Man Up: A Moral Autoimmune Disorder

In “The Evolution of “Man Up”, Deti describes two forms of the “man up” imperative.  The first is a tool of a male-centric community to police slackers and to achieve group goals.  The second is a tool of a female-centric community to induce men to work for the benefit of women.  This is an apt and accurate dichotomy.  In this essay, I will describe some evolutionary hypotheses that show why “man up” is such a powerful motivator of men, and how it is manipulated to impel men to act against the interests of their own sex.

The Free Rider Problem

“Man up” is a tactic to address the free rider problem among groups of men.  Free riders are a fundamental threat to group cooperation for the common good.  Throughout time, men have had to cooperate with other men for the common good while farming, hunting, fighting, trading, or building.  Free riders, also called defectors, share the common good without contributing to it, thereby imposing additional costs on the cooperators.  Without some means to limit free riding, cooperators will defect until all cooperation breaks down.

Continue reading

Requiem For A Heavyweight: On The Death Of Love, Marriage & Community, In Black America‏

“Love’s in need of love today.”
-Stevie Wonder

On Jul 11, I received the following email message from my good friend Mr. Paul Carrick Brunson, as I’m a subscriber to his newsletter:

“Hi There,

I wanted to share with you briefly my thoughts on a subject that has me impassioned.

It’s inspired by an interview I did earlier this week. I was asked to appear on Good Morning America to discuss my thoughts on the latest reality show, Married at First Sight. It’s an extreme, so-called social experiment where total strangers meet and marry blindly. The couples must then live together for a month before deciding whether they’ll stay married or get a divorce. The creators of the show claim it’s an experiment to determine which people make the best romantic partners.

Continue reading

It’s Not All Our Fault, Part Two (Post By Deti)

(Editor’s Note): As promised, here’s Part Two of Deti’s “It’s Not All Our Fault” – and like Part One, today’s post is a powerful piece! Pass both these essays along to every set of female eyes you can, because they need to see and know and understand the truth! Here’s Deti:

In my last post here I commented about a woman who complained that her 21 year old suburbanite daughter had never been on a date.   I suggested that it wasn’t all men’s fault that her dateless daughter
was having such a hard time, and I outlined certain things that the
young woman and her family should inquire about.

I’d like to follow that up with a few further explicit suggestions for
the young woman, and other women who might be in her position.   Note:

She says she wants a “good man”.  I take this to mean she is not
interested in dating for fun; she’s interested in a possible husband.
So, this advice is geared for women who want to find husbands and who are interested in early marriage.

Continue reading

It Isn’t All Our Fault (Guest Post By Deti)

(Editor’s Note): Greetings, everyone! All of you know well J4G brother Deti’s sage offerings, which have created quite a stir throughout the Internet; well, Deti’s back with a two-parter on a very hot topic right about now. This is something every lady out there needs to hear, so let’s get right to Part One of Deti’s piece. Here it is! Part Two will be up on Fri, Jul 18, 2014.

Patrice Lewis is a prepper blogger from the Pacific Northwest.  She
blogs at rural-revolution.com on a variety of topics pertaining to the
simple life – everything from canning food to weaponry, wildlife to
survival and TEOTWAWKI (that’s The End Of The World As We Know It).

Continue reading

You Can Come Over To Our House & F*ck My Sister – & Get Free Drinks (Guest Post By Hollenhund)

(Editor’s Note): We here at J4G are very happy to welcome new blogger and old commenter and friend, Hollenhund to the forum! He’s graciously accepted to join our team of regular contributors, and we expect that his provocative take on Sexual Politics and Red Pill matters of the day will prove to be stimulating conversation. Check out his website: Hellhound: The Musings of a Manosphere Denizen for more of his provocative “takes” on these issues. Put your hands together for HH!

Let me start by stating that I never followed the news about the recent Isla Vista murders closely. One part of it was that, as cynical as that sounds, I simply didn’t see Rodger as an impressive, dangerous criminal compared to other mass murderers of recent years such as Seung-Hui Cho or Anders Breivik. But the more important reason was that the way the mainstream media tried to spin this event as yet another horrific manifestation of societal misogyny and the way it depicted Rodger as part of some violent, twisted online subculture of white male rage and white male sense of sexual entitlement was so utterly predictable it made me lose whatever amount of curiosity I had left about this issue. We’re at a point where the media ritual of manufactured outrage based on distortion of the truth and outright lies is a regular occurence, implemented by cultural commissars rehashing the same old liberal feminist “arguments” over and over. I share the opinion that such violent acts perpetrated by enraged, mentally unstable men, no matter how rare or random, are simply unavoidable in a sexual dystopia such as the current one. There’s not much more to say about that.

It follows that I didn’t bother to read Rodger’s manifesto either. However, this article on Return of Kings brought my attention to one short part of it. On page 129, Rodger writes:

I visited my mother’s house quite often in the Autumn. To my extreme rage, I discovered that my sister now had a boyfriend, and that she had lost her virginity. She had casually ‘dated’ boys in the past, but never to the serious extent that she did with this one. This one was a half White, half Mexican named Samuel, and I immediately took an intense disliking to him when I was first introduced to him. He seemed like the typical obnoxious slob that most young girls are sexually attracted to. Georgia invited him to my mother’s house all the time, and it angered me to watch him lurking about, eating my mother’s food and drinks, and making use of my mother’s house. He was freeloading off my mother, and she didn’t even realize it.

I eventually grew to hate him after I heard him having sex with my sister. I arrived at the house one day, my mother being at work, and heard the sounds of Samuel plunging his penis into my sister’s vagina through her closed room door, along with my sister’s moans. I stood there and listened to it all. So my sister, who was four years younger than me, managed to lose her virginity before I did. It reminded me of how pathetic I was, that at the age of twenty-two, I was still a virgin. I hated her boyfriend as well. My sister said that he’s been with other girls before her, and I’m sure he lost his virginity at a much younger age. It is such an injustice. The slob doesn’t even have a car, and he is able to get girlfriends, while I drive a BMW and get no attention from any girls whatsoever.

First of all, one cannot help but notice how he decided to describe what he viewed as an act of outrageous promiscuity. No, that half-breed freeloader didn’t simply penetrate her or get laid with her; he was “plunging his penis” into her warm, wet hole. Of course, a young guy who never got to plunge his erect cock into an enthusiastic, young and pretty girl is to be expected to give such a blatantly naturalistic depiction of an act he obviously craves to replicate so much (although ideally not with his own sister).

We can, of course, dismiss Rodger as a mentally ill, anti-social product of poor upbringing, a dreg left in ignorance of the reality of human sexual behavior, and thus dismiss his manifesto as the ramblings of a lunatic. However, it’s probably fair to say not even the average, mentally sound young man would be terribly elated to arrive home only to find his younger sister getting boned hard, although behind closed doors, by some guy he doesn’t like that much. It’s true that we’re living in modern societies where the widespread consensus is that 18-year-old heterosexual girls have the right to experience sexual pleasure with a man if they want to (as the quote makes it clear, that was the age of Rodger’s sister Georgia at the time of this incident). We can even go further and say that a psychologically healthy, mature young man should not object to his legally bangable sister getting some good banging – after all, the sexual urge is an integral part of our lives, and suppressing it is neither natural nor enjoyable, especially not in a culture where premarital sex is accepted as normal and female personal happiness and autonomy are viewed as the ultimate moral good.

But evolution doesn’t change in the way culture does. When Gunnery Sergeant Hartman invites Private Joker over to his house to fuck his sister in the movie Full Metal Jacket, probably no viewer’s surprised when this “invitation” is followed by a big punch. Basic evolutionary psychology compels fathers to guard their daughters and brothers to guard their sisters, to ensure that they don’t get banged by men that, from a male point of view, aren’t “eligible”. The purpose isn’t to rob them of opportunities for sexual fulfillment, it’s to protect their long-term interests. We instinctively know that sperm is cheap while eggs are expensive, which entails that an unwanted pregnancy is a much bigger disadvantage to the mother than to the father – or, more precisely, the sire/impregnator. What young man would want his sister to be left pregnant by some alpha lout who disappears after copulation, never to be seen again?

We also instinctively know that a woman diminishes her chances of eliciting commitment from a high-value man by openly engaging in promiscuous sex with a string of men. Do women resort to “anti-slut defense” and “plausible deniability” because it’s a cultural construct foisted upon them by the patriarchy, or because they know it simply serves their own interest to behave that way, regardless of cultural norms? The answer is obvious. Another fact, although less known, is that the more sexual partners a woman has had, the less capable she is of forming a long-term emotional bond with a new man. This can be another reason for the guarding behavior mentioned above.

The reality on the ground, however, is that this behavior is dysfunctional in modern society, which largely explains why it’s disappearing. An unwanted pregnancy is much less likely when contraceptives are widely available, and even if it happens, it’s very unlikely to ruin the life of an upper-class girl like Rodger’s sister in a world where legal and safe abortion is also available, not to mention that the use of contraceptives and/or abortion no longer carries social stigma and single motherhood is even celebrated in the media as a heroic and selfless act. And eliciting commitment from a man doesn’t even nearly have the same economic importance for women it used to have anyway. The “protective older brother” routine is a laughable relic of the past.

Rodger was unwilling to accept any of that. He demanded to live in a society where a man has to have a fancy car and a fancy job (or a fancy amount of inherited wealth) if he wants to have sexual access to hot blond sorority girls from the same social class – a society which existed once but is gone, probably forever. As he says in his manifesto, he knew that the guy named Samuel who was roguring her sister had other sexual partners before, but his newest conquest accepted that. He probably knew in his gut that Samuel was going to move on and find other partners for casual sex, and that his sister will probably do the same.

He knew that Samuel, this car-less “nobody”, was getting free sex in his (i.e. Rodger’s) mother’s house, with her approval – sex he didn’t have to “qualify” for in any traditional way (i.e. showing his potential as a future provider), consequence-free sex that didn’t obligate him to do anything, sex that didn’t make him indebted to Rodger’s sister or her family in any way. And he even got free meals and drinks. This is the reality of the current sexual marketplace. Being the blue pill chump that he was, Rodger found this incomprehensible and unacceptable. We can be sure there are many similar betas today put in the same situation and feeling more or less the same way, regardless of the state of their mental health.

We can speculate how Rodger’s life’d have unfolded if he was born 50 or 60 years earlier. In all likelihood, one day he’d have found his sister getting pounded behind closed doors in his mother’s house in the same way. The likely difference (unless his sister becomes a hippie) is that the “suitor” would have been a young man with a well-paying job and a car who had been courting his sister for months, likely to have already been viewed by his own family and the Rodgers as the future husband of Elliot’s sister.

After all, premarital sex has always been common, but it has normally taken place between established, long-term couples who were likely to get married in their near future. Elliot’d have probably felt the same kind of innate discomfort, even revulsion, when hearing his sister’s moans, but would have probably viewed that sex act as more or less within the bounds of behavior he was taught is normal and acceptable. And it’s unlikely he’d have ever become blatantly envious of the sexual options of his sister’s boyfriend.

Those were times when society was invested in coddling the illusions of blue pill beta chumps, and mentally disturbed young men were more closely monitored and kept in line through social pressure instead of getting abandoned to their fate. But reality smacks them hard on the head in current times. We find another example of that on page 47 of Rodger’s manifesto, brought to my attention by the same RoK article I linked to above:

The very last day of Ninth Grade was the worst. I was having P.E. at the gym, and one of my obnoxious classmates named Jesse was bragging about having sex with his girlfriend. I defiantly told him that I didn’t believe him, so he played a voice recording of what sounded like him and his girlfriend having sex. I could hear a girl saying his name over and over again while she panted franticly. He grinned at me smugly. I felt so inferior to him, and I hated him.

Oracle Z, the author of the RoK article, sees this as a sign of a “permissive society and media which over-sexualizes young children, making them think sex as a form of self-validation”. I’d say that’s too much blame to put on “society”, which is nothing but a faceless, nameless phantom anyway. If we want to be honest with ourselves, boys normally already have an interest in sex by the time they enter 9th grade, and the ability to secure sexual access to female peers will always have an impact on a young man’s social status and sense of self-worth. If you’re able to have regular sex with a girlfriend, or a string of girlfriends, or just random girls, or you simply demonstrate the opportunity to have sex with girls, you’re less likely to be dismissed by your male peers as a loser for whatever reason, and girls are more likely to give you attention and even listen to your opinion.

That’s simply the way things have always been, and it has nothing to do with social norms, permissiveness and media manipulation. The big difference today is that sex has pretty much become the only form of self-validation available to most young men in an era of declining economic opportunities and creeping matriarchy, and in old times they didn’t even have the technological tools to record evidence of their sexual success, so such claims could always be dismissed as empty boasting. Today unattractive males have their noses rubbed into their sexual failure all the time, as evidenced by Rodger’s story. This used not to be the case, but it is now, and it’s unlikely to change anytime in the near future. Those men who try to play by old rules that are neither enforced nor taken seriously anymore will only end up in misery.

Bigfoot Theory

“Honestly O, I don’t know any Black Women who act like that…”
-Ms. Mena Jean Hightower, Very Smart Brothas, Thu, Jul 3, 2014

The above quotation comes from a Sista Lady I was having a discussion with, which was loosely concerning my most recent column, “The Tyranny of Assortative Mating”; of course, she doesn’t know any of the kinds of Sistas I write about, at all. Nope, nothing to see here, keep moving along.

As it turned out though, and I informed Ms. Hightower of this at the time of our discussion, I was formulating today’s column in my head; her remarks proved to be a crucial ingredient in its formation. So, thank you, Ms. Hightower! Much appreciated.

So, with that said, let’s get right to it.

Continue reading

A Supreme Court Defeat for the Female Entitlement Mentality

Introduction

On June 30th the Supreme Court announced its decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, where it supported the religious freedoms of the private owners of the Hobby Lobby stores over the contraception mandates of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in an ideologically split 5-4 vote.  In a nutshell, the majority ruled that the owners of private closely held businesses can not be forced by the government to subsidize forms of birth control that violate their religious principles, because less restrictive means are available to accomplish the government’s objectives.  The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which places limitations on the U.S. Government’s ability to burden the free exercise of religion.

The ruling elicited widespread consternation on the left and jubilation on the right.  But overlooked by both sides were the elements of sexual politics at play – the Female Entitlement Mentality and the accompanying female privileges to care and autonomy.

The Rights of Men vs Female Entitlements

The Hobby Lobby case pitted the female entitlement to have the widest possible choice of free birth control at their employer’s expense, vs. the religious rights of the employers.  In this battle of  entitlements vs. rights,  the rights won, but just barely.  Since I am not a lawyer, and since my submission deadline is rapidly approaching, I will skip the legal details and focus instead on drawing out the themes of female entitlement in the dissenting opinion (starting at page 60 of the decision) written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Continue reading

Book Review: “Army of Davids” (Guest Post by CrisisEraDynamo)

Introduction

Glenn Reynolds, or “Instapundit” as he is known on the internet, has written a book that every man should read. This book details a fundamental truth about social change: that technology drives it more than anything by changing the conditions under which we live. It also asserts that this technological change is going at an even faster clip, and that this is ultimately good for the little guys, the Davids of the world who have great potential but are hemmed in by big Goliath-like organizations. Where the technological advances of the past were about mass technology, this book is the story of personal technology, which Reynolds asserts will give us power comparable to the ancient pagan gods.

What the Book Is About

Reynolds starts by detailing how big organizations came to dominate society in the first place: it was a side effect of industrialization. In the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and for over a century afterward, it was more efficient to use the technologies of the era on a large scale, making lots of things and selling them far and wide. This was because the tech was so expensive to procure and maintain that using it to make low volumes of things wasn’t profitable.

Because the economy was now centered around large organizations that needed large investments, everything became more centralized, from education to employment to even politics — a LOT of national unifications took place during this period. This, of course, created a very stifling atmosphere in which one’s well-being rose or fell with how well you fit into these large, impersonal machines that were your only real option for making a living (affirmative action ultimately stems from this condition.)

Today, however, this is changing due to great advances in computer technology as well as the internet. Because a computer can do so much work with so little investment, and the internet makes it easy to spread information, things that used to require massive organizations to even work now only require them at a supporting role, and smaller-scale operators can now compete directly with the big boys. These changes are farthest along with industries involving the handling of information: publishing, music, accounting, the news, etc., but Reynolds makes the point that other changes, such as privately-funded space travel, longevity research, and nanotechnology will have just as large an impact, and will be even more empowering to the small-scale operator. (Indeed, we are already seeing more of this change with the rise of 3D printing and Bitcoin.) And all of this has happened and will happen again without political agitation of any sort. By placing more productive power into the hands of the average person, they will be able to prosper more and more without the oversight of large organizations.

Why Men Should Read and Understand This Book

This book illustrates that the real drivers of social change are technological. Feminism as we know it today started up due to labor-saving devices making once arduous and time-consuming housework far easier, leaving housewives with nothing to do. Reliable birth control came later. Likewise, the Manosphere could not have existed in the 1990s, before internet penetration reached its current high level.

We often complain about the totalitarian nature of feminism and political correctness, but this is precisely because tyrannical, puritanical control freaks who pretend to be “progressive” have taken over all the large institutions from our workplaces to our mainstream media to our government, and even our churches (as Dalrock frequently points out.) The book shows us not only that there will be more and more ways to challenge their economic dominance, but that things can be done right now to challenge it. One merely has to observe the trends and act accordingly. Reynolds gives no concrete steps, but that is for the best as everyone’s situation is different.

Finally, the book shows that the key to masculine well-being in the 21st century is not trying to recapture or go back to an era based on an obsolete technological paradigm, but embracing the changes to empower ourselves and accomplish our own goals. The laws and regulations won’t change until they’re forced to change by the conditions on the ground. Even the far harder-edged system of Communism was forced to either change with the times or die. Rejiggering the laws to be more consistent with the past is far less important than gaining the technological leverage that would make such a task easier. Remember, hatred of men is a bubble, not a war.

The Evolution of “Man Up” (By Deti)

(Repurposed from a comment here)

I’ve talked about “Man Up” before in my post here, entitled “Good Christian Men, Think Twice”. 

But I saw it again recently at Matt Walsh’s blog. He posted at “Dear single dudes, it’s time to man up” that men who talk about “hanging out” with women are really just afraid. They fear commitment, marriage, fatherhood, “emotional accountability”, and all other such trappings of what the Feminine Imperative defines as manhood.

Mr. Walsh also asserts that he was once like them, and found the hookup scene wanting. He exhorted men to “honor” and “protect” women’s “vulnerability” when they open themselves up sexually. He claims that most women want “something serious” with a suitable man.According to Mr. Walsh, women always treat sex seriously.He strongly suggests that men are responsible not only for their own sexual conduct, but also are responsible for the conduct of the women they have sex with. Mr. Walsh winds it up with a plea that men wear their hearts on their sleeves; that they tell their hookups how “into them” they really are, because women “deserve” that from the men they interact with.

Go read Mr. Walsh’s post for the full context. There is so much there one could write about and pick apart.But what struck me was “Man Up”. He doesn’t use the offending phrase except in the headline.But in reality, his post is one long exposition of what “man up” has come to mean in today’s hyperfeminized, gynonormative culture.As I finished reading it, it hit me, and dawned on me why I hate that phrase so much now, whereas it never used to anger me too much when my friends or older men used to bust my (and each other’s) balls with it.

“Man up” no longer means what it used to mean.

Feminism and their Churchian co-conspirators have appropriated the phrase “man up” to mean something very different from its original meaning, and Matt Walsh has fallen prey to it. It’s why a lot of men (myself included) bristle at the phrase, particularly when uttered nowadays.

Originally, “man up” was a rebuke and a correction from men to other men and boys who needed a good kick in the pants. They needed encouragement or sometimes just a stern reproof from another man to get with the program, stop being such a whiny bitch, stop being a pussy, pull your weight, get your shit done, etc. “Man up, son! The rest of the tribe needs you to get with it!” It was done to (1) give him some encouragement; (2) call out slackers and layabouts; (3) get those slackers and layabouts to either shape up or ship out; and (4) discipline through healthy shame. Men used to be told to “man up” when they weren’t doing what they needed for self sufficiency; or what the men and the tribe needed them to do.

Now in today’s feminized culture, men are told to “man up” when they aren’t doing what women and feminized men want and expect them to do.In this culture, “man up” is a demand that a man submit himself to the feminine imperative. He needs to hitch himself to a plow, get a job, make money and “put away childish things” not for his own good, but for the specific purpose of making himself useful to a woman. He needs to do these things not because it will sharpen him and make him into a man; but because they will benefit some woman in his preordained role as her husband, and as father to her (not their, HER) children.

“Man up” used to mean “your tribe needs you”. Now, it means “marry the slut”. It means “a woman needs your money, services, and labor”.

The Tyranny Of “Assortative Mating”‏

“Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match…”
-Fiddler On The Roof

Red Pill watchers of the Cathedral Media will surely have noticed an ever-increasing scrum of articles, “studies”(?), editorials and artistic works all centered around Assortative Mating – the idea, supposedly, that “like goes with like”. Among these pieces, are the recent “Fat Lady” episode of the hit sitcom “Louie”, starring and written by comedian Louis CK; and an even more recent “study” done by Notre Dame Prof. Elizabeth McClintock, which sets out to put the notion of “trophy wives” on the trash heap of history. Both make the case, that similar people not only can and should, but *must* pair off – and in doing so, will live happily ever after.

Continue reading

The Left Controls the Indoctrination of Society

Leftists have usurped three of the primary institutions of instruction: the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry. Parents and churches may not be dominated by leftists but they have certainly drifted to the sinistral side over the years.

Women More Collectivist

Women as a whole tend to be more collectivist and leftist, especially single women. They tend to want equality of outcome more than men, as opposed to equality of opportunity. They prefer steady provisioning as opposed to risky gambles that could result in feast or famine. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Meting out justice to babies would be a fool’s errand–just keep them alive and let them grow up to be reproductive members of society. A woman could only have a limited number of children so best try and support them no matter what–a face, a heart or a pair of hands that only a mother could love. Risky ventures were the domain of men, where celebrity status from being a badass hunter or warrior could get you laid.  For women, no such benefit accrued from them engaging in such risky behavior–better to have the sure thing that would keep her and her children alive.

Continue reading

The Culture of Narcissism and Female Entitlement Mentality (Part 2)

Introduction

In the first part of this essay I discussed the Culture of Narcissism and presented the Female Entitlement Mentality (FEM) as a primary driver of cultural narcissism.  I showed that there are cultural forces attempting to restrain male entitlement (e.g. “check your privilege”), while these same forces celebrate female entitlement (e.g. “you go grrrl”).  Despite the efforts to restrain male entitlement, narcissism is increasing throughout society because restraints on entitlement for men are ineffective in the presence of incentives for entitlement for women.

In this second part, I propose that many of the gender related divisions in society can be categorized by the response to the FEM, and that those groups resisting the FEM can be further categorized by the means and methods of their resistance.  I will also explore the danger that male entitlement and narcissism poses to the effectiveness of this resistance.

The Male Response to Female Cultural Narcissism

As the Female Entitlement Mentality places most of its demands on men, it creates an unprecedented challenge to male society.  There is no consensus among men in contemporary society how to respond.  That said, there are a number of loosely defined movements or trends that can be observed and characterized based on their reaction to the FEM.  The following is an incomplete list of some of the most prominent trends.

Continue reading

The Culture of Narcissism and the Female Entitlement Mentality (Guest Post By Ciaran, Part One)

Introduction

Much has been made of Elliot Rodger’s homicidal rampage that took the lives of six innocent young adults.  Those in positions of cultural influence have seized the opportunity to demonize certain out-groups by association – most specifically the so-called “men’s rights” groups that Rodger was allegedly influenced by.  Those accusations are largely specious and have been adequately answered elsewhere.  In this essay I will take a different approach, and examine the crimes of Elliot Rodger in the context of a culture that is progressively sinking deeper into narcissism and entitlement.  While defective and damaged men acting out violently provide the most attention getting examples of the harmful consequences of cultural narcissism, they are far from the most common symptom.  In fact, we are surrounded by stunning examples of narcissism and entitlement every day – in a form that is so ubiquitous that few people recognize it.  It is the Female Entitlement Mentality, unrecognized and taken for granted because major institutions of society are devoted to fostering and justifying it.

Continue reading

You Got That Thuggin’ Love: How Jeremy Meeks Proves That The Red Pill Is REAL‏

“Be handsome. Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.”
-Tina Fey, “Saturday Night Live” (aka “The Tom Brady Rule”)

By now, surely you have heard of convicted felon and global heart throb Stockon, CA’s own Mr. Jeremy Meeks – who’s literal mugshot has created a Tinglestorm of seismic proportions. I sensed a disturbance in the Force when I first got wind of the situation early Friday afternoon in my social media feeds and figured that the story had legs – giving those of us who study the ways of the Red Pill example 10,587,993 that EvoPsych, and by extension GAME, is Real.

Continue reading

Balls Of Steel (Guest Post By ADBG)

Nuclear rejection? So what?

There’s a lot to dislike about the modern SMP. Whereas my great-grandfathers received the pleasure of finding young, beautiful, caring, loyal brides, the men of my generation get Tinder, Miley Cyrus, and EPL. Unsurprisingly, newcomers to the Manosphere are shocked by our seeming pessimism. And to be fair, our comment sections do trend towards the Cassandra-like.

We get half the sexuality our women can offer, and then mocked when we don’t like the deal.

We need primers about how to respond to massive public insult.

We need to get experience, to have experience

We have to deal with the reality of not being particularly wanted

And we don’t even get good advice!

 

Continue reading