Friday, January 4, 2013

Humiliating Omegas For The Greater Good: Hugo Gives You Permission To Be A Dick

I didn't intend to write this post today.  I wanted to skate in, clear up some deadlines, dodge some calls, and get out.  But then I read my email, and saw this nasty little piece of schadenfreude-laden vitriol from the fine ladies over at Jezebel   (Sorry, from Resident Delta Mangina Hugo Schwyzer.  The tone and writing style make it an easy mistake to make.)

I try to overlook most of the blatant, hate-filled misandry over there, because making fun of it would be a full-time job and I honestly have more important things to do.  Hugo, in particular, is a self-loathing caricature of the "male feminist", and nearly everything that appears under his name reads like a scalding indictment of the welfare system by a Black Republican.  But every now and then Hugo crosses a line, and something Jezebel's token penis says pisses me off.  Chalk it up to "male rage".  Today is one of those days.

The subject is Omegas -- although he doesn't use the term.  In profiling a website known as The Nice Guys of OK Cupid, in which hapless Omegas and Deltas (and others) who have put up a profile on OK Cupid as self-described "nice guys" are held up to shame, ridicule, and bullying for the temerity of wanting to get laid.

I'm no stranger to harshly criticizing a dating profile or two.  I don't take issue with that.  What I take issue with is Hugo's screeching response:

Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and giggles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young men, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of sexual success?

Let's stop right there.  These men are, as Hugo says, aggrieved and clueless.  Enraged, sad and bewildered.  He calls them pathetic and infuriating (mostly because of how many of them prefer women with shaven legs, apparently).  He even actually questions the morality of mocking them. 


 But if you think Hugo's about to show the slightest concern for his fellow men over, say, the obsequious fawning he does over his feminist handlers, you would be wrong.  The rage and pain of these losers -- and Hugo doesn't hesitate to mock them as such -- is, indeed, a fair and moral talent for public bullying according to Hugo . . . because they're just dudes.  And dudes don't matter.  (Until they start buying firearms -- then they matter).

If that last sentence is a little disturbing, Hugo acknowledges that there is a capacity for violence within these men . . . but that shouldn't keep anyone from poking at their open psychological wounds with a stick, humiliating and badgering them until they are at the brink of sanity.  Because it's for the Greater Good.

You see, Hugo, like many feminists, despises male sexuality, and deeply resent the idea that just ANY man might want to have sex with a woman.  Further, as an alleged male, Hugo feels fully justified in lashing out at these sorry souls because they are, apparently, in dire need of the public humiliation he encourages to be heaped upon them.  They deserve it.  Why?  Because Hugo doesn't believe men have a "right" to have sex.  


"NOT FOR YOU, LOSER!"
That's right.  These men don't deserve to have sex, according to Hugo.  They do deserve to be pilloried in public, humiliated and openly demeaned because they want to have sex but are unclear about how to do that.  Reproductive rights are for women, not men, apparently.  The right to express your sexuality and sexual desires is for women.  If men do it, it's "creepy".  Women have all sorts of rights to all sorts of things, from the concrete to the nebulous.  (Excluding, of course, the right to be compelled to die for their country -- let's not get unreasonable, shall we?).    But men don't have a right to have sex.  Especially ugly men with no social skills.  You're a LOSER, and Hugo thinks you should suffer for it.  You, as a dude have NO RIGHT to have sex.

He's technically correct, in most jurisdictions.  A legal "right" is something established by law or moral code, and the "right" for a man to have sex was abolished with the liberalization of divorce laws.  And while Hugo thinks it's perfectly acceptable for people to have all sorts of other rights when it comes to living in our grand post-industrial society, including the right to health care, food, shelter, etc., when it comes to something as basic as reproductive and mating rights for men, Hugo feels outraged that these losers should "expect" sex from a woman . . . just because they are Nice Guys.

Now, he doesn't for a moment stop and criticize the feminist movement for promoting the Nice Guy ideal for four decades -- that would be a lot to expect from Hugo, and it would bite the manly hands that feed him.  Instead he blames the Omegas, because they have penises and want to use them . . . and they've been following the only formula that feminism has permitted the average Beta-And-Below to consider when approaching his mating strategy: Be a Nice Guy and Just Be Yourself.

Obviously, in these cases, the feminist advice didn't work out.  Being a Nice Guy and Being Yourself do not actually count for jack shit in the dating universe, and Hugo admits that.  Admits it?  He revels in it.  If a dude can't be a nice guy and get laid like feminism advised him, it's not feminism's fault.  After all, that would be an attempt at accountability, and that offends feminine sensibilities.  Instead, Hugo blames the Omegas.  Stupid, dumb-ass, ignorant Omegas.

Hugo tempts us into thinking he might actually be considering masculinity in a vaguely positive way here:


What's on offer isn't just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it's a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement.

and it kind of got my hopes up.  WHAT?  A REAL discussion about "male sexual entitlement"?  Or, as the Manosphere prefers to call it, "Modern Male Mating Strategy"?  Even with the feminist-oriented lingo, I was tempted to believe that a real, heartfelt discussion was possible.  

But the "chance to talk" Hugo is excited about is actually the chance for feminists and Deltas to lecture the Omegas (and the rest of us penis-bearing humans) about why they are just sorry sacks of shit who need to just die.


The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women's bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy.

(Of course, he doesn't mention that it was feminism who promoted that "perverse social contract" to begin with, that would be "blaming the victim".  But I digress)


Nice Guys of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to have sex.

I'll even concede for the moment that poking self-admitted frustrated young men in their most sensitive psychological spots in front of millions of people isn't automatically a ticket to homicidal rage, just for the sake of argument.  But as infuriating as Hugo's bullying is, he's wrong about one thing.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Magic Sex Fairy.  It's called Game.  Game gets you laid.

That's what these Omegas and their clueless Beta, Gamma and Delta "losers" need to realize, and Hugo as much as tells them.  But he's such a dickless asshat about it, they probably won't listen to him -- he's really trying to curry favor with his handlers, not actually help out any fellow dudes.  So let me go through his rant and speak directly to these hapless "losers", my fellow men who bought into feminism's lie about how to pursue, court, and seduce women.  

Gentlemen, feminism hates you, with a burning passion, and is encouraging all women to hate you, humiliate you, and lash out at you for being creepy.  "Creepy" means feeling a compelling desire to have sex with someone feminism feels you shouldn't (in this case, a woman).    "Creepy" is Being Yourself when Yourself doesn't cut it with whatever chick is rejecting you.  "Creepy" is being a Nice Guy when, as Hugo tells us over and over again in no uncertain terms, women DO NOT respect, like, or want to fuck Nice Guys.  And just so you don't misunderstand your place in Hugo's universe, 


Sex with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can't be a basic human right. 

Here Hugo is telling you directly: BEING A NICE GUY WILL NOT GET YOU LAID.  AND YOU ARE A SORRY SACK OF SHIT IF YOU CANNOT GET LAID.  THEREFORE, BEING A NICE GUY MAKES YOU A SORRY SACK OF SHIT.  AND NAIVELY EXPECTING YOUR NICENESS TO TRANSLATE INTO ANY FEMALE INTIMATE COMPANIONSHIP MAKES YOU NOT JUST A FOOL, BUT A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR HUMILIATION AND REVILEMENT, EVEN TO THE POINT OF BREAKAGE.

Because you are a dude.  And under feminism dudes don't count.

Of course, that's assuming that the Sexual Market Place is made up only of non-for-profit pussies.  And it's not.  Especially not in this economy. For every hapless Omega Nice Guy with a job and an erection, there's likely a hooker out there who is more than happy to take his trade.  Hugo doesn't want you to know that, Gentlemen, or else you might actually get pussy, stop being Nice Guys, and stop posting piss-poor profiles on OK Cupid.  Hugo doesn't want that to happen.  He wants you to KEEP being pathetic Nice Guys and proving his point: under feminism it's okay to castigate men for their sexuality without regard to the consequences.

But he doesn't mention prostitution, because that's not "legitimate" pussy.  But the fact is, it's easier than ever for a dude to order in for the evening with a variety of friendly and courteous vendors who are more than happy to trade their affections, gag reflexes, and muscular control for financial remuneration   Hell, most of them won't hate you nearly as much as the women who reject you after locking you perpetually in the friendzone -- they're even inclined to be sympathetic.  Whores are in the business of making guys feel good, and the last thing they want you to feel when they leave is that they hate you.  Feminists, on the other hand, want that to be the absolute first thing that you feel.  If you are an ugly dude with no money, feminists want to make it absolutely clear just how eternally unfuckable you are . . . and how DARE you consider yourself worthy of any vagina on the planet?

Luckily, not all women think this way.  Hookers don't.  Hookers think you're fuckable.  They can even hand you an exact metric of how fuckable you are.  Hookers don't want to keep you in the friendzone, they want to keep you a regular client.  They don't do that by making you feel like shit.  They want to fuck you.

You poor, pathetic Omegas should consider that fact carefully.  Tired of being a celibate and frustrated Nice Guy?  There's one certain way to end it: Using the services of a prostitute makes you visibly exempt from the "Nice Guy" category.  So even if you don't have a RIGHT to get laid, by simply stepping out of the fiction of being a Nice Guy, any dude with a couple of hundred bucks can get his freak on, thanks to Craigslist and the internet.   Why humiliate yourself with scorn and rejection -- and then take the chance of finding your profile on some humiliating website where you can be held up to ridicule by everyone who happens across it -- when you can just stay in, figure out which hooker you want to sample this week, and make the call?  Hugo's tacit endorsement of the cynical use of prostitutes is revealing. 

But being a Nice Guy?  As Hugo demonstrates, women DESPISE THAT.  So, again, for the poor fellows who found themselves on Nice Guys of OK Cupid?  



Stop being Nice Guys.  

Hugo has given you permission to let your inner asshole shine.  Hugo doesn't consider sex to be one of the "necessities for survival", and he openly scorns you for wanting it -- needing it -- as much as you do.  He tells you that "the hideous and clueless" should be denied sex on general principal -- after all who wants to sleep with the hideous and clueless (note: in case you missed it, that's you.)

See what being a Nice Guy got you labeled by feminism?  Hideous and clueless.

Hugo continues, 


NGOKC reminds us just how many young men are outraged at this reality that attractiveness, charm, and fuckability are not and never can be equally distributed.

First, note the understated tone of gleeful smugness at your predicament -- this is how all feminists feel about you gentlemen, always.  If you smell the faint aroma of irony in Hugo's words, then consider it from the other side: if a dude came out and trashed a whole category of women for their romantic aspirations, they'd be labeled a misogyinst scumbag who hated women, not an "enlightened scion of male feminism".  Hugo can say what he does and treat you the way he is because he and his feminist sisters actively hate you and your desire to have sex, and they have constructed the narrative in such a way that they can bash you with impunity simply because you are male.  And dudes don't count.

But again, Hugo isn't wrong.  He's merely describing a reality of the Sexual Market Place, even though feminists HATE IT when we use such a term for the interplay of males and females seeking to mate and reproduce.  As nasty and bullying (but only for The Greater Good) as Hugo feels about you, he isn't wrong.  He's just kind of a misandrous asshole about it, making the whole thing your fault.  If you're just joining us, get used to it.  Feminists will say just about anything to escape accountability for what they say and do.

But a less insulting way to state Hugo's point is: Being a Nice Guy does not make up for physical, social, or structural shortcomings in the Sexual Market Place, no matter what feminism has falsely informed you.  

THAT'S the golden nugget you should take away from this: feminism's answer to the mating dilemma of "what can a dude do to get laid?", the Nice Guy/Be Yourself strategy, is a BULLSHIT MEME.  It's openly false, and it has been promoted by feminism because it helps weed out the "losers" from their own mating decisions -- any pretense at idealism is them just blowing smoke in your face.  

If a dude is dumb enough to buy into the Nice Guy/Be Yourself strategy, then he's too dumb for them to fuck.  And if he has to resort to being a Nice Guy in order to try to get laid, then he's clearly too ugly or creepy to fuck. Only real dicks get laid.  Nice Guys are just there to hold purses while it happens.

You, oh Nice Guys of OK Cupid, are what feminists resort to when they need to feel better about themselves.  No matter how much of a loser they, personally, might be in the dating realm, at least they aren't you.  As long as there is a loser like you to reject, then feminists don't have to face their own woeful inadequacies in the realm of mating.

That's just how they think, gentlemen.  And as much rage as you feel about having been lied to like that, you need to put it away.  Rage does not get you laid very often.  Perhaps only slightly more than being a Nice Guy.  It does little or nothing to make up for your social shortcomings, and it isn't going to improve the effectiveness of your strategy.  

GAME makes up for the physical, social and structural shortcomings in the Sexual Market Place.  GAME gets you laid.  Just about anyone, even you.  And you don't even have to kiss anyone's ass or listen to their boring crap to do it.

Back to Hugo, where he rationalizes bullying, public humiliation and mean-spirited social ostracization of you Omega gentlemen, even though he knows you might be unstable, because -- again -- it's for The Greater Good:


But in the case of Nice Guys of OkCupid, disdain isn't rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these guys may be prone to imminent violence, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that women owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn't so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Nice Guys' sense of entitlement to both sex and sympathy.

"Self-preservation", in this case, doesn't mean literal self-preservation, which might entail Hugo not bashing a bunch of potentially unstable, testosterone-poisoned young men who know how to use the internet and could be this close to a complete breakdown -- no, Hugo doesn't mind goading the desperate with no thought to his own safety and well-being.  Brave of him.  No, Hugo uses "self-preservation" in this context to mean "the preservation of the unfettered right of women and feminists to be hateful to young men because they disagree with their mating strategy and feel better when they creep-shame".  

You see, if Nice Guys really did get laid like feminists have told you they would, then none of that stuff Hugo insists you need to get pussy would matter: physical appearance, social skills and positioning -- sorry, "attractiveness, charm and fuckability".  You could really just be a Nice Guy, be a good listener, and the woman who is the object of your affections would naturally see you as a good mating possibility.

Only we all know that is complete and utter bullshit by now, and even Hugo admits that.  Being a Nice Guy doesn't get you laid.  So stop being a Nice Guy.  Learn Game instead.  Game gets you laid.

Wanna know just how much feminists despise you for being nice?  Let's see what Hugo has to say:


Besides the near-universal sense that they've been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women's non-sexual friendship. They rage about being "friendzoned," and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment.

So if you want to get in a chick's pants, stop trying to be friends with her.  Stop listening to her.  Stop treating her like you want to be her friend, because she won't fuck you anyway.  Stop being nice, start being a dick, and learn Game.  

Hugo complains that you Omega gentlemen are just upset that your "ruse" of being nice didn't work.  In essence, he's calling you out for a "tactic" that feminism told you would work, and didn't.  Most of you really do want to be Nice Guys, and are genuinely perplexed about the reaction; Hugo thinks you're all just faking it.

So quit faking it.  Quit even trying to pretend to be Nice to women.  They don't respect it, they don't desire it, and they don't fuck you for being nice.  If you want to get fucked, learn Game.  Game gets you laid.

Still not convinced?  Hugo is so sure that you're a completely miserable waste of humanity that he thinks that you should be humiliated even more for the temerity of wanting to mate.  


...a lonely dickwad is still a dickwad; the fact that these guys are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the women they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn't make men's pain into women's problem to solve.

So solve your own problem: quit being nice to women.  It's not going to get you laid and it's not even going to get you admired, at most it will get you pitied and used and at the least it's going to get you actively despised.  So deal with your pain constructively: by learning Game and getting pussy.  A lot of pussy.  As much as you can, and then go back for more.  Learn Game and then get pussy like it's on sale.  Learn the intricacies of the Red Pill method of dating, and enter the Arena like the gladiator you are within.  Utterly jettison the false ideology of feminism, which has made it clear that you have negative value, and embrace the pragmatic nature of the Manosphere.  Rethink your mating strategy utterly, or continue to face the shame and humiliation feminism has in store for you.

If you are one of the unfortunate Omegas who got singled out for your shameful desire for human affection and erotic intimacy by Hugo and The Nice Guys of OK Cupid, remember Hugo's key point:


No One Is Entitled To Have Sex.  

You don't get it handed to you.  But if you can listen to some lame chick's fascinating story about the night of the Twilight premiere for two hours and then get rejected, then you can invest half that time learning Game and get far, far better results.

You have to be far more aggressive, far more assertive, and a WHOLE lot less "nice", and the pussy will start to come.  No one is entitled to have sex.  



You have to win it.  

You may have to pay for it, lie for it, cheat for it, scheme and scam for it, but you aren't entitled to it.  You may have to change your lifestyle and your life, your mode of dress and your method of approach, but you will be richer for it.  You will have to ditch being a Nice Guy utterly -- so utterly, having female friends is unlikely to be fulfilling in the slightest.  But that's okay -- until you are getting laid regularly, female friends are a luxury, not a necessity.  And after you are getting laid regularly, female friends just complicate things.

The Red Pill observable fact is that you are not entitled to have sex, you have to WIN it.  You have to make a herculean effort and be willing to say and do just about anything.  You have to understand how female sexual psychology works and how to exploit it ruthlessly and utterly to fulfill your own goals.  This is no place for Nice Guys, or just Being Yourself.  That's a loser's game, and in this Arena, losers like that get held up for humiliation on a grand scale.  When it comes to women, you, my poor friends, have no hope against the cunning Alphas in the world . . . or anyone who knows anything about Game.

Hugo is right about that.  You have to win sex.  It's a competition, and as in any competitive endeavor there are winners and losers.  Winners get pussy.  Losers get public humiliation and bullying ridicule by human Manginas like Hugo.  Do you really want to get heckled by a dickwad like Hugo because you can't jettison your childhood dreams of true love and respectful relationships with women?  Or do you want to get laid?  Think about that very carefully.

Because as Hugo also points out, most women aren't going to do shit to help you out, either.  You aren't "their problem".  Your pain isn't worthy of their consideration, and your very existence inspires their contempt.  The intense desire you feel for human companionship and intimate embraces disgusts them and they want to actively punish you for it.  How DARE you not be Mr. Perfect?  NO PUSSY FOR YOU, MR. NICE GUY!

The fact is, Gentlemen, you have been criminally misinformed your entire life about how male-female relations actually work.  Feminism has promoted the ideal of sexual equality while ruthlessly exploiting the hypergamous freedom for women our society provides.  YOU, being merely male, don't count as anything but a steaming pile they can congratulate each other for wiping off of the heel of their sensible pumps.

Being Nice almost never gets you laid, and anecdotal evidence to the contrary is statistically insignificant.  If that sounds too cynical for you, then either invest heavily in honest prostitution, porn, or the priesthood, or STFU.  That's the observable reality of the mating universe: the Sexual Market Place is a competition for mating.  For pussy.  And no one is entitled to pussy.

You have to WIN it.  

Game is the roadmap to how you win.  Game gets you laid.  Feminism is a guaranteed strategy for male unhappiness and how to lose.

If you take nothing else away from Hugo's screed, then remember that feminism wants to see you humiliated for being a sexual loser, and the Manosphere wants to see you getting pussy like a rock star, no matter what you look like or where you work.  Learn Game, and let the Omega melt away.  Dudes don't count to the ladies of Jezebel  some of whom wish to see everything with an XY chromosome safely neutered or eliminated all together.

But dudes DO count in the Manosphere, and no matter how clueless and misguided you might be, we want to see all of the Betas-and-Below thrive in a land teeming with easily-available pussy for you.  We want you to learn Game, and then go forth and start scoring like a power forward.

What is Game?  In a nutshell, Game is a recently-developed approach to dating, mating, and reproduction that focuses on the observable realities of modern courtship (not the zany and ridiculous ideals promulgated by feminism) with the stated desire to secure a sexual partner through conscious and clever use of evolutionary biology, psychology, and social manipulations   Game is, essentially, the distilled essence of hundreds of committed Pick Up Artists who have rendered the art of panty-dropping to a learnable science.

And being "nice" to women is pretty much the easiest way to fuck that up.  Why?  Ever notice how hot girls never date Nice dudes, but always date complete Dicks?   Game teaches you how to be a complete Dick . . . or at least fake it well enough to get pussy.

NOTE FROM FEMINISM: NICE GUYS DO NOT DESERVE PUSSY!

So, where to start?  For a younger man, read and absorb everything you can from RooshV and Roissy/Chateaue Heartiste.  Add in Rollo Tomossi's Iron Rules, skim Mystery's method, and keep exploring.  For advanced students, consider Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life and the Private Man's blog, both in the Blog Roll, which dispense invaluable advice for the older man in the dating universe.

The Red Pill is the answer to your problems, Gentlemen, not the humiliation you are receiving at the hands of the likes of Hugo. Get pissed.  Get mad. Get mean.  Stop being nice to women.  Learn Game and get laid.









39 comments:

  1. So us natural-born nice guys not only come with the wrong approach built in, but get called shysters for using it. Awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd love to kick Hugo in the junk as sort of a lifetime achievement award for his tireless pandering, but I'm not sure there's anything there to kick. No wonder he picks on the mistrained and naturally clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (offtopic) Whoever placed "page back key" near the arrow controller should suffer from explosive diarrhea until his or her empty husk will be unfit even to feed a pack of feral dogs. Just lost half an hour of good material right there)

    You can argue about the "right to sex", but I am willing to fight for my right for sexual expression.

    My sexuality happens to be a simple spontaneous desire based on visual stimuli - as in most of the heterosexual males.
    I don't see how claiming that I am offensive, unsocial or dangerous just because I tend to express it in ways, that in no way threaten other people, is anything but the violation of basic human rights. (see the whole notion of "Schrodinger's rapist")

    Or in other words:
    If my compliment on random girl's looks makes the girl afraid of me - we should be fixing her head, not policing my speech.

    Because I just express something that is natural for me and for a predominant share of male population. I do it safely. My actions result in no harm.
    She, on the other hand, suffers from an ill notion (imposed on her by people completely uninvested in her mental health) that expression of male sexuality somehow undermines or threatens her right to express her female sexuality (namely - reactive desire with heavy emphasis on the sexual inhibiting factors)

    Or - in language simple enough for imbeciles and feminists -
    I express my sexuality by checking you out and suggesting a nice fuck.
    You express your sexuality by openly telling me "Yes" or "No" depending on your current mood - and following up on that decision.
    We are both in our rights to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent evisceration of Shyster, whom is such a complete dumbass that he has no clue he just sanctioned men to completely shuck the "nice guy" personae and embrace the inner Dark Triad.

    The true, delicious irony is that that sackless assclown's column, and that horrid tumblr account will no doubt lead many a man to embrace Game and unleash the inner Masculine animal.

    As it's been said about how feminism broke the SMP (in the cad's favor: Feminasties, you broke it, you bought it.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, you have to win women and the method is Game: being a shallow, good looking, exotic asshole.

    What was the prize again? Is something won that way really worth winning? Someone who is like that is better than my hand how?

    I don't deny the truth of what you write. For me the Red Pill hasn't been learning about how to get pussy but more about how worthless the people who have them are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's quite a dilemma, our society was build on people being nice, kind and charitable to others. In the long run having a significant percentage of the population being rude, self-centered assholes will lead to the destruction of our civilization.

    I often wonder why I haven't already blown my brains out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The ironic thing is that Hugo himself is really the perfect example of the sensitive 21st century "nice guy" he's trashing in his post. Supplicating to women, deferring to them, taking their side in any dispute, always talking about how wonderful and perfect they are (and how most men are pigs and don't deserve them), accepting the female POV as unquestionable gospel, and basically sucking up to women in every way imaginable... all of these are things that "nice guys" do.

    I wonder if the Jezebel girls, all known to HATE HATE HATE "nice guys", make small penis jokes about him behind his back...

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Math_Guy

    Sounds like you're still in the "anger" stage. Give yourself some time, and when you finally reach "acceptance" you'll be ready to decide what you want to do with your life with regard to women and relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a d-bag. Apparently it's not ok to want a woman who hasn't ridden the cock-carousel, is feminine, allows for men to be the head of the household and shaves her legs? Yeah, have fun with your butch feminazi girl fuckwad. And the relationship nice guys (I used to be one) become that way inadvertently over time and become beta-boy/beta-dad and all the 'gina tingles go away and we wonder why (until we learn married game and how to be the Captain - 'gina tingles come back.. magic? or were lead a load of bullshit since we were little?). Glad to see a ranty, riled up post Ian, love it since I know (unlike Hugo) your heart is in the right place to steer this lost man-generation to a better future. Keep on keepin' on!

    ReplyDelete
  10. And when the dreaded "nice guys" STOP pursuing women and just leave them alone... well, then they're sackless herbivore manboys who need to grow up.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20111217cz.html

    Bottom line: No matter what you do, you're going to be pissing off some group of women, somewhere. So just decide what you want to do, do that, and then accept the fact that a lot of women will be furious with you for it, no matter what it is... and just don't worry about it.

    Your happiness, as a man, should be the most important thing (to you anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  11. The mockery continues

    http://www.businessinsider.com/nice-guys-of-okcupid-2013-1

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Ian,

    Thank you for this post and your blog. I've been reading Roissy semi-regularly for a few years and appreciate the hard truths exposing the "pretty lies", but I can't bring myself to adopt his "poolside" attitude. While you promote the same principles, your take is more palatable.

    I'm a natural-born idealist - INFP in Myers-Briggs terms, so an introverted idealist - and I've been a romantic idealist. I've very much wanted a soulmate with whom to share my life as my wife and mother of our children. I only needed and wanted The One. To women, I've been the empathic equalist Nice Guy who's tried to Just Be Myself. Result? I'm on the wrong side of my mid 30s now, no girlfriends (ever), and a trail of traumatic cliched rejections with my last failed attempt at romance over a decade ago. I started out as a Delta and I'm sliding from Gamma into Omega. As much as I want to reject the truths of the Manosphere, I can no longer do so because they're my truths. They happened to me.

    My calcifying sexual disillusionment is affecting my whole life now. Ambitions, career, socialization, everything - life. It's ground to a halt. With the prospect of a traditional lifepath of husband, father, and planting his own family tree out of reach, what's the point ... of anything? I'm no George Sodini - when it's my time to go, I'll leave quietly, not with an attention-seeking, murderous self-immolation - but I understood him and appreciated him letting us know why. I wonder whether Adam Lanza struck back against a similar dead end. The testimonials say Lanza was a smart kid, and at 20, he was the age that many young men introspect and envision the long term for the first time in their lives.

    Where I am now is off track and disillusioned, and I don't know which road to take. I'm vomiting up the Blue Pill, but I can't bring myself to swallow the Red Pill. As I said, I'm a natural-born idealist, including romantic idealist, and the Red Pill cures the "pretty lies" of idealism. I don't know what I am and what to do with my life without my idealism. I fundamentally and emotionally opposed Game as a romantic idealist, and I don't know whether I can reverse course. At the same time, I'm entering middle age. I tell myself I'm at a detour right now, but my life looks more than ever like an Omega dead end.

    So I have to do something. Keep down the Blue Pill and try to get back on the standard track. Or take the Red Pill and try to forge a new life with MGTOW or Game. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you truly go back to the blue pill once you know about the red pill? If you decide to go the blue pill route, this is a question I'd be curious to know...

      Delete
    2. Hey Anon

      Consider you are the evolutionary result of a long line of men that most assuredly included a significant number that made their living through killing animals and other men. They often did so braving massive risk and achieved kills by skillfully using primitive melee weapons, rocks and their bare hands on occasion to emerge victor against totally suicidal odds. Your ancestors indulged in pillage and rape. They looted cities and reduced decadent empires to ashes by employing brutality and cruelty of an simply intensity unimaginable today. And they did so without feeling the slightest hint of guilt or remorse. The fires that consumed the temples of Rome signaled just deserts and job well done, the weeping of female slaves as they were led away into bondage was just part of another day at the office. Somewhere in your DNA is Genghis Khan, Spartacus, Vlad Tepes and Patton. Even you, mild mannered Delta guy have the makings of a remorseless killer inside you. By the same token you're also the descendant of smooth taking lady killing fuck machines, lying cads and ultra confident big swinging dick Alphas that didn't take any shit from anybody, certainly not from women that didn't want to fuck.
      It's a journey, sure. But the good news you don't need gang rape or genocide to unlock that courage. In fact, to get laid you only have to tap into a minutest little smidge of the male power. In truth, you're not a nice guy. That's just a mask the current psycho-social regime slipped on you before you noticed, before you got the chance to even see what lay beneath. What that mask is covering is factually, unarguably a power that has thus far proven utterly unstoppable throughout all of history.

      On a practical note Ian's advice regarding hookers was true for me. Think of it as a phase, a kind of physical therapy to help you get women into the proper perspective. Keep it classy (crack whores in the car park can actually turn you off sex completely IMO) and take the proper precautions. Your future wife will never have to have the slightest inkling that her gushing ponani became destiny when you took that first step to getting game.

      Delete
    3. Benny and RedPillWifey,

      Red pill awareness isn't a problem, although I still struggle with the clash of what I want life to be as a natural-born idealist versus what reality has demonstrated (my) life and the world is.

      My biggest hang-up is on application, especially Game.

      As unappealing as it is now, the blue pill course has the constant pull of being the socially approved status quo that I've been indoctrinated into my whole life. I'd be happier and content going with the flow and hitting my marks according to the blue pill formula. I've only taken the red pill seriously because my blue-pill life, in all areas with women at the heart, has fallen totally off track.

      As far as changing the course of my life with the red pill, the awareness of the Matrix and self-help that Ian and other Manosphere writers talk about make a lot of sense, and in that I can accept MGTOW. But adopting Dark Triad and Game is really hard. As an idealist, I've opposed players and despised Game and everything it stood for for a long time. Just because I'm wrong and they're right doesn't change that Game is too big a pill for me to swallow, right now at least.

      My current thought is to unplug from the Matrix and take the MGTOW self-obsessed self-help path, then perhaps revisit Game after I've established my red-pill footing with MGTOW.

      Delete
  13. What's this Hugo guy look like BTW? The worst punishments are justly reserved for traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This may be a teachable moment. This may be a teachable moment. This MAY BE a teachable moment.

    Consider Hugo's "argument." Consider women's objections to slut shaming. Why do women get so royally pissed off about slut shaming? Why are you getting so royally pissed off about nice guy shaming? I can tell Ian is smart enough to figure this out. I hope some of his readers are too.

    BTW, I am NOT saying that Hugo is reasonable or just or that it is a good thing to teach people a lesson in this way. On the other hand, there is a lesson here and since the hatefulness has spewed anyway, well then ... might as well use it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here I am anon again -- a few arguments from guys who just don't want to get it just occurred to me, so here is specifically what I am talking about -- both "sluts" and "nice guys" are shamed for daring to be sexual creatures at all. Both are put in a classic double bind for the crime of being human beings. I'm NOT defending cheating on anyone or anything like that. I am defending the right of both men and women to be sexual beings without being treated like dirt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As soon as you scratch the surface, the difference between "nice guy shaming" and "slut shaming" becomes evident.

      First let's understand one thing: all shaming is aimed at inflicting maximum hurt on selected individuals in order to influence the behavior of like-minded but not yet committed individuals. In simpler terms - slut-shaming is not aimed at reforming sluts, it's aimed at making slut's life so abhorrent, that she would become a living warning to girls who are not yet sluts.

      Now this means that men involved in "slut shaming" are interested in reducing the population of sluts.
      Oh wait, no they are not, not the majority anyway. (I leave religious fundamentalists out of this equation)

      Majority of Men allow women a clear choice: be a slut and have a lot of variety sex but no good matrimonial prospects or be chastise and have a chance to find a husband, but at the cost of having lots of variety sex.
      You are free to both either one, you will not be able to do both.
      It's called "being conscious about your partner's N" (where "N" - number of previous sexual partners)

      This expressed denial of the idea that women can have it both ways (both have variety sex AND have a husband later on) is somehow viewed as slut shaming - because men seemingly "take away" the ability of a slut to marry, thus punishing her for her choices.
      But of course this is not true, as there is can be no "right to marry". Marriage is a contract, and if I don't like the subcontractor, I just don't enter into agreement with him. I am not punishing my subcontractor for being bad - because I did not owed to let him be my subcontractor in the first place.
      And really - slut shaming is a frigging myth nowadays. Ladies, you are NOT heroines of the Scarlet letter.

      Now with nice guy shaming the situation is different: people involved in nice guy shaming truly want to decrease the population of nice guys.
      Well, not just nice guys - people involved in nice guy shaming are trying to reduce the population of vocal(!) nice guys.

      You do notice, that ALL articles about nice guys NEVER discuss what those guys DO. They only discuss what nice guys SAY. Because everyone is ok with what nice guys do - gifts, flowers, listening the girl's rambling for hours, and no pressure to initiate a real relationship... The problems start when nice guys start to talk.
      The only subpopulation of nice guys that is a problem is the one, that refuses to stay silent.

      And that population is subjected to good old honest to god shaming. Tortured to the point of suicides, ridiculed, viewed as losers and good for nothing liars.

      So in the end "slut shaming" and "nice guy shaming" is very different.

      Delete
  16. You may think the solution is being an Asshole, but that only attracts crazy women with low self esteem. Is it worth the risk of being tied to her for 18 years because of an unwanted child? Hardly.

    Using feminism as an excuse to hate women only gets you burned. No rational person wants to be around such a toxic persona for an extended period of time. You may get notches in your bedpost, but you'll still die alone, angry until the end.

    Consider therapy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many "assholes" and "jerks" haven't you seen getting married or tied down??

      In fact, you'll notice a lot of men became soft after marriage and years of companionship.


      So ... how did they get those Females in the first place... by being nice???

      If being "nice" was used by every man, believe me there would be MUCH LESS couples even formed in the first place. I don't see women following up on their empty claims for a nice guy...

      Delete
    2. You don't have to be an asshole. What you do have to do is turn her on. Spending a couple of hours listening to her bitch about her ex does not turn her on. Acting like you're one of her girlfriends and complaining about how awful men are does not turn her on. Aim to be a "good man," not a "nice guy."

      Delete
  17. Your illustrations are great. Where do you come up with them? Keep taking those red pills.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the end it all comes down to the tingle. If it there then the guy's wonderful, even if he treats her like garbage. If not then he's scum, regardless of how sweet and sincere he might be.

    It's cute to watch women's hamsters come up with alternate explanations for this, though, whether it's the “nice guys are evil” meme, or the “you don't know him like I do” defense women give for their abusive alpha boyfriends.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Replies
    1. Via google search: http://jezebel.com/5972788/no-one-is-entitled-to-sex-why-we-should-mock-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid

      The plug seems to have been pulled suddenly on http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com/ though.

      Delete
    2. Jezebel is so ridiculous. Reading many of the articles, I have a hard time believing that people actually take Jez seriously as opposed to reading it like you read FOX news.

      Then I see that they have just passed 200k likes on Facebook (by lots of people my generation).

      And I talk to my younger cousins who can't get laid, but who wince when I tell them they need to come out with me specifically for the purpose of honing their 'game.'

      They wince because they've read articles like the one you've just pulled apart. They have a knee jerk reaction away from game because the input of culture and educational students to them since a young age has communicated to them that their sexuality is a devilish impulse that needs to be controlled.

      I think this post was a great one in terms of turning a blue-piller red. However, an extremely important question remains. Perhaps *the* question. In my opinion one of the most important questions in the manosphere, and one that does not get addressed very often:

      How does manosphere/game reach more people? How does the red pill become mainstream?

      Does it require a semi-traumatic experience and a bunch of googling around?

      The fact remains that manospheric teachings do not easily reach the mainstream. The only mainstream breaches are Tucker Max, The Game, and Mystery's TV show. (Am I missing any?)

      2013 should be an interesting year to watch unfold.

      Delete
    3. youngmanredpill,

      "How does manosphere/game reach more people? How does the red pill become mainstream?"

      That question is asked by every ambitious but still marginal social-cultural movement.

      My thoughts:

      It's important that the Manosphere keeps up the open-various-and-many-source cogitating, as it's been doing, independent of credit, PR, or profit. Development matters. Spreading matters. Repetition matters.

      In terms of selling to the mainstream, Ian's approach that the red pill is a remedy for a widespread social problem ought to have wider appeal than Roissy's iconoclastic "poolside" approach. Ie, the red pill and attendants such as Game are evolutionary upgrades - not replacements - for the traditional masculinity that makes up the foundation of our civilization. Further, the red pill includes the understanding that a femininity that complements masculinity is also necessary for our civilization to be strong. It's important to clarify that in reinvigorating traditional masculinity, the red pill is a progressive force, not a regressive one. Traditional, honorable, and functional masculinity, cross-bred with the red pill, can correct the dysfunctions wrought by feminism while boosting the femininity that complements masculinity.

      So clarifying what is the femininity that complements masculinity is important. Once the contest for the American soul goes mainstream, red pill female "first officers" will be needed to fight for complementary femininity and masculinity alongside red pill male "captains".

      In early stages with short reach and low resources, it would be productive to target parts of American society that are better suited as incubators and concentrations of young men who are predisposed to the red pill.

      While the obvious places and groups are college campuses and students, I believe better fertile ground for the red pill can be found in the military community.

      Our military is predominantly male with young men. Soldiers come from diverse backgrounds and, for effective incubation, return to diverse backgrounds. Soldiers eventually leave the military and return to civil society, and most do so when they're still relatively young. The military teaches valuable life lessons and does a lot to prepare departing soldiers, but there is still a disconnect between military life and civilian life that trips up too many young veterans. The military doesn't teach its young troops how to navigate a feminist society. As incentive, the red pill can be a practical solution that not only enhances soldiers' social lives while they're serving but also helps them master the pitfalls of the transition from a masculine military community to a feminist civil society.

      While the military is far from immune to political correctness and 'man-up' chivalry, the military has retained more traditional masculine values and patriarchal structure than any other major part of our society. The cloistered military community provides greater protection for the red pill to take hold. Young American soldiers mostly live and work in the company of men, with a minority of female soldiers, within a masculine culture - not a feminist campus or white-collar workplace. Many young soldiers, in fact, join the military desiring paternalistic guidance and a masculine formative experience.

      In short, the military provides fertile ground for the red pill where men and young men are concentrated. They're open to the red pill and desire masculinity. Most of them will spread out in civil society within a few years. The red pill will help them make the transition, and in turn, they will spread the red pill that has helped them. The relatively masculine culture within the military is conducive to Ian's brand of red pill teachings, and the setting is at least semi-protected from the policing reach of feminism compared to campuses, workplaces, and other parts of society where young men are concentrated.

      Delete
    4. Add: Many young veterans go to college soon after leaving the military. If you believe in Mencius Moldbug's Cathedral concept that holds forth academia as a source of culture, then it would be best both for the veterans personally and the advancement of the Manosphere movement for soldiers to be red pill proficient by the time they're preparing to take off the uniform and enter the SMP and evolutionary political struggle on campus.

      Delete
    5. You're right, Eric. The emerging Military Class might just be the perfect place for the Red Pill to take root in the popular culture. I'll be exploring this in a future post, if not a future book.

      Delete
    6. Ian,

      I look forward to it. I trust and assume you'll research the culture within the military to identify how the pieces can fit and grow. Here's a good video to start understanding how soldiers view themselves: http://youtu.be/ZsLnPq5CkN8

      A reason I believe your particular red pill brand is better suited for mainstream American consumption and the diverse military community is you avoid the separatist white nationalism that has crept up in some outposts, most noticeably Roissy's venerated blog. We need glue, not solvent. I believe it's important to reinforce the fraternal vibe that American men of all stripes are on this mission together, our women can help, and there will be a greater common good derived from the cumulative effect of Americans digesting the red pill.

      Delete
  20. Days of Broken ArrowsJanuary 8, 2013 at 3:00 AM

    Although Jezebel has 200K "likes" on Facebook, as someone mentioned, that needs to be put in context.

    It's socially advantageous to like feminism. It'll earn you claps on the back, like coming out against animal abuse or slavery. A lot of men liking the site are probably just doing so because they think it's what's expected of them, and because women give them high-fives.

    Conversely, if you were to "like" Roosh V or The Spearhead on FB, them's fighting words for women, who will completely go insane and defriend you for such things.

    No one needs such grief, so people put up a front. But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of men out there who secretively support the manosphere over Jezebel. You'd never know I did from my FB profile.

    Generally, it doesn't help to alienate women if you're looking to get them into bed. Unless you're a totally skilled player, you probably don't want to hit them with Red Pill stuff until after you've established yourself. Hence, men paying lip service to Jezebel. They probably pretend to like Taylor Swift and the occasional Lifetime movie too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that Hugo isn't logically coherent. I posted this on Jezebel:

    Hugo: "Sex with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can't be a basic human right. It's one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can't afford these necessities of survival. It's another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional orgasms provided for them [by] others."

    Really? If it's a basic human need, then it's a basic human need. Then, of course, it can be a human right. Whoever doesn't see that isn't progressive and democratic enough. You're quite simply a reactionary believer in the sanctity of the individual.

    "While in Britain, a few local governments have sent disabled men on trips to Amsterdam to see sex workers, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated."

    You're changing horses in mid-stream. Of course, no one has a right to love. But that is only because you can't feel what you can't feel. It's another thing with sex. As every woman knows, it's perfectly easy too have sex with someone you don't love. Since sex is a basic human need, it's both possible and moral to compel people to have sex with others, even if they don't desire them.

    I'm aware that this hasn't been suggested here yet. But it follows quite logically from the premise that the state should satisfy basic human needs, so it surely will be coming.

    Ulf E, Sweden

    http://jezebel.com/5972788/no-one-is-entitled-to-sex-why-we-should-mock-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid?post=56012684

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funny thing would be if he is in the court that the Government should supply contraceptives for women, which would essentially be the same thing as saying that sex, at least safe sex, is a right to be ensured by the government for women.

      Delete
  22. Epic post. This should be mandatory reading and a wake-up call for any guy who thinks he should be selling himself as a "nice guy". It earns nothing but contempt and hostility.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Do you think any feminist actually find's Hugo's self loathing of his own penis attractive?

    I wonder if Hugo has asked Jessica Valenti for a pity fuck yet? I think she's pretty cute, but would only do her with duct tape over her mouth lest the word Patriarchy come out and make me go limp. So Hugo must be attracted to her too.

    Bet she laughed him off like the hypergamous slut she is marrying this absolute alpha
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/24/feminist-wedding-jessica-valenti

    and telling Hugo to go get it on with Marcotte or Skepchik.

    Hugo. He's the ultimate fucking niceguy in the way feminists attribute it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. signyourlifeonthexJanuary 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM

    The whole "no one is entitled to sex" argument is hypocritical, since bad boys and alphas (upper 20% of male sociosexual hierarchy) as well as most women(including ugly/fat ones) ARE entitled to "free" sex, and can have as much as they can handle. Only nice guys and beta/omegas are supposed to be "not entitled" to sex, and "pay" (via dates, relationships, marriage, etc) if they are to get any sex at all.

    The redpill truth we all know is that feminism is not an egalitarian movement, but a socially darwinistic one which uses egalitarianism as a cover. Feminism is Game for women and alphas, rooted in hypergamy and beta/omega phobia. Schwyzer uses feminism as his platform to make himself important/famous/alpha - to increase his n-count and thus his sociosexual market value over other men. The "hot, young pussy" he claims no one is entitled to - he himself is entitled to. He used his students as his personal harem, banged them on his desk, etc. But of course, he's viewed as alpha, so he can do whatever he wants.

    The way women/feminists see it, all non-alphas (betas and omegas) have low sociosexual market value, and thus are very dangerous because they want something (sex) that women fundamentally do not want to give to them. All betas are rapists in their minds, and the feminist rules are designed to screen them out of the mating game, and ultimately the gene pool. Female sexual selection in action.

    ReplyDelete