Wednesday, 3 October 2012

The Ineffable Mystery of Anglo Hypergamy



Because of the puritanical fictions  that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become impossible to please by rational means. As with Christian morality (a behavioural system intimately associated with Anglo feminism), the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or, more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the male sex.  Oddly, this bizarre paradox makes sense. If no male is good enough for the Anglobitch, then rational scales of differentiation no longer apply.

This is the problem with Game and its ‘Greek’ system of male classification. The specific nature of Anglo-American hypergamy derives from a puritanical archetype, removing it from all rational rules of hierarchical classification. Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated, priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.

And this explains why exponents of Game report no special mating success in the Anglo-American world. All their 'Alpha' striving is meaningless in a misandrist culture where male status has been downgraded to untermensch levels.  While men believe in such classification systems, they have no meaning to Anglo women whatsoever. Similarly, if all women were facially mutilated at birth and forced to wear sackcloth and ashes, we would have no way to differentiate them: and with no woman higher than a four, no female hierarchy of sexual appeal could exist. Or course, most feminists would rather like that, too.


And this is what makes Game – so appealing to the logical male mind  so ineffective in the Anglosphere. Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes.  And so all the Gamers’ striving for 'Alpha' status is pointless – they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and slouch the streets scratching their butts.  Indeed, as many North American commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have a man, only the worst knave will do.


Gamers are wrong about Anglo women. Socons are, too. Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. That might make sense in less repressive cultural settings. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.

Go figure.

47 comments:

  1. I like this!

    A couple weeks back, I was at the dog park - I saw a very young and beautiful woman with a complete loser. I thought to myself - even at my age now, I could out-think, out-fight and out-do on every level the young man she was with - I could have out done him on every scale when I was younger too...

    No frustration occurred when I was young - confusion occurred when I was young - women's choices and behavior made NO sense at all.

    Logic in the essay above answers many questions.

    One thing (picky me), I would replace "Christian morality" with "Catholic morality". I'll blog about that later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what makes you so sure that you could "out-think, out-fight and out-do" him? Out-fight, fair enough even though looks can be deceiving and people can be stronger than they look (and you don't even need to be strong to defend yourself if you have the right training). Did you hear him speaking? If not, what makes you so sure you're so much more intelligent and less of a loser?

      Delete
    2. 'Jack',

      Richard (Scarecrow) has martial-arts training - read his blog.

      It's likely that he can handle himself OK in a fight with most people.

      Delete
  2. This is another great article Rookh. Women in the anglosphere are attracted to thugs, badboys and jerks.

    They would rather date a high school drop out who is unemployed and has tattoos than a guy who is college educated and has a good job.

    When I see the types of men anglo women are dating, I don't know whether or not I should laugh ...... or vomit!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rookh:
    Very insightful article and it speaks the truth of the situation.

    I've pointed out to Game guys on many occasions: practically every day in the American news there's some story about some complete loser male whose fathered dozens of children by different women. Or, a story about some beautiful young woman who's been murdered by the abusive thug she was living with and supporting. Or, celebrity news about some high-status female and her bad-boy lover. All punctuated with endless whining about how 'there no good men left.'

    I see scenes like the Scarecrow described above on a daily basis here. Not one of these Game-Alpha guys have anywhere near the sexual success of an average street thug.

    In addition to female contempt for men and their lack of ability to differentiate, feminist-inspired superiority complexes and sense of entitlement actually inclines women to choose the worst men. The lower the male, the more he validates the feminine sense of superiority over men.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi,

    I think I just destroyed your effort here:

    /2010/08/new-year-game-special-ii-does-rape.html

    See the comment of 3 October 2012 17:50.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon1806:
    That was probably one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read in a long time. In the first place, the abortion rate today, and the practice both ancient and modern of 'child exposure' mitigates fairly strongly against your contention that women love, or are better suited, to raising children.

    Secondly, the evolutionary 'preference' women supposedly gained for strong men doesn't exist in the so-called 'advanced' cultures today. What happens to high-status handsome men like Dominic Staruss-Kahn? They get false rape accustaions levelled against them. Contrast him with sadistic maniacs like Joran Vandersloot, who's innundated with female fan-mail and become a sex symbol after murdering at least two women.

    Also, most of your history is wrong or not even probable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean Dominique Strauss-Kahn? I hope you're kidding - he is ugly and very old (although to be fair perhaps he was handsome 40 years ago)! Clearly men have very odd ideas about what constitutes handsomeness!!!

      Delete
    2. "Clearly men have very odd ideas about what constitutes handsomeness!!!"

      Do Anglo feminists think that ANY man is really handsome? I'm not sure...

      Delete
  6. I agree with ScareCrow regarding the Catholic Protestant distinction.

    Catholicism is matriarchal, and its terms of heterosexual 'celibacy' for priests and nuns, would have attracted many homosexuals to their ranks, due to their social ostracism in the past. Hence they could engage in same sex communism.

    I don't say this as a mere quibble, since I think it ties in with the comments of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who pointed out that most of those involved in perpetrating the 'paedophilia' scandal within the Catholic Church, were homosexuals. This is why I think we should get into the habit [in a non-sartorial sense] of calling it 'pederasty'.

    Indeed, it would be a telling exercise for those who have the statistics, to compare the populations of Catholics to homosexual child abusers, and make a definitive deduction of which group is more prone to this activity. My suspicion is that Tarcisio Bertone is right, and that it was Catholics turning a blind eye to homosexuals that led to that particular Trojan nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Catholocism (sp?) tends to worship Mary rather than God or Jesus.

    God created woman to be a companion for the man - so what do the catholics do - the make "nunnery" and nuns (nones as I like to call them).

    Catholics are also playing shenaningans with their altar boys...

    And do not get me wrong. It is not the religions that are flawed, but the people following them that are flawed - I would say that Catholocism has the most "nutty followers".

    As I said - I'll blog about it sometime.

    I have actually been talking to a bible scholar lately - and the questions I have been asking him really get him bothered.

    Plus, I have been making observations about people who are not Christian - and raised in non-Christian cultures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's difficult to take an opinion on something seriously when the person holding forth about it can't even spell its name correctly (or be bothered to Google and check).

      Delete
    2. You could do with addressing his argument, rather than just the spelling.

      Delete
  8. Scarecrow & JimmyGiro:
    It could be argued though, that Catholicism preserved the social gender polarity (paternal state/ maternal church) that Puritanism destroyed. It's interesting that feminism hasn't had nearly the impact in Catholic and Orthodox countries that it's had in Protestant ones.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, consider that feminism AROSE in Protestant countries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon0724:
    It's too bad that Dominic Strauss-Kahn isn't a 'hot' male like Joran Vandersloot (convicted serial rapist/murderer). He got a conjugal visit from one his groupies and now she's pregnant with his kid.

    Or the Aurora shooter, James Holmes, who's swiftly moving up into the 'Hottest Men in America' category, along with creepy celebrities like Justin Bieber.

    Yeah. 'Odd ideas men have about what constitutes handsomeness' LOL.

    Strauss-Kahn on the other hand, is a 'creepy older dude' and 'a boring nice guy' to the female mind. All he's ever done is build such a successful reputation in finance that he headed the IMF; and is considered a potential candidate for the French presidency. Of course, to most Anglo-American women, his 'deal breaking bad habits' like productivity, literacy and bathing regularly disqualifies him too as a 'desirable' male.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmmm, Strauss-Kahn. Well, there was an accusation of sexual harassment in the workplace in 2008, just a year into his appointment as head of the IMF. Then there's the allegation of sexual assault in 2011. In 2012 he was held and questioned about being part of a prostitute ring. There is no smoke without fire as they say - this man is simply slippery as an eel with a spectacular talent for wheedling, weasling and bullying his way to the top. It's a shame for those of us the left-leaning that he was considered a 'leading light' of the left. But then, he did have right-wing Nicholas Sarkozy's 'personal support', so draw your own conclusions.
    Now he's about to be divorced for a THIRD time (and surprise, surprise his third wife is an heiress) at the age of 63! What a catch!!!!!

    Besides that, looks matter. You may think Justin Bieber is 'creepy': I would have said 'talentless' and 'irritating'. But he is youthful and good looking - his popularity simply reflects female tastes and he is the same age as his fans. His sexuality is not creepy, it is appropriate for his age and status.

    As for James Holmes, as far as I can tell those who called him 'hot' were merely expressing surprise that a mass murderer could look... well... quite cute. Moreover, the same photograph is used over and over to illustrate his 'hotness' - the one where he has a thick crop of curly red hair (some girls like a ginger) and is all wide-eyed. There was also a fair bit of self-deprecating black humour and/ or irony involved. So what?! Maybe it's just too soon....? Sorry you're so sensitive!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, looks matter to women. Just look at Charles Manson - a young Adonis, if ever there was one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He wasn't so bad looking in his youth. He had cheekbones, at least. I jest. Manson was probably on the same level of physical attractiveness as his girlfriends. That's generally how it goes (where money isn't involved). And they were dispossessed, sometimes homeless or runaways - he gave them a place to live, primarily, and then brainwashed them.

      Ultimately, it's not for men to say what women should find physically attractive. There's nothing you can do about it.

      Delete
    2. Nah, some of his GF's were better looking than he was. Plus they were probably taller to.

      "Ultimately, it's not for men to say what women should find physically attractive. There's nothing you can do about it."

      You know, I actually agree with you on this point. Why? Because like attracts like in the end. You figure out the rest.

      Delete
  13. Rookh:
    It occurred to me recently: we read stories in the news about mothers who kill their own children, and you had an article here about Ruby Thomas who bludegeoned an elderly man to death.

    Yet, we never seem to hear about any men who think of women like these as sex symbols or write glowing fantasies about having kids with them &c. But women seem to slobber over dysfunctional thugs and attribute it to 'bad boy syndromes' or other nonsense.

    Misandry has to be at the bottom of this phenomenon. I see no other explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rookh:
    P.S. Futrelle is having a fit over this article. I guess mangina-anger is a barometer of truth too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Futrelle's commentators are an odd bunch. They make hundreds of comments but seldom say anything. Nearly all their 'points' are mere anecdotes assuming the immutability of their own rather rarefied experiences, invariably left-liberal and middle class. I suspect a good many of them have never strayed from leafy suburbs or salubrious college campuses in the course of their lives.

      Delete
  15. Futrelle is laughing his ass off over this; get real. He mines comedic material galore from stuff like this essay. HIs real genius is making this stuff less than pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If I looked like a blobfish, I'd stay away from comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do get what Rookh is saying, but I disagree with him that women go out of their way to always choose reprobates and degenerates. For one thing, many women do often choose dull but predictable providers (such as computer nerds, lawyers, doctors, auto mechanics, car salesmen, etc, etc). These plodding types are by no means comparable to mumbling thugs and degenerates, and it is not fair of Rookh to make that comparison. While it is true that to many women, a mumbling, tatooed thug is way more exciting than an autistic accountant, it is definitely not a given that a woman is going to choose a mumbling, tatooed thug over an autistic accountant. An autistic accountant does, after all, have utility as a provider and that defines his purpose. This provider utility has value and is not to be so easily dismissed and brushed aside.

    The key to understanding womens choices is to understand that they are more inclined to accept their reality, their environment and its definitions. They are creatures of proximity - meaning, that they will enter into relations with whomsoever constitutes their proximity. It relates to their solipsism, and the idea that their environment is perceived as reality. As creatures of proximity, women too readily accept the environment and its terms. If they hang with losers, they will choose losers. If they hang with computer nerds they will choose computer nerds. If they work as secretaries at the front desk, they'll choose from the sales reps and managers that hit on them, or whatever milieu exemplifies their work environment. If they chance upon a pimp, they might become prostitutes. If they chance upon a priest, they might become nuns. Men, by contrast, are more inclined to be independent agents choosing their own proximity and thus, their destiny.

    The bottom line is this. As creatures accepting their proximity, women are too easily removed from the dating market, and this creates a shortage in supply with an excess in demand. So men develop all these complex theories suggesting that women are picky, hypergamous alpha-choosers when the truth is much more likely to be the very opposite. In fact it's the arbitrariness of women's choices, not their pickiness, that explains how and why women finish up with the men that they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They are creatures of proximity - meaning, that they will enter into relations with whomsoever constitutes their proximity."

      Actually, this is true of most people. We tend to end up with partners who have the same social background, educational level, even similar facial features. How can it only be true of women - it's impossible if you think about it properly!!!!!
      However, women are far more likely to change their course in life - they go back onto education, travel with their friends, get a divorce, start afresh etc etc etc. It's most often the men who get left behind because they abhor change.

      Delete
    2. No, it's not impossible at all. It works by changing the dynamics of pairing-up. If you think in terms of free-ranging, independent males pairing up with free-ranging, independent females, then you won't get it. Instead, the free-ranging, independent males (or patient beta orbiters who have learned to bide their time) typically find themselves pairing up with dependent, serial-monogamist females who are on the rebound. Women continue to be "monogamist" and they continue to be dependent. Hence the notion of serial monogamy, where women who are in the process of transitioning across relationships are typically caught on the rebound. In this model of serial monogamy, women might choose from fresh, uncharted territory, or they might fertilize future prospects who, as stable beta orbiters, strike when the opportunity avails itself. Because women don't understand men, choosing from uncharted territory (like going to a pub to meet PUAs and other assortments of strangers) is risky, hence these choices tend to the ridiculous. It is usually safest for a woman to select from her ever-present bevy of beta orbiters.

      Delete
  18. *For one thing, many women do often choose dull but predictable providers (such as computer nerds, lawyers, doctors, auto mechanics, car salesmen, etc, etc)*

    True, but that often occurs in their thirties and late twenties after spending their prime years chasing thugs and deadbeats. When they sense the biological clock ticking, they start looking for some solvent 'bore' to pick up the pieces of their ragged lives. The feminist hatred of this site hinges on the fact that it explains female motivations to all the 'bores', 'wimps' and 'losers' they once shunned - and it does so in telling detail.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As per my reply to Anonymous immediately above, I disagree. You often find young women from "proper" upbringings (e.g., catholics or the more refined folk from mid-upper classes) choosing from the dullest dweebs, often because of the promise that they might show as future providers. Usually, in conjunction with said signs of future promise, fertilized, well-nurtured proximity yields a woman the desired result. And if it all gets too hard and her plan goes awry, there is usually a bevy of ever-present beta orbiters to rescue her.

    I think the key to understanding women's choices is proximity, and NOT independent self-determination. In other words, women's choices are more arbitrary than they are controlled or directed. It is true that women often engineer the proximity that they desire by manipulation, but in view of women's materialistic priorities and/or what they define as sexy in men (eg., the mumbling bad-boy), these manipulations usually run their course with ridiculous outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Oops, intended as reply to Rookh)

      Delete
  20. It is often said (and I doubt it not) that middle class women attend elite colleges not to study but to snag rich husbands. That would be an example of women seeking out environments congenial to their hypergamous aims rather than merely accepting the environment they grew up in. In fact, women are also now more likely to go to college in the Anglosphere than men. I think working class women still accept their environment and adapt to it - but that goes for working class males as well.

    One of my pet ideas about female mate-selection being arbitrary and dysfunctional is that it has undergone little evolutionary refinement. That is, female mate-choice exerted little influence for most of human evolutionary history - all that was taken care of by 'soft rape' (sexual coercion of women via formal institutions such as arranged marriages) and 'hard rape' (direct sexual coercion in the aftermath of war or conquest). Consequently, female mate-selection (a relatively new concept) has far greater plasticity (and is far more prone to dysfunction) than its male counterpart. So, in the 80s women were attracted to girlish men because the media told them to be; now, it tells them to like thugs and criminals, so they like thugs and criminals. As men, we find this malleability hard to grasp - male sexuality has evolved logically to prefer youth, thinness, large breasts and symmetrical features. Female sexuality is far less 'logical', largely because it was never subject to rigorous evolutionary competition. And this applies to women in general: because they are mostly 'guaranteed' the right to reproduce (whatever their personal qualities), they are generally retrograde in mental and physical terms. For example, 70% of photosensitive epileptics are women; women have lower average IQ; women are more superstitious; and so on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems like we're on the same page. Though our interpretations could do with a bit of refinement. Women are drawn to the formidable (respectable) in man. However, the formidable presents something of a quandry. Almost by definition, the formidable spooks women... it is intimidating, and this sets her rationalization hamster into overdrive. "Oh he noticed my blemish" "Oh can he smell the garlic on my breath?" "Oh he thought I meant x when I meant y" "Oh is he mad at me now?" "Oh he's noticed my small tits". Solution? The ideal compromise for a woman is to choose that version of formidable which has eliminated the spook factor. Enter mumbling degenerate, stage left.

      She chooses an idiot, one that combines the best of both worlds - excitement without the spook factor. He is threatening, yet not threatening. He is threatening because as a tattooed, nose-ringed mumbling thug there's an obvious element of danger about him, yet because he is dense and insensitive, he's easy to read and predict. Most importantly, as an insensitive brute, he does not expect much of her, and so she won't feel so self-conscious, like she's under the spotlight. See how it works? If you are a woman, you can combine threatening with predictable by choosing a mumbling idiot slumped at a bar... and through such an astute choice, you get the danger without that constant nagging feeling that maybe he expects more from you. You get the excitement without the booooring. And as an added bonus, you have the government handouts to fall back on in the event that you should birth his spawn. But you've got to make a choice... exciting thug or reliable provider? What's it to be girl? Quick, decide. Tradeoff. Do it. Submit. Spread those thighs, baby, before he gets away.

      Delete
    2. "It is often said (and I doubt it not) that middle class women attend elite colleges not to study but to snag rich husbands."

      Often said by whom? Go to any university and you will find women out-number men. Women go to university because they want to excel, because they want to "snag" a good education and a good salary. And they do - it's mostly men that drop out and/ or fail. That seems to suggest that arbitrary reasons when perhaps they should consider vocational training.

      Delete
    3. If women's education were that significant, how come they still earn less? Besides, women generally shun 'difficult' subjects requiring mathematics or formal logic and prefer pointless degrees in subjects like art, English and sociology.

      And another thing - men drop out and 'fail' (educationally if not economically) because Anglo-American women dislike any sign of intelligence in boys/men. If a guy wants a girl-friend he has to 'play the game' and pander to the reflexive female preference for thugs and morons. The alternative is found in the life of James Holmes: he followed the 'intellectual' path and experienced only involuntary celibacy for his pains. It doesn't take much smarts to see that dysfunctional female mate-preference is the primary cause of male educational failure in the Anglosphere.

      Delete
    4. "And another thing - men drop out and 'fail' (educationally if not economically) because Anglo-American women dislike any sign of intelligence in boys/men. If a guy wants a girl-friend he has to 'play the game' and pander to the reflexive female preference for thugs and morons."

      That's quite pathetic, isn't it? You have claimed in other posts that men are only interested in women for sex - and so just for sex they would sacrifice their education? You've never heard of going solo? This does not say much for the future of the male gender.

      Delete
    5. Rookh, I agree with you that women often go to university in order to score a husband. An ex of mine used to joke about that. She mocked Arts as Marriage 1 and Law School as Marriage 2. And then she chose me - go figure... I guess she knew first-hand what she was talking about! But I digress. A compelling anecdote does not a study make.

      However, I do disagree with one aspect of your interpretation. Women do indeed choose sub-par men. But it's not because they go out of their way to choose degenerate, ugly men. Far from it. Who would go out of their way to choose that which is inferior, the worst of the crop? If you had a pick of 10 grades of apple in front of you, why would you choose the worst?

      No, here's the reason to explain women's choices. Because women are, at a primal level, inspired by the formidable (respectable) in man, they feel intimidated by that which they most desire (as I explained previously). This situation predisposes women to self-esteem issues. Women are fundamentally uncomfortable in relating to formidable men. That's why it is so important for men to be able to disarm women, to make them laugh, have a sense of humour. THAT's the reason women choose degenerates. A degenerate is an optimum choice that provides a substitute for the formidable that a woman can never relate to. That's why many women relate most comfortably to those men who retain their adolescent immaturity... you know, the shallow, paper-alpha routine. It's the reason why Game works so well... it harnesses women's low self esteem. It's also the reason why many women choose harmless dweebs of the beta persuasion, where Game could actually jeopardize your chances. (It's also the reason why feminism tries to level men, tries to make men look ridiculous, but I digress, that's stuff for another time)

      Alles ist Klar, nein?

      The end result is, of course, that women make ridiculous choices, but women do NOT go out of their way to choose the fuglies. They don't say to themselves, "ewww, there's an ugly creep, I hope he hits on me." That's patent nonesense. Quite simply, women feel most comfortable, least threatened, by inferior men.

      Delete
    6. *Who would go out of their way to choose that which is inferior, the worst of the crop? If you had a pick of 10 grades of apple in front of you, why would you choose the worst?*

      This is the crux of the matter. While there is much truth in what you say, one important factor is that female sexuality, having a much higher level of plasticity (and therefore biological dysfunction) than male sexuality, is far less rational and effective in its instinctive decision-making. And this is explained by the 'soft' and 'hard' rape that have shaped human development for millennia. Because female mate-choice was obviated by power, money and war, it never evolved with the same purposive clarity as male sexuality did. This explains why men all over the world prefer youth, thinness, a slim waist and other physical signs of reproductive fitness. All attempts by feminists to make men prefer fat, old women have fallen on stony ground (thank God). Men in China, Sweden and the Amazon all want the same things, basically. You seem to be saying that female sexuality is much more shaped by social/psychological concerns, and this interpretation fits my general thesis quite well - sex, in short, is much more tangential to their sexuality.

      While your psychological insights have much value, the psychological cannot be separated from the socio-cultural. And in the Anglosphere, women are told from earliest childhood that they are princesses in waiting. This, as we know, is an expression of the puritanical repression that forms a distinctive backdrop to Anglo culture. Many regular posters here (especially Americans) suggest that this 'pedestalization' creates a uniquely entitled outlook among Anglo-American women, especially the few attractive ones. One expression of this is the notion that 'no man is good enough', leading to spinsterhood on the one hand or thug-fucking on the other. All this is supported by the cultural exclusivity of dysfunctional female mate-preference - it is not nearly so strong outside the Anglosphere, despite continental Europe having far more generous Welfare programmes.

      However, your own points about the female fear of formidable men suggest that Anglo women - knowing themselves at heart to be inferior - are by nature ill-at-ease with their 'exalted' status. In itself, this doubtless contributes to their obsession with useless deadbeats. The higher they fly the harder they fall, and all that.

      Delete
    7. Ah yes, I definitely agree with you there. The socio-cultural aspect is very important. This is what I refer to in the context of women choosing TYPES of men. The men that women choose have to stand for something. They have to have a label attached, make a statement. If a woman prioritises being provided for, then that label will usually be a success marker, usually defined in terms of a man's career... like CEO, lawyer, doctor, soldier, etc. If a woman prioritises fashion statements and fitting in, then the label that she will notice might be "pack leader", "tattooed thug", "party animal", or "reprobate layabout". The wonderful thing about the plasticity of women's sexuality is that they can actually get off on ugly men. But remember the first rule of type. It's not enough to be just a naked blobfish. The ugly man has to have a label. A limping, tattooed midget with attitude and a hunch-back, on his own, is not a sure thing. But he can increase his odds by becoming a leader of a pack and sporting a patch over one eye... see what he's doing? He acquires agency over his label. And he can increase his odds even further by becoming a celebrity... e.g., the Hunchback of Notre Dam... then bingo, his odds skyrocket. Women love celebrity... and by definition, the celebrity is the label.

      The plasticity of women's sexuality is integral to how culture works. It enables ridiculous stereotypes to become reality, and this alleviates God's boredom, providing him with centuries of entertainment and amusement. He must be laughing his arse off, seeing the handsomest, most charismitic, genetically gifted dudes competing against genetic throwbacks.

      Delete
    8. Except God does not exist. And if he does, he can go to hell.

      Delete
  21. Rookh:
    I tend to believe that females have sexual impulses, but under feminist-dominated education, these impulses have atrophied. If they are taught to despise and detest men, how can they exhibit any genuine sexual attraction to men? The examples you gave of the media dictating their choices seem to bear that out.

    Another thing I've heard discussed amomg women in pop culture is when it is 'appropriate' to have sex. Apparently the general consensus among American females is that sex is acceptable after the third date; and that sex three times a week is what's expected of her.

    Who else other than American women would actually need a schedule for sex? This kind of 'relationship advice' sounds like a physician prescribing a diet to an anemic patient!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Sex schedules' imply that female sexuality is comparatively weak and much more amenable to cultural manipulation. I mean, can you imagine a Mongol Khan rationing himself to sex 'three times a week' with the hot young women of the world at his disposal?

      Delete
  22. Chuckeedee:
    Reading your posts, one observation that seems to mitigate against the idea of 'proximity' is the fact most of the so-called 'bad boys' are not in the least bit monogamous. In fact, most of them have more female attention than they can reasonably handle.

    There was a story in the US media recently about a male, living in small town, who had fathered 30 children by 11 different women. The news mentioned that he was something of a local legend (i.e. all the women involved with him fully knew of his reputation). The photographs depicted him as being a rather unintelligent-looking guy, not at all handsome, and chronically unemployed. I don't see where 'proximity' fits into that schema since obviously he wasn't the only available male in the town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric, no contradiction at all. Regarding the assumption, post sexual revolution, that everyone is doing "it" (having sex)... How correct is this assumption? Who are the ones most likely to make this assumption, and who are the ones who are going to try to put it into practice? What do men assume to hold true about this assumption and what do women assume? How many alphas/ degenerates "service" a majority of the "nice girls"? How many sluts and/or prostitutes service a majority of the men? Who knows? The averages that pan out across men and women may surprise you... and me. The thing is that none of us has the complete picture. The question is, who's servicing whom and by what numbers? The only thing that I can suggest with any amount of certainty is that it is wrong to assume that men and women are going for it one-to-one. In this light, no, there need be no contradiction at all.

      Delete
    2. I like your term 'paper alpha' - something like an adolescent court jester. Women prefer that kind of tiresome monkey - agreed. Where Game goes wrong is in calling that kind of impish turd an 'alpha'. Genuine badass alpha dudes like Richard Kuklinsky in the States or Charles Bronson in Britain are not in the least attractive to women. If Anglo-American Gamers stopped confusing court jesters with genuine alphas, I'd have a lot more time for them. In fact, I would suggest genuine alphas have never evolved much Game, as a psychological type - historically, alphas have never had to 'court' women. They used soft (cultural) and hard (physical) rape to perpetuate their genes.

      Delete
  23. Rookh,

    I might agree on Bronson, but Kuklinsi? The man killed dozens of people - how does that differentiate him from a Ted Bundy or Martin Bryant? Also, Kuklinski regularly did other people's dirty work. Not really an 'alpha' thing to do.

    (That and I suspect that many of his claimed killings were actually performed by others)

    ReplyDelete
  24. You will find a lot of people who always check out Delhi to have the capability to remove their isolation by looking for older fun with Delhi call girls. If you're also certainly one of people people you will want to technique a qualified and expert company which resources amazing alternatives of friends. Delhi Companions is well able of provide the customers in methods they need these to be.
    http://nikitaroy.escortfiles.com/

    ReplyDelete