Misandry in Super Bowl Advertising


“Sorry, it’s a boy”

Identifying misandry, even of the “soft humor” type is actually pretty easy.  Simply take the example, story, video, whatever and flip all the genders, and then ask what the reaction would be.

What if a commercial had aired during the Super Bowl that had two male comedians/talk show hosts, and one quipped “Sorry, it’s a girl”?  I’d bet my entire life savings and maybe even my life, that the next day the howls of rage and indignation over misogyny would be everywhere.  Every talk show, every newscast; the women of The View would be apoplectic.  Joy Behar’s head might explode.

Some might argue “hey, lighten up, it is just a joke”.  OK, but would it be a funny joke with the genders flipped?

Why the blatant double standard?  Because we live in a society where the feminine imperative dominates the frame of media and discourse.  I don’t recall where I first read this, but the comparison was made that taking the Red Pill is like having the sunglasses in They Live which allow the wearer to see the aliens for who and what they are, and all the subliminal messages.  Similarly, you begin to immediately recognize anti-male bias or negative messaging against men even when it is subtle or cloaked in humor.  Many TV sitcoms rely on the formula of the strong, in control woman juggling a dozen items successfully coupled with the doofus husband that she needs to borderline treat like another kid.

Interestingly, skimming rapidly a Google search on the ad, there was quite a bit of pushback on the ad with people calling it out for the sexist misandry that it is.  Of course, the hamsters were out in full force spinning the hamsterbation wheel like an epileptic seizure in arguing why the ad was not sexist.  You see, men are NOT part of a “marginalized class” affected by “systemic oppression”.  Because they are not, we could make jokes about chopping off their penises and that would be perfectly fine.

So what are some other examples of misandry and anti-male bias in popular media?  Share them in the comments.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

Below are a series of quotes on “Game” from August 21, 2009, from A View From The Right, which is a site run by the late Lawrence Auster, a traditional conservative author, philosopher and social commentator.

You’ll see that the various claims and arguments made around these parts have been made for a long time.

Here’s “Jacob M.”, writing in Auster’s post dated August 21, 2009. I edited his comment only a bit, and added some paragraph breaks for ease of reading.  I’ve added some bold for emphasis in his and others’ comments. Read all of it, and go to the link to read his full comment and those of his detractors. 

Here’s the link:  http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014017.html


Jacob M.:

We were raised to believe that women like “nice guys.” We were told by our parents, teachers, church leaders, and the media that women just wanted marriage and family, and that if we pitched ourselves as a family-oriented, commitment-oriented guy with a steady job, women would find us attractive. We watched from the sidelines in high school as the girls threw themselves at the captain of the football team or the guy who played guitar in a band, but we were told, “just hang on—once you get out there in the real world, those guys will be losers, and you’ll meet a nice sweet girl who’ll be happy to become your wife and have children with you.”

We have always been prepared to believe that a life devoted to marriage and family was more satisfying in the long run than the chance to score with multiple hot babes that the “alphas” got for a few years when they were young. But when we entered the adult world, we found that the women were still throwing themselves at those athletes and guitarists. They can afford to; they have their own jobs and don’t need our support.

“***I’m a little less optimistic that belief in Christianity can save the day. I moved to the Midwest to attend medical school, I attend a large evangelical church and am part of a large evangelical social circle, and I haven’t had a date in over two years. I’ve seen it with my own eyes—even these conservative Christian women, whom everyone thinks are just dying to get married and have babies, and who certainly aren’t sleeping around with “alphas,” aren’t particularly attracted to a guy just because he’s on a good career path and is willing and ready to settle down. Even they seem to seek excitement, fun, above all other things. Even in church, they tend to ignore the betas and all hold out for the coolest guys. That’s why I think any man today needs to learn some “game” just to attract a wife.”

Here’s “Stephen T.”, from the same Auster entry.  Again, some paragraph breaks were added.

“I participate in a sporting activity with many guys much younger than I. I’m quite sure that, in previous generations, I would never have heard so many young, virile, athletic (meaning in good physique, not pro athletes) men report the exact same thing that Jacob M. has written you about. Many of them literally cannot get a date, much less a steady girlfriend. I hear it all the time. These are guys with steady jobs.

I get the impression that many girls their age (twenty-something) spend a great deal of time fantasizing about media-driven images of bad-boy rock stars and sexy, dynamic millionaires whom they (somehow) believe will be attracted to them—even though many of them are probably not what you would call supermodel material themselves. Still, many would literally rather sit home than settle for the “boring” responsible type.

“As for the guys, frankly, I think many COULD benefit from a bit of “game.” Feminism seems to have neutered their natural male instincts to know when they are being toyed with or, frankly, made a fool of by a girl. Many are led like sheep into one-sided scenarios where a girl soaks them for time, money, and strictly platonic companionship—meanwhile, it’s the unemployed rock guitarist or the gangsta rapper on probation whom she’s actually *sleeping* with (while Mr Responsibility spends his nights with himself.)

I try to counsel these guys to open their eyes to stark reality, develop some backbone, and manfully bail out of no-win situations like that. But they are, I believe, much more like babes in the woods than guys of my generation were when it comes to “chicks” (as we called them then.) They are so afraid of the disapproval or censure of liberal females, of being called “chauvinist” or whatever the current equivalent of that is, that they will not stand up for themselves.”

Curmudgeonly Roger G., tells everyone to “suck it up, buttercup”:

“The men asserting that they can’t find wives because the women “don’t want nice guys” are engaging in self-justification and/or self-delusion. What is actually happening is that the women whom they consider sufficiently attractive to pursue don’t find them sufficiently attractive and/or interesting in return. Women who fail to measure up to their standards of beauty won’t get the time of day from these “nice guys.” As to that young future doctor who wrote in, I’ll guarantee that his church is full of single women who would welcome his interest, but they don’t look good enough for him. The market is overloaded with good single women, if you’re not picky about looks.

Not that I blame the guys. They shouldn’t feel obligated to accept women they don’t find attractive; it’s their lives, after all. They should just be honest about the situation, at least to themselves.

“And this looks thing is almost entirely about weight and physical fitness. The brutal truth is that few men want fat cows, whatever their virtues.

“So in this regard, the women are at fault too. To reiterate, men want a woman who looks good. So girls, instead of whining about the shallowness of it all, accept the realities of life and be willing to sweat for what you want. Get to a gym, and lay off the cupcakes for heaven’s sake. It’s pretty difficult for a woman who’ll put in the time and effort not to end up looking good to a substantial percentage of the male sex.”

“Passive Rejection” Is Not a Thing

(Repurposed from some comments at


“Passive rejection” is a developing meme among a lot of women.  Women claim to suffer rejection from attractive men when those men don’t approach them and don’t ask them out.

It’s essentially a claim that women feel the sting of rejection when attractive men ignore them, don’t approach, and don’t ask for dates.  I’m seeing women argue that “passive rejection” is every bit as valid as “active rejection” is done to a man, i.e., he approaches or asks, and she turns him down or blows him out.  

 There are more recent examples; but I’ll point to one here. Discussion starts at the link below.


Sigyn: “[Average “nice guys”] get attention. Believe me, they get attention. There’s a girl right over there whose heart soars every time he walks into the room–but because society has this expectation that “nice girls wait to be asked”, she will never make the move. And he won’t, either, because SHE’S NOT ON HIS RADAR. They’d suit each other perfectly–she’d fly to the moon and back to please him–but for some reason he’s not interested in her, so it doesn’t even occur to him that he’s getting attention from her (i.e., it’s not the kind of attention he wants, from the kind of girl he expects).”

deti:     “As for your Sixteen Candles scenario, well, I’m sure it happens. In this SMP there’s nothing stopping her from making her attraction known. Actually, he’s not getting ATTENTION from her. She’s not giving him any attention. She likes him from afar. That’s not attention. That’s just unrequited, unexpressed attraction.”

Sigyn: “It’s incompletely expressed attraction. She does things for him. She speaks kindly to him, a little more warmly than most, and compliments him as much as she feels comfortable doing. She remembers his birthday and makes him a cupcake. When someone does him wrong, she takes his side fervently. After they meet, she may doll herself up a little. She may even go so far as to suggest “hanging out together, oh just casually, later this week”–and if he asks if it will be just the two of them, she quickly offers to invite some other friends because “nice girls wait to be asked” and “men don’t want to be pursued”. And the whole time, she’s just thinking to herself, “I like you so much, ask me, ask me, I’m right here and I’ll say yes, can’t you see I’ll say yes?””


The above is an example of what is claimed to be “passive rejection” — where a woman simply admires a man from afar. There is no interaction, or there is very limited interaction.  And she views the mutual inaction and inertia as “rejection”.  


Rejection doesn’t work the way Sigyn claimed in the above exchange.   One is not being “rejected” unless one actually takes some form of action. One is not rejected unless and until one does something or a series of things which will be either “accepted” or “approved”, or “declined” or “rejected”.

Women reject men “covertly” and “overtly”.

We all know about overt rejection – the nuclear blowout. The “LJBF”. The polite let down.

Then there’s the protection shield. The “don’t even THINK about it, loser” vibe that a lot of women put out.

There’s also the bitchface look that women show to men who approach them. That’s the facial expression that says “there is no way I will EVER go out with you, so Do. Not. Even. Ask.” Or it’s the expression that says “what is this thing that dares to address me?”

There are also women who just aren’t very socially astute. They exude social discomfort and unease.  Some of these women believe that all men will immediately go from “hi” to sex. A few militant, maladjusted women fervently believe that all men are rapists. Or, they just don’t know how to read or respond to it when a man shows attraction.

None of these, however, are the same thing as “passive rejection” that women complain of with men. In the cases I’m describing, there is interaction. There is, at the very least, a man observing a woman and drawing conclusions about her, her body language, her expression, her mien, her bearing, her attitude, and the odds of her saying yes or no (as well as the odds of a very public nuclear rejection and/or a sexual harassment complaint).   There is the cost-benefit analysis.  He assesses the odds, and makes a decision based on what he observes.  

In “passive rejection”, there’s no interaction. Nothing actually “happens”. There is only her admiration of him from afar.  There is only her seeing him and noticing him across a room, or over time.  There are only her maelstrom of feelings.   The woman is attracted to the man but builds it all up in her mind and is crushed when nothing happens.


“Passive rejection” is nothing but feelings. It is nothing other than what an individual experiences in her own mind and heart. It is not even an exchange. There is no interaction, no conversation. There is only “I feel bad because that attractive man won’t pay any attention to me”.

It is not that she WAS rejected. It is that she FEELS bad because she did not get something she wanted, yet wasn’t willing to do anything to pursue what she wanted.   When a woman steps up to a man she finds attractive and she asks him out, and he says no, then, and only then, can she say that he rejected her.  Until that point, there are only her feelings.  There is only what she feels. 

Feelings are not interchangeable with facts. It is true that she feels this way. Feelings are real. But feelings are not the same thing as facts. Facts exist independently of what someone thinks, feels or believes about them. Feelings are entirely and completely a product of an individual’s own mind and heart.

The subtle innuendo here, of course, is “That attractive man is a bad man because he is ignoring me. Therefore, it is all his fault.” The innuendo is that the rejection is not something she feels, but is something that the attractive man does to her by omission and by failing to act. Therefore, it is his fault that she feels this way. He is somehow responsible for her feelings.

This is all a bit like saying “I would like that job. I want that job. I would like to do that job. But I am not going to do anything to try to get that job. I am going to hang back here and wait for that employer to approach me and offer me that job. Oh no! That employer isn’t talking to me! I’ve been rejected!”

No, you weren’t rejected. You didn’t get that job because you didn’t do anything to try to actually get hat job.

If “passive rejection” is so powerfully horrendous, and just as bad as being directly rejected from an approach, then there is no reason a woman cannot and should not simply make the direct approach of the man she is interested in.  If she thinks she will be rejected but she is interested, she might as well make the approach and talk to the man.   Yet the vast majority of women will not do this. They are terrified to approach.  Yet, these selfsame women will sit back, do nothing, and tolerate the “passive rejection”.

No one, male or female, is “passively rejected”. There is no such thing as “incompletely expressed attraction”. You didn’t get what you wanted because you didn’t do anything to pursue it, or because what you did to pursue it was insufficient, or you just didn’t have what it takes to get it. 

The old rules don’t apply anymore. That much is clear from society’s completely doing away with beta males as good husband material. Good providers are universally seen as chumps.  Most women will without mercy or second thought reject kind and good hearted men. Men cannot attract women with provider bona fides or affable, forthright conduct.

It is the same for women. The old rules of “hang back and let the guys come to you” and “nice girls don’t pursue” and “nice girls don’t call guys for dates” and “nice girls don’t do the asking”? Those rules are dead.  Women who want good men will have to go out there and find one. You are going to have to beat the bushes and pull them out of the woodwork. Good man you find attractive? YOU have to go to HIM. YOU have to make your interest known — clearly and unmistakably — to HIM.


There is much digital complaining from women about alleged “male sexual entitlement” (a nonentity if ever there was one).   The whining about “passive rejection” and complaining about insufficient attention from attractive men sounds much to me like female emotional entitlement and female relational entitlement.   Certain women claim they are entitled to emotional investment from any man they desire, with no conditions on any sort of concomitant investment from her.  These women demand that men give them attention and relationships whenever they want, on their schedules, at their whim, and with no reciprocation on their part. 

Women are not entitled to anything from any men.  Women are not entitled to attention from men.  Women are not entitled to a man’s emotional availability.  Women are not entitled to a man’s time, money, resources, commitment, or sexual fidelity.

Why Female Settling Is Bad For Relationships

(H/T Novaseeker and Rollo Tomassi)

Over at Rollo’s “The Love Experience” thread, the subject of male optimization and female hypergamy came up, as well as a claim that men are hypergamous.  This isn’t true, because while both men and women optimize, only women are hypergamous.   The difference is in where the attraction floors are for both sexes.   In today’s SMP, this creates problems because most women cannot marry men they are sexually attracted to. This is a problem for most men because they are beneath most women’s attraction floors. With all restraints on female sexuality removed, this creates situations in which you have a majority of women marrying men they don’t really want to have sex with.   The average man can marry a woman he’s sexually attracted to, but the average woman cannot marry a man she’s sexually attracted to.  

Keep in mind that in this post, “attraction” means sexual attraction. It refers to women who men want to have sex with; and men who women want to have sex with.  

Hypergamy just means “attracted to higher sexual market value than one’s own sexual market value”.

Optimization vs. Hypergamy

Everyone optimizes in life.  In other words, everyone, male or female, seeks the best they can get, in everything: sex, schools, jobs, careers, marriages, leisure, home and car purchases, whatever. At all times and all places, in all situations and circumstances, everyone seeks the best they can get with whatever they can use to trade for what they want; be that money, sex appeal, resources, knowhow, wits, personal connections, and whatever else individuals have at their disposal.  Everyone, men and women, seeks the best they can get.   Everyone optimizes.  

 Optimization is different when applied to men and women because of their fundamental differences in the way men and women approach sex and relationships.   Both optimize, but it looks different with men vis a vis women because of hypergamy and where the attraction floors are for each sex.   Men optimize; but women optimize in light of their hypergamous natures.

The Male Approach

Men have much wider attraction filters than women do. Most men are attracted to most women.   Thus, a man can be, and almost always is, attracted to women above his SMV, at his SMV and a bit below his SMV. His attraction runs to a much wider spectrum, and at all three places on the SMV scale:  above, at and below his own SMV.

All men have an attraction floor which is almost always below their own SMVs.  The attraction floor is in different places for different men.   A man will not go below this floor for sex with a woman because he isn’t attracted to her. He will never invest in or commit to a woman he’s not sexually attracted to.   Thus, a man can be attracted to women who are less attractive than he is. So a man can be attracted to his own SMV, expressed as SMV +0. He’s also attracted to women who are his SMV +1, +2 and +3, for example.   He will also be attracted to women who are SMV -1, and maybe even -2.

The “floor” can be in different places depending on circumstances.  A male 9 or 10 will have a much deeper attraction floor.  He can reach down to HB 5s and 6s and still not descend below the floor.   A male 5 if he’s thirsty enough might have a floor as low as female 2s.   A male 2 can only go to female 1s and 2s.  Keep in mind – they are below his SMV, but not below the attraction floor.

Take an average man, a male 5.   He will no doubt be attracted to female 6s and up.   He’s also attracted to his SMV counterpart, the female 5. He will also be attracted to some female 4s and maybe even some 3s. His best relationship will be with a female 4 because, as we’ll soon see, he will be above her in SMV and satisfies her hypergamous nature.  Because he’s a 5, he will not be able to keep a female 6 or above for very long, if at all. He could make a relationship work with a HB 5 but they can become precarious because an HB 5 is usually not attracted to her own SMV counterpart.

When it comes to marriage, his attraction to her is an absolute must, a dealbreaker.   A man will not marry a woman who he doesn’t want to have sex with.  This is because for men, sexual desire is binary. It is either “want” or “don’t want”.   It is either “I want to have sex with her” or “I do not want to have sex with her”; “Hell yeah” or “Hell no”.   No man is “meh” about sex with a woman he finds attractive.   And no man will marry a woman he isn’t attracted to.  

The Female Approach

It works quite differently for women.   Women have much narrower filters than men do.   A typical woman is NOT attracted to most men.   Women’s attraction floors are always at or above their own SMVs.  Hypergamy requires this.   Women are never attracted to men below their own SMVs. So a woman’s attraction will always be SMV +1, +2 and +3.   She’s not really attracted to SMV +0, and is never attracted to SMV -1 and below.  

Consider a female 6.   She is very attracted to male 9s. She is attracted to male 8s, and a lot of 7s. She could muster up a little attraction to male 6s.   But she will never, ever be attracted to male 5s or below. The female attraction floor is SMV+0. It reaches a very hard limit here for women. And here’s where it gets tricky.  

The attraction floor is set, but that doesn’t mean a particular woman won’t go below “the floor” to seek men if those men have other things a woman wants at a particular time.   A woman will go below “the floor” if and only if the man has other things the woman wants, most notably resources and commitment.  Depending on multiple factors such as age, past sexual and relational experience, desire for children and status, and culture and familial pressures, many women will compromise attraction in order to secure resources and commitment.  

Want, Willing, Don’t Want

Women take a much less binary and more spectral, sliding scale approach to sex.   For women, sex is “want”, “willing”, and “don’t want”.  Our hypothetical female 6 wants sex with male 7s, and she really wants sex with male 8s and 9s.   She is willing to have sex with male 6s and maybe a few male 5s, if and only if those men have other things she wants like resources, money, stability, and are willing to offer commitment.   She does not want sex with male 4s and below (unless he is Donald Trump or Bill Gates, in which case she can muster up some “willing” when she grits her teeth, lies back, and thinks of England).

This is all quite familiar when you think about it.   A female 6 really wants sex with a male 8; and that’s why the male 8 doesn’t have to bring anything else to the table to get sex with her.   The male 6, though, has to bring something else, just to get to “willing”.   And the male 5 and below must bring resources and commitment; but she will never, ever “want” sex with him.

As one rises, the other falls.   The higher the male SMV is, the fewer resources and commitment he needs to bring to get a relationship started and keep it going. The lower his SMV is, the more he has to bring just to reach “willing”.   He will work, invest and commit; but she will never be attracted to him despite his commitment.   You can negotiate for commitment; but you cannot negotiate for attraction or desire.  

How This All Shakes Out

For men, it’s quite simple.   Most men settle for women who are less attractive than they would want to have sex with or marry.  But, nearly all those men are still satisfied, because those men are having sex with and marrying women who are still attractive to them. (Keep in mind — we’re talking about sexual attraction here — women these men want to have sex with; because men will not have sex with or marry women who are unattractive to them.)   A man moves down the female SMV scale and finds one willing to LTR/marry him, while still trying to optimize.   If he has to, he will move further and further down the scale until he hits his “floor”.   He will have sex with, even LTR and marry, women at the “floor”. But in no event will he go below the floor and sex up or offer commitment to the few women below the floor, even if that means doing without.  A woman at the floor or above it has sex appeal– the one thing the man wants from the SMP/MMP.  By contrast, a woman below his floor has nothing he wants, and that’s why going below the floor isn’t an option.  

Men who cannot have sex with or marry women they are attracted to, women who are at or above “the floor” — what happens to them?   These men either do without or resort to pornography. This last option of porn or nothing is not optimal or even all that desirable. But men will engage in the cost-benefit analysis, and opt for it if no other options are available.

For women, it doesn’t work out well at all.   There are enough attractive men to go around to all the women who want them for sex. But it’s quite a different story when LTRs and marriage are considered. There aren’t nearly enough male 8s, 9s and 10s to go to all the female 5s through 8s who want them for marriage.  Most attractive men are either (1) married or (2) avoid marriage because they don’t have to marry to partake of the sexual smorgasbord.   As a consequence, the vast majority of women cannot marry men they are attracted to.   Or, more to the point, most women certainly cannot marry the most attractive men they can get for sex. 

All of these women increasingly compromise, moving down the male SMV scale until they get the best they can.   A lot of women have to move down that scale a lot more than they want to or thought they would have to, particularly after having had sexual relationships of varying intensity and duration with more attractive men.  

A woman will move down the male SMV scale, even below her attraction floor.  Men below her floor are not attractive to her, but they still have things she desperately wants.  (But, note that her wanting those things does NOT translate to attraction.  Her offering sexual access for the express purpose of bargaining for those things does NOT translate to attraction.   Again, this is about sexual attraction.   Her wanting commitment from a less attractive man, even her having sex with that man, does NOT mean she “wants” sex; it only means she might be “willing” to have sex with him.  It’s imperative that men understand this key point.)   

Her willingness to bargain and negotiate, in conjunction with her intense desire for status and validation as she ages, will cause her to compromise sexual attraction and lead her into the realm of men she is only “willing” to have sex with.   She will compromise sexual attraction in exchange for commitment and resources.  

She deals with her “willingness” differently than she deals with “want”. A man she “wants” to have sex with only needs to continue being attractive, being “himself”.    The man she’s “willing” to have sex with doesn’t have the benefit of her attraction. She isn’t attracted to him.   She is only “willing” to have sex with him, and that willingness exists only because he has other things she wants, usually money, commitment, and status.  She offers sex; he offers everything else he has. This unfortunate man must bring his commitment and resources, and must continue bringing them for the entire life of the relationship.  

From her perspective, she has already settled, because she didn’t get to marry an attractive man, a man she “wanted” for sex.   She had to reach down into men she is meh about, men she is only “willing” to have sex with. For her to remain even willing to have sex, he must continue bringing what she bargained and settled for.   If he fails to do that for any reason, even for reasons attributable to HER, the marriage is doomed.

The key difference is that men do not do this. Men do not settle for women they are not attracted to, full stop. Men don’t have sex with women they don’t WANT to have sex with. Men don’t commit time, money, or resources to women they don’t want to have sex with.   Men don’t marry women they don’t want to have sex with.   Men will use their resources, will show provider bona fides, but only for women they want to have sex with.   Men have no concept of being merely “willing” to have sex with a woman even for sexual release.   If a man makes a decision to have sex with a woman, it is because he wants to, not because he is merely willing to.   A man will not do anything with, to or for a woman he isn’t attracted to.   Men do not pay attention to, do not talk to, do not spend money on, and certainly do not date or marry, women they aren’t attracted to.  

When it comes to sexual attraction, women do not settle and do not compromise, ever.   If a woman is in it for the sex (and most are until some Momentous Event occurs in their lives), she will find the most attractive men she can, and address only them. She will pay attention to them, talk to them and have sex with them.   She will have sex with SMV +2 and +3 no problem, because they are attractive to her.  She will have sex with SMV +1, because still attractive.   SMV +0 and below get nothing from her – neither sex, nor dates, nor even the time of day, because those men are not attractive to her.

(Now, we’re told that women do want commitment from these men, and perhaps they do.  But if actions are to be considered, it’s clear that commitment and relationships are a distant afterthought.   It also occurs to me that this is what the “never settle” meme among women really means.   They’re really saying that they’ll hold out and wait wait wait until an attractive man offers commitment. Pity, really – waiting for the alpha provider who never shows up.)

But when it comes to relationships, women settle all the time for men they aren’t attracted to, or men they are less attracted to than men they used to sleep with.   Most women do this because they have no choice.  Nearly all of them don’t get to marry one of the attractive men they slept with. She can accept a man she’s “willing” to have sex with, but only if he has other things she wants.  She and others then rationalize that she must be “attracted” to the man she married. “Why, she must be attracted to him! She married him, didn’t she?! They have kids together, don’t they (and we all know what THAT means, wink wink nudge nudge)?   They have a nice looking family, don’t they?”  

“Willing” might have been OK for most men if we lived in a society which incentivized women to remain in their marriages and to live with the choices they make.  In fact, “willing” was enough when those incentives were in place.   Even before the Sex Rev, most women were married to men they were “willing” to have sex with. But, since we don’t live in such a society, “willing” isn’t sufficient to keep a marriage together.   “Willing” isn’t good enough for today’s man seeking an LTR or marriage, because “willing” isn’t enough by itself to keep her with him.  This is one of the prime reasons for frivorce – she doesn’t want to have sex with him anymore or never really did in the first place; and she has no incentive to stay and every reason to leave.   And for most men, an LTR or marriage won’t be in their futures because they aren’t attractive enough. They aren’t “wanted” sexually; women don’t “want” sex with them.  

Male settling doesn’t cause problems in the SMP and MMP, because although men settle all the time, they don’t settle for women they don’t want to have sex with.   Female settling causes all manner of problems, because American society is comprised of literally millions of women who are married to men they aren’t attracted to.

So what does this mean for men in today’s SMP and MMP?

 1.  This is why the most important question for men is “Does this woman want to have sex with me?” She has to be attracted to you. She has to want (not just “be willing”) to have sex with you.  

2.    If she is making you wait, she’s just “willing”. If she is resisting reasonable escalation, she’s just “willing”.   If she is responding to you with anything less than enthusiastic engagement, she’s just “willing”.   NEXT these women.  

3.     “Want” and “willing” can look really similar, because most women know very well how to use their bodies and sex as bargaining chips to get what they want.   Many women will shower sexual attention on men they aren’t really all that attracted to because those men have other things they want.

There are a lot of ways to suss out “want” from “willing” other than as set out above.   Look at the guys she used to date. If you’re not similar to them, if there’s been a radical change in the quality or character of the men she dates, it’s likely she’s just willing.   How old is she? If she’s coming up on 30 or past it, you’re probably a consolation prize.   If the sex, or her enthusiasm about sex, becomes inconsistent, then she’s probably just “willing”. If there’s been a recent change in her life, such as a new job, a new city, a move to a new place because she wants to “start over” or “get a fresh start”?   Willing.   If she’s preoccupied with her future or children, she’s probably just “willing”.

4.     The fact that she agreed to a date with you or even has sex with you does NOT necessarily mean that she is attracted to you.

The Bradley Effect in SMP Analysis

The Bradley effect?  What the heck is that?

The Bradley effect is a reference to African-American Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles, and 1982 California gubernatorial candidate.  Going into the final days of the election, most polls showed that Bradley had a significant lead.  Exit polls also showed Bradley as the winner, and one newspaper already had the next day’s edition with the headline “Bradley Win Projected”.

Bradley lost the election to his white opponent.  What happened?  Why were the polls so horribly wrong?  A substantial number of white voters essentially lied when answering the polls.  When asked, they answered they would vote for the black candidate, but when it came time to cast that vote, they did not, voting for the white candidate instead.

The Bradley effect is simply a more narrow example of a broader human tendency called social desirability bias.  From the Wikipedia entry:

Social desirability bias is a social science research term that describes the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting “good behavior” or under-reporting “bad”, or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.


It should be fairly obvious that given the contentious and controversial nature of human sexuality, that this bias is likely to be exerting a major influence in how both men and women answer questions related to sex, dating, and mating.

If I were to ask you to rank order your preference of the following fruits:  strawberry, apple, orange, and banana I feel pretty confident there would be no social desirability bias at work.  Society doesn’t send any broad messaging about “good” or “bad” fruit or engage in any type of shaming on which fruit you eat, or put you into a “good” person or “bad” person box because of which fruit you eat.

Now if I ask women what traits they find sexually attractive in a man (only the traits that make her want his dick in her pussy), or I ask men their preferred number of lifetime sexual partners, or top 2-3 sexual fantasies, there is most definitely going to be some influence from social desirability bias.  I would argue that it is going to be substantial when asking men because we live in a society where the feminine imperative is dominant, and thus preferred aspects of female sexuality are “normal” while preferred aspects of male sexuality are “deviant”.  Men who are ego-invested in being perceived as “good” guys (especially by women) or solicitous of female approval (ironically not “tingles”) will be heavily influenced by social desirability bias.

Some examples where this bias is likely to be in effect are questions such as:

1.  What are the top 2-3 traits that are sexually attractive (those that make you want to fuck him) in a man?

2.  What is your desired number of lifetime sexual partners (particularly for men)?

3.  What are your top 2-3 sexual fantasies (particularly for men)?

It isn’t difficult to find “analysis” polemics/rhetoric that essentially uses survey data most likely influenced by social desirability bias to draw sweeping authoritative conclusions to support a particular agenda.  Much of this falls into the GIGO box (garbage in garbage out).

To be clear, I am not saying various survey data is utterly meaningless, but one must be cognizant of the limitations, and look for discrepancies.  For example, if company XYZ reported that their new style of jeans are hot sellers across the country, and I go to 3 local retailers that have some out in the store at 50% markdown, and the clerk tells me they have boxes of the jeans in inventory, I am going to strongly consider the company is “stuffing the channel”.  Sure, it is possible the 3 stores are an anomalous sample, and they really are hot sellers in most other stores, but probably not.  Similarly, I am highly skeptical of survey results that are in complete opposition to most guys I’ve known in my life and revealed preferences.  For example, there have been experiments with women propositioning men for sex that are not consistent with survey results showing a large percentage of men have a preference for 1-3 lifetime partners.  Obviously, that has direct implications on whether (most) men are “hardwired” to be monogamous or polygamous.  Another example would be to compare pornography scenes to what men report as their “sexual fantasies”.  There are discrepancies there as well.

Social science isn’t hard science (physics, engineering), and only a fool would treat it like hard science  Full stop.  Survey data should certainly be considered but data from revealed preferences should take precedence when it is available.  Yes, one’s own personal experience is probably not a statistically valid sample, but when it is 180 degrees in opposition, it is sensible to be skeptical.  Lastly, be aware that anyone using survey data, particularly a single survey with a very limited number of respondents to arrive at authoritative conclusions probably has an agenda to push where establishing the truth of an issue is not part of that agenda.








Open Thread: UVA Nonrape Controversy, Yes Means Yes in Action

The UVA rape nonrape story could be a hoax (H/T Jimmy):


Or, maybe not (H/T Morpheus):


An embattled Rolling Stone partially retracts its previous partial retraction:


Yes Means Yes thinking at work: Elderly man, former Iowa State rep, accused of raping his wife, suffering Alzheimer’s dementia. His stepdaughters say he raped their mom, then recant.  Investigators lie to him, he unwisely talks.  He will soon stand trial for criminal sexual assault (H/T Buena Vista):


Read, review, discuss. Jibber jabber to your heart’s content.

Quick note: site access issues

Quick note: several folks reported not being able to access J4G last night, and as of this morning it seems to be intermittent. I have a ticket open with our host, but so far everything looks good on their end and the issue seems to be a “name resolution” problem on the ‘net.

For now, try to hit the page a few times if you get stuck. Our provider is still looking into it.


The One Answer You Need Before You Commit to a Woman

“Does this woman want to have sex with me?”

You need to know the answer to this before you invest or commit anything to a woman. And the answer needs to be an unqualified “Yes”. The current state of relationships is such that the only ones which really seem to thrive and succeed are those in which the woman is very sexually attracted to the man.

Let’s break this down.

1. “Does this woman”

Obviously, we’re talking about this particular woman’s attraction level to you. We are not talking about your overall attractiveness to women in general. The distinction is important, because most men aren’t attractive to most women. Thus, it’s likely that you aren’t attractive to most women; but there is a subset of women who will be attracted to you. So the inquiry has to be specific to a particular woman.

2. “Want to have sex”

This is about sexual attraction from her to you. This is an essential ingredient. Sexual attraction MUST be present. She must WANT to have sex with you. She cannot simply be “willing” to have sex with you. It has to be a want. She must desire you sexually.

It’s not sufficient that she believes you’ll be a good dad to her kids or a good provider for her. It’s not nearly enough that she likes you personally, or thinks you’re interesting, or enjoys hanging out with you. It isn’t sufficient even that she is willing to have sex with you in exchange for your exclusivity.

There are many different reasons a woman offers sex, only one of which is pure desire. Others include validation, attention, bragging rights, rebounding, and husband/commitment seeking from men to whom she otherwise wouldn’t give any attention. What is required is her sexual desire for you. And you cannot negotiate for that desire.   And you cannot create it from nothing.  She either desires you, or she doesn’t.  You either arouse her sexual desires, or you don’t.      

And it isn’t sufficient that she wants a relationship with you, wants to be your girlfriend, or likes your company. It isn’t sufficient that she selected you to “couple” with. What is missing here is the sexual component, and if it is absent, then you must withhold commitment and investment.

3. “With me”

If you personally are not the object of her sexual desire, then it won’t work. Don’t offer commitment if she simply wants sex (there are a few women like this). Commitment won’t work if she is with you only because you’re a substitute for a man she cannot have. Commitment won’t work if she sees you as merely the catalyst for something else, be it her personal validation, her penance for past decisions, or her dreams of marriage and stay-at-home motherhood.

Her desire must be directed toward you as an individual. Don’t commit if you’re just a toy. Cut her loose if you’re a consolation prize. And get out as fast as you can if it’s clear you’re only a vehicle to realize her goals and plans, instead of your goals and plans.

Keep these in mind as you venture forth.

Alpha/Beta Defined and Clarified


“Alpha male” and “beta male” are terms widely used both within and outside the manosphere. Nevertheless, there is considerable variation as to what the terms actually mean. Here, I will provide a definition based on simple definition based on evolutionary first principles that explicates the term as it is commonly used in the manosphere. But first, a quick history.

The terms “alpha male” and “beta male” have their origins in mostly discredited observations of wolves. The terms “alpha”, “beta”, and “omega” continue to be used to refer to the position of animals in the social hierarchy. While wolf hierarchies may be more fluid than observed, other animals do have rigid hierarchies for which such terms are suitable. As they related to humans in mainstream culture, the terms “alpha male” and “beta male” have come to refer to character archetypes of the assertive masculine go-getter male and the supportive emotionally expressive sensitive male, respectively. These mainstream terms have been adapted by the manosphere to describe men and their place in the sexual, rather than social, hierarchy.

Alpha and Beta Traits

A man’s alphaness is his level of intrinsic sexual market value. Intrinsic sexual market value is the innate sex appeal. Alpha traits tend to be signs of reproductively successful genetics i.e. either healthy genes or sexy genes. Alpha traits include: Physically fit. High-T face. Tall. High shoulder-waist ratio. Dark triad. Assertive. Good with poetic language. Musical ability. Preselection (i.e. fame/popularity and/or demonstrated ability to bed attractive women, whether through relationships or ONSs).

A man’s betaness is his level of extrinsic sexual market value (especially on the long term relationship and marriage markets). Extrinsic value is that which the man brings to the table for relationships. Beta traits tend to be signs of good parenting or provisioning ability. Beta traits include: Rich. Stable job. Faithful and monogamous. Caring. Good with kids. Strong enough to protect his wife and kids. Emotionally supportive. Good social status (i.e. doctor, lawyer, or upper class person). Resourceful.

Alpha Male and Beta Male

On average, women have far more intrinsic sexual value than men. This is because sperm is cheap whereas eggs and wombs are not. Thus, an “alpha male” is a man who has intrinsic sexual value (i.e. alpha traits) comparable to that of an average woman. Such a man can thus have sex with women with ease without having to put in significant in courtship, because the intrinsic values of both parties are comparable.

In addition, an “apex alpha male” is someone who has intrinsic sexual value higher than that of an average woman. Such an apex alpha may “flip the script” and find himself being pursued by girls and have girls do favors for him in exchange for sex. In general, especially in the modern post-sex-rev environment, alphas and apex alphas tend to not bother to cultivate their beta traits (because they don’t need to), although there is nothing stopping them from having both alpha and beta traits. Indeed, a man who has an abundance of both alpha and beta traits is the ideal unicorn for women.

In contrast, a “beta male” is someone who does not have that much intrinsic sexual value (i.e. alpha traits), but has significant extrinsic relationship value which he advertises to obtain partners. Thus, he can obtain partners for relationships using his “beta bucks” to improve his sexual market value for an LTR so that it is comparable to that of an average woman.

Finally, an “omega male” is someone whose total sexual market value (intrinsic + extrinsic) is extremely low. Generally, he lacks both alpha and beta traits, and tends to be locked out of the sexual marketplace altogether.

Value Judgement

It must be pointed out that there is nothing inherently pejorative about being “beta”. Indeed, civilization was built by beta males, and any functioning society must value beta males.

However, the post-sexual-revolution society implicitly treats beta males pejoratively. It makes them wait around while young women sleep with alphas and then expects the beta males to be grateful that these women want relationships with them after wasting their youth and virginity with alpha males. Such beta males must often resign themselves to largely sexless marriages and the possibility of getting divorced by a wife who feels unfulfilled by the marriage.

How to Spot Fake Online Meme Videos

BY NOW, MANY READERS HAVE SEEN the “Drunk Girl on Hollywood Blvd.” video. It was put out ostensibly as a follow up to “New York Hollaback”, in which a shapely, attractive woman dressed specifically to provoke male interest in snug, asset-showcasing jeans and a tight t-shirt, paraded through the Big Apple’s boroughs with a hidden camera several feet in front of her. Typical responses were captured, including a number of men attempting to talk with the woman and otherwise beclowning themselves.

“Drunk Girl” depicted a young, pretty woman in a sundress and three-inch heels, staggering and stumbling along a busy, people-packed California street, carrying a paper bag-covered bottle.   During the video, at least four men are seen ostensibly trying to “pick up” the young “lush” and “help” her back to their abodes, where they would (allegedly) attempt to sexually assault her. Each time it appeared one of the men might succeed in luring her off the street and whisking her away to privacy, “Drunk Girl” would suddenly sober up and saunter away, leaving a trail of apparently frustrated, bewildered and irritated men in her wake.

As we all know, “Drunk Girl” was a faked-up prank, a hoax. But some were taken in and clung irrationally to the notion that the video just HAD to be real. They insisted this video really did show ordinary men trying to rape a vulnerable woman.

Here’s how you, the average reader, can tell if you’re looking at a hoax video.

1. When two of the men depicted in the video come forward and publicly say it’s a hoax.     One of the men outright said the video’s producers had asked him to appear as an “actor” in the video. Another man disclosed a Facebook private message from Seth Leach, one of the video’s producers, saying the “actor” could disclose his involvement, confirming the video was a put-on, and promising more work with Leach’s production company.

2. The “offending” men’s faces are shown and are not obscured.   In “Hollaback”, the men’s faces were pixellated to conceal their identities.   There are legalities here – “Hollaback” depicted men engaging in unsavory, antisocial conduct bordering on assault.   Identifying the men publicly by face would likely have caused some to recognize them, potentially exposing the filmmakers to liability for either (a) defamation; or (b) appropriation of likeness and voice without permission.

Not so in “Drunk Girl”. These men are shown touching the girl, talking with her, goading her into returning to their homes. Their faces and identities are not obscured. All this suggests that the men had given at least tacit approval to their appearances. It doesn’t look like the “Drunk Girl” filmmakers had any concerns about liability to the men they were ostensibly depicting as dirty criminals and low down, no good sexual opportunists. Everyone was in on the joke — including the men themselves.

3. The “Drunk Girl” audio and video are of very good quality.   The audio and video are too clear and too sharp to be “hidden”.     This suggests staging.   Most hidden camera exposes have difficult camera angles and muffled audio. You can’t always see everything, and you can hear almost nothing, because the camera operator has to be concealed, and because the people involved do not know they’re being surveilled.  The camera in “Drunk Girl” was out in the open.  At some points in the filming, the actors are mere feet away from the camera.  They walk past the camera, which easily follows them as they walk.  The camera operator was plainly on the street and filming in full view of everyone.   It’s clear the ‘drunk girl’ actress was wired with a body microphone.  At times, “drunk girl” is yards away from the camera.  The only way to pick up audio that clear and distinct is with a shotgun microphone (unlikely because it’s nearly impossible to conceal) or with a body microphone.   All this is telltale evidence that everyone involved knew they were being filmed.

4. The entire video has a look and feel of contrivance, coaching, and self-awareness.    In the span of a couple of hours, at least 4 men attempt the exact same maneuvers – run “day Game” at various skill levels; make physical contact, and attempt to get her to go back to the man’s home/apartment. After each man is “rebuffed” and “rejected”, each is shown displaying the same facial expressions and reactions, in more or less the same sequence: bewilderment, then frustration, then irritation, then laughing it all off and returning to his prior activities.

Another contrived exchange happens toward the end of the clip, where one man is “helping” Drunk Girl, and without warning, another, taller man “cuts in” as would be the practice in a ballroom dance. The man who was cut in on simply walks away in a huff. It’s unnatural and looks overly rehearsed.

What’s more, it’s all done through “mugging”. The reactions are exaggerated and displayed for effect so the audience will clearly see them and understand what just transpired. All of those reactions just so happened to be sent right toward the “hidden” camera, so the full force of the men’s facial expressions and reactions would be captured and put on display.

The character of “Drunk Girl” herself is a bit of an oddity as well. She’s not presenting as a friendly sexual target. She’s a nuisance and an embarrassment. She’s an object of pity, not allure or sexuality. And think about this, you major city dwellers: seriously, have you ever seen a very attractive looking young woman, dressed in a pretty print sundress and heels, with assiduous and perfect makeup and hair, not disheveled in any way, yet absolutely hammered and plastered in the middle of the day, staggering alone down a busy street teeming with all sorts of people?  And how many attractive, high-SMV young women do you know who drink like Skid Row winos, toting paper-bag covered bottles?

Contrived. Rehearsed. Try-hard.

Don’t be fooled by fake videos depicting “male sexual entitlement”. Rape and sexual assault are NOT around every corner. It’s not the case that women are being abducted off street corners, pulled into lairs, and sexually assaulted in every hamlet and metropolis in America.

It’s a jungle out there, but it’s not THAT bad.

Crossed Wires

Advice to young man of 16:

“Just be nice, be yourself. Women are sexually attracted to kindness, goodness, patience, fidelity, industriousness and helpfulness. Give a woman what she wants. When you go on a date with a woman, you must do what she wants to do. You must never do anything sexual with a woman without asking permission first.”

Man implements advice as follows:

He is nice and acts like “himself”. He treats all people with kindness and patience, even to his own detriment. On the rare dates he actually gets, he does whatever she wants to do, gives her whatever she wants. Showers her with gifts, meals, drinks and entertainment. He asks permission for everything; fails miserably.

Advice to young woman of 16 or so:

“Just hang back and let things happen. Men will just come to you. You don’t have to worry about getting married. That will take care of itself. You don’t need to actually DO anything, or evaluate men, or seek out good ones, or anything like that. The exact right man will come along, sweep you off your feet, drop to a knee and pledge his undying love to you. You just need to make sure you have a career to fall back on, so you need to plan on college. Despite the advice I just gave you, you really can’t count on the right man to do all those things I just told you they would do. And if you’re a Christian woman, you need to be content in your singleness and wait on God’s timing to bring the right man to you.”

Woman implements advice as follows:

Party down. Let the good times roll. Find and have sex with the most attractive men she can find for as long as possible while following the “script” of college > work > grad school > work some more/ travel/ accumulate stuff.   Enjoys good sex with attractive men and relationships of varying durations until something happens to cause her to “change lanes”.

The Unholy Alliance of Feminists and Tradcons

(H/T Hollenhund and Novaseeker for this idea.)

We all know feminists oppose the so-called “men’s rights” movement, Game, and masculinity. There is a group of traditional conservatives (“tradcons”) which also opposes the same things, usually asserting concerns about traditional Judeo-Christian morality, family preservation, the need for sexual conduct within marriage, and so forth.

Feminists are the gender equity crowd, the sex positives, the hookup/casual sex culture promoters, slutwalkers, and Christian feminists. To feminists, “men’s rights” and masculinity are inherently sexist; a construct of an unjust, unfair and inveterately misogynist society. Game is opposed because it misrepresents men, defrauds women, and commoditizes sex. Feminists assert that Game promotes sexual violence, “male sexual entitlement”, and a distorted worldview, particularly of the sexual experience.

Who Are Tradcons?

Tradcons in their present day form comprise a religious/political group in the United States, birthed from a sociopolitical union between the Republican Party and evangelical Christianity. The idea was to marry conservative Christians (and their votes and money) to the GOP’s political muscle and knowhow. The 1970s and 80s era Moral Majority and the less prominent 1990s Family Values movement were forerunners of this group, as were pioneering televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. But, as their numbers and influence dwindled, tradcons found their homes in Protestant ministries like Focus on the Family and Family Life, and in the more conservative denominations. Prime examples of tradcons in this faction are Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Family Life’s Dennis Rainey, and Southern Baptist theologian/ radio talk show host Albert Mohler.   Tradcons are no longer nearly as politically activist as they were some 20 years ago. 

The nonreligious tradcons comprise much of the rank and file membership (and some mid level leadership) of the Republican Party. They also reside in the online “rightosphere” at conservative blogs, and on the talk shows on Fox News and CNN (with a few token tradcons at MSNBC). Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan exemplify this group.

What Tradcons Stand For

Tradcons advocate a return to (or preservation of) the traditional family, consisting of one man and one woman legally married to each other, and living with and rearing their children. The tradcon sees the man as “servant leader” of his family, meaning he leads as long as his wife agrees with the decisions he makes. He is a titular head, but in practice is the pack mule/drafthorse. His wife, however, is the spiritual, sensible conscience of the family. She is the de facto leader, because she is closer to the children and she just “knows more” about raising children and caring for families than he does.

On social and governmental issues, most tradcons are quite conservative or libertarian – for limited government, fiscal sanity, lower taxes, free market capitalism with sensible regulation, anti-abortion, “law and order”, and so forth. But in practice, tradcons are more or less aligned with feminists on sex and divorce.

Tradcons pay lip service to traditional sexual morality but the vast majority doesn’t adhere to it. Premarital sex and birth control usage are common in evangelical Christianity and in American Catholicism. The overall divorce rate among all first marriages in the U.S. is around 40 to 45%. Among professing Christians, 38% of all their marriages end in divorce. Among Roman Catholics the figure is 25%. The evidence supports a conclusion that despite their embrace of traditional positions, tradcons want to avail themselves of feminist social/political “gains” including widespread availability of easy divorce and social acceptance of extramarital sex.

Divorce and abortion are derided and disdained in theory and theology. But in practice, tradcons accept divorce and abortion as necessary safety valves, intended to be used only rarely and only as a last resort. “We don’t like divorce. No we do not. But we need it just in case some evil man is mean to his wife, or he falls into sin, or she is not happy.”

Many tradcons’ grudging acceptance of abortion extends beyond “rape/incest/life of mother” exceptions that most mainline Protestant evangelicals and Republicans nose-holdingly acknowledge. “We hate abortion.   But we need it just in case some evil man rapes someone. We need it in case a pregnancy would keep Carrie Career Girl from going to college. We need it in case a pregnancy would make her unhappy.”

Why Tradcons Are in Bed With Feminists on Sex, Divorce and Abortion

So, why are tradcons standing shoulder to shoulder with feminists on Game, masculinity and men’s rights? Why are people at the extreme left and the extreme right such odd bedfellows?

First, the male secular leadership and the female reactionaries in the tradcon “movement” want a systemic fix to society’s problems. They want to restore the old order, to repair the broken system, to return it to its pre-Sexual Revolution state. This faction wants the vaunted, idyllic, Norman Rockwell, immediate post war 1950s era of patriarchal family/economic boom/”good government” society. Their desire for a systemwide overhaul is their main difference from feminists, who want to destroy the old system, and who abjure Judeo-Christian morality in intimate matters like family formation, sexual conduct, and reproduction.

Tradcons acknowledge feminism is a big problem. But tradcons contend that men are a big part of the problem because more and more of them don’t care to help fix society’s problems. Men are a problem because more of them are refusing to do what they’ve always done – grow up, get jobs, and prepare for marriage and fatherhood mostly through producing 500% of what they need to support themselves. Tradcons oppose Game, men’s rights and masculinity because those concepts are at total war with the notion that men must overproduce and must sacrifice their individual wants and needs for “the common good”. The needs of the family outweigh the needs of the head of the family. Men are the problem, because they increasingly see no point in sacrificing themselves to help repair a broken society.

While feminists caricature Game mainly as misogyny and rape apologia, tradcons oppose Game because they view it as trickery, deceit, manipulation, and male sluttery. Tradcons insist that Game’s true purpose is to help more men sleep around; just as the current social milieu allows more women to sleep around. They argue that if a woman sleeps with a PUA or a player, it is because he tricked and manipulated her into it.

(It somehow never occurs to these people that many young Christian women are sleeping with players because they want to have sex with attractive men. Thanks to their feminist sisters and their tradcon overlords looking the other way, they can, and do, sleep with those men without fear of consequence.)

Game is also opposed for married men because it is viewed as mean, unloving, and distracting. Tradcons believe a married man should not concern himself so greatly with the frequency and quality of his sex life with his wife, nor with increasing his overall attractiveness. Tradcons argue that he should instead determine how best to serve his wife by doing lots of housework, and attending to her other needs. Tradcons tell us that if today’s modern husband makes his wife’s life easier and serves her according to her demands, then sex will “take care of itself”.

Second, tradcons want divorce, abortion and extramarital sex available as individual last-resort solutions for individual problems, even as they abhor the systemwide ills these things cause.  “We don’t like these things, but we need them ‘just in case’ there’s a problem in the marriage or an unplanned pregnancy.”   Most of the rank and file within tradconism is marinated in the ambient culture, and affected deeply in their daily lives by it. Like it or not, divorce, extramarital sex and abortion are now woven into the cultural fabric of American society. Tradcons cannot advance their “cause” without conceding the “need” for divorce and abortion, and that most of their adherents want premarital and extramarital sex. Christians who oppose divorce and abortion in all circumstances are pushed to the fringes, even within their own faith.

It’s easy to find high profile divorces and claims of sexual immorality among conservatives, Republicans and evangelicals. Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times and, as of this writing, is on his fourth marriage. He has never had any children. U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) had an extramarital affair a couple of years ago. Vocalist Amy Grant, a former darling of the contemporary Christian music scene, divorced her husband in the late 1990s for “irreconcilable differences” and remarried soon after. Sandi Patty, another very popular Christian vocalist, had an extramarital affair and divorced her first husband almost a decade before Grant’s highly publicized marital breakup. Christian evangelists Charles Stanley, John Hagee, Joyce Meyer, and Paula White all have divorces in their pasts. (Interestingly, none of these individuals, except perhaps Grant, has suffered any real or lasting consequences from their high profile personal problems.) There is a 25% divorce rate among American Roman Catholics, and over a third of all marriages among professing Christians end in divorce.

The point here is not to cast aspersions on individuals or groups.  The point is the tradcon desire that divorce, extramarital sex, and abortion be available as individual options despite the systemwide ills they cause.  Like everyone else, tradcons want consequence-free sex.  Like everyone else, tradcons want an escape hatch from unhappy, bad or failed marriages, and they want the chance for a “do-over”.  These attitudes are not likely to abate, even among the most conservative among us.

Third, tradcons want to have fun too. Like their secular sisters, young tradcon women are attracted to attractive men too. They are as immersed in the culture as anyone else, and they’re tired of seeing their secular sisters have all the fun. This is a major reason why young tradcon women have increasingly participated in the casual sex/hookup culture. Most tradcons, including pastors and spiritual leaders, look the other way on this for many reasons, notably because it would be “judgmental” and “hypocritical” to call them out for it.

The tradcon/feminist alliance is an interesting one, and one which could well take on increasing prominence in the years and decades to come.

Night Owls are More Intelligent

“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.”

Benjamin Franklin

“What hath night to do with sleep?”

John Milton

Well, looks like Ben had it partially wrong, at least the last part about wise, and that John was asking the right question.

Anyone familiar with “Red Pill” thinking is most likely familiar with evolutionary psychology, and the basic idea that men and women evolved differently (for example how the male and female brain works with things such as visual-spatial intelligence and emotional processing) beyond simply possessing different genitalia.

Given that, it is not a large leap of logic at all to believe that human beings (irrespective of gender) probably evolved with different preferences and strengths.  Most species are either diurnal or nocturnal, but with human beings, it appears a small minority of the population evolved to be nocturnal, often referred to as “Night Owls”.  The interesting thing is that research and data appears to provide strong evidence that Night Owls evolved to be more intelligent than Early Risers.

Continue reading

Removed content

All – Ciaran has requested that I remove his posts from J4G, not for any type of animosity, but because he intends to “roll his own” and wants to reuse the content without contention from earlier posts.

To that end, I have removed all posts from Ciaran (not comments) intentionally as requested by the content owner. If/when I become aware of Ciaran’s new blog I will be happy to pass the link along here.


“Mother May I”/”Yes Means Yes”  — How It Affects The Ladies

By Deti


In my last post I examined the new California “Yes Means Yes” law, which requires affirmative consent for sex on California’s publicly funded college campuses.   It abandons the old “No means no” standard, and instead requires persons (i.e. men) to obtain “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” to any and all “sexual activity.”   I predicted that this new law will be a model for future legislation expanding YMY into the civil and criminal law arenas.  I believe YMY will cause legions of men to give up and drop out of the marketplace, and raise the price of sex for women.  YMY’s legacy will be an even more distrustful, aggressive and adversarial dating battleground.


But today I want to focus on how YMY will affect women in the SMP.   If YMY becomes the law of the land (and I believe it will),  this law will do a major number on your lives too.  The price of sex and relationships will be so high that most won’t even be able to play.


Prepare to Put Out.     Unless you’re willing to move rapidly to sex, you will be excluded from the SMP.   The men who would not have demanded immediate sex won’t be around.   They long ago dropped out because, well, they can’t risk screwing up the approach, and you’re not worth the risk.


The only men willing to take a chance on you are playing a high stakes game.   Any encounter gone bad could result in university discipline, criminal charges or civil liability.  At the very least, you could mess up his life with a cop hassling him and demanding that he answer questions.    So if sex isn’t in the cards, you don’t get to play.


Smile–You’re on Candid Camera.   When you make the decision to play the game by the rules your infinitely wise state legislature prescribed, and you have sex with your hookup, fling, boyfriend or husband, odds are you’re being recorded.   In the new “affirmative consent” world, a man needs to video record every encounter.   If you get “uncomfortable”, or you claim you didn’t consent, or you decide to go EPL on your husband and use “lack of consent” as grounds, he has to have video to back him up.   Added bonus – video recording technology favors him.   It’s so small and surreptitious that you won’t know you’re being recorded.


“But that’s ILLEGAL!” you cry.   Well, yes, surreptitious video recording a sex encounter probably is illegal.  So is sexual assault.  But then, illegal recording doesn’t carry a years-long prison term or lifetime sex offender registration, either.   These guys you’re having sex with and/or married to are playing one of the highest risk games in the world – having sex with and/or being married to YOU.   They will be more than willing to pay a fine or do a week in the county lockup if it means beating a bogus rape charge.   And – if you DO press ahead with a rape charge, that man will have no choice but to go public with the video he has of the encounter you’re claiming was rape.


Zero Tolerance.  NEXT!  You think you’ve got it tough meeting and dating men NOW?  Just wait until they have to deal with affirmative consent.   No man willing to run the affirmative consent gauntlet will put up with even one microgram of shit from any woman.  Hassle him? You’re gone.   Complain?  NEXT!.   Nag?  NEXT!.   Start demanding marriage, or even exclusivity?  Gone before the last word is out of your mouth.   If you even so much as hint that you’re going to cause him any trouble or extra effort, NEXT!


Marriage and Commitment are Out of the Question.    In the new affirmative consent world, men are even more distrustful of women.  Any woman could potentially ruin his life.   The only men willing to participate are attractive, high status men.  They aren’t going to marry you or anyone else.  They don’t have to marry to get what they want, which is sex, and that right soon.   If you won’t give him what he wants, he’ll move on to someone who will.


Again – the marriage minded men are all out of the market.  The risk is way too high relative to the rewards.   And frankly, you’re not worth the risk.  They mostly dropped out; a few are already married to other women.   But you made it clear you didn’t want them.   You and your legislators eliminated those men, remember?


“Doesn’t Pay to Be Good.”   Mom and Grandma still tell stories about how they married their husbands who they liked OK but weren’t really in LOVE love with.   They got to have their Beta Bucks men.    Unfortunately for most women, Beta Bucks Men are extinct, a thing of the past. Guys who would have wifed you up in ages past are busy earning subsistence wages working as cable guys and customer service reps at BigBox Retail Store.  The educations they would have obtained went to Wendy Women’s Studies Major and Carrie Communications Major.   The money those guys would have spent on you and the children you’ll never have is being earned by a couple of women.   And what money they do have is being spent on Xbox, rent, beer, weed, and (maybe) gym memberships.


There aren’t too many guys who change the oil in your car or fix your light switch or provide your medical care.    Most of them are gone. They don’t know how to do any of those jobs, and they don’t care to know.    Physically strong and resolute men who would be cops, firefighters and military personnel?  The few who are there will have nothing to do with you – they know all too well what would happen if it goes bad.


Since you have next to no chance of marrying a man to help you with life’s trials and tribulations, no chance of connecting with a guy who will stick with you through good and bad, thick and thin – who’s going to take care of you?   Well, you’ll have to do that yourself.   Oh you’ll get a little assistance now and then, but for the most part, it will be YOUR nose against that grindstone.


Trust?   Intimacy?   Nah.    The new affirmative consent world is completely devoid of love, caring, compassion, empathy and affection.   No one trusts or cares about anyone else.   When it comes to sex and “relationships”, everyone is trying to get over on everyone else.  Everyone’s trying to gather dirt on their sex partners; everyone’s got to cover themselves.   Relationships are a thing of the past.  The new “affirmative consent” world is one of impersonal, cold couplings and separations, sexual unions and disunions.    Any connection these two people could possibly make is doomed from the beginning; it’s over before it even starts.   The few “surviving” men are cleaning up with the women willing to play, and sharing information on who are the “good” women for sex and who are the “problem” women.  For their part, women are outslutting each other in a race to see who will be the one to go home with Alpha McGorgeous tonight.


In “affirmative consent” world, relationships are all but gone.   Sex isn’t unitive.  It isn’t beautiful or meaningful.  Hell, it isn’t even fun for an hour or two.   “Affirmative consent” has mutated sex into a nationwide erotic casino.  Sex and “relationships” have metastasized into a grotesque Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome cauldron of competition, gambling, surveillance and writhing bodies.


All Game, All the Time.   Women who choose to continue in this minefield will be under relentless pressure.   Every man they meet will be on the make, sending out sexual signals.   You think you’ve seen “street harassment”?    Nope.  The few men still left standing will be going at it hard and heavy with attractive women 24/7/365.   Any woman in the mix will have to be even tougher to bear up under it.


The one detractor for men is that the new “affirmative consent” world will require Game so tight you could string a tennis racket with it.   Men who want to play must have over the top irrational confidence.  Any, and I mean ANY, Game weaknesses will take a man out.


Your Reputation will Precede You.    You will destroy future dealings with men still in the marketplace if you try to use “affirmative consent”.   You’ll develop a reputation as a dangerous woman who makes dangerous accusations.   No men still in the SMP will deal with you in any way.


Women need to ask themselves the hard question:  Is this the world they want?