Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Who Could Have Saved Them? The Patriarchy.

I've had a flood of requests to take on the Elliot Rodgers rampage.  I do so reluctantly, considering the flood of bullshit opinion being belched out in the popular media, but then I have a duty to address this.  Because the one thing that surely could have saved those six innocent victims and Rodgers himself was the long dead Patriarchy.

Not women's studies classes, not sensitivity training, not gun violence charts or even good mental health screening . . . Rodgers' crimes were due to the appalling lack of paternal instruction and masculine oversight in his culture and life.  

While the media world freaks the frack out about the omega binge killer Elliot Rodgers' murderous spree, as usual the finger-pointing flies fast, particularly (and utterly mistakenly) at the PUA wing of the Manosphere.  The fact is, Rodgers wasn't a member - he aligned himself with the omegas of PUAHate, the "True Love and Nice Guy" repository that sits around bitterly condemning the only real way men have to find a meaningful (or string of meaningless but fulfilling) relationships with women.

Others in the sphere have cogently examined Rodgers' pathology and seen plenty of non-Manosphere oriented origins of his vicious spree, considering everything from mental illness to repressed homosexuality and, of course, a hideous lack of Game.  Feminists and anti-gun folks are gleefully piling on, pointing at the NRA and Misogyny (TM) as the culprit.  And while Rodgers' twisted and whining manifesto is indeed genuinely misogynous, it's equally as misandrous.  He hated the men who managed to attract good-looking women even more than he hated the women.  In the end he was a self-loathing, narcissistic and entitled little prick who went nuts.

But while I find many of the arguments about his mental state and probable motivations highly cogent and reasonable, I feel that the one place the blame has not been placed is at the feet of his father.

Once upon a time, during the glory days of the Old Patriarchy, it was every father's duty to instruct his sons in the arts of manhood, up to and including "The Talk" about women.  These were solemn men's mysteries, in which a father would explain (like he would the rules of baseball) the ground rules and the elements of attraction and all the other issues a young man needed to know before he went a courting.  The results were a mixed bag: often Dad's advice was as inept as it was applicable, and as feminism and the changing economy began destroying the old order, it became increasingly unproductive.

Worse, fathers were blamed for filling their sons heads with misogyny, chauvinism, and other mental poison by the nascent feminist movement.  The resulting disconnect from the way the Old Patriarchy practiced mating was jarring, and after the great waves of divorce they became brittle and shattered.  By the 1980s, most men said very little to their sons about the subject, and what was said was couched in carefully-worded doublespeak that avoided the really helpful information in favor of innocuous Nice Guy crap that wives and sisters would not freak out about.

That left the post-Patriarchy boys little choice but to gain their desperately-needed information via popular culture, the street, and their mothers.  There's no wonder we raised two generations of angry, confused, and frightened Beta boys who had to fight for what little helpful knowledge they could glean.  Gone was the day when a man could safely sit down with his 17 year old over an illicit bottle of beer and explain "the facts of life", before perhaps taking him to a pro or advising him on how to press his suit with a girl he was interested in.

Instead they largely stayed silent, letting their sons languish in a jungle of "True Love" crap and feminist
doublespeak.  There's a reason the music of the 1980s was androgynous, whiny, and filled with introspective despair: dudes were horny as hell and had no idea how to proceed without inviting feminist punishment.  It's hard to blame the dads - they had no idea how to do it, either.

When you listen to Rodgers' pedantic and entitled whining, it's difficult to imagine that his father ever took his duties as a patriarch seriously.  Instead he threw money and an affluent lifestyle at the boy and let him languish in silence, unable to explore or establish his sexuality beyond the basic yearning for completion everyone has.  For Rodgers women were all about status - about defining who he was - which is contra-Patriarchy.

Look at what he had to fill that void instead: a culture of feminism that actively sought to punish men who did try to learn the essential skills ("Game") necessary to overcome adolescent awkwardness and progress toward a desirable goal.  A popular culture that still celebrated True Love and a "low conflict" approach to mating.  A generational culture that celebrated entitlement and instant gratification.  Being shown (and told) that hot cars can get you women was the extent to which Rodgers had progressed - and like most omegas (you don't have to be a fat slob to be an omega, as he proves) he felt entitled to only the best, prettiest, blonde girls . . . but had no realistic method of approaching them, much less prosecuting good Game with them as a result.

A strong Patriarchy would have taken care of that.  Even had he discovered he was gay (and CH makes some compelling arguments that he may have been repressing his latent homosexuality) his father had a duty to instruct his son beyond sending him to college with a hot car and an attitude.  When his lack of initiative and paralyzing fear of women transformed to bitterness and disappointment, he turned against the only guys out there who could have helped him out, the PUAs.  Instead he turned on them as well, as is well-known, and joined PUAHate.

It's telling that the kid went after more men than women, despite his anti-hot-chick manifesto.  He hated successful men personally, particularly if they were of lower status than he.  He felt entitled to hot chicks based on looks and affluence alone.  He had no instruction in how to approach a girl, talk to a girl, reject a girl, or even properly objectify a girl - instead he wallowed in his own sexually-frustrated self-pity until the rage and anger exploded into violence.

Rodgers' abhorrent acts of violence are not an indictment of the PUAs, the NRA, or even of feminism, directly.  They are the direct result of the loss of the Patriarchy that once protected our sons and kept them from such excesses.  And while it might be convenient to blame feminism for his acts, they're merely being the shame-slinging reactive little cupcakes we've all grown to know, bless their hearts.  The true fault lies with his father, for listening to them and not giving his son what he so desperately needed: male guidance and support about one of the most delicate and sensitive issues of a young man's life.  Without that support and guidance, a young man feels like he's drowning in a sea of contradictions, with no help in sight.

Teaching our sons the Red Pill truths about dating and mating, including learning rudimentary Game, is a vital element of Patriarchy 2.0.  Ensuring that they are not just exposed to the sex-ed-class version of life, but something far more substantial (say, Average Married Dad's upcoming book) to help them cope with the seething frustration that comes with testosterone is one of the primary duties of a father, and a Patriarch 2.0 MUST see this as his job, alone.  Leaving "advice on girls" up to your mom, who inevitably praises you for being you, tells you to just be funny, be a Nice Guy, and be respectful to women is a direct failure of your paternalistic responsibilities.

Our sons are vital, and they crave masculine guidance and support like a drug.  If they don't get it from Dad, or a strong Uncle, they'll try to cobble it together out of rage, anger, hate, and despair.  We must tell our sons about how the way the world really works, and impress upon them the essential fact that the world will treat them like shit and expect the world out of them, demand that they be Real Men and then punish them bitterly for doing so, and pound it into their tiny little skulls that no one owes them a godsdamned thing: no beamers, no babes, no nothing that they didn't earn on their own.

And we have to teach them how to endure and abide those inevitable down periods in which they languish with appalling frequency.  Teach them how to use them as motivation for self-improvement and exploration.  No one "deserves" to be kissed or fucked by a beautiful girl.  If you want that prize, you set your sights on it and pursue it accordingly - you don't sit on the hood of your BMW and wait for the panties to drop of their own accord, as Rodgers apparently did.  And you damn sure don't pick up a gun and express your frustration that way - or a knife and slash your perceived rivals to death.

No amount of attempted shame is going to move the Manosphere on this point.  We didn't create Rodgers.
 He is not a result of Game's failed practices, he's a vindication of Game's success.  In fact, we could have prevented Rodgers by telling him the same thing they tell gay teens considering suicide: It Gets Better, as a man.  One day you out-grow the stunning contempt with which society views a young man by cultivating yourself into a better man . . . and that doesn't mean more money or a hotter car.  When the feminists destroyed the Old Patriarchy, they allowed such rotten fruit to ripen.  Only by reinventing and reinvigorating Patriarchy 2.0 and setting some godsdamned standards for behavior - and then enforcing them in a bruthishly masculine way - can we keep these bitter omegas from turning their rage into blood-soaked streets.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Aunt Giggles Shows Us Why Most Feminists Are Future Ex-Wives

Aunt Giggles (Susan Walsh - whom I respected and even lauded in my book, before she summarily dismissed me and the rest of the Manosphere to exile from her blog for the crime of being men who had opinions about stuff, so I will henceforth - despite my basic inclinations - reluctantly refer to her by her Manosphere nickname) had an interesting post up with the provocative title This One Things Predicts Divorce With 94% Certainty.

I was curious - divorce is a big issue for the 'sphere - and I was gratified to see that it was indeed some helpful advice . . . just not the way she intended.  Giggles wanted to take a shot at the well-known Game technique of using Dread in a relationship.  Instead she accidentally pointed out why feminists in general are piss-poor candidates for marriage to a decent guy.  That is, any guy who doesn't want a divorce.

Dread, if you're just joining the show, is the act of using the threat of ending the relationship to gain control of the relationship.  Dread can be a powerful tool in relationship Game - during the Basic or Single Game stage fixing you.
it can be an effective tool to keep your girlfriend from, y'know, doing stuff you don't like.  And that usually happens when she's secure with your predictability.  Predictability begets complacency, and complacency leads to both boredom and increased shit-tests.  But Dread, used effectively early on in a relationship, can disable the feminine impulse to decide that she "has you figured out" . . . and can start

Based on the idea that men control commitment, Dread points out that whatever batshit crazy shenanigans a woman might decide to pull, the dude ultimately has control over whether or not the relationship will continue.  Instilling Dread in a woman is the masculine equivalent of a woman using Drama to control the relationship.

Dread is an important and effective tool for a Red Pill man because it counters the Drama element many women seem all too happy to import into a relationship and then use to seize control of it.  Simply put, once a woman feels confident that she's got a dude figured out, she often feels entitled to actively seize the wheel from his hands with emotional Drama or more subtly by restricting sexual access.

Aunt Giggles doesn't like Dread because it's designed to keep a woman from feeling stable in a relationship. Because when a woman doesn't feel stability in a relationship with a guy she likes, she does, y'know, stuff he likes to keep him happy with her and continue the relationship.  That puts him in control, and that bugs Aunt Giggles and enrages feminists.  Men can't be in control of a relationship under feminism.  That's Patriarchy.

In Advanced or Married Game, Dread is usually reserved for important matters.  No one wants to pull the plug on a relationship over stupid stuff, but if your wife of ten years has decided that "real grown ups don't need that much sex" and starts you on an IV drip of survival sex as a means of controlling the relationship, Dread becomes a valid and very potent tool to preserve it.  Of course Aunt Giggles doesn't see it that way - Dread is emotional blackmail, manipulation, or even coercion.  It means you don't love them, and you're a rat bastard who's just trying to use them for your own evil plans, or something like that.  Never mind the propensity for feminine Drama - that's apparently okay - but a dude using Dread is EVIL.  It inspires fear - fear that the man will withdraw and ultimately end the relationship, without the express permission of the female involved.

Spake she:

"An attractive and desirable person does not need to create drama to demonstrate their appeal, because others will naturally be drawn to that person. Only those who cannot sustain attraction or intimacy resort to negative reinforcement for personal gain."

I take issue with this because I've witnessed first-hand - repeatedly - how attractive and desirable men get into a relationship that seems rosy at first blush, but who incrementally become marginalized as the female asserts more and more control.  Dread isn't the first tool in the box, but it certainly shouldn't be eschewed out of general principal by a man.  And in some relationships where a dude is seriously trying to Break his Beta, Dread is often the only tool a woman entrenched in the belief that she alone has the power in a relationship based on her possession of the only fully-functional vagina will listen to.

Giggles attempts to discern between Threats and Warnings, explaining that the motivation of the person using Dread (usually the male - women usually use sex and drama) are what is important.  If you are trying to instill fear, that's bad.  If you are merely trying to warn someone of the consequences of their actions, that's . . . okay.  Only there's damn little way for someone to ascertain what someone else's motivations really are.  If a dude actually tells his woman that her behavior is a dealbreaker, that's a Threat.  If he mentions her behavior is so poor that he is considering the fact that there are, indeed, other women out there who will not behave so, that's a Threat.

If he merely says she hurt his feelings and he won't do something ("socialize with her", is Giggles' example) then that's just a Warning.

 Used too harshly or too frequently, Threats can undermine a relationship.  But how many Warnings must a man deliver to deaf ears before he resorts to Threats?  Depends on the man, woman, relationship and situation.  Usually when a man encounters unacceptable behavior in his woman, bringing it to her attention can fix the problem.  But there are plenty of women who simply discount such warnings from their men, dismissing them as him being "mean" or "marginalizing" or other sins.

In my opinion, the Threat is often warranted and justified. Men don't like using them any more than women like hearing them, but if she's steamrolling over your valid objections, then like my friend Darius, a Threat is decidedly in order.

Aunt Giggles cites marriage expert Dr. John Gottman, who has been able to predict whether or not a union would endure with 94% accuracy, essentially based on the presence of one key factor: 


That's important.  But not why she thinks it is.

Giggles concludes that using threats is coercive, and that merely pointing out how a partner "hurt your feelings" should be enough to motivate change in an understanding and loving relationship.  The problem is that most couples don't have a consistently understanding and loving relationship, and when a man admits to hurt feelings - and tries to use them to convince his woman to alter her behavior - all too often she dismisses his feelings as less important or completely unimportant.  Because as long as the relationship is intact, she's winning.  It could be a piss-poor, sexless, crappy relationship replete with fights and arguments, but for the purposes of boosting her in the FSM, it's all the relationship she needs until something better (and more Alpha, to her horror) comes along.

Giggles mentions the psychological term “intermittent reinforcement,” an addictive reward pattern that is the motivator in gambling.  You win just often enough to keep you playing.  This is the female motivation in slowly reducing and restricting sex in a relationship as a control mechanism.  The man wins when he's have good sex frequently.  But the woman wins just if the relationship is intact and things are more or less muddling along.  It doesn't matter how much suffering or anxiety she creates in her dude, as long as he hasn't left, she still wins.  So she puts out just barely enough to keep him intact, and ignores his feelings the rest of the time in a Blue Pill relationship.

Which brings us to the subject of contempt.  Giggles insists that contempt underlies most of the motivation behind employing Dread.  That's positively ludicrous.  For example, my friend Darius, when he employed Dread and Preselection, did so without contempt for his girlfriend.  He didn't treat her poorly or try to actively undermine her self-esteem, he pointed out the obvious flaw in her emotional reasoning - that he would not stick around unconditionally and wait for her to make up her mind - and pointed out that she was by no means the only game in town.  He did not fault her personal character or insult her, he told her what
the deal was with enough passion in his voice to invoke her emotional receptivity, and he got the job done.  But he was never contemptful of her.  

And that brings us to the title of the post.  For while I fault Giggle's reasoning, I cannot fault the initial premise: that Contempt in a partner is a strong indicator of whether or not divorce is on the horizon.

What she doesn't quite understand is that the damaging contempt she rightfully fears need not be personal in nature - the mere presence of contempt in a partner is a strong indicator of divorce, by my observations. Someone who is contmeptful of a whole class of human beings - to which you may belong - is a very poor risk for a long term relationship.  If you are black, for instance, marrying someone who generally does not like black people but will make an exception for you because they love you is a very poor marriage risk.

So consider, then, the fact that for three generations feminism has been raising girls in an environment of pure contempt for masculinity and all things male.  Since about 1975 the feminist party line has been to blame men for all the world's ills and demonize masculinity at every turn.  Divorced moms who espouse general contempt for men have not only emasculated their sons at a basic level, they have instilled in their daughters a bitter perspective that leaks out into every aspect of their lives.  While hormones may temporarily overwhelm this homegrown contempt for men, once the orgasmic buzz of infatuation leaves off and a feminist discovers that the swell dude she married is actually a real live man with his own masculinity, the blush of love usually cannot overcome the deep and abiding contempt that she has been raised to feel for men.

Men make more money.  Men have all the power.  Men want sex and control.  Men are aggressive and dangerous.  Men make stupid decisions.  Regardless of the number of examples of contrary behavior, even within their own personal sphere, I would suggest that the majority of girls raised by self-identified feminists (and I include misguided "male feminists" like Schwyzer and Scalzi here) become not only entitled, but learn to actively feel contempt for all men . . . even the ones they are in a relationship with.

A woman who demonstrates contempt for all men in any way is to be avoided like a half-price hooker with the clap by a Red Pill man.  I'm not talking about the ubiquitous and cathartic post break-up ice cream guzzling sleepovers designed to purge after heartbreak, here, I'm talking about those women who can calmly deconstruct, judge, abuse and vilify all men and masculinity itself, particularly while their husband or boyfriend is present. Women who are openly disrespectful of men, or who use misandrist terminology with gay abandon are indicating their class-based contempt.

Within the circles of Radical Feminism there's what they call the "Not Nigel" phenomenon, when a dominant feminist woman has condescended to a relationship with a weak Gamma male.  The saying goes, "All men are sexist, chauvinistic sex fiends with no regard for the rights or sensibilities of women . . .except for Nigel. You aren't like that, are you, dear?"  And Nigel slavishly assures her he isn't as he runs and fetches her another doughnut.

"Nigels" are viewed with open contempt among RadFems, and even among plain old ordinary Liberal good kind", they feel utterly justified in saying the most horrendous things about men in general, secure in the knowledge that Nigel isn't going to protest - and will likely eagerly agree with her misandrist views just to stay in her good favor.  And since the RadFems cannot stand a man who actually admits and apologizes for all males and their behavior, every agreement with them that falls out of his mouth merely validates their opinions and strengthens their contempt.  Apparently being a lickspittle passive little Gamma bitch to your domineering wife doesn't dampen RadFem panties as much as the Gammas would like to think.
feminists.  Male bashing and misandry are acceptable bloodsports for them, and as long as they add the half-assed disclaimer that their pet neutered male is "one of the

If Radical Feminists can recognize their own lurid contempt for the men who are bending over backwards to please them, then the existence of widespread general contempt for masculinity is going to doom a relationship to divorce regardless of her personal feelings for her pet penis.  Because she will eventually either decide to chuck poor Nigel under the bus for being a man, or (far more rarely) Nigel might grow a set and start resisting her contemptuous behavior.

But beyond the RadFems, mainstream feminists often enjoy this kind of misandrous bloodsport, even as they qualify their opinions if anyone actually bothers to point out that, technically, not all men are rapists.  Often they'll qualify further by attacking "the Patriarchy", a nameless, faceless boogeyman that symbolizes all men . . . while not supposedly offending any particular man.  The Gammas go along with it, because they have firmly turned their backs on the masculine power of fatherhood, and they feel they can curry favor by joining the assault on "the Patriarchy".

What they don't understand is that by doing so, they not only paint targets on their own backs, they are actively participating in the first moves toward their eventual divorce.  For even Liberal Feminists won't respect a man, subconsciously, who won't stand up for himself and his masculinity even as they enjoy the slavish devotion.  Eventually they'll get a whiff of Alpha and their inherent hypergamy kicks in.  Bye-bye Gammarabbit.

How do you test for this sort of thing in a woman?  You listen . . . carefully.  Perhaps even bring up a few controversial topics like porn, prostitution, and Blurred Lines.  If she starts to rant about "male privilege" or "the Patriarchy" or "Rape Culture", then she's purely catch-and-release.  Let her inflict her bile on some hapless Gamma or start collecting cats.  Her contempt for men and masculinity might be popular in certain sections of the Female Social Matrix, but when it comes to how she will treat you within the relationship, she's shown her true colors.

And goddess help you if you hear her say ". . . but I know you're not like other men . . . you're special!" That's her hamster and her vagina speaking in chorus, because she devoutly wants to believe that YOU are not actually a real man, as men define the term.  She wants to think that YOU are somehow immune to the persistent, constant drive of your sexual impulse and have the insight to realize what a special snowflake she is.  No man wants to be "special", or "not like other men", and if you do . . . in that way . . . then you have larger identity issues that a relationship just ain't gonna fix.

But for the sake of all the gods, DO NOT PURSUE A LTR WITH HER.  Her potential to be a good wife is almost nil, and her potential to be your future ex-wife is roughly . . . 94%.  Contempt for all men will inevitably lead to contempt for you, to your detriment.  And feminism is packed to the gunwales with that contempt.

You have been warned.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Hard Sell, Preselection And Fungibility

One of my readers, and a friend of mine, recently had a commitment issue.  He solved it in delightfully Red Pill style, so I felt compelled to share.

A little background: Darius (not his real name, of course) is dreamy.  That is, he's in his 30s, he's a seasoned professional making very good money, drives a hot car, owns his own incredibly nice house, and he's got that great balance of Alpha and Beta that makes panties damp the world around.  Good looking, too, from a few feet away.

Darius has been a player in the past, as he works in a female dominated field and he's one of the few hetero dudes in it.  He travels a lot, dresses well, and so his single Game is generally exquisite.  He isn't a committed bachelor, however: he's looking for the right woman, as he's ready to settle down.  He shares custody of a kid from a previous relationship and he's adept at fathering.  All in all, OUTSTANDING Husband Material.

Unfortunately, a couple of years back he and his long-term girlfriend parted ways after he proposed and she said 'no'.  Now, Ladies, when a man in your life proposes to you, you may not realize it but it's a ONE SHOT DEAL.  Either you accept and get married, or you don't . . . and he moves on.  Getting rejected at that fundamental level is excruciatingly painful for a dude, and thinking you can still hang out and have Girlfriend Priveledges is your hamster squeaking.  If he offers you a ring and you refuse, that's the end of the relationship.  Period.

In the aftermath of that ugly time, Darius drowned his sorrows in massive amounts of freaky, no-strings-attached pussy.   Or, as another one of my friends says,"Go out and find one who looks just like her, fuck her, and then never call her again."  He swears by the technique.

That's a fairly typical and healthy response - when a man feels rejected, his two fall-back positions are Withdrawal and Objectification.  Which means that the best way to soothe a man's broken heart is with a heaping helping of horny hotties.

But eventually Darius found another girlfriend, one who had some real potential.  Problem was, she was hesitant about committing, for whatever reason.  Whether she was playing coy, genuinely confused, or just inherently cautious about commitment (in this case the commitment involved nothing more than cohabitation and exclusivity), thanks to Darius' previous experience, he'd had enough.  Usually the dude is as nice and soft-spoken and charming as you could ask.  But when the subject of her moving in and taking the relationship up a notch came up recently, she again demurred.

Darius had enough.

Blue Pill doctrine calls for the man to quietly slink away and change the subject in such a situation, then shower her with gifts and appease her utterly in an attempt to convince her.  As most of us know, this rarely leads to a desirable outcome.  If the woman is persuaded, then the resulting relationship is replete with strings and conditions, and the progress from their is treacherous at best.

Instead Darius used a cast-iron Red Pill technique: the Hard Sell.

When his girlfriend demurred, Darius whipped out his smartphone and started showing her pictures . . . of his previous booty calls.  As their relationship was nascent, many of these women didn't even know he was in a new relationship.  As luck would have it, one of his previous NSA girls had sexted him a nasty pic and proposed a booty call for that very evening, after not hearing from him for a few months.  Darius showed his new girlfriend the picture and said in a very calm, low, unexcited voice (I'm paraphrasing here):

"See her?  She's hot.  Hell, she's gorgeous.  She's as hot as you are, and she's a stone cold freak.  She just texted me a picture of her twat while she was driving - you've never done that.  So while you're dinking around with whether or not you should move in with me, I can answer this text and in an hour this chick will be on my doorstep.  Fifteen minutes after that she'll be bent over this very couch with my freshly-sucked cock up her ass, and will love every minute of it.  She's a freak.  She loves dick and loves sex and will try anything I want.

"I'm showing you this not to piss you off, but to demonstrate that I have fucking options.  I'm not going to wait around while you decide just how valuable you twat is, and whether or not I measure up to your standards.  I have twenty girls like her in my directory, and I get just about any of them to come over at any time.  You're sweet, I really like you, and I really want to spend more time together . . . but if you aren't willing to make this move, then we need to go ahead and move on.  And I'll start by having this chick stop by an hour after you leave."

Of course his new girlfriend was shocked, stunned, and surprised by such a direct approach . . . but she got the message: Your Pussy Has No Special Powers.  There are billions of perfection acceptable vaginas out there, and if you are not attentive or if you are unwilling to follow his lead, then you'll be dumped overboard and the next in a long line of possible future Mrs. Dariuses will take your place.

She was offended, too, no doubt - but he'd made his point.

When you are over the infatuation stage of the relationship and at the negotiation stage, it is VITALLY important for a Red Pill dude to remember the essential fungibility of women, and that the primary attraction factor for a man in a potential relationship is SEX.  Sex which - thanks to our lovely modern technological society - can be had by a man with even mediocre Game with very little difficulty.  Darius has GREAT Game, as I can attest by the number of hotties on his arm at functions and the number of envious damp panties in his wake.  He wasn't bullshitting, as his girlfriend knew - he was the real deal, and the wrong move would mean going overboard.

Women - all women, not just feminists - hate to think that they can be replaced so quickly, but the fact of the
matter is that there are usually far more women out there who want a boyfriend (any boyfriend) than they're really comfortable with.  In Darius' case, slapping her in the face with that not only buffs the Preselection attraction, it puts her on notice to put up (or out) or shut up.

This can work in Married Game too, although you have to be far more careful.  No woman wants to be stuck with a man that none of her friends admires.  When you stop being attractive to other women, then your wife's attraction is going to dull.  But when you have tangible signs that other women are scoping you out, flirting with you and generally demonstrating interest, then a woman who doesn't jealously mate-guard is signalling to her man that she's just not that into him anymore . . . which can be the first crack in the wall of the marriage.

Mrs. Ironwood's response to the amount of female attention is classic.  She knows about preselection, and she also knows that I am deeply committed to our marriage.  I've never cheated, even when it's been tempting and I could have gotten away with it - because every time I have a flirty encounter with a woman, or she sends me (uninvited) a flirty text, I tell her about it.  I don't do it in a guilt-stricken, ashamed fashion, but I proudly boast of the attention, assure her I'm not interested, but also assure her that I'm flattered and gratified by the validation such attention gives me.

Then she sweetly kisses me, says she loves me . . . and then fucks me like she's a 19 year old porn star.  Usually she'll back over it for a solid twosie, and depending on the youth, beauty, and alleged sexual availability of the lass in question she'll add in some special tricks that only a well-married woman secure in her relationship can pull off.  By the time she's done, I'm so exhausted, sated and content that the thought of pursuing another woman is ludicrous.

When I have this kind of quality at home, why in hell would I risk anything for the illusory promise of younger women, or prettier women?  I certainly don't need the status or the inevitable awkwardness a new relationship brings, and as far as sexual experience . . . well, as a porn professional who has watched thousands of sweet young things explore their sexuality on camera, I know for a fact that the vast majority of them are - at best - mediocre lovers.  Perky titties are lovely to look at, don't get me wrong, but when it comes to pure sexual fulfillment no one knows you like your Red Pill wife.

Women are fungible.  If you are attached to one who is reluctant, or laden with excuses why she just can't manage to X, then its important to remind her that she's not the only game in town.  Women control sex, this is true, but men control commitment . . . and when things aren't going in a promising direction, a wise Red Pill man won't hesitate to indulge in some Preselection, and then remind her of her fungibility in some subtle way.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Red Pill Marriage: The Art Of Sex

As most of you already know, I like art.  Sexy art.  Chances are, so do you, or you wouldn't be here.

But when was the last time you actually devoted time to indulging in that?  With your spouse?

I get a lot of emails from frustrated husbands attempting to break their Beta habits and bring some real Alpha back into their marriages.  After working on becoming more dominant, personally, fixing some of the structural issues in their marriages, and learning some elementary Married Game, a lot of dudes get . . . stuck.  They run through the introductory elements of Game fairly quickly, even get some good results, but then . . . they start to run out of ideas.

One vital aspect of keeping your Red Pill marriage going is cultivating a healthy sexuality.  That doesn't just mean pounding the missus into oblivion at will, it means nurturing your own sexuality, learning and understanding your wife's personal sexuality, and then encouraging the positive growth of the marriage's sexuality.  While that might seem to be a lot of pressure, it's actually just good old-fashioned relationship maintenance.

Recently, Mrs. Ironwood and I took a weekend vacation to the Appalachians, renting an adorable tiny cabin just outside of Asheville, NC, complete with stunning view, absolute privacy, and a hot tub on the porch.  Celebrating a thoroughly Appalachian Spring in a thoroughly and lustfully pagan fashion is an established ritual for us, and these "pagan rites" weekends are vital to the health of our relationship (as well as the subject of a forthcoming post).

But while we were in our mountain cabin, we eschewed the standard electronic entertainments available (wifi, satellite TV, DVD) in favor of our own private erotic art show.  In fact, we turned it into a game with deliciously surprising results.

Here's what you do: select one or more of the following VERY NSFW tumblr sites featuring erotic art - and I've tried to include everything from the extremely tasteful to the outrageously tasteless, for reasons that will become apparent.  Find one that you think will suit both of your sensibilities.

Then give her a set time to look through the site and download, to a special file, any of the pictures she feels
are particularly sexually exciting.  Have her pick a set number (we did 100) and then it's your turn.  You go through and do the same thing, saving them in a different file.

At an appropriate time (as foreplay or afterplay), have her pull up her file and play it as a slideshow.  Comment on what commonalities you see in her selections, and don't be afraid to ask her WHY she likes a particular piece.  "I dunno, I just think it's kinda sexy" is an acceptable answer.

A couple of ground rules:

1. Don't judge.  If you find something that's objectionable to your sexuality, that's not a sign of incompatibility . . . it's valuable intelligence on the sorts of things that get your woman off.  While it might not be YOUR thing, it's part of HER thing, and even if you don't want to necessarily participate.

2. Don't criticize.  If you like something and she does, or vice versa, chalk it up to a healthy difference in perspective and move on.

3. Don't obsess.  If she adds a picture of a heavy bondage fantasy, don't assume that she wants to be woken
up in shackles one morning.  This exercise is an attempt to explore each other's fantasies, not look for reasons to be pissed off or nervous.  Take everything you see with a grain of salt.  This is fun, not homework.

4. Discuss.  Talk about the commonalities, the differences, and the multitude of ideas that erotic art can inspire.  This isn't mere porn - this is Art.  While it is, technically, designed to inspire an erotic response, it's also supposed to inspire other emotions and feelings.  Discuss those, too, not just what makes you horny.

5. Get some!  If you and your spouse do discover a few pieces you have in common, consider having them professionally printed, matted, and framed for your bedroom or snuggery.  Every marital bedroom should have some tasteful erotic art - this is a way for you to discover some in common.

The Sites:

SFW: Oldcarguy41  (where I got most of my "good stuff" for the blog!)

Remember, you may find some of these images shocking.  In fact, if you don't, perhaps you should consider professional help.  The truth is most of what you see won't appeal to you, but the point is to find what does, and what appeals to your spouse, as well.  Appreciate the differences even as you enjoy the commonalities . . . and realize that a healthy sexuality takes a lifetime of careful cultivation.


Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Red Pill Roles: The Praxeology of the Dominant Man (UPDATED: Mrs. Ironwood Responds)

I came back from the weekend to an intriguing comment on one of my Wife Test posts:

I stumbled upon the Red Pill ideology about a year ago. My relationships were alright, but I did seek a dominate and masculine man (like so many women desire...but it's hard, I differentiate unwanted sexual advances from YES take me NOW...). The 'problem' was that I was raised egalitarian, that men and women share all roles. So I started to experiment when I went to bars, using the Red Pill (and ROK) rhetoric as my guide. 

I am pleased to inform you, that after only three weeks I managed to claim a pretty staunch Red Pill boy. I didn't mention my medical school or charity work, or familial problems (when he asked if there were any), and I mentioned that marriage was something I was looking forward to and living with a man and our children. was too easy. 

It's been a year now..and our relationship has never been better. Now I have to tell you, he is none the wiser that definitely no 'Red Pill Girl', and I have been able to maintain the illusion that he is in control. He has been so over the moon about meeting a 'conservative', attractive, intelligent girl who was FAMILY orientated...he's loosened his own Red Pill ideals (without me saying a thing!). I.e. about a woman shouldn't work and should take care of the kids. etc etc. 

Don't worry though I will treat him right, as he treats me. It's true I craved the dominate man who would spontaneously slip into the shower with me, or even touch me under the covers during a couples movie night...but also a man who respected that I want to be a doctor and childcare/housework is a shared task. 

I was doing it all wrong..thinking a man would be attracted to my intellect and accomplishments...blah! They just think with their lower head...once that is satisfied, the upper head starts working. It's ironic though..the lower head controls all, and when that is satisfied...real dialogue can take place. He likes the one thing about me, even when I am ticked...he'll know I'll always embrace his sexuality. He also enjoys that while I am very smart and will have a lucrative career...I'll always be his sex kitten in lingerie ready to pounce. 

So Red Pill girl in the bedroom?..not so much in job/chores/life. Can't have it all..can we? :) 

Depends on what constitutes "having it all" . . . and who "we" are.

If you read closely, you might be concerned that some cagey lady has misused the Red Pill to bag an unsuspecting hunk under false pretenses.  If that's your take on it . . . you are mistaken.

The anonymous reader mistakenly calls the Red Pill an "ideology", similar to feminist or any other ideology. The thing is, the Red Pill isn't an ideology, it's a praxeology.  Why does that matter?  Isn't that just an intellectual technicality?  Actually, it makes all the difference.

Ideologies are belief systems which hold up ideals - moral, ethical, social - as standards by which to live or guide us.  Humanism, Marxism, Christianity, and the Boy Scout Law are all ideologies of various sorts.  They establish lofty goals toward which we aspire, celebrating unifying beliefs that, theoretically, guide our purposes.  

Praxeologies, on the other hand, are not systems of belief, they are systems of practice.  They are not concerned with whether or not something lives up to a preconceived ideal, they are concerned with whether or not something actually works.  Engineering, small engine repair, computer coding, fishing, and first aid are all praxeologies.  The Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology.  (corr. Hawaiian Libertarian did a magnificent piece on the Praxeology of the Red Pill awhile back  Originally attributed to Roosh.  My bad.).  

The difference is telling, because when one examines the "ideology" of the Red Pill, and assumes that because it favors a male-dominant marriage it automatically also favors the SAHM and male breadwinner model of the days of yore, it can be disconcerting when you find successful Red Pill marriages that defy that model.

The fact is, the Red Pill doesn't favor that model, explicitly.  We live in the 21st century, a post-industrial society where our economics dictate certain things that make the old agricultural model of marriage archaic, for most folks.  Dual-income marriages are the norm, and the Red Pill doesn't fight against that.  In fact, a great portion of Married Game is predicated on methods - indeed, expounds an entire praxeology - based on the dual-income model.  See Athol Kay for such brilliance.

The goal of a Red Pill marriage isn't how to get your wife back into the kitchen where she belongs, as the well-intentioned Anon seems to think, it's how to effectively and efficiently run a family in a way that provides the most secure happiness to all.  The male-dominant method is the most proven and reliable, so that's the one that the Red Pill adopts.  

Most Red Pill marriages are "non-traditional", economically speaking.  That is, both spouses usually provide income to the common household.  But the Red Pill also recognizes that if marital power is realized in terms of economic power, as feminism accepts, then the current trend of wives outearning husbands will inevitably lead to an undermining of the successful male-female dynamic required for a stable and successful marriage, under the current beta-building feminist ideology.  

The Red Pill answers that issue by abandoning economic input as the factor by which dominance in the relationship is established.  

For years Mrs. Ironwood was in a career that provided far more income than mine.  Once she became established in her profession, she was making twice what I was, and in our Blue Pill days that was a serious issue.  

Why?  Because we both assumed that since she made more money in our "equal" partnership, then she should be invested with most of the economic power and make most of the financial decisions in our marriage.  Since I was the weaker economic factor, I guiltily yielded both power and responsibility to her - and she wanted neither.  Mrs. I hated that, in fact, and every attempt she made to push it back on me added to the stress of the relationship.  I didn't feel empowered to take a leadership position, she didn't feel entitled to ask me to, and we plodded along unhappily for years.  

Post Red Pill - that is, once I gave up worrying about who made more money and got off my ass and led my family - it doesn't matter who makes more money.  It doesn't matter how good she is at what she does.  While I am fully supportive of my wife's career, the fact of the matter is that as long as she meets the basic requirements we agreed upon when we wed (stable, predictable income), she can be a neurologist or sell Mary Kay, and I'm not going to let that interfere with my responsibility as husband and father - or how I hold her to account as a mother and a wife.  Not because of any silly ideal, religious commandment, or misguided machismo, but because the praxeology of the Red Pill states that heterosexual relationships in which the male leads with unapologetic dominance are the most successful.

As Anon concedes, they are.  Even when the female attempts to rationalize that dominance away.

Despite her contention that he "maintains the illusion of control", in apparent contradiction of the Red Pill praxeology, the fact is that it doesn't matter what she believes . . . if she is acting Red Pill, then she is Red Pill.  Period.  Not glorifying her accomplishments or expecting extra points for a professional degree is Red Pill.  Not attempting to be domineering with her income and her social position is Red Pill.  If she is willing to follow a man, offer him respect and praise in public and private, and screw him righteously and often . . . she is Red Pill.  It doesn't matter who picks up the kids or scrubs the toilets.  It doesn't matter who makes the most money.  What matters is what you do, not what you think.  

If you're putting out for your honey like it's prom night, you're a Red Pill woman.  If you respect, embrace, and celebrate in your man's sexuality, you're a Red Pill woman, no matter what you might think you're pulling over on your man.  

And when he finally agrees to commit to you, it will be with the expectation that you will continue to be a Red Pill woman . . . so don't think that a ring on your finger is going to somehow alter the basic, underlying, highly pragmatic Red Pill foundation to the relationship.  Equilibrium, not Equality, is the key to marital longevity.  You might think you're "fooling" him, while you're making that sandwich . . . but he still gets to eat the sandwich.  Among other things.

Despite the commentor's slightly misandrist denigration of male sexuality, she hits on a key point: men value their sexuality over much else in their lives, and if that area remains satisfied they are capable of profound depth.  It's axiomatic that men cannot connect emotionally until after sex . . . so the praxeologic solution to the issue of emotional connection in a long term heterosexual partnership is NOT a Downton Abbey binge marathon, contrary to feminist propaganda, it's humping your dude well and often.  That makes him feel dominant. That makes him feel secure.  That makes him feel capable of bonding with you.  Not your job title or your take-home pay.

I've covered the housework issue before, my views on an active and responsive patriarchal approach to parenting are well-known, and I've even covered the symbiotic nature of a good Red Pill dual-income marriage elsewhere in the blog.  The fact is that husbands do, indeed, want their wives who work to be in a respectable trade or profession.  But it's also true that they really could give a rat's ass less what that profession is, as long as they remain the dominant force in their household.  They do want to do their share of housework, but they want credit and respect for the full load of chores they inherit as masculine prerogative (it's funny how many women are eager to list "cleaning the toilet" on a list of household chores, but not "cleaning out the gutters" or "changing oil in both cars").    

The Red Pill pragmatic truth of the matter is, indeed, that high quality men are not attracted to feminine achievement or income.  Nor should men be "intimidated" by wives who out-earn them.  A man who pursues a dominant position in his own home realizes that his wife's resume becomes immaterial the moment she walks through the door, and that his relationship with her is not based on any other title than "wife". 

That is a very specific and pragmatic job description on its own, and suffers little interference from a mere vocation.  He may support her, personally, by being supportive of her career, but she should make no mistake about what he values in her as a wife and partner.  

Because when it comes down to it, this is the only degree you have he's concerned with:


For those who believe that Mrs. Ironwood doesn't exist, or she doesn't read my blog, she had some particularly keen insight on Anon's comment and gave me a more complete understanding of her perspective.  When interpreted through the lens of the Matrix (FSM), and understood in the context of female multi-phasic communication, more becomes clear.  In her words,

"I completely understand what Anon is saying," quoth Mrs. Ironwood, "but I don't think Ian does, entirely.  Anon is speaking more to other women, than to men, and she's right: she is getting away with something.  But she's not pulling something over on her man . . . she's pulling something over on the other women she knows.  Perhaps all women.  Because a Red Pill understanding of masculinity and male social behavior, not to mention the interplay between the genders, is a dirty little secret.  We Red Pill women have the ultimate trump card in our dealings with other women, even if we occasionally have to defend it against them.  We're blissfully happy in our relationships.  When we hear about our girlfriends and sisters and mothers and their endless relationship woes, we're a little giddy inside, knowing what they're doing wrong but knowing that they'll never let them understand themselves.

"Being a real Red Pill woman is like having a superpower.  It is a hidden strength and a real sense of personal female empowerment, the same kind I imagine a woman feels on a stripper pole.  We understand our men, and we love them enough to invest ourselves emotionally and personally in their happiness, taking our own happiness in part from that.  That's a point of stability and a sense of empowerment that most women can only dream of . . . but it's one we cannot share or be open about around our female friends.  It must remain a secret, and that's okay.  Only a few of them out there are ready or willing to accept the idea.  As Red Pill women, why would we lay our unconventional insights on the table to be critiqued, when I know that they are effective? Why am I going to dissect it if it works?  As Red Pill women, why would we make our husbands vulnerable to the unearned criticisms and unworthy attempts at manipulations of other women?  If they understood the Red Pill innately, we wouldn't have to talk about it.  I don't have to "handle" my man, he handles himself.

"Anon is not rationalizing away the idea of male dominance, in my opinion, she's embracing it.  She understands the secret power of the sandwich, the allure of her sexuality, and the potency of her own receptivity.  Of course she feels in control, that her husband only has an illusion of control - when you understand men and masculinity and masculine sexuality, and you understand how to invest yourself in that to the point where you can act - and think - with such utter feminine strength and power that the issue of "control" is moot.  You're both in the boat.  You're both headed for the horizon.  You are both subject to the same winds and tides, and without both of you baling like fucking hell when there is a hole in the boat, neither one of you will make it to shore.

"Being a Red Pill woman gives you the strength and security to act from a place of supreme feminine confidence.  That's like having a stripper pole in your pocket.  And like having a stripper pole, it's not something you necessarily want everyone to see.  That's okay . . . and that's part of the strength you get from the Red Pill.  Ian is partly right: it isn't about what you think, exactly.  It's about what you do . . . but it's also what you feel.  Knowing that my husband is also my boyfriend, and always will be, that makes me feel better than any professional achievement or educational degree I've gotten.  I want to help save people's lives and make the world a better place, but that all starts in keeping my home and family a better place.

"And for the record, I wouldn't be caught dead selling Mary Kay.  Just my personal opinion."