405 comments on “Predatory Sex Therapists In Silicon Valley

  1. You know, you have an excellent point about the Reserves as a model for understanding what adults do to boys starting in adolescence when they notice that girls don’t find these boys sexually attractive in their given state, with propaganda about how these boys need to “develop” themselves and wait. We need to call bullshit on this negligent and arguably abusive form of child rearing, because sexual experience is its own training, and nothing can substitute for it.

    • Yes, sexual experience is its own training, but I think it goes one step farther. All the necessary experience can’t just be gained from going to hookers. A big part of this is “social proof” so lots of boys are having a double disservice done to them.

        • Yeah, I don’t understand the referrals to prostitutes, either. Though prostitutes demonstrate that women can perform sexually with just about any guy without this nonsense about feeling “chemistry” with him first.

          Oh, speaking of that, a quarter of Japanese men in their 30’s have stayed in their country’s Reserves:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11662500/Rise-of-Japans-middle-aged-virgins-a-quarter-of-over-30s-have-never-had-sex.html

          If prostitutes really solve anything, look at Japan’s location and ask why don’t these men fly to the Philippines or Thailand for sexual experience. Japanese men live closer to these countries than the Western sex tourists who visit them, and they have the disposable income and the freedom to go there.

        • That’s because a service…hopefully a very nice and satisfying service…was agreed upon and paid for. To say going to a sex worker helps men attract women for relationships is analogous to saying if you want to learn to paint go have your portrait done. While it’s true most (probably 97+% of) women view sex as transactional, they are far more subtle about it than sex workers. Wealthy men are right to not immediately let on that they are financially well-off…There’s no shame in wanting a relationship based on mutual physical/mental attraction instead of a tradeoff of sex for monetary security. That these sex therapists are stating otherwise seems to prove they either are ignorant of the world at large or worse, don’t actually care about their clients.

      • While I consider the transfer of wealth from men to womyn disgusting (and in my case it’d be poverty to slightly less poverty)–I would much rather be seen as some “loser” who couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a hand full of $50’s and regularly bang smoking hot hookers ala Advocatus Diaboli than be too broke to afford such a fun option–quite frankly that makes the feminists and the silicon valley guys far more privileged than myself…

      • BTW, Black Pill. Have you seen the film “The Sessions,” starring Helen Hunt and John Hawkes?

        • BTW, Black Pill. Have you seen the film “The Sessions,” starring Helen Hunt and John Hawkes?

          Yes, I have. I thought it suffered from a nicer version of the same problem The 40 Year Old Virgin movie did. The movie had an implicit message of that men who lack sexual relationships only do so due to major disability. That’s wrong.

    • There’s nothing wrong with giving kids advice for the future, the problem is adults tell boys crap like they should take up interesting hobbies to some day get dates, when (if they were being honest) they would tell them to learn to act like a douchebag, spend all their money on tattoos, and take a couple hours a day styling their hair.

      • I have the impression that people who study human sexuality for a living show a real lack of curiosity about the sexual exclusion trend and the growing population of men in the Reserves, like the Japanese situation in the article I linked above. I have four college textbooks of the Human Sexuality 101 sort, all published in the last ten years or so, and not a single one of them has a section on involuntary celibacy or adult male virgins. But if you want to read up on gays, transgender freaks, lesbians, sadomasochists, etc., well, you can find plenty of information on those sexually broken people in college textbooks.

        For one thing, I see a need for studies about how signs of girls’ early attraction to boys affects the boys’ relationships with their parents. If you have an adolescent boy and he attracts girlfriends early on and becomes sexually active in his teens, you have to find that reassuring: Hey, my boy will turn out just fine, at least in this area.

        But if you have a son and you can see that girls find him sexually yucky, that just has to damage how you feel about him if you think you have spawned a loser.

        I don’t know of any studies which have looked into this, and I suspect I won’t find any because of the big lie in our society that almost all of the boys pair up with girls organically by leaving it to the haphazard. Well, we can see where this benign neglect has gotten us.

        • Very good post. I think the situation with your textbooks can be explained by feminism’s cotrol of education: feminists are intrigued by gay men, often experiment with lesbians and other kinds of sexuality like sado or bondage, and welcome transgender people who say their experience shows just how good men have it. But involuntary ceibates? Feminists hate, hate, hate men like that. Thus, their invisibility in textbooks. (I disagree that homosexuals are broken people though)

          Now that you mention it, it would be interesting to survey parents about what they think of their son’s romantic life, or lack of it. If most parents are as self-centered as mine are, I could see them taking it as a slam against their parenting if their son isn’t successful.as something, leading to unconscious resentment of the son.

          There was probably a time when most boys would pair up, but that was when society makes that happen. Today we live in interpersonal anarchy, where a few boys clean up and many, many others are out of luck.

        • Sex researchers in Japan have had to pay attention to mass sexual exclusion, male virginity and involuntary celibacy because these trends have reached a crisis point leading to the coming demographic implosion of Japan.

          We may have to get to that point in the U.S. before our sexologists grudgingly admit that we might have a major social problem.

      • “There’s nothing wrong with giving kids advice for the future, the problem is adults tell boys crap like they should take up interesting hobbies to some day get dates, when (if they were being honest) they would tell them to learn to act like a douchebag, spend all their money on tattoos, and take a couple hours a day styling their hair.”

        Because college educated, professional women of class go for these types?

    • It most definetely fits the definition of abuse.

      Because it is gaslighting, and gaslighting is a vicious form of mental abuse.

      • You really have to wonder why parents don’t help their sons get sexual experience when they can see that the boys can’t solve this problem on their own.

        • I suspect that most parents are too stupid for that. The best thing they can do is avoiding to further damage their male offspring.

        • The main problem is that parents are too stupid to even realize that this is a problem. Something I have noticed is that a lot of dating advice is really relationship advice. It assumes that getting dates/getting laid/getting relationships with women is not a problem. Parents in particular are very guilty of this.

          Even if parents were to realize this was a problem, there’s no viable way to fix this. Hookers are not an answer. Even if hookers could be used to educate about sex itself, that wouldn’t educate about how to get sex from non-hooker women. Some hookers have the option for a girlfriend experience, but that doesn’t help because the girlfriend experience is an experience where the guy would already have a girlfriend. Plus, that would be prohibitively expensive for most. The problem is the first step, and everything that could help is designed to help with step two or later.

        • in some cultures father or uncles will take their son/nephew to a prostitute. Of course in those cultures, the “dating culture” would be far different…

          In some cases, the parents might not understand the younger generation but in more cases, they’d have to take a look at what girls are actually attracted to and tell their sons to develop those traits…

        • Stoner,

          Isn’t that a big part of the issue, though? That parents of today’s 30-something year old men *don’t* understand the way dating/relationships have changed since their time?

        • well, MY parents don’t understand relationshits, just how to be mutually combatative….

          As said above, I’d rather have access to hot hookers than make myself more appealing to womyn…..

        • I can appreciate that, Stoner.
          Many women just aren’t worth it anymore. If they don’t want money, they want an Adonis-lookalike or someone who oozes charisma/confidence and can put up with their shit tests. MGTOW is far healthier, as you know…Now more men just need to overcome the social stigma of virginity and/or relationship “status”. Living for yourself is so much more important than living as the mass media dictates you should.

        • And yeah…parents aren’t always good role models themselves. My mom’s been married twice – divorced twice. Dad’s on his 4th marriage currently. Some of my friends actually do have viable
          marriages, at least so far, but it still doesn’t seem worth it, unfortunately. Being surrounded by conflict and the results of failed marriages throughout one’s childhood hardly gives a good foundation.

        • “You really have to wonder why parents don’t help their sons get sexual experience when they can see that the boys can’t solve this problem on their own.”

          – Many parents are religious and helping their kids get sexuql experience before marriage goes against their morals.

          Even ones that are not religious – they may find it weird, uncomfortable, somehow not right. I remember as a teen and a young man I was disgusted by an hint of sex talk coming from either of my parents and never told them anything about my experiences or lack thereof. Even now I find sex talk around my parents uncomfortable.

        • Religious or not, most parents want grandchildren. If you pinned your hopes for grandchildren on a son who feels attracted to girls but he simply can’t close the deal with any of them at the critical age for acquiring sexual experience, then you have an incentive to try to help him cross that threshold instead of leaving his fate to the haphazard.

      • Actually parents lived in a different generation. I think many of you are forgetting that part. For centuries parents were in fact able to give good dating advice because the dating script was in fact stable for centuries at a time.

        With feminism, the script gets radically more insane ever 20-30 years (each next generation). A father can’t even imagine what his son has to deal with.

        Women get much bitchier, more hypergamous, less approachable, play more games and have more contradictory demands each generation (starting from 3 generations ago).

        The fact that virginity rates are rising, the fact that average age of marriage is rising, the fact that herbivores are rising everywhere – atests to this.

        When a dad tells a son, mmm just be nice, buy her flowers and show character… he’s not lying… the divide between the reserves and the womanizers was not that huge in his time.

        Small examples:
        – Only a generation back creep shaming was almost unheard of. Women were taught to respect a man even if they didn’t find him attractive.

        – Now they’re taught to interpret that feeling as “he must be an evil person to humiliate” and “forcing a polite response to the not-popular guy is a form of opression, liberate yourself by letting yourself humiliate him for daring not to be the popular/hot guy”

        – Women were a lot more willing to play the flirting part by showing submissive signs of interest and give more guys a chance… whereas now its gone to a much higher extreme, and interest is only shown explicitly to the top 1% of guys.

        – So when a dad tells his son “go out and just ask some girls out, girls are nice”… he’s not lying, back in his time it only meant making 20 new female friends… it didn’t mean 20 humiliating rejections.

        He doesn’t know that his son has witnessed girls blowing thugs in bathrooms, while claiming to want a “good man”. He hasn’t witnessed doublespeak and gaslighting of epic proportions.

        • Excellent points. The dating world has changed more since my parents were married than the economic world, or the computing world, or the political world.

  2. It didn’t occur to me that these tech guys escaped the Reserves but are confused by society’s messages and get lured back in by the so-called therapists. But the dots line up and the pieces fit.

    The therapists can’t deliver. Of course, the client must do the change, but the therapists can’t guide them in the right direction. If they did, they wouldn’t even take the business for more than one session to tell the guy he got away from wasting time with women.

  3. This relates to another thing I find wrong-headed. Atheists argue that religion sexually represses us, and if we just abandon it, we will experience sexual fulfillment. Then they usually give some example about a girl who grew up in a christian environment with abstinence and purity indoctrination, who discovers the wonders of sex when she renounces all that.

    Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, likes posting these kinds of stories. And I have tried to call bullshit on that as well. Women hold the natural gatekeeping position regardless of what their elders taught them about sex, so if they want to become sluts when they grow up, they can readily do so.

    This just doesn’t necessarily work for young christian men who grow up in the same kinds of churches. The sexually yucky christian guy who renounces his sex-negative indoctrination becomes a sexually yucky atheist guy, like those incel neckbeards who show up at skeptic and atheist conferences and ask atheist women out for coffee, only to cause huge internet scandals.

    Consider the stories about Silicon Valley and Japan, for example. Silicon Valley doesn’t have a reputation as a christian place, so you can’t blame that religion for all the men in the Reserves there. And christianity never got much of a hold in Japan to begin with. Japan’s native religions even promote a generally positive view of sex, so where does religion come into play for all those Japanese men with secular lives who have had to live like sexually abstinent monks, but against their wishes?

    • Advancedatheist, I agree with you. One thing that churches (and other religious communities) used to do was help get young men and young women together and pair off. This wasn’t done by giving young men dating advice or attacking them for not being married. Instead things like church socials and church dances were done regularly to facilitate young men and women pairing off. While this did not lead to high numbers of sex partners since churches only wanted people to have one sex partner through their lives (a.k.a. marriage at an early age), it is safe to say that it led to more sex for 80% of the male population than they get now.

      All of the tradcons who blather on about how “traditional” they are never use any traditional methods for actually getting young men and young women married early.

  4. As we know attacking the scientific method is common to purveyors of dating advice.

    Why is this, and how do they do so? I’ve not yet heard of this concept, and it’s very disheartening to hear that the best method for understanding our world is shunned or reviled by those who’s clients make frequent use of it.

    • I forgot to include a link that might help explain that. I updated the post.

      Why is this, and how do they do so?

      The reason why is that the dating advice they peddle doesn’t work. Using the scientific method exposes this fact. Of course, their real goal isn’t to help men meet women or establish relationships with women. Their real goal is political indoctrination which would be blocked by using the scientific method. This is a problem the soft sciences have to varying degrees (particularly in universities).

      How they do it is coming up with excuses about why the scientific method won’t work. For example, the sex therapists say that you can’t use data because this involves “one on one”. Sure one woman may be a unicorn, but you can certainly detect common patterns when analyzing experiences with many women, particularly if those patterns are consistent across many men.

      When you get to the manuresphere, they have attacked the scientific method more directly. Hawaiian Fat Blob, for example, says things should be analyzed not on evidence but on their verisimilitude, in others words how they feel it matches up with “truth”. And that brings up another problem. Dating advice purveyors create their dating advice based on what they feel should be true, not on the facts of objective reality. (This is why fact and truth are different like was said in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.)

      Dating advice purveyors are like creationists, and the scientific method gets in the way of that just like with creationism.

  5. “Hirschman says some of her clients will downplay or hide the money they make out of fear that it’s the primary reason a woman will be interested in them. “I had one client I was just talking to the other day, he said, ‘I don’t know if I want to bring women to my house right away because it’s a big, huge house and suddenly they’re wanting to nest after the second date and they haven’t even gotten to know me yet!’”

    McGrath believes that while there may be women out there on the prowl for a Google billionaire, these men’s fears largely come from deep-seated personal insecurity. “Part of that is, ‘A woman couldn’t be interested in me for me,’” she says. “That is a common thread for many men who are in the tech industry. They have never been seen as ‘the boyfriend’ or felt attractive or sexy. They felt dorky or like outsiders.””

    This is pure gaslighting.

    I suffer from being unemployed and having low social economic status. This has damaged my access to women. To deny that women are not interested in money and than act like men noticing this are to blame for a lack of female interest is abusive.

    “Another common issue that these therapists encounter with tech clients is they treat sex like a line of broken code in need of debugging, or a mathematical equation. “That’s the crux of trying to interact with a human, though: there isn’t a formula,” says McGrath. “Human connection is not formulaic. Does it have statistics, can you look at data, can you research it and quantify it? Sure. But in one-to-one, it is always variable. That’s where those things fai”

    More gaslighting, women act up all the time, change the rules, expect men to read their minds etc….

    Black pill I hope you do more posts calling these fake therapist scum out regularly, these women are parasites and disgusting whores of the lowest order.

  6. One of the things I always heard bantered to young men, who are not sexually attractive to women, is the following:

    “If you spend your youth gaining money, status, and power, you will have the upper hand over women when you reach middle age.”

    I always thought that was terrible advice. A man will either end up being with a middle-age woman who rode the cock carousel when she was young, or will end up with a young woman who is a gold-digger. It is done as a way to try and lure men away from MGTOW, thereby keeping them within the grasp of the feminine imperative.

    • I always thought that was terrible advice. A man will either end up being with a middle-age woman who rode the cock carousel when she was young, or will end up with a young woman who is a gold-digger.

      And usually those men end up with the former.

      • No, BP. They end up with non-promiscuous women who had “relationship sex”, that is consensual sex with their committed partners at the time. Likewise the men who spent their youth gaining money, status and power, as Kevin put it.

        They would also have had relationship sex along the way before they met their brides to be. Again, the vast majority of 30 year old American men are not virgins at marriage.

        Americans have relationship sex. That’s what we do. Its normal. Its good. Its right, ethical and nothing to shy away from. Serial monogamy WORKS.

        • non-promiscuous women who had “relationship sex”, that is consensual sex with their committed partners at the time

          As I just said, “relationship sex” is no guarantee of non-promiscuity. A relationship is not some form of magic that changes anything.

          Are you really going to tell me that a woman who has had sex with 30 guys is not promiscuous, if she can claim she was in a relationship with them at the time? Really?

          Serial monogamy WORKS.

          You call a 50% divorce rate, working? You sound like Susan Walsh.

        • “Serial monogamy WORKS.”

          BP: “You call a 50% divorce rate, working? You sound like Susan Walsh.”

          It worked for her and Mr. Walsh. They’ve been married for 30 years now and neither were virgins when they wed. In fact, to hear her tell it, they both had a slew of “relationships” before they met.

          Besides, her demographic has the lowest divorce rate in the US. They’re doing something right.

        • “Even if that was true, what about all the people who it didn’t work for.”

          – What people? The university degreed, upper middle class, professional demographic is the one with the lowest divorce rate in the USA. Most of them were not virgins when they married so that implies serial monogamy.

          “Also, you still haven’t provided evidence for your claim that monks are sexually abusing people. Thus, everything you say is suspect.”

          – Seriously? The news was rife with the scandals of Catholic clergy just a few years back. There’s youtube videos exposing what goes on in Buddhist monastaries in Asia (and the west) and then you have then you have this

          http://www.harekrsna.org/gurupoison/support/turley.htm

          The internet, newspapers, TV news have all been stocked chock full of this info for decades.

          I never claimed “all” were doing it. That’s what YOU claim I claimed. I simply say that ancient Jews and later Muslims forbade celibacy and made marriage a sacred pact with God and part of their reasoning was that sexual repression can result in perversions and “sin”.

          Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, there’s no denying that its part of their doctrines. Don’t believe me? Go to youtube and watch some lectures by rabbis and imams speaking on the subect.

        • I have to say I’m impressed. You kept to single name for a very long time. You even managed to repress your obsession with all things Indian for a time, but it still showed. You’re banned again Plain Jane/Butter Naan/Polyamorous Desi/A hundred other names I can’t remember.

    • Women don’t have to have any of their ridiculous romantic fantasies met to fulfill their biological function. I liked the scene in Terminator 3 where the Terminator tells Claire Danes’s character to drop her expectations about finding Mr. Right because her only value after the robot uprising will come from her ability to bear John Connor’s children, regardless of what she feels about him.

  7. I can see a plausible young adult dystopian novel where the feminist state does away with the Reserves by rounding up all the boys when they turn 18, and having committees of teenage girls evaluate them for bangability. The young men who don’t make the cut face execution.

    • That is a great idea. Or make it a society where a man who is accused of rape is automatically executed. Of course, women would never accuse attractive men, just the ones they want to get rid of.

  8. Anthony Dream Johnson is currently charging $25,000 (yes you read right – TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) for a “lifetime membership” to the 21 Convention. That’s a 50% discount mind you from the “original price”.

    http://www.the21convention.com/lifetime/

    So Black Pill, if the sex therapists are doing it wrong and the PUAs are doing it wrong, then what is the right way to get these incel techies into the sexual relationships they seek?

    • ADJ also promotes Ayn Rand cultism, so he has an ideology to sell as part of his PUA lifestyle training package.

      • ADJ has plans to enter politics in the future. He’s coining something called “declarationism” and I guess plans to run on that platform. Funny how all these small gov or no gov types all want to …… enter government.

        • So does Declarationism offer to do anything to improve the lives of the men pushed into the Reserves? If ADJ promotes a libertarian version of feminism, I don’t see how his ideology would make life better for the majority of men in the ways we really care about.

          Now, if you had a guy with a serious proposal to roll back women’s sexual freedom and restore organic sex roles, I could see supporting that.

        • ADJ even got married last year, legally, after all his talk about having nothing to do with government. Instead of just having a non-gov commitment ceremony in his backyard with his family and the bride’s family, they all flew to Las Vegas to get a quick marriage license and government stamped union. Then in his “vows” (its on youtube) he rants about relationships free of government stamp and how he’s doing something new and different. Then he gets on his blog and tells his readers how he hopes he can influence them and future generations to follow in his footsteps and “forge new ground” into non-governmental relationship territory. What?

          And he didn’t even know social security numbers are optional.

          The guys a mainstreamer, despite him thinking he’s the first person to go to Vegas to get a quick, legal, government stamped marriage license. He is however the first idiot to claim such is “free of government” and “forging new ground”. LOL!

        • I wonder how ADJ will feel about marriage when Marilee decides to cash out in a divorce based on the laws of the state of Florida or wherever the hell they happen to live.

    • then what is the right way to get these incel techies into the sexual relationships they seek?

      That’s the wrong question. The techies should thank God, fate, the universe, whatever, that they aren’t tied down to women.

      • Well one can still have sexual relationships without getting tied down. These men want women, each of them in a different way, whether marriage, friends with benefits, short term, long term, polyamorous, monogamous, whatever. Otherwise they wouldn’t be seeking help, would they?

        They don’t want to be celibate. So what would you suggest for these men?

        • OK that’s fine, for men who want to have sex with only hookers, but that’s not most men and you know it. So then what?

        • They need to realize that there’s a fundamental problem in what they’re looking for. They need to ask themselves, why do they want used up sluts? It’s not like they have options other than used up sluts (in most cases). If you asked them, they would say that they don’t want a used up slut. So why are they going after them? They need to realize what’s going on right in front of them before they can do anything realistic.

        • A lot of those Silicon Valley guys grew up reading Robert Heinlein’s dubious science fiction novels, where Heinlein propagandizes the idea that men in advanced futuristic societies live in polyamorous relationships. Perhaps Heinlein managed to pull off some wife-swapping in his personal life, but his novels give no indication that this system simply wouldn’t work for most guys.

          And science fiction likes to portray “the future” as a sexy place in general, probably because nerds on the low end of the sex appeal scale create most of these media:

          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreeLoveFuture

          By contrast I don’t know of any science fiction novel which shows a male character who faces thorough sexual rejection. Bernard Marx in “Brave New World” has some problems attracting women because of his atavistic personality and the fact that he didn’t grow up as tall as he should have as an Alpha; but he did get to bang Lenina Crowne and other women in the novel.

        • Here’s what Roosh says about Silicon Valley techies in his Neomasculinity Manifesto;

          “One obvious example of a heavy technological cost is the smartphone, a handheld computer and communication device that was rapidly adopted by most individuals in the Western world starting in 2007 when the first generation Apple iPhone was released. Heralded by most as an amazing invention that will bring forth informational bliss, it’s clear that the smartphone has damaged gender relations by making women less capable of love and more capable of resistance-free hypergamy, cheating, and attention whoring.

          Not a single technologist stopped to think about how the smartphone would affect humans, and so now we are left with the wreckage it has created. While it’s a great tool for business and playing rudimentary games, humanity would suffer only minor effects if they were suddenly banned overnight.

          With every technological benefit, there is also a cost, and we must carefully examine such costs before the widespread encouragement and adoption of any shiny new gadget that is forced upon us by corporate marketers or the utopists in Silicon Valley.”

        • Women were better in 2006? Really? That’s bullshit. The problems with women predate 2006 easily. Even though they didn’t use the same terminology, I remember all the same things being talked about with respect to women’s behavior back in the late 90s on the internet. And you can find more much earlier than that.

          One must ask why Roosh is trying to blame women’s behavior on the smartphone. That’s probably because it didn’t deliver sex for him. Neomasculinity is all about gay butt sex and being a mangina.

        • “They need to realize that there’s a fundamental problem in what they’re looking for. They need to ask themselves, why do they want used up sluts? It’s not like they have options other than used up sluts (in most cases). If you asked them, they would say that they don’t want a used up slut. So why are they going after them? ”

          I don’t think they are. Statistics show that the vast majority of Americans are not highly promiscuous, though exported American TV, movies and porn gives the rest of the world the impression that they are.

        • Statistics show that the vast majority of Americans are not highly promiscuous

          In relative terms, women are highly promiscuous compared to the guys we’re talking about even if they’re not highly promiscuous in absolute terms. That is what matters.

        • OK Alek, I read the link you posted for me. This one https://matingselfishness.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/whats-an-mgtow-to-do-proposal/

          It doesn’t give any answers to guys who are clueless with women. Who don’t know how to even break the ice to get to the point of “being physical without rewarding female laziness”. That’s a very advanced stage. These Silicon Valley sex therapists are trying to get these guys to be comfortable enough around women to make initial contact. They even employ physical therapy like touching, which I think is good and which harkens somewhat back to America’s experiments with sex surrogacy back in the 70s, which was unfortunately banned.

          Another factor to consider is that a lot of SV techies are from other countries, much more conservative cultures where marriages are often arranged and dating is a foreign concept. They also have culture shock issues to overcome.

        • It doesn’t give any answers to guys who are clueless with women.

          The problem is that the answer to your question requires that these guys to be the victim of a moral hazard. Any attempt to put these guys around women just puts them in the sights of predatory women who will destroy these guys’ lives once they are done with them. There’s no getting around this.

        • Black Pill, I don’t think I can agree with you on this. SV techies are firmly placed in the American upper middle class. That class has low divorce rates and its hallmark is assortive mating. Male geeks marry female geeks. A successful IT guy will often marry a successful IT girl or doctor or similar upper middle class professional woman who spent her college years studying rather than partying.

          Its low risk all the way around.

        • Male geeks marry female geeks.

          No that doesn’t happen, at least for most male geeks. There are way more male geeks than female geeks. In Silicon Valley, the city of San Jose has the nickname, Man Jose, because there’s so few single women due to the lack of female geeks.

        • It doesn’t give any answers to guys who are clueless with women. Who don’t know how to even break the ice to get to the point of “being physical without rewarding female laziness”. That’s a very advanced stage.

          Have covered that too in a flirting guide we once published, can’t be arsed to track it down. But basically, its pretty simple, no magic required.

          I’ve personally devirginized a lot of guys in real life through giving them a systematic method to do so. There’s no woo-woo bs about getting in tune with anything.

          It’s just A) “learn social skils” and B) “make moves”… that’s it.

          The first one (A) is gradual desentization, where step one is go into a social venue and just by a tree. Step two, hover around some people… step three, start smiling more… step four, initiate a conversation with the most friendly approachable person… step five… ask a question of a girl, and run away… step six, ask a question then a follow up question… etc etc

          The second one (B) is also gradual desentization as well… First step of the progressive ladder is “simply hold a girl’s hand 1 second longer than comfortable when introducing yourself”, next step would be “hold eye contact 3 seconds more than is comfortable” step three would be “reduce physical distance by one inch, and stay there even if it feels uncomfortable” etc etc etc.

          With C being “experience”… With experience you learn when to make what move and when to wait etc…

          Anything outside of A or B is either “unnecessary overcomplication” or an outright scam.

        • Anything outside of A or B is either “unnecessary overcomplication” or an outright scam.

          True except for the fact that the guys we are talking about have significant experience gaps compared to the women they would be flirting with/dating/etc. There’s no real way to address that since any attempt to do so would make them a target for used up sluts looking for a chump to rob.

        • No that doesn’t happen, at least for most male geeks. There are way more male geeks than female geeks. In Silicon Valley, the city of San Jose has the nickname, Man Jose, because there’s so few single women due to the lack of female geeks.

          Exactly, and consider this. A portion of female geeks are actually tomboy feminists who actually rebel by riding the carousel and writing about it on tumblr as liberation. In fact the entire geek-bashing movement where nice guys are ridiculed as being spineless losers IS LEAD BY FEMALE GEEKS.

          Another portion of geek girls (if cute) manage to date hot social guys, despite being a female geek. A geek girl if she has a hot body can date a jock.

          It doesn’t work the other way round. A male geek will not be dated by a pretty popular girl.

          So not only are there less female geeks, but only a portion of them actually date and settle for male geeks.

      • @AlexNovy

        Regarding sugarbabies:

        I know a successful businessman with a wife and two teenage sons. With his wife’s consent, he keeps a couple of rent-a-mistresses in the household, almost like in a Heinlein fantasy. Apparently he had one of these sugarbabies sexually initiate his older boy.

        Now, technically that would break the law because of age of consent. But this guy really impressed me by doing something practical to make sure that his son would stay out of the Reserves.

        • Very debauched culture but besides that, paying an older woman to “sexually initiate” his minor aged son says nothing about how that boy will score with women his own age or younger out in the real sexual market place .

        • Yeah, it may not work out for this boy like it does for the teen character in the 1981 film “Private Lessons.” At the end of that film, the boy asks his attractive high school teacher out for a date, and she accepts. Given all the stories in the last few years about female teachers who bang their underage male students, I don’t think you could make a movie like that now without generating controversy.

  9. Again, it strikes me how much secular humanists have engaged in false advertising about the sexual consequences of unbelief. For generations they propagandized us with the idea that giving women sexual freedom and secularizing sexual relationships would result in a sexual utopia. Instead that has resulted in utopia for a minority of men who can get all the sex they can handle, while elders have enabled this outcome by pushing more and more of the sexually unfavored young men into the dystopia of involuntary celibacy in the Reserves.

    Ironically christian clergymen have played along with the secular humanists’ agenda.. For generations they have preached about the horrible promiscuity of the godless, and I think this had the unintended consequence of making apostasy look viable for the men who would naturally attract women any way.

    If some minister out there has figured out what has really happened with sexual relationships as a result of women’s sexual freedom, he might stake out an underserved market niche by preaching about how godlessness leads to many men’s unwanted adult virginity.

    • “If some minister out there has figured out what has really happened with sexual relationships as a result of women’s sexual freedom, he might stake out an underserved market niche by preaching about how godlessness leads to many men’s unwanted adult virginity.”

      Do you think the majority of American men are virgins or celibate? That’s not the impression I get . Most American men I meet have partners, either wives or girlfriends. Even unattractive men. Of course, their partners are usually almost equally as unattractive, but they still have them.

      • No, not the majority. I think the trend matters more than the actual percentages, and we lack social science data about this in the U.S. because sexology has a strong female bias, as evident in college textbooks about human sexuality which ignore involuntary male celibacy. The sexologists in Japan, by contrast, have found preposterous numbers of male virgins in their 30’s, with the percentage actually increasing compared with similarly aged men just a a few years ago.

        I would also like to know how many of the sexually initiated men have had to use prostitutes, either for their early experiences or for their main experiences because regular women want nothing to do with them. I suspect without prostitution, we would see even higher numbers of male virgins.

        • If Japan is a culture in which pre-marital sex is frowned upon, then I would imagine that many umarried men would be virgins. I’ve travelled in countries that don’t have dating cultures and marriages are arranged and its not uncommon for men and women to be virgins until they marry. And since they marry later and later these days due to prolonged educations and getting jobs later, you find men and women who are virgins into their late 20s. Usually by 30ish most of the men and women would have had arranged marriages though.

      • Do you think the majority of American men are virgins or celibate?

        Virgins? No. Celibate? That depends on how long a man must go to be considered “celibate”.

        Until they get plucked out of the reserves, most men are only getting sporadic sex and relationships from women. Sure, that’s more than zero, but it isn’t much. It’s certainly a lot less than the amount of sex and relationships the average woman their age has.

    • Ironically christian clergymen have played along with the secular humanists’ agenda.. For generations they have preached about the horrible promiscuity of the godless, and I think this had the unintended consequence of making apostasy look viable for the men who would naturally attract women any way.

      If some minister out there has figured out what has really happened with sexual relationships as a result of women’s sexual freedom, he might stake out an underserved market niche by preaching about how godlessness leads to many men’s unwanted adult virginity.

      You definitely have a point. A minister could easily talk about how promiscuity doesn’t deliver for men, and that God’s plan (marriage) is designed to satisfy God created sexual drives. However, there’s a practical problem with this, other than ministers being almost all manginas now. The church now has the same problem the outside world does. Thus, such a minister can’t deliver in terms of actually providing women who aren’t sluts. That’s when it would all fall apart. In the Christian manuresphere there are several individuals who say that there are virgin women out there, but they won’t tell you where those virgin women are actually hiding. Obviously, they’re liars, and a minister who would preach in the way you would suggest would look like a liar for the same reason.

  10. If polygyny is bad for common men, then polyandry would be good for common men. If it is inevitable that the woman you are going to have sex with the very first time will have had a lot of sex partners before you, and then the choice is between beta nice gal/divorce thief, or a rich, powerful woman like Madonna or Christine Lagarde, whose wallet YOU could live off, the choice would be easy.

    And ideologically it would be very hard to counter by feminists.

    The alternative would be to design a secret language and start your own ISIS/Viking-like religion.

    OR CRASH DOWN OFFICIAL FEMINISM BY CALL ON ITS OBVIOUS BULLSHIT:

    Official feminism claims that even cultures that practice circumcision WITHOUT clitoridectomy are violent and oppressive of women. Like Reform Judaism v.s. National-Socialism?

    Official feminism claims that cultures that practice genital cutting (male or both genders) are necessarily male dominated. Actually, it is women that are most comfortable with genital cutting.

    American women do not mind labiaplasty. American women do mind foreskins.

    Again, the only way someone can claim the circumcision/clitoridectomy combination is related to aggression in general and oppression of women in general if you accept ALL of the following premises:

    Islam demands not just circumcision, but also clitoridectomy.
    Islam oppresses women in general, not just by clitoridectomy.
    Islam is an aggressive, intolerant religion, in fact, the ONLY aggressive, intolerant religion.

    Clearly, each of these premises is considered to be islamophobic or racist against Muslims by SPLC etc. let alone the combination. I already mentioned the inherently anti-semitic nature of the claim that religions who practice circumcision without clitoridectomy are particularly violent.

    BUT IT WILL NOT EVEN BE NECESSARY TO CRASH DOWN FEMINISM:

    Although feminism will be protected by law in the EU, followed by others, it will be official feminism that will be protected, that is, sex-positive feminism that no-platforms the TERFs and SWERFs.

    Any feminist that thinks it is a bad idea to allow people with penises to enter women’s restrooms will be treated like a fascist. Any feminist that opposes continuation and expansion of legal prostitution or legal pornography will be treated like a fascist (SWERF = Slut Whore Exclusionary Feminist).

    And there will always be our little friend LIBERTARIANISM. They can choose between selling their pussies and selling their kidneys…

    CULTURAL MARXISM IS USELESS:

    And no, this isn’t sexism. Rich women do not have give blowjobs without a condom, so prostitution is simply class exploitation. Sexism is military conscription, because women do not get drafted.

    • very, very interesting comment you have here-and probably ties into two things-why I don’t “slut shame” (although I would never advocate marrying and especially a promiscous womyn) and why I always felt that Typhone Blue really isn’t pro-men’s rights. Typhone Blue is OBSESSED with womyn raping men. While I do concur that a woman can rape a man and that it should be discussed, it is no where near as big a men’s rights issue as the war on drugs. That is to say, far more men are rotting in US prisons on trumphed up drug charges than men that have been raped by a woman. You would do far more good advocating for reform of drug laws. And many men do get raped by men in rpsion but we cahn’t mention that because how dare I say anything bad about someone like Jack Donovan, the only bigger sin would be critiquing Amanda Marcotte-remeber, a full blooded white person who is part of a “minority class” can DO NO WRONG.

      But alas, back to Typhone-it seems like GWW and her want to turn everyone “genderqueer” then they can pick who they most want but if you ever listened to Vah Halen’s “Hot for Teacher” with a smile on your face-there is something seriously wrong with you, young man…

      Only problem with the “polyandry”-the Madonna’s wouldn’t be picking pariah’s from the incel class, they’d be picking Tyson Beckford types and all the poorer, younger girls would still cry, “where have all the good men gone.”

      • Regarding GGW – I have a really hard time digesting homosexuals commenting on heterosexual relationship dynamics. I never took Camille Paglia seriously for this very reason. Is Typhon Blue also a lesbian?

      • “You would do far more good advocating for reform of drug laws.”

        I agree. If drugs (to me personally, I’d like amphetamines legalized) were no longer illegal, only really evil people would enter prison. No more “nice” thugs to swoon over (“Nice” thug = bike, tattoos, some robberies, maybe a murder, but not taking a toddler and slicing his ears off); Thug-chasing no longer a problem.

        “Only problem with the “polyandry”-the Madonna’s wouldn’t be picking pariah’s from the incel class, they’d be picking Tyson Beckford types”

        Well duh, Captain Obvious, as if obese(Walmart-level), forty-something single mothers that have ridden the cock caroussel would be kept as 100th wife or even concubine of some sheik.

        But marriage isn’t just about sex, it also confers social status. In a polyandrous society, women being able to support many husbands rise just like the husband of a powerful woman, even without getting any. In fact, pre-selection and hypergamy would shift to men.

        Sweden now gives dads paternal leave-off, making many husbands even more useful.

        =====

        “and all the poorer, younger girls would still cry, “where have all the good men gone.””

        THIS IS THE FEATURE, NOT THE BUG.

        Let them feel it good, let them feel it hard. Tyson Beckford taken off the market, at the very least the marriage market, would be causing serious distress. The stronger the hypergamy, the more effective taking away the best men will be.

        Women are only gatekeepers of sex in relation to betas. In relation to alphas, men are the gatekeepers of sex. Remember, the alpha is MORE attractive than the median woman. Case in point: imagine Angela Merkel or Doutzen Kroes wanting to have a one-night stand, no strings attached with Waleed bin Talal, or even a lesser god like Al-Baghdadi or Erdogan. Or one certain ISIS-warrior having 10.000 groupies…

        ” (Dutch jihadi “Ylmaz”, who is said to spend his time taking moody selfies and posting pictures of kittens, has had more than 10,000 marriage requests from lovestruck Muslim girls around the world)”

        – See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_do_kids_desert_the_west_to_fight_with_isis/15700#sthash.yHZ5NACd.dpuf

        (incidently, this proves that being “incel” is a non-problem. Nerds can learn Arabic and memorize the Koran. Either join Boko Haram/ISIS, or make yourself invaluable to the other side)

        • “Nerds can learn Arabic and memorize the Koran….join Boko Haram/ISIS”

          Or just(for, say, high-functioning autistics) learn to be voluntarily celibate(“volcel”?) & not blow up a Starbucks in Jerusalem?

          I’ve found self-hypnosis highly-valuable in my “volcel”(“asexual”-minded), or “MGTOW”(as they say here) pursuits(acceptance).

          I think in terms of, alternately, allowing oneself to be preoccupied with vagina, you might begin to question that preoccupation if it should cause one to consider blowing shit up & ending up on the FBI’s shit list just for the sake of sluts.

        • Agreed, NC.
          Plus, those groups enslave, rape, and kill children…boys and girls alike. If the Christian concept of hell is real, there is a especially hot pit reserved for people such as they.

        • “those groups enslave, rape, and kill children”

          All the more reason MGTOW is the only logical choice. If “social proof/status” based on sex is dependent on thug behavior, that society has no right to dictate “status” of any sort & should ultimately perish(even if it means humans must perish as a result).

        • “incidently, this proves that being “incel” is a non-problem. Nerds can learn Arabic and memorize the Koran. Either join Boko Haram/ISIS, or make yourself invaluable to the other side”

          Wow.

        • “Or make themselves invaluable to the other side.”

          Like forming underground language cells. ULCs are groups of people who learn as many obscure but important languages as possible, and develop conlang and cryptology skills.

          These can then be used for observation and intervention.

        • (incidently, this proves that being “incel” is a non-problem. Nerds can learn Arabic and memorize the Koran. Either join Boko Haram/ISIS

          This won’t work. What they do is promise you 72 virgins in Heaven if you “martyr” yourself. They have young men blow themselves up so they don’t have to provide women for them. Sending nerds to them is just sending them to commit suicide on the “promise” that they will get laid in Heaven.

        • I said nerds, not dorks. Memorizing the Koran and having qualifications lower the chance of being fodder.

          And if they persist, they will create a situation in which men can only have sex with Muslim women by raiding ISIS/Boko Haram THEMSELVES. And then having skills in Arabic is very useful.

          Finally, the recent Mad Max movie about sex trafficking is seen as mangina/white knighting, and now you all turn completely around?!

        • ” Sending nerds to them is just sending them to commit suicide on the “promise” that they will get laid in Heaven.”

          And if far-from-perfect earthly women don’t want them, what chance do they stand with perfect, divine, heavenly damsels?

  11. “21 Convention says:
    June 14, 2015 at 7:12 pm
    Black Pill, I don’t think I can agree with you on this. SV techies are firmly placed in the American upper middle class. That class has low divorce rates and its hallmark is assortive mating. Male geeks marry female geeks. A successful IT guy will often marry a successful IT girl or doctor or similar upper middle class professional woman who spent her college years studying rather than partying.

    Its low risk all the way around.”

    Why are you slyly trying to soft sell marriage down playing the risks?

    The level of risk is not the only issue, it is the principle of accepting your second class status as a sub human when you get married.

    A woman will not support you, so why support her?

    • I’m not advocating marriage. Just saying that the overwhelming majority of men and women in the States are not highly promiscuous so the chances of marrying a used up slut are small and divorce rates in the upper middle class are low.

      Example;

      “They need to ask themselves, why do they want used up sluts? It’s not like they have options other than used up sluts (in most cases). ”

      There’s way more of a chance of getting with a non-promiscuous person than a promiscuous one since most Americans are not promiscuous.

      “A woman will not support you, so why support her?”

      Women have supported me.

      • What do you consider “promiscuous”? Whatever it is, the threshold for promiscuous is going to be much lower for a man with little sexual/relationship experience. The problem is one of relative not absolute experience.

        • “What do you consider “promiscuous”? ”

          Having casual sex regularly. Most Americans are not picking up strangers in bars and banging them in the bathrooms, no matter how many times such a scene plays out in our movies.

          Most Americans, when they engage in sex, do it within the confines of a relationship.

        • Most Americans, when they engage in sex, do it within the confines of a relationship.

          You can be promiscuous via serial monogamy. In fact, that’s how most women are promiscuous. We know from the 80/20 rule that most women (until they need to go after a man in The Reserves) are having relationships with a small group of men. That what is happening are “relationships” and not “casual sex” doesn’t make a difference. It’s trying to put a respectable veneer on promiscuity, but it’s still promiscuity all the same.

        • 21 Convention, I’ve been reading your conversations with the guys here for a while now and am very confused about what you’re actually trying to argue.

          That nawalt? Most of these gents know this, but it’s statistical knowledge not usable knowledge.
          That modern marriage is beneficial to men? Please…the way the current system is set up, it’s an almost entirely 1 sided game, and men aren’t the winners.
          That most women aren’t overly promiscuous? Well, this one I *might* agree with, except that as BP pointed out, promiscuity is relative. Hell, I’m 31 and have had only 1 partner…but a FwB arrangement of 8 years is a huge amount more experience than what a 31 year old virgin has. So yeah, even I could be considered promiscuous depending on who I’m compared to.

          So…what exactly are you trying to prove?

        • “I’m 31 and have had only 1 partner…but a FwB arrangement of 8 years is a huge amount more experience than what a 31 year old virgin has. So yeah, even I could be considered promiscuous depending on who I’m compared to. ”

          No one would consider you “promiscuous”. You are long term sexually chaste and monogamous.

        • I have been told, quite directly, by commenters on my own blog/through emails (since my address is readily available) that because I have engaged in premarital sex, I am promiscuous. It does not matter to said people that I am never going to marry…the act of physical intimacy outside of matrimony means I am a slut.

        • Tarnished says:
          June 16, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          “I have been told, quite directly, by commenters on my own blog/through emails (since my address is readily available) that because I have engaged in premarital sex, I am promiscuous. It does not matter to said people that I am never going to marry…the act of physical intimacy outside of matrimony means I am a slut.”

          Those people are extreme outliers. Most likely brainwashed by some weird cult.

        • “You can be promiscuous via serial monogamy.”

          Monogamy is not promiscuous, serial or not.

          “We know from the 80/20 rule that most women (until they need to go after a man in The Reserves) are having relationships with a small group of men.”

          Let me guess – they are recycling the same small minority of “hot guys” amongst themselves, right? That’s why everytime I go out to Walmart or any retail store or restaurant in this country I never see average to below average, fat, unattractive couples. Nope, I never see that.

        • Monogamy is not promiscuous, serial or not.

          If a woman had one night stands with 30 different guys, you would call that promiscuous. Then why wouldn’t you call a woman who had with 30 different guys in “relationships” and one relationship at a time also promiscuous? There’s no difference.

          Let me guess – they are recycling the same small minority of “hot guys” amongst themselves, right? That’s why everytime I go out to Walmart or any retail store or restaurant in this country I never see average to below average, fat, unattractive couples. Nope, I never see that.

          It seems like you need to read up on The Reserves.

        • Not Conned,

          True, to be promiscuous usually involves partaking in *casual* sex, which I (and others like us who have trouble with touching) can’t do. But there are hyper-religious people who believe that those having any sex…even just 1 partner…outside of matrimony are “promiscuous”. Likewise, people like BP believe that engaging in serial monogamy is also promiscuous.

          It’s one of those definitions that are different depending on who you ask. Promiscuity, in my view, is another term for the casual treatment of sex. Serial monogamy, depending on the time frame, could certainly be a part of this. If a 17 year old man or woman jumps from one sexually active 6 month-1 year relationship after another, they can easily rack up an above average to high N by the time they’re 25.

        • Serial monogamy, depending on the time frame, could certainly be a part of this. If a 17 year old man or woman jumps from one sexually active 6 month-1 year relationship after another, they can easily rack up an above average to high N by the time they’re 25.

          This is my point. Being in a “relationship” doesn’t confer some sort of magical anti-promiscuity status.

        • Precisely. Sometimes it seems people get into “relationships” they know won’t be long-term so they can have what is essentially casual sex, but not be socially penalized for having numerous partners.

        • @21 Convention

          Let me guess – they are recycling the same small minority of “hot guys” amongst themselves, right? That’s why everytime I go out to Walmart or any retail store or restaurant in this country I never see average to below average, fat, unattractive couples. Nope, I never see that.

          This is kind of a give-off that you’re female.

          1) When guys talk about a carousel, they talk about the uncommitted and semi-commited fun that women have

          2) If you can recognize two people as being a couple BY DEFINITION they are fully commited

          3) Nobody denies that women go and finally settle for a less attractive/shier/geekier/less-experienced guy after they fail getting commitment with the “hot guys”*

          (and even when they do settle for such a guy, half the time they still cheat on him with one of the “hot guys”*)

          Women often make this point “But you win in the end nice guy!! after she blows every d-bag, she settles for leeching off of you in the end!”

          *(I’m not agreeing with your terms, just using them to make the point)

        • BP: “If a woman had one night stands with 30 different guys, you would call that promiscuous. Then why wouldn’t you call a woman who had with 30 different guys in “relationships” and one relationship at a time also promiscuous? There’s no difference.”

          There IS a difference! Its the difference between relationship sex and non-relationship sex.

        • Are you trolling or a moron? There’s no way that a high number of sex partners, even if “relationships” are involved, is not promiscuity.

          You’re using the same trick guys in Iran use to get around Islam’s ban on prostitution, getting “married” to hookers for a few hours. That’s still a guy going to a hooker, even if they were “married” for a few hours just as a high partner count via relationships is still promiscuity.

        • There IS a difference! Its the difference between relationship sex and non-relationship sex.

          And poof, there goes the magic wand and automatically solves everything 😀 😀

          Except, there’s relationships and then there’s “relationships”.

          – One is where two serious people are together and commited to each other for the long run

          – The other is where a chick hooks up with a player for a couple of weeks, or a few months… and she calls it a relationship (but he doesn’t)… because she’s in the PROCESS OF TRYING to get him to commit (so she doesn’t bang other dudes for a couple of weeks, while hoping he’ll commit to her, big deal…)

          That’s how you have these chicks who by the end of high-school have already had 10-15 sexual partners, “never having had casual sex”, but each of their “relationships” is 3-6 weeks long.

          The fact she only banged one d-bag at a time, doesn’t change anything for the geek who finds that after Jane failed at securing commitment with 30 different d-bags, she now wants to settle for him… lol. Oh what a deal!

        • Are you trolling or a moron? There’s no way that a high number of sex partners, even if “relationships” are involved, is not promiscuity.

          You’re using the same trick guys in Iran use to get around Islam’s ban on prostitution, getting “married” to hookers for a few hours. That’s still a guy going to a hooker, even if they were “married” for a few hours just as a high partner count via relationships is still promiscuity.

          That example with the couple-hour-long marriages in iran is a perfect analogy.

          And consider this as well… These “relationships” were mostly in the woman’s head only. You’d be surprised how many women refer to their hooking up with a d-bag as a “relationship that didn’t work out” EVEN THOUGH the guy NEVER called it as such. If you ask him, he’ll tell you “oh she’s just a chick I hooked up with a couple of times. Or “she was an FB”.

          Though for me personally, the main issue I take is not the number (I genuinely would care less if a woman had 300 partners or partners).

          The main issue I see is as you (BP) put it – the main issue is about RELATIVE experience (not absolute).

          If (hypothetically speaking) a woman spent her youth having sex with 300 geeks (reserves), and then she went and tried to settle down with the one she likes best, I have no issue with that.

          The issue I see is that a woman will spend her youth REJECTING, HUMILIATING, CREEP-SHAMING, MOCKING, GAS-LIGHTING a geek, all the while banging d-bags… and when she finds out she can’t get a d-bag to commit… she’ll go back to the geek and ask him to support and provide for her.

        • Wait a minute here, Alek…
          You don’t care about the number of partners a woman has had, so long as they are geeks/nerds? This is the first time I’ve heard this sentiment! Typically, the men I speak to online make no distinctions, and simply state that a high N is bad, no ifs, ands or buts. Your view is quite interesting and refreshing.

          As another hypothetical, what about a woman who has casual sex but then doesn’t expect a man (“real” or not) to support her/marry her up?

        • BP – It seems I forgot to put a blockquote around your comment that I was replying to. Can you please edit it so its clearer, thanks 🙂

        • “Wait a minute here, Alek…
          You don’t care about the number of partners a woman has had, so long as they are geeks/nerds? This is the first time I’ve heard this sentiment! Typically, the men I speak to online make no distinctions, and simply state that a high N is bad, no ifs, ands or buts. Your view is quite interesting and refreshing.

          As another hypothetical, what about a woman who has casual sex but then doesn’t expect a man (“real” or not) to support her/marry her up?”

          – Its a common trope in the Manosphere. They say look at a woman’s past “relationships” and if there was even one single alpha anywhere, dump her, or at least don’t relationship her up.

          Some of them even go so far as to say that if she’s ever even dated a black guy!

          Freud’s penis envy theory seems to be alive and well in the Manosphere.

        • Wait a minute here, Alek…
          You don’t care about the number of partners a woman has had, so long as they are geeks/nerds? This is the first time I’ve heard this sentiment! Typically, the men I speak to online make no distinctions, and simply state that a high N is bad, no ifs, ands or buts. Your view is quite interesting and refreshing.

          Guess I have to clarify a second time, using another set of hypotheticals, because you missed the point.

          You don’t care about the number of partners a woman has had, so long as they are geeks/nerds?

          No, that’s not the point. A woman can have sex with 300 d-bags, and yet I’d still think nothing bad of her… provided that

          A) She didn’t spend the same time LYING about what attracts her, inventing lies and creep-shaming “non sexy” men for nothing other than the selfish desire of hiding her true mating patterns.

          B) Was fortright about it to geeks about why she prefers d-bags
          “Yo i’m into dominant d-bags sorry, i like a man to take all the risk and that’s why i’m into d-bags (among other things)”.

          C) Didn’t lie to the geeks that she’s really super-duper attracted to nice guys – just so she can put the poor dude into the reserves for later on.

          Men should have a choice whether they go into the reserves or not. They shouldn’t be manipulated into it. THIS is the crux of the issue.

      • I would guess the reason upper-class divorce rates are low is because their friends and family see divorce as low class, and there is too much money at risk, not because there is less sluttiness.

        • Whatever the reason for low divorce rates, those reasons are good. What, you think people in traditional cultures who stay married are always super happy and in love with each other til the day they die? Of course not. Its not family and society urging a couple to stay together (for whatever reason) that is problematic, its when family and society have no say, or no involvement whatsoever that we see high divorce rates because of “individualism” .

      • 2) If you can recognize two people as being a couple BY DEFINITION they are fully commited

        In other words, the fun guy looks as just a friend from a far, even if you see them… (he doesn’t act like a couple in public)… if he even does things with her in the first place. Its not like the “fun semi-commited guy” will go on mall shopping trips with her.

      • In other words…

        21 Convention (and other soft-peddlers) will tell you…

        “Dude settle for her after she bangs 30 players, becase”…

        “She wasn’t actually promiscious with 30 players while rejecting the geeks” -“It’s not like she actually had 30 one-night stands with players while rejecting you”

        “She ACTUALLY begged and pleaded with each of these 30-dbags and banged them as much a dozen times* each hoping they’d commit to her, while she rejected you, until one d-bag dumped her, so she moved on to begging the next one for commitment (all the while rejecting you)”… “so its different ™” – “so go ahead dude, you’re a reservist, take her now that she failed with all 30 of em”.

        (Because she banged each of them 6-12 times, and not just once (a one night stand), its not promiscuity, i mean she waited until each d-bag dumped her before moving onto to the next d-bag… at least most of the time, sometimes she banged two d-bags at the same time, but yeah most of the time she waited for a dozen hookups before moving onto to the next d-bag… therefore that’s totally different, so you should totally accept the reservist arrangement… it’s totally not the same thing)

        • What’s with all these skank Yootoobers editing their STD-infested verbal spews every 1.78 seconds? I think need to scrub my computer screen with those sanitation wipes(the ones that are supposed to kill SARS & the bird flu) soaked with rubbing alcohol….

        • No, it’s high enough quality that I hate to part w/ it, but yeah I might torch it.

  12. “I’m not advocating marriage. Just saying that the overwhelming majority of men and women in the States are not highly promiscuous so the chances of marrying a used up slut are small and divorce rates in the upper middle class are low.”

    Do you know the risks? How can you know? Provide proof.

    I still think you down playing the risks, why?

    You are falsely equating slutiness with divorce anyway, not like non-sluty women don’t divorce?

    If the woman doesn’t see more benefit sticking with you, she was discard you.

    • “Do you know the risks? How can you know? Provide proof. ”

      The proof is the low divorce stats for upper middle class professionals.

  13. “Exactly, and consider this. A portion of female geeks are actually tomboy feminists who actually rebel by riding the carousel and writing about it on tumblr as liberation. In fact the entire geek-bashing movement where nice guys are ridiculed as being spineless losers IS LEAD BY FEMALE GEEKS.

    Another portion of geek girls (if cute) manage to date hot social guys, despite being a female geek. A geek girl if she has a hot body can date a jock.

    It doesn’t work the other way round. A male geek will not be dated by a pretty popular girl.

    So not only are there less female geeks, but only a portion of them actually date and settle for male geeks.”

    Who leads the attack on black men? black women of course.

    Who leads the attack on white men? White women of course.

    Women treat their own men like they are an out-group threat it seems.

    I hate the double standards of gender roles, women are allowed to be passive, female geeks have innately value, meanwhile male geeks are scum, they are meant to be manly and take all the legals risk of hitting on girls. We should judge females by the standard they judge us, they would fail so hard.

    Females collectively change the legal system to make hitting on them a crime, yet they still want men to be manly and hit on them and passive men are rapey scum.

    • This is unfortunately very true. Even at Gencon, the “mecca” convention of gaming/geeky stuff, there’s about a 5:1 or 4:1 ratio of men to women, and 98% of the female attendees are already in relationships. They tried to run some Geek Dating sessions a few years back…huge flop, obviously. Just not enough single geek women.

      And yes, many MANY geeky women have a massive chip on their shoulder towards male geeks/gamers. The symbol for Woman’s Activities in the Gencon events book used to be a ball-and-chain for the longest time, but 2 or 3 years ago it got changed to a yin yang sword + flower because the previous symbol was “highly offensive”. Any joke that someone makes in the convention center that even remotely pokes fun at women is severely looked down on, and a few male attendees have gotten spoken to about “harassing” female cosplayers by simply asking to pose with them. Even the volunteers aren’t safe…I recall 2 of them getting reported by an angry feminist attendee because they’d put up funny signs along the boardgame library describing the different types, and for war games they put “Where women fear to tread!” or something along those lines. Apparently this is “oppressive” and “sexist” because it’s keeping female gamers from walking up and taking a game. Oy vey.

      • “The symbol for Woman’s Activities in the Gencon events book used to be a ball-and-chain for the longest time, but 2 or 3 years ago it got changed to a yin yang sword + flower because the previous symbol was “highly offensive”.”

        Ha! As if those geeks don’t wish some woman would want to ball and chain them up.

        • Dude…really?
          Come on. Be a bit nicer to my people, please. Gamers and geeks get enough shite out in the real world…

        • Lighten up!

          Don’t be so uptight like the example you yourself gave;

          “I recall 2 of them getting reported by an angry feminist attendee because they’d put up funny signs along the boardgame library describing the different types, and for war games they put “Where women fear to tread!” or something along those lines. Apparently this is “oppressive” and “sexist” because it’s keeping female gamers from walking up and taking a game. Oy vey.”

        • I’m a little protective of my fellow geeks and nerds. It seemed like you were making fun of their lack of relationships, which is…rather unkind to do on a blog like this. If you meant it in a purely humorous way, then perhaps it could have been rephrased?

        • “Ha! As if those geeks don’t wish some woman would want to ball and chain them up.”

          The geeks the buy into feminism(misandry), for sure.

        • “Ball and Chain” sign reminds me of a really weird, aspie, OCD friend of mine who keeps saying over and over he doesn’t want a girlfriend because women are trouble and marriage and kids is a bad idea. I keep telling him, “Um, you’ll never have to worry about it, mate.”

        • “weird, aspie, OCD friend of mine who keeps saying over and over he doesn’t want a girlfriend because women are trouble and marriage and kids is a bad idea”

          No, even non-aspies are well aware of these things….such is the extent of toxic, misandrist feminism. Your aspie friend is quite wise(of course you refuse to recognize that).

        • Actually, 21(is that your age, or did you reverse the numbers), the term “aspergers” is no longer recognized by the mental health community, and what you refer to as “aspies” are on the high(ie–high intelligence, highly-functioning) end of the autism spectrum, though they are no longer officially distinguished from others with more-severe autism on said spectrum.

          That isn’t due to any “defect”, but more so due to the obscene proliferation in recent years of people(male & female) self-diagnosing themselves “aspie” based on some unofficial “test” they found on some misandrist “dating site” or other such places where male-shaming ultra feminism & manginas run rampant…..such to the effect that even the feminist-appeasing mental health establishment(in 2013) decided “enough is enough”, and docked the term “Asperger” from official listing & classification in the latest revised DSM manual for atypical neurologies(aka mental “disorders”).

          Honestly, as an “Asperger”, I call into question whether, in a less misandrist, male-hating society, my neurology would even be considered “atypical”.

        • I guess 21 has nothing further to say in regards to his autism shaming. I’ll take that as “Yes, Mr. Not Conned, sir. I agree with your superior viewpoint, and I was sadly mistaken, matey. Cheerios!”

        • “Actually, 21(is that your age, or did you reverse the numbers), the term “aspergers” is no longer recognized by the mental health community, and what you refer to as “aspies” are on the high(ie–high intelligence, highly-functioning) end of the autism spectrum”

          – OK he’s not aspie then. He is not high functioning nor highly intelligent. Add to that no woman has ever wanted to be his gf or wife so his worries about “what will happen to me if I get married” are laughable.

        • “OK he’s not aspie then. He is not high functioning nor highly intelligent.”

          Fuck off, troll.

        • Hardy har harrrr……..Century 21 there is soooooooooooo fucking funny, just cracks me up so fucking much, just makes me want to stomp its head in…….

    • It is rather telling, though, that even the female geeks(so called?) treat their “fellow” men this way. Just further goes to show these wymyn just aren’t on the same universe when it comes to even beginning to relate to the degree of isolation of those “low status” men.

      And about what Tarnished said about these conventions….if they typically are like 4:1 or 5:1 male:female and are encouraging(and have been) that manner of blatant misandry against what would basically be 60%-to-80% of the convention attendees(if Tarnished is correct), then I would hope eventually all those trampled-upon men will all eventually get fed up & take their business($$$$) elsewhere & let all these feminazi-appeasing conventions go belly up(of course a certain portion of those men are likely manginas and thus willfully put up with shit from those wymyn).

      Anyway I think the manginas that run these “geek” affairs might soon discover they’ve basically been biting the hand that’s fed them for far too long, and then those cosplaying bitches will have to go back out on the streets with all the other wymyn at slutwalks, etc….

      • Sorry my math was off; 4:1 would be 80%, so it’s a minimal EIGHTY PERCENT male convention attendance, and these conventions want to piss those guys off???

        • Not Conned,

          My numbers and estimated ratios are based on personal observations/deliberate counting during my attendance there. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any sources for the actual sex ratios, only that there were unique tickets sold of 56,614 and a turnstile amount of 184,699 last year alone. This represents a growth of 10-14% overall. I can honestly say that, as a gamer who has gotten a 4-Day pass to said convention for the last 10 years, that the amount of female goers has noticeably gone up in the last 4.

          I’m going this year as well, which takes place in July, and will strive to take an actual count from an overlooking vantage point.

        • ” the amount of female goers has noticeably gone up”

          Well then that explains everything. Apparently these convention runners are counting on projected increases in female patrons to make up for the eventual loss of pissed off “low status” men likely to bail these disgusting misandrist affairs.

        • Hit the nail on the head, there.

          I’m just waiting for there to be designated “safe spaces” for the consistently-victimized-feeling patrons. It’s coming soon, no doubt.

          As for the idea of the majority of male goers being pissed off…eh. Honestly, it depends on who you talk to. A whole lot of guys I speak to are either really good actors or have fully swallowed the lines Feminism throws at them about male privilege and whatnot. Two years ago I got into a fairly heated argument with a group of guys who tried to persuade me that, as a female, I *must* put up with a ton of crap from fellows like them. When I assured them I did not, the floodgates of hell opened and the amount of women’s studies flark that came out of their mouths was both stupefying and sad. If a damsel in distress is not in the immediate vicinity…make one (so it seemed).

        • “have fully swallowed the lines Feminism throws at them about male privilege and whatnot”

          That’s sad. Of course, there’s always a chance the feminism might get so hostile & polarizing enough to even drive them away so as to eventually effect the bottom line.

          Sorry about what those brainwashed manginas said to you(with people like them, we might never get anywhere).

        • No worries, friend.
          Don’t apologize for something you had no part in. It’s not your fault whatsoever.

          But yes, I agree that the current gynocentric system can’t remain forever. Eventually it will turn on so many, male and female alike, that it is finally shown for what it is…Not equality between the sexes, but rather a failed bid for female superiority/male condemnation and a need for all women to feel as afraid/oppressed as they do.

        • Geeky men also will have been abused and assaulted enough times that the few who still hold steadfast to their own personal integrity will see MGTOW as the only reasonable response to a world that has turned its back upon them. It is the very height of bigoted hate and anger to have your own humanity denied to you. Geeky men have the imaginations they do because they yearn for a world where they have their own humanity respected and recognized. Hence the reason why in fantasy world’s online, no one gives a damn what your background is. It is what you do, how you do it, and why you do it that defines your character, thru which you merit additional respect in regards to your person. Such meritocracy holds no value or worth when it comes to intergender relations since the pussy pass uber alles.

        • “Geeky men….the few who still hold steadfast to their own personal integrity will see MGTOW as the only reasonable response to a world that has turned its back upon them”

          The operative being the FEW that hold true & choose MGTOW, while the rest try to one-up themselves & look cool by shaming “aspies” & other low-status men online(like they think we haven’t dealt with this ad-naseum).

        • …like they think we haven’t dealt with this ad-naseum.

          You’re assuming they even think about what they are saying, NC. :/

        • “You’re assuming they even think about what they are saying, NC”

          So 21’s a womyn. No wonder it didn’t respond to my pwnage after aspie shaming me 6 ways to Sunday(she probably cried).

        • Maybe…or maybe 21 is a male, but trolling. Hard to tell sometimes. Still unsure of what his/her end goal in the conversations is.
          Shaming mgtows? Calling out “aspies”? Or, as Tamerlame believes, soft peddling womyn and tradcon values?

        • Whatever she is/her reason for being, I feel no remorse if I cause people like her to cut themselves long way & die in crimson bathtubs. They can all go to hell. My tolerance has run out.

        • I am not sure what to make of gamer gate to be honest. I think they are too obsessed with fighting cultural Marxism and SJW’s. They do not understand the root cause of the issue, collective female nature.

        • “Whatever he is/hisreason for being, I feel no remorse if I cause people like him to cut themselves long way & die in crimson bathtubs. ”

          You give yourself way too much credit, brah.

        • “You give yourself way too much credit, brah.”

          No 21, if you are a “brah”, you must understand that only wymyn are capable of hating you in that manner……..brah….

    • “It doesn’t work the other way round. A male geek will not be dated by a pretty popular girl.”

      Yes, but I came close. Pauline Regout, a sorority girl, only ditched me because I lied to her about something, and in high school, Sophia Millington-Ward, more or less the female apex alpha, kept me as beta orbiter for the whole six years. As I wasn’t too delusional about the chance of getting sex, this worked out well.

      The geeky girls did treat me as shit, however.

  14. Black Pill, have you seen Sara Gardephe’s documentary “Shy Boys: IRL”?

    By coincidence Gardephe contacted me back in March for an interview for an unrelated film project. I hadn’t known about her earlier film, but I ran across it while googling her name. After she came out to see me to film a discussion of the topic of her current documentary, we talked for about an hour regarding my experiences with involuntary celibacy.

    • I just watched the documentary, and I’m pissed that I can’t get back the 30 minutes of my life that wasted on it. What was the point that she was trying to make? It seemed to be nothing but making the incel/love shy guys look bad.

      • Other than the UWT guy, who really just seemed like a total ass with a superiority complex over the other guys, I thought Advance and Michael were awesome people. I wasn’t disgusted or turned off by them, but instead wanted to hug them or hold their hands. Michael is an attractive man, he just needs to do a few things to really bring it out (like no slouching, taming his hair a bit, and using chapstick). Can’t recall if he mentioned it, but he seems like he has actual depression and should join a support group for that so it doesn’t overwhelm him. I loved that he started a website for others like him, as it shows he still has a willingness to care about others and a desire for connecting (which depressed people tend to lose).

        Advance is a little tricky…some of his traits, like the fact he thinks he needs to talk fast and not make mistskes, remind me of some of my autism-spectrum customers. He could benefit from taking a Toastmaster/public speaking course geared towards people with self-esteem issues. Oh, and he’s *not* ugly…he simply doesn’t have a “masculine” body. To be honest, I’d describe him as ethereal and with the right haircut and posture, he could be a successful male model. His intense preoccupation with his looks makes me think he might be body dysmorphic.

        All in all, I thought that Michael and Advance are certainly not hopeless cases and hope they are doing better today.

        • The problem is the women who hate weak men, not the men themselves.

          A women with these issues would still find men to support them.

          When I was self harming 10 years ago, I would of never found a girl. The cute Asian girl I knew had a boyfriend to help pick her up when she was self harming.

          Women are parasites and will not build a man up, they will only go with men with confidence and status.

          Talking about how these men should change themselves is meaningless, why change yourself for women who have no regard for you.

          To feel protective of the weak and vulnerable is what makes us human. Why should I protect someone who would not protect me.

        • Who said these men were weak? They are hurting, and in pain, but I see no actual weakness in them. They are people who desire someone to care about them…it’s not weak to want that. It means you’re a sentient, aware being.

          Hopefully your self harming days are over? It can get addicting, in it’s own way…

          They shouldn’t be told they *have* to change, but certain aspects would gain them more confidence…from other men as well. Something like the improved posture suggestion is just healthier for them as individuals anyway, so even if it didn’t result in more female attention (which shouldn’t be necessary for masculine validation regardless!), it would help them physically.

          To feel protective of the weak and vulnerable is what makes us human.
          Exactly. People who are increasingly vulnerable to the shite of this world *should* be aided by those who are less so. It is a sign of how far we as a species have fallen that such concepts as showing concern for or caring about others is perceived as troublesome/radical.

        • The human race isn’t designed for selflessness(at least not in its present corrupted state).

        • Perhaps not as an entire species. It certainly doesn’t seem so. But it’s likely that there has always been a significant minority of our populace that has greater empathy than the majority. It is this number that appears to be shrinking…

        • “The human race isn’t designed for selflessness”

          I could not disagree more. The more I learn about recent experiments about the intelligence of apes and humans, the more convinced I am that the biggest difference between us and the chimps is that we share what we learn, even when there’s no immediate benefit.

        • “Who said these men were weak? They are people who desire someone to care about them”

          To a lot of people in our culture, particularly women, wanting someone to care about and give caring in return IS weakness.

        • Well, they are fools. To receive real love, one must give love and be receptive to it. It is, by necessity, a 2 way street.

          It was wonderful talking with you all, but my lunch break is over now. Have a lovely day, guys.

        • ” it’s likely that there has always been a significant minority of our populace that has greater empathy than the majority. It is this number that appears to be shrinking…”

          People with high-functioning autism(like myself) are said to lack empathy. I honestly think it’s more the case that we COULD be more empathetic if only the majority(I’m assuming it’s the same majority you speak of) would allow us to relate…….but that’s probably(my autism) sort of a slightly-separate issue from probably most other trodden-upon men, and I willfully admit that I have(under other names highlighting my “disorder”) butted heads with a few male(I’m presuming mostly male) commenters on this very blog(even Blackpill himself a little) about a year and a half or more ago in regards to it, and I very much, looking back, can see where I guess I complained a bit too much & may have come off a bit self-obsessed & thus lacking empathy, maybe, so I do apologize(albeit belatedly) to Mr. Blackpill and to others for that.

          I was relatively new(I WAS new) to the MRA(MGTOW) blogosphere & can definitely say I wasn’t that much at all really “in the know” about all the issues/ideas/people involved & I was also personally going through a rough patch in my real life, sort of a mid-life crisis I guess(I’m 42) after the shock of being diagnosed “Aspergers” & suddenly feeling completely shunned & apart from most people like never before(although I always felt that to some degree)…..but all that said, the very last thing I ever want to do is to let my past/present issues distract from the good work that is being done here(and places like this), because though no 2 people can agree on absolutely everything, I’ve personally found solace in much of the wisdom found in this blogs & many of these comments over my years of lurking/occasionally commenting here. I can even go as far as to say it’s probably saved my life.

        • “the biggest difference between us and the chimps is that we share what we learn, even when there’s no immediate benefit”

          No, you’re right. We want to share our ideas as intelligent beings. Whether or not that’s 100% selfless(I don’t think it ever is, there’s always self-interest with any sentient, self-aware species), it moves humanity in a forward direction(idealistically at least), and that helps us.

      • I have an uncle with severe shyness from birth. He was shy of even playing with his own brothers and sisters as a child. We are talking very strong general shyness in all social situations, not just dating.

        Apparently, this is somewhat common in both men and women. Perhaps it affects the population to varying degrees of shyness in up to 10% of both men and women. It seems that doctors can’t really treat this type of shyness very well.

        But women with severe shyness will still marry and reproduce. Men who are severely shy from birth don’t get chosen by women.

        As to shyness only around the opposite sex (love-shyness), I suspect it is a complicated reaction as the human body doesn’t want to touch other people but does want to touch a select few for reproduction. The push/pull effect is complicated in the brain, and causes both excitement and distress and varies from individuals. Most people report strong excitement to their first dating encounters, and it is reasonable that some would have more or less of those intense, sometimes paralyzing, feelings.

        • “But women with severe shyness will still marry and reproduce”

          Exactly. Being shy isn’t a hindrance for a woman in a culture where men are expected to make all the moves, unless she is too shy to go out in public.

          I do think the human body craves touch, though, barring a few very specific exceptions like autistic people.

        • It does, even for those of us who have hapenophobia of some variety. It’s why animal companionship is so very important to some people…

          Look up the term “marasmus”. There’s a lot of studies to be found, both older and within the last decade.

        • “I do think the human body craves touch, though, barring a few very specific exceptions like autistic people.”

          Yes, that has definitely factored in to my situation as a high-functioning autist. I also suffer from germ phobia. I have no idea if it’s to do with some “OCD”-like component of my neurology(since the autism spectrum has to do with varying differences in our neurology than what is considered typical across the human population), or if it’s my relative long-term isolation that led me further and further into fearing human contact(or not valuing it highly). Luckily I don’t think it has further progressed since I began self-hypnosis to deal with it a couple years ago, but it doesn’t seem to be showing improvement….but I’m at the point anyway, at my age(42), where things like Hollywood-glamorized sexual relationships mean much to me. I know who I really am, and where I probably belong in this present culture. I think I can still relate to the incels, though.

  15. “21 Convention says:
    June 15, 2015 at 7:19 pm
    “Do you know the risks? How can you know? Provide proof. ”

    The proof is the low divorce stats for upper middle class professionals.

    Reply”

    Where are these stats? Define low? Low relative to other groups? Low in absolute terms.

    To be honest I smell bullshit from a woman worshipper.

    Also marriage is a shitty deal in the first place, it is a parasitic relationship.

    • I don’t advise people to marry. But if they do, or if they co-habit, I say everything should be split 50/50 so that neither partner becomes a parasite in anyway, financial or otherwise.

      • I love how you avoided my question.

        What is the divorce rates for middle class couples?

        If the woman wants to become a parasite once married nothing is going to stop her.

  16. This topic warrants a place at the top or bottom, not squished somewhere in the middle:

    21 Convention says:
    June 17, 2015 at 9:27 pm

    No, BP. They end up with non-promiscuous women who had “relationship sex”, that is consensual sex with their committed partners at the time. Likewise the men who spent their youth gaining money, status and power, as Kevin put it.

    They would also have had relationship sex along the way before they met their brides to be. Again, the vast majority of 30 year old American men are not virgins at marriage.

    Americans have relationship sex. That’s what we do. Its normal. Its good. Its right, ethical and nothing to shy away from. Serial monogamy WORKS.
    Reply

    The Black Pill says:
    June 17, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    non-promiscuous women who had “relationship sex”, that is consensual sex with their committed partners at the time

    As I just said, “relationship sex” is no guarantee of non-promiscuity. A relationship is not some form of magic that changes anything.

    Are you really going to tell me that a woman who has had sex with 30 guys is not promiscuous, if she can claim she was in a relationship with them at the time? Really?

    Serial monogamy WORKS.

    You call a 50% divorce rate, working? You sound like Susan Walsh.
    _______________________________________________________________

    I googled Walsh. It appears she’s been married for 30 years and is a member of the demographic that is known to stay married: the highly educated, professional upper middle class. Good for her and congrats to the longevity and appearant happiness of her union with her husband who she vocally and digitally adores. It also appears that her son has been in a longterm relationship with an Asian woman for years now. Good for them. Yay for relationship sex!!!

    ” Are you really going to tell me that a woman who has had sex with 30 guys is not promiscuous, if she can claim she was in a relationship with them at the time? Really?”

    Yes, really. Rather than number I look at motive. What were her reasons for a 30 count? How old is she? How far spread out were the relationships? What was the in between time ?

    Forget numbers and look at motive, quality and character. An illy motivated woman of low character could have a low n count of less than 3. Don’t let numbers alone fool you. Do your research and background checks on all of them.

    I stand behind the time tested method of serial monogamy, with few exceptions.

    • So men denied intimacy because they have no status and money, should be grateful to get it because they pay for it via relationships?

      Did men in the past have to wait until their late 20’s and early 30’s to get intimacy, because they had to build themselves up?

      You are trying to normalize something that is disgusting, women like you are worse than the worse prostitutes.

      • Serial monogamy is a boon to humanity. Serial monogamy, not lifelong monogamy nor polygamy, but SERIAL MONOGAMY has been the default mating system since the dawn of man.

        I wouldn’t trade all my past girlfriends for one lifelong mate for all the money in the world. I loved them all , each in a different way and at different junctures on my life journey.

        Nobody is denied intimacy because of lack of status or money in the serial monogamy paradigm. A man without status or money can mate with similarly low status women, and indeed America is comprised of such coupled citizenry.

        Go in peace my friend and assortively mate with women at your own level or slightly lower. There is no shame in it.

        • Utter bullshit. lifelong monogamy is what civilization is built on, it is the best system for kids woman.

          Also it is only serial monogamy for men. Women have legal mechanisms to punish men who cheat, while men can’t punish women who cheat on them.

        • tamerlame says:
          June 18, 2015 at 10:45 pm

          “Utter bullshit. lifelong monogamy is what civilization is built on, it is the best system for kids woman. ”

          Pfft! Since when do you care what is “the best system for kids woman.”?!?!

          Particularly woman????

          Serial monogamy works. Its the best system for women AND MEN.

        • Serial monogamy works. Its the best system for women AND MEN.

          Another give-off that you’re a woman. You base all generalizations of men through the prism of the apex fallacy, looking at the top men.

          It works for the top guys for sure. Not for the bottom 80% of men.

        • Serial monogamy, not lifelong monogamy nor polygamy, but SERIAL MONOGAMY has been the default mating system since the dawn of man.

          If that’s actually true, you’re arguing the naturalistic fallacy.

          Nobody is denied intimacy because of lack of status or money in the serial monogamy paradigm.

          I can find millions of men who can prove you wrong.

        • Pfft! Since when do you care what is “the best system for kids woman.”?!?!

          Maybe because Tamerlame knows that serial monogamy requires divorce, and divorce hurts children. (If you disagree, I can find millions of children of divorce, many of them adults now, who can prove you wrong.) That’s in addition to men losing access to their children and getting ass raped in divorce courts.

          You are a vile piece of filth for supporting such things.

        • Alek, “You base all generalizations of men through the prism of the apex fallacy, looking at the top men.

          It works for the top guys for sure. Not for the bottom 80% of men.”

          BULL!!!

          I’m a regular Joe myself who’s only ever dated regular women. The only reason serial monogamy would not work is if you’re doing it wrong and aiming too high. In high school I crushed on an 8 who didn’t give me the time of day. I thought I was a 7 so was pissed she didn’t notice me. In reality though I was a 5. Once I accepted my real market value and shifted my focus to much plainer girls, I was able to enjoy an active dating life (and later sex life).

          The system works if you work it.

        • I’m a regular Joe myself who’s only ever dated regular women. The only reason serial monogamy would not work is if you’re doing it wrong and aiming too high. In high school I crushed on an 8 who didn’t give me the time of day. I thought I was a 7 so was pissed she didn’t notice me. In reality though I was a 5. Once I accepted my real market value and shifted my focus to much plainer girls, I was able to enjoy an active dating life (and later sex life).

          The system works if you work it.

          This is another typical giveaway of a woman pretending to be a man, we get your kind of troll commonly. This has happened thousands of times.

          Here’s the response:
          https://matingselfishness.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/myth-dateless-men-are-only-bitter-because-they-shot-out-of-their-league/

        • The system works if you work it.

          A claim only ever made by plain janes trying to trick men into the plain-jane reserve system. It’s a problem when you try to peddle the system to men who spent decades testing the system out, finding it to be complete bullshit.

          Personally I’d rate myself a seven… My last partners dozen partners were eights… I was actually interested in plenty more sevens and sixes (i’m actually attracted to core sexuality more than looks)… But I only ended up effortlessly getting the eights, because they’re so much more pleasant and not stuck up bitches like you and other sixes.

        • But I only ended up effortlessly getting the eights, because they’re so much more pleasant and not stuck up bitches…

          Why *is* anyone stuck up? Physical attractiveness never automatically makes one a superior person, or more inherently valuable than the guy/gal next to them. It’s much better to give a hug and a sympathetic smile + explanation when declining an offer to date than to scowl or shriek and humiliate the asker. Who teaches women that the latter is acceptable behavior…?

        • Funny you should say that, Alek. I agree, and find average women tend to have way more of an attitude than VERY attractive women. I personally believe they get hit on more than the real hotties.

        • Funny you should say that, Alek. I agree, and find average women tend to have way more of an attitude than VERY attractive women. I personally believe they get hit on more than the real hotties.

          They actually do, because of the Plain Jane fallacy we’ve been sold our entire lives. Most plain janes are nasty as fuck.

          I wish I could bang plain janes as easily as I bang hotties, I really do, because I’d get laid more 😀 There’s not enough hotties to go around.

          I actually don’t like the fact that eights and nines are the easiest for me to lay, because there’s less of them. I wish I could easily get sixes, I really do.

          If you try to flirt with 10 sixes, you get twenty idiots giving you an attitude, with one banging you as if it were a prize you earned. If you flirt with 10 of the eights, you get nine new friends, and one new f-buddy.

        • Did you see this article, Alek?

          http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0

          I posted it on Sleazy’s blog. I’m quite liberal so I don’t mind some of the equal rights women have nowadays, just as I don’t have a problem with gays/lesbians, or people of different ethnicity. What annoys me, though, is when women go on foolishly like they do in the comments of this article. The women are basically saying men who go for younger women are shallow and immature. As a guy too, you’ll also get blasted if you’re not into a woman if she’s a single mom and/or overweight. Ironically, though, if a woman is not into a guy because he’s short, bald, or poor, if’s ok, because “Shelly’s” just isn’t into bald, short, or poor men, so it’s justifiable.

    • It appears she’s been married for 30 years and is a member of the demographic that is known to stay married: the highly educated, professional upper middle class.

      Yet, she is completely incapable of helping her nearly all female readership, which is in the same class, do this. This proves me right, not you.

      It also appears that her son has been in a longterm relationship with an Asian woman for years now.

      For years? Then you should see this as a problem because you are all about serial monogamy. According to you they should dump each other and find other “relationship” partners. That’s what serial monogamy means.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      • I’m sure both of them have had previous partners before meeting each other. That right there is serial monogamy. Or do you think its probable both of them were each others’ first date ever? And who knows, they may someday break up, but if they love each other and are compatible, as it seems now, I hope not.

        It boggles me that there is such opposition to serial monogamy on this blog. Would you really want to have to marry the first girl you ever dated just because you dated her?

  17. This has gotten really Orwellian:

    Pickup techniques = “dating”

    Serial promiscuity = “relationships”

    Sending financially successful nerds back to the Reserves = “sex therapy”

    • Add to that list “relationships” = marriage.

      If you look at 21 Convention’s belief that relationships are a special category, it’s incredibly similar to how traditionalists and the ultra religious treat marriage. Of course, “relationship” is so weakly defined coming from women that effectively women are demanding to have their one night stands treated with as much social sanction as marriage.

      • The 21 Convention is now a platform for various Randian talking points. He even had Yaron Brook speak at a few of them. Rand and Branden elevated the romantic relationship above all others. They attributed a metaphysic to it. ADJ now even gives a speech on this.

        Someone tried to argue on his blog that the parent child relationship transcends more than the romantic relationship does and ADJ rudely cursed him out.

        He’s a brainwashed Rand zombie.

        • From his Facebook:

          Anthony Dream Johnson
          June 5 at 1:44pm · Edited ·

          In the pickup community, standard operating procedure is to not engage with women logically, to avoid it at nearly any cost, unless you want her to lose attraction.

          This strikes me as completely insane, and as a micro-expression of the anti-rational, anti-romantic age we live in.

          Emotional button pushing women to get laid is a fool’s errand and does nothing productive for your life long term.

          If you want to find a woman worth having a long term, intimate, and fulfilling relationship with you need to be constantly pinging for women who respond to you on multiple levels. Every one you have a significant understanding of for that matter.

          Putting action to words, if you ask my wife what initially attracted her to me, it was a fun yet rigorous and logical argument made in response to one of her own.

          This made her realize that not only was I emotionally (not afraid of losing her interest) and intellectually unintimidated with what she wrote, but I could respond with a superior argument in this instance. This was deeply attractive.

          Logic is not the enemy of emotion. When both of these are firing on all cylinders, only then can you be as attractive as possible to a woman who matters for your life.

          Anyone telling you differently is feeding you bullshit. Emotional connection and attraction is very important – so is the attraction of two minds.

  18. ““Wait a minute here, Alek…
    You don’t care about the number of partners a woman has had, so long as they are geeks/nerds? This is the first time I’ve heard this sentiment! Typically, the men I speak to online make no distinctions, and simply state that a high N is bad, no ifs, ands or buts. Your view is quite interesting and refreshing.

    As another hypothetical, what about a woman who has casual sex but then doesn’t expect a man (“real” or not) to support her/marry her up?”

    – Its a common trope in the Manosphere. They say look at a woman’s past “relationships” and if there was even one single alpha anywhere, dump her, or at least don’t relationship her up.

    Some of them even go so far as to say that if she’s ever even dated a black guy!

    Freud’s penis envy theory seems to be alive and well in the Manosphere.”

    You are giving your female nature away you stupid bitch.

    Look the point is not the partner count, the point is why should men accept a woman who didn’t want them before, just because they have status and money? You know how divorce works right?

    • You know men who pursued certain women before they got rich who got rejected and those same women chased them after they got rich? Or are you talking about people who didn’t know each other before? You can’t accept or reject someone you’ve never met.

      • 1) Yes, Bitch, all of these reservists know of specific cases
        2) Plus each reservist has seen thousands of cases of how women act in their twenties vs how they act when they’re ready to settle down

        MOST WOMEN spend their twenties banging ONE of type man, REJECTING the other TYPE of men

        MOST WOMEN then try to settle, by trying to get provision from the SAME type she spent her twenties rejecting.

        While the specific cases are enough (where the same chick treats him one way in his twenties, and another in her thirties)… They are not even necessary, just observing how MOST women act to TYPES of men is enough.

        • The fact that there are specific cases could make for a very good clarification post. Many people, myself included, are initially confused about this aspect of anger evident on blogs/comment sections such as this one. It wasn’t until it was explained that most men in this part of the blogosphere actually were rejected in their 20s but pursued in their 30s by *the same* women. The frustration and hurt is much more understandable when this is the case…The fact that so many men have stories about this just goes to show how many women don’t comprehend the hurt they cause in the dating pool (not that this absolves their actions, of course).

        • I think many examples observed by introverts/geeks are self evident from their adolescence & young adulthood in settings such as public schools/universities, where low-status males(both low status as far as social acceptance & relatively economically also low status(lower middle class) also) find themselves surrounded by low-intelligence, extroverted(though sexually-preferred) douchebags & thugs in settings more resembling a prison(for the introverted, intelligent young men) then a place of “higher learning”(when you look at most people(even middle aged people) today, who wonder what did they “learn”).

        • Should be “you” rather than “who” at the end. Also “than” instead of “then” somewhere else. I hate typos…distracts from the points I’m making.

        • Hmmm. The dual mating strategy theory has been debunked. Humans, generally speaking, do not employ a dual mating strategy, going after one type in their youth and then another type in their settling down years. With some exceptions, most humans go for the same type of person throughout.

        • Hmmm. The dual mating strategy theory has been debunked. Humans, generally speaking, do not employ a dual mating strategy, going after one type in their youth and then another type in their settling down years. With some exceptions, most humans go for the same type of person throughout.

          That’s mathematically impossible if you count all lays, hookups etc.

          As a twenties guy, you can join any larger social circle or niche (one involving hundreds of women and hundreds of men).

          You can also observe that there are something like 2-3 players who are having all the lays and hookups… laying as much as 50-60-70 of the total pool of women in between themselves.

          With 2-3 guys managing to get a steady girlfriend, and the other 94 guys getting nothing.

          ANY MAN WHO HAS EVER JOINED ANY SOCIAL CIRCLE/scene/lifestyle OF ANY KIND HAS SEEN THIS FIRST HAND.

          HOW IS IT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE for all of those women to then settle for the same kind of guy (player) later in life, when these guys are a rarity? There’s simply not enough of them to go around.

          Here’s how your fuzzy vagina math is possible

          It’s called omissions and deleting data. If women don’t count the flings, and don’t count the drunken hookups and don’t count the experiences with the players…

          And the research chooses ONLY to record “long-term mate preferences”, then yes women will say the same crap in their twenties that they say in their thirties.

          Yes in their twenties they’ll say they want nice guys (while banging the players) and eventually settle for a guy who actually meets her preferences when she starts getting wrinkles.

        • The dual mating strategy theory has been debunked.

          By whom? Show me a non-feminist paper that “debunks it”… All of social psychology and evolutionary psychology STILL talks about dual mating strategies. Every week a new study comes out on the subject… Heck, there even dozens of studies on how birth control affects the dual mating strategy… just that one aspect alone has been making headlines for the past couple of years.

          Where’s this debunking bitch? You going to link me to a feminist blog where a feminist says its not true because paaatriarcheee?

        • The fact that there are specific cases could make for a very good clarification post. Many people, myself included, are initially confused about this aspect of anger evident on blogs/comment sections such as this one. It wasn’t until it was explained that most men in this part of the blogosphere actually were rejected in their 20s but pursued in their 30s by *the same* women.

          Yo Tarnished, I’ll have to say the following, and I say this with due respect (and I do respect you).

          Honestly?

          You’re soft-peddling bullshit.

          This is how women try to get away with their bullshit by making it individual and hoping that men (who are extreme pattern recognizers will not see the patterns). MAKING IT INDIVIDUAL is the FIRST TRICK women use to make a fool out of us.

          Here’s how it works:

          – Jane spends her ENTIRE TWENTIES saying that SHE PREFERS men who are ABC, and spends her entire time RANTING against traits xyz and how guys with xyz are ahole dbag idiot bad men

          – At the SAME TIME, she spends her youth banging EXCLUSIVELY xyz men

          – At the SAME TIME, she mocks, humiliates and rejects ABC men

          (Now here’s her copout…)

          – if you ask her how come she’s hooking up with Jack who’s an XYZ man… she will make it INDIVIDUAL… oh its jsut that there’s something about him that makes him special

          – if you ask her how come she creep shamed, humiliated and mocked John (an ABC man), she will say that she could sense how he was really rotten inside and just pretending to be nice tm.

          YOU are implying this is valid bullshit. That men ONLY have a right to feel angry if Jane later goes to the same John…

          BUT SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO… BECAUSE MEN SEE THE BS.

          She spends her ENTIRE youth banging XYZ men and rejecting ABC men, and then when wrinkles appear, she goes for ABC men.

          We men are pattern recognizers. She can use the excuse of making it individual for sure. Oh sure I spent my entire youth humiliating ABC, and LYING TO THEM to remain ABC (so they are in the reserves)… but BY SOME COSMIC COINCIDENCE… when my first wrinkle appeared… I went for my first ABC date.

          A COMPLETE coincidence all of you guys should IGNORE. You should also ignore that 95% of women you know have done. Just ignore… just ignore… do not recognize the pattern. Individualize…

        • First, thanks Alek. I respect you too.

          Secondly, I’m going to state upfront right now that I’m not peddling *anything*. I think MGTOW is the absolute best option for men in our society, and have in fact recommended such a lifestyle to many single men. Marriage and cohabitation is proving to be of great potential danger for men. Besides, I have no horse in this race…I’m single and happy. Men should have this option shown to them as well, and not be shamed for remaining a lifelong bachelor or a virgin. *Nobody* should base their worth on how the opposite sex sees them, as everyone has value regardless of what others think they ought to do. MGTOW all the way.

          I was just pointing out that, to someone newly questioning the dating scene or trying to understand the topics here, it’s easier to use the direct cases as a springboard. After enough men speak of their direct/individual cases, of course a pattern emerges that causes further frustration and anger…I never once said that it didn’t. Only that the pattern is *made* of individual experiences, so a post that highlights these first might make more sense to a newbie.

        • Secondly, I’m going to state upfront right now that I’m not peddling *anything*.

          I was going to say you’re probably doing it unconsciously. So it might be that.

        • Lol. No, sorry to burst your bubble, Alek, but the feminine imperative means less than nothing to me. I’m gender dysphoric…if I could literally wave a magic wand right this very second and turn from a woman to a man, I’d do it. No hesitation, no regrets. Believe you me, I am very conscious of what I do and say, and the reasons behind it. Being as introverted as I am, there’s been a lot of time for personal introspection and consideration. The issue is that my words are purely black & white…yet people constantly assume there’s a gray area or some wretched, blurred doublespeak.

          There is not.
          Hence why I appreciated your clarification before, since it eliminated honest confusion. I’ve pathetic levels of experience in the dating world, so please excuse my naivete and do not mistake it for some version of peddling NAWALT.

          For what it’s worth, you have my full agreement in regards to your other comment. Personal/direct rejection isn’t necessary, and yes, observation of individual women works just as well.

        • Only that the pattern is *made* of individual experiences, so a post that highlights these first might make more sense to a newbie.

          Of course, but the invididual cases don’t have to be the SAME WOMAN rejecting the SAME MAN and then asking him out 15 years later.

          This is also an individual example:

          “I (John) noticed Jane spend her entire youth saying she prefers ABC, hates XYZ and she kept dating XYZ guys! Until we got into our thirties, and then all of a sudden she started going for ABC guys if they had enough money to provide for her”

          Jane doesn’t have to have personally rejected John, and then later asked him for marriage to be a VALID example.

          Now multiply this by a 100, with each of these angry men knowing hundreds of Janes…

        • Personal/direct rejection isn’t necessary

          There’s still a misunderstanding. THERE IS personal/direct rejection, tons of it 🙂 If there was no personal/direct rejection I’d say these guys would have a much weaker case.

          John does get PERSONALLY rejected by Jane, and he notices that jane rejects hundreds of other ABC guys, to hook up with XYZ guys (despite lying to men to remain ABC). He sees this scenario play out with hundreds of women.

          All I’m saying is that Jane doesn’t have to find John 15 years later and ask him out, for it to be seen as valid. It’s valid enough that John sees hundreds of Janes going for ABC guys in their thirties.

          It is a huge part that he was rejected by tons of janes personally, it is necessary.

        • All I’m saying is that Jane doesn’t have to find John 15 years later and ask him out, for it to be seen as valid. It’s valid enough that John sees hundreds of Janes going for ABC guys in their thirties.

          Specifically. John does personally get rejected by hundreds of Janes (in favor of XYZ guys), and later sees these same women settle for ABC guys (after banging through tons of XYZ guys in their youths).

          But people who want to obfuscate this reality are saying John should totally ignore the pattern, and it only counts if Jane specifically asked him out 15 years later, him personally (not other ABC guys).

  19. Women have this obsession with serial monogamy because it is not thought of as cheating in the traditional sense. When most people think of cheating, they think of a person cheating on another person while in a committed relationship, which I would define as strict monogamy. Serial monogamy gives women a free pass to gorge upon their hypergamous instincts, with no regard for all the men they destroy along the way. All this “relationship sex vs. casual sex” attempted rationalization by women is mute, because if she isn’t having sex with someone she is committed to for life, she is engaging in casual sex. The slut walks didn’t really work out, so now women are using this “I am not a slut as long as it is ‘relationship’ sex” nonsense as another lame attempt to de-stigmatize female promiscuity.

    • Bull! Serial monogamy is not cheating because there’s no one cheated in such an arrangement. For that matter mutually agreed upon open relationships (polyamory) is not “cheating” either.

      Do you really want to be obligated to marry the very first girl you ever date? If not, you are a serial monogamist. Embrace it.

  20. Islam’s fantasy about the 72 virgin girls given to martyrs in the afterlife shows how much contempt the alpha Muslim men must feel for their brethren in the Reserves. Hey, let’s tell these chumps about the virgins waiting for them in Paradise to make them into fiercer warriors!

    By contrast, it looks as if the catholic church invented the celibate priesthood & celibate monastic orders out of compassion for male sexual rejects. The church offered these men homes & a purpose for existing because it valued their lives even if the alpha males and women didn’t.

    • Celibacy is haram in Islam and marriage is the most important deen. Same as in Judaism. The reason celibacy was/is forbidden is because it is seen as unnatural and nurturing to perversity and sin. The rationale is that humans are sexual beings and therefore must marry to indulge their sexual needs in a way that produces offspring and is socially acceptable.

      They might be right when you consider the perversity and abuse that takes place in monastaries and ashrams world wide. Catholic priests are not the only “celibates” guilty of this. Buddhist monastaries and Hindu ashrams are rife with it too.

      • “humans are sexual beings and therefore must marry to indulge their sexual needs”

        Sex isn’t a need; that’s 1960s new-age feminist hippy psychobabble. Go to an asexual site & tell those people(people who don’t feel the need or desire for sex) that they are sexual perverts, you blue pill ignoramus. One CAN resist sexual temptation if one’s a “loser” sexually….it can be learned.

        Anyway, Advanced Atheist was comparing the compassion of the Catholic Church regarding omega men(men you denounce) versus fucktards like ISIS, asking those men to blow themselves up for 72 virgins in the sky.

        I’ll quote what the Atheist said, as being an atheist he obviously has no dog in the fight, so to speak, as it concerns Catholics, thus what he says is objective:

        “By contrast, it looks as if the catholic church invented the celibate priesthood & celibate monastic orders out of compassion for male sexual rejects. The church offered these men homes & a purpose for existing because it valued their lives even if the alpha males and women didn’t.”

        Let me add that churches of old weren’t perverted by modern feminism. I do agree the infusion these days of manginas/feminists in pulpits/congregations is terribly unfortunate.

        • “Sex isn’t a need; that’s 1960s new-age feminist hippy psychobabble. ”

          Its actually ancient Abrahamic mythology babble.

        • “Its actually ancient Abrahamic mythology babble.”

          You need to put the myth in its historical context.

          With 7 billion + right now, if anything we could use a culling(we’ll run out of resources otherwise).

        • not conned, I didn’t say I agreed with their stance, just that they might have a point on the celibacy/sexual repression resulting in perversity and sin/crime bit.

          I always advocate safe sex – that is the use of condoms for sexually active men, or vasectomies for the ones who are absolutely sure they never want kids.

        • “just that they might have a point on the celibacy/sexual repression resulting in perversity and sin/crime”

          When it comes specifically to clergymen either alleged or proven to molest, I concur there, but you need to come up with reliable statistics proving omega men in general are going around committing these “sins/crime” you speak of, otherwise you’re only proving you’re just bigoted those men(and don’t think just because it’s “politically correct” to do so that makes it a-ok, because it’s slander nonetheless).

      • They might be right when you consider the perversity and abuse that takes place in monastaries and ashrams world wide.

        I assume you have actual hard evidence of this because otherwise you are falsely accusing monks of rape/abuse/sexual assault, and making those kinds of false accusations is verboten on this blog.

        • What Century 21 typed prior to what you quoted:

          “The reason celibacy was/is forbidden is because it is seen as unnatural and nurturing to perversity and sin. The rationale is that humans are sexual beings and therefore must marry to indulge their sexual needs in a way that produces offspring and is socially acceptable.”

          With that in mind I responded to defend the Catholic church(which is something I never thought I’d do) purely based on 21’s shaming of celibacy in general & to reassert advancedatheist’s brilliant & honest point that at least the Catholic establishment actually valued low status men, which almost no one does anymore, as illustrated by, among countless other examples, the zeal of modern feminist “progressives”(regressives) to attack Christian monks & paint them all with the “rapist/child molester” brush based on the unfortunate actions of some, just like low status men in general are painted with similar invectives(& many others).

          I want to make it clear(as I thought I did before) that I don’t approve with the other anti-male elements of Christianity, which I’m well aware of, and I’m not religious either.

        • One is expected to be celibate before they marry but marriage is considered the best deen. There may be exceptions of prominant Muslims not ever marrying by choice, but there will also be some other Muslims who say that’s anti-Islamic.

          This topic is actually discussed a lot during Islamic lectures.

  21. The “playing dumb” routine by women is what really pisses me off. They know full well what is going on, but when confronted with the truth, they act like they are innocent angels who would never hurt a fly. Give me a fucking break. You gotta love it when a woman will say something like “I went after the bad boys when I was young, but now that I have more life experience, I have learned to appreciate the nice guys.” Let’s be real. As Alek has pointed out, this magical epiphany always occurs once a woman’s looks start to fade. Do us a favor, women, and just stop with all the “I go for nice guys now that I am more mature and able to make better decisions” bullshit. If bad boys are your thing, then you are free to fuck them as much as you want, and as many of them of you want, but don’t act like you didn’t know what you were doing, or that you suddenly have all this newfound admiration and respect for guy you wouldn’t give the time of day to when you were young. Just be honest for once in your fucking lives and deal with the consequences or your awful decisions. Don’t get pissed at Mr. Nice Guy when he refuses to bail your ass out.

    • Life experience has the paradoxical effect of enriching men and impoverishing women. A show about a female version of Timothy Ferriss, based on learning new skills, probably wouldn’t work because the woman would worry about something going wrong which might harm her looks or otherwise make her less feminine or attractive.

    • The human brain isn’t fully developed until at least 25 so I wouldn’t expect young people to always make good, rationale decisions. I used to go for the “hot chicks” when I was young too. Then I realized my own SMV and calibrated accordingly, which not only got me girlfriends who were my equals in the more realistic assortive mating market, but because these women were not hot, they were often more down to earth and humble which made for better relationships.

      The system works if you calibrate accordingly and work it.

      • The human brain isn’t fully developed until at least 25 so I wouldn’t expect young people to always make good, rationale decisions.

        Here’s the difference bitch. GUYS DONT LIE ABOUT IT.

        A guy will not go and tell fat chicks to remain fat and wait for the right guy to appreciate her fatness. (stay in the reserves)

        A guy will NOT LIE TO a woman’s face that he first criteria he has in sexual attraction is the number of diplomas a woman has. He will not LIE TO HER that he “hates thin women with great bodies who are very sexual”

        HE WILL not mislead and manipulate her by sending her down the wrong path.

        The system works if you calibrate accordingly and work it.

        Because you have a vagina. You spent your entire youth trying to get the “hot guys” to commit… when you finally realized you couldn’t, you went and settled for a dude who’s not that hot and smooth and popular and high status, when you realized you weren’t hot enough to retain a high-status guy. You finally realized that higher-status guys only used you as a dumpster, and none of them will ever see you in a serious way.

        It doesn’t work for guys to “lower their standards” Stop projecting your experiences as a woman onto men. Its women who spend their 20s with unrealistic standards about whom they can retain. Its not average guys trying to bang supermodels, that’s just your neurosis speaking.

        I WISH IT DID WORK THAT WAY!!! I wish it were ten times easier to bang plane janes than hotties… I REALLY DO. I’d love to live on such a planet where it made a huge difference.

        Listen bitch, my orgasm isn’t any less good if I bang a six than when I bang an eight. Really, it’s just as good. I wish I could get laid substantially more by simply choosing to only flirt with sixes… REALLY.

        Alas for us men it doesn’t work that way. Whether you get rejected by 15 hotties to get one hottie, or get rejected by 10 plain janes to get one plain jane, its still a bootload of pursuing, effort and rejection.

        • ” GUYS DONT LIE ABOUT IT.”

          – The hell we don’t. Heck I’ve lied to my own sisters (so has our father) and a number of my female friends who were either fat, weird or otherwise unattractive that “beauty is on the inside” and “if you wait, a good man will come along who love you for that inner beauty. These are common tropes sold to women in our culture and you know it.

          “A guy will not go and tell fat chicks to remain fat and wait for the right guy to appreciate her fatness. (stay in the reserves)”

          – Look up “curvy shrine” on youtube. This is EXACTLY what he and the men he cross posts with are telling fat women all over the world!

          “A guy will NOT LIE TO a woman’s face that he first criteria he has in sexual attraction is the number of diplomas a woman has. ”

          – So where are the women telling men their first criteria in sexual attraction is the number of diplomas a man has?! Everyone knows the first criteria in human sexual attraction is LOOKS first and everything else comes after.

          “He will not LIE TO HER that he “hates thin women with great bodies who are very sexual”

          – Just as no women say “We hate fit guys with great bodies who are sexy as hell. We LOATHE them!!!” That’s why Hollywood always puts out ads for “Need ugly fat man to play leading romantic role in next year’s summer block buster”.

          “HE WILL not mislead and manipulate her by sending her down the wrong path.”

          – See above, my first sentence.

          “It doesn’t work for guys to “lower their standards”

          Targetting 4’s and chubsters instead of 8’s worked for me. They were flattered, in fact.

        • “I wish it were ten times easier to bang plane janes than hotties… I REALLY DO. I’d love to live on such a planet where it made a huge difference.

          my orgasm isn’t any less good if I bang a six than when I bang an eight. Really, it’s just as good. I wish I could get laid substantially more by simply choosing to only flirt with sixes… REALLY.”

          – Well there’s your problem right there mate! 6’s are not “plain janes”. They are ABOVE average. You’re aiming too high, brah.

        • 21 Convention,

          What’s the point of this conversation? By now, it should be evident by now that…regardless of what your own experiences are with dating…they aren’t the same for the gentlemen here. You aren’t giving advice so much as saying “I do X. X works for me. If X doesn’t work for you, you’re doing it wrong/aren’t really trying.”

          This isn’t conducive to actual exchange of information or ideas, so what are you attempting to do?

        • Well there’s your problem right there mate! 6’s are not “plain janes”. They are ABOVE average. You’re aiming too high, brah.

          Listen Bitch… You can argue semantics all you want.

          We’ve all tested this shit going for fours (below average) and even threes [way below average]… (you can’t even go lower than that, because threes are pretty rare, a two is as rare as a supermodel, you can’t even meet her in the first place)

          None of us have ever found this mythical level of low standards whereby you get women effortlessly and without rejection, or where its substantially easier.

          None of the fours I have banged were any easier than the eights I’ve banged… not an ounce easier.

  22. Have you noticed how single, childess women in their late 20’s & 30’s seem to lose focus in their lives? I can think of a half dozen examples from personal acquaintance. When they have thwarted their evolved purpose for existing by not having children by that age, their brains apparently go into standby mode or something.

  23. I always get a kick out of these women who drone on and on with their “lower you standards” bullshit. You know what one of my uncompromising standards is? I will never be with a woman in any capacity who has terrible character. If she has no honor or integrity, is not accountable and responsible, or chooses to associate with people who have no morals, she is at the bottom of the barrel, as far as I am concerned. That is really the heart of the matter, at least for me. Women have such piss-poor value systems, they are a toxin to everyone around them. And then they wonder why men of high character want nothing to do with them, as if we have spent years, sometimes decades, just living under a fucking rock, not paying attention as to what was really going on. Or worse, they take out all their anger and frustration on men who did nothing to them, all the while pining for the men who were the ones’ who hurt them in the first place. But the best is when regular guys get accused of being bitter. The most bitter people I have ever encountered are the used up sluts in their 30s and 40s. Their bitterness is 100 times worse than anything I have ever encountered by regular guys online, or in the real world. You made your bed, now fucking lie in it.

  24. I wonder if all these women who tell men to “lower their standards” give women the same spiel. It is hilarious watching all these delusional Plain Janes’ act as if they are Hollywood starlets. I have encountered so many of these women who act as if they are God’s gift to men, but in reality, they are nothing special. Just another average looking woman with an out of control ego. The funny thing is how they act like they are so fucking amazing, yet men only stick around long enough to fuck them, and then disappear. If these women were so great, they wouldn’t get pumped and dumped on a regular basis.

    • ” Just another average looking woman with an out of control ego. The funny thing is how they act like they are so fucking amazing, yet men only stick around long enough to fuck them, and then disappear. If these women were so great, they wouldn’t get pumped and dumped on a regular basis.”

      I stick around. All of my best girlfriends have been 4’s (below average looking). But they were down to earth. Why are you attracting ego maniacs into your energy sphere?

      Project love and positivity out to below average looking women and you will get the same in turn.

      Peace.

      • Project love and positivity out to below average looking women and you will get the same in turn.

        Peace.

        And we’re done….

        HAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

        • Like hell we’re done!

          21 Convention says:
          June 21, 2015 at 10:39 am

          ” GUYS DONT LIE ABOUT IT.”

          – The hell we don’t. Heck I’ve lied to my own sisters (so has our father) and a number of my female friends who were either fat, weird or otherwise unattractive that “beauty is on the inside” and “if you wait, a good man will come along who love you for that inner beauty. These are common tropes sold to women in our culture and you know it.

          “A guy will not go and tell fat chicks to remain fat and wait for the right guy to appreciate her fatness. (stay in the reserves)”

          – Look up “curvy shrine” on youtube. This is EXACTLY what he and the men he cross posts with are telling fat women all over the world!

          “A guy will NOT LIE TO a woman’s face that he first criteria he has in sexual attraction is the number of diplomas a woman has. ”

          – So where are the women telling men their first criteria in sexual attraction is the number of diplomas a man has?! Everyone knows the first criteria in human sexual attraction is LOOKS first and everything else comes after.

          “He will not LIE TO HER that he “hates thin women with great bodies who are very sexual”

          – Just as no women say “We hate fit guys with great bodies who are sexy as hell. We LOATHE them!!!” That’s why Hollywood always puts out ads for “Need ugly fat man to play leading romantic role in next year’s summer block buster”.

          “HE WILL not mislead and manipulate her by sending her down the wrong path.”

          – See above, my first sentence.

          “It doesn’t work for guys to “lower their standards”

          Targetting 4’s and chubsters instead of 8’s worked for me. They were flattered, in fact.

  25. “Celeste Hirschman”

    Huh, figured this therapist is Jewish. The whole psychology industry is a jew-invented scam after all.

    The real reason why “tech guys” dont get laid: They’re ugly, thus turned to computer to waste time instead of fucking pussy (that would not put out to ugly guys), so they had it easier becoming “techies”.

    If given the choice, women only want to fuck the best looking guys.

    • You mean those same tech guys that allow you to post your cognitive dissonance, where on one hand you go after soft-science feminist regressives, then you attack the very people(techs) that are victims of those “progressives” more than anyone?

  26. I can give you a famous example of how the catholic church took in a male sexual reject: Thomas Aquinas.

    Thomas’s father had several sons who could marry and carry on the family line. Around the time Thomas, the fat, unattractive boy in the family, turned five (!!!), daddy sized him up as a sexual loser and sent him off to a monastery. The church treated Thomas decently after his own family evicted him from ever having sexual relationships, and he became one of the church’s most influential and respected theologians.

    By contrast, in our allegedly more “enlightened” and secularized era, we let these kinds of boys grow up in their families, join the Reserves and string them along with this gas lighting about meeting their female soul mates some day after women have given away their best sexual values in their youth to the “exciting” men who mysteriously become unworthy of their vaginas after these women turn 25 or so.

    The facts of the matter stare us in the face, but for some reason the elites don’t like for anyone to draw attention to them.

    • What has this got to do with the elites? It is mangina’s and women who don’t like attention being drawn to this. I have seen the social dynamics play out countless times over facebook.

  27. This story from a couple years back illustrates the issues many of us have with today’s dysfunctional dating situation. You could even view Braxton Wood as the Anti-Elliot Rodger:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-10/news/chi-missing-teenage-couple-found-safe-in-chicago-20130909_1_teen-couple-jayden-thomas-braxton-wood

    Now you know this 13 year old girl Jayden ran off with Braxton for fucking purposes. Do you think she has “learned her lesson” about the dangers of banging bad boys, so that she’ll save herself for marriage to a nerd from the Reserves when she turns 21? Of course not.

    And do you think Braxton’s elders will tell him to go into the Reserves, and expect him to comply? Again, of course not. They’ll just tell him to slow down with his acquisition of sexual experience and make better decisions about how he gets it.

    And you can’t de-experience Braxton now. As I pointed out in another post, sexual experience is its own training, and this young man has gotten away head of most of his peers without having to do any of the nonsense things about “developing” himself that elders tell other boys his age they send to the Reserves.

    • Correct. You are no longer intimidated by a nude woman, and you do get better at fucking, hitting the clit at the right angle, and now my problem is that I often no longer can orgasm when using a condom, or even by a handjob afterwards. No premature ejaculations!

      • “Premature ejaculations”

        I loathe the societal tolerance of such a term. There shouldn’t be anything “premature” about attaining orgasm as a male ahead of or with a female partner. If it’s a case of the man literally orgasming too soon for *his own* liking, then that is a different story. But to claim the female partner *must* be fully satisfied prior to the male is not only sexist, but showcases a distinct lack of sexual imagination or ability for society to accept that sex needn’t be performed according to a particular script.

        • Why should it? Unless you’re also referring to the female’s refractory period, in which case yes, both partner’s RPs should be taken into account.

        • To clarify, just because the guy orgasms first and his genitals are in their refractory period doesn’t mean that other sexual acts can’t then be done with/to the woman in the meantime that do not involve said parts of his body.

        • Don’t bother talking to 21 Convention. She’s that Plain Jane/Polyamourus Desi troll who hangs around the maunuresphere that decided to come back here after a multi year absence so I banned her again.

        • I wonder if she’s an ISIS supporter. She obviously disapproves of celibacy. You know what a lot of, um, “those people” do to people they disagree with. I’d rather not die via decapitation.

        • Celibacy is absolutely fine so long as that is what the person in question wants for themselves. Attempting to shame asexuals for not having a libido/having no interest in sex is just as wrong as shaming homosexuals or heterosexuals for their desires.

        • https://www.facebook.com/radha.barwali

          Her one post, from 2010, linked me to a search for some sort of “virgin slut” porn.

          Don’t go to her Youtube; in her latest video, some fugly oriental is breastfeeding, & her big fat ugly brown tit’s in the thumbnail(looks like it hasn’t been washed since probably the ’70s).

        • Haha, I just found it Googling her name; whatever that is, I certainly have NO desire to “go there”, even IF I was desperate….

        • It just sounds really weird, lol. There’s things even I won’t look up.
          I thought you were asexual anyway though? (Sorry if that’s wrong, no offense intended.)

        • “There’s things even I won’t look up.
          I thought you were asexual anyway though?”

          I looked up the name “Radha Barwali”(that Oogenhand provided) since Blackpill asked Oogenhand if it was 21 Convention, and I was just curious about finding out the person “behind the mask”, since she trolled these comments repeatedly.

          Like I said, I have NO interest in whatever freaky shit that troll is personally into.

          I’m not asexual, but do appreciate the asexual crowd, because, frankly, they are the group of people I’ve seen that have come the closest to truly accepting older virgins(including male virgins). Since they lack sex drive(either physically or psychologically), I know I don’t(as I middle-aged virgin myself) have to put up with ridicule, judgment, belittlement & so forth from them for my lack of physical intimacy. I find that refreshing.

        • Ah, okay. My apologies for the misunderstanding then. I misread some of your previous comments as meaning you were asexual instead of simply enjoying their perspective (for obvious reasons). It certainly does sound like a refreshing viewpoint!

        • What I said(in that other comment somewhere) to 21 Troll(who’s obsessed with shaming all celibates, across the board, as closet sexual deviants & perverts, etc) was(I’m paraphrasing): “Go to an asexual site & tell those folks(men & women) that they’re deviant & see how far you get”.

          I personally don’t get offended by much anymore(I’m largely desensitized about a lot of things a lot of people still get up in arms about), but when people thoughtlessly attack those like me(be they celibates(voluntary or non) or asexuals) as being closet “creepers”, perverts, deviants or whatever else, while we’re simply peacefully trying to live our lives & allow others do to likewise, I lose any capacity to empathize(which they say people on the autism spectrum lack anyway, so it’s like all the more reason for me to not give a crap & just live & let them die).

        • Fair enough.
          To be honest, I have a lot of customers (work at a comic book/gaming store) who are on the autism spectrum and haven’t necessarily seen a lack of empathy as an inability/difficulty knowing when or how to show it. As someone who is touch-phobic except for 3 or 4 people total, incredibly empathetic, and socially awkward herself, it’s easy to relate. Accepting someone’s differences, be they mental/sexual/physical is not a problem unless they’re trying to force it on others. Live and let live really isn’t hard to do.

        • “Fair enough.
          To be honest, I have a lot of customers (work at a comic book/gaming store) who are on the autism spectrum and haven’t necessarily seen a lack of empathy as an inability/difficulty knowing when or how to show it.”

          I have empathy, regardless of what “experts” say. That doesn’t mean I must remain silent about attacks on my character/lifestyle. The fact that I don’t share the neurology of the majority(even probably the majority of these commenters) doesn’t mean I don’t understand how injustice against men effects many different types of men(or how injustice in general effects even more types of people).

          “Accepting someone’s differences, be they mental/sexual/physical is not a problem unless they’re trying to force it on others. Live and let live really isn’t hard to do. ”

          Standing up for myself, stating my disgust for those that seek to persecute me & what I’m about, is not forcing my will on anyone. This is an open comments forum. I’m not telling anyone to agree with what I say, though I reserve the right to say whatever I want, whether it’s deemed “acceptable” or “politically correct”, and I’m never going to apologize for standing up for myself, whether it pleases anyone or no one at all. That’s what I meant.

        • Actually, can I ask you something? Oftentimes on here I’ll say X, where X is in full agreement or even a reiteration of what another guy has said…but their response will be as if I was disagreeing or misunderstanding. (Our recent conversation as a case in point.) I’d like to know why this is, if you can tell me, because it’s pretty confusing. If I’m speaking in an atypical way or somehow being unclear, I’d like to know what it is so I can try to fix myself.

        • “Oftentimes on here I’ll say X, where X is in full agreement or even a reiteration of what another guy has said…but their response will be as if I was disagreeing or misunderstanding. (Our recent conversation as a case in point.) I’d like to know why this is, if you can tell me, because it’s pretty confusing. If I’m speaking in an atypical way or somehow being unclear, I’d like to know what it is so I can try to fix myself”

          Honestly, I can’t answer for why others have felt that way(you’d have to ask them), but it just seemed, especially earlier in our convo taday, that you were getting a little bit of a creep vibe from me, and quite honestly I guess I can see why, because you don’t know me(I don’t post here except very infrequently, normally), and some of what I say tends to be pretty blunt(I don’t hold back much) or whatever, so I can understand others maybe feeling like “Where’s he coming from?”, and I get that a lot also(and have gotten it) in real life because of being “aspie”, and really there’s not a lot I can do about it, it seems…….so anyway, given that(and because I have the utmost respect for this blog and a lot of the ideas expressed here(& in other places like this)) I just wanted to clarify things you brought up just to let you(& anyone reading) know about what I meant when I said/say “X”, “Y”, etc., and maybe it appeared a little defensive or maybe even confrontative, but I just needed to clear the air, I guess. Nothing personal. In the end you said you agree, so I take that as validation, and I accept it & move on.

        • Hey, you asked the question; I was kind enough to answer without trying to be a passive dick about it.

          Nighty nite….

  28. Wow. Look at what slobby “alpha wannabe” Forney wrote,

    http://www.returnofkings.com/64616/why-men-going-their-own-way-is-no-way-for-men-to-go

    I wonder if he’s ever banged a chick before that wasn’t 50+lbs overweight without paying for it? My guess is that he headed to the Philippines for cheaper rates on hookers. He’s quite possibly the biggest joke of a man I have EVER seen. I showed a girl a pic of him last summer, and she burst out laughing when I said he gave dating advice! I would pay to watch him and Roosh run some “game” at a bar.

      • Three things Mr. Forney clearly does himself! Forney strikes me as the kind of guy women have always been repulsed by, always picked last in gym class that kind of guy, and now that he has a bit of a platform, he can appeal to other losers (ROK and Roosh followers) who relate to him! He’s a complete joke of a man!

        • I just like the fact he comes down so hard on the concept of fat women (and men more recently) but he’s *nowhere* close to an Adonis himself. Pot, kettle and all that.

        • Honestly, I don’t think he’s necessarily a bad looking man. His body type is very similar to my FwB’s and many gamers/nerds, and larger/broader men are typically more attractive imo so long as they don’t have bulging muscles like a giant Ken doll. But his personality sucks ass and if he’s going to be a douche not only to mgtow but male virgins in general, then he’s proven himself to be rather ugly indeed.

        • One thing I find incredibly funny about guys like Roosh and Forney is how everyone is “gay” or “beta” if they aren’t chasing “pussy” all day. I find this funny for a couple reasons, for one, any woman I’ve ever slept with would have ZERO interest in either one of these bozos, and two, they can barely get laid themselves, and they spend a TON of time and energy chasing women.

        • They talk about game and chasing pussy all day, yet they never get laid. It’s like how they talk about the paleo diet all day, but are fat blobs. (Roosh is somewhat unique among manurespherians for being at a normal weight.

          Normally, I never attack someone’s weight, but I make an exception for fat people who bullshit about how healthy their diet is and how they can get laid easily.

        • I know what you mean. I normally wouldn’t make fun of someone for having a speech impediment, but when you have tools like Mike Cernovich barking about “alpha” they are, and in reality they sound like they got kicked in the nuts, I’ll have a laugh. I really like this article.,

          https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/the-so-called-manosphere-should-be-called-the-gullibleosphere/

          If manosphere “fan boys” had a little common sense, they’d easily pick up on the fact that Cernovich’s “history” makes ZERO sense!

        • Mitchel says:
          June 21, 2015 at 3:54 am

          “Funny you should say that, Alek. I agree, and find average women tend to have way more of an attitude than VERY attractive women. I personally believe they get hit on more than the real hotties.”

          – Although most of the average and below average women I dated were had good attitudes, I’ve known some with bad ones. I chalked it up to insecurity. Some never dated, others only rarely and the guys they dated weren’t really into them. They knew how low on the totem they were and they were obviously jealous of prettier, more successful women. One of my own sisters was and is still like this.

          (And Forney is like those insecure girls. Hence his awful attitude.)

          A few years ago Fatt Forney was dogging out fat women. When his own weight was pointed out to him he said, “Yeah I’m fatt too but I’m doing something about it, I’m following the paleo diet.” That was 2 damn years ago and he’s still fatt, if not fatter!!!! He needs to STFU already.

    • I saw the “Women rate 80% of men below average.”

      I think its more likely that they rate them “unattractive”. Have you seen the average British bloke or lass? They are unattractive.

    • I saw the “Women find 80% of men below average” thing on CL London. They mean they find them unattractive. Have you ever been to the UK? You’re average Britt is unattractive.

      • I love how you try and rationalize that study away.

        What bullshit, this a trait in all women and you know it.

        Why are you in denial, why are you derailing?

  29. For what it’s worth, I’ll state this here, if I haven’t already made this comment:

    The comment section on this blog is pure gold. I spread the word where appropriate, and hopefully word keeps getting out to other MGTOW’s.

    • It’s scary how many guys are still stuck on the marriage = happiness way of thinking. Then when you try to get them to think outside the box (no cohabitation, remain a bachelor, don’t pay for dates, etc) that society has created, they scoff and claim you’re bitter without cause or crazy.

  30. Also notice the gaslighting about how incels must not want sex bad enough, or else we woul “try harder.”  Yet at the same time when we do exert ourselves, women complain about how we threaten them with sexual harassment and create a “rape culture” which makes them uncomfortable.

    • Also notice the gaslighting about how incels must not want sex bad enough, or else we woul “try harder.”

      Yep. Several years ago, I was reading this dating advice forum. A long term member of the forum was an incel and despite documenting all things he was trying (which didn’t work) they started accusing him of not actually doing anything. When challenged they backed down, blaming it on the lack of his successes, but I know if they could they would have continued accusing him of not trying anything.

  31. Sexually experienced people don’t just not understand incels’ problems. They go out of their way to avoid trying to understand them; they actively resist this information like it makes them existentially uncomfortable.

    I have to wonder if something akin to Terror Management comes into play here. The incel acts like a reminder of the reality of death, and our presence triggers sexually experienced people’s anxiety buffers to suppress awareness of what incels show about the reality of human sexuality.

    • The incel acts like a reminder of the reality of death, and our presence triggers sexually experienced people’s anxiety buffers to suppress awareness of what incels show about the reality of human sexuality.

      How so? What anxiety buffers are you referring to?

      • Just from what I observed when sexually experienced men talk with incels. Something about us really bothers them, and you notice right away that they try to force canned but wrong “explanations” for our lack of experience, like repressed homosexuality or “asexuality,” instead of wanting to learn from men who have had radically different experiences with women.

        • Anyone who tries to say that the men here are “repressing homosexuality” or are all asexual would be very stupid and ignorant. It’s pretty obvious that this is nothing close to the reality of the majority of your situations. I, however, do wish to learn what the experiences of incel and/or virgin men are since it is another facet of life.

    • “The incel acts like a reminder of the reality of death, and our presence triggers sexually experienced people’s anxiety buffers to suppress awareness of what incels show about the reality of human sexuality.”

      AKA–Sexually-experienced people are a bunch of scaredy-cat, insecure, chicken shit, poor wittow babies who can’t cope with life(see, I can shame too, bitches).

    • John the Other and Dean Esmay have poor presentation skills and are not very rigorous in their thinking. At first glance it would be best if they stopped, since they’re not helping. That is one of the main arguments of this blog. Please correct me on that if I am wrong.

      However, it’s a free country and you’re going to have plenty, hundreds, of
      presenters with poor skills on YouTube and other sites on the Internet. The only way for discussion to move forward is for bad ideas to be presented, shot down, and better ideas to rise to the top. The current core version of MGTOW is such an excellent idea, which had to evolve through discussions into it’s present form.

      That’s why I don’t link, subscribe, or otherwise waste any time checking out info from poor sources once I’ve screened them.

      • That is one of the main arguments of this blog.

        Yes, but I will admit that I don’t necessarily have the best presentation skills either. However, there is a lot of low hanging fruit that could be dealt with that would make what they’re doing significantly better.

        • Thanks for the reply. We all could more, but only in theory – we do what we can in this area.

    • Nothing John the Other says surprises me anymore. When he was at AVFM, he was a believer in conspiracy theory. After getting kicked off AVFM, he was a skeptic. The man is a chameleon holding whatever positions he feels are expedient for the current moment. You just can’t trust him.

      • He was advocating false reporting of male feminists, yet he claims to be against violence. John the other is all over the place.

        Also he is just offering another version of NAWALT

      • He also believes in Game and that he’s used Game in the past and uses it in the present. Another oddity and no-no.

  32. More atheist propaganda about how religion makes people sexually miserable while atheism leads to sexual fulfillment, without looking at how this doesn’t necessarily work for a lot of men:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/22/friendly-atheist-podcast-episode-60-dianna-e-anderson-purity-culture-critic/

    Atheists like Henant Mehta simply DO NOT want to touch the issue about all the men in secular societies who wind up in the Reserves. They have a commitment to feminism as the “rational” way of understanding women, and to atheism as the key to sexual self-actualization; so they really don’t know what to make of the trend where secular women have created conditions which push more and more secular men into living like sexually abstinent Christians, but against their will and without religious conviction to make their state bearable.

    • Hemant Mehta is a goodlooking Indian guy who most likely doesn’t have a hard time attracting women. That’s probably why he can’t relate to incels.

      “push more and more secular men into living like sexually abstinent Christians, but against their will and without religious conviction to make their state bearable.”

      Even voluntarily celibacy can eventually becoming unbearable for some. Many Catholic priests get to the point where they can’t take it anymore. Same with Buddhist and Hindu and Hare Krishna monks. Those groups also have their scandals that have been exposed via media for decades now.

      Again, ancient Jews and later Muslims forbade celibacy and encouraged (even forced) their young people to marry. The reasons for this, as explained by them, are to avoid perversion and “sin”.

      • “Again, ancient Jews and later Muslims forbade celibacy and encouraged (even forced) their young people to marry. The reasons for this, as explained by them, are to avoid perversion and “sin”.”

        So your contempt for celibates is based on religious fanaticism. Sorry for your cult worship.

  33. “Maybe because Tamerlame knows that serial monogamy requires divorce, and divorce hurts children. (If you disagree, I can find millions of children of divorce, many of them adults now, who can prove you wrong.) That’s in addition to men losing access to their children and getting ass raped in divorce courts.

    You are a vile piece of filth for supporting such things.”

    Black Pill I am the child of divorce.

    You have to be a selfish psychopath to advocate serial monogamy to be honest. I am fine with it if their are no kids in involved, but children have a human right to stable families that don’t break up.

    Kids do not want step mothers, or step fathers they want their real parents.

    • Agreed. I’ve never felt close to my half-sister or step-father, and certainly not the various other men that have [tried to] gotten close to my mother. I have no respect for my own biological father but at the same time I could never make ties with my new sibling and her father. And my mother’s serial monogamy has never sat well with me, even to this day.

      I don’t think I even know what a truly intact family feels like.

      • I think you’re preaching to the choir here, Tamerlame. Like Ergeniz, I also have no respect for my biological father since he was physically/emotionally abusive…but at the same time my stepmothers were always amazingly bitch towards me and my stepfather was sexually abusive. Although I love my half siblings (don’t have any steps), it would truly have been better if my mother hadn’t remarried…or, at least, not married my stepfather. I know you hate the concept of single moms, but honestly? Happiest times of my childhood were when she was single and we lived with my grandmothers, uncle, aunt, and had a good support system of real loving family members.

    • That teacher(& the imbeciles supporting her in the article’s comments section) should be dropped head-first into a trash can themselves………from several thousand feet.

  34. Mad Yale Grad
    June 26, 2015 at 12:36 am

    “There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral — immoral from the scientific point of view.”

    Influence is impossible to avoid. Every sentient being is influenced, and influencing. “Science” is not free from it – at all. The observer effect.

    The Manosphere, The Red Pill and their ladies’ auxilery all strike me as people not happy with their life choices. Dalrock’s blog header reads “happily married father” but all he does is rant about bad women. What happily married man does that?

    The rest felt like shit ever since they came across game, PUA and MGTOW blogs because they realized not every man swallowed the trad-con education, job, marriage, kid, mortgage kool aid and now they feel like chumps so they have to pretend they’re “running marriage game” on their wives, like Athol Kay. Have seen his wife?!?!

    Athol was a virgin Christian when he married her and although he’s no longer Christian he’s posturing as some “alpha sexpert”. Have you seen him?!?!?!

    I wish these guys would just fess up and say, “Shit! Looks like we’ve made some mistakes” instead of posing as “gurus” and putting down PUAs and MGTOWs (who they secretly envy).

    I mean, owning up to one’s regrets in life is at least respectable.

    lgrobins
    June 26, 2015 at 2:04 am

    “The Manosphere, The Red Pill and their ladies’ auxilery all strike me as people not happy with their life choices.”

    It sure is seeming that way. People are generally in two camps: 1) they let life happen to them or 2) they take life by the horns and fix their problems. As I have been observing the manosphere for 6 years, I see the same men who have made no progress, no growth. Its always the same sad song. Get offline and go out and improve yourself, fix your problems. That’s why I am not around as much as I use to be.
    That always amuses me about dalrock and its same with the ladies everyone claiming how happy they are but they sure dwell on some weird stuff for being so happy.

    http://www.unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com

    • ” Dalrock’s blog header reads “happily married father” but all he does is rant about bad women. What happily married man does that”?

      “The rest felt like shit ever since they came across game, PUA and MGTOW blogs because they realized not every man swallowed the trad-con education, job, marriage, kid, mortgage kool aid and now they feel like chumps so they have to pretend they’re “running marriage game” on their wives, like Athol Kay. Have seen his wife?!?!

      Athol was a virgin Christian when he married her and although he’s no longer Christian he’s posturing as some “alpha sexpert”. Have you seen him?!?!?!”

      These are good points. People only discuss things in length and give them attention when they are bothered by them.

      It reinforces my point about all men having to supplicate to their wives for fear of her legal power over them. There is no “dominance” there or “having your wife respect you”. Its all an illusion to help these guys feel better about the fact they’re legally slaves to their wive’s whims and have to keep her entertained lest she get bored and initiate a divorce.

      As for laura grace Robbins, she brings up good points but she’s the very same thing she criticizes other women for (a woman that is married to a man and stays at home while being financially supported by her husband). Its the pot calling the kettle black and my cynicism at this point comes up like a blast shield to protect me for stuff like that these days. AWALT.

      • >’It reinforces my point about all men having to supplicate to their wives for fear of her legal power over them. There is no “dominance” there or “having your wife respect you”. Its all an illusion to help these guys feel better about the fact they’re legally slaves to their wive’s whims and have to keep her entertained lest she get bored and initiate a divorce.’

        I know a guy who wants to start a cryonics company based on some innovative ideas. But his wife despises him for his interest in cryonics, and she holds half of his net worth hostage, something on the order of $10 million. Cryonics has a reputation as “female kryptonite” in general:

        http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/is-that-what-love-is-the-hostile-wife-phenomenon-in-cryonics/

        • Makes you wonder how many guys can’t follow their dreams and act on their ambitions because their wives won’t let them. We can probably attribute some of Silicon Valley’s success to the high rates of incel there during these guys’ most productive years.

        • That and the lack of women in Silicon Valley in general. (San Jose is called Man Jose for a reason.) A man can get a lot done without women in the way, and if women are around, they are always in the way.

    • I’ve been wishing, for years, for Republicans to abandon the tradcon asskissing & run strictly on a utilitarian pro-domestic-economic-growth platform that would not only provide more jobs but also higher tax revenues for social services(like autism disability) without borrowing from the Federal Reserve(but that would help too many evil American men I suppose)….

  35. I grew up in Tulsa in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and yet the alleged sexual revolution which I read about in the Time magazine my parents subscribed to hadn’t reached there yet, even when I went to high school (East Central High, Class of ’78). Perhaps because I ran around with other nerdy guys, I have no recollection of anyone I knew in high school who had a reputation for sexual experience.

    Like a lot of other nerds, I read science fiction, and as a result I had come to view a sex life for myself as a “science-fictional” possibility. Why? The novels I read, for example “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, along with ones by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein and Niven, depicted sexual situations set in “the future,” sometimes in the context of space exploration and contact with aliens. 

    At the time, the prospect of getting a girl into bed without having to pay her for sexual access seemed about as far off as becoming an interstellar explorer. These younger tech incels in this story probably grew up thinking about sex a lot like me. In my case, forty years later, nothing has really changed.

    • Feminist progressives(regressives) obviously never wanted(nor want) for their “sex revolution” to trickle down to us “low status” males. Their war on geeks/nerds is infinite, but what they don’t realize is their world, without us(intelligent men), is shit.

      I’ve said elsewhere is this sea of comments that any culture/society that bestows social proof/status purely on the superficial sexual whims of women doesn’t deserve that sort of privilege & should, in fact, perish altogether(and it will perish I think sometime).

    • Oops, mistake…..

      Blackpill, can you somehow move this post to the bottom of your previous post’s comments; thanks.

  36. Ha! Great post.

    Dishonest whoring is the hallmark of Amerika these days.

    Wherever there are $$’s, they’ll show up. The Center of All Evil in the Universe (NYC) is the only place where there’s way more single available women than men, like 4:3, because why? lolzzz

    There was a short mention in the news a few weeks ago about some “Women in Tech” conference at Giggle, and I thought “…it’s the only way they can scam a bunch of dumb 20-something babelicious bimbo-hos to get anywhere near those guys”.

    Remember, chicks really dig smart guys.

    #MartianLivesMatter

    • just look at a feminist flip out when as a never married/no children man, you proudly announce that you would never get involved with someone with children or a divorcee….

      Funny how they whine and cry forever about their rights to murder fetuses but if you mention that you don’t think it’s fair to get involved with a divorcee/single mom you will get look at like a bigot…

      hahaha the hypocrisy is amazing, only the lunatics at AVfM and Stormfront are as crazy…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s