Friday, June 27, 2014

Why Male Birth Control Will Change Everything

Everyone knows what the female birth control pill did to our society, and while everyone also knows that reliable male contraception would be a boon, the general effectiveness of condoms and the difficulty in regulating male fertility at the hormonal level without also impairing male sexual function has made "The Male Pill" an elusive goal.  Pharma companies are interested, of course - considering their profits on female birth control, opening up a huge market for exploitation on a monthly basis is just too good to pass up.

But the best proposed method for reliable male birth control isn't a hormone-based therapy.  It's a minor surgical intervention that renders the patient effectively sterile for a ten-year period of time. RISUG, or Vasagel, has proven effective and safe in initial clinical trials in India.

Because it's a surgical intervention and not a drug, there isn't much corporate support for the procedure, but its promise has attracted individuals to contribute to the incredible expense of funding FDA testing.  And the promise is fantastic.  Essentially, a microscopic device is injected into the vas deferens, where its crystalline structure effectively shreds the sperm before ejaculation.  After ten years the structure breaks down and the patient returns to normal fertility.  Or the device can be flushed away surgically with another minor procedure.

But for ten solid years you don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant accidentally.  The power to conceive is under your control, as a man.  You are no longer a potential victim of reproductive coercion.

That's not a term you hear often enough, although the effect is widely known.  When a woman gets pregnant (or pretends to, or convinces herself she is) in order to extract a commitment from a man without his knowledge or permission, that's reproductive coercion.  It's the other side of "using sex as a weapon".  Unfortunately, things rarely work out well for either the man who has been coerced or his off-spring.

In the discussion about sexual violence the issue of reproductive coercion rarely comes up.  The talk begins and usually ends centered on rape and violent sexual assault, acquaintance rape and sexual entitlement.  But the issue of sexual violence is not complete without putting reproductive coercion on the table for discussion.  If rape is morally wrong - and it is - then extorting an unwanted commitment from a man is equally wrong.

It's a Red Pill fact that a goodly portion of marriages are the result of a little blue line on a plastic stick and a True Love rationalization, not the careful vetting and examination they should be.  The status quo tends to run like this: Jack and Jill go off to college, hook up with a bunch of people before getting thrown together for a weekend at the beach, knocking boots out of boredom and opportunity, and six weeks later, after both have moved on, Jill shows up at Jack's dorm with a wet stick and a blue line.  June wedding and married student housing, or perhaps a semester off, if they elect to make a go of it.

Of course it really could be True Love - or boiling hormones - that provides the chemistry that turns that little line blue.  Or it could be a calculated ploy on the part of an ambitious or desperate girl, pure reproductive coercion.  Or it could be a simple mistake that neither of the principals feels ready to contend with, but because of moral obligation or their own youthful optimism they dive in anyway.

Whether inspired by a belief in True Love, a genuine mistake, or a cynical and calculated ploy to secure a given man, the result is the same: a child has been conceived without the father's knowledge or permission.  His conscious right to choose his reproductive future has been usurped.  While it takes two to tango, he is not the one leading the reproductive dance.  A woman is ultimately responsible for what happens to her body, one way or another, and a man is at her mercy at even telling him about the child.  He is not in control of his own reproductive freedom.

So . . . what would happen if he was?

Imagine, for a moment, a world in which a sixteen year old boy went in for his summer camp physical, and while he was getting his vaccinations caught up they took twenty minutes to put his reproductive life on pause.  With no chance of getting anyone pregnant until he was 26, what different kind of future does he face?

Imagine a world where a young man has a leisurely amount of time to cultivate a career, pursue a degree, develop a skill or master a profession, without the looming, lingering danger of unwanted pregnancy.  Imagine the shift in power as the ability for a woman to have a child comes under male review and approval.

The procedure is not expensive - around $1000 - and it appears to be perfectly safe.  If one assumes that any teenage boy with a brain in his head and a future ahead of him would take advantage of such a procedure, then only the very low-status, low-quality males would be casually fertile.  Competition for high-quality males would be extremely high among women, forcing even more competition for the Big C-Commitment of an engagement ring.  When a woman's ability to conceive is reduced to her ability to attract a man who finds her worthy enough to flip the switch and have a baby with her, the rules of the SMP change dramatically.

The "I can always get knocked up by a handsome stranger" fall-back position offers great consolation to women unable to master the intricacies of a heterosexual relationship long enough to have a baby.  Most sexually-active women go out of their way to avoid pregnancy with an essential random, for fear of his real status and the social consequences of reproducing without a reliable mate.  But if the majority of decent dudes are voluntarily sterile, then even that possibility vanishes.  But that would not be the boon to women you might imagine.

As the Wall inevitably approaches, the reproductive instinct, combined with generous contributions from the Rationalization Hamster, allow a given woman to rationalize lowering her standards to take advantage of the large pool of dudes who want a regular piece of ass and possibly a relationship, muddle through with Beta Bucks and start looking around for some Alpha on the side while soon-to-be ex-hubby raises the kids.  That's the status quo for all too many poor Beta dudes who think they've found True Love when what their wives are thinking Starter Husband.  As long as she's got a few good eggs and a willingness to go wild for an unsuspecting Alpha, she has a potential escape hatch and the rationalizations and legal remedies to use it.

But what happens when that option is, for all practical purposes, off the table?  When any hypergamy-inspiring hot Alpha who walks into her life is in control over his own reproductive destiny, the biological escape hatch is closed.  And when she has to ask her husband's permission to have a baby, she has lost the innate power of her feminine reproductive biology.

It goes beyond that, of course.  When the Betas-and-below can effectively control their reproductive freedom, the ability for a woman to secure a reliable provider with her reproductive biology without his consent . . . vanishes. She must rely on her sexuality and her (shudder) personality to convince a given man that she is worthy enough to bear his children. The burden of proving herself falls to her, as mother, not to him, as father and provider.

The result: teenage pregnancy drops, and accidental pregnancies of all types plummet.  Male fertility - a commodity so plentiful it's currently essentially free on the SMP - suddenly has value.  Men of quality get the procedure as a matter of course.  Most of the middle class, naturally.  Any smart boy on his way to college would certainly do it.  Same thing for the military forces - who wouldn't?  No need to worry about pregnancy if you don't have to, right?

And then the power in the SMP shifts.  When women have to compete, really compete for a man's commitment, not just for provision and protection but for access to his genes, then the social pressures change and the idea of commitment becoms a lot more clear-cut.  Marriage becomes re-entwined with reproduction as it becomes clear that a solid marriage is the best guarantee of quality children raised in a reliably stable family.  Men who are able to demonstrate that kind of ability by their late 20s suddenly gain huge capital in the SMP, and they will be quick to re-write the rules of commitment.  Without the potential of "Guess what, honey? You're gonna be a daddy!" looming over them they are free to insist on a far stronger commitment than the drive-by matrimony that persists today.

Of course the Puerarchy explodes with horny young dudes who can't get a girl pregnant, thus obscuring the future good family men from being easily identified in the competition altogether.  When "extended adolescence" means being sterile until you're 26-28, life for a young man becomes one long pussy-party.  Even having a steady girlfriend doesn't mean as much.  The moment she brings up the idea of a serious commitment without the biological bond of a child, the youth in question is forced to look just at her, not at their offspring, when making that decision.  And let's face it, ladies, many of you just won't measure up under that kind of scrutiny.
The process of conception requires his positive approval, not just his passive cooperation.  Without that bullet to dodge, the Puerarch is able to really enjoy his youth in ways that make feminists everywhere shudder.

RISUG gives men the chance to really plan and execute their life's ambitions without concern for premature distractions.  With the smug knowledge that our sexual capital only improves with our age, instead of depreciating like a woman's, such control over our genetic destiny gives men the room to make far more intelligent, informed choices about where and when they want to father children, and with whom.  It puts a premium on the Dad skills and abilities, and makes the stakes in Combat Dating much, much higher for women.  It puts the balance of reproductive power in masculine hands, and increases the competitive drive among women.

Suddenly fatherhood becomes a hot commodity, not a wellspring for sitcom jokes.  A man who has elected to be a dad would first secure his rights and ensure he has made a choice in the mother of his children that he can live with before he has the reversal done.  Without the biologic pressure of unexpected pregnancy, he has the time to vet - and, if necessary, discard - unsuitable mates before they lure him into marriage and divorce.  He also has the time to develop a career and financial standing to support children when he's ready to, not when that cute girl he met in the quad presents him with a freshly-peed-upon stick.  By the time your AFC Beta boy is ready to become a Dad, he'll be in his late 20s, moderately successful, and ready to make some serious decisions about his life - and his choice of wife.

Of course that also frees up his dating life, too.  Without the danger of unexpected pregnancy, he just has the minefield of STDs and batshit crazy to navigate, and that's not nearly as fate-changing, usually, as bringing a kid into the world.  With a modicum of Game knowledge, the Dad-to-be can sow his oats like an Alpha for a decade.  That's likely to make him generally less commitment-happy, and genuinely instruct him on the nature of women.  And that's going to be very frustrating to the Beta-girl who suddenly fines herself desperately
competing for male attention when she wants to be out protesting wage inequality.

And most importantly, it makes responsible fatherhood a valuable commodity.  The worse the Puerarchs behave in their cock-sure shenanigans, the more the stability of a well-seasoned male will be valued by women who want to be mothers.  Watch the age of first marriage climb for men, and over-all marriage rates fall yet lower.

The blowback against feminism would be severe.  When femininity is valued, feminism loses force.  Arguing for a lean-in career path which almost certainly dooms your chances of reproduction loses credibility in the face of observable truths.

Revalorizing marriage and family by re-valuing fatherhood and paternalism - and, yes, Patriarchy - leaves women with stark choices when it comes to their futures. They would either have to commit to a childless future as a corporate drone, dying lonely and covered in cats, or they will play the game that gets them pregnant, by the rules made by those who control the tap.  Feminism will be a hollow ideology.  When men hold their future children hostage to their will, women will reflect more deeply on the whole issue of equality.  And we'll see a lot less emphasis within the Matrix on conquering the corporate world, and more emphasis on escaping it . . . by becoming a wife and mother to a worthy man.

Also, capitulating to popular demand as a test I'm letting folks take a look at a Red Pill Primer for Boys, set up as a Google Presentation.  Here's the intro.  Let me know what you think.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Feminist True Love Hamster

As I've often noted, Feminism and True Love are both mating strategies.  The former relies on social control to reduce competition for the highest valued women by discouraging active mate selection among the rank-and-file.  By reducing the social impetus to permanently mate, otherwise-dangerous competitors devote their most fertile (and attractive) reproductive years to a career, or a string of failed relationships due to their lack of investment.  True Love, on the other hand, promises "Happily Ever After" (HEA) for the woman who relies on traditional feminine allure to seek out the highest-value male she can attract, promising wedded bliss and masculine comfort (tall, broad-shouldered, seethingly Alpha masculine comfort) for ever middle-aged pudgy office manager with a Kindle, on the basis of their imaginary virtue alone.

The two would seem diametrically opposed: the feminist perspective is an ideology which de-emphasizes marriage and family altogether, while the mystical True Love seeks nothing less.  One would assume, based on the ideology, that feminists would eschew romance novels for the context-dependent female pornography they are.  Ditto the celebrity pages, Huffpo's incessantly mindless fawning over fashion, "supernatural romance" and soap operas.  Yet feminist-oriented organs almost inevitably cave to the pressure of HEA, as a guilty-little-secret or as a (utterly rationalized) bit of "feminist empowerment".  When you get past the rhetoric about rape culture, the patriarchy, and misogyny rhetoric, it appears that what hardcore feminists dream of, fantasize about, even obsess about is . . . marriage.

The delicious irony should escape no one.  While feminists play Beat The Beta in the cultural arena, condescendingly blaming regular dudes for everything from wage disparities to sexual assault, their mouths may say More Beta but the secret fire in their loins is only inflamed by Mythical Alphas.  Only the profound power of the Rationalization Hamster can heal this devastating rip in ideological reality.  Only by denying its importance and playing off the inherent element of wish-fulfillment in the genre, near-desperate apologies such as this (from a column entitled "Feminism, Y'all") by blogger  can the Hamster possibly keep heads from exploding.

Don't mistake me: I am not opposed to romance novels.  They fulfill a vital role in feminine sexual psychology, providing data, suggestions, and accessories to the constant demand for context a women gets from the Female Social Matrix.  Just like porn, in the weak-minded they can provide too much data, feeding
deep-seated feelings of entitlement and dooming the viewer/reader to perpetual disappointment with reality.  But for most women they are mere fantasy jilling material, grist for the mill of their imaginative sexuality - despite the never-varying plot/character structure.  Ms. Piepmeier sums up the appeal nicely, but incompletely:

The novels feature female protagonists who initially may seem to fit the stereotype of the helpless woman, but who ultimately save the day — or play a very significant part in saving the day. They have fun plots with twists and turns, controversy and conflict, moments when you hold your breath because it's clear that everything is going to fall apart. But everything doesn't fall apart, because these novels always have happy endings. And the happy endings are crucial for me.

Ms. Piepmeier doesn't mention the fact that the "happy ending" invariably involves (expressed or implied) permanent commitment for the plucky heroine with her perfect-but-flawed Mr. Right.  In other words, Marriage.  Feminism's sworn enemy.

Rationalization Hamster to the rescue!  Indeed, Ms. Piepmeir not only dismisses the rational disconnect, she enlists the aid of other apologists to lend weight to her rationalization:

Conseula Francis, a professor of English and African-American Studies at the College of Charleston, studies romance novels. "Here's why the happy ending matters," she told me. "These novels force us, whether we know it or not, to take joy seriously. Literary fiction often asks us to consider the pain and angst and ennui of human existence. Romance asks us to consider the pleasures."

"Joy" and "pleasures" in this context mean a ring and a June date with Mr. Right, after the heroine has rescued him from himself by virtue of her Magical PoonTang.  The essence of every successful romance novel is the heroine's ability to use her femininity and sexuality to change Mr. Right's destiny, saving him from his own base emotions and desires by the simple virtue of Being Together.  Married.  Not independent fuck-buddies who pursue different careers and take a week off together every Spring - but honest-to-Hera Husband and Wife (with hyphenations, natch).  Mr. Right is inevitably brimming over with Alpha, but with the heroine's influence he becomes a domesticated Alpha, content with whatever charms her Magical
PoonTang may hold.

The fun plot twists and turns cited are nominal, at best, and require the special knowledge or skill the heroine alone possesses in addition to her Magical PoonTang, but in the end the decision for Mr. Right's precious commitment is lies almost exclusively with his unrelenting devotion to her personal abstract femininity . . . the same quality that 3rd Wave feminism despises as "masculine entitlement".  When a feminist woman "takes joy seriously" in a romance novel, the joy she is taking is is that of a woman submitting herself to an Alpha under the pretext of "taming" him.

If nothing else, studying romance novel structure and tropes strongly reinforces core Game concepts.  More importantly, discovering a woman is a reader of this jillfodder gives you keen insight on her inner psychological approach to her nether regions, key areas where leverage can be easily applied.  Most women who read such novels are wearing their Hamster out in the open where anyone who knows Game can see it.  It's a cry for more Alpha in her personal life, more shirtless billionaires and misguided oil barons with muscles like spring steel, more ruggedly handsome strangers with exotic accents or chilling pirates with an inexplicable gentle side.

Articles like Ms. Piepmeir's serve to cautiously make a stab at reclaiming some kernel of femininity from feminism's crushing jaw.  In admitting to the allure of brazen cis-hetero sexuality and the longing for the Alpha feminists who read romance novels betray the secret behind feminism's ham-handed approach to a mating strategy: as an elaborate shit-test designed to weed Alphas from Betas-and-below, wrapped in a thick layer of rationalization.  None of these romance heroines are leaving their men behind to pursue their careers, they aren't abandoning Happily Ever After for the prospect of making partner, they are all graciously accepting the masculine commitment at the end of the book.  Oh, they'll agonize about it the whole way - that's the fun - but if they don't succumb to the commitment with Mr. Right at the end of the book, then there's no "joy".  "Joy", it seems, means succumbing to marriage, and nothing less.

Ms. Piepmeier has a different take.  But put through a Red Pill filter, one may translate:

The female protagonists get to have adventures. ["They get to be stimulated by danger and excitement but without real consequence, thanks to Mr. Right"] They get to be competent. ["They get to demonstrate the characteristics that make them acceptable mates, other than the Magical PoonTang, which overrides everything else"] And they get to have great sex. ["They get to have great sex with a perfect dude willing to offer them commitment, enjoying the infatuation stage of the relationship without addressing the pesky realities of sustaining a relationship or criticizes them on their performance or approach in the slightest"]. Reading them is a fully feminist act.

You bet it is, Cupcake.  That's the feminist take on romance novels: Lean in until you catch a ring for yourself.  Then repeat as necessary. There are plenty of Alphas to go around for everyone.  And gosh, you deserve one, even if you don't need one.

The flip side of this of course is the female Omegas, those poor women who use these novels like internet tube sites.  Perpetually invested in the True Love strategy, which doesn't account for real-life attractiveness or the scantness of shirtless billionaires, these poor women have hamstered themselves into a level of
entitlement that screams defiantly at reality.  When they do embrace feminism, it's usually out of a sense of sexual frustration.  Feminism offers them the opportunity to rationalize their own personal failings and past humiliations as the fault of the misogynistic patriarchical rape culture, which oppressively doesn't realize the obvious advantages of the Magical PoonTang of the bitter, pudgy middle-aged single mom and awarded the Alpha accordingly.

These women are waiting in vain for their Mr. Right, because they foolishly took feminism at face value, when it came to the war on sexism/sexuality/male sexulity/rape culture.  Feminism told them that a real Mr. Right wouldn't care what a woman looked like, just as True Love told them that her personal femininity was enough to ignite the fiery passion of every big-dicked Alpha who was worthy of her.

Like the fat 30 year old bronies who just know that they are entitled to big-boobed supermodel heiresses who will realize what a cool and witty dude they are, these female Omegas have been tricked out of even showing up to the Sexual Market Place.  Nor is their misery wasted: feminism uses it to confirm their solipsistic belief that The Patriarchy is what is hiding all of the Alphas away from them, not their own failure to compete.  Guys would be nicer, more gentle, less judgmental, and just more accepting of cats, aging, and Teen Wolf binge marathons if it wasn't for the darn ol' Patriarchy and its misogynistic minions.  Romance gives them the personal ideal, feminism provides the finger to point the blame for their disappointment, while smart women skate between the two, run female Game, and snag up the marriage-minded Alphas.

The difference between porn and romance novels isn't just the genre and medium, however.  There's a contextual difference that many forget.  The 30 year old schlubs who are whacking it daily to the tubes still have time to learn Game and free themselves.  Thanks to their biology, their sexual capital in the SMP is about to mature, even if their personalities don't.  A year spent in the gym, learning Game, and applying themselves to their lives can make even the most unredeemable Omega dude acceptable, perhaps even impressive.  I've seen it happen.

The Omegas' romance-reading female equivalent, on the
other hand, is at the end of her shelf-life as a viable commodity.  The Wall loometh, and all the feminist theories in the world aren't going to change that.  Men will always be attracted to youth and beauty over age and plainness.

By the time your average feminist woman's hamster accepts that, and she's grudgingly willing to admit that yes, she might like to be married someday . . . she's usually devalued herself heavily in the SMP.  Heavily enough so that in the brutal competition for quality mates she's severely handicapped.  Neither feminism or romance can offer her a solution, not one that she can stomach.

While a 30 year old male geek who discovers Game can re-invent himself fairly easily, a 30-year old short-haired feminist Omega has to make severe compromises of her ideology and her approach if she's going to stand a chance, even for a desperate Gamma.  She's starting fifteen years too late, at the last gasp of her natural talent in an area of expertise she's been taught to despise.  Her best hope lies in capitulating utterly,
becoming a Red Pill woman and embracing her femininity while eschewing feminism.  Dreams of even mild suburban fulfillment are elusive as the men she thinks are in her league realize their own growing value.  In the end, she's as likely to have an empty home and cats to read her novels to than even a poor quality commitment.

But perhaps her story will prove to be a warning to younger generations before they repeat her mistakes.  Happily Ever After has to be earned.  You can't depend on luck and access to your Magical PoonTang to give it to you.  The real Mr. Rights of the world have more discriminating eyes than that.  The smart ones aren't going to marry avowed feminists, anyway.  

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Wife Test: Warm & Pleasant Disposition

Riffing on a great post over at Just Four Guys, today's lesson, Gentleman, is about your potential bride's Warmth and her Disposition.  Those are two elements of the female character which are strongly indicative of her suitability to the job, and all too often they are overlooked by the lovestruck or overshadowed by a busty figure.  Your wife's appearance and attractiveness may wax and wane over time, but her warmth and her disposition is a constant in your life.  It should therefore be highly weighted in your determinations.

 "Warmth" is one of those difficult-to-define terms that has a strong subjective component.  You might not be able to tell what it is, but you know it when you see it.  It is among the most enduring of feminine characteristics, sometimes not fully emerging until motherhood.  It is also frequently attacked by feminism as a gender-based stereotype, therefore decreasing its value among the adherents of this ideology.  Disposition, likewise, has been lambasted as a weakness by masculine-oriented feminists.  A traditionally feminine disposition, pleasant and attractive, has been called into question by corporate feminists who see it as a needless departure from their leaning in.

But warmth, and a pleasant disposition can be a key factor in both initial attraction and ultimate mate selection.  Both attributes depend largely on that most valued of female traits, a woman's Receptivity.

Distinguished from her willingness or ability to be submissive, men value receptivity in a woman.  That is, her willingness and ability to be open to his ability to order and invite.  A woman who is not generally receptive will rarely be receptive, suddenly, to her husband's leadership, no matter how strong a leader he is.  By abandoning her receptive nature, many modern women have unknowingly also abandoned a key feature of their allure.  "Warmth", as a characteristic, is the expression of a woman's social receptivity; being "warm" means that she is receptive to casual social interactions, including the comfort and ease of those around her. A Pleasant Disposition, on the other hand, is a token of a woman's receptiveness to establishing harmony in her environment through answering verbal and nonverbal calls for support.  If either one of these things is missing in a given woman, the prospect of her being a good wife goes down dramatically.

Such receptivity isn't overtly submissive or self-effacing in nature.  The strongest, most feminine women I know manage warmth and a pleasant disposition through even trying times, mustering a grace and charm through difficult circumstances that is the epitome of mature femininity.  Neither is it martyrous self-sacrifice.  It is born of a woman's deep compassion and care for the others in her life, and her desire to maintain an admirable social position.  It is quite possible to be warm, pleasant-natured, and still maintain strong hand in the relationship.

A woman communicates her warmth in part through her level of attention: eye contact, verbal cues, appropriate questions, understanding of the social context, etc.  And it is not just a good idea to pursue this test for the prospect of a peaceful marriage, it can also indicate the strength and stability of your union. And therefore its durability.

The JFG posting points out a fascinating study in which men and women in relationships were observed making verbal and non-verbal "bids" for attention and intimacy.  Those partners whose "bids" were answered with a corresponding acceptance of intimacy or interaction tended to do better as long-term prospects for marriage.  Couples who ended up divorced after 5 years had a bid ratio of less than 40%, whereas couples who seemed to have solid, stable relationships tended to answer each others' bids more than 80%.  How accurate was the theoretical prediction of a couple's success in a LTR - that is, not get divorced?  How about 94% accurate?

The study demonstrates just how important warmth and pleasant disposition really are in a Red Pill marriage.  Women who can cultivate their personal warmth are making themselves more receptive to their husband's bids.  While some of those bids are going to be sexual in nature, inevitably, women who have warmth are likely to return the bid with a counter-bid or at least an acknowledgement that can often soothe her partner's desires for intimacy and validation without any panties coming off.  Women who lack warmth won't bother to look up when their men give a casual interpersonal bid on a favorite activity for him that bores the hell out of her.  Women who lack a pleasant disposition often won't answer a bid for attention that doesn't immediately gratify them in some way.

So how do you determine a woman's warmth and disposition?  You count it. Just like in the study.

Carefully observe your interactions with your candidate woman over a period of, say, two hours of alone-time.  Mentally track the number of interpersonal "bids" you offer her, as well as the nature and degree of her response.  Try to work in a set number of bids for the period: ten, twenty, or twenty-five.  They don't have to be all that involved - "look at that cool car!" or "what do you think of my new boss?" or "I'm feeling like Mexican for lunch" are all decent bids.  Try to keep them somewhat neutral, not inviting either a summary dismissal or lengthy response.  Just simple, straightforward conversational invitations.

For each bid, observe how she reacts.  Eye contact, verbal acknowledgement, open validation, or at least rapt attention (with her body language clearly turned toward you) are all "wins" of your bid.  Noncommittal grunts, blank stares at her cell phone, inattention and stony silence are all "lost" bids, as are bids that fail because of her closed or turned-away body language.  Insulting, vulgar or degrading language subtracts a point.

Don't let your reaction to her answers color how you offer the bids.  Nor should you allow one poor performance be the sole determiner of a woman's warmth and pleasant disposition.  Try this several times and keep track of her averages.

As far as scoring, simply give her a point for every "win" and no points for a lost bid.  Within a two-hour time period, if she responds positively to fifteen of the bids and negatively to ten others, you can assign her a Warmth and Receptive score of 60%.  If she responds positively to 20, then she's starting to move into the Warm category.  But that's why you repeat: everyone has bad days.  The problem is when those bad days start piling up, and that warmth you once felt from her keeps falling.

Likewise you can test how pleasant her disposition is by observing her reaction to unfortunate news. Women who make every misfortune (whether it happens to them or not) into a tragic crisis worthy of a blow-up are failing the "pleasant disposition" test.  So are those who ride the emotional waves of other people's baggage.  The willingness and ability to consciously be receptive to negative stimuli and provide positivity in return is the essence of "pleasant disposition" - and it doesn't mean a woman is an ineffective communicator or leader by doing so.  On the contrary, the very best women leaders I've known and followed have excelled at being pleasant, no matter the circumstances.

Consider her scores in a variety of situations, too.  Observation of her warmth with others gives you perspective into her character.  See how warm and pleasant she is in a formal setting, a casual setting, a semi-formal setting, with your kin and your friends, and among complete strangers as well as her score in your private interactions.  Every time she responds openly and receptively, she gets a point.  Every time she ignores or snubs a conversational bid for no good reason that you can see, no point.  Every time she says something insulting or derogatory about someone, subtract a point (unless it's someone you don't like, in which case praise her for her keen insight.).

Again, this test is highly subjective, but it allows your direct observations of her behavior to influence your decision to commit to a relationship, not a "feeling" or "just knowing".  A warm, pleasant wife leads to a happy, pleasant life.  Thinking you can transform a cold shrew into a friendly, receptive mate is most often an exercise in futility.  And if it takes her a few drinks to really "warm up", that, too, is telling.

This exercise is helpful for gauging your own interactions as well.  Most men aren't conscious of the cues and bids women constantly offer them in their non-verbal, contextual multi-track communication style.  We prefer the more direct and simplistic single-signal communication styles that develop between men.  But being mindful of her body language and linguistic mannerisms makes you more sharply attuned to when she's offering subconscious commentary on her mental-emotional state, including her current level of attraction to you.  If she's been warm and open to you all afternoon, and you know sex could be on the table, then when she offers a bid for sexual intimacy maybe you won't miss it the first few times around.

It also makes you aware of your own responsiveness.  While male dominance is the preferred remedy under the Red Pill, remember that that doesn't mean domineering.  A good captain is always receptive to constructive input from the crew, particularly his First Officer, and giving proper attention to sincerely-delivered bids from her helps deepen her own attachment and attraction to you.  Grunting might be manly and Alpha, but subtle transactions of attention work in both directions.  Acknowledging her bids and participating in what seems like mindless, pointless discussion is actually re-affirming and validating your interpersonal attachment to each other. This exercise will help hone your ability to be responsive to her perspectives, even if you don't agree with them, and make her feel more secure in the strength of your interpersonal bond - without demanding control of the relationship.

It's quite possible to maintain hand and take a strong leadership position and still accept enough of your wife's bids so that she feels the flow of emotional intimacy, even when you're being strong and silent.  Indeed, compounding the two tends to work very well.  Mastering the art of responding to those bids is the responsibility of both parties, but the importance of this cannot be understated:

“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart. “It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”

Take a good, hard look at your potential bride, Gentlemen, and give her an honest, sincere examination of her warmth and disposition . . . and thereby her receptivity.  Warmth and a pleasant disposition: two essentials for any lasting Red Pill wife, and both springing from the feminine fountain of receptivity.  If she can't or wont accept your bids (or you hers) at least 80% of the time, it's probably not a good match.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Pre-Father's Day Poster Project

Just for kicks, consider copying and posting a few of these where you think they might do the most good.  Then stand back and innocuously watch the reactions of the folks who read them.  Heck, if you see someone really start to get steamed, record it for posterity.  I think it would be outstanding to see these spring up all over the place, where you least suspect them, all Summer long . . . but especially by Father's Day.

Any other suggestions?  Special thanks to the Flying Monkey Squad!

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Aunt Giggles Doesn't Get It: The Red Pill Is The Toolbox

Susan Walsh, over at Hooking Up Smart, shot a nasty broadside against the Manosphere today with her post Elliot Rodger and the Red Pill.  Her growing anti-male/anti-Red Pill bias has come into full bloom, now, but more importantly she reveals her (perhaps intentional) ignorance of the Red Pill and what it means.

The Red Pill, as I've stated frequently in the past, isn't an ideology, as she claims.  Ideology is a set of beliefs. The Red Pill isn't.  Its a praxeology, or method of doing things to achieve a particular goal.  That's an important distinction.

The Red Pill is a collection of skills and methods - call it a tool box, to stay in masculine parlance - designed to help men (and some brave women) live happier, more fulfilling lives.  It isn't dependent upon an ideology.  It's dependent upon observable truths and reality-based results.

The goals shift from man to man, depending upon just what a particular man decides he wants out of life, but the central focus is to make men better men . . . for themselves.  Not to fit in better with society or make women happy.  Forty years of feminism has advocated for the things that allegedly make women happy (and largely failed).  That's what happens when you depend upon an ideology to live your life by: the real world comes along and challenges your ideology with, y'know, reality, and when it doesn't work out most often you find the world at fault, not the belief.

The Red Pill toolbox is replete with resources, but she focuses narrowly on the PUA side of the equation.  In doing so she blatantly ignores the larger picture and issues involved.  Sure, many men come to the Red Pill searching for a way to get laid - because that's a seriously important male issue.  But the focus of the Red Pill has always been masculine self improvement.  Problem is, Aunt Giggles wants to dictate to men just how they should improve themselves.  Not so that they will be happier in their lives . . . but so they can become more useful to women.

Giggles focuses on the idea that Red Pill men are frustrated by the tendency of women to focus on the top 10-20% of "quality men" (who have suspiciously Alpha-like qualities).   She sees the Red Pill as a failed ideology of trickery and disappointment.

The Red Pill lets guys off the hook. If they can’t get a woman, it’s due to the defects innate to the female sex. For many, the strategy of passing blame is more psychically rewarding than the strategy of taking responsibility.

This is where she's wrong.   The Red Pill does not let guys "off the hook", in part because yes, Virginia, there are a lot of batshitcrazy/attention-whoring/frivorce-happy/hypergamous/outrageously-entitled females out there (count the number of "selfies" on any given young woman's FB page for details), but also in part because the Red Pill does not "blame" women for anything.  While it may blame feminism (itself a disturbing and increasingly misandrous ideology), in its purest form it accepts women for what they are and what they have become . . . and arms a Red Pill man with the tools to deal with them.  

The true Red Pill man does not blame women for what they have become.  He merely recognizes the paucity of quality women in our society, and if he is inclined toward developing a long-term relationship, he becomes knowledgeable about how to recognize and pursue them.  Or, conversely, if he has decided that a LTR is not in his best personal interest, he uses those tools to pursue women for short term sexual liaisons.  There are even Red Pill men who decide that any interpersonal relationship with a woman is not in their interest.  They do not measure their masculinity in belt notches.  Neither do I.

But that last line is where she really screws up.  Because at the top of the Red Pill toolbox, the very first thing you take out, is personal responsibility.  And one of the first things you discard from your own scarred heart is the idea of blaming someone else - man or woman, men or women - for your troubles.  If you aren't willing to take responsibility for your actions, you aren't taking the Red Pill.  Pure and simple.  

The Red Pill doesn't blame women for the "defects innate to the female sex", it accepts them and teaches strategies of how to counter them.  If those strategies are ineffective, then either you're using the wrong strategy and you change it, or you're courting the wrong woman and you change her.  Not "change her" in the sense of making her who you want her to be . . . but "change her" in the sense of dumping her ass and moving on.  

Thanks to the destructive nature of feminism on femininity in the West, there are actually huge numbers of women who are miserable and unhappy with their lives and eager for any chance at a stable relationship. They write to me constantly, wondering where they can find a Red Pill man. Pursuing an unfulfilling relationship is not part of the Red Pill.  Pursuing quality women is.  The Red Pill teaches men that women are fungible, and if one doesn't work out, well, there are a hundred others out there waiting in the wings.  You just have to have the fortitude, skills and sense of personal responsibility to pursue them.  Or, at highest form, you become the type of man who becomes pursued by them.

The secret of the relationship side of the Red Pill, see, is not to wait around for "Ms. Right" to stick to the windshield of your BMW, it's to make yourself into the right man to attract the right woman for you.  

The Red Pill is not science, though it is informed by science.  The Red Pill is craft, like that of a carpenter.  Extending that analogy, an apprentice carpenter's work is usually crappy, due to lack of experience.  A master carpenter is a master because he not only has the experience to pound a nail perfectly, but he has it to discard poor quality materials in the first place.  While an apprentice may not realize that a perfectly reasonable-looking plank will warp or twist over time, a master does, and avoids it.  He doesn't blame the plank.  He merely discards it and moves on.

That's part of what sticks in Giggles' craw about the Red Pill: it empowers men to recognize poor quality women and avoid committing to them in the first place, or discarding them after they've been tried and tested in the social and erotic arena.  The female imperative of hypergamy instructs a woman to do whatever she has to to land a "high quality" man for a LTR, including misrepresent herself and her character, in order to convince a man to offer a commitment.  The Red Pill teaches men to resist the allure of that offer by giving them the tools to recognize a knotty, poorly-planed and possibly twisted plank, and make use of it for what it is.  Use it to build a house?  No.  Use it to prop up a wall while you're looking for the right plank?  Why not?

Of course some will counter that women aren't piece of wood, or meat, or . . . whatever, that they have feelings too, etc. etc.  But the fact of the matter is that the Red Pill isn't there for women to soothe women's hurt feelings, it's there to help teach a man build the metaphorical house.  Whatever kind of house he wants to build.  He's the one in control of commitment.  She's not.  If she's sub-standard quality, then trying to wish her into better is avoiding the personal responsibility implicit in being a more quality man.  

For the young Red Pill man, that means being able to avoid the temptation of seriously pursuing a serious relationship until he's old enough and established enough in his masculinity to sustain one.  Chasing hot women, as Elliot Rodger did in his mind, is like searching for pretty boards and not worrying if they can carry a load.  More often than not they're rotten and unstable under the pretty grain.  Woe to the man who makes this mistake.  

Other young men, desperate to build, grab the first board that comes along and tries to make it fit, perceiving it as sound because it looks OK . . . but the first time it comes under pressure, it bends, twists and snaps, usually with a lot of groaning he tries to ignore.  Woe to the man who makes this mistake.  Only when a man is old enough and experienced enough in his masculine craft to recognize quality is he ready to start building . . . and he may have to go through a lot of lumber before he gets there.  As a champion of sub-quality lumber, Aunt Giggles' job is to help young women disguise their inherent flaws under veneer and skip around the yard until they find an untrained carpenter dumb enough to include her.

To the older Red Pill man, who has decided to join the Patriarchy and settle down, the choice becomes critical - this is the house he's going to raise a family in.  Choosing poorly will have consequences not just for his own head, but for that of his children.  For this the Red Pill toolbox offers essential skills, but the responsibility for the craft still comes from the man.  He can't blame the tools if he doesn't use them right.  He can't blame the wood if it was warped and he didn't bother to see it.  

To the older Red Pill man who has elected to remain with the Puerarchy, knowing the tools and using them properly means he gets to use the planks he likes as long as he likes, then tear them off and keep searching . . . as long as he likes.  That's what's scary about the Red Pill for Giggles and her gigglettes: because it encourages a man to decline offering a commitment after trying it out.  It's not the poor carpenters arguing over the prettier veneer and bitching about the lack of good wood, as she implies, it's the really good carpenters who are going to pass over 90% of the lumber because he's been properly trained in how to spot their defects, and he's often eager to pass along that wisdom.  

For this the Red Pill toolbox has many tools.

Firstly, the recognition that YOU ARE THE DAMN CARPENTER, and that the power to build is yours - and your responsibility - alone.  Your dad may have taught you how to hammer a nail, but if you ain't nailing stuff regularly yourself, your experience in the matter is going to be telling in the final construction.  Consider this the Tool Belt, the parts of the Red Pill toolbox you carry with you everywhere.

The Yardstick: the ability to objectively look at a relationship and measure it properly for soundness and suitability.  A hot blonde may be appealing to your aesthetics, but compared for quality to others (which women hate) they often fail miserably at the stress test.  Women don't like the Yardstick, which is why they frequently object to "objectification".  You can't measure a plank without another stick to compare it with, however, and if you put it against a wall with all the other planks, the differences will tell.

The Chalk Line: the ability to declare and enforce proper boundaries and hold to them, no matter what the plank in question might suggest.  Poor quality women will rebel against your attempts to "limit them" - so the craft mandates you throw them back in the pile, whether you've nailed them yet or not.  The Chalk Line is your willingness to establish your personal and interpersonal limits and hold yourself - and the plank - accountable to them.

The Level: the ability to determine the soundness and straightness of a given plank.  Many women will attempt to obfuscate their pasts, particularly their sexual pasts, and this often presages other issues that make a them untrustworthy.  Being able to stay balanced enough yourself to know when a plank is off-center and out of balance is a key skill.  That makes the Level a key tool.

The Plumb Bob: There are constants in this world, like gravity, that can be useful in constructing your masculinity.  Having the ability to determine the truth of a relationship by measuring it against constant real world factors helps ensure you stay straight and true.  Gravity doesn't vary appreciably, it's a universal.  So are things like hypergamy and shit testing.  Being persuaded to lean in a given direction to appease a plank is a betrayal of your personal responsibility to build the house properly.  Knowing your center is vital.

The Square: Right angles are another constant, and knowing the difference between 89 degrees and 91 degrees can be the difference between a house standing or falling.  The fraternity of masculine society helps a man establish just where 90 degrees is by providing context and experience of other men to guide you.  Relying on women for this is like using a pair of chopsticks as a T-square.  If your dad and your brothers and your friends are all suspect of the plank in your hand, then odds are it's not at a 90 degree angle.

The Plane: While no plank is perfect right out of the pile, sometimes it just takes a little effort and work to refine it to usability.  The ability to recognize and remove rough spots and uneven patches through the application of your masculine decisiveness is the height of craft.  Seeing a good woman "in the rough", that is, one who can prosper brilliantly with the right incentives and treatment, is implicit in the Red Pill toolbox.  For example, sometimes just removing a woman from the vicinity of her mother can work wonders for crafting that particular plank.  And with exposure to your steady, secure guidance, a given plank can often be persuaded to come into near-perfect shape.

The Hammer: The ability to commit - to a task, a course of action, a vocation or a woman - is implicit in this tool.  A hammer is a tool of action: it binds two boards together with a measured application of force.  The Red Pill not only demands responsibility from a man, it demands his personal action.  It might take years before you find the right plank, but once you do you take action to secure it soundly and completely.  This may require repeated nailings.

The Crowbar: The ability to use leverage to move a plank in a constructive way.  This is the metaphor of such Red Pill techniques as Dread and ultimatums.  Rarely do you get results from merely banging on the plank with the crowbar - and it mars the wood.  But place it just so, apply just the right amount of leverage and strength, and you can often move it into the right position.  Having the emotional control to fix a situation instead of mindlessly wailing away at it is masculine craftsmanship of the highest order.  And an understanding of female psychology is essential before you decide where to stick your crowbar and how much leverage to apply.

The Sledgehammer: Sometimes it becomes necessary to use naked force to knock a situation back into shape.  When a wall starts leaning badly, a tepid response isn't going to fix the problem - but sometimes a well-controlled display of raw power can.  It's not the first tool in the box, but it is a vital one for any man to master.  And it requires a lot of strength (emotional, mental, or physical) to do so - strength you can't suddenly invent.  It must be cultivated from the first.

The Sawhorse: Every man needs points of stability upon which to work his craft, and that means a stable and supportive environment.  Having a solid foundation makes using the other tools far easier and more efficient - whereas an uneven sawhorse can throw your work off from the beginning.  The Red Pill instructs that proceeding to construction before your personal foundation is settled is folly.  The first thing a carpenter builds are his sawhorses.

Sandpaper: The ability for a man to polish his social presentation - and that of the plank in question - until it's as smooth as glass.  Like sanding, it takes a lot of work and often a lot of time, but the result is a gleaming, smooth presentation that enhances the quality of the project.  And such sanding often reveals hidden flaws in his materials.

The Saw: The most feared element in the Red Pill toolbox: the ability and willingness to cut off a plank that isn't working out and discard it in favor of another.  A final option in most cases, the Saw gives a man the ability to cut his losses and start over anew, wiser, smarter, and better prepared for the project.  While real commitment is to be valued and cherished, the ability to walk away from things that are clearly not going to work out is essential.  No one likes the Saw, but you can't build a house without one.

The Blueprint: the ability to craft a vision of the final project in completion, and the understanding of how to get there from here.  This is implicit in the Red Pill, from Roissy's "Make the Mission, Not The Woman, Your Focus" to Athol Kay's emphasis on male self-improvement in the MAP.  You must have an idea of what you want.  It doesn't matter if that's a happy, successful marriage or a string of fulfilling love affairs, or a life of quiet reflection and solitude, the Red Pill mandates every man create his Blueprint and follow it.  Sure, you might have to issue a change order from time to time, as experience and circumstance dictate, but the Blueprint is there to provide the vision you need to get the house you want.

While I might be torturing a metaphor at this point, the fact is that the PUA side of the Red Pill is just a small, small portion of the praxeology - a kind of beginning carpentry class.  Aunt Giggles wants to point to that and insist that we're all essentially blaming our materials, when in fact we are working on our craft.  Using the tragic episode of Elliot Rodger as some sort of "test case" of Red Pill praxeology is a hamster run amok: he never took the class, he just went mad because he couldn't have a pretty house and couldn't be bothered to do what needed to be done to learn how to build one.  

Thus spake Giggles:

The very men who considered themselves beta losers were desperate not to improve their lives by degrees, but to become “magnificent gentlemen” in that top tier of alpha males. This is precisely what we heard from Eliot Rodger. 
For men who couldn’t or wouldn’t do the very hard work of real self-improvement, Pickup Artists offered a quick fix, which can pretty much be summed up as “Chicks dig jerks, so be an asshole.”
The Red Pill IS the route to masculine self-improvement, and anyone who thinks that "Chicks dig jerks" is at the core of it has failed to give the praxeology the time and effort necessary to understand its utility.  Which shouldn't be surprising.  Just as Elliot Rodger didn't put in the time to understand it, beyond the feminist-tinted jingoism of PUAHate, Susan Walsh has failed to put in that same time or effort, and her attempt to condemn what she doesn't understand has earned her post a MASSIVE FAIL.  PUAs aren't offering a quick fix.  They're offering access to tools a man can use toward the completion of his personal goal.  Using Elliot Rodger's psychotic breakdown as proof of anything is a level of cynicism I hadn't expected from Susan.

There are many tools in the Red Pill toolbox . . . but psychopathic rage is not one of them.  

She compounds the problem by mentioning The Art Of Manliness and pointing out that two of the "Three Pillars of Masculinity" are broken - protection and provision, which means that most modern men have to lean on that third pillar - procreation or sex.  But she doesn't go into why those first two pillars are broken, the advent of 3rd wave feminism that sought to marginalize and even criminalize masculinity.  Instead she blames the men who have been left with the feminist legacy thusly:

The problem is that this creates a wholly unproductive segment of male society, who have little to do but obsess about not getting laid. When these men fail to improve their results with women by adopting Red Pill tactics, they grow increasingly angry and resentful. This is revealed in the increasingly prevalent sexual entitlement we see today.

"Wholly unproductive" in this case means "Useless to Women" in Giggles' parlance.  It hasn't occurred to her that the men who seek sex are doing so not because they aren't in the army or working in a cube, but because they have made the decision that sex, for them, is important enough to study as a craft.  The men who seek out the Red Pill aren't the ones who feel entitled to sex - they're the ones who realize that sex is not an entitlement.  It's a set of skills that must be learned, practiced, and perfected.  And while that practice includes a fair amount of failure at first, with further practice and study they get better at it.

The Red Pill only fails for those men unwilling to stick to the Blueprint, use their tools wisely, and choose the right materials with which to work.  And especially for the men who give up in disgust because they didn't build a mansion their first few times on the job site.  Elliot Rodger never even made it to the gate.  With patience, study, and consistent and persistent practice, the Red Pill tool box does, indeed, produce results.  Not in "getting laid", necessarily, but in building stronger, better men.

Of course female attraction isn't guaranteed by the Red Pill - not of any particular female.  But the same willingness to objectify women Giggles snits about is also the one that opens a man up to the possibilities of all women, keeping him from betraying his own vision for the prospect of easy pussy.  If a man follows the Red Pill praxeology, he will become more attractive to ALL women, and the attraction of any particular woman becomes less meaningful as a result.  If the Red Pill gives you the knowledge toward becoming a master of the male-female dynamic and understand the peculiarities of modern female mating behaviors, then suddenly that cute girl you were interested in when you started fades into a sea of really cute girls who are all suddenly interested in you.  Pursuing them becomes unnecessary, because they will start competing for your attention and commitment, not the other way around.  And women hate that.

THAT'S what really frightens women like Giggles about it - not the possibility of misogyny, but the possibility that men will recognize their own worth enough to be highly selective about their mates, be even more stingy with their willingness to commit, and that the poorer quality women she's writing for will suffer accordingly.  It's far easier, then, for her to point the finger and blame the Red Pill for the shootings, when we weren't even in the room.  Hell, Elliot HATED us, he was depending on Twu Wuv and shallow women, not authentic Red Pill praxeology.  As she says in closing,

Instead of working to earn sex, men would do better do cultivate respect, affection and ultimately, intimacy. There are no shortcuts to quality relationships.

Her take on the subject suggests "cultivating respect" (kissing ass), "affection" (kissing ass) and "intimacy" (kissing ass), all of which are, indeed, "shortcuts" to a quality relationship.  Such relationships last only as long as the appeasement is preferable to the enticing prospect of hypergamy, and Giggles doesn't even address that.  In truth, Elliot Rodger and his PUAHate ilk, psychotic and non-psychotic alike, were sold on the "kissing ass/being a gentleman" approach to relationships, and they suffer accordingly.  Unfortunately, so did six other poor souls.

The only real way to build a quality relationship is with understanding how the pieces fit together, finding quality materials, and expert application of the toolbox with confident, manly hands - and the only place that's being taught anywhere is here in the Manosphere.