Adrian Peterson Proves That Black America Is Incorrigably Violent – & Baby Mamas Are To Blame For It

“In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
-Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan”

The proverbial ink was barely dry on my column last week discussing the travails of Mr. Ray Rice, when another NFL star, this time Mr. Adrian Peterson, was taken out to the metaphorical woodshed for his literally doing the same to his 4-year old son; as a result, he was temporarily benched by the Minnesota Vikings franchise (which has since been lifted/UPDATE: it appears that I might have spoken a bit too soon). Of course, the Cathedral will attempt to spin this as yet another example of the NFL’s (Black) male personnel running amok, gratuitously violent, out of control and in need of being put in a veritable Phantom Zone for somatic reconditioning. No doubt, Mr. Peterson’s and Mr. Rice’s actions are troubling; but they only foreshadow a much, much deeper set of problems that beset the Black community in the United States, and that threatens the rest of the country as a whole, if not brought up to the light of day for honest examination, forthright discussion, and a earnest desire to heal these wounds for the Good of All, and not just the Selected Few.

In last week’s column discussing former NFL running back Ray Rice, I made the case that it would be a mistake to assume that the violent episode that formed the basis of his career being prematurely ended was simply a matter of (Black) Men Behaving Badly; I strongly argued that what we saw in the Rice episode was just the tip of the iceberg in the state of things in Black America. Indeed, even Ms. Feminista Jones has said as much in a recent article she has written for Time Magazine Online – Black Men are far from the only actors when it comes to domestic violence, nor are their actions in any way unique; indeed, it starts much, much earlier in the lives of Black children of both sexes.

And the leading perps are Black Baby Mamas.

As a recent post appearing on the popular blog Very Smart Brothas clearly illustrates, the Black community has long had a tradition of routinely visiting violence on its kids, often with the Biblical justification of “sparing the rod and spoiling the child”. The column, written by one half of the VSB duo Mr. Panama Jackson, even has this theological line as the title – and just take a look at the comments – the ones most in favor of “popping” their kids, are Black Women themselves. (Note how the ones most in opposition to same, are those written by VSB’s Black male readers). This anecdotal evidence alone, is enough to suggest that what I’ve said last week about the Black Woman’s capacity for violence and aggression would be more than enough; but, since I promised last week that I would return with more smoking gun evidence of my charge that Black Women writ large can be and often are every bit as violent and aggressive as their Menfolk, today I am going to offer that evidence.

Exhibit A: The Cleveland Bus Driver

Exhibit B: A Day At The Beach With An Abusive Baby Mama

Exhibit C: Shootout On SEPTA

Exhibit D: Let’s You And My Baby Daddy Daughter Fight

Exhibit E: Get On The Baby Brawlin’ Bus

(Video footage and excellent commentary courtesy of Mr. Tommy Sotomayor; also, checkout this post by yours truly for many, many more links posted back to Sotomayor videos documenting ad nauseum the aggression and violence that is sadly all too common in today’s Black Women writ large)

To be sure, Not All Black Women Are Like That – but even those who aren’t would be hard-put to deny, that Enough Black Women ARE indeed, “Like That” – and they are more numerous than we’d like to publicly admit, especially within earshot of White folks. But, the damage – metaphorically and otherwise – has been done a long time ago, and we are only now really beginning to see the results of these seeds being planted. The simple truth of the matter is, that Black America is dysfunctionally violent in a way that makes other communities look askance with equal parts fascination and revulsion – and unless or until Black America is willing and able to call it out for what it is and where it comes from, can there be any hope whatsover, of addressing it.

Violence – Like Charity – Begins At Home

Of course, like so many things, behaviors are shaped during the formative years of our lives; for so many Black Americans, the relationship to and with violence is ingrained at very early ages. It is well known and documented that African Americans are much more likely to adhere to the aforementioned Biblical injunction of child beating, held constant regardless of Class or SES status; and it is not at all unusual to hear Negroes talking, often reverently, how they got “beat to within an inch of their lives” and credit it with their “turning out to be alright” citizens and the like. What is often left out of the discussion however, is WHO more often than not, is actually doing the “beating to within an inch” of so many Black Americans’ lives while still minors, even 4-year old toddlers (or younger!):

Black Women Baby Mamas.

By now, it shouldn’t even have to be a matter of debate or even discussion – out of wedlock rates in Black America are well known and empirically verified. Moreover, additional research by credible scholars have noted, that one of the “unintended” consequences of the Feminist Agenda, has been both the wholesale weakening of the institution of Fatherhood (read: Patriarchy) on the one hand, while on the other strengthening Motherhood to the point of Tyranny, being as how it is propped up by the State, the Cathedral and Social/Cultural norms (recall Fantasia’s ode to Baby Mamas – literally – as just one of a plethora of examples). Said scholars have documented, albeit they were a bit reluctant to be so candid, the ways in which de facto Matriarchies in Black America’s most vulnerbale sections has created a miasma of violence, aggression and downright mean spiritedness in so many of its citizens – the same citizens who create warped and perverted sub-cultures such as “Stop Snitchin’” and so forth. As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, studies have been done where White, solidly middle class and at least moderately educated Women have been shown to beat or otherwise abuse (i.e., verbally, psychologically, et al) their children as young as infants, sometimes to the tune of dozens of times a day - what do you honestly think happens in the ‘hoods and inner-city cores of Black America? Well, if the prison population is anything to go by – where again, it is well documented that its inmates hail from Baby Mama-headed households – gang-bangers, rapists, home-invaders, malcontents, anti-socials, you name it – came from environments and homes where Baby Mamas are the sole authority in and out of the home. They determine how the baby/child/teenager is to be raised, with the father, at best, playing the role of a “useful complement”*. She determines where the child will live, how it will be educated, what if any, ethics it will be taught, etc, et al – and as we can (and in truth, have always seen), we see the results for themselves: Black America is, in a very real sense, a Failed Matriarchal State, a social experiment in the grand ideals of Feminism that has crumbled under its own weight – much like the Communist Soviet Union and the Marxist ideology it was founded on and that inspired Feminism’s biggest names and best known theorists, Black and White, alike. That so many Black Men, in the form of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, now “act out”, says a heck of a lot more about Baby Mamaism in Black America, than it ever will about the Men themselves.

But, What About The (Black) Dads?

Well, what about them? As alluded to above, for the most part they have been all but excluded from the lives of their progeny, and this is especially the case on the lower socioeconomic rungs of the American pecking order. Poor and Working Class Black Men have it the hardest when attempting to play a meaningful role in the lives of their own “seeds”, and more often than not they are literally at the mercy of their Baby Mamas, who can and often does decide, sometimes on a whim, to literally cut him out of his kids’ lives – with the full backing and support of the State, from the family courts to the Po-Po, and everything in between. As the same scholars noted earlier in this essay document in a seperate study, Poor and Working Class Black Men desperately want to father, to be involved in the lives they helped to create, and are often shunned and rejected for not being “Man enough”, i.e., having money and resources and other traditional and oftentimes limiting and even harmful forms of “masculinity” that their Baby Mamas not only desire, but demand. Contrary to the notion of “hit and run” dudes that sire dozens of kids by as many Women, many of these Black dads struggle in a big way against the very real social, legal and even political forces that conspire to keep them from being involved – and often lose. This too, is yet another side of the story that almost never gets to be told or heard, and it is time that it have its Day in the Sun – for every charge that can credibly be made of a “deadbeat dad” there can be a credible claim of what Fathers 4 Justice, a UK-based advocacy group, refers to as “Crummy Mummies” – and Lord knows, that the number of them in Black America, are legion – measured in hurtful and even hateful welts, bullet wounds and carcasses of Black bodies (many of them male), and quite a few at the behest – and sometimes direct involvement – of Baby Mamas themselves.

For those reading this who are lilkely rolling their eyes and coming to a conclusion (if you haven’t already) that I am seeking to absolve Black Men, like Mr. Rice and Mr. Peterson, of any and all personal responsibility for their actions, let me disabuse you of such woefully wrongheaded thinking – not only do I think they can and should face whatever music the NFL and law enforcement agencies deem appropriate, I defy any of my detractors to cite for me the chapter and verse quotations of me defending the following Black Men:

Tiger Woods

Michael Vick

Chris Brown


Suge Knight

And that’s just for starters. My position has always been, “do the crime, get pinched, do the time – NO EXCEPTIONS“. You see, my views in these and related matters always has been, and always will be, consistent – and I will not allow anyone to attempt to pigenhole me or the issues I wish to examine, into some ideological cul-de-sac, because of “Who-Whom?”ism.

Is that clear?

Baby Mamaism: Mean, Brutish & Short

It is time to acknowledge publicly what we all know to be true and only whisper to others when we are sure of our company: that Baby Mamaism, my rhetorical shorthand for what can only rightly be described as a de facto Matriarchy writ large in Black America over roughly the past half decade in particular, has proven itself not only to be a massive failure – despite all the propping up of the Culture and the State, and despite the neverending efforts on the part of their apparatchiks to the contrary – but that it is the chief driver of the very cultural norms that form the background on that which we are currently examining. That both Mr. Rice and Mr. Peterson hail from homes and “communities” where backward, retrograde norms of “masculinity” are lauded and valued, promulgated by their very own mothers, is by no means unusual or unknown to the rest of us – we’ve all known of the very long history of professional sport leagues like the NFL and NBA, to be populated with the sons of Baby Mamas. Indeed, some of its most problematic figures have been such Men – a number of them have served prison time themselves. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but one of the reasons why such figures as Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods and Robert Griffin III were so lauded, was because of their rather unusual familial histories when compared to their peers, all of whom hailed from intact families where the father played an active, if not pivotal, role in their lives – and it should also be noted that none of them have been known for engaging in acts of violence either. Coincidence?

The large swaths of Black America where Baby Mamaism reigns supreme, are places where anarchy, crime and violence are easily seen in evidence. Contrary to romantic notions on the part of the Professional Left, Black America’s current state shows the world what happens when the role of the Father has been demeaned, disempowered and just plain ole dissed (aka “a useful complement”*) – life becomes much more dis-ordered, uncertain, unsafe and downright dangerous. And contrary to the hype and propoganda of the Feminist Lobby and their allies in the Cathedral, boys who hail from strong father-led homes are the least likely to engage in all acts of violence, where kids are least likely to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, and where yes, Women themselves are the safest. No one who has any say in the matter wants to reside where Baby Mamas are the norm – where trash is strewn everywhere, where random violence and a “code of the streets” ethos is the “order” of the day, where Black Women themselves are unsure of their own safety. Baby Mamaism has proven itself utterly incapable of raising boys into Men, of ensuring safety and prosperity to Women and children, of forging the basis of stable and productive communities – the ONLY things Baby Mamaism has been able to consistently produce, is a neverending onslaught of deeply dysfunctional people, Men and Women both, whom the rest of Society has to protect itself from.

So, yes, the NFL does indeed have a problem these days – but it goes much, much deeper than we are all led to believe. The cult(ure) of Baby Mamaism, is what plagues the National Football League – and if we’re not careful, the rest of us.

*“Among the middle class, the couple relationship is at the heart of family life, with the children as desirable complements. Middle-class couples place great value on enjoying each other first before having children, perhaps because they anticipate what statistics show, that marital satisfaction declines precipitously after a couple has children. But among poor women, the mother-child relationship is central, with the father as a useful complement.” (“Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage”, Kathryn Edin & Maria Kefelas, pp. 209)

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

“The Resume” (Guest Post By Okrahead)

(Editor’s Note): We here at J4G are pleased to welcome regular reader and commenter Okrahead with a guest post on a topic that he refers to as “The Resume”. Check him out and let us know what you think! Here’s Okrahead.

I cannot, in good conscience, tell a young man in today’s marriage environment that running out and getting married is a good idea.  That being said, many young men are going to do so, for a number of reasons.  Perhaps you are religious, and take your beliefs seriously, and want to establish a holy union.  Good for you.  Perhaps you simply have some young lady whom you believe to be an extra special snowflake and you want to lock her down.  Not necessarily a great idea.  It’s true marriage rates are falling, but there are obviously some of you out there still getting hitched, for whatever reason.  What I’m going to tell you is what I would tell my own younger, foolish self if I could step back a couple of decades in time, before I got married, and, eventually, frivorced by an unhaaaapppy now ex-wife.  It isn’t romantic or pretty, but neither is getting divorce raped in family court, especially when you have kids.  So if you would, lend me your ears for a few moments, and I’ll try to help you avoid the mistakes I made.

So, you’ve found a young lady you want to marry, and you’re seriously considering popping the question, getting a license, and putting a ring on her finger.  You’re about to make what you assume will be a life-long commitment.  Tell me, how many life-long commitments have you ever made?  None?  Well then, what do you expect to get out of this commitment?  What do you expect to give in return?  Love?  This may come as a surprise, but for many of our co-species females that is an extremely nebulous term, with multiple definitions to be determined as needed at the moment in question.  You need a clear understanding of what you will receive for your commitment.  You need your beloved to give you her marriage resume.

What?  You’ve never heard of a marriage resume?  Let me ask you a question… If you were (or are) a highly-paid professional, running your own company, would you simply hire anyone who walked in the door and asked for a job?  No?  Of course not…. If you did you would quickly be out of business.  If you are running a successful business you need people who are competent, dependable and committed, and you expect any potential hires to show you this with a resume and interview.  Well friend, when you take a wife you are exposing yourself to far greater levels of legal and financial risk than any employee in any company you might run will ever cause for you.  Nearly fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, the vast majority of which are initiated by women, with men losing the vast majority of resources in the process.  So you’d better do your due diligence first.

What a resume does

First of all, requiring a resume demonstrates who is in charge of the commitment process.  Remember, women control access to sex, but men control access to commitment.  Say that to yourself however many times it takes to get it thoroughly ingrained in your psyche.  A woman has no more right to demand a commitment from you than you do to demand sex from her.  No means no, after all, even for men.  If a woman must put down in writing why she is worthy to be your wife, then you have established your frame as dominant at the front end of the marriage.

A resume also establishes a mind-set of abundance.  Respected corporations offering good careers expect to interview dozens of qualified candidates for any opening.  By requiring a marital resume you establish that you have other options, and that a woman must pre-qualify herself to you.  With a mind-set of abundance you free yourself from pressure to make a quick and likely disastrous decision.  You are in control of the process, you make the decision, and she must appeal to you.  Keep it that way.  If she declines, that is her right… and obviously she was NOT the right candidate for the position.  Wish her well and show her the door.

A resume can also bring to light previously unknown red flags that should deter you from marrying a woman.  Has she been riding the carousel?  Is she on psychotropic medications?  Does she have a high debt load?  A proper marital resume, as we will discuss shortly, should reveal any of these defects, and any one of them should be a deal breaker.  Never be afraid to walk away from a bad deal.

What a resume should tell you

There are a number of things that should be required, in writing, from your prospective wife in a pre-marital resume.  Is she a virgin?  If not, how many men has she been with, and for how long?  If she is not a virgin, and especially if she has been with multiple partners, your risk for divorce increases exponentially.

Does she suffer from mental illness?  This includes a need to take medicine for depression.  Do you really want to lie down and go to sleep next to crazy every night?  Very bad things can happen to an unsuspecting man snoozing away next to psycho-bunny.

Does she have a high level of personal debt?  If so, why?  This usually points to a lack of self-control.  When she has full access to your money and credit as well, do you think she will suddenly become more responsible?  Really?  Did you know that in many states husbands are responsible for their wives’ debts, whether they agree to or co-sign those debts or not?

What, exactly, does she bring to the table as a wife?  Does she intend to keep a clean house, cook good meals, raise children, and take care of her husband in the bedroom on a regular basis?  Has she demonstrated (within reason, of course) that she is able and/or willing to do these things?  If she is a slob who has never yet cooked you a decent meal, do you expect a wedding ring to change that?

What to expect

I expect that the majority of women will reject this idea out of hand.  Fine.  If she is unwilling, prior to marriage, to come completely clean with you, then walk.  Immediately.  Prior to the wedding you have complete control over whether or not to offer commitment.  If you insist on doing so, do it ONLY on your terms.  Not hers, or her parents, or your parents, or your mutual friends.  You are the only person marrying this woman, it is your decision to call it off at any time if you so choose.

Expect shaming language.  From angry women who can’t believe you would require this of them.  From her family.  Possibly from your own family.  Probably from many church members, and even church leaders.  Just remember, none of these people will have to endure what you will when you go through a frivorce, especially if you have children.  Stand your ground, maintain your frame, and do not apologize for doing what is right.

If she agrees to submit a resume, expect to check it. She should have references, and you must do your due diligence and check those references.  She should be willing to present you with medical proof of being STD free, as well as being a virgin if she represents herself as such on her resume.  If you find she has lied, about anything whatsoever, walk immediately.  A wedding ring will not make her magically more honest.

Finally, whatever else you do, do not agree to provide her a resume of your own.  Once again, this is about frame and dominance.  If you are going to get married, then she must demonstrate that she is worthy of your commitment.  Women may control access to sex, but men control access to commitment.  DO NOT forget that.  Establish that you are her personal alpha by requiring her to meet your demands before she receives any commitment.  If she refuses, next her and move on.  After all, it’s always better to want what you don’t have than to have what you don’t want.

On Twitter: j4guys


Feminista & Tariq Sitting In A Tree: K-I-S-S-I-N-G?

I got wind of the following YouTube video featuring Mr. Tariq Nasheed by way of Mr. Rom Wills a little while back; I had meant to write a full-on post about it, but since time is short, and I thought it really was interesting in light of my ongoing focus on the socalled “street harassment” issue, I thought to post this up right quick for all of you to checkout. The YouTube video features Mr. Nasheed giving his thoughts on and about Ms. Feminista Jones, who I’ve discussed somewhat briefly in this forum:

For those who may not be aware of who he is, Tariq Nasheed is perhaps the closet analog Black America has to Mystery – he’s written a series of successful books on “Mackin’” and in more recent years, has taken to making films about aspects of Black American history and so forth, at least one of which has featured Ms. Shaharazad Ali, whom I’ve discussed and will be revisiting in a future post.

I don’t know about the White Internet, but the Black Internet is rife with “Twitter beefs”, “Facebook beefs” and the like, and it seems that the dustup involving Mr. Nasheed and Ms. Jones is no exception – which is not only just sad, but deeply ironic, given the fact that just last month, during an email correspondence I had with Ms. Jones, I made the case to her that in order for her #YouOKSis social media campaign to work, she would need Brothas like Nasheed on board – because it’s Brothas like him (and yours truly) who are actually on the ground where the Pookies and Ray-Rays are. “Good Black Men(TM)” like the Damon “The Champ” Youngs, Jozen Cummings and so forth, don’t live, work or socialize out in the streets where the Brothas on the Block be. That’s just the plain truth of it – so, I suppose her getting involved in a shooting war with the likes of Mr. Nasheed – who, last time I checked had at least three times as many Twitter followers as she does – ain’t a good look. Nobody’s going to accuse her of being the next Kasparov.

To be sure, I have a bone or two to pick with Tariq as well for another Twitter beef he’s been invovled in of late, but I’ll hold my fire on that for a separate post, perhaps next week. But I just wanted to put this out there, in large part because it’s so very prescient in terms of what I said to Ms. Jones via email a few weeks back. And, it really does raise a lot of questions as to exactly what she hopes to achieve in her social justice crusade.

In any event, it really is sad to see Black folks fighting like this; the whole thing just looks petty and smallminded.

I’m just sayin’.

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

Styles Makes Fights — And Game

(Editor’s Note): We continue our Back to (Pickup) School series, picking up where Mr. Rom Wills left off last off last week, with something yours truly wrote up a few years back over at my personal blog, The Obsidian Files. Like Rom, I too saw and understood that the notion of a “one size fits all” take on Game was and remains seriously wrongheaded and misinformed. As Rom rightly pointed out, each Man must develop his own unique style, after he gets down all the root and most basic fundamentals of Pickup. The following article will give a broad and general overview of how I see the varying styles and forms of Game a Man can deploy, based on his particular inherent and acquired talents and skillsets. In future posts, I will go into each individual and particular style or form of Game per my schema below in much greater detail. So with all that said, let’s get right to it!

Fans of the Sweet Science will recognize the words in the title of this post; in boxing, its one of the first principles. As much as learning the universal basics of boxing are important, such as the rules, conditioning and so on, so too is it very, very important for a boxer to find a style of boxing that best works for him. Some boxers, being tall, can utilize their superior reach; others, speed; and still others, power. Some boxers, while not having awesome “one-two” knockout power, may nevertheless be able to use their keen understanding of the mechanics of boxing and the human body, as well as being astute students of history and watching tapes of their opponent, to use all of this knowledge to their advantage during the fight, using the “point” system and endurance to wear their opponent down. Other boxers are shorter, more compact, and may do much better as an in your face kind of fighter-which quite a few boxers aren’t able to handle, especially for extended periods of time, say three or four rounds back to back.

The point is that the boxer who has the best fit of his chosen style to his natural abilities, talents and gifts, more often than not, wins the fight. The same can be said of Game-after you learn the basics, such as the fundamental differences between Male and Female, what turns on both and why, etc, and when you’ve learned key principles such as Negs, Social Proof, PAS and so on, you’re then ready to give serious consideration to the style you will use, to best take advantage of your natural abilities.

Since Game tends to attract geeky types, and because many Game writers and the like will tend to draw analogies between Game and the Force-I’ve done it myself-I thought to illustrate a bit more by discussing the styles a Gamesman can use, by way of the various combat styles the Jedi, the fictional ancient order of Force users in the Star Wars universe, display in the franchise of films.

In the Star Wars universe, there are what is known as the Seven Forms, a series of styles of combat that developed over millennia. Shortly after a Jedi trainee is finished with their basic training, they are then sent off to study the ways of the Force with a Master. It is usually at this time that they choose a style of combat that best suits him; often, his Master will aid him in this regard.

The Seven Forms are as follows:


Let’s examine these forms briefly:

Shii-Cho is the first and most basic form of combat for the Jedi. This covers all the fundamentals-stances, thrusts, striking points, swings, defence, offence. In Game parlance, this would be about learning all the most fundamental basics of Seduction (such as knowing and understanding the origins and underpinnings of Human Sociosexual Dynamics, The Six Characteristics of the Alpha Male, Preselection, Group and Peacock Theory, Negs, etc.), and while this style alone isn’t as effective against more higher powered Targets, no other form can be effective without a firm grounding in this one. It’s for this reason that such a style, for the aspiring Gamesmen, is most closely aligned in my view, with “Solid Game”.

Makashi is a bit more obscure, owing to the fact that, at the time when the Star Wars films are made, very few Jedi encounter another Force user in combat. Makashi was designed with *dueling* in mind, and relies on elegant, subtle, yet quick and precise, almost balletic moves. It is most effective in one-on-one situations, though a verified Master of the form can take on two highly trained Force users and defeat them both (as Count Dooku did to Obiwan and his apprentice Anakin in Attack Of The Clones). In Gamespeak, this style is best in terms of Direct Game, yet elegant, swift, with a rapier wit (Negs in this form are ultra smooth, subtle and highly, highly effective), perfect timing and a flair for fashion, elegance and style, perhaps just a bit over the top or having a flair for the dramatic.

Soresu is the third form of combat for the Jedi, and developed in the early days of blasters, which meant that Jedis had to learn to defend themselves from such attacks. In the films, for example, when you see a Jedi blocking incoming fire from a blaster, he’s practicing this form to some degree. At the time of the Star Wars films, this form was pretty much the “default” style of combat, due mainly to the prevalence of blasters and the rarity of coming across Force using opponents.

Because of its focus on defense, and not on offense and attacks, this form is often referred to as “the true Jedi form” because of the Order’s emphasis on passivity and peace, as well as mercy-Soresu tends to focus more on disarming an opponent rather than taking him out altogether. Obiwan Kenobi is recognized as the undisputed Master of the form and displays it beautifully, even as an older Man in the famous “cantina” scene of Star Wars: Episode Four, and his final duel with Darth Vader on the Death Star; and in his epic duel against his one time apprentice Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: Episode Three. Notice how no matter how much rage and sheer power Anakin used against Obiwan, Obiwan remained calm and parried all his attacks, blocked all his blows and patiently bided his time, until, finally, Anakin revealed a blindspot-and Obiwan took him out.

Its for this reason that Soresu is considered virtually invincible, because opponents have been known to get tired and give up. In Game parlance, this form doesn’t expend much energy chasing Targets around, but rather *draws them in* and then uses the Target’s energy (and that of her entire entourage) with which to build attraction, slowly, surely, letting the seduction unfold in its own good, sweet time. “Maximum effect with minimum output” is a big feature of this style – the ultimate in Indirect Game – and it is for this reason that it is one of the best styles to have, because of its focus and emphasis on efficiency and economy, putting out just enough Game to entice the Target to draw her in more and more; String Theory for example, is a big feature of this form or style of Game.

But it’s also heavily dependent on one cultivating strong Inner Game, because that’s where this style’s true strength comes from. This style of Game relies on patience, tranquility and calm-cool, smooth, refined, yet focused and determined in the eye of the storm. Through this inner calm and peace, firm yet relaxed cool and confidence, and ability to draw in a Target to himself, such a Gamesmen rarely encounters flakes, LMR or ASD. Closes are almost always complete and full. Negs are classic in this form – deliciously offhand and ambiguous, along with everything else about this style; this is a big part of what draws the Target, indeed, her entire group into your frame. “Cocky funny” is definitely an example of Soresu. Outside of Shii-Cho itself, Soresu is the only other form that is form that stresses being firmly grounded in the fundamentals, and is perhaps the best style to use when engaging large groups of people, like a target’s friends, one or more cockblockers, and so on. Shit tests are easily deflected with this style, with the target (or her friends) usually giving up in a mixture of exasperation and admiration, if done right. In Seduction parlance, this style is among, if not thee most rooted, in the concept of Solid Game.

Ataru is the forth form of Jedi combat, which is focused on the body; this style makes use of the Jedi to accomplish great physical feats, such as leaping far distances, or performing acrobatic moves in combat. Yoda is a Master of this form of combat, because it both takes advantage of his shorter height, and as well his deep connection to the Force which makes it possible to for him to move as if a young Man. Ataru is also more attack (or in Gamespeak, approach) oriented; notice Yoda doesn’t “defend” himself per se; offense is the best defense in this form (or, to put it into Game perspective – the Gamesman doesn’t allow the Target to “set herself up” to use Shit Tests of any kind on him, because at the sheer rate of speed and “flash” with which is coming at her; she is put on the defensive, so to speak). In the films, perhaps the best examples of this form in action was when Yoda engaged Count Dooku, and, more importantly, Senator Palpatine, who uses a Sith variant of Ataru as well. In Gamespeak, this style most relates to flashier displays, like Peacocking, that are really over the top, working a room hard and taking it over, taking full advantage of the situation and engaging a group at full blast; another example of strong, Direct Game. The Gamesmen really puts his all into it and pretty much overwhelms or bowls over the Target and her entourage.

Because this style demands high levels of energy and focus, it is recommended that only high energy guys use it, otherwise you can burn out pretty quick. Also, an older and/or short Man can use this style to great effect, because both states infer a less vibrant or powerful Man, and your Target can be both taken aback as well as impressed by your “Big Man” personality and/or your formidable level of energy, despite being older and/or shorter in stature.

Shien/Djem-So, the fifth form of Jedi combat, is actually a mixture of Makashi and Soresu, a joining of both a dueling style, and a more defensive, “protective” style. Less “flashy” then Ataru, Djem-So concentrates on the principle of “peace through strength” and even a “might makes right” mentality. Unlike Soresu, where the user defends himself but doesn’t hurt the attacker, a practitioner of Djem-So deliberately turns defence into offence. This is seen for example, when both Anakin Skywalker and his son Luke, turn blaster fire right back on those who fired it at them. Some Jedi frown on this style, as it tends to focus more on the aggressive side of the Force. In Seduction parlance, this style is Direct Game on steriods, utilizing an ultra strong frame and presence, making strong approaches (like the Apocalypse Opener), and taking any defences (like the “Bitch Shield”) the Target will put up and turning back on her squared. Negs have a bit harder edge with this style of Game, designed to slightly (or even strongly) piss the Target off, then turning her aroused state into pure sexual energy and desire. Such a style is perfect for barrelling through a Target’s “Bitch Shield”, via use of sheer persistence, determination and will. Plus the more raw or naked displays of power and dominance is very often a big turn-on for many Women.

The sixth form of Jedi combat, Niman, is considered more of a diplomat’s form or style, because instead of focusing on any one form, these users kind of dabble in all of them, having a basic understanding of each and a kind of “balancing out” in terms of knowing all of the styles or forms. While this results in a fairly good grounding in the Jedi Arts, the problem with this form, is that there isn’t enough of a deep grounding in any one style to really be able to make an impact when out in-field and going up against more hardcore opponents (Targets that rate an 8 or higher on the attractiveness scale)-this is why most Jedi were killed at the Battle of Geonosis in Attack Of The Clones.

However, one important feature of this form is its use of two weapons at once, known as Jar Kai; the only practitioners to do this in the films was Anakin in his first confrontation with Dooku (and Dooku’s apprentice Darth Maul, in his duel with Obiwan and his master, Qui-Gonn Jinn; while in the Clone Wars series, this style was displayed masterfully by Kit Fisto and Assaj Ventress), and for a time he held his own, but was eventually bested by the Makashi Master. In Game parlance, this often relates to “Game theorists” but not Game *doers*, who know all the theory and what not, but have very little actual hands on experience. However, if one is able to make use of two “weapons” at once or in tandem-say both be able to work Social Proof and Preselection at once and/or in tandem with each other, or is able to employ both a direct and indirect combo of Game styles at once, perhaps with a strong element of overt and implicit communication in his approaches and throughout the seduction-this form *can indeed* be highly effective. But by and large, due to its rather difficult manner to learn and deploy, not highly recommended.

Juyo/Vaapad, the seventh and final form of Jedi combat, is similar to both Ataru and Djem-So, in that it focuses on physicality, offence, power and passion, but much moreso than either of the two forms-in fact, it so relies on the latter, that it brings the user very close to the Darkside. It is for this reason that very few Jedi can even learn the form, much less have the inner focus needed to keep from veering over to the Darkside. Only two displays of this form have been seen in the flms-Darh Maul’s Sith variant of Juyo, and Mace Windu’s “take” on the form, which he calls Vaapad.

A major feature of this form is the blinding speed at which attacks are mounted, coming from all directions in a seemingly disconnected and unorthodox manner, but which are intended to both overwhelm and disorient the opponent (it is for this reason, the “Jar kai” style of Game is at its best when put into a “Juyo” context). In Game, the practitioner using this style focuses on his inner darker passions as a source of his Game, and basically overwhelms his Target with it, coming at her from all directions and throwing everything at her including the kitchen sink. When executed correctly, it takes a Woman by storm and sweeps her off her feet. However, the downside here is that things can get too hot too fast, and can be over almost as quickly as it began. That’s OK, if that’s what you’re looking for-but it does come at a price. For starters, the emotional toll this places on Women can be huge, since for them emotions and sex are closely linked; and the longterm effects can be hazardous to the Gamesman as well, unless he’s constantly doing inner monitoring of his own state, and focusing on the Light. For this reason, it is best that should a Man choose to use this style, it is highly recommended that he first have a very clearly defined code of conduct and rules of engagement, to say nothing of having very strong Inner Game, lest he be seduced himself by the Darkside.

Speaking of which, I’ve mentioned several times the term “Sith variant” to the differing forms of Jedi combat, and this applies to both boxing, or any other martial art, and as well, to Game. The difference is that while the former focuses on a code of ethics and the highest good, the latter focuses on the exact opposite-being amoral/immoral, and using the style in question to humiliate, demoralize or in some other way, bring the Target down or low. In boxing this would equate to hitting below the belt, using head butts and so on.

For example, much has been said about the Neg. It is a powerful tool, no doubt, but it can also be used to hurt a Woman, sometimes deeply. In Jedi speak, when it comes to Sith, there is the tactic of Dun Moch, basically taunting your opponent while using other “dirty” tactics designed to demoralize your opponent. Darth Vader did this to Luke Skaywalker during their first duel on Bespin, by using the Force to hurl objects at him from many directions while also attacking him at the same time. Senator Palpatine did this to Yoda during their battle on Coruscant while in the main chamber of the Galactic Senate. And Darth Vader did it again during his final duel with his son on the Deathstar, by mentioning Leia Organa, Luke’s sister and his daughter.
In Gamespeak, Dun Moch is basically Negs Gone Bad, used intentionally to bring a Woman low, and/or makes her question her self-worth and esteem in a pernicious way – for example, using sharper edged Negs on a sub-7 target, or using Negs in a way that attacks the target’s personhood, such as her weight, physical or facial features, her race or ethnicity, and so forth. Other “dirty” tactics can be brought into play, too-just think of how a Gamesman can use Game in a negative, morally questionable way, and you have Dark Game.

For example, flagrantly and blatantly lying to a target as to your true intentions with and for her, or attempting to use Game to seduce her best girlfriend into bed, or using Game to manipulate your target’s emotions and feelings in a clearly abusive and morally unethical manner – all of these are examples and manifestations of what I refer to as Dark Game or Sith Game. It’s something that is both highly effective, but also very, very damaging, to the Target and the Gamesman both, because usually, this form of Game is quicker to learn and often doesn’t put as much if any stress on being morally ethical in how one applies Game; indeed, quite the opposite, for a big part of this style is a kind of “ends justfying the means” mentality.

This is the big problem with the “fast” or “speed” seduction schools of thought out there, operations and outfits that promise its would-be students that if they but only learnt their particular system, they too will be making out with Women in a matter of minutes and so forth. Assuming such schools of thought and practice were indeed successful along these lines, the lack of ethics training and the very nature of the enterprise itself is such that it can seduce, corrupt and lure the practitioner over to the Darkside of Game – where he begins to view Women not as full human beings in their own right, but merely as things to be manipulated; he begins to lose respect for them as human beings because of the way in which they succumb to his machinations; the quick and easy path he has taken leaves a lot of gaps in terms of ethics and morals, and the result is a Man who can potentially wind up filled with contempt and even hatred for Women, other people in general, society, and ultimately, himself. Men who wish to learn Game so they can exact “revenge” on a particular Woman who rejected him, or Women as a whole, are invariably practitioners of Dark or Sith Game, “hatefucking” and the like.

Anyway, the above should give you something to think about as we head into spring. Remember: styles makes fights.

And Game.

Bonus Question: what style do you think The Obsidian uses?

Holla back

The Obsidian

Follow Just Four Guys on Twitter: @j4guys

Develop Your Own Style (Guest Post By Rom Wills)

(Editor’s Note): J4G Guest Contributor Mr. Rom Wills returns with a Back to (Pickup) School post that originally appeared on his website earlier this Summer. It’s a very good place to begin our refresher course on the Pickup Arts, as it concerns itself with a very important and powerful topic – that of how and why each individual Man MUST develop his own Pickup Style. A great many misconceptions abound about Game for the simple reason that the assumption is that “all” Men must ape Mystery or some other renowned Game instructor – not so, and even they will tell you this. Today, Rom goes into what he sees as the varied styles or approaches toward Game/Pickup, and it behooves those wanting to improve in this area to heed his words well. Take it away, Rom!

There are millions of men looking for ways to improve their relationship experiences with women. A whole subculture/industry has developed around seduction gurus, dating coaches, bloggers, and websites. It’s proven to be financially lucrative for many men and some women as well. Thing I’m seeing though is that men don’t seem to be getting better in their interactions with women. In my personal view things are getting worse. I don’t say this lightly. I’m one of those men who will dig deep and ask a lot of personal questions if I’m trying to find the solution to a problem. Many men quite simply are failing to connect with women despite the resources out there. That’s because there is a real issue with how these resources are shared.

See men are really just copying the styles and techniques of their coaches and gurus and not developing their own thing. The men aren’t being authentic and true to themselves. For example one man may take a seminar where the instructor says to approach 100 women a week. The man thinks this is a good idea because the he has seen videos of the instructor successfully approaching and even kissing women in the street. So the man takes notes and a few days later goes out and approaches as many women as possible and is harshly rejected most of the time and the few phone numbers he gets are from women who simply wanted him out of their faces. The man can’t figure out what went wrong.

Another man may not go to a dating seminar or even bother reading books. He believes that as long as he works hard, has money, and shows a willingness to be a good provider women should find him attractive. He gets frustrated when he sees women with lazy thugs who can’t afford their own cars while he has a Mercedes C-Class and a large house. After all he knows other men with the same things who have more women than they know what to do with.

These men are having problems because they are following someone else’s style. I written before that it would be a con job for me to teach “game.” Things work a certain way for me because of my nature which is unique to me. I can tell a man to look directly into a woman’s eyes when he talks to her and she will be sexually aroused. Most men will fail. Looking into a woman’s eyes works for me because women consistently tell me I have pretty eyes. The method would only work for another man with pretty eyes. A man doing the same thing with unremarkable eyes could be considered creepy.

The most a seduction guru or dating coach can give a man is a perspective. In my own coaching the most I give a man is my perspective and perhaps what I have seen work with a group of men generally. Ultimately a man has to develop his own style. He has to develop skills and techniques that are unique to who he is and his mission in life. He can’t worry about what everybody else is doing. Let me use the analogy of basketball.

Of the five players on the basketball court, each one has his own game. The point guard’s game may be passing and penetrating to the basket. He may not have a good outside shot but that’s cool. He helps the team win by playing his game. The shooting guard may be able to rain three point shots all game but may not be good penetrating. The small forward may be good at ball-handling and defense but can only hit an occasional outside shot. The power forward may be a beast on the boards but non-factor for scoring. The center may be good at blocking shots and have a great inside game but can’t hit a three pointer. All of them contribute just in different ways. Their different styles are all legitimate.

In the game of men chasing women a man has to find his personal style. Using myself as an example many things that are taught in dating seminars didn’t work as well for me. Many men will say “approach, approach, approach.” Well when I was younger I would do that and get shot down. Then I started noticing that when I was more laidback or even non-chalant women would approach me. What I found was that when I approached women they would ask themselves, “Why is this good-looking man approaching me with these corny lines?” The women would think something was wrong with me because in their minds someone that looks like me shouldn’t come off as thirsty. I’ve had women tell me this was the issue. Women have actually told me that I could have any woman I wanted. I started chilling out and noticed that women would approach me on the street. Even to this day I have random women approach me, flirt with me, and even tell me to smile while I’m walking down the street. This has been the case even when dressed like a bum in need of a shave and haircut. What I have works for me.

Now if I taught men to do exactly what I do they would fail unless they had identical physical and mental attributes. See the next man may need to be a little more aggressive while out in public. He may need to speak to more women and “shoot that jumper” as this one player I know likes to say. That’s cool. Still another man may have to dress sharp just to get a woman to notice him. He might need to have his haircut on point to get attention. Still another man may need to limit approaching women to social environments where he is part of a group.

In order for a man to develop his style he has to learn how to be PRESENT with women. When I say present I mean a man has to literally be right there with a woman. Most men when they are with a woman are thinking about doing something in the FUTURE with her. A man sees a thick booty woman while walking down the street and his thoughts go to doing her doggy style. He’s not paying enough attention to what she’s doing in the NOW. He approaches her thinking about the future. He’s not paying attention that she seems distracted. She has not given him any indication that she wants to be bothered. He approaches her and she give him a crazy look. He keeps trying to talk to her until her girlfriend walks up and is ready to fight. Yeah I said girlfriend. If he was present and not thinking about the future he would have noticed that despite the phat ass she didn’t give the vibe that she was into men.

The main thing with a man being present is that he starts to pay attention to how women respond to him. Using myself as an example the other day I was coming home from the gym and I stopped by the grocery store. I had on a sleeveless shirt and some shorts. Many women were staring and smiling. I’ve learned that women really like my body so I wear clothes that show my physique. Even when I dress up I wear fitted clothing. It works for me. Another man may notice that women pay attention to him when his head is shaved. Still another man may notice that women really respond to him when he is speaking. Different things work for different men which brings me to my next point.

Too many men get caught up in thinking that they have to be tall, muscular, and male model handsome in order to get women. Yes being tall, muscular, and handsome will attract many women. The problem is that men who don’t have these attributes feel like they can’t get women. Bullshit. I read a blog one time where the writer stated that women are only interested in one type of man; the tall, muscular, and handsome man. The writer felt that women didn’t have “fetishes” like men do. He said that there are “face men,” “breast men,” “ass men,” and “leg men.” He also mentioned chubby chasers, men who like short women, and men who like tall women. I would add that some women like buttafaces. We all know this. What’s kept real quiet though is that women are the exact same way.

Now women are more open about wanting the tall, muscular, and handsome men. There is a growing industry of websites and even feminist porn where men are seen as sex objects. What isn’t talked about publically though is that women do indeed have certain types that get them sexually open. One such type is the Big Handsome Man (BHM) or as their called in the Black community “Teddy Bears.” To be clear Teddy Bears in the Black community have nothing to do with the Bear subculture within the LGBT community. Some women are turned on by big hamburger and fries eating dudes. Some women are turned on by buttaface men. Many women don’t want to be around a man who looks better than they do. I’ve met women who were turned on by short men. I’ve known many men in their forties and fifties who had twenty year olds chasing them. For every type of man out there are women who are turned on by their particular attributes.

A man has to be comfortable with who he is and his unique nature. He always wants to improve himself but he has to be realistic. A 5’6” man will not grow to over 6 feet tall. What he can do pay attention to which women respond to him and play up his positive qualities that attract women. Some big dudes might not get any more muscular. They can deal with the women who like big men. The bottom line is that a man can get another man’s perspective but ultimately he cannot be a clone. All men have to develop their own unique style.

Follow Just Four Guys on Twitter: @j4guys

Follow Rom Wills on Twitter: @romwills

Get Rom Wills’ book here.

Solange Knowles, Ray Rice: Compare & Contrast

“The Feminine Imperative is the pressure on society to accommodate women’s mating goals: first by maximizing their mate choice; and secondly by securing provision and protection for women and their children. The latter element of the Feminine Imperative is the Female Privilege to Care. Whenever an offense can only be conceptualized in terms of harm to women, the Female Privilege to Care is manifest.”
-Ciaran O’Connor, “DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Politicizing the False Accusation Culture”, Wed, Sep 10, 2014

By now, you all have seen, probably ad nauseum at this point, the “rest of the story” video footage of (now) former NFL Pro-Bowl running back Ray Rice literally knocking out his then-fiance’ and now wife, Janay Palmer-Rice in an elevator on Valentine’s Day weekend earlier this year. The pearl-clutching, righteous indignation tsumani response on the part of those who partake of the blogosphere and attendant social media was to be expected, as was the CYAness of the NFL and Baltimore Ravens franchise in throwing Mr. Rice under the bus – this, despite the fact that his wife, Mrs. Palmer-Rice, has registered her great discontent at how her hubbie has been treated by the NFL and TMZ, the “news” organization that released the footage to the general public on Mon.

Astute watchers of current events will have noticed however, that another event that took place on an elevator, the smoking gun footage of which was also released by TMZ and which also took place earlier this year, was treated in a completely different manner than the current Rice issue is being handled. In that instance, Ms. Solange Knowles, kid sister to pop icon Beyonce’ Knowles, viciously attacked Bey’s hubbie, rap mogul Jay-Z, barely restrained by a burly bodyguard. Right there on the tape, we see Solange trying to kick Jay-Z, throw punches and the like, while he remained cool and calm, and even tried to restrain Ms. Knowles, again, assisted by the aforementioned burly bodyguard.

While Mr. Rice’s career, for the time being at least, lay in tatters, Ms. Knowles not only didn’t get so much as a slap on the wrist for her clearly violent actions, there were people who openly speculated what Jigga “could have done” to PROVOKE such a visceral response on the part of Solange – the same people, in fact, who now ride high in their saddles, finger wagging at Mr. Rice. Clearly, suggesting that Women could provoke a beatdown is worthy of being censured, even fired; but suggesting that a Man could have provoked a Woman into going into full-on Mighty Joe Young mode, well, that’s perfectly A-OK.

For anyone out there who agrees with the punishment Mr. Rice has received for his actions on that fateful Winter night earlier this year, you are a stompdown hypocrite with a capital “H” if you do not also support the full-on blacklisting of Mr. Solange Knowles from the music and entertainment business – but, of course, like Ms. Mary J. Blige before her, Ms. Knowles will go on with her life as if nothing had ever happened, continuing to ply her trade as a singer/entertainer, making a nice bit of coin for herself. Because, only Women count when it comes to domestic violence or spousal abuse.

In a previous post written last week, I argued that what Feminism boils down to in our time, is “Who, Whom?” - not universal principles of justice, but rather, Identity Politics writ large, fostered by Special Interest Groups who have a terribly big axe to grind. This is why one couldn’t hear a mumbling word from all the supposed “activists” out there on the Feminists’ side of the aisle when Solange went Park Ape on Mr. Carter – because, again, domestic violence is an issue that is only for Women to be cared about.

One final point:

In a previous post I wrote barely a month ago, “Stephen A. Smith Was Right”*, I made the case that the Black community has a much more marked and acute situation when it came to domestic and spousal abuse, namely due to the fact that Black Women, far and away moreso than Women of America’s other ethnicities and races, were far more likely to “jump bad”, initiate aggression, and even seriously hurt and maim their male partners. I discussed a previous incident involving a (Black male) NFL player who was indeed harmed in this manner by his (Black female) partner, and which nary a peep was said about it in the media or among the SJWs in the blogosphere/social mediascape. “Who, Whom?”, strikes again.

What the Rice situation proves, is that far too often it is BOTH the Man AND the Woman who are at fault, often with the latter party escalating things to a point of no return. Black Women have imbibed so much of the Feminist Dogma that they don’t know, and often do not care, that such ideologies are literally dangerous – as Ms. Palmer found out the hard way back when. Nevertheless, far too many Black Women feel that it is perfectly alright for them to routinely violate the personal boundaries and space(s) of their male partners - and then, want to play the role of Damsel in Distress, flopping all over the Fainting Couch when they literally get popped for it.

Until or unless Society at large finally admits to itself that Women, in this case but in no way solely limited to Black, have the same capacity for aggression and downright meanspiritedness that Men, regardless of color do, and visit these behaviors most vividly onto those closest around them routinely in our time, there will be and can be no meaningful resolution when it comes to domestic and spousal abuse – all that will result is more of the same faux-righteous indignation, proffering of sacrificial lambs and “Who, Whom?”ism on the part of the Feminist Lobby – White and Black.

In the end, everyone loses.

*It is interesting to note indeed, that while Mr. Smith was fired from his job for saying what has been long been known to be true in the Black community and that which Ms. Palmer-Rice has said herself in terms of playing a role in the events that took place in that elevator, Ms. Whoopie Goldberg wasn’t fired for saying the same thing Mr. Smith said and then taking it a few steps further – more proof of “Who, Whom?”ism in “A Woman’s Nation”. Deep!

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Politicizing the False Accusation Culture

Last Wednesday the Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the language of domestic violence to accuse Scott Walker of crimes against women.  These accusations arise from a culture of false accusations, where women are empowered to make false accusations of violence in family court for tactical advantage with little risk to themselves.  Demonstrating the personal is political, Wasserman Schultz exploited the same tactic to smear an adversary on the national political stage.

The Accusations

Last Wednesday in a roundtable discussion in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) brought political slander to a new low; she employed two metaphoric accusations of domestic violence against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

The Florida congresswoman said: “Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality.”

Wasserman Schultz added: “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”

The Reaction

Wasserman Schultz’s comments brought some angry responses.

Republican Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch said she was “shocked” that Wasserman Schultz used domestic violence language to discuss political disagreements.

“I think the remarks were absolutely hideous and the motive behind them was despicable,” Kleefisch said.

The campaign of Mary Burke, Walker’s opponent in the Governor’s race, quickly and wisely distanced itself from the DNC chair’s remarks.

“That’s not the type of language that Mary Burke would use, or has used, to point out the clear differences in this contest,” Burke’s spokeswoman said.

Even the DNC had to backpedal:

Lily Adams, DNC deputy communications director, said in a statement, “Domestic violence is an incredibly serious issue, and the congresswoman (Wasserman Schultz) was by no means belittling the very real pain survivors experience.”

Notice that these objections focus on the language or the impact to domestic violence survivors, not the impact on the man against whom the accusations were made.

The Non-Apology

The following day, Wasserman Schultz issued a one sentence retraction – “I shouldn’t have used the words I used.” – before continuing to attack Walker over his stand on women’s issues.  Many news outlets ran headlines about Wasserman Schultz’s “apology”.  But as Tom Blumer at Newsbusters points out, this backpedaling had none of the attributes of an apology.

Two Conservative Women Come Close

Unsurprisingly, few commentators noticed that Wasserman Schultz’s attack was a false accusation of the type that women are particularly empowered to make against men.  Blogger Ann Althouse approached the idea gingerly:

If we think of it that way — the feminist way — Wasserman Schultz can be accused of subtly purveying a rape metaphor.    …

Attacking and controlling a woman by using her long hair — the shining emblem of her femininity repurposed as a hand grip — strikes a deep chord. It is a chord I believe Wasserman Shultz meant to strike. She wanted to reach through our conscious, critical mind and stir that most powerful emotion, fear.

Althouse is correct that Wasserman Schultz was deliberately casting Walker as a rapist and abuser to instill fear and revulsion into the psyche of the female voters.  (Although given the often perverse nature of female sexuality, one wonders if that imagery might have aroused some of them instead.)

Another conservative woman, Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, struck even closer to the mark:

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz owes an apology to all victims of abuse. It is degrading and outrageous to make false personal accusations rather than discuss real and complicated issues of economic policy. She erroneously conflated physical violence with a political disagreement. The so-called ‘war on women’ rhetoric may be a convenient political narrative but she has crossed the line into character assassination. This kind of hyperbolic tantrum demeans the struggle of real victims equating men who disagree with her views with men who beat women. That only makes her seem unserious and degrades her own effectiveness. Shame on Debbie! She needs to apologize to Scott Walker and victims of abuse.”

This statement gets the main points right.  The attack is called out as a false accusation.  The use of domestic violence as a political weapon is noted.  The harm to Scott Walker and his being owed an apology is also made clear.

But it is not only Scott Walker who is harmed by attacks such as this; all men are potentially disparaged.  Nance states that “This kind of hyperbolic tantrum demeans the struggle of real victims equating men who disagree with her views with men who beat women.”  But she identifies the wrong victim.  The people this attack demeans are the “men who disagree with her views”, not the “real victims” of DV.

Anyone who dissents with feminist doctrine is familiar with accusations of misogyny.  It has become so universal and automatic that it no longer has much meaning; a misogynist is simply someone a feminist disagrees with but is incapable of formulating a cogent argument against.  So now we see a feminist stepping up the ad hominem attacks to the next level.  No longer is “misogynist” an effective attack – now one must impugn one’s adversary as a wife beater and rapist.

The Feminine Imperative

Despite her defense of Walker and her condemnation of Wasserman Schultz’s use of false accusations, Nance’s mistaken identification of the intended victims of this attack reveals the gynocentrism of this little controversy; the only real harm that can be imagined is harm to women.  Despite Scott Walker being the object of the attack, and despite this sort of attack being offensive to men in general, most commentators could only conceptualize the offense in terms of some very indirect harm to women.

The Feminine Imperative is the pressure on society to accommodate women’s mating goals: first by maximizing their mate choice; and secondly by securing provision and protection for women and their children.  The latter element of the Feminine Imperative is the Female Privilege to Care.  Whenever an offense can only be conceptualized in terms of harm to women, the Female Privilege to Care is manifest.

The False Accusation Culture

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law that provides preferential protections and programs for female victims of domestic violence.  As many recent articles have argued, VAWA has created a legal environment where devastating false accusations are trivial to make and entail little or no risk to the accuser.  In an essay entitled The Easiest Lie, David T. Pisarra states:

In our rush to avoid tragedies through a “zero tolerance policy,” claims of domestic violence have become a fast track process by which unscrupulous parties gain sole custody of the children based on a lie, a lie that is shockingly easy to tell.

In The Worst Thing A Woman Can Do In Divorce Proceedings – The Abuse Of Orders of Protection, Liz Mandarano says

“However, it is also an unfortunate truth that because they are incredibly easy to obtain, orders of protection are misused, often against men. “

And Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, is quoted:

“The facts have become irrelevant,” she wrote. “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply, lest anyone be blamed for an unfortunate result … In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

This is the culture out of which Wasserman Schultz’s accusations spring – a culture where women are empowered by the unequal protections of VAWA to make false accusations against men “for tactical advantage”, with no fear of consequence.  This considerable privilege and power is bestowed on women by the courts implementing the Female Privilege to Care in the legal system.

Since the personal is political for all feminist politicians, Wasserman Schultz simply employed her privilege to falsely accuse a man on the national political level.  Whether it worked or not remains to be seen – the immediate negative responses and the backpedaling, however minor, suggest it did not work as well as expected.  But as far as I can tell, she suffered no harm from it either.  The whole issue fell off the radar in a couple of days.  In that regard, the parallel between personal and the political holds – the false accuser suffers no consequence.

The White Knights

The story would not be complete without a few obtuse tradcons galumphing in, seeking to defend the honor of the fair maidens.  In his article Why Debbie Wasserman Schultz is ‘Fool of the Week, Eric Bolling competes for that title himself when he ends his piece with this summary:

DWS, you owe my sister, my wife, my mother and frankly, all women an apology. Domestic violence is a severe problem.. It’s NOT to be used for your hyperbolic, partisan hackery.

Once again we see that the tradcons are the unwitting accomplices to the feminists.  By accepting the gynocentric perspective where no offense is deemed significant unless it affronts the Female Privilege to Care, Bolling reinforces the gynocentric framework that underlies the unequal protections of VAWA and the family court system.  No matter how many times the false maidens feign distress, the tradcon chump will forget his principles and come running.

An Opportunity for Action

This little tempest in a teapot is already nearly forgotten, but it should not pass unprotested.  Those of us who oppose such behavior often spend hours condemning it in essays like this one, or hours spent on discussion threads.  But those protests rarely reach the ears that should be hearing them.

Here’s another idea – let’s make our objections heard.  Instead of just writing a comment in the discussion section, try this:  copy and past your comment into the feedback form on the Democratic National Committee website.  If you’re not from the US, just pretend you are.  If enough voices speak in dissent, it may give DWS and others of her ilk pause before making such accusations in the future.

As usual, keep the comments respectful, especially those submitted to the DNC.  Please avoid any personal attacks on Wasserman Schultz, especially those focusing on her sex, sexuality, looks, ethnicity, and religion.  And by all means, do not make threats of any sort.  I don’t have to remind you that DNC has allies in high places.  Allies who have shown no reluctance using the NSA, the IRS, and Homeland Security to do their dirty work.  I really don’t need this website shut down, my taxes audited, and jackbooted thugs kicking down my door.  So keep it classy, folks!

- Ciaran


SFC Ton’s Survival Series: The Basics, 101

Greetings Everyone,

This week, SFC Ton continues his series on Survivalism for the Sovereign Man by giving his take on some general things a Man needs to know and have, when the you-know-what hits the fan. This is Bug-Out 101, folks – from a real life soldier. Without further ado, here’s Ton!

On Miscellaneous Survivalist Topics

Folks love to make the simple complex. One thing you do in the SPecOps world is work very hard to make the complex simple. And really, this survivalist stuff is dirt simple. Mostly. Promise you folks. I am going to give my $.02 on a variety of topics people make way more complex then need be.

Ton loves guns so we’ll start there.

Continue reading

Shaharazad Ali Speaks On Red Pill Truths Decades Before The Fact

“A Nation can rise no higher than it’s Woman.”
-The Hon. Elijah Muhammad

I just got this link to a video lecture by writer Shaharazad Ali, who a few decades back came to prominence and controversy for her two main works, “The Blackman’s Guide To Understanding The Blackwoman” and her followup, “The Blackwoman’s Guide To Understanding The Blackman”. I bought both of her books when they first came out back then, and I consider them to be among the better books I have ever read, simply because Sister Ali told so much truth.

Today’s Manosphere readers will recognize quite a few themes Sister Ali talks about, even if said readers happen to be non-Black or even Women themselves of whatever color. They say that great works are those which have stood the test of time – Shaharazad Ali’s books have passed that test with flying colors in my view.

Take some time out to see the video for yourself, and feel free to leave your thoughts below.

And have a Happy Sunday!

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

Noticing Deniro Farrar’s “Notice”

“my new video notice is a song meant to uplift all of the single strong Independent mothers”
-Deniro Farrar, in a tweet dated Jul 24, 2014

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
-George Orwell

I was patrolling the Internet scanning the horizon for things to opine upon, when I stumbled onto what some have referred to as an “anthem” in the crusade against the latest First World Problem tempest-in-a-teapot, “street harassment” – a song/video by Charlotte, NC’s own Daunte Qushawan(!) Farrar, better known by his stage name (which is much better to spell and pronounce, I might add), “Deniro” Farrar.

The song, called “Notice” is Mr. Farrar’s ode to the Sista on the Block, who is ever the victim, dontcha know, of “street harassment”. Such rappers are not at all uncommon in urban Black life; they form a part of the constellation of Black America’s Nice Guy(TM) contingent and White Knight Corps, though we Negroes don’t refer to these gents as such; we refer to them as Conscious Brothas. Though considerably overlapping with Good Black Men(TM), they are in fact quite distinct as a group, perhaps the most standout feature about them being that they are “creatives” of varying stripe – rappers, “spoken word artists” (a cutesy way of saying “poets”), sometimes bloggers/writers, video/film/photographers, and the like. Conscious Brothas mark themselves out as vastly different from more straightahead Gangsta Rappers like say, a 50 Cent or a Cassidy, by not imbibing the truth supposed “misogyny” of the former’s lyrical stylings, and instead devoting themselves to extolling the virtues of the Sistahood, come what may. (Examples of this would include the likes of Common, Dwele, Raheem DeVaughn, Talib Kweli, etc., et al. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a fan of all of these artists, and have them all on my playlists, though I admit I’m not much of a “Dirty South” rap fan – too much of an Old School East Coaster for that. But I just had to stand up and tell the Truth – and shame the Devil.)

Of course, like the Nice Guy(TM) in White America, Conscious Brothas are every bit as ulterior in their motives, as the video you can see attests to. But I’ll make it clearer in my review and deconstruction of it and the accompanying lyrics.

And Now, Our Feature Presentation…

So, let’s begin with the music video for Mr. Farrar’s “Notice”, shall we? The video opens with Mr. Deniro shirtless and more tatted (read; thugged out) than a Dathomirian Sith Lord, eating a sandwich and perched atop an old Caddy in a driveway overgrown with grass and weeds, observing Sista Baby Mama heroically strapping in her two babies into the car from across the way. The opening lines go like this:

“Clocking in clocking out, another day another dollar
You can’t even pump your gas, without some niggas trying to holla

I just want you to know I noticed (4x)

You go to school And go to work. Cash your check then go home single parent all alone. God damn girl you strong

I just want you to know I noticed (4x)”

Those who study film and the like know and understand well, the primacy of importance such opening shots of a film make; they establish the tenor and tone of the presentation, and focuses the attention of the viewer in that regard. Clearly, Mr. Farrar’s intention is to focus our attention on the hood of Black American life – the under/lower working classes, NOT Prince George’s County. This is hugely important, because as it has been painfully admitted by even the SJW forces themselves, in handwringly angst-ridden fashion no less, “street harassment” is a “problem” that is undeniably wrapped up in Race and Class – poor Black Men. Which gives the aforementioned SJW contingent all kinds of cognitive dissonance agita, their pet causes clashing like the Titans of Greek myth. Gotta love it!

Mr. Deniro’s video, barely 60 seconds in, firmly disabuses the notion or idea that “street harassment” is a “problem” all Men are guilty of – it is an issue that has to do with poor Black Men – and which raises all kinds of really juicy questions the SJWs of the world run away from like roaches when the light comes on. What questions, you ask? Read on…

Baby Mamas Can’t Be Choosy

“It’s 5 in the morning, and you ain’t had no sleep
Cause your youngest baby teething, just 1 of your lil 3

Your baby dad is a statistic, another dead beat
Shit my daddy was the same, so my Moma raised me

But she still found a way, to overcome a break free
Working job after job, 1 or 2 or maybe 3

To put food on the table, making due with ends meet
So I know about that pain that you feeling, and it’s deep

And he beat you like he’s strong, but that really means he weak
Now your plotting for revenge, wanting to killem in his sleep

But shit we all humans, and ain’t no body perfect
No I anit making excuse but that nigga just ain’t worth it”

The above passage comes from the first verse of “Notice”, where Mr. Deniro lovingly describes the travails of the Baby Mama – something he and sadly, far too many Black Men in our time knows just a little too much about, having been a product of a Baby Mama himself – and he “salutes” the supposed “strength” of these ladies – kinda like what Ms. Fantasia did a few years back in her ridiculous spectacle of a song, “Baby Mama”.

Of course, nowhere in Mr. Farrar’s verse is there any mention whatsoever of the role said Baby Mama of his affections(!) – or indeed his own mama – had in their predicaments. No, nothing they did is their fault; it is solely the fault of the Men they chose to laydown with and get up with proverbial fleas.

Black America is rife with such twisted thinking and inculcation, a glorification of mothers no matter what – nor is it anything new. As YouTube personality Tommy Sotomayor makes clear, the rot runs very deep, to such an extent that even the late great Tupac Shakur is guilty as charged:

“When I was young me and my mama had beef
Seventeen years old kicked out on the streets
Though back at the time, I never thought I’d see her face
Ain’t a woman alive that could take my mama’s place
Suspended from school; and scared to go home, I was a fool
with the big boys, breakin all the rules
I shed tears with my baby sister
Over the years we was poorer than the other little kids
And even though we had different daddy’s, the same drama
When things went wrong we’d blame mama
I reminice on the stress I caused, it was hell
Huggin on my mama from a jail cell
And who’d think in elementary?
Heeey! I see the penitentiary, one day
And runnin from the police, that’s right
Mama catch me, put a whoopin to my backside
And even as a crack fiend, mama
You always was a black queen, mama
I finally understand
for a woman it ain’t easy tryin to raise a man
You always was committed
A poor single mother on welfare, tell me how ya did it
There’s no way I can pay you back
But the plan is to show you that I understand
You are appreciated”

As Mr. Sotomayor rightly points out, ONLY in Black America, is a Woman to be held in high esteem for making such horrendously harmful choices in life – having multiple babies out of wedlock with clearly disreputable Men, behaving badly in a multitude of ways, allowing more Men to run through them than Grand Central Station, and unabashedly chasing down Mr. Big in varying permutations – indeed, Black Women will actually get offended for suggesting that their actions account for their experiences(!). Black Women demand to be treated as “Ladies”, “Queens”, “Goddesses” and, this is my favorite one, “Dutchesses” – all while acting a fool, twerking up a storm, getting shotout by a bunch of ne’er do wells, and having babies by multiple Baby Daddies, and that’s for starters – but, they get to demand that a Man “step correct”.


Perhaps with all that “education” they’re getting, they would do well to study a bit about Cause and Effect; for every Action has an opposite and equal Reaction. When you make bad mating choices as a Woman, you cannot expect anything BUT consequences to flow therefrom – for years to come. Black Women who choose to become Baby Mamas to disreputable Men, have forfeit all demands claims toward Respectability – in fact, and this again is the deep irony being shown in “Notice”, the very Good Black Men(TM) they’ve been cajoling with White Feathers, are nowhere to be found in the bowels of Black American street life – they don’t reside, nor work, nor socialize there – and here, we see Assortative Mating rear its ugly head. By becoming Baby Mamas and engaging in other disreputable behaviors, said Black Women have indelibly stamped themselves as being utterly unfit for the Better Off Brothas of Black America – and rightly so. “Them Niggas tryin’ to holla” are said Sistas’ assortative mating equals – and water, always meets its own level.


Et Tu, Mr. Deniro?

Let’s go back to Mr. Farrar’s lyrics, shall we? Here’s the second and final verse from the song “Notice”:

“You threw on some yoga pants, that compliment your figure, just to run and grab some milk, you weren’t worried about no nigga

But they always try and holler, but never step correct
Making comments bout your ass, showing blatin disrespect

But you always keep it real, and put them niggas back in check
They break their necks whenever they see ya, damn near causing wrecks

And that’s when you’re in you’re scrubs, they ain’t even seen you when you dressed
Got them kids wit no stretch marks, damn girl you blessed

Making moves on you own, you ain’t worried you ain’t stressed
Plus you never hit the club, cause you know it’s full of mess

Trying to hold it in the road, and let GOD do the rest
Niggas throwing money at you, but you ain’t even impressed

You clocking in clocking out, another day another dollar
You can’t even pump your gas, without some niggas trying to holla

I just want you to know I noticed, you ain’t alone
So any time you wanna talk don’t hesitate just hit my phone”

If you go back and listen to Mr. Deniro’s seranade closely, you’ll notice, pardon the pun, him imploring the Baby Mama of his affections to “just hit my phone” in the event she “wanna talk” – and “anytime”, no less. Here, Mr. Deniro tells on himself, bigtime, and no doubt, the Sistas will lap it up like catnip – he’s engaging in what Evolutionary Psychology recognizes as Derogation of Competitors – a formidable mating tactic that both sexes employ, and here we see it in quite florid fashion on Mr. Deniro’s part. As I’ve said above, Conscious Brothas’ entire spiel is one of “see? I’m so much better than those knuckledragging cretins over there because I feel your pain“, and despite the utter banality of the enterprise, so many Sistas fall right into the trap. For this reason, I for one, cannot dispute success – and it is a successful mating tactic.

It’s just a blatantly dishonest one – which is hugely important for this discussion.


Because, the entire “premise” behind the Sistahood’s White Feather Campaign, is to cajole appeal to Black Men to “intervene” on their behalf against them dastardly Nigga Neanderthals (you know, the kinds said Sistas often breed with?) on the street “tryin’ to holla” – and to do so on noble, selfless grounds. Only, as Mr. Deniro himself clearly states, he very much has a personal, vested interest in the matter – he too is tryin’ to get in them yoga pants – he’s just going about it in a very different way. A way that the very same Sistas who complain about being “objectified” and the like, quite like.

“Who, Whom?”, indeed. 

Trust me when I say boys and girls, that you cannot make this stuff up.

So, yes, I agree with the Sista SJWs out there – Mr. Deniro Farrar’s “Notice” does indeed bring much needed context to the indoctrination discussion about “street harassment”…

…in spades.

Thanks, Deniro! Keep up the great work.

More – much, much more – your correspondent has to say about these matters. Stay tuned…

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

The Consequences Of Black Female Mate Selection Criteria (Guest Post By Rom Wills)

(Editor’s Note): We here at J4G are very pleased to welcome guest contributor Mr. Rom Wills to the forum! I got wind of Mr. Wills by way of a letter from one of our readers back in the Spring of this year; prior to that, I didn’t know Mr. Wills existed.

Black male writers of any stripe are relatively rare, and this is especially true in the Manosphere, so whenever I get wind of one out there putting in work I’m quick to investigate. And put in work Mr. Wills has done – checkout his very insightful blog, as well as his books over at Amazon.

Continue reading

1,400 Girls Are Raped in Rotherham, and Feminists Don’t Care

This week news broke of widespread child sexual exploitation in the northern English town of Rotherham.  An independent inquiry into the abuse, led by Professor Alexis Jay, found that over 1,400 children, mostly white girls, had been repeatedly victimized.  Professor Jay wrote: “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.”  The abuse had been going on for 16 years, and while it was widely known to the police, child welfare officials, and council leaders, they all chose to look the other way.  To date, only five men have been convicted for these crimes.  Disturbingly, this appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.  Reports claim that similar gangs operate in many other towns and cities in England, in many other European countries, and even in Australia.

You might expect this would be a feminist field day.  After all, rape is their favorite and most important issue, the original sin of the male sex, and the primary source of their victim power.  So, tipped off by an article by Ian Tuttle in the National Review, I took a look to see what they had to say.  And what I found was … nothing.  Complete and total silence.

As of this writing, Google can find no mention of Rotherham (except for one or two discussion comments) at any of the feminist websites I examined: Feministing, Feministe, Bitch Magazine, Ms. Magazine, Bust, Crunk Feminist Collective, Jezebel, Broadsheet, and The XX Factor.  Progressive news sites including MSNBC, Daily Kos, Think Progress, and Truthout were also completely silent on this topic.

Continue reading

Epistle To Evan Marc Katz

“We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock, landed on us!”
-Malcolm X

Hello Evan,
OK, now that I’ve had a bit of time to sitdown and reflect on our exchange over the past few weeks, I feel I’m in a better place to share my thoughts. First, again, I want to thank you for taking the time out; I admit that I’m a persistent guy who can’t take “no” for an answer – but if I simply did what guys like you do, I’d never get anywhere or have anything in this world. For mere mortals like us, persistence pays.

The first thing I want to say is that I am deeply offended by your handling of me and more importantly, my site. J4G has gone out of its way to take your concerns seriously, addressing them numerous times. Moreover, I really do not appreciate the way in which you have repeatedly referred to the fellas over there in the most derisive terms – terms that are completely unfair and counterproductive. Indeed, many of the very same things you say about us, you claim to have been said about you(!). I can think of no bigger case study of Projection.

Continue reading

SFC Ton’s Survival Series: The Long Guns

Greetings Everyone,

As promised, SFC Ton is back with his ongoing Survivalism series. This week, Sarge gives his insights on what he refers to as the Long Gun – rifles, shotguns and so forth. To catch his post on Pistols/Handguns, click here. Alright, without further ado, here’s SFC Ton!

On Long Guns

 Alright, by now you have your pocket pistol and you are looking for the next step up. Pistols aren’t particularly lethal and you want a better option for you home. Well now, we have some options.

Before you get into long guns, you might want to check into that concealable body armor I mentioned. It will save your life.  Or maybe think about adding a crimson trace to your pistol. That’s a laser aiming do-hickie. They work. Improved accuracy can save your life, but they also make target acquisition faster and speed is deadly.

Continue reading

How the Feminine Imperative Backfires

The feminine imperative acts to create a societal and legal environment that maximizes female choice while constraining male choice. In theory, one would expect this to benefit women by empowering them. However, such an expectation rests on the assumption that the sexes are at cross-purposes in a zero-sum game. In fact, by constraining male choice the feminine imperative has caused many men to stop putting effort into dating/sex/relationships, or at the very least become much more picky. This is to the detriment of both sexes. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon, but I wish to highlight two that I have observed recently.

Fat-acceptance and inner beauty

Liberal society has pushed to redefine fat plus-size women as being beautiful. At the same time, traditional churchians have pushed men to not care about looks and not be judgemental about looks. As a result, men find it difficult to voice their preference for fit women, which actually has negative effects on women. In a comment on Donal Graeme’s blog, Elspeth argued that men should accept somewhat overweight women and push them to lose weight later:

Of course slightly overweight women can be strongly encouraged to get fit. I was not ovetweight when I started dating my husband. Not even close. But I had recently cut off a lot of my hair and when he said, “I want you to grow it back, I did.” I did a lot of things simply on his expression of what he liked. So I don’t know that a girl carrying an extra 20 should be a dealbreaker.

However, I pointed out that with modern pressures on men, this is easier said than done.

How many men do you think would be comfortable telling their SO to grow her hair out or lose weight. And how men of those men do you think would actually be able to get their SO to change for them? Most men are NOT alphas.

This point was backed up by Novaseeker:

Under the guidelines of a lot of states, that kind of thing is considered to be domestic violence because it is “controlling”. And even aside from that, the general culture does not support that kind of thing at all, period. A woman will get all kinds of pressure from her GFs, mother, etc., to NOT agree to change to please the husband’s eyes.

This is one example of how the pressures placed on men by society and the law (acting on behalf of the feminine imperative) will backfire against women. Fat-acceptance and the de-emphasizing of physical attractiveness has paradoxically made somewhat overweight women much less appealing mate choices, as men cannot reasonably expect them to lose weight down the road. Affirmative consent policies Thanks to anti “rape-culture” activists and sexual assault hysteria, the DOJ under Obama has pushed universities to adopt “yes means yes” affirmative consent policies that redefine the majority of sex as rape. Recently, the California legislature passed legislation codifying this definition into campus policy; the bill is currently back in the Senate awaiting final amendments. While this bill empowers women at colleges by giving them the ability to cry rape after having (legally) consensual sex, it has caused men to become even more cautious in their attempts to court women. Here are several anecdotes from students interviewed by Bloomberg regarding affirmative-consent policies and campus environments in general:

As former social chair of the Sigma Chi fraternity at Harvard University, Malik Gill wants to appear especially welcoming to girls who come to the house for parties.
Yet, Gill, who starts his junior year in a few weeks, says he won’t be offering a female classmate a beer.
“I don’t want to look like a predator,” the 20-year-old economics major said. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”

For many young men, it’s an added dimension in a campus scene that already appears daunting, said William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist.
Pollack said a patient recently told him about making out with a girl at a party. Things were going fine, the student said, when suddenly a vision of his school’s disciplinary board flew into his head.
“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” Pollack said, recounting the student’s comments. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”

Data from David Lisak, a sociologist who consults to the military and universities on the issue, suggest that the vast majority of campus sexual assaults are the work of a small group — less than 5 percent — of college men. No one wants to be mistaken for one of these serial offenders. “I don’t think it’s about me,” said Gill, the Harvard student. “I feel like I’m pretty good guy. But if I’m talking to a girl and want to gauge her interest, I’m more cautious than I used to be. I don’t want to cross the line.”

The specter of an assault accusation is often in the back of male students’ minds, Gill said. His fraternity owns a handsome Victorian house outside brick-paved Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most brothers live on campus, rather than in the house, which is mainly used for parties. It can become a concern even in innocuous situations, such as when a female friend told him she was interested in one of his pals. “He was a pretty outgoing guy and did well with the ladies,” Gill recalled. “It’s kind of like the nature of college hooking up — taking numbers — and it doesn’t always pan out but hopefully it does once in a while.” Gill passed the contact information along. Still, his friend hesitated to follow up.“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”

Often considered a social enhancer by students, alcohol now can cast a shadow over sex when there’s any suggestion that it may have dimmed a woman’s judgment. Oscar Sandoval, a senior at Stanford University, near Palo Alto, California, got a text message late one spring evening from a female friend. Did he feel like hanging out? When his friend arrived from a party she was drunk, he said. Her flirting and touching made Sandoval uncomfortable. Something about the situation reminded him of educational sessions he’d had in prior years where he’d learned about sexual consent. Sandoval walked his friend back to her dorm.

While sexual assault is undoubtedly a real problem, heightened attention in the media has created a “witch-hunt” environment, said Pollack, the Harvard Medical School psychologist. “Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack said in a telephone interview. Rather than discouraging predators, “we’re starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”

I think the aboves quotes speak for themselves, so I’ll just let them sink in without commentary.