal women?  He had them at "hello".

Couple that with his deep, sonorous voice, and suddenly he's the tall, hot black dude with the doctorate you meet on vacation in Martinique and bravely bring home to your parents, ala "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?".  Or he's the hawt black dude who helped you get your groove back.  Either way, I contend that Obama had the race sewn up the moment he sang a few bars onstage at the Apollo with that voice.  It was the gush heard round the world.  A fantasy experience with exotic Barack would come complete with illicit cigarette smoke (which is enough "bad boy" for a family man of his age to make him daring), intellectually stimulating conversations about the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilization in light of modern industrialization and liberalization of social mores, slow, sensual dancing and soft, cool jazz in the background to augment the taste of your mojito.

But lets move on to the preselection issue: both candidates are happily married.  Mitt has a good Mormon wife who has bore him a huge litter of strong, handsome young boys doomed to follow in their father's footsteps.  Mrs. Romney is the picture of the great Mormon mom: wholesome, outspoken, deferent, devoted, and openly respectful to her husband.  She's an adept political wife, perhaps not on the par of Hilary Clinton, but certainly better than Laura Bush.  Preselection is based in part on the Sex Rank of the partner, but also on her position.  And when you put Anne Romney up against the First Lady, Michelle comes out ahead on the Female Social Matrix.

First, she's already First Lady, which gives her automatic, nearly unassailable AFOG status.  After all, she sleeps with the POTUS, who is already reigning AMOG.  But her personal charisma, unusual beauty, height, and undeniable intelligence make her a personally powerful woman.  While arguably less-feminine in presentation than Romney, thanks to her size and style of dress, Michelle's charisma and warmth soften the amazonian image significantly, and she does have quite an engaging smile.  In comparison, Ann Romney just doesn't have that same Alpha appeal to men, and therefore her devotion to Mitt, while laudable, just doesn't have the same level of passion that a union of strong Michelle and strong Barack has.

Both get points for motherhood, and in this Romney has an edge by sheer volume and wholesome maternal devotion.  Subjectively speaking, this raises her SR amongst the country folk and westerners who see her as embodying the American maternal ideal of devoted wife and loving mother.  Mitt gets points for his pure virility (that's a mess o' Romneys) and his fidelity, which are a reflection of Ann's devotion.  Further points for their mutual religious devotion -- it's easy to see why women in the Heartland were less seduced by Obama.  They were partially put-off by Michelle's more in-your-face relationship style, even if they were somewhat envious of her apparent passion for her man.

Michelle gets higher subjective SR from moms in suburban and urban zones, as well as massive points for her proto-feminist, be-all-you-can-be style.  Her devotion to Barack is nearly palpable on stage, and her utter lack of personal political ambitions makes her appear a genuinely supportive partner, not a scheming colleague (lookin' at you, Hill).  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Barack and Michelle love each other and -- more importantly -- are in love with each other.  There's observable passion, there.  Indeed, some folks get pissed off at the regularity of their PDAs.  But that kind of observable devotion (and presumed willful submission) of a strong woman to a strong man gives Obama CRAZY preselection points.

(In the Gore/Bush race of 2000, I was genuinely fearful of a Bush victory . . . until Tipper and Al made out on stage at the convention.  That brief, passionate display humanized The Tin Man more than anything else, and gave me a little hope that he could overcome the willful machismo of C-student GWB.)

If Ann had been more Alpha in her presentation, and had treated Mitt more like a seething tiger of raw animal lust she could barely restrain herself from attacking at every public appearance, then it would have raised her profile and therefore his numbers.  Treating him like the perfect husband and father is great, politically speaking, but she failed to communicate the subtext that he's hung like a circus pony and does her at every available opportunity.  It's clear that they're devoted to each other . . . but you don't hear news stories about Mitt skipping majorly important events in order to quietly celebrate an anniversary with his wife.  When you think about them as a potential first couple, you think "Weekly, lights out, missionary position, was it good for you too, dear?", not "Give me that manhammer harder this time, Stud, I'm going to squirt!"  

As attractive as Ann is (and she gets extra MILF points with that lightly-padded, devoted PTA soccer mom style) she just doesn't have Michelle's charisma, despite her wholesome charm.  She's just not an alpha-enough psychological rival for a woman to contend with -- therefore her mate isn't as high value.  If Mitt was caught in an affair, there would be horrible scandal and prayers and Ann would be the dutiful but indignant wife, conducting herself as Caesar's wife as she very publicly and tearfully forgave her husband and then very publicly began marital counseling.  "The other woman" would not even be referred to in her speech.

On the other hand, if Barack was ever caught in an affair, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that Michelle Obama would be perfectly capable of cutting a bitch.  Unrepentantly.  She's a visible lioness in her physical presentation, her power and devotion and willingness to mate-guard a tangible symbol of her quality . . . and therefore Barack's worthiness.  She's a well-respected woman who lavishes respect and praise on her man.  She shows her passion for him and for their relationship with undisguised enthusiasm.  And it's not difficult to imagine that she's making sure he's getting laid like linoleum to keep the Lewinski's from hiding in the closet.  You know she's rocking his world not out of wifely duty, but because she's doing the POTUS and more importantly she's doing the POTUS that every other woman in the country wants, and so Barack has a titanic preselection bonus to her.  She's doing the dude that every other girl wants to do.  That puts Barack's preselection bonus in the highest tier.

In the final analysis, Mitt just wasn't as tasty jillfodder for the mass of femininity as Barack was.  He made a good run at it, but when it comes to selling a brand to women you have to know what they respond to, and the Romney brand was just too . . . bland.  Obama's was still exciting and exotic, and let's face it: that gray in his hair only makes him look hotter.  With Mitt . . . not so much.


But there's one last point I want to make about the Red Pill and politics, and this is to the Liberals and Progressives out there who might stumble over this blog.  One reason that Mitt did as well as he did is that the Democratic Party made huge strides in wooing the vote of women, but toward men they appealed only to them by ethnicity or sexual orientation.  If you were a dude and you voted for Obama you did so either as a Liberal, a Latino, an Asian-American, a Union man or as a gay man.

Male issues and masculine interests were ignored or disparaged by the Democrats in favor of seeking the all-important women's vote, and they continue to do so at their peril.  A lot of men voted for Romney who would have been happy to vote for Obama, had they been reached out to and persuaded.  When you focus a party platform so overwhelmingly on female interests and issues, you leave men little room to join you, and the opposition, no matter how fruit-cakey, is the only place for them to go.  I give Obama's people credit for not actively antagonizing the electorate on some prominent male issues such as gun control and the like, but there is little allure to the Democratic agenda in purely masculine terms.  A few pro-male initiatives, some genuine outreach and discussion with men as men, and some visible support for masculine endeavors and the Democrats could woo a decisive section of the all-important independent moderate swing voter. As it is, they are too enslaved to the ideologies of feminism to make the attempt without risking their coalition.  By virtue of ignoring the subject entirely, the Democratic party might not be actively anti-male, but there isn't much pro-male to suggest them.

Hell, if Obama had re-legalized internet gambling, it could have gotten him another 50,000 male votes nationwide.

Similarly, if the Republicans would tone down the religious rhetoric, stop the rampant homophobia that is alienating wealthy gay male Republicans, admit that science is a real thing now, and appeal to black and Latino male voters as men, and not by their ethnicities, then it's possible that the results in Virginia and Florida would have been much different, and possibly in Ohio, too.  There's a difference in being a place for rejected men to go when the other party disappoints and the place made enticing because men are valued and celebrated as men, pursuing male issues above issues of race or class.  But thanks to their anti-gay, anti-science, and anti-intellectual stance, the GOP tends to alienate that same moderate independent male voter.

While the GOP tends to pick up some male issues like gun control and national defense, their patented cowboy rhetoric stopped being an effective tool after Reagan -- you can blame GWB for that.  Because while Bill Clinton's bull alpha persona won him huge Bad Boy panty-dampening status for daring to get a hummer from a chubby intern in the Oval Office, W. suffered from being a wolf alpha who was not the AMOG, thanks to Cheney and Rove's overt manipulations during the Iraq and Afgan wars.  That emasculating kingmaking made W. appear as a macho tool, a useful idiot for shrewder minds to control, which undermined his AMOG status significantly.  There's a reason that GWB wasn't mentioned hardly at all during the race.  He's like a bad relationship everyone wants to forget about.

But that's my assessment.  What do y'all think?

Of Objectification, Solipsism, and Glass Slippers

I’m breaking my self-imposed blogging exile because a) I need a break and b) I got a bug up my butt.  I was following some interesting links around the Manosphere and got trapped in a site called Mommyish (now isn’t THAT a strong sign of commitment to the maternal instinct) in which a single mom who got married to a good man was sick and tired of people telling her how lucky she was. 

I wasn’t the only Manospheran following that link, and as is often the case, the Flying Monkeys were hammering the poster on the comments pretty badly.  Badly enough so that the comments became blogfodder.  That led to a whole bloggity post by another married formerly single mom about how everyone was being unfair to single moms who were sick and tired of being told how lucky they were for finding dudes to marry them and be fathers to their children, and that led to me revealing I work in porn which, as everyone knows, objectifies women.  And men.  But the women are, apparently, more important since they get paid more than the men.

ANYWAY, this led to a long internal examination of the typical objection to objectification in porn and the underlying psychological basis for that objection.  Could it be, I wondered, that there was a lurking psychological issue beyond the overt political issue?

Consider for a moment the whole idea of objectification.

We are objectified all the time.  Our employers and our insurers objectify us by turning us into statistics.  So does the Federal, State and Local government of your choice.  Our lives on Facebook and Google and all of their permutations across the internets objectify every keystroke and mouseclick we make.  Our lives are filled to the brim with objectification.  Celebrities are objectified as cultic objects to help establish a woman’s position within the Matrix, or sports celebrities are objectified through their stats and numbers until people are mere functions of a larger equation.  The glorification of winning and glamour by our respective genders objectifies the generators of that glory to the point where they cease being real people.

We are objectified in school from our first day of kindergarten.  Our performance is measured by arcane metrics of education upon which our teachers’ performance is judged.  Our hard-earned grades and personal effort become mere numbers on a grade sheet, then marks on our folder, then bits within the school system’s database, then statistics at the national level.  Our tastes and purchasing decisions are objectified by the vendors we use, and despite every attempt at friendly and personal corporate customer service, in the final analysis you’re still just a number to Food Lion.

So we’re objectified by our environment on a daily basis.  We've come to accept that as the price we pay to live within the sophisticated civilization we've developed, and it mostly doesn’t bother us because the entities involved are themselves objectified by law and composition.  It’s Google, Inc. who is spying on what kinds of kinky sex toys you’re buying, not Joe Google of Battle Creek, Michigan who’s leering at that ten-inch faux phallus that you just had delivered discreetly to your door.  That would be creepy.

But in the realm of dating and mating and love and sex, feminist object to female objectification in porn.  Of women.  Objectification is wrong, they say, as it deprives the performer of her personhood and dehumanizes her somehow.  In doing so, they themselves objectify pornstars into their preconceived notions about how pornstars must feel about the subject, despite frequent and vocal expressions of those performers’ personal, individual (and mostly positive) feelings on the subject.  In decrying objectification of women in porn, feminism objectifies the very performers they allegedly want to protect.

But that’s not why feminism really goes after porn.  (I’m excluding the “sex-positive feminists” here, and focusing on the anti-porn forces of the Third Wave and the intellectual stain they left on feminism – and even the sex-pos fems often object to “objectification”, usually meaning any porn they themselves don’t like.  But I digress)

Feminism goes after porn because it represents a threat to the sexual power women were able to gain for themselves in the Sexual Revolution.  That is, the freedom for women to have sex outside of wedlock . . . and the freedom for women within marriage to use sex as leverage in their interpersonal relationships with their soon-to-be ex-husbands. 

Porn threatens that power, because (as women discovered in the 1980s) if a dude has easy access to porn and the freedom to whack off, her ability to use sex as leverage in a marriage is damaged.  In those days a wife confronted with hubby’s collection of tapes in the basement saw them as the first sign of infidelity, a signal that her husband was dissatisfied with her, and a sneaking suspicion that she had somehow married a secret pervert.  Worse, it raised sexual expectations – women who were used to starfishing once-a-week as a reward for a well-mowed lawn or other Beta excitements were confronted by dudes who were suddenly using terms like “doggie” and “cowgirl” and “anal” in disturbingly enthusiastic ways. 

That challenged the power of the married feminist.  A man was supposed to be faithful to a woman until she got tired of him, doting on her and supporting her in return for her grudging gift of sex.  These pretty, young, and thin pornstars were a direct challenge to that power, like having “the other woman” living in their house, tempting their docile hubbies into feminist-prohibited, female-degrading and demeaning sex like anal, male domination, or fellatio.  At the beginning of the porn revolution, in the VHS days, viewing porn could and was used as primary a basis for pursuing a divorce.  While that got to be less common as porn became ubiquitous, the official feminist “disgust” with the industry as a force of patriarchal evil corrupting the minds of the innocent and ruining the pursuit of a truly equal society hardened into stone. 

But feminists can’t wage a war against porn based on the loss of sexual leverage in a marriage.  That would be obviously un-equal, after all, from the female side – feminists views of marriage in general supported a female-led but ostensibly “equal pursuit of mutual pleasure” which usually mean equally-disappointing sex for both parties.   So feminism used the “objectification” meme against men watching bare boobies because you fellas just didn’t get to know those boobies as a person before you got to see them.  And those boobies were exploited and you should feel ashamed about any positive feelings you might harbor for them.  Objectification is WRONG when it comes to women.

The problem is, objectification is a vital and essential part of male sexuality.  Of all sexuality, actually, but since men are more visual creatures, it’s easier to point to porn and scream “objectification!” than it is to point to the stereotype of the young, handsome billionaire romantic lead with a tragically misunderstood past.  Sex objects are a lot easier to identify than “success objects”, and anyway, it’s not like women actually masturbate to the thought of a handsome billionaire with a huge dick.  Not to pictures.  Not of actual billionaires.  So it’s OK. 

But for dudes, we need a certain amount objectification in order to be fully-formed, sexually-mature men.  Unless we can objectively make decisions about our mating options, we lose the ability to select the highest-quality mates within the pool.  And that’s very poor mating strategy.  Since men value beauty and sexual adventure in their mates (usually – I don’t judge) then beautiful and sexually-adventurous women tend to – objectively speaking – be more attractive to them.  

The ability to objectify is utterly necessary for us to determine whether or not a woman is a better bet for casual non-reproductive sex or better for the development of high-quality offspring or – preferably – both.  Women have the same need for objectification, otherwise there wouldn’t be the flurry of pre-date internet investigation about every dude women meet to determine – objectively – whether or not he’s worth pursuing.

(Of course, they rationalize away this in-depth invasion of privacy as a “safety measure” – after all, they don’t want to get involved in a pre-conviction axe murderer [post-conviction axe-murderers are exciting and exotic, on the other hand, and deserving of huge amounts of attention].  But what a man’s credit rating, his socio-economic status and his resume have to do with his desire to hack a woman to pieces after an unsuccessful date is beyond me.  Are Audi owners more prone to decapitation, I wonder?  But I digress.)

Now, let’s also set-aside the intellectual dishonesty that allows feminists on the one hand to object to professional women being paid an exceptional wage for a demanding career naked and having sex on camera, yet support that same woman’s right to exhibit herself on camera with her lover at home as a fundamental sexual freedom.  Because, as most feminist don’t want you to know, the vast majority of porn on the internet is amateur fare made by consenting partners for their own enjoyment.  And yes, for a large number of such folks, sharing their videos is a major part of that enjoyment.  But women who get paid for it are being “exploited”, while Molly and Harry Sugarsack of Hackensack, NJ are just getting their feminist-approved vanilla kicks.  Let’s forget that for a moment, because there’s a deeper issue here.

That issue is the psychological foundation of feminist objection to objectification (of women) itself.  You see, objectification is the polar opposite of solipsism, and that’s where feminists fall off the swingset.

Female solipsism, as we have discussed and explored, is the observed tendency of a woman to put herself as the focus of the situation regardless of whether or not she belongs there.  It’s the “what about me?” or “how does this affect me?” meme.  That is, in any given case a woman is more likely to consider the entire situation based on how it will personally affect her life before she looks at it from any other perspective.  This isn’t an absolute, this isn’t a universal, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but in aggregate female solipsism is an observable trait that seems embedded in the feminine psyche.

It’s also understandable, from an evolutionary perspective.  As the guardians of genetic purity, women have a vested interest in ensuring their personal survival and the survival of their offspring.  Therefore, what happens to her, personally, is of great importance to the genetic cargo she’s carrying.  Putting “women and children first”, and herself at the head of the line, might seem selfish, but it’s just her body and her subconscious trying to maximize her sexual capital into the best deal she can get. 

Men, on the other hand, use objectification for much the same purpose, evolutionarily speaking.  Since men are the guardians of genetic diversity, then their interest lies in selecting the best possible future mothers of their children.  That has nothing to do with True Love or Fate or Kismet or Karma or anything else other than what makes their dicks hard.  And, generally speaking, that’s not a great personality or good earning potential, it’s big juicy boobs, a pretty face, a sexy smile and a bouncy booty you’d follow for blocks.  While he might have more in common with a woman on an intellectual and emotional level, his evolutionarily-proscribed task is not to bond with a single woman, it’s to spread his seed to maximize the genetic diversity he’s guarding to as many places as possible.

Solipsism puts the individual woman first, and all women ahead of everything else.  Or, more accurately, solipsism puts the woman’s perspective first in consideration.  It demands taking a “personal approach” to every problem.  And when you put that proposition into play in the dating-and-mating world, that means that it’s in a woman’s best interest to dissuade a dude from sowing wild oats in other fields and supporting her, because she’s a special little snowflake whose genetic material, exemplified in her warm personality and not her cottage-cheese thighs, which is just naturally better and more attractive than—HEY!  QUIT STARING AT HER BOOBS!

Feminists object to objectification NOT because they’re concerned with how they and their fellow women are perceived by men (and each other) at large, but because objectification denies solipsism.  When women are objectified, they lose the ability to place themselves at the center of their universe, and must concede that they are merely one snowflake in a snowbank.  That’s a painful admission for feminists who have been raised on the red meat of grrl empowerment.  It’s also painful for the non-feminist or not-particularly-feminist woman to acknowledge that they are not quite as special as they’d been led to believe by their self-esteem-inducing curriculum.

Objectification denies the solipsism that women need in order to form a lasting relationship with a man.  If a woman knows that the man she's selected is looking at other women, then it feels like she's somehow failed in her genetic mission to captivate his attention . . . if he's not exclusively focused on her as much as possible, then she feels that his willingness to commit to her, personally, is jeopardized   Therefore other women, real or digital, are a threat to her exclusive claim to him.  Feminism, in its fight for imagined "equality" in the interpersonal sphere, tried to demonize male objectification while glorifying female solipsism within the bounds of a relationship.  It was part of the failed feminist mating strategy.  

The problem is, as stated, men need to objectify women.  It's what makes our penises work.  It's also our greatest weapon against the ever-present rejection that even men in LTRs can feel.  When a dude gets turned down for sex, his first instinct is to objectify and distance himself from that failure like dropping a hot match.  That might sound unreasonable to women, but that's the biological fact.  While we can bond to one woman for a lifetime, we cannot do so without knowing and loving all women somewhat.  We need to know what we like and what we don't as thoroughly as any woman does . . . our criteria are just different.  Female solipsism says that "the One" is out there for everyone and anyone, because every snowflake has a match somewhere. In True Love, Fate will bring them together.  In feminism, if you ride the carousel for long enough "The One" is supposed to appear, inexorably (and inexplicably) attracted to your spunkiness, independence, and strength.  

Either way, the whole idea of "The One" is the cultural expression of female solipsism writ large.  Under either system, the perfect man is drawn to a particular woman because of her personality, her nature, and her unique perspective on life, with an emphasis on "fun" and "fearless".  Female solipsism fights against the objectification of women (but not men) under the guise of feminism in fighting against porn and under the guise of romance as snowflakiness.  Women deserve to have great relationships under both mating strategies simply by virtue of being women.  Of course, what actually happens is usually much more brutal.

From the male perspective, objectification of women is vital to Game as a mating strategy, especially in a Dating 2.0 world.  Indeed, Game requires objectification of women before you do anything else -- if you aren't willing to generalize about the observable characteristics of female mating behavior or their mating strategies, you're just as much in a True Love fog as the ditziest romance-reading cat lady.  Objectification requires placing all women on the same line, holding them to the same standards, and assessing them against those standards in a cool and calculated way.  Being persuaded away from objectifying women, such as our poor Blue Pill Beta brothers have done, denies a woman's fungibility and by default makes her the most important element in the relationship.  They have been forced to acknowledge that their sexuality only exists through the subjective perspective of their wives, and are denied the ability to consider other options even in the privacy of their own heads.

Romantic solipsistic women want to feel like Cinderella -- where Prince Charming will show himself by having the perfectly-fitting glass slipper that is hers alone.  The relationship works ONLY because of her unique character and individual perspective -- because it's her special little foot in the slipper.   The problem is that there are plenty of women with her shoe size, she just doesn't want to admit that . . . or how many shoes she's tried on while looking.  

Feminist solipsism says that the Prince Charming and his slipper will not only fit her, but because Prince Charming is there in the first place because he's attracted to her intelligence, wisdom, and personality (which has nothing whatsoever to do with how she fills out a ball gown).  That slipper will fit perfectly at first, and if it starts pinching her feet later on the feminist solipsist feels comfortable with the idea that she can upgrade to a better quality of glass slipper because she's not happy with them at any time in the future.  

Game says that you are Prince Charming, dude, and you started out with your own glass-slipper design.  It isn't intended for any one girl's foot . . . but the one it fits will be the one most likely to fulfill your criteria for a good partner.  It's not that you're looking for a particular princess, understand . . . you just want one whose foot fits within the objective parameters you've established.  Yet every woman who can manage to squeeze her piggies into it is absolutely certain that you are "The One", ready to sweep her off her feet and set her up in a magical land of luxury, love, and perpetual security and excitement, just because she can cram her toes inside.  

So consider objectification and solipsism as you plot your own mating strategies, Gents.  Understand the role they play in sexuality, and why feminism politicized it.  It's about power, no more, no less.  After all, if feminists were all that concerned with the plight of women in general, then why are they continuously freaking out about the thousands of women who work in porn instead of the millions of women who work in the textile industry, where they are regularly subjected to sub-par working conditions and on-the-job rape just so that they can keep their low-paying jobs and continuously supply their First World sisters with a dazzling array of stylish-yet-affordable fashions.  No, feminism's anti-porn perspective is born far more out of a crippling desire to dominate their personal relationships without the threat of another sexual outlet in contention, an extension of their solipsistic tendencies to consider their own interests and issues before any other.

Your best bet?  Build a really strong "glass slipper", long before you start trying to jam some chick's foot into it, and then don't accept any foot that can't fit into it comfortably.  Your commitment is your prize, Gentlemen, and if you want to get the most value for that prize, then build your slipper as smooth as silk and as strong as steel, and refuse to accept anything less before you offer a chick your kingdom.

Okay, break over.  Back to the book.