Saturday, 13 August 2011

The INCEL Revolution: Norway, Riots and the Failing Hegemony

Futrelle and other feminist sympathizers always consider themselves iconoclasts and revolutionaries – strange when one considers their boundless admiration for the mainstream media, which enjoys an intimate relationship with the Anglo-American cultural establishment. This gushing approbation makes more sense if one considers television and newspapers to be pro-feminist, misandrist institutions – and that feminism defines the Establishment rather than opposing it.

Antonio Gramsci argued that the media bound the consent of the masses to the existing social order by injecting them with a worldview contrary to their real lives – in short, they adopted the worldview of the elite (or their media minions), becoming detached from (and indifferent towards) their own reality. In this deluded condition, they were easy prey for elite manipulation. What the Internet has done – in its various forms – is challenge this indoctrination process. And that is frightening the elite, for obvious reasons. Richard Scarecrow’s blog is an excellent example of this ‘reality revolution’ in action. While the legacy media continually aver that Anglo-American women are kindly angels brimming with love for humanity, Richard gives us telling anecdotes about real American women – seemingly a very different species.

When Richard – a personable, educated, solvent male – approached women in his youth, he met remarks like: “You’re so ugly I wish I was a lesbian”; “fuck off”; “Go shoot yourself”. Now, encounters like this are very rarely described in the legacy media – yet seem rather commonplace in contemporary North America. Likewise, the ubiquitous female attraction to thugs and psychopaths is widely discussed on MRA blogs and websites, yet comprehensively vetoed by the 'mainstream' media. It seems that TV and the print media are living in a cocoon of utter self-delusion on any issue that might cast women in a negative light - in short, hopelessly out-of-touch with mainstream experience. This partly explains their recent marginalization and decline into low-brow slogans and platitudes - nowadays, only working class morons, knee-jerk conservatives and libtard fanatics uncritically swallow the puritanical misandry peddled by Murdoch’s legacy press: thinking people have gone elsewhere for news and opinion (according to Reuters, 70% of Americans now consider the media 'out of touch').

This dramatic shift raises many issues of interest to MRAs and anti-feminists. With the media’s hegemony crumbling, we are seeing reality aright for the first time in centuries. While the mainstream Anglo-American media would have us believe that 60 year old women are as attractive as 20 year olds, that all men want sex with Sarah Jessica Parker, that fashion models are all leaping around in bed with truck drivers, that women aren’t hypergamous and that no one is INCEL – in short, a farrago of fictions – most thinking people now see that these are remarkably silly messages. The point being, only since the Internet emerged has any opportunity for consensus social reality to be described or upheld at all – prior to the Internet, reality was systematically vetoed.

The Internet revolution also permits new perspectives on long-standing men’s issues. It has long been assumed by PUAs and conservative anti-feminists that the late sixties weakened monogamy, allowing women to pursue 'alpha' thugs and celebrities and creating a large rump of sexually disenfranchised males. While there is some truth in this model, an alternative explanation exists. In short, could it be that there have always been sexually-disenfranchised, INCEL males – that they are not new at all? Perhaps they only seem so because - prior to the Internet - there was no way for them to articulate their experience.

The media aimed at the Anglo-American working class projects a strongly sexualized agenda – ‘everyone’ is having sex ten times a day in Murdoch-world. Given that Anglo-American working class males are – given their low incomes and desultory life-chances – unlikely to enjoy much high-quality sex, one must accept that this is classic hegemonic manipulation at work. Further, anyone who dares challenge these mass hallucinations is reflexively lambasted as a ‘freak’ or ‘misfit’. And the middle class media (GQ, Men’s Health, Esquire) are little better, largely devised by Anglo-American homosexuals and projecting a denatured, high-bourgeois fantasy world as some kind of hyper-real ‘norm’.

But now – zum Teufel! – we have a plethora of blogs, websites and social media where normal people can express themselves without Murdoch’s tyrannical filter. It is our contention that this explosion gives the impression that INCEL males, PUAs and MRAs are something new – when they have always existed, albeit in a voiceless state. After all, the voiceless might as well not exist, for all practical purposes. Similarly, anti-feminist dissent has a 'fresh-minted' aura that is entirely spurious: a good British magazine called Male View existed in the early 90s, covering much of the ground now ably traversed by Angry Harry (I know – I published in it). Of course, Male View came by subscription only – its message was too radical for the mainstream – but it still existed, albeit in a marginalized state. In sum, the Internet has made the marginal mainstream.

Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway has caused the Anglo-American Establishment much angst, most of it focussing on how online ‘communities of interest’ can form spontaneously in cyberspace, blissfully free of their ideological control (the manosphere being a good example). This fear is interesting, since fear always betrays weakness:

Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world

Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.

The role of the internet in fragmenting the public sphere has been the subject of some scholarly and journalistic interest, most recently in Eli Pariser's excellent The Filter Bubble, which shows how Google, Facebook and other major actors filter our web searches, updates etc according to our user profiles and previous cyberhistories. So if I am an environmentalist typing "climate change" into Google, I get a different set of results from you, if you are an oil executive. The filter bubble operates on Amazon by giving personal recommendations; in its more insidious ways, it tailors our web searches to confirm our pre-existing world view without us noticing. Eventually, we may drift apart and end up living in different worlds.

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, The Guardian UK, 25 July 2011

'... had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different.'

True enough - but would his world have looked like reality? The same discourse emerged in relation to George Sodini - if he had not been immersed in the PUA subculture, would he have shot the people? Well, had Sodini been listening to the 'mainstream' media (and there is no evidence he did not) he would still have thought himself a crazy misfit - and perhaps been even more dangerous. After all, the 'mainstream' media's distorted fixation with demographic oddities - rich people, cross-class relationships, teenagers, alternative lifestyles - is hardly conducive to normal social adjustment. British academic John Downing cites evidence that people who watch a lot of TV hugely exaggerate the number of privately-owned helicopters, tennis courts, swimming pools and mansions in western societies - clear proof the 'mainstream' media promotes a delusional view of the world. How, then, can accepting the 'mainstream' media promote proper adjustment when it projects such delusions as casual norms?

The establishment's worries were recently compounded by the riots in England, challenges to the power elite's hegemony organized through social networking media. Prime Minister David Cameron has already promised to shut down social networking channels during future riots. This highlights the danger they represent to our oppressors - and the opportunities they give to us.


  1. Good post Rookh.

    As an experiment: I have firefox browser, and use google search; which when typing search terms, will offer pre-emptive links below. Try typing "fat" followed by a single space; then add the letters "ma", without hitting . You should see several predictive links, including terms relating to 'fat man'. Now try the same with "fat w" or "fat wo". My predictive list goes instantly blank, because google has never heard of the expression 'fat woman'! Of course if you hit , then even google will find 'fat women'; but the point is, that google is actively playing selective mainstream politics. That should make everybody a little concerned.

    Although mainstream media is as ROOKH points out, playing a fantasy card, to aid and abet the establishments they represent, the power of google has the almighty caveat that it is manipulatable at the source.

    It is like going into the newsagents and being given the choice of the Guardian (radical agenda), or the Telegraph (conservative agenda) to buy. In the old system you are free to buy both or either; but in the new system of a corrupted google, you would buy the 'Telegraph', and find all the 'news articles' are that of the 'Guardian'.

  2. Jimmy

    Very interesting. I certainly think that form of subliminal manipulation has dangerous implications. However, compared to Murdoch's monolithic misandrist media machine in its 80s heyday, such subtleties look fairly innocuous... for now, that is.

  3. Very good article Rookh. The mainstream media makes it look like guys who are working at Mc Donalds are sleeping with super models and any guy can get laid at any time in the anglosphere. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Women in "anglo" countries are only interested in men who make more money than them (high status males). The media also makes it look like, women are easy to meet in anglo countries.

    For example, in American movies and tv shows, it shows women being very friendly and open to meeting men in public places like bookstores and grocery stores. It also shows men in tv shows and in movies in the USA to have no problem getting laid. In reality, NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!

    Thank God for the internet, where REAL people can discuss what's REALLY going on in their lives. I live in a big American city and I can tell you, trying to meet women in America, is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.

  4. Rookh;
    I was listening to American pundits on the radio right after the Norway shooting. The first words out of their mouths were words to the effect that the shooter left a manifesto with 'anti-female overtones'. The second words out their mouths were, of course, calls to censor the Internet.

  5. James Bond:
    I've been debating with so-called Game Theorists on some other blogs and it's amazing how they still believe these fantasies; even though casual observation alone shows that American women are attracted to the most degenerate males imaginable; and despise anyone who exhibits masculine 'Alpha' qualities.

    One of the best things about the Internet, too, it's not only broken down the Murdocracy and its mangina-competitors' strangehold on information; it's also largely cracked the Anglobitch monopoly on sex. Now, real men, who are interested in pursuing real women from other cultures---instead of Anglobitch dregs---can easily encounter them before investing in travel &c. Also, the power of Anglobitch shaming tactics is considerably lessened against such men, because now we can go onto blogs like this one and hear a different perspective. I remember before I encountered the MRM on the Internet, I felt very much alone in my views. Not anymore!

  6. Yes, you nailed it. Myself and my friends, as well as a huge number of people I met while in college - we were not "bitter", but moreso "confused" - a WTF attitude, since reality conflicted with dogma.

    A huge slew of women were just openly hostile towards men, men who were behaving in a civilized manner.

    And of course, the Lorena Bobbitt affair was very revealing about the true nature of women to us all when we were younger. It was also revealing about the attitudes (hostility) that some men take towards men who stand against the hatred of men.

  7. I was a mangina who saw the light after a failed relationship where I treated my girlfriend nicely. After being heartbroken for over year and a half, I realized that in order to have a successful relationship, you do NOT have to be in love with your woman, and you do have to have more than one at the same time. Of course, it's civilized if you tell her that the relationship will be an open one ... on your end only. By the way, bithces are not exclusive of the anglosaxon world, this is a global phenomena!

  8. Not only anglosaxon women suck, but also women worldwide! It seems that the only thing that will preserve civilization will be Islam!

  9. Rookh & Others:
    I had a question for everyone about Game/PUA. I mentioned that I've been debating a lot with Gamers on MRA blogs lately, and I was wondering: has anybody besides myself noticed that the men who follow 'Game' seem to have taken on a sort of cultish aspect? I'm not merely referring to their fanatical devotion to ideals that their own senses disprove (e.g. that women are attracted to strong, intelligent, confident 'Alpha' types). I've also noticed a strong evangelical, proselytising tendency--- some of them have suggested that Game be taught to all young men in public schools and universities, for example.

    Also, usually, when I'm debating with these guys and they get flummoxed against actual facts, they usually reply with statements like: "Roissy has already explained all this!" or, "Read Game-Guru-so-and-so's blog and learn something!" Of course, challenging any of Roissy's statements, brings down their wrath faster than anything else. It also seems that Game does have a lot of advocates among religiously conservative MRAs as well.

    What are some of your thoughts on this?

  10. This video clip of famed PUA Mystery 'in field' is very funny. Poor guy 'dies on his ass', as the English would say:

    As the commentary says, he repeats himself far too often. From a deeper standpoint, his Dorsai Game is poor - Canada is not exotic enough to impress American women. And he has no added value - no real talent or status. If he was an artist or musician his approach would acquire more 'weight' - as it is, he just resembles a rambling idiot with a stupid name.

  11. Women are attracted to jerks because they offer an emotional rollercoaster to their senses. The "negs", one of the jerks' arsenal, work because they are charged with negative emotions. You can act as a jerk and attract women, just make sure to provide them with both negative and positive emotions. Or you can act as a "benevolent alpha" and be a source of positive emotions only, and totally indiferent to negative ones. And I do think that psychology and game should be taught to men in their teens.

  12. Nowadays, men are weak and feeble, just like America's leaders. If we want to keep our western civilization, we need dominant, competitive, respectful men and therefore leaders.

  13. Men should not marry modern women. Marriage is an expression of a civilized society, so men who want to perpetuate our civilization should not reward feral behaviour of modern women with a marriage proposal.

  14. Anon 1407:
    Women are attracted to jerks exclusively because of their negativity. Anglo-American women are raised in a culture that teaches them that men are predatory and inferior; and that a woman's relationship goal is to dominate men. Strong 'alpha' men are only seen as threatening to such women; whereas they can easily feel superior to thugs and jerks.

  15. I, too, have noticed a tendency in North American and Anglo women (Professional types) towards gratuitous rudeness and offensiveness, and, purported superiority towards men. Such female rudeness is not universal. The rudeness is aimed at those who clearly are in every sense not merely their equal but superior (in terms of experience and qualification - there being no point in insulting ones inferiors), and against men who have behaved in a perfectly civil and decent manner. Men rarely if ever tell women exactly what they think of them as people, and thus women have little idea how they are viewed. I suggest that this incivility covers an unacknowledged sense of inferiority. Such women then throw themselves at Thugs, and toy-boys in the utter delusion that toy-boys, like cosmetics really makes them look younger, whereas it has the opposite tendency of drawing attention to the fact that they are mutton-dressed-as-lamb.

    As it is her birthday today (fifty-three) consider Madonna; underweight, scrawny, and with muscles - because nature only provides women with firm, pliant, flesh for a few years - now dating a twenty-four year old African. Men will never turn down Pussy, even post-menopausal Pussy (especially when that Pussy is paying for one) but Madonna, is, in my view, committing a form of abuse against that man, who is being deprived of the opportunity to compete against his peer group for a suitable, fertile woman. How much lower in coming years can we expect that she will go?

  16. Excellent article as usual. We did have to tune Roissy and the lads when they had a go at MRA's but it was just a minor disagreement..

  17. @Opus Most men will never turn down pussy. But a few men who have access to plenty of pussy will indeed turn down post-menopausal Madonna.

  18. @Anonymous

    Excellent Point. If her lover is not merely milking her for money (as I would expect) then one must assume he is a man who was not succeeding with women. I know of a man in his late twenties who is the paramour of a fifty year old woman; and a more pathetic specimen one could hardly get. Have we reached the stage where chastity in a man has become a sign of strength? - and taste? given that what is available is often of such very poor quality.

  19. A few comments above have me concerned. I think it was barbarossaaaa on YouTube that recently made a video documenting a 16 year old girl talking a mentally handicapped man (IQ=52) into having sex with her. Of course he was punished, even though LAW clearly states he is too mentally incompetent to give consent (double standard).

    However - notice that this mentally handicapped man did not have to "chase" tail - the tail came to him - and actually talked him into sex.

    Is a mentally handicapped man with an IQ of 52 really an "alpha" as the gamers would put it?

    If getting tail means I have to sit, look stupid and drool without wiping it off of my mouth - I'll pass...

    I wonder what that man's physical attributes were - how tall, how muscular etc...

    It would not surprise me if he was short and physically weak as well.

    Oh, and as far as turning down pussy.
    I have always had enough self-respect to turn down an offer of pussy from a woman who was a total man-hating bitch - or a woman who thought of me as a foot-stool.

  20. Sorry for the double post - I did some searching:

    to quote the PDF file above:

    "Garnett is average height (5' 8")
    and weight, but is legally mentally retarded, with an I.Q. of 52."

    Clearly, his physical attributes are nowhere near a "muscle man".

    He is a physically average man, with an IQ of 52.

    He does not have to chase tail - it comes to him.

    Now, who is going to tell me that women "pursue" alpha males???


  21. Scarecrow:
    That's another problem I have with Game. when cornered with the fact that Anglobitches show a clear preference for males who don't even closely approximate the 'Alpha' archetype; they try and palm it off that 'negativity' has some 'Alpha' quality about it. They don't even realize that one definition necessarily cancels out the the other.

    The Game guys seem to believe that women are driven by biological instincts without any regard to social factors. One of the reasons that Anglobitches are drawn to degenerate loser-males is because these males often have the same social programming as feminized women: an entitlement mentality; constantly seeing themselves as victims, &c. In spite of all the swagger and bluster from these thugs, they are utterly and helplessly dependent on women. See how the feminized Anglobitch and the thugs really relate? It has nothing to do with archetypes, after all.

    I've written elsewhere that I think this Alpha archetype is nothing but a rationalization for sex. If any decent man realized what a typical Anglobitch really thinks of men, he'd soon lose any sexual desire for them. But if a man can convince himself that she really wants him because he's such an alpha stud, he can do it. It won't change the fact that she still hates him, however; which is why PUA/game is dangerous for men. Sooner or later, these guys wind up on the receiving end of an STD, a false accusation, or a fake paternity suit, or something else bad.

  22. I would like to point out that I wouldn't have known what to look for on the internet if a friend of mine didn't introduce me to the subject first. I think is difficult for some men to find this community when they aren't aware of its concrete ideas and vocabulary, specially after their perception has been heavily influenced by mainstream media.

  23. Scarecrow:
    As far as pursuing 'Alpha' males go; has anyone bothered to look through a few womens' magazines lately? Just how many guys in there look like Alphas? Most of them look like they could be busboys in a gay nightclub! A reasonably healthy senior-citizen could probably thrash most of them in a fight.

    As for being sexual and virile, they look like they'd need to take energy drinks just to keep from passing out during sex.

    And that's the 'ideal' for a typical Anglobitch. Usually she settles instead for some half-witted street thug who couldn't survive without her help.

  24. General comment on Incels (I'm taking it this is "involuntarily celibate", yes? My own guess is that the article is correct that they have always existed, but there are probably more now with the general move from a hegemonic marriage system to a hegemonic free market; for the reason that marriage is kind of like socialism. It causes a general levelling down, but levels *up* the poorest. When women were under intense pressure to marry, guys who in the "free market" have no chance were more likely to get a wife, especially with parents organising couples together, and so on.

    It's probably the case that all cultures have some form of marriage because it is better for the society at large to reduce free competition for mates, otherwise you get the levels of gross inequality that everyone is currently complaining about. It's worth remembering taht for most of history in most cultures, marriage was nothing to do with "finding a soulmate" or sexual bliss, but just an expected stage of life everyone was expected to go through, for practical reasons.

    It may well be that we have evolved such that sexual bliss normally is not experienced by most males and most females. We are just unusual as a culture in that we expect things to be otherwise. The goal of life was to have a spouse and some kids that make it to adulthood, not a great "sex life".

  25. I've also observed that far from choosing "dominant alphas", women's choices seem to be more proximity-dependent. The reality is that there is a significant degree of arbitrariness in women's choices. It's not so much that women choose a particular kind of man than they choose the kind of man that they happen to encounter. Pure, dumb luck is their modus operandi. If you can establish proximity (e.g., a secretary among sales reps or a model among photographers), the rest is easy, and dumb luck takes its inevitable course.

    For men, as providers, it's different. Engineers working in mines or software programers working among nerds have less opportunity with proximity. Eg., George Sodini.

    More astute women with a specific agenda, however, manipulate their proximity. They often pursue law and business degrees for the purpose of establishing proximity. An ex of mine used to mockingly refer to arts degrees as Marriage 1 and law degrees as Marriage 2.

    Having said that, there is also the inclination of many women to finish up with degenerates. Why is this? Proximity plays an important part, but another important factor is that the degenerate disarms a woman's programmed agenda. She switches out of agenda mode, relaxes, and allows the social lubricant of dumb dialogue combined with proximity to wield their disarming effect. She cannot possibly imagine herself involved with an idiot, lowers her guard, and voila, she has an idiot in her life and gives birth to his spawn.

    But it does beg the question - why on earth would a woman, who can easily choose a successful alpha if she wanted, finish up with an idiot? Because women do not understand men. They make dumb assumptions based on superficial criteria (e.g., social proof), they rationalize their proximity and their situation. This is why properly executed Game can be effective - it manipulates the manipulators.

  26. *But it does beg the question - why on earth would a woman, who can easily choose a successful alpha if she wanted, finish up with an idiot? Because women do not understand men. They make dumb assumptions based on superficial criteria (e.g., social proof), they rationalize their proximity and their situation. This is why properly executed Game can be effective - it manipulates the manipulators.*

    Perhaps women's dysfunctional choices relate to the strong historical possibility that women's mate choices have never counted for much at an evolutionary level, that process being taken care of by intra-male competition in warfare and other arenas. True alphas never had to 'seduce' women - men like Tamerlane or Ghengis Khan won their wars and took the women of the conquered as concubines. What women thought of them mattered little.

    Consequently, women never had much chance to 'evolve' functional sexual responses. Males, by contrast, evolved very functional desires for large breasts, bright eyes, glossy hair, high cheekbones, long legs, symmetrical features and other markers of reproductive fitness. Female preferences do not seem especially functional (as so many have pointed out) while pornography in every culture focuses on these core, functional factors. Obviously, I am not trying to justify sexual coercion, merely trying to offer a rational explanation for dysfunctional female mate-preference.

    Indeed, the very fact that the male has to be attracted to a woman to mate with her tells a story in itself. Without a certain degree of 'functional' lust on the male's part, sexual congress is impossible. However, pregnancy can occur whether the female finds the male attractive or not. In sum, male sexuality is far more important in reproduction - if it were not 'functional' as such, reproduction could not occur. The same cannot be said of female sexuality. There is simply less need for a strong, functional, sexual response among females.

    I personally think the great psychoanalytical thinkers like Freud and Jung still have a great deal to offer concerning these issues. While evolutionary psychology is fine for examining male sexuality, the obvious fact that female sexuality is less 'evolved' weakens its overall validity as a conceptual tool. I also think that Freud's 'death instinct' remains a valid concept. 'Suicidal' events like the First World War are very hard to explain using evolutionary psychology alone. Other factors are at work - psychoanalytical ones among them. In fact, I would venture that the success of Game relates to those factors rather more than evolutionary ones.

    Whatever else may be said of Game, it is infinitely superior to the legacy media's naive, sugar-coated depiction of Anglo-American relationships - 'the One', Marriage, 2.4 children and Happy Ever After... you know the drill.

  27. There you have it: A Bristish newspaper cheering up the beauty of Anglo American 'women'.
    Go on, go on, I don't want to hinder your way to the bathroom I know you feel like puking right now.

  28. *Susanne's bizarre mission began after she couldn't stop gaining weight naturally.

    'Two years ago I hit 35 stone because I was losing my battle against weight gain,’ she said. 'I noticed I actually started attracting more men, and it made me feel good.’*

    What men were these? The criminally insane? As everyone can see, this woman is utterly self-deluded. In fact, the whole article taps into the Anglo-American, gynocentric fantasy that women and not men define female beauty...

  29. Rookh/Santiago:

    Right after the US media's fawning over the 51 year-old Madonna as a 'sex symbol' I saw photos of 45 year-old Whitney Houston posing in a bikini splashed all over the tabloids.

    This is the same media culture that shames American men for pursuing young, intellegent, attractive foreign women. They offer these slags as the alternative.

    I think Rookh is right: Freud could have predicted this kind of cultural insanity.

  30. @Ian B : The problem is that, once a woman reaches 30, she expects traditional "socialism", but, by then, her "free market" value has dropped significantly since she now has very low marginal utility.

    In other words, after wasting her youth whoring around, by 30, she expects to be married, but for a man to offer her protection under a marriage agreement, it is a prerequisite that she be young and virgin. It is not wise for a man to offer civilized protection and comfort to a woman who has been behaving like a feral beast. Of course, her one night stands' men will neither offer nor provide her with protection.

    If a woman has chosen feral behaviour, then she deserves feral treatment: fuck and chuck. For if she hasn't given me her best ten years, then I'm not going to be with her in her worst thirty years.

  31. I detect a certain squeamishness at 12.39: 'I am not trying to justify coercion' says Rookh. Feminists in their Reductio ad absurdum see all sexual intercourse as Rape. Does this perhaps have something to do with the heightened male sexual desire, and a certain female indifference. In short, a man, has to 'try it on', and I would say that the biggest mistake I made in my younger days was to take women's protestations of innocence at face value. Women's main, indeed only sexual fantasy seems to be Rape, and women like to be held down, - especially in play-acting - by a man.

    I take the perhaps controversial view that Rape is a crime against a man (father, husband) and not against a woman. If you are someone's woman you will want to have sex, whether you are a groupie or one of Tamburlaine's harem, asyou will wish to continue to receive their attention and protection. I also take the view (a view which until the last few years that no-one disagreed with) that it is not possible to Rape your wife. It is as incoherent as that one should be a married bachelor. Assault is a different matter.

  32. @Anonymous

    It is worth bearing in mind that the error of beleiving we will be forever young is a general error of our, um, post-1960s consensus. What we've abandoned is the idea of life as a series of stages, such as marriage, childbearing and rearing, middle age, old age, etc. So I don't know if this is really a "woman thing".

    It is tempting to develop one Theory Of Everything and try to explain all human life through it. Feminism tries to do that; and so, it seems, do the various flavours of masculism.

    For instance, I like Rookh's essays a lot, which is why I visit this site of course. But his assertion that women do not have a developed sexuality seems to me to be lacking any evidence. Everyone has a theory of How Women Ought To Behave, and when they don't, go looking for the errors in the women instead of the errors in the theory.

    For instance, looking at Genghis Khan as a model, is looking at a relatively short period of history- the Age Of Imperialism. Human sexuality evolved before that, and may have gone through many different social models, with remnants of each phase clinging on. There were no great imperial wars in the longest age of mankind, the age of the hunter/gatherer band. It may well be that sexual coercion and restricted female mate choice only arose a few thousand years ago as we began moving beyond that stage, while female sexual "drives" would predate all that by tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

    We really do need to be very cautious before making grand statements of certainty about such a contentious and confounding subject.

  33. Sorry to go on. Anyway, here's a hypothesis. It's also experimentally testable, if somebody wants to do the research :)

    Let's look at some facts as best we know them.

    Both the male and the female are capable of sexual arousal and ecstasy ("orgasm").

    The limiting physical factor on sexual quantity is the male (runs out of juice) not the female (can do it all day if she wants to) but

    The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")

    Most sexual relationships begin with frequent sex and end up as a sexual wasteland, though some lucky ones don't. This is common enough for men to routinely joke or complain about it.

    Orgasm is easy for men, and hard for women.

    Genetic data suggests that some half of men throughout history have left no descendents, but the overwhelming majority of females have.

    The human penis is unnaturally large for a primate, but the testes are not remarkably sized.

    Most divorces and relationship breakups are initated by women, for reasons of general disgruntlement.

    Googling around, about 30% of women claim to have vaginal orgasm.

    What can w guess from these facts? Well, let's think about theories. There have been two hegemonic sexual theories in modern times. The first was Freud's. He said that clitoral orgasm is a juvenile response, and all women should have therapy to achieve vaginal orgasm. This was replaced post-1970 by the feminist clitoricentric theory, which declared that the vagina is a largely senseless organ with no sexual use to the woman, and that the clitoris is all that matters. The clitoris is far away from the vagina; in line with feminist dogma, this reduces vaginal intercourse by the male to a selfish act which women must merely suffer. The political purpose of such a theory is obvious.

    Let us hypothesise instead that, in pre-civilised humanity, female sexual responses evolved to stringently test the male sexually. The vagina evolved as a "test instrument". It tests the girth and length of the penis. It measures the stroke length. Its reduced sensitivity measures the "staying power" of the male. The flaccid vagina is only around 4" long (this statistic is often misleadingly used to claim that size doesn't matter) but when a larger penis enters it, it expands to accomodate; nerves measure this.

    Why would the female evolve this way? It's reasonable to conclude that the size of the penis and general virility of the male; his staying power, his general strength; are good measures of genetic and general health. And when a male passes the, er, "pussy test", the female is rewarded with an orgasm, and is thus motivated to repeat the experience with that male. If he fails it, she feels dissatisfied and disgruntled and loses interest. Thus, successful males will more often mate with the female and give her more children. (The low conception rate of females may have evolved to let them try out numerous males at low risk of fertilisation from each encounter). continued-->

  34. (continued)

    Hence, most males ultimately or rapidly get dumped, or the relationships become sexless. Females are not aware that what they are really searching for is a male who regularly provides vaginal orgasm, in our world of complex social interpretations of mating and relationships. But, in this hypothesis, that is what they are actually after.

    Of course, there has probably been much genetic drift thanks to centuries of organised social rituals such as marriage, with many women trapped into mating with inadequate males. That will also have led to a general reduction in the male capacity to satisfy females sexually. The number of sexual "alphas" dwindles, while the female test instrument itself, the vagina, may have also become less fit for purpose, with some orgasming easily and others not at all.

    Of course, this is not a heartening theory for us males. We don't like to think that size matters, and we like to blame women for being too demanding. We often feel that a woman in a relationship has a contractual duty to satisfy our sexual desires- but for the man, "even when it's bad, it's good", whereas for the woman, "when it's bad, it's fucking awful". Most men would go off sex if they hardly ever, or never, had an orgasm at the end of it, just a buildup to nothing.

    There is a bit of advice one sometimes sees on the net, or hears elsewhere, which is "if you want to keep a woman, she needs regular earth-shaking shagging". When we cut through all the theory and verbiage, that may be the most honest statement of all. But it may also be that Mother Nature- who when we look at the rest of nature, reveals herself to be a very cruel mother indeed- has doomed most of the male sex to be physically incapable of achieving that. Evolution is a game of winners and losers, and if you're a loser... well, it just sucks.

    So anyway, there's a hypothesis. File it with the other 10,000 :)

    1. Calling nature as "Mother" sounds pretty gynocentric, not to mention white knight-ish. Are you Futrelle or Fleming in disguise?

      Either way, fuck off mangina.

  35. @Ian B : "The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")" This is not a limiting factor. If she behaves like that, then you stop giving her your attention, kick her out of your place, and look for another woman. In other words, you punish her for not giving you what you want.

    "if you want to keep a woman, she needs regular earth-shaking shagging" Although this phrase is gynocentric, I agree with its meaning, but you need to know how to do foreplay and arouse her, for a woman is like an iron, which needs time to heat up. You can even keep a woman by just having sex with her, whenever you want to, without recurring to conversations, which instead you can have with your mates. Having said that, make sure you reward her for being a good girl and having sex with you by either cuddling with her or sending her a friend request on facebook or inviting her to dinner, etc.

  36. @Anonymous-

    "The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")" This is not a limiting factor. If she behaves like that, then you stop giving her your attention, kick her out of your place, and look for another woman. In other words, you punish her for not giving you what you want.

    I was referring to physical capability, and thus the apparent paradox that the gender with the greater physical capacity limits the amount of sex which is actually had.

    Also, part of why I'm rambling here is that everyone seems to be seeing this as class warfare, men vs. women. In that sense, it's just copying the feminists and making the same mistakes.

    Sure, you can be awfully manly and kick every non-compliant female out on her ass (ignoring the question of whether you can get another one, who you then have to kick out, then another...) but it doesn't answer the far more interesting question of why she doesn't want to. And that's what I'm interested in.

  37. Also-

    You can even keep a woman by just having sex with her, whenever you want to, without recurring to conversations, which instead you can have with your mates.

    I dunno, maybe I'm a big girly wet blouse, but I think there's more to life than talking about football or monster trucks or whatever Us Guys talk about.

    1. Or maybe you are just a male(?) feminist?

      Fuck off, bitchboy.

  38. @Ian B : When a woman doesn't want to, it is because you, as a man, have not conditioned her wisely.

    "I dunno, maybe I'm a big girly wet blouse, but I think there's more to life than talking about football or monster trucks or whatever Us Guys talk about." You say self-deprecating phrases like this because you have been raised to perceive reality in that way. As a man, you have the power to lead, to raise to greatness in art and science, to spread positive vibes, to be in the present, to collaborate with others, to reciprocate good actions, to be kind and achieve perfection! Life as a man is great! Enjoy it however you want to!

  39. When a woman doesn't want to, it is because you, as a man, have not conditioned her wisely.

    Oh, good grief. This just isn't much use, is it?

  40. I'd like to comment on this post and thread when I have more time (great insights Ian) but for the moment I would like to post a link to our lovable old friend who's at it once again -and just can't stop making a donkey out of himself:

    " Young men today are fond of blaming young women for the miseries of modern social life, but in my experience it is bad men who make bad women: feeble fathers, cheating boyfriends, effeminate ministers. It is up to men to take charge, and I am not suggesting even a hint of physical violence, just the quiet assertion of authority that we used to suppose came natural to men. Naturally, many if not most modern women will be put off, and they will fuss and fume and wave their arms and bob their heads, denouncing your male chauvinist behavior. Who cares? The minority who do respond are what you have to concentrate on."

    "What is the feminine equivalent of the Jerk? I think we all know the answer and it rhymes with witch. But while the Jerk is an otherwise normal male who has not grown up enough to acknowledge other people’s existence–at least not consistently–the b–ch is a terrible deformation of the female character. The act is part domineering mother but, and this is significant, partly an imitation of what women perceive to be male behavior. It is a common complaint in offices that when women do what men do routinely, they get known as b–ches. This is only partly true, because this sort of woman goes way over the top in her aggressive and exploitative behavior, but the element of truth doesn’t make them any more tolerable. The sassy, self-assertive, scheming female–Scarlet O’Horror as Jones calls his boss in A Confederacy of Dunces–does things a man would get punched out for. I don’t want to dwell on this, because it is too easy for men, who are responsible for the way the world is, to point the finger at their victims."

    Forgive me Rookh, I couldn't resist.