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?

Red Pill Music: Friday edition

Its been a crazy week and I feel like I haven’t had a chance to breath let alone make any kind of real plans, so this post will be lite and easy. Besides, its good to get off the serious stuff every one in awhile and do something silly. So…

Lets post some of our favorite Red Pill music. Songs that are either examples of what NOT to do (and Lord knows there are plenty of examples out there) or songs that come from a Red Pill perspective. For my first contribution: Who’s Going Home with You Tonight – Trapt.

Now this is without a doubt a Blue Pill perspective, but what I like about it is through the lyrics you can almost imagine this guy unplugging as he sings. He’s stuck on this girl, (oneitis is a killer) but he’s realizing what she is really about. I would hope that he pushed on and unplugs, but we all know the hunger is strong and many/most guys go crawling back.

So ladies and gents, share your examples. I know I can hardly listen to the radio or watch a TV show without seeing many examples of Red vs. Blue pill thinking.

Oh and any of you musicians out there, feel free to post originals. Nothing wrong with shameless self promotion. ;-)

Letter Of Resignation From Just Four Guys

Effectively immediately, I resign my position at Just Four Guys. This has been a decision not made in haste, but only after quite a bit of time in quiet contemplation. It is abundantly clear to me that there are conceptual, creative and philosophical differences so deep that it is no longer productive to attempt for me to bridge; and so it is time for me to move on.
However, I think it important to, for the record, give a bit of background and context to my decision.
J4G was my idea; it was something born of my coming across three other guys by way of Hooking Up Smart’s (then) commentariat. Morpheus, Han Solo, Ted D and I, were regular commenters on that website, and I always said to myself, that if we could organize and focus our talents, we could really make some waves not just in the Manosphere, but beyond. J4G was an experiment to see if a group of guys could be something more than their individual parts. Whether that experiment was a success or failure, is something for the history books to determine.
What informed my idea for J4G wasn’t just my extensive experience of being one of the relatively few Black male bloggers inside the Manosphere itself, but also what I saw taking place on the ground around me in the many years prior to that – Men, no matter where I turned, not only seemed to be failing, but seemed to be hastening their downfall. And increasingly, it was Women who were making things happen – I’ve mentioned before my involvement with a local town watch. Of more than 50 volunteers, some 75% were Women, and the remaining 25% were Men, and the chief organizers were Women themselves – and of that number, the only ones consistently out on patrol in our own neighborhood, was a handful of us. The ones who actually stopped a car jacker was me and another Brotha out on patrol, on a rainy night. By then all the White guys had left, on the grounds that they were just too busy. The ladies were scared to death, rightly so; a number of shootings, several of them in broad daylight, had occurred in the ‘hood, at least one resulting in a death; a number of Women were raped in the area as well; and one streetwalker had been strangled to death and her body wrapped in a carpet only a few short blocks away. The overwhelming majority of those committing the crimes were (Black) males; but the males in the community, Black and White alike, in the main, simply couldn’t be bothered.
On any given night anywhere in Philly, it is not at all unusual to see those being involved in their communities being Women much more than Men from parent-teacher night to “Oldies in the Park”, almost to a Woman, the events and community civic involvement is made up of Women. Nor is this unusual or an aberration unique to time and place; this same phenomenon has been well documented and easily accessible online. Men have just given up, and not in a good way. And from where I sit, a lot of Men simply do not seem to care. That this occurs in the birthplace of the very liberties some in the Manosphere pay flippant lip service to – brought into existence by White Men themselves – is an irony one just cannot make up.
It is against this backdrop that I tried to see if putting together a diverse group of voices online, could have the possibility of moving the conversation that often takes place in the Manosphere ahead – beyond the usual and to be honest, all too familiar talking points – onto some new ground. And to be sure, many of those talking points were highly legitimate. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in the room, just so happened to be the ones least interested in doing anything more than being loud voices – in fact, it’s been my consistent experience that said loud voices will actively attempt to undermine any effort toward actually getting anything done, on the grounds of a litany of, reasons.
Nor are my observations unique; over the past five years, and as recently as earlier this month in one instance, I’ve been quietly talking to some of the heads of the biggest venues in the Manosphere, and all of them have agreed, separately, that what I had been seeing – the apathy, the self-destructiveness, the rationalizations for it all on the part of the vocal contingent of the Manosphere commentariat (and some bloggers themselves) – was a very real thing. It’s something they are rightly embarassed to discuss openly, for fear of giving the loyal opposition a bone, and, to be frank, fears that no one else may be left if they rooted said voices out.
The irony gets deeper; the Good Men Project and A Voice For Men, both of which I think it is fair to say, are among if not the biggest Men’s Issues blogs/websites out there, just so happen to be the blogs/websites that has a highly visible presence of and very active participation of Women, who have proven their organizational ability yet again, and, at bottom, just plain willingness to work. And on any given day at either venue, the ones most making the “complaints” will be, to a Man, Men – who will be quick to cite their litany of, reasons, for being so.
I could go on, but you get my point – there is a very extensive “backstory” for me that led to the creation of J4G. The Manosphere NEEDS something new, and it needs it NOW. J4G was that attempt to be something new.
Which brings me to J4G itself.
Aside from the ever-increasing differences between myself and at least a few of the remaining members on the team, I think it important to clear the air about a few things.
For starters, I never intended to “take over” anything; far from wanting things to be “Obsidian’s Show”, I actually wanted more Men to be involved, and found it increasingly difficult to get this to happen among the core team members. On some levels this was understandable, and expected; life happens, especially if you’re married and have a family; fair enough. But this was more than merely being busy with life stuff; after all, lots of Women, many of them single mothers, remained highly actively involved in a range of activities – see above. No, this was something else. The same kind of something else that continually plagues the Manosphere particularly, and Men in our time more generally – the malaise, the listlessness, and in many cases, the active rationalizations and defenses of same and worse. It was “the Obsidian show” not out of ego-aggrandizement, but out of sheer necessity – if I had not stepped in to keep fresh content going on the site, there’d be no fresh content at all. And the same goes for moderating the forum, which brings me to the next point:
While I hear and respect Ted D’s offhand remark/desire to see J4G become a “locker room” that Women have the “privilege” of being able to peer into, I’ve never had any such desire to be in such environments; I consider the notion juvenile and immature, to be frank. My memories of actual locker room environments as a teenager in highschool are something that I have no desire to revisit, and it boggles my mind as to why any Woman would want to “peer into” such an environment either; in my view, they’re not missing much. While there is a very real concern on the part of Men in the Manosphere and beyond about the perniciousness of Political Correctness – many of the talking points on which I share – I also reject the notion that the corrective is to swing the pendulum in the other direction, and advocate for a Wild West kind of environment – where people not only have to tolerate gratuitous mean-spiritedness on the part of some voices, but have to be dragooned into a false idea that holds that “real” Masculinity is somehow part and parcel with general coarseness. Nor do I think that people should have to abide by a kind of gladiator-style environment where “Olympian detachment” reigns supreme; that’s not high-minded at all – that’s the Lord of the Flies revisited, and it is nothing I want any part of. It is indeed possible to Keep it Real, AND, Keep it Classy – and I utterly reject the idea that any Man, must choose between the two.
Since I’m pretty sure this is likely to make headlines, let me also say this to the critics: please, do not use my name as fodder for your vendetta against the Manosphere. I did what I did because I care about the issues Men and boys face in our time, not because I just want to take potshots at the small number of shrill voices within it. You, on the other hand, don’t really care the issues themselves or the forces that brought about the Manosphere to begin with – which explains how and why you never honestly address them. Your obsession with those I’ve addressed only bears out the fact that Like Attracts Like – that YOU, have quite a bit of Nutter in YOU – and it is this tou cannot accept, deal with and move on, that explains how and why you spend huge chunks of your waking hours following every jot and tittle of the Manosphere, then running back and gossiping about it to your friends, regardless of the ostensible topic or “mission”. If indeed the whole of the Manosphere is out to lunch, and you have it all together, WHY are YOU spending so much time gawking at them? I find that you are just as much a part of the problem as those I am dealing with within the ‘sphere itself; please do no fool yourself.
TL;DR: Men and boys in our time are in very real, deep trouble – and if the Manosphere is the best “answer” we have to it, they and we, are doomed.
So, that’s it. I wish my brothers well in whatever they wish to do with J4G moving forward and their future endeavors individually. But to be brutally honest, I’m tired and a bit burnt out. I need some time to decompress and think about what I’m going to do next, if anything at all. For anyone wanting to keep in touch, you may do so in the following ways:
The Obsidian Files
On Twitter
Best wishes to one and all.

A note from the admin

At the request of several contributing writers here, I have temporarily removed Obsidian’s and Ciaran’s moderator rights from the blog.

At this time I haven’t decided what will happen going forward with the site, but they voiced concerns about having their name associated with the ideas and content being presented. I believe this is a valid concern and until further notice and discussion occurs this action will remain in effect.

Thanks for your understanding – Ted D

A New Day

“They say we’re animals, uh-uh, I don’t agree with them,
I’ll prove em wrong, but right is what you’re provin’ em…”
-Heavy D, “Self-Destruction”

I have a very close childhood friend I’ll call “Kyle”. Kyle and I were inseperable coming up – sleepovers at each other’s house, playing Godzilla and the Hulk together, you name it. As we got older the games we’d play with each other and other boys in the ‘hood changed, but we remained thick as thieves.

Then, as we got into our adult years, things changed, in a very big way; you see, Kyle got involved in the drugs trade. Like many young Black Men, the siren call of the streets and the promise of the lifestyle the drugs trade made, he was caught up in it all, and on some levels, quite a few in fact, it was understandable – Black Men continue to be “last hired, first fired”. Still, I understood the all too real downsides and tradeoffs of such a profession. Drugs has destroyed what was left of once proud, respectable working class and in some cases, even middle class precincts of Black Philly, where now, even today, long blocks of boarded up homes now stand.

I understood my friend’s situation, but I couldn’t abide by it; and so, after a long night of reflection, I decided to have a sitdown with him, and tell him, that so long as he was in the drugs game, we could no longer be friends. I let him know that I respected his decision to live his life as he sees fit, that I loved him like a brother, but I just didn’t get down like that.

We didn’t speak for more than a decade. During which time, I felt horrible. Doing the right thing rarely feels good.

Among the many lessons I learned from that time, is that people can and will make judgments about you, based on the company that you keep – and they’re not going to be inclined to parse out all the nuances of your associations with certain others. It’s a lesson that has come roaring back at me over the past five years of being a Manosphere, Men’s Issues blogger: people can and will make judgments about your blog based on the nature, tenor and tone of the comments it attracts and generates. Indeed, I’ve found over the years, that it really doesn’t matter what you actually write; what matters is what kind of commenters you get.

I’ll be completely, 100% honest with you. I really, truly, do not like that fact. But a fact of life it is, nevertheless.

The events of roughly the past month or two here at J4G has been one that has made me think long and hard, the same way I did that night before I had that sitdown with Kyle. There are commenters here who I’ve known for years; others, who are more relative newcomers, nevertheless have contributed to making this place an environment that generates a hella more heat than light. It’s gotten to a point where I’m getting emails from folks who have told me, that they’re essentially living a double-life – they read this blog but they dare not tell anyone in their real life about it, not because of the actual content of the blog itself, but because of the people who populate the blog’s comments – who give one on the outside looking in the very real impression that this is a motley crew of malcontents, misanthropes, emotional and social retards, nihlists, and yea, I’ll say it, misogynists. And that’s just for starters. It deeply hurt me to read private, off the record emails from people, who like what I and other writers here at J4G are trying to do, but simply cannot bring themselves to comment here, for all the nuttery that’s been going on. There are Black people who know of J4G and actually like much of what I and other writers have to say, but can’t bring themselves to come here and participate for the racist nutters in the crowd spouting their drivel. There are Women who read J4G religiously but won’t comment for the stompdown and virulent mean-spiritedness toward Women as a whole on the part of a not insignificant number of commenters here. And there are even Men who know of J4G and want to give their two cents but are strongly dissuaded from doing so, because they don’t want to be associated with antisocial types that always seem to have a voice in the ‘sphere in general. It all adds up to a relatively small number of people hogging the public square and holding everyone else hostage, and that isn’t just fundamentally unfair, it’s also fundamentally un-American, too.

Whether the Manosphere writ large is full of such people is a matter of some debate; after all, no census has been conducted along these lines as far as I’m aware. But what can be said, fairly strongly, is this: that those who are among its loudest “voices” are those who just so happen to fit the descriptors I’ve noted above; and they are doing the Manosphere a grave disservice. In fact, the Great Tragedy of the Manosphere, is that for all the talk about the Feminine Imperative, Gynocracy, White Knights and Manginas and so forth – all of which are legitimate concerns, mind you – the single biggest impediment, enemy I would dare say, to the Manosphere, is it’s own tendency and penchant for getting in its own way. Any legitimate points or arguments they make, are lost in the shuffle of the “noise” that this relatively small band of nutters consistently churns out – and that, is truly sad.

What has been going on here, in this forum, isn’t what I envisioned for J4G more than a year ago. What I envisioned was a space for Men from all walks of life in general, and Common Guys like me in particular, to be heard in their own voices on the following question:

What does it mean to be a Man, in early 21st century American life? Now What?

The “Now What?” part of the question is hugely important, because it properly frames the discussion on what I think is a huge problem in our time – the conversation in the public square, has largely been dominated by extremists, on ALL sides. And what’s worse, these extremists, again on ALL sides, are actually small numbers of very vocal people, who just happen to have enough time, energy, resources and know-how, to make everyone else’s life utterly miserable. Civil, reasoned discourse has been replaced with hyperbole, rhetoric in extremis, and namecalling all designed to destroy the other side, not merely prove how and why they’re wrong. What’s even worse is that the “conversation”, if one can call it that, centers on old hat stuff that has been long decided – there’s no imagination, no creative or innovative “takes” on the issues…it’s just one long, insufferable, repeating loop of long-ago addressed “grievances”. Meanwhile, the world has moved on and there are very real, and urgent, challenges to face in our time. And neither side seems able or interested, in grappling with that.

Add to that the somewhat unique feature of the vocal contingent of the Manosphere commentariat, who seems intent on, to borrow a phrase from The Dark Knight, just wanting to see the world burn. Not only do they offer anything in the way of solutions, but they seem intent on making sure that no one else tries to seek out any either; that their “solution” is to Burn The Mutha Down.

I can understand their position. I can even respect it.

But I will no longer abide by tacitly cosigning it here.

Because, make no mistake about it, that is precisely what I and the rest of the team here at J4G are in fact doing, when we allow such commentary to run untrammeled in this space. We are cosigning, by allowing its existence, such comments, and others, whom I honestly think are indeed the Silent Majority, take note and vote with their feet. I may not be able to save the Manosphere at large from its own self-destructive tendencies, but I CAN save J4G. Because the J4G that I’ve worked so hard to put together and keep together, is something that’s worth saving. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let it be taken over by people who just want to see the world burn.

So, effective immediately, here’s how it’s going to go down:

All are welcome to participate in the forum, on the proviso that they actually bring at least as much light as they do heat. You got a criticism, you better make sure you bring a solution, too. I want to see more Men actually talking about the things they’re doing in their own lives and the lives of their fellow Men, to make this world a better place. I want to see Men talk about improving themselves, yes for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of Women who would like to partner with Men worth the trouble. I would like to see more talk from the Men here about their own hopes, fears and challenges – not as a pity session, but to encourage other Men, that they’re not in this alone. I want more Men in this space to talk honestly about themselves, about their lives, because that’s something worth talking about, and that the world needs to hear more of.

I want to see our commenters refine their thoughts into civil, reasoned, thoughtful arguments, be they pro or con in relation to the topics that are discussed here – and I want to see more focus and emphasis on the actual topics being discussed, rather than “idle chit-chat” about someone else’s comment(s). I find that the latter tends to cause the discussion to “drift” away from the actual topic itself, and pretty soon we’re on some other stuff altogether – which, as we’ve previously seen, isn’t always by accident on the part of some here.

If you look at my own writings closely, this is what I do – I bring often very pointed critiques of things and people, but I always offer solutions as well. To be sure, one doesn’t have to buy into either – but you can’t say that I don’t do what I just laid out above. To my friends, let this serve as a template for you to follow.

Now – if you are inclined to attempt to “debate” me about this, don’t. We’ve heard all the arguments – in my case in particular, for five years at this point. In fact, there are guys who regularly comment here that I know who have been saying the exact same thing, for five years(!). And from what I can tell, they haven’t improved or grown personally at all over that course of time; an argument could be made that they’ve made themselves worse. I don’t want to use the Button, but you all know by now that I can and will wield it like a scalpel, so please, do not force my hand. This isn’t up for discussion here – this is a “sh*t or get off the pot” moment for you here. You are either going to clean up your act, or you are going to find it increasingly difficult to exist in this space.

I’m doing this, because as I said, I think the J4G Project, is a worthy and noble one; one that is worth getting the world’s attention to sit up and take notice of. The lives of Men, being told in their own voices, is something that is sorely needed in our time right now. And because, at bottom, I want to make people THINK. Not “convert” them over to my or the team’s point of view; simply to THINK. And I’m doing this because I want to continue to partner and work with highly talented and thoughtful, reasoned people like Dr. Jeremy, and Dr. Edward Rhymes, and my team mates here at J4G, like Ciaran and Ted D and Morpheus and Han Solo and Sir Nemesis and Deti, and I want really thoughtful commenters like Novaseeker and Bastiat and Ms. Liz and Ms. LynM not to feel that their throwing pearls before swine and wasting their time. They all have something very important to share and to say, and the “noise” has been crowding out their “signal” for far too long here. That’s not fair, and, since I have taken it upon myself to be the “default setting” of J4G, it happened on my watch, and I am taking full and complete responsibility for that and will take steps to fix it.

This is not a free-fire zone, fellas. J4G is bigger, and better than that – and so are you.

A Final Word To The Critics

Today is a day for the record books, for you will be able to claim a real victory – enjoy it, because it will not last long. Now that this little corner of the Manosphere is cleaning house, you will no longer have as much running room as you did before. See, the people I’ve addressed aren’t the only ones who just want to see the world burn - so do you. That’s because, you never were really interested in engaging, honestly, the issues raised here at J4G. That explains how and why you never bothered to deal with them in the first place. Sure, you’ll be able to argue that it was the nutters who kept you from doing so, or what you perceive to be the wrongheaded thinking on the part of myself or the other writers here – but, so long as said nutters had the full run of the house, I for one will fully concede that you had a point.

But now that I have fully owned the problem that has cropped up in my midst and set out to fix it, the focus shifts back to you. I for one actually hope that you have legitimate critiques of what we write here at J4G – civil, reasoned, thoughtful counter-arguments, worthy of the time and consideration of our readers to be bothered with. Something tells me that you’re not up to the job – that, in truth, the ONLY reason you bothered to be so vocal about your “critique” of the “loud voices” in the Manosphere, is because, like them, you too have little to offer the world, at the end of the day. As I’ve said before, Game recognize Game, and Like, truly does attract Like, hmm?

I say, that as soon as the problem being addressed today is solved, we’ll be seeing a lot less of you, because your reason for being here in the first place will no longer exist.

Perhaps you will prove me wrong?

So, to recap:

If all you have to offer any given discussion is

“(ALL) Women ain’t sh*t”

“It’ll never work”

“You’ll never make it”

“The world is coming to an end”


If someone else attempts to offer something constructive and your first impulse is to rhetorically take a stinky, runny dump all over it

Then you really have nothing to offer the J4G audience, and you’d be better served heading somewhere else in the Manosphere where you can do you in peace.

IF on the other hand, you offer a civil, reasoned, thoughtful critique of a problem you see existing out in the world, you have an obligation to at least try to come up with some kind of solution. It doesn’t even have to be all the way worked out – take a shot in the dark! It’s much better than being the proverbial nattering nabob of negativity, Man. I’m just being real.

OK, that’s it.

Constructive thoughts in the comments, please. I won’t ask twice.

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

The BDSM Origins Of “Yes Means Yes”

“It’s the first time together and I’m feeling kinda horny
Conventional methods of makin love kinda bore me
I wanna knock your block off, get my rocks off
Blow your socks off make sure your G spots soft”

“I’m gonna call you Big Daddy and scream your name
Matter fact I can’t wait for your candy rain”

“So what cha sayin, I get my swerve on, bring it live
Make it last forever, damn the kitty cat’s tight”

“Mmm… daddy slow down your flow
Put it on me like G baby nice and slow
I need a rough neck nigga Mandingo in a sec
Who ain’t afraid to pull my hair and spank me from the back”

“No doubt, I’m the playa that you’re talkin about”

“But do you really think that you can work it out”

“I guarantee shorty it’s real, baby stick it out
Here comes the man of steel”
-LL Cool J, “Doin’ It”

While the debate regarding California’s “Yes Means Yes” law (henceforth referred to as “YMY”) rages on – something that, in my view, is definitely a good thing, for reasons I should like to make clear in an upcoming essay – for this particular post I’d like to go a bit off the beaten path. You see, for me, I’ve always been interested in understanding the core ideological arguments driving any movement, or in this case, public policy move(s). YMY, in my view, draws its ideological “strength” from a sexual subculture that is a big hit with Third Wave “sex positive” Feminists.

What I’m about to put forward in this post is, at this juncture at least, mainly conjecture on my part; I have nothing in the way of hard and fast (pardon the pun), empirical, “smoking gun” proof – just a series of observations of the above-mentioned third wavers over the past five years or so, and my “connecting the dots” in terms of their actions, over the past decade or so. So, if I happen to get this whole thing wrong, I will be more than happy to come back and indicate as such; by all means, correct me if I am wrong.

So, to my argument:

I argue, that the current “Yes Means Yes” law, and attendant measures on the part of sex-positive, Third Wave Feminists, to “redress grievances” in the arena of Sexual Politics in our time, draws its ideological “strength” from the BDSM sexual subculture.

I say this, based on the fact that quite a few of the more prominent third wavers – people like, for example, Jaclyn Friedman, Clarisse Thorn, Feminista Jones, et al – all have noted an expressed interest in, and advocacy of, key elements and aspects of BDSM culture, as the way to address what they and their Third Wave “sisters” see as problems or imbalances in the sexual arena between Men and Women. Indeed, they, and many a third waver, will argue that a big problem is the “power imbalance” between Men and Women along these lines. Well, as it turns out, “power” – who has it, how it is to be used, and to what end - is a crucial feature of the BDSM sexual subculture.

Moreover, the idea(s) of “Enthusastic Consent” and it’s “kissing cousin”, “Affirmative Consent”, all have direct links and ties to BDSM culture, in the form of “safe words” and the ongoing “checking in” with your partner (usually, the “sub” or submissive one) to see if she’s OK, and wishes to continue. Given the nature of the often extreme and sometimes even dangerous “play” in BDSM, these measures developed in that community as a way to keep subs – usually, but not always Women, I might add – safe.

The aforementioned Feminists have all written quite a bit about the “public benefits” of cherrypicking from the BDSM subculture for an ostensible better sexual all-of-us – and in some ways, they do make a point. The elaborate rules and rituals that permeates the BDSM subculture, which definitely involves the active and ongoing seeking of consent of its largely submissive and female participants on the part of its largely Dominant and male participants during a sexual encounter or session, is something that, in theory, everyone could benefit from. Of all the Feminists mentioned, perhaps the most prolific in this regard would have to be Ms. Thorn, who’s writings on the topic culminated in a book where she argues that the Pickup community could stand to learn a bit from the BDSM one, particularly along the lines of female consent.

However, there are a number of serious flaws and problems I personally see with this approach, if indeed my surmise is correct.

For one thing, we already have laws on the books that protect the private, intimate lives of American citizens – the Freedom of Association, of being protected from illegal searches and seizures, and, if one buys into the ideological arguments that brought about the Roe v. Wade decision, the “Right to Privacy”, are notable examples – to say nothing about the legal procedures bearing on questions of rape and sex assault, like presumption of innocence, and the conducting of criminal investigations by highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals. Secondarily, I for one have problems with the notion of attempting to take the practices of a small sliver of the American population, and making it the template for public policy – not just because that shouldn’t be the way that public policy should be made, but for another, more practical reason:

That most people, simply won’t have the “stuff” to be built for the BDSM lifestyle.

As I’ve noted in a recent discussion here at J4G on what has become to be known in Manospherian circles as “Marriage 2.0″ (which encompasses relationships, dating and so forth as well), a major “bug” in Progressive Thought in our time, is the idea that “everyone” has the ability, interest and resources, to craft a “do it yourself” life script that is rich with high-abstract concepts and ideals – and this just isn’t the case for the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans, male or female, aren’t high-level negotiators, or have strong communication skills that would involve the kinds of “active listening” and give-and-take exhanges that Marriage 2.0, Etc. would demand. Perhaps most especially, as it pertains to today’s discussion, most people – Men and Women alike – simply don’t have the kind of sexual skill and experience, to compete with the average American’s “time of self-discovery” – a process that can take more than a decade between after leaving highschool or college and meeting “The One”, during which time they are more than likely to encounter at least a few lovers along the way, and with which their Intended WILL be measured against. (It should be noted, that this “time of discovery” is even LONGER, for Black Americans – and look at the results) Indeed, on this score, evidence abounds throughout the Internet, of just how much pressure both sexes feel, to “perform up to par” to their partner’s “previous” – and the angst is palpable, again, on both sides. The conceit, that everyone wants to, and is able to, achieve this Utopian mating ideal, is just that – a conceit.

During that same discussion, I and J4G brother Ciaran, noted something else that ironically enough, is a strong parallel to today’s discourse, this time involving Game/Pickup: that the majority of Men, for a number of reasons, simply will not be able to apply it. Some will outright refuse to learn it, due to what they consider to be thoughtful, ideological reasons, or sheer laziness – but others, because they simply won’t have the wherewithall to do so, despite their best efforts. Sure, we can quibble over the precise numbers in each camp, but in the end, it all comes out the same in the wash – the idea that “all” Men can learn and implement Game/Pickup – is a pipedream, at best. And this is coming from someone who’s written, in favor, of the topic, extensively, for years. Indeed, among “seduction insiders” it is well known and accepted, that this is the case – most Men will simply not “get it”. Theoretically, it is possible; in practical terms, out on the bricks in realtime, not so much.

Another big problem with using BDSM as an ideological template for YMY, is the fact that most people “in the life” are solidly middle-aged(!) – whereas, most people living on or near the college campus, are in their late teens and early 20s(!). This is hugely important, because of the implications here – BDSMers, if I can phrase it that way, arrive to their understanding of themselves through a lifelong process of introspection, acceptance and yes, trial and error; can we really expect, and assume, people barely out of their teenage years to be possessed of the same kinds of introspection, awareness and so forth?

Then, there’s the excellent point that RooshV brought up in his recent article on Social Justice Warriors: that many in their number are of the “alt sexuality” variety, of which BDSM is strongly represented – and that they wish to impose their notions of what constitutes “healthy” sexual mores and norms onto the society at large. Doing so, will make them less “deviant”. This is a very strong feature of Third Wave Feminism, and, when one understands the Female Mating Mind, one can see the method behind the madness; please share with me the following, from the powerful read “A Billion Wicked Thoughts”:

“The Cultural Detective

One of the more noticeable differences between male-targeted and female-targeted porn on the Web is the presence of political messages. On men’s porn sites – including gay porn – there is a complete absence of any kind of explicit politics. The only exception is the rare imploration to support free speech. Though there are far, far fewer numbers of female-targeted porn sites, those that do exist contain a relative abundance of political messages. ” We do what we can to support the activists who fight for the awareness of cultural appropriation,” proclaims graphic porn site NoFauxxx, adding, “We follow an all-inclusive casting attitude: we do not take gender, size, race, or any other consideration into consideration when choosing our models.” The Web site Crash Pad Series says the actress and director Shawn “can be found in front of the computer designing digital landscapes of desire as well as in front of the cameras sharing her passion for the ‘personal is political’ lifestyle.” The East Van Porn Collective calls itself an “anarcho-feminist porn collective.” Especially common are female-targeted adult sites promoting “empowerment” and “positivity”, concepts men do not associate with erotica.

Social psychologist Roy Baumeister suggest that women’s greater sensitivity to cultural influences is rooted in brain mechanisms. “Women’s sexuality appears to be more plastic than men’s, relying on social framing and cultural conditions when making decisions regarding relationships. Men’s sexuality seems more driven by simple physiological mechanisms.” Keenly attuned to the cultural values and social rules, the Detective Agency asks: Which behaviors and relationships are celebrated – and which are frowned upon? What values should I endorse when it comes to sex and relationships? Women are sensitive to messages on magazines and television shows, even indirect messages, such as a model’s body weight, the car a politician is driving, or a celebrity’s views on mental health – subjects that elicit more online comments from women than men. Many more women than men report feeling social pressure on how to behave, dress, and look. Women are also much more likely to attribute sexual anxiety to social pressures.

Women’s cultural evaluation mechanisms appear to be especially concentrated in the middle prefrontal and inferior prefrontal cortext and the middle temporal cortex. These parts of the brain are social evaluation centers, considering what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate in a given situation. They handle moral cognition (is this right or wrong?) and social judgment (what will other people think of me?).

Cultural information helps Miss Marple play it safe. Who does society value more, doctors or software programmers? Can I get away with wearing a tattoo on my back or will people think it’s a “tramp stamp”? Can I post photos on Facebook of me in a bathing suit or will guys think I look fat? Since women must always consider the long-term consequences of their sexual decisons, a woman’s brain is designed to evaluate the particular cultural conditions in which she finds herself.”
(pp. 78-80)


A final problem, for now at least, that I have with this notion of a BDSM-powered “Yes Means Yes” law, is the idea of “importing” elements of the former into the latter, all the while ignoring the crucial contexts in which “affirmative consent” occurs in the first place. Ask anyone who is into BDSM and they will tell you, that the idea of drunken, awkward and oafish hookups, is rare at least, alien at most. Committed relationships are in fact very much the norm in this lifestyle, which revolves tremendously around trust, communication, mutual respect and comfort. Indeed, for many BDSM couples, their relationship deepened and got “kinkier” over the years they had been together – not over the course of a night or two. Even in the cases of professional Dominatrixes, it is not at all unusual for them to have (largely if not exclusively male) submissive clients they’ve “been with” for years. Compare that to today’s hookup scene on the college campus, where people who barely know each other sexually collide into one another. Women who self-identify as submissive, for example, have very good reason to be very discerning about who they partner with, and isn’t to their advantage in the least to get with someone in say, a frat house party environment. In the BDSM culture, “first contact meetings” between largely submissive Women and largely Dominant Men are in fact, highly controlled, regimented and codified – ALL for the safety and comfort of the sub Women. Again, given the very nature of BDSM, this makes perfect sense. How “importing” elements of “consent” from such a tightly-woven community and lifestyle, into one which is by definition, much more porous and transitory, raises a heck of a lot of troubling questions for me.

In closing, I’d like to state for the record that I have nothing in the least against the BDSM sexual subculture – I am a strong believer in and advocate for freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to a private life.

But, attempts on the part of third wavers to make “the personal, political” – to take their freely chosen, private lifestyle choices and make them a matter of public policy that is then imposed on everyone else – IS something that deeply troubles me, for all the reasons I’ve indicated above.

And it should trouble you too – even if you’re inclined to get down like that.

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

Considerations Of The “Mother, May I?”/”Yes Means Yes” Law: Deti’s Take

(Editor’s Note): In light of the recent passage of the “Yes Means Yes” law out in the Golden State of California, which purports to address the issue(?) and epidemic(?) of college campus sexual assaults, we here at J4G thought it important to add commentary and context to the matter. Over the next few weeks, the entire editorial team will weigh in, giving their own individual takes on the YMY (aka as the “Mother, May I?”) law and it’s implications moving ahead for us all.

We kickoff our YMY coverage with J4G brother Deti, who gives a broad overview of the “Mother, May I?” law. Here’s Deti!

Let’s take a look at the new “affirmative consent” law in California, nicknamed “Yes Means Yes” (or YMY for short). This new law applies to students at state-supported institutions of higher learning in the state of California. The state legislature passed it and Governor Jerry Brown signed it a couple of weeks ago. We here at Just Four Guys will help you cut through the misinformation and outright bad advice, and will show you just what’s wrong with this new law.

As usual, none of this is legal advice; and no one reading this post should rely on it as such. Anyone having legal questions should consult a lawyer in their state.

Affirmative Consent = No More Escalation

The defining feature of YMY is “affirmative consent”, which means “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” to “sexual activity”. That “affirmative consent” must be “ongoing” and can be withdrawn at any time. Students must take “reasonable steps” under then-existing circumstances to make sure that they have “affirmative consent”.

Under the old standard of “no means no”, the burden is on the woman to say “no” and put the brakes on unwanted or unwelcome sexual activity. Under the new standard, the burden is on the man to make sure the woman has said or manifested “yes” BEFORE anything happens. The burden of proof used to be on a victim to establish that she had said “no” and he proceeded anyway. YMY shifts the burden to the man to establish that consent was expressly given.

As a practical matter, this requires a man to make sure he has “affirmative consent” at each and every stage of any form of sexual escalation. The only way to make absolutely certain that he has “affirmative consent” is to ask for permission AND OBTAIN A VERBAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THAT PERMISSION every time he wants to do something. To comply with YMY, a man must say “(Mother,) may I _____________?” and then receive a verbal “Yes, you may” for each and every sexual act he wishes to engage in.

“(Mother,) May I touch your arm?”

“(Mother,) May I touch your shoulder?”

“(Mother,) May I hold your hand?”

“(Mother,) May I put my arm around you?”

“(Mother,) May I kiss you?”

“(Mother,) May I touch your left breast?”

“(Mother,) May I touch your right breast?”

“(Mother,) May I remove your jeans?”

“(Mother,) May I remove your panties?”

“(Mother,) May I kiss your [list body part here]?”

Etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

There are some who say that consent can be manifested nonverbally. These claims are disingenuous at best. For example: A man goes to kiss a woman. She returns his kiss. He did NOT make sure he had “affirmative consent” FIRST. He is subject to discipline; but as a practical matter he won’t be reported.

Here’s the other side: A man goes to kiss a woman; she is surprised by the move-in for the kiss. He makes physical contact, she quickly pulls away. Under YMY, the man has committed “sexual assault”, and he is subject to discipline. Kissing or attempted kissing is clearly “sexual activity”. The man did not obtain “affirmative consent”.

What Yes Means Yes REALLY Is

Make no mistake about it: Yes Means Yes, or “YMY” for short, is intended to be a test case, to (1) condition younger men to a new legal and social environment; and (2) expand this from college campuses and disciplinary measures, to all sexual conduct everywhere, including adults and marrieds. YMY is intended eventually to supplant existing standards for sexual assault claims, both civil and criminal.

YMY is intended to make it easier to prosecute rape/sexual assault; and to expand legal civil liability for such claims, by reducing the kind of evidence for it, by lowering the standards of proof, and by shifting burdens of proof from victims to the accused. YMY is intended to completely redefine and reshape the entire legal landscape for everyone, not just college students.

YMY is about power, full stop

1. YMY essentially codifies female “tingles” and gives them the force of law complete with punitive measures. A man’s failure to induce “tingles” or botching an approach will now subject a male college student in California to institutional discipline. Being less than an alpha attractive man is now grounds for discipline at California colleges and universities.

Male students will now probably have to undergo sensitivity training for trying to kiss a girl at a party. They will now face suspension or dismissal from the university for unsuccessfully trying to escalate, or for pestering a longtime girlfriend for sex, or for failing to obtain express verbal consent for P in V sex.

2. Contrary to what others claim or believe, the intent of YMY is NOT solely to discourage and curtail “drunk sex” or “drunk hookups” on college campuses. It applies to ALL “sexual activity” engaged in by students enrolled at a state-supported institution of higher learning in California.

It applies to sober hookups as well as drunken hookups. It applies to sober one night stands. It applies to relationships of any duration. It applies to students in relationships or having sex with nonstudents. It applies to married students, whether the student is married to another student or to a nonstudent. It applies to the student wherever he goes, wherever he has sex anywhere in the world. It applies to “sexual activity”, without limitation.

3. Contrary to what others claim or believe, YMY does NOT apply only to penetration or attempted penetration. As set out above, it explicity applies to ALL “sexual activity”, which is undefined. “Sexual activity” can be anything from light touching (even accidental touching) to full-on penetration.

4. The law is sex-neutral, meaning by its language it applies to both men and women. But, as a practical matter, this law will never be applied to any woman anywhere under any circumstances. YMY won’t be applied to gay or lesbian relationships. It will be applied solely and only to men operating or trying to operate in male-female, one on one interactions.

The Long Range Effects of Yes Means Yes

YMY is not a good law, not in any way, shape, manner or form. As its scope spreads (and it will spread), YMY will only exaggerate and exacerbate the current contours, issues, and problems of the North American SMP and MMP. Relations between the sexes will become more adversarial, more distrustful, more aggressive, and less intimate.

1. This law is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on all sexual activity. This law will discourage the formation and development of relationships leading to marriage. It is intended to deter and discourage less attractive men from attempting sexual conduct with any women, and it will have that effect. Marriages will decrease, as men who might have made good matches with certain women will withdraw even further into porn, video games and minimum wage jobs. Men who might have tried before will give up trying. Lesser alphas, betas and deltas cannot run the risk of an attempted encounter going bad. They can’t run the risk of job loss, university expulsion, lawyer fees and social stigma.

2. YMY will not discourage or decrease Game; it will have exactly the opposite effect. YMY will increase Game and increase the number of men who practice it even as it winnows the number of men in the SMP. The only men willing to navigate the SMP will be men with proven success in meeting, dating and bedding women. Those men will be the most attractive men, the highest value men. They will have even less incentive to marry as more and more women ramp up their inner sluts to compete for these men.

3. Sexual and social interactions will be “all Game, all the time”. Soon, every man a woman meets will be spitting Game at her. These men will not marry because they won’t have to in order to get sex. Men who cannot or will not use Game will not interact with her at all, or will interact at the bare minimum.

4. Men who do engage in sex will increasingly video record every sexual encounter. They’ll save every sext, every text, every selfie, every nudie — because they’re all evidence of a relationship and help establish “affirmative consent”. Men will get increasingly aggressive in gathering and saving evidence of consent, and will not hesitate to deploy their evidence in response to threats of “sexual assault” claims.

This will lead to explosions of “revenge porn” postings on social media sites. There will be defamation lawsuits in which falsely accused men and men who “beat the rap” seek money damages from women and universities based on trumped up or flimsy charges. Lawsuits will arise based on malicious prosecutions and botched investigations by overzealous, agenda-driven, and incompetent university officials. Women who threaten to make accusations of “sexual assault” will be met with men threatening to go public with video and photographic evidence of sexual encounters.

5. Women will have to give up sex in a matter of hours, even minutes, just to get ANY attention from the highest value men (who will be the only men operating in the SMP; the rest of them having dropped out).

6. Marriage? Forget about it. That will increasingly become the province of the Upper Middle Class and Upper Classes. None of the top 15% of men (the only ones willing to participate) will offer marriage to any woman, no matter how attractive or valuable. They won’t have to. For every extremely attractive HB 9 or 10, there’ll be an ever-increasingly deep backbench of HB 7s and 8s who will go from “hi” to “sexy time” in a couple of hours, for far less effort. The top men will continue to clean up, and they’ll never marry. The bottom 85% of men won’t even be in the marketplace.

So, contrary to what some claim about YMY, it will only exacerbate and worsen currently existing conditions.

Obsidian Inc.

“Mr. Big Stuff, Who do you think you are?”
-Jean Knight

As always, NABWALT but EBWALT…

Unsurprisingly, to me at least, commenter response to my post, “A Look Into The Mating World Of The Tyrones” was rather muted – largely due to the near-deafening silence on the part of our lady readers. Yes, there were a few – and I mean a few – comments on their part; but in the main, the ladies of J4G were largely MIA. Of particular note, was the conspicuous absence of the Sistahood.

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t reading along, though.

You see, I keep a sharp eye on J4G’s site analytics; I see who’s reading/following us, and where they’re coming from – so I know for a fact that there are quite a few Black Women who read us.

It’s just that they didn’t have any rap in reaction to my latest “Tyrone” post.

Funny, that.

Continue reading

A Look Into The Mating World Of The Tyrones

Inspired by my mini-conversation with Novaseeker yesterday, and keeping in line with the general theme of “Marriage (& by extension, relationships/dating/mating) 2.0″ in our time, I thought to share a bit about the mating lives of a segment of American society that is little known about – those Men I refer to as the Tyrones.


By now, regular readers know what I mean when I use that phrase, but for those just coming along: “Tyrone” is the name of a close personal friend of actor-turned-relationship expert writer Hill Harper, and is very briefly mentioned in his NYT bestselling book, “The Conversation”. “Tyrones” are very smart, highly intelligent and industrious Blue Collar Brothas, whom the Sistas of Harper’s mileu tend to shun for mating. I’ve taken it upon myself to expand and expound a bit about the Tyrones in large part because so little is known or written about them. I mean, let’s face it – online, when it comes to discussions centered on mating, it’s very Class-focused – by that I mean, that all of the air in the room is taken up by the middle and upper middle classes - and this is true on both sides of the Color Line. On the relatively rare occasions that the working and lower classes mating lives are discussed at all, it’s usually from a “what’s wrong with them?” standpoint – everything is focused on “after the fact” kinds of things. You know, the kids that are born of their haphazard unions, and other fairly dysfunctional things that have become part and parcel of being a member of the (Black) working and lower classes in our day and age. Because virtually none of their number have the wherewithall to be heard at the “table”, very little is actually known about HOW they wind up meeting and mating in the first place – compare and contrast that the reams of chatter on the matter by their upper class betters – an alien could land from outer space today or tomorrow and would be able to glean, often in mind-numbing detail, exactly how said upper classes – again, of both principal American races – meet and mate. This yet another reason as to why I cite “Promises I Can Keep” so much – because it is one of the precious few sociological works in our time that actually gives the reader a blow-by-blow, nuts-and-bolts look at HOW the lower classes mate – where and how they meet; what their mating rituals look like up close and personal. And when you do consider that, other things, like the tempest in a teapot of our time, “street harassment”, kinda looks a bit different, if not because of the inherent Class (and to a slightly lesser extent, Race) conflicts the whole thing brings up.

Continue reading

On The Meaning, Function & Purpose Of Marriage & Relating, In Early 21st Century American Life

“Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die…”
-Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Good morning Mr. Champ, everyone,
It is the countdown to the Inevitable Moment indeed! And one that, as that Moment gets closer and closer, you seem to be putting up more and more urgent posts of trepidation about it.

Let’s be frank, shall we?

You’re right to be…concerned. After all, it’s hard to deny the facts:

-Blacks marry at considerably later ages than everyone else does in America
-Blacks divorce at higher rates than everyone else in America
-Blacks have higher rates of infidelity, domestic/spousal abuse/finanical strife, than everyone else in America

And so on.

Add to this a criminal and family/child support court system that is weighted heavily in favor of (Black) Women and heavily weighted against (Black) Men, and it is little wonder as to why so many Black Men aren’t particularly eager to jump the broom in our time.

Which raises the question, One Mo Gin:

WHY, should a Brotha tie the knot, again? For who? For what?

I have asked this question before in this forum and elsewhere, and the “answers” have been, sadly but by no means unsurprisngly, wholly unsatisfactory; quaint bromides about Religion, & “Duty” (heh), or esoteric and once-removed “reasons” involving Taxes and Courts (again, heh), simply don’t cut the mustard.

After all, a Brotha can get ALL his romantic, s*xual AND reproductive needs met, WITHOUT marriage, AT ALL.

We all know this to be true.

Some will argue, that (Black) Men live longer and healthier when Boo’d Up in Holy Matrimony; but I say, if we can make a world in which “Julia” can be cared for sans a Man, why can’t we do the same for Tyrone – or Dante? Must they have a Woman Who Has Papers On Them in order to live a meaningful life? Why can’t Obamacare launch a Single Men Living Well initiative – specifically designed to reach out to Men, and Men of Color most especially, making the case for how the govt cares about them and instructing them as to their health and wellness? Why must the social, political and economic outreach in this regard be Women Only?

Others have argued, that married Men – in this case Brothas – get more Rumpy Bumpy than their single counterparts. I’m not so sure about that – after all, the S*xless Marriage is a very real phenomenon – where the Wifey, now that she’s got the ring, can and often does let herself go, and all the frisky times with it. Of course, such things are noted among our Brothers From Another Mother; Black Men are loathe to publicly discuss anything that might go against the ManDingo Mystique.

But it’s there, alright – and we Brothas all know it. Why castrate oneself in such a fashion?

For who?

For what?

I mean, exactly WHAT, is the typical Black Woman bringing to the table that makes it worth the time and considerable risk, of Putting a Ring On It? Is there a simple listing that such a Sista can rattle off? Can we Trust, But Verify this listing?

To ask the question, is to answer it, hmm?

Brothas know the deal; as a group we may not be as prolific or vocal as our White brethren; but we “speak” with our feet just the same, if not moreso. All of which is well-documented.

So long as the incentives to marry remain murky at best and downright dangerous at worst, Brothas will continue to vote with their feet – either not marrying at all (I remind the reader, Black Men are the highest cohort NOT to marry among American Men aged 40 and above), or, saving that, by staving marriage off as long as humanly possible. I’ve seen both scenarios play themselves out, many times. It is quite routine, in fact.

I’ve personally turned down several formal marriage proposals, about half a dozen “hookups” where an intermediary attempted to introduce me to a Sista with a Ready-Made Family (read: Baby Mama). They got wind of my work record and and clean living and wanted a Packmule to help raise them chirrens. But I saw it a mile away and steered clear, declining to even meet with the ladies in question. Again, how is this a good deal for me? What do I get out of this?

Ahhh, but that’s just it – we, as (Black) Men, are not supposed to ask such selfish questions! We are not to have any lives or interests or concerns of our own; we are just to “Man Up!” and do as we’re told and like it.

Not me.

Enjoy the married life, Champ; here’s to you not becoming the Mall Mule with the Thousand Yard Stare!


Now adjourn your arses…


The above comments were written by yours truly and appeared on May 19, 2014 at the popular Black Bougie website, Very Smart Brothas; it was the very first(!) comment in a discussion entitled, “Getting Married…And Acting Single”, by Damon “The Champ” Young. At the time, the post dropped roughly two months out from his tying the knot, and my missive set off a veritable firestorm of response, most notably by the Sista Ladies in attendance - none of whom actually addressed, to say nothing of debunking, the points I raised.


I repost those comments, in the light of Ciaran’s “weekend discussion” that kicked off in earnest with his most recent post; and more to the point, in reaction to “Lurker’s” comments about my supposed “evolution”. Surely, given the two together – Lurker’s observations about my comments, and my VSB commentary as per above, things look just a weebit incongruous, yes?

Well, not really. Here’s what you’re really seeing:

Me being deeply conversant with, and respectful of, both sides of the argument.

See, in our deeply Ideological Age, the Truth itself, truly does come dead last. People line up on both sides, and duke it out without any regard for facts, reason, logic or evidence; there is simply no respect for the Truth. And why should there be? After all, the Truth forces one to actually think…to consider the possibility, that not only they may be wrong, but that the very people that they have demonized on the other side, just may have a valid point.

If you read the ensuing discussion over at VSB, it quickly turns from one where the veracity of my claims could be confirmed or denied, to a referendum on yours truly – the very antithesis of the masthead of the site(!). My arguments weren’t weighed based on their merits – for example, notice how NO ONE actually addressed the bullet points I made in my post – but rather how I made certain others in the forum – and let’s not mince words here, (Black) Women – “feel”. I argue this wasn’t by accident; my points weren’t specifically addressed, because they were (and are!) unassailable. The simple truth is, that for the “Tyrones” – mating choices suck. The quality of Black Women available to them, suck. Sure, some suck less than others; and the constant drone of how Men – particularly on the working and lower classes-end, aren’t up to the job of marriage and like in our time, is never ending – but the point is made. It is simply difficult for anyone with a straight face to tell me, or anyone who brings these points up, that there isn’t a “there” there. You just cannot do it.

And yet, there’s Damon, about the get married. For him, and his Class cohort, life is, all things considered, pretty good. Marriage 2.0 will serve him well, at the least much better than Tyrone, if for no other reason than because Damon has a better  pool of Women from which to select from.

It will be interesting to see if “Lurker” will be as effusive of my observations this time around, as he was in the previous discussion. Time, will tell.

While he, and perhaps a notable number of others, marvel at my “evolution”, what they may not want to consider is that I can deeply resonate with the deepseated concerns of the guys – like Ted D (though he’s remarried), Honeycomb, Hollenhund and others – have stated. Simply put, Marriage 2.0 does not gurantee “hard” rights, incentives and rewards, that Marriage 1.0 did, as per my VSB commentary lays out. For guys like Damon, they may not need or even want such things; but for guys like the ones I just cited – indeed, for guys like me – it’s a different story.

In her excellent work, “Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage”, Prof. Stephanie Coontz, an avowed Feminist, makes the case towards the end of her book that the foundations upon which marriage in our time are by their very nature fragile; they exist on notions that were indeed alien, only a few centuries ago – a blink of an eye in broad historial terms. Further, Coontz says, that the public policy debate surrounding marriage, once the dust finally settles over Gay Marriage itself, will have to inevitably turn to how to equip people – and by “people” what she and pretty much everyone else among the Chattering Classes really means is Men Like Me(TM) (read: blue collar, “unwashed”, etc.), as to how to navigate this Brave New World of matrimony (and by extension, romantic relationships, dating, etc.). She notes how some have argued for actual classes in conflict resolution, communication and the like; and while for my part I cannot totally poo-poo such things, I echo the sentiments of those here in the forum:

The premise flows from an assumption the ladies on the other side are just fine as they currently are.

They are not.

Even assuming that what Coontz and other Cathedral Clericy advocates “works”, there is a real question as to whether, as Ted so aptly put it, “the juice is worth the squeeze” – whether the Women who would be mates for such Men, as well as the “new” model of relating – is worth it all in the end. That, is a question that for all intents and purposes, is Blasphemous – for ONLY Men and their worth can be called into question; Womens’, cannot, must not.

A little while back, Okrahead wrote what would become a hugely popular guest post for us here at J4G, entitled “The Resume”; I had meant to write a followup and never got around to it, so today’s missive will have to suffice. The themes that Okrahead pursued in that post, very much informs the current high-pitched discussion obtaining on Ciaran’s post – and let’s be clear here: Ciaran has repeatedly stated that he recognizes the concerns that have been stated by so many guys on said discussion thread along the lines being discussed here, as highly legitimate. Reaction to Okrahead’s post – especially by our lady readers – was particularly visceral and pointed – as far as they were concerned, he was “out of line” for suggesting that Women present a simple bullet-point resume that outlines what qualifies them for as a wifely candidate. They saw it as unromantic at best, and utterly demeaning at worst…though they didn’t outline precisely why. Others among their number, objected not necessarily to the goal of Okrahead’s post, but rather the method – it was too direct, harsh, exacting…cold.

And, I would agree – Okrahead’s post is indeed a bit clinical. But what it lacks in warmth and emotional sensitivity, it more than makes up for in cleareyed clarity – a tradeoff that I suspect a not insignificant number of this blog’s male readership, would readily make.

I know I would.

Let me bring a bit more clarity to the ladies’ consternation:

Okrahead’s position, essentially says to a Woman that her eggs aren’t good enough. When a Woman is being courted by a Man, the implicit understanding is that he finds her reproductive capacity compelling enough for him to pursue her in the first place; it is self-evident. For a Man to require “upfront assurances” from a Woman in the manner Okrahead has laidout, he is saying, loud and clear, that her reproductive capacity, at the very least, is shaky, if not outright subpar. He has to be convincned that she is bringing “more” to the table with which to compensate for this crucial lack. It is perhaps the single biggest diss a Man can convey to a Woman, when you really think about it.

Hence all the protestations.

Yet, given my VSB commentary above, how should a Man like the kind Okrahead, or I outlined above, approach these matters? Should they just blindly go about them, as if no other mitigating factors make a difference? To those like “Lurker”, I ask, what do they counsel, in the particular, specific situations I outlined in my VSB commentary above? What would they have the Tyrones to do?

I, for one, will be patiently awaiting his response.

And yours.

Let the discussion continue!

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

Follow JustFourGuys on Twitter: @j4guys

Follow Obsidian on Twitter: @ObsidianFiles