Even Tom Brady Runs Game

db (a chick) left this comment to my alpha body language post:

re: alpha body language, check out most nfl quarterbacks, from their stance on the field while playing to how they conduct themselves in interviews and on the sidelines.  much more alpha than the typical preening wide receiver whinyboys.  and, though the offensive line guys are arguably tougher, have a more ‘james bond’ style.  think tom brady – who was quoted in an old issue of si when asked about how he got giselle saying something like “you have to shake her confidence; make her wonder ‘what’s wrong with me’.”

You’d think a guy like Tom Brady, an apex alpha, would have no need for any sort of game. He could show up and women would make his job easy. But even Tom sees a need to run game on a female uberalpha like Gisele. It sounds like Tom hit up Gisele with a well-placed neg. Tom, like me, understands the importance of leveraging a woman’s insecurities to boost one’s status and thereby raise a woman’s buying temperature. People who believe “natural alphas” don’t play these sorts of head games with women are wrong. Tom Brady has revealed that alphas use game, too, and oftentimes more cruelly and devastatingly than the typical enlightened beta on a path of sexual redemption. Some may argue an alpha doesn’t need to run game, but that’s not how alphas think. An alpha is always looking to amass more and hotter pussy than he knows what to do with.

This vignette illustrates clearly the power of game — it helped a natural alpha like Tom Brady, a man already in possession of the full suite of conventional male attractiveness traits, breach a supermodel’s panty barrier.

In other news, Mel Gibson has informed his much younger Russian girlfriend that he will have a paternity test done on her baby when it is born. Mel has been reading my blog. I’m glad to see him shedding the straightjacket of his beta religious sensibilities. A looming $500 million dollar divorce payout will do that to a man.

Maxim #666: All kneel before the god of biomechanics, by sword or by surrender.





Comments


  1. The question is what neg Brady actually used on Giselle. Did he poke fun at her shoes? Her accent? Even a master PUA would have to get creative.

    Roissy, how would YOU ensnare an A-list supermodel?

    Like


  2. Roissy, how would YOU ensnare an A-list supermodel?

    “it’s funny how a lot of supermodels are just normal-looking, regular women when they aren’t hiding behind makeup and fancy clothes.”

    Like


  3. Roissy,
    Yup, I too saw DB’s post re: Tom Brady, and quickly took notes. If it works for him, it’ll work for the Ob.

    And good for Mel! We need more major celebs doing that, so as to press the case for MPT. Its only a matter of time now…

    Good post, R.

    O

    Like


  4. “it’s funny how a lot of supermodels are just normal-looking, regular women when they aren’t hiding behind makeup and fancy clothes.”

    There’s also all the lights, camera’s, and photoshop that come along. That makes a 9 to a 10.

    I say its divine intervention.

    Like


  5. having seen Gisele in person once, I can attest she is not spectacular. In fact, she was skinny—and I never thought I’d ever say this—she was too skinny—too bony to be attractive. I was with 2 other straight males and we confirmed: there is such a thing as too thin.

    also, it is true the camera adds 20lbs, because on camera she looks fine on tape.

    models have 1 talent: anorexia. of course, they think its anor-sexia, but that’s just women for you.

    Like


  6. “Mel Gibson has informed his much younger Russian girlfriend that he will have a paternity test done on her baby when it is born”

    When I saw that in the media, I immediately thought about this blog, and also thought Roissy would crack a grin upon learning that Octo-Mel (he already has seven kids) is demanding a paternity test.

    One fine legislator in Shelby County Tennessee is pushing for a mandatory paternity testing bill. This Memphis-area lawmaker apparently knows “whats up”, and is sick of it. He says his opposition is primarily vested interests in the status quo like companies that track down supposed fathers and extract child support, the N.O.W (National Organization of Wymynfysts), and workers for certain state agencies. In other words, people who benefit from screwing over innocent men. There was an excellent article in Reason Online about a California man, a veteran, who was busted for child support because he was “named” by a woman hundreds of miles away. He’d never met her, but since he didn’t answer the complaint in court within thirty calendar days, the state just started garnishing his checks. He’d never met this woman before, he just happened to have the same name of some other guy. This stuff has got to stop…………………

    Parting note: One reason a Tom Brady probably feels more comfortable with a supermodel is that Gisele is loaded with money, thus he can be reasonably certain she wasn’t just gold-digging. Divorce laws really do work against average gals hoping to meet a relatively wealthy guy. He just has too much to lose. I wish more women realized that. If the laws were not as they are, you’d see (I GUARANTEE IT) more businessmen marrying their favorite waitresses and hairstylist. As things are, he is risking it all by doing that, therefore he is stuck chasing bitchy-lawyer-cunt females.

    Like


  7. Wasn’t Brady previously hooked up with some fairly hot actress?

    Like


  8. Although he is an anti-semite, Mel does seem to be acting reasonable under the circumstances.

    Like


  9. being dumped by decaprio for hotter younger ass would already put giselle on shaky ground.

    Brady is 2nd best – he’ll be washed up, quipping on SportsCenter and doing Nutra Meal commercials when leo is still pulling young tail ala Michael Douglas.

    pure rebound fuck
    made complicated by
    insemination

    it’d be cool knowing what neg he used on her though

    Like


  10. on June 8, 2009 at 11:59 am Namefagging

    “In other news, Mel Gibson has informed his much younger Russian girlfriend that he will have a paternity test done on her baby when it is born. Mel has been reading my blog. I’m glad to see him shedding the straightjacket of his beta religious sensibilities. A looming $500 million dollar divorce payout will do that to a man.”

    Beta religious sensibilities?

    whut

    like getting drunk and screaming about jews and making Jesus snuff films?

    Man, I miss the days of Lethal Weapon.

    Like


  11. that reminds me:

    of that pic of Elway holding that gold purse, looking like a rumpled doosh

    Like


  12. @km – it was Bridget Moynahan, who also had his baby.

    @lurker – i aagre that most model types are way too bony to be sexy. i like curves on a woman, and the gay fashion mafia that makes women into supermodels aren’t intersted in them sexually – just to be vaguely exotic-looking clothes hangars.

    @roissy – that isn’t really a very strong neg – more of a factual statement. most of them would probably agree with it, so it’s more like an opener than a DHV to play on her insecurities.

    @z – true about gisele but not about oksana. so, good for mel – but it seems like his kids pushed him into it. how much do you think they were doing it to look out for their own inheritances (a la the murdoch kids a few years ago) rather than any concern over their father’s emotional well-being? in most cases the children, even adult children, side with the mother in a divorce. that was my take when i read that piece -mel was pushed into it, as opposed to choosing it.

    btw, for those of you who didn’t know, tom brady grew up in rockville – went to wootten high school.

    Like


  13. on June 8, 2009 at 12:09 pm advice for the Ladies

    An antidote to the world of Giselle images is to understand the power of photoshop.
    Try this: take a generally complimentary photo of yourself (with moderate skin exposure) and use only one step to alter the midrange lighting of your skin. You can add luster and smoothness of color in only one step. You’ll love the result!!

    This changes your perception of model images in mags. A pro photoshopper will typically use 20-30 steps to alter skin color, luster, sclera whitening, iris color, hair volume, dental color. A pro will lengthen arms, legs, remove wrinkles, and add lip volume. Place this image next to a skin care add , and like majic sales increase!

    Like


  14. @firepower – yup, and leo has already traded up to bar rafaeli, a younger and spiffier model (double entendre intended). his alpha status will remain as a movie star, but once a sports star retires, his status goes way down.

    Like


  15. Insecurities are a common problem faced by many women, even supermodels and celebrities feel insecure at times. I don’t think it be super hard to neg any woman. I think in the world Giselle travels in she’d have more reasons than most to feel insecure, because of the competitiveness of beauty. As you guys say women hit the wall faster then men and she’s going to be super aware of the aging factor. Anecdotal evidence suggests ex supermodels resorted to drugs to keep thin and to self-medicate anxiety related to self esteem. I think modelling is like new cars, someone is always looking for the newer model and they know it. In conclusion? Ya, not that hard to neg Giselle.

    Like


  16. Of all the variants of Christianity, traditional Catholicism is fairly alpha. They respect normal gender roles, and at the Latin mass I attended a few weeks ago, the homily was about not nagging your husband.

    Like


  17. But Bar Rafeili ain’t that hot either. As compared to Crystal Diggers or Cora Skinner (both of SportsByBrooks.com fame) for example. More famous and undoubtedly status plays a major role here.

    Negging a model is trivial. With exceptions (like a model from Wyoming I met that was sweet as honey) they all sit on so high a perch of looks-competition that hitting them up for neg on belt or a shoe, even if perfectly matched to their wardrobe, will drive a frenzy of interior self-analysis. And if you know how to dress (men — listen up — don’t date a model unless you have fashion sense!) the neg works perfectly. Trust me….

    Of course, never ever mentioning their looks and focusing on them as a disembodied brain, go after some opinion, the more controversial the better, and then leave a “Is that so?…” hanging in the air with a slight back turn or look of disinterest, as if she stepped in it, and boy — let it roll from there.

    Like


  18. last I heard, Brady got his old GF, Bridget Moynihan, pregnant, and then immediately started with Gisele.

    Is Gisele pregnant too now? My gosh, Brady’s got super sperm, cutting through the b.c. of 2 “career” women who probably planned on chinese babies and surrogate mommies after they ahd established their “careers.”

    Like


  19. maurice:

    “btw, for those of you who didn’t know, tom brady grew up in rockville – went to wootten high school.”

    Is this some joke I don’t get? Tom Brady grew up in my hometown, San Mateo, CA. He went to the local Catholic HS there, Serra (where Barry Bonds also attended), and even donated the car he won as Superbowl MVP for auction (which helped pay for major renovations to their football field). After the Patriots beat the Panthers in the Superbowl several years back, some friends and I drove down to Brady’s parents’ street to see what was going on and it was bedlam: media everywhere, people in the streets partying, etc.

    Like


  20. @guapo – agreed, see my post above about the model type.

    this thread is beginning to raise a question in my mind about the proper social status-distance for an alpha pairing. often star-type males will find someone of their own world and level (leo/models, pitt/jolie, broderick/horseface, bacon/sedgwick, etc.). this would seem to violate the female hypergamous impulse. if that select alpha female is more famous and earns more than the male, than she is not really marrying-up, and will therefore be dissatsifed with her super-alpha husband

    otoh, consider the master of the opposite frame, george clooney. clearly one of the most desirable men in the world, a year or so ago he was shacking up with … a cocktail waitress he met in vegas. he ended up dumping her, now apparently has another one he met in florida. girls at that vastly lower social distance will be so happy to be in that relatinoship that they will be totally compliant – no mouth, no shit tests, no waves. another example of this might be mel and oksana.

    note that this doesn’t mean he didn’t dig the cocktail waitress or treat her with respect. he apparently did. and she is definitely much happier in that relationship with a super-high-status man than she would be with someone in her own range.

    so what’s the best approach? is there a social distance that is too large to be satisfying for both parties? what about the golddigger risk, which can me managed …? in the case of most average guys, that might be like dating a penniless but sexy immigrant.

    thoughts?

    Like


  21. on June 8, 2009 at 12:43 pm Cannon's Canon

    Just another case of a Michigan Man running tight game. The Wolverines also claim AJ & Jordan from ‘Pickup Podcast’ and Christian Hudson from ‘The Social Man’ as quasi-famous game alums. That’s off the top of my head; I feel like I’m forgetting someone too.

    I will also add David Terrell to the list for his ‘lifetime achievement.’

    Like


  22. @traveller – checked wikipedia and you are right – i stand corercted. i heard that somewhere and i guess i was misinformed. thanks for the correction.

    Like


  23. @maurice

    Unless he can maintain status and respect relative to her, it craters. It’s just that simple.

    The Aniston-Pitt debacle shows that Aniston didn’t love Pitt enough to put the career on hold for a baby or two. Same thing happened in the Stamos-Romaine situation. Playing hardball without sufficient nukes at the table just doesn’t cut it. Backfired on Aniston (Pitt left for Jolier pastures) and Romaine walked all over Stamos, and proving that it IS about alpha genes promptly gave a baby to OConnel instead, belittling her original career complaint.

    Clooney-waitress is an example of alpha supremacy simply swapping out the girl when she began to make entitlement waves.

    Rich-poor, the poor should know that lightning doesn’t strike twice and be appropriately grateful. Same goes for beautiful-ugly and every binary pairing, including status.

    Not sure that answers the question in any way, but it’s the only thoughts I have as I work thru some business problems here.

    Like


  24. this reminds me of woody allen’s great line:

    if there is reincarnation, when I die, I want to come back as Warren Beatty’s fingertips.

    to which I amend it thusly:

    if there is reincarnation, when I die, I want to come back as Tom Brady’s dick.

    Like


  25. As much as I hate Mel Gibson, I applaud him for requesting a paternity test. Men everywhere should feel absolutely no shame about requesting this from their girlfriends.

    With wives, it’s a bit trickier since most states treat a cuckolded husband as the biological father in terms of support obligations. If you are a husband, it’s better to do the paternity test on the sly. If the results go against you, you can then prepare your response without the wife’s knowledge.

    Like


  26. Game is Game doesn’t matter if its famous people or not.

    I don’t watch football anymore, so I barely know who this Tom Bredy chimp is.

    Pro Athletes are generally on the bottom rung of the celebrity hierarchy.

    Gisele is pretty overrated as well. Her mug isn’t that dope.

    You can find flyer girls on a topless beach in Spain in the summer.

    – MPM

    Like


  27. Maurice:

    No prob. I really thought there might be a joke there that I was missing. Brady is a local hero in my hometown.

    El Guapo:

    Unrelated to your points, but the subject of Aniston-Jolie-Pitt is interesting. I’ve actually begun using Jolie as a qualifier test with women. I will just ask what they think of her and the answers, I find, are generally pretty accurate predictors of the girls’ characters. Common answers:

    “I just think Jolie is such a great person. [No other explanation given.]” Subject to groupthink.

    “Jolie is just super hot.” Slutty.

    “I hate her! She stole Brad from Jen!” Jealousy issues.

    “Her humanitarian work is inspiring.” Several possibilities based on context. Possibly just SWPL liberal handwringer. Possibly a kind, giving person. (Maybe both). Again, depends.

    And with all of these, it’s fun to banter back and forth a bit. If early in attraction phase, tease her for her answer. If you don’t like her answer, back turn. If in rapport phase, use it as a springboard to other issues related to her personality.

    Like


  28. @guapo – yeah, but pitt was an alpha rung above aniston – out of her league even though she was a star herself. she definitely reaped what she sowed there. the mystery to me is why pitt married her in the first place. Romijn is a major bitch, from what i can tell – stamos (a much miore likeble character) wins in the end by being rid of her and freely able to get, per leo above, a younger and spiffier model.

    i guess you are saying there’s no downside to the clooney approach as long as you strictly minimze golddigger risk…

    Like


  29. @traveller – nice Jolie opener! another variant would be what whiskey wrote about her on another thread – tattooed, skinny, aging, slutty, with about as much sex appeal as a trip to an STD clinic. not sure i’d go that far , but i know what he means. so if that’s the answer from a female, you know you have another type .. prudish? envious?

    Like


  30. @LR – ooh, that was bad. nonsense and way off-point. the dude was *not* the father, and the point was that he never should have been involved in the first place – that the court system can act in such an unjust manner IN THAT CASE was the point of the comment.

    the old ways returning. brace yourself for some deserved abuse. think before you post.

    Like


  31. who let that cuntrag post here again?

    old slut, go back to the bar at applebees and leave us alone.

    Like


  32. lady cumstaine, just being herself:

    “Child support is not in and of itself intended to screw over innocent men.”

    —no, you bitches merely combine it with feminism to do that.

    “SO MANY women sleep with gutless losers and then try to foister child support on hapless betas who they let screw them when they are already pregnant.”
    —FTFY bitch.

    Like


  33. maurice:

    is there a social distance that is too large to be satisfying for both parties?

    I don’t think so. I don’t see what top alphas see in women as rich and famous as themselves, except to cut their losses in the event of a divorce. It is easy to find a regular woman who is just as beautiful as a supermodel. I would rather go for a waitress like George Clooney.

    The women at the top are almost as big losers as the men at the bottom. It must suck to feel that almost nobody in the world is good enough for you.

    Like


  34. “Why should the law be any different for fathers than it is for anyone else?”

    Actually, the feministas are the ones who should be answering that question. Normally, civil courts are EXTREMELY liberal about vacating default judgments. And giving defendants a chance to be heard on the merits.

    Unless that defendant happens to be the putative father in a paternity case.

    Anyway, I’ve been ignoring LR’s posts until now. I just read this one to see what all the fuss is about.

    Like


  35. Crap. Screwed up the tag close there. Sorry about that.

    Like


  36. I heard one time lady cumstaine was in the locker room getting dressed and someone noticed her penis. No one was surprised.

    Like


  37. Wolfie

    Crap. Screwed up the tag close there. Sorry about that.

    skip it – just tell us how Alpha Eddie and Alpha Valerie popped you out

    Like


  38. on June 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm Cannon's Canon

    Sorry to go off-topic, but this is simply too delicious not to post. If I didn’t know it was a parody, my head would explode.

    http://www.feministing.com/archives/015374.html

    Oh, wait… NOT fake?

    Like


  39. on June 8, 2009 at 2:01 pm ironrailsironweights

    I have it on good authority that nearly all models, not just supermodels, have Hideous Pedophilic Bald Eagles.

    To hell with them.

    Peter

    Like


  40. you make me sick cannon – now i gotta wash out my eyes eith Listerine.

    back on topic:

    brady would be more alpha to me, if he were to not capitulate into marrying a washed-up model. its like marrying leo’s old condoms

    same thing

    Like


  41. Child support is not in and of itself intended to “screw over innocent men.” I agree that MANY men get screwed by child support when they split with an ex, but that’s because SO MANY women and children are going without the support they deserve because of deadbeats that are far from innocent.

    The support that SO MANY women and children deserve is ZERO.

    Like


  42. Lady Rain,

    I’ll cut and paste the entire article so you can read it. The man in question WAS NEVER TOLD THAT HE ONLY HAD THIRTY DAYS TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT. In fact he was MISLEAD in that he was told by state workers to just “call in” everyday and deny paternity and everything would be O.K. This guy was lucky that he wasn’t overseas when all this went down, or according to CaliPORNia law, he’d still be screwed.

    Here is the entire article from ReasonOnline:

    Injustice by Default
    How the effort to catch “deadbeat dads” ruins innocent men’s lives
    Matt Welch | February 2004 Print Edition

    Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. “There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o’clock in the morning,” he recalls. “Very scary.”

    It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. “I’m like, ‘Great! I’m definitely not the father of anybody,'” he says.

    There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What’s more, he’s a condom fanatic — only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was “many years after.” (He’s been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother’s testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a “tall” and “dark” black man named “Anthony Pierce.” Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don’t realize he’s black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.

    The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: “You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney….2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case.” Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called — three times that day — and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.

    “I said, ‘What do I need to do? I’m not the father,'” he remembers. “And they were like, ‘OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we’ll understand that you’re not it, because if you’re it, you’re not gonna call us every day.'”

    Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees — who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. “All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do,” he says. “It’s a huge scam — huge scam….They’re just counting the days. They’re like, ‘Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.’…And this is the government!”

    Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a “default judgment” had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. “That’s when it hit me,” he says. “I mean, it’s mostly my fault — ‘Fill out the form, dumb-ass!’…But it’s so rigged against you, it’s ridiculous.”

    Dad Blamed
    What Pierce didn’t realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop — even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.

    This stacked deck against accused dads has provoked a backlash movement, triggering “paternity fraud” legislation and related legal challenges in more than a dozen states. Combined with advances in genetic technology, this conflict may end up changing the way we define parenthood. For now, the system aimed at catching “deadbeat dads” illustrates how a noble-sounding effort to help children and taxpayers can trample the rights of innocent people.

    Here’s how it works: When an accused “obligor” fails, for whatever reason, to send his response on time, the court automatically issues a “default judgment” declaring him the legal father. It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn’t even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint’s deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses — he’s now the dad. “In California, you don’t even have to have proof of service of the summons!” says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov. Gray Davis’ veto. “They only are obligated to send it to the last known address.”

    In fact, a March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that “most noncustodial parents appear to be served by ‘substitute’ service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served.” In Los Angeles County, which is notorious for its sloppy summons service and zealous prosecution of alleged fathers it knows to be innocent, nearly 80 percent of paternity establishments come in the form of default judgments. In the state as a whole, which establishes 250,000 paternities a year while collecting $2 billion in child support, a whopping 68 percent of the 158,000 child support orders in 2000 (the last year studied) were default judgments.

    Once paternity is “established,” even if the government has never communicated with the father, the county court imposes a payment rate and schedule under the statistically mistaken assumption that he makes a full-time salary at minimum wage. (State audits have found that a full 80 percent of default dads don’t make even that much.) To collect the money, the county may put a garnish order on the purported father’s paycheck or place liens on his assets. If the mother has received welfare assistance after the child was born, the man will be hit with a bill to pay back the state, plus 10 percent annual interest. “That’s what they’re trying to do, is get some reimbursement to the state,” says Carolyn Kelly, public relations officer for the Contra Costa County DCSS. “As you can imagine, [that’s] millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars.”

    If the father falls 30 days behind on his payments, he will be blocked by law from receiving or renewing a driver’s license or any “authorization issued by a board that allows a person to engage in a business, occupation, or profession” — a category that includes teaching credentials, fishing licenses, and state bar memberships. If his credit rating was good, it won’t be any more. If his past-due tab exceeds $5,000, the U.S. State Department won’t issue him a passport. (An average of 60 Americans discover this each day. Meanwhile, Congress has been pushing to cut the limit to $2,500, while urging the State Department to begin revoking passports, which is allowed under the law.)

    “When you tell people about the inequities of the system,” Wright says, “they’re surprised. They go, ‘This is America! You couldn’t do that!’ And I go, ‘Yes, you can.'”

    Under the guidelines set forth by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, single mothers can receive welfare only on condition that the state take charge of collecting their child support, including unpaid amounts from the past. If the biological father is not paying support, he will be tracked down and hit with the bill. The admirable goal, which statistics show has partially been achieved, was to encourage more responsible sexual behavior by single women, give two-parent families an incentive to stay together, wean recipients off welfare by forcing them to work, and help them find a little extra cash they didn’t have before. At the same time, however, the law gave states an explicit mandate and direct financial incentive to name the maximum number of fathers and extract from them the maximum amount of money.

    The bottom-line results have been impressive: Since 1993, according to Senate testimony last March by Marilyn Ray Smith, director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, child support collection nationwide jumped from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $19 billion in 2001, while paternity establishments more than doubled, from 659,000 in 1994 to 1.6 million just five years later.

    But you can read thousands of pages of laws, reports, and testimonies, and not see a single reference to the importance of naming the right guy, or to the gravity of making a mistake. Since Congress first got into the child support business in 1975, the cornerstone philosophy has been to orient everything toward “the best interest of the child,” which in practice has meant ensuring that the kid receives money. Now that the states also have a financial incentive — they pocket a cut of child support payments, earn performance rewards from the federal government, and enjoy the savings from reduced welfare rolls — the cash motive is stronger than ever. California, for example, crunches the numbers every which way: total child support dollars collected per dollar of total expenditure, average amount collected per case, and so on. But nowhere does the state bother to count the number of citizens it has wrongfully named as fathers. The bias is overwhelming, and abuses are inevitable.

    Paternity Test
    Anyone familiar with paternity misestablishment horror stories will tell you that Tony Pierce is a fortunate man. “Oh, he got really lucky,” says Taron James, a wrongfully named father who recently founded a group called Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud. “Mine’s going on eight years.”

    First of all, even at Pierce’s current low, entry-level salary, he’s rolling in dough compared to most default dads. According to the Urban Institute study, of the 834,000 Californians owing child support in 2001, “over 60 percent of debtors have recent net [annual] incomes below $10,000. Only 1 percent have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000.” It’s safe to guess that, also unlike Pierce, most don’t have good friends who are high-powered lawyers willing to work pro bono. Like obtaining a green card, which is a hellishly complex process navigated disproportionately
    by the poor, fighting a paternity complaint is nearly inconceivable without legal representation, which Wright says costs a “minimum” of $2,000. “If he can’t get the two grand together, you know what?” Wright says. “He’s shit out of luck.”

    Pierce’s lawyer, Kim Thigpen, is normally an entertainment attorney, so her crash-course education in family law came as a shock. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” she says. Thigpen was able to get the default judgment set aside — not canceled — on grounds of excusable neglect and mistaken identity, thereby blocking the wage garnishment until the mother and child settled the question once and for all by checking their DNA against Pierce’s. Nearly three years and $10,000 in legal expenses later, they’re still waiting for the mother to comply. (It was far easier for Contra Costa County to declare Pierce the father from 400 miles away than to compel the local-resident mother to show up for a DNA test.) At the hearing, the county attorney admitted that Pierce looked nothing like the mother’s description, a fact that a simple Google search would have easily revealed, since Tony publishes a Web site that includes several dozen pictures of himself.

    So how was Pierce fingered? How low is the legal threshold for placing men in the cross hairs of default justice? Both Contra Costa County and the California DCSS refused to discuss the specifics of this or any other case, citing privacy regulations (though Contra Costa’s Carolyn Kelly did point out that “if you don’t contact us, there’s nothing we can do”). But a look at how the process works reveals great potential for error.

    Counties typically launch paternity investigations for one of two reasons: Either a parent or custodian directly asks for help in locating a biological parent, or a mother applies for welfare, which now is reported to the local child support system. If the mother was unwed, says California DCSS Assistant Director Leora Gerhenzon, “you ask about when you became pregnant, why you believe that date is correct, whether or not the father was named on the birth certificate, has the father seen the child,…does the father provide for support, has he ever lived with the child,…a Social Security number….It’s a half-hour [interview], or even an hour and a half to two hours.”

    What if the only information the mother provides, I ask Gerhenzon, is that it was 10 years ago, with a white guy named Matt Welch, now between 30 and 40 years old, who maybe lives in the Los Angeles area?

    “In that case, now it depends,” she says. “We run our search on him; if we come back with one Matt Welch who lives in L.A., whose birthday fits that 10-year range, and we have nobody else, we presume in general we have the person. If we come back with three Matt Welches, all of a sudden we know there’s a problem. We have to call her back in, or call her on the phone, and say ‘OK, here’s what we’ve pulled up. We need more help from you to identify which is the correct [one].'”

    So a name, race, vague location, and a broad age range is sufficient to launch a process that could quickly lead to a default judgment, asset liens, and a blocked passport? “Right. Right,” Gerhenzon confirms. “If it’s clear that she’s given us enough identifying information to come up with one discrete name, we would go ahead.” Wouldn’t that make people with unusual names easier targets? “Absolutely.”

    In addition to a low threshold for accusing men of paternity, the system lacks penalties for naming the wrong father. Mothers sign their declarations under penalty of perjury, Gerhenzon says, but neither she nor anyone else I talked to for this article could recall a single case where a mother was charged with a crime for naming the wrong man. In fact, until recently California hasn’t had any way to see whether a woman had named different candidates in different counties. Asked how a caseworker might respond after discovering such a disparity, Gerhenzon says, “I think in all likelihood they would confront the custodial parent with both names, and say, ‘Who is the appropriate parent?'” For both the mother and the state, the punishment for making a mistake is indirect, in the form of receiving less child support. (The state is much less successful in collecting from default dads, on average, and the wrongly named defaults surely pay the least.)

    So how many default judgments catch the wrong guy? Nobody knows. Paternity reform activists point to a 2000 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found 30 percent of the 300,000 paternity DNA tests conducted at accredited centers nationwide excluded the father. But the actual percentage of wrongfully named default dads is certainly much lower, since these samples come largely from people with doubts about paternity (as opposed to real deadbeat dads, who have considerable reason to avoid a DNA test).

    Whatever the number, the state of California recognizes misidentification of fathers as a serious problem. “Some default orders are expected,” reported the Urban Institute, “but a default rate of 71 percent statewide indicates that something is terribly wrong.” In its study, which addressed the collectibility of California’s $17 billion in outstanding support, the Urban Institute’s No. 1 recommendation was to “reduce default orders.” The DCSS now has a Default Work Group, established at the behest of former Gov. Davis after he vetoed one of the reform bills, that is preparing recommendations for reducing the rate.

    “What we have done in the past is sped up many of these defaults,” Gerhenzon says. “And they were penny-wise and pound foolish, maybe, to go ahead and get quick orders…. And what we’ve certainly learned through our collectibility study, and…through general customer service, is that it is far, far better to get the right parent up front….In cases where we actually, because of the default, have the wrong parent, we end up collecting a whole lot less money.”

    Innocence Is No Defense
    The systems for establishing paternity and providing child support are replete with legal deadlines that vary from state to state. Besides having 30 days to respond to a paternity complaint, an accused father in California has 180 days to contest a child support order and two years from birth to challenge paternity using DNA evidence (unless he has signed a voluntary declaration of paternity in the hospital under the federal government’s new Paternity Opportunity Program, in which case he has just 60 days). If, for what-ever reasons, any of these deadlines aren’t met, no amount of evidence can move the state to review the case; the DCSS has to be sued. Unlike capital murder convictions, which are being overturned around the country because of DNA evidence, family court cases typically hew to the “finality of judgment” principle to prevent disruptions in children’s lives. Or, in the words of former California legislator Rod Wright, “It ain’t your kid, you can prove it ain’t your kid, and they say, ‘So what?'”

    That’s how a man like Taron James could be slapped with a support bill for thousands of dollars from Los Angeles County in 2002, and continue to be barred from using his notary public license, even after producing convincing DNA evidence and notarized testimony from the mother that her 11-year-old son, whom he’s seen exactly once and looks nothing like, is not his child and that she no longer seeks his support. James says his name was placed on the child’s birth certificate without his consent while he was on a Navy tour of duty; then the mother refused to take blood tests for eight years, and he became aware of a default order against him only when the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to issue him a driver’s license in October 1996. By that time, James had missed all the relevant deadlines, the court was unimpressed with his tale of woe, and he has since coughed up $14,000 in child support via liens and garnishments.

    “I contact Child Support Services, and their whole thing is, ‘Take us to court. You don’t like what we’re doing, take us to court,'” he says. “Whether or not you’re the biological father doesn’t matter — if someone’s got your name, and you’ve…failed to participate in the court date, then you have an obligation to pay child support, period.”

    Needless to say, taking DCSS to court is expensive (James says he’s already run up legal bills of $4,000), and success isn’t likely. To add insult to injury, even if you win, you won’t get any of your money back.

    State bureaucrats say their hearts bleed, but rules are rules. “We are obligated by law to enforce the order,” says California DCSS’s Gerhenzon. “We have no ability not only to stop enforcement of our own, but not to proceed with doing everything we can to get child support in this case, because we have to enforce the legally established order. The recourse is to get that order set aside, or overturned.”

    When judicial systems enthusiastically enforce rulings they know to be unjust, it’s a surefire formula for creating activists. After writing scores of letters to politicians and conducting endless Internet searches, James and his girlfriend, Raegan Phillips, hooked up with a national group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, founded by a Georgia engineer named Carnell Smith. Smith paid more than $40,000 in support over 11 years to an ex-girlfriend’s child he assumed to be his, until she requested more money in 1999. He then took a DNA test and discovered he wasn’t the father, but the court ordered him to pay $120,000 anyway. Enraged, he launched Citizens Against Paternity Fraud and began lobbying the Georgia legislature to change laws that limited the admissibility of DNA tests. In May 2002, the effort passed, so now at least some default dads in Dixie — those who have never adopted their children or officially acknowledged paternity — can overturn support orders using DNA evidence, regardless of how much time has elapsed. In March of last year, under the new law, Smith’s personal support order was finally overturned.

    Similar laws have passed in Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, and Alabama; others are working their way through statehouses in Texas, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Vermont, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, courts across the country are trying to redraw the legal lines of paternity now that genetic testing and welfare reform are colliding with 500 years of common law tradition, which has presumed that all children born in a marriage are the husband’s responsibility, whether or not he is the biological father. In May 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that men who have admitted paternity, even if the mother lied to them, are not allowed to introduce DNA evidence to challenge support orders. Carnell Smith has been trying to push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, so far without success.

    Although paternity fraud activists are beginning to gain traction, they face formidable obstacles. The Welfare Reform Act is largely a popular success. More two-parent families are staying together, more single mothers are entering the work force, and child support collections have doubled. By just about any measure, these trends are in the best interests of the affected children. In Massachusetts 18 years ago, for example, women had a miserable rate of success (around 10 percent) in suing for paternity, according to Marilyn Ray Smith, the state’s chief child support enforcer, and genetic tests were inadmissible except to disprove paternity. For single mothers and their children, the legal climate obviously has changed much for the better.

    Which helps explain why so many feminist groups and politicians have dug in their heels to block paternity reform bills. Considered in zero sum terms, any change that prevents some unjustly named fathers from supporting kids they didn’t sire reduces the amount of money children and single mothers receive while increasing states’ welfare payouts. Child support advocates also worry, with some reason, that narrow-sounding legislation aimed at preventing obvious injustices may become a Trojan horse for men who change their minds about the responsibilities of fatherhood. But that’s rarely how the issue is presented. Women’s groups usually argue that fatherhood cannot be measured by DNA alone — a disingenuous stance, considering the thousands of men who pay for kids they’ve never lived with.

    “What makes a father?” California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) said in an August 2002 interview with the Los Angeles Times, explaining why she was voting against Rod Wright’s latest reform bill. “This bill says the donation of genetic material makes a father. I don’t agree.”

    Kuehl, a former family law attorney who cosponsored a law that reworked California’s child support system in 1999, has been the single biggest opponent of paternity-related reform bills in the state, to the point where activists like James and Phillips refer to her as “Sheila Cruel” and are planning demonstrations outside her office. Kuehl refused repeated requests to comment for this article. “She says it’s not her issue,” a spokeswoman told me. “She’s not interested to talk about it.”

    Wright, who considers Kuehl a friend, says he tried several times to sway her with individual stories of innocent victims who’d been trampled by the current system. “Sheila said to me one day in a hearing room: ‘You know, I understand that, through the convergence of science and thousand-year-old common law, we have to work toward a kind of balance. And I side with the kids; I don’t really care about this guy.'” Wright chalks it up to the prevailing poli-tical winds. “If this was a case where women could be charged similarly,” he says, “Sheila would be all over this like a cheap suit. It’s really a case where it becomes a guy vs. a child. So it’s like, ‘Well, screw the guy.'”

    Paternity activists argue that the best interests of the child should include, among other things, knowing who her real biological father is, so she can have accurate medical information. And every day the wrong man is on the hook, they point out, is a day not spent finding the real father.

    “They have failed her,” Tony Pierce says of Contra Costa County’s effort on behalf of his supposed daughter. “If they’re in it to feel good about themselves and to go to heaven because they’re fighting for women — no, they’re going to hell, because they have not found this woman’s father, and they have tried to fuck me over….What they should have said right away is, ‘Hey look, this isn’t the guy; let’s get the [right] guy.'”

    Every child support official I talked to was sensitive to the criticism and eager to discuss many past and future reforms aimed at reducing the number of default judgments, humanizing the system, and even (in the words of Contra Costa County’s Kelly) eliminating the word deadbeat from their vocabulary. “This is a tough area,” California DCSS’s Gerhenzon says. “When you have bad results in these situations, they are tough on everyone involved in the process: the parents, the legal parents, the child, the system. It is to everyone’s benefit not to have these cases come up.”

    But as long as state and federal laws remain as they are — with low evidentiary thresholds for issuing paternity complaints, no proof of service required, the presumption of guilt in default cases, a series of short legal deadlines beyond which paternity becomes extremely difficult to challenge, and financial incentive for the government to keep naming dads and extracting money — these cases will continue to come up. “I can see how so many men could be totally screwed right now,” Pierce says. “You know, I was educated, I had a good job, I’d never been involved with the cops before, I had nothing to fear, nothing to run from. But still, I got tied into it….I can see where this stuff could create many victims.”

    Victims like Taron James, who lost at least two jobs while putting his life on hold for eight years so he could fight a judgment that should have never been made. “I’m a veteran — I fought for and defended my country,” James says, sitting in a Torrance, California, park down the street from his great aunt’s crowded house, where he lives with his girlfriend and splits his time looking for work and driving to Sacramento to lobby legislators. “To be treated like this is ridiculous….Right now, I’m fully disgusted with California and the United States for allowing this to go on after I put my hind end on the line.”

    Note: The print edition of this article incorrectly stated Raegan Phillips’ name and one detail about Taron James.

    Like


  43. z

    Lady Rain,

    I’ll cut and paste the entire article so you can read it.

    hey thanks zippy. Lady sure can use your help in derailing threads with your posting the entire fucking Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Like


  44. Hey I thought Lady inSaine had her own little sandlot to play in over in Is Lady Rain In This Porno? This would be appropriate for the attention whore since her posts generally contain no real content and at least over there her rationalizations are ostensively on topic because the thread is about *her* and “women” just like her.

    Like


  45. “If you honestly believe that a man can have sex with however many women he’d like and NOT be held 50% responsible,”

    perhaps. just as it is a woman’s body, woman’s choice to decide whether she aborts a fetus, the same principle applies when she decides what dick to let fuck her.

    Like


  46. If you honestly believe that a man can have sex with however many women he’d like and NOT be held 50% responsible, then you are a low-class person. Any person with sense would agree that if you have sex, you are responsible for the care of the resulting child for life whether male or female. If you can’t handle this, then keep the horsey in the barn. It’s pretty simple.

    This sentiment is a little dated. When the advent of contraception, this thought above doesn’t really ring true, anymore.

    Coupled with abortions, I don’t think men really need to be held accountable, at all; assuming there was no intention (for BOTH parties) to have a baby in the first place.

    Like


  47. If anyone is interested in what Sheila Keuhl from the article looks like, the biggest opponet to paternity REFORM, there she is. She looks exactly what you think she’d look like.

    LADY RAIN,

    MAYBE YOU MISSED IT. READ THIS PART AGAIN:

    Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called — three times that day — and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.

    “I said, ‘What do I need to do? I’m not the father,’” he remembers. “And they were like, ‘OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we’ll understand that you’re not it, because if you’re it, you’re not gonna call us every day.’”

    Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees — who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. “All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do,” he says. “It’s a huge scam — huge scam….They’re just counting the days. They’re like, ‘Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.’…And this is the government!”

    LADY RAIN…………………………..GOVERNMENT WORKERS LIED to this man, and led him to believe that if he just called in every day, they’d drop the case. He was intentionally misled. What part of that is hard to understand.

    Did you read the part of the article where the man explained the California is notorious for not even making certain men even recieve their summons, and that summons are oft sent to “the last known address”. Some men get served at their residences here while literally on military duty half way around the world. No way they make the court date. Is that fair?

    Mandatory DNA tests at birth would erase ALL of this.

    Like


  48. just as it is a woman’s body, woman’s choice to decide whether she aborts a fetus, the same principle applies when she decides what dick to let fuck her.

    Exactly. The woman has 100% control over whether or not she has a kid. If she can’t afford it without him, she can pull the plug. If she decides to do it anyway, she should pay. Any person with sense would agree that the person with the power should have the responsibility. The woman has 100% of the power, she should have 100% of the financial responsibility.

    @LadyWhore – someone with your myspace pics (which Roissy aptly described as “cheesy white ghetto”) shouldn’t be calling anyone “low class”.

    Like


  49. Sex does not always equate in having kids.

    Women have 100% of the control over sex?

    Do you even read this blog?

    Like


  50. *groans*

    Ok from now on, I’m just reading Roissy’s posts, and not the comments.

    For a minute there I thought the plague had been purged. Oh well.

    Like


  51. Dogen –

    That’s exactly what I thought this morning.

    Like


  52. The guy with the paternity complained served on him – since he clearly ddn’t understand the process – should have gotten a lawyer. Relying on the other side to protect your rights is stupid to the point of being suicidal.

    Like


  53. Mr.M –

    Seriously, dude. It’s like the fucking Terminator. Or a cockroach.

    Like


  54. @LadyWhore – Damn your reading comprehension is poor!

    To repeat: “The woman has 100% control over whether or not she has a kid.”

    Not whether or not she has sex – whether or not she has a kid.

    If the man refuses to pay, she can choose whether or not to pull the plug, and if she chooses to go ahead and have the kid, the man owes her nothing. You favor choice, right? Well, she chooses, she pays.

    Like


  55. folks – let’s not feed the beast here. silence is golden.

    Like


  56. feading===feeding

    Like


  57. gig/maurice –

    good point. very good point.

    Like


  58. Firepower,

    I apologize for interrupting the thread, but Mel Gibson’s insistence of discovering paternity was part of the blog entry above the thread, so I thought discussions of the accurate assignment of paternity was indeed relevent.

    Your pic is lovely by the way Firepower.

    Lady Rain,

    All men like me want (if you only knew how many divorced friends I have, who are paying child support out the ying-yang and whose marriages ended when their wives cheated on them, you’d understand my position) is for men to never have to pay child support when not genetically the father. NO KID is born of virgin birth like Jesus. There is a -real- dad out there for every kid born. The state owes it to us as taxpayers to find the real dad and assign any attendent financial obligations to the correct sperm donor. This indeed would have a “chilling effect” on bareback adultery out there on the plains, and it would also keep women from intentionally getting pregnant from their paramours hoping to get child support from the poor schmuck they are married to, while enticing their lover with pleas of “its really your child”, and he will help us pay for it *

    LR, *
    Let me tell you about a co-worker of mine. A great guy, wonderful dad. Long story short his wife leaves him for his assistant softball coach (My friend coached his daughter’s team). This fucking schmuck assistant coach with a dead end job already had two kids by two different women. He is a trailer-park gal’s dream guy. Ponytail, long hair, blue eyes, tatoos, drinks heavy, plays in a band, good looks, and isn’t worth killing as a human being. Well, ponytail woos my friends wife. My friend figures out that something is up and gets a detective on the case. The house gets bugged, the phone gets bugged, hidden motion sensitive cameras get installed.

    You would not BELIEVE the taped telephone conversations he heard. Ponytail and his wife talking about how much they could “take” my friend for. Half his 401K (about 80K according to him at the time), half his equity in his home (72K at the time of the divorce), half the bank accounts, one of the cars, $900 a month for child support for the two kids, ALL of the furniture (how she figured she’d get that I’ll never know). Well, the blackmail of the tapes, plus the really juicy threesomes on film with girls made her settle for joint custody and $400 a month, half the 401K, and half the equity. If he didn’t have all of that…………………….he would have been scewed. He’d have lost his kids and paid out the yazoo for his wife leaving him.

    Fast forward to six years later. My pal is remarried, HAPPILY. He has worked a second job on weekends (installing this and that…….makes about an extra thousand a month doing so), and his kids love him and he has them half the time. Ponytail got his ex to buy him all sorts of goodies with the 401K and equity money. A truck, a jet ski, a motorcycle, vacations, clothes, livin’it up at the bars. Most of its gone. Ponytail was having internet affairs 3 years into the marriage. “Auditioning” singers for his band. All the singers were girls…………………….that he was fucking. His ex-wife is basically starting over at 40 years of age, very little money from the divorce left (when ponytail left, she had to split the assets with him in their divorce). Ponytail has gotten another woman pregnant. Why should my pal have to pay for the misdeeds of ponytail and his ex? He shouldn’t. Could you imagine if my pal thought the kids -WERE NOT- his? (They are his, they look like him).

    Ive got several aquaintances who have been fucked over even worse than this. My pal made a great rebound. Met a terrific gal in a similar situation. They have built a happy life together (she has two kids, he has two kids, they have a good amount of money coming in between the two of them, etc). Some of the guys got awfully depressed. Paying for a kid that isn’t yours would just make it completely worse. This guy, through getting detectives on the case and threatening to show her family all about their “real” daughter basically saved his ass. Some of my other pals weren’t so lucky……………………………and are basically their ex’s financial slave.

    Think about what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot sometime. You’d be ticked.

    Like


  59. The only way a woman is 100% responsible is if the man is mentally disabled and doesn’t know he’s having sex.

    She is 100% responsible because she has 100% of the power. She can keep or kill the kid regardless of what he wants.

    If the man had the right to say “you must have that kid even if you don’t want to” then there would be a case for making him pay for it. If it is entirely up to her whether or not she has it, it should be entirely up to her to pay for it.

    Okay so since you consider “abortion” a good time for women and as easy as birth control? I suppose the freedom of a $500-$700 murder is a willy-nilly choice for most women? Twist your head back on before you say something THAT stupid. It takes two to tango, both parents are equally responsible when they take their clothes off and have sex. We learned this in 7th grade Health Class, where the hell were you for that?

    In fact yes, the morning after pill is as easy as birth control.

    In any event, “abortion is no fun” is perhaps an argument for making him pay for half the abortion, not for making him pay for keeping the kid.

    They are equally responsible for the decision to have sex. They are not equally responsible for the decision to keep the kid (you goddamn moron). If she decides to keep the kid, that is her decision alone and she should have the full financial responsibility for the result of her choice.

    Your argument that the man should pay for something the woman controls is flat out stupid.

    Like


  60. The idea that any woman deserves to get 400 million dollars for no more than being a wife for a long time is absolutely obscene. Just completely crazy making nuts.

    40 years ago that would never ever be contemplated.

    Mel Gibson is the mondo successful talent and businessman. Not his wife.

    This feminist concept that you automatically enter into a business partnership when you marry is absurd. That sure as hell wasn’t my intention.

    She should get $25 million or something (considering how rich he is) and that’s it. I.e. she should get enough to be minor rich, but not remotely enough to be money powerful.

    Like


  61. Z – those taped conversations would have me thinking of digging two holes in the desert…

    Like


  62. @Lady Rain

    I don’t believe I have to say what I’m about to say.
    To a girl. Your age.

    The decision to keep the baby is a 100% MINE. Even if the father wants to have babies.
    I have seen girls “accidentally” get pregnant to fulfill their dreams of marriage and a baby while completely aware that the guy wasn’t really into the whole marriage-and-kids thing. So she decides do keep the baby. Is that a good decision? for the guy? Is that honest with him? is that a good thing for the kid? (I guess that’s the worst part, poor thing) and for herself?
    Can you “accidentally” keep the baby?
    How many ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy are
    there?

    LR your whole 50% crap only holds true when people are married and/or both of them want the child. In this case the guy has the obligation to help raise the child like he had previously agreed.

    both parents are equally responsible when they take their clothes off and have sex.

    No, they aren’t. I think you’re playing stupid here. We have a lot more ways to control the situation and even revert it and all a guy can do is use a condom and expect it won’t break.

    Like


  63. @Tarl

    Exactly. If I had a better english that’s what I would write =)

    Like


  64. Silvia–

    LR your whole 50% crap only holds true when people are married and/or both of them want the child. In this case the guy has the obligation to help raise the child like he had previously agreed.

    both parents are equally responsible when they take their clothes off and have sex.

    No, they aren’t. I think you’re playing stupid here. We have a lot more ways to control the situation and even revert it and all a guy can do is use a condom and expect it won’t break.

    Love ya girlfriend.

    (I posted my bit before seeing yours.)

    Like


  65. z

    just imagine if your friend was a little bit more clueless. He would be raped by the divorce court, with a huge alimony. ponytail guy would bang younger chicks and eventually divorce cheating whore so pnytail himself would receive alimony from cheating whore. Thus making stable husband pay alimony to both cheating whore and ponytail.

    Like


  66. Tarl–

    She is 100% responsible because she has 100% of the power. She can keep or kill the kid regardless of what he wants.

    If the man had the right to say “you must have that kid even if you don’t want to” then there would be a case for making him pay for it. If it is entirely up to her whether or not she has it, it should be entirely up to her to pay for it.

    In any event, “abortion is no fun” is perhaps an argument for making him pay for half the abortion, not for making him pay for keeping the kid.

    Yuup. Exactly right.

    A woman’s “right to choose” we all know about.

    (That is NOT just the right to keep her legs closed and hence avoid the problem in the first place. It’s an after the copulation right.)

    We need a “man’s right to choose” also. Not the right to order the woman under the abortion knife (actually suction device). Instead the right to abort any responsibilites and also rights, which should go hand in hand, with respect to the fetus that’s growing into a child.

    (No his rights shouldn’t end with his decision to not keep himself zipped any more than the woman’s should.)

    Like


  67. Yes I’m in favor of allowing infanticide. For say six months. To see how the little squirt turned out. Big problem. Off him/her.

    As far as I’m concerned your arguments regarding men’s rights lost every shred of credibility they ever had with me when you made that comment, Doug 1. Strange, because I was starting to be convinced by some of them.

    That’s not asshole game, that’s just assholery.

    After all, there’s many serious health problems that don’t manifest themselves in the first six months of a newborn’s life. Why not wait until they show signs of illness at whatever age they might be, before legal adulthood, and then kill them? (Swiftian irony alert.)

    Clio

    Like


  68. We all know abortion is murder. It is deliberately halting the biological functions of a genetically separate human being.

    In Greece you used to have to wait until they were born to throw them off a cliff.

    In ancient Rome too they sometimes waited until they were born. If the male of the house did not want to raise the child then it was the midwife’s duty to dispose of the newborn.

    http://www.archaeology.org/9703/newsbriefs/ashkelon.html

    In modern times it is just easier to get the women to dispose of them before the birth before the female forms such emotional attachments.

    (If you know history you know the future.)

    Like


  69. The only way to guarantee a lack of parenthood is sterilization. You may not think that sex which generates conception is your problem, but the law in our country thinks otherwise, no matter where you stand morally on this one. I think the rights are scewed towards women, but, am not sure where changes could be made….It is flawed as it stands.

    @ Doug 1…Though, I am personally repulsed by infanticide, I’m wondering if you ever read The Giver ? It deals with a utopian society with infanticide. Also, in making that statement, do you have children? or if not do you ever?

    Like


  70. there is a direct link between abortion and below replacement fertility levels. And there is another link between below replacemeent fertility and the substitution of the aborting population by a non-aborting population, which can be or not from the same race (Christians in Rome, muslims in Russia, respectively)

    “post-birth abortion” like throwing the baby from the mountains is only a more radical version of it, with even faster results

    Like


  71. aliasclio–

    As far as I’m concerned your arguments regarding men’s rights lost every shred of credibility they ever had with me when you made that comment, Doug 1. Strange, because I was starting to be convinced by some of them.

    Sorry you’re upset Clio. I actually really am.

    Of course it would never go anywhere, and I’d never actually push it, unlike other things. It’s too deeply unpopular and at odds with Christian religious ideas.

    There do have to be hard lines of limitation. Of course we can’t go offing adults or teenagers due to a disability or injury.

    Plenty of societies have found infanticide workable. The concept is the newborn infant hasn’t yet grown into real person hood.

    But as I said, it will never go anywhere.

    Like


  72. Marko Jaric is technically better (or more alpha) than Brady. He’s less attractive and rich and married Adriana Lima. I wonder what neg he used on her.

    Like


  73. abortion is murder, period. at this point science has proven our existence comes into being when egg hits sperm. religious propaganda my ass. Its feminazis and dicks who have their own agenda in denying what is now the obvious.

    that said, infanticide in older societies was not thought to be just killing a non-person. Roman mothers wouldn’t kill a child directly; they would find a secluded hill in the woods and leave the child there, the theory being that if the gods wanted him not to die, they would send a poor shepherd to adopt it, or get a she-wolf (romulus and remus) to suckle it.

    that all said, societies kill a lot, and societies that self-terminate are self-terminating. The abortion plank is just one part of left-wing human existinction, along with forced sterilization, feminism, and the green movement (punish yourself to help an undefined Gaia goddess).

    Like


  74. on June 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO

    wow wtf lady rain is back? I thought the porn thing scared this retard away.

    Like


  75. on June 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO

    “there is no such thing as a woman “aging out” unless she chooses too”
    lol, definitely a put on.

    Like


  76. Unless you’re Alpha, women just despise men. Strictly business.

    I think that is something I’ve recently come to grips with. Its an interesting, albeit pathetic direction of society.

    Like


  77. @Lurker

    From what I’ve read Roman women weren’t usually responsible themselves for killing their children. (At least in the upper classes.) If you think sexual tensions are bad now you should have seen them then. The men didn’t trust the women with murdering their own children for obvious reasons. It was up to the midwives’ duty to kill the child.

    Like


  78. LR –

    I thought your internet connection was out…?

    Like


  79. and think about the stories societies were told abotu “the enemy”—a common one was ripping babies in 2/stuffing them onto pikes/ dashing them on the rocks. killing children was seen as atrocious by the ancients, and only propaganda kept the idea alive—alive to be pinned on the bad guys.

    Like


  80. on June 8, 2009 at 4:47 pm Dave from Hawaii

    Welcome to Feminazi Police State USA…in which any dirty whore whelping fatherless bastards has the power to name ANY man as the sperm donor, and the court will issue a summons and the man has 30 days to show up or he get’s exactly what he deserves.

    Doesn’t that about summon your position up pretty well, LR?

    Like


  81. LR –

    Neighbors stealing cable seems more plausible than roissy giving you a 24hr ban.

    Like


  82. I especially like LR’s inane “logic” that because a woman might not want to go with the difficult and expensive abortion procedure, which is so hard on a woman’s body, she would be fully justified instead to decide to have the child, which as we all know is not hard at all on a woman’s body or expensive in any way. And of course, through an amazing leap of female logic, the woman’s refusal to have an abortion obviously creates a lifetime obligation for the man! Gee, how could we stupid men not see that?

    Like


  83. goofball:

    there is no such thing as a woman “aging out” unless she chooses too.

    if you click your heels three times and repeat “there’s no way i’ll get old” you can stay 28 looking 38 forever!

    You cannot honestly believe that! Dating is 100 times easier than it was when I was 18-21!

    sure, dating is easier when you’re quicker to put out or you expand your quarry to include loser beta suckups who cook you dinners for no sex in return. but hey, that’s a low bar.

    i’ve got some advice for you, LR. take it or leave it, but you’d be best taking it if you don’t want to grow old as a bitter, harried single mom with a resentful, troublemaker son, a string of unfulfilling pump and dumps with progressively bigger losers, and slew of cats to welcome you home after a hard day at the factory:
    learn to settle.
    and settle hard.
    because any man worth his dignity in gold testicles is going to take one look at your sketchy past, low class, poor decision-making, annoying unfeminine personality, and single mom baggage and decide you are best utilized as a fun, easy, investment-free lay. nothing more, nothing less.
    and as sure as the sun rises over allentown east, as you get older and uglier the pool of available men willing to FUCK you, let alone get into a loving relationship with you, is going to shrink substantially. and as you are much older looking than your claimed age, that day will arrive sooner than you think.
    3-5 years, tops.
    so you’d best get crackin’ finding a pliable beta willing to chain himself to your horrid existence if you want a semblance of a happy life for yourself, cause the clock is ticking loudly.
    and your proto-haggard face is accelerating to irreversible wall impact velocity.

    Like


  84. goofball liar:

    I never stayed away from the blog about me, Roissy banned me for about a day after he posted his blog about me.

    that is a lie.
    you were never banned after my infamous, but delightfully entertaining, LR post. what really happened was that I SPANKED you into tucking your tail between your legs and scurrying off to lick your wounds.

    Like


  85. I find it hard to believe what Roissy unloaded onto LR last week wasn’t enough to keep her the fuck away from here. That woman really needs to get laid fast.

    Like


  86. well, it is entirely her choice to have the child. it maybe her and the man’s choice to have sex, but it is her body that can become inseminated, and her choice if the pregnancy is carried out or not. i know the law might not agree with this, but i’m just pointing out the only logical conclusion.

    Like


  87. Good for Mel. Something tells me that is Mel’s baby. If not that child belongs to another millionaire. The woman strikes me as a type of golddigger.

    His girlfriend purposely got pregnant. Mel has been “out there” since he said those awful things, my female intuition tells me she climbed on top when Mel was too out of it to suit up. I feel really bad for his wife, what a disrespectful way to treat a woman who risked her life for you 7/8 times

    Like


  88. You clearly must believe then that there are no men who FORCE their signif others to have an abortion or force them NOT to and then run off anyhow.

    You mean, when they’re married? after agreeing to have a child like I said?

    or you’re talking about one of those “accidents”? It must be a hard moment for someone who doesn’t want children listening to someone *else* saying ” Hi, I’m pregnant and I know you don’t want the child but screw you I’m keeping it anyways and this is your problem too”. =)

    You also must believe that men are so intellectually dull, that they have no idea that a pregnancy could occur if they engage in consensual sex?

    if I’m not mistaken, sex doesn’t mean making babies anymore. Try asking a guy before he is about to have sex with you: “let’s have a baby” instead of “let’s have sex”
    Two completely different things.

    What, are you in your 60’s or 70’s and have never had kids or sex? This is the only way a woman could hold an opinion like that and call it reasonable.

    God…

    that’s why we use pills, LR, until we get married to someone who wants to have children and raise them.

    @roissy for the love of God Almighty do something.

    @Gig…”sacrifice the sisterhood”.

    I’ll defend a girl when she’s right. This is not a girls x guys talk. Well, not for me.

    Like


  89. Well, here’s my take on Abortion:

    I am Pro-Life, but I also understand a number of things: one, that I live in a country where Abortion will NEVER be outlawed; two, Abortion has ALWAYS been w/human beings; and three, there is but one way to settle the issue once and for all:

    Men must have a “Roe For Men” option.

    Let’s be honest and reasonable here, ladies and gentlemen:

    We’ve long seperated sex from childbearing.

    We’ve also given Women a de facto monopoly over human reproduction. Men only have a role insofar as the Woman determines it.

    The only humane and fair thing to do now is to make sure that Men have the right to choose if they want to be fathers or not. And as long as this fundamental human right continues to be denied Men, the fight over Abortion will NEVER STOP.

    Men have to have the right to say if they want to be dads or not. Men also have to know, for certain that “their” kids are indeed their kids-which means, Mandatory Paternity Testing, immediately upon birth of the child.

    MPT and Roe For Men will finally settle the Abortion debate because that way, both Men and Women get what they want.

    Comments?

    O

    Like


  90. on June 8, 2009 at 5:06 pm Seeking Alpha

    L.Raine

    Now that you’re back, I’m curious if you can answer my question from before.

    You claimed that Canadian men have better manners than Americans because men in Montreal had better manners than men in rural Pennsylvania.

    Do you see a problem with that logic? Or do you have a broader base of experiences that you just didn’t mention in the story?

    Like


  91. thanks thursday for posting the link. and sorry i remembered that quote a bit incorrectly – though it’s amazing those words still stick in my brain 2 years after i read that interview.

    Like


  92. Mr.M–

    Unless you’re Alpha, women just despise men. Strictly business.

    I think that is something I’ve recently come to grips with. Its an interesting, albeit pathetic direction of society.

    Women are attracted to strong men. Men that are exciting and thrilling. Men they can want to follow.

    One theory is that alphas are a fixed if somewhat arbitrary percentage of men. They’re the top group in attractiveness. Roissy has used 15% as his estimate of the percentage of American men that are alphas, without saying alphadom is necessarily a fixed percentage.

    PA and a few others think that alphahood is not a fixed percentage but can expand or contract according to the culture. He thinks the West has a very contracted alpha percentage these days – that 15%. He thinks that alphas are those men who seem strong and manly to women, as opposed to being weak wimpy pussies. He thinks that maybe up to half of men can be, and in other times and places have been, alpha to women. That is sexually attractive to women. Not necessarily the MOST sexually attractive, but enough to get the job done and done well for her.

    I don’t know about half. I also think there’s a special attractiveness to women that comes from being in the top group by various criteria. However I also think PA has a point. There’s some combination of factors. I think a lot more men could be attractive to women than currently are, in feminist pussified America, esp. among gen Y.

    Like


  93. low class bmxboy rimjobbing loser:

    Alright, man-up and admit at least that you banned me for at least 24 hours.

    i’ve got a better idea. how about you pull that purple saguaro out of your ravaged anus so you can think more clearly and answer the question i posed in the post dedicated to your wreck of a life:

    what are you, lady rain, going to do in 5 years when your looks are gone?

    and for the record, you continue to lie. you were not banned after the LR post. you ran away with your cunty dickclit tucked between your overtanned legs. however, because you are the equivalent of human spam, and your endless repetitive dronings are a shitstorm of ascii diarrhea that soils anything it touches, you are hereby moderated.
    it will be enjoyable watching you flap like a fish out of water waiting in my moderated queue to get another one of your insipid last words in.

    Like


  94. Yes I’m in favor of allowing infanticide. For say six months. To see how the little squirt turned out. Big problem. Off him/her.

    Won’t make me popular with the disability set.

    Do I care? Nope.

    How do you feel about the retroactive abortion of adult psychopaths?

    Like


  95. killing children was seen as atrocious by the ancients, and only propaganda kept the idea alive – Lurker

    @lurker

    It was common enough. See Oedipus and Paris of Troy just for a few literary examples.

    Like


  96. an attempt to unhijack (doubtless doomed to failure):

    @thursday – the SI link seems to indicate that Brady was talking about his friend with the “wonder what’s wrong with her” line – so, he was giving his buddy advice and not speaking about his own courtship of Gisele.

    So maybe this “apex Alpha” didn’t actually neg her at all…? There was a long interview with Gisele recently in which she stated that they bond over (of all things) .. wait for it .. their shared Catholic faith and his “pure heart”.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/05/gisele-bundchen200905

    of coruse, what women say about why they’re attracted isn’t always, or usually, why they’re actually attracted, but Brady is definitely not the bad-boy type of Alpha. More like a decent, small-town jock.

    Like


  97. …you are hereby moderated.

    and on the seventh day the big man in the sky destroyed all who opposed him..

    Like


  98. on June 8, 2009 at 5:21 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Ah, yes. The Law. THE LAW.

    THE LAW.

    We must always obey the law. It would never occur to some of us, though, that the laws in many cases are unjust, politically-motivated and there to serve to help fund idiot govenment agencies.

    And this is the case in terms of child support.

    Yes, it’s a good concept at heart. No one wants children to starve. But the way it’s enforced is unjust — debtor’s prison, bizarre, arbitrary 30-day time period to prove a negative, etc.

    Everyone should head over to Glenn Sacks’ Fathers and Families blogs to learn about the ill-effects of the child support enforcement establishment and their henchmen.

    And I didn’t even mention “family courts.” You don’t even wanna know.

    .

    Like


  99. doug1 –

    Right.

    I guess the problem I had in dealing with was the sheer animosity/contempt that women hold for men.

    I’ve always lived a life of equality/fairness, for whatever reason. That is, when I learned about the inequity in male/female interaction, marriage, divorce law, etc, it bothered me quite a bit.

    The thing that bothers me about women hating beta-men is that. I don’t hate, hold in contempt, fat women. Or better, women that are sub 5. Why then, should they hate men that are sub 5?

    Like


  100. sylvia and aliasclio are proof that once women are faced with the options of supporting anti-feminist (which means anti-woman) legislation or face being branded as “whore” or “slut” by men, they will sacrifice the sisterhood.

    What on earth are you talking about, Gig? (What’s MPT – something to do with paternity testing? For the record, I don’t oppose it, and I’ve said so before.) As for abortion, I’ve always been opposed to it, and neither the reactions of men nor feminists have influenced me.

    Like


  101. Men must have a “Roe For Men” option.

    Let’s be honest and reasonable here, ladies and gentlemen:

    We’ve long seperated sex from childbearing. -Obsidian

    So the solution isn’t to reconnect sex and childbearing rather the solution is more Roe?

    In ancient times there was an extremely effective firm of birth control.

    http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2003/08/20/herbal-contraception-in-ancient-times.htm

    All these solutions we can invent have been tried before. Let us cull those that work from those that fail.

    Like


  102. We all know abortion is murder. It is deliberately halting the biological functions of a genetically separate human being.

    You’re probably getting at genetic completeness rather than uniqueness. A fertilized egg is capable of developing into an individual. I wouldn’t draw the line quite that early.

    Like


  103. on June 8, 2009 at 5:30 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    roissy asked the musical question

    what are you, lady rain, going to do in 5 years when your looks are gone?

    Dude, I love your blog but are you blind? The question is not what she’s gonna do in five years, but what she’s gonna do now!?!?!?

    I don’t doubt her looks can attract the lower-rung muscle heads/prison dudes (of course, they’ll fuck fat chicks and guys as well, but never mind).

    But you and I both know the DC social scene, Roissy. The On Tap crowd; the Washington Life crowd. Put her in a classy situation and do you think anyone with any class or means would give her more than ten minutes (if that)?

    Really, dude, your more generous than you need to be.

    Like


  104. The thing that bothers me about women hating beta-men is that. I don’t hate, hold in contempt, fat women. Or better, women that are sub 5. Why then, should they hate men that are sub 5?

    False premise.

    Most women don’t hate beta men. They only hate beta men that insert themselves, or that have been inserted, into their sexual purview.

    Like


  105. @Z,lurker, firepower,tool- Please stop giving it treats.

    silvia God…

    that’s why we use pills, LR, until we get married to someone who wants to have children and raise them

    Silvia, me have so many options here in the states. We have pills ,rings, injections ,implants, spouses, creams, rain coats, and (now) even a morning after pill. There are really no excuses for women anymore.

    El GuapoThe Aniston-Pitt debacle shows that Aniston didn’t love Pitt enough to put the career on hold for a baby or two.
    Aniston’s mother was left hard up for cash after her dumped the two of them. Aniston has said in a number of interviews that financial independence is her most important concern after watching her mother’s struggle

    Giselle left Leo because he didn’t want a marriage.

    Like


  106. maurice:

    @thursday – the SI link seems to indicate that Brady was talking about his friend with the “wonder what’s wrong with her” line – so, he was giving his buddy advice and not speaking about his own courtship of Gisele.

    most likely, brady has alpha buddies. so if it isn’t brady negging a hottie, it’s his alpha friends who will take his advice and neg their own hottie targets.

    So maybe this “apex Alpha” didn’t actually neg her at all…?

    if brady gave this advice to a male buddy he is likely using it himself. it would be strange for a man to give girl advice to male buddies that he himself never uses.

    There was a long interview with Gisele recently in which she stated that they bond over (of all things) .. wait for it .. their shared Catholic faith and his “pure heart”.

    and if you believe that i’ve got a denial of illicit pre-superbowl practice videotaping to sell you.

    but Brady is definitely not the bad-boy type of Alpha.

    don’t believe the hype. this is a guy who impregnated one girl and left her to trade up to seeding the womb of an even hotter girl.

    Like


  107. Thursday –

    In the professional world I felt women held many, many men in contempt. Though, this is more along the lines of “they are competition.”

    Like


  108. “See Oedipus and Paris of Troy just for a few literary examples.”

    —Oedipus supports my story. He was supposed to be exposed—i.e. abandoned on a hillside, not murdered outright. But what happened was that the gods decided to save him—with disasterous results. In fact, the whole story might eb seen as a worst-case-scenario for the Roman women’s fiction to come true.

    Like


  109. @thursday – right, they hate betas that deign to think they might be attracted to them. otherwise, they’re like DA – pleasant, non-sexual coworkers, neighbors, colleagues, whatever.

    @nonymous, lurker- infanticide was quite common in patrilineal royal situations, where the paternity of the child conferred the right to rule the kingdom. In the Ottoman empire, when a new Sultan was declared after the death of the old one, every child of every member of the harem was rounded up, sewn into sacks, and thrown into the Bosporus, to avoid future competing claims to the throne. Kind of the autocractic equivalent of the 200 Florida recount. Somethign silimar existing in ancient China. This is also the reason that palace advisors/minions, sometimes even very powerful ones, were eunuchs. Proximity to the emperor and his women had its cost.

    Like


  110. yes, maurices,. keep repeating those left wing talking points bout the 2000 election with no basis in reality.

    Like


  111. whiskey:

    MY difficulty is not getting, but keeping girls. I’d like to nominate as “Alpha of the Year” … sorry Roissy, not you … Dave in Hawaii. The man just astonishes me. Long term focus on being Alpha, every day, to do what I think is far harder than what Roissy does (again, apologies but that’s how I see it).

    whiskey, i don’t write about my current relationships on this blog, and i don’t write about the details of my past long term relationships much either for the reason that what works to attract a woman at the outset is pretty similar to what works one year deep into a serious relationship.

    while a lot of this blog’s material ostensibly falls under the “pickup” rubric, it could just as easily apply to LTR game. don’t confuse my game-oriented writings for a presumption that i prefer a steady stream of one night stands and flings to the exclusion of loving LTRs. in fact, i have written many times that the greatest pleasure in life is to be in love with a woman who loves you back, and that the occasional fling on the side is a nice garnish to the main dish.

    Like


  112. maurice–

    it was Bridget Moynahan, who also had his baby.

    It had all the ear markings of a gotcha baby.

    This heads the google heap for: Bridget Moynahan child support

    http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/bridget-moynahan-tried-to-trap-tom-brady-with-a-pregnancy/

    Like


  113. he was giving his buddy advice and not speaking about his own courtship of Gisele.

    I would interpret Brady as telling his buddy to do what he does himself.

    Of course, being who he is, he wouldn’t have to run game on any women who wasn’t a celebrity herself.

    what women say about why they’re attracted isn’t always, or usually, why they’re actually attracted

    I wouldn’t put much of any stock in that stuff about his being Catholic or having a “pure heart.” That stuff may have helped Brady stand out a bit from all the other alpha males pursuing her, but that’s about it.

    Brady is definitely not the bad-boy type of Alpha.

    Well, he’s not Terrell Owens or Michael Vick, but he’s a celebrity, so who the hell knows what he really is like.

    Like


  114. mr. m:

    The thing that bothers me about women hating beta-men is that. I don’t hate, hold in contempt, fat women. Or better, women that are sub 5. Why then, should they hate men that are sub 5?

    using the moral calculus of darwinian logic, hating fat chicks is more justifiable than hating betas, for the simple reason that uglifying fattitude is mostly self-inflicted while betaness has a strong genetic component.

    but as thursday mentioned above, msot women don’t *hate* beta males. they are indifferent to them, until one of the poor shmendricks decides to make a pass at her.

    Like


  115. Is it just me, or is Gisele just not aging all that well? At 23 she was the smokingest thing on the planet. Now, not so much.

    Like


  116. sorry about typos – 2000 recounts, etc.

    @roissy – true dat, except we don’t know whether the friend was at his level of alphaness or attractiveness. maybe he was like you, conferring pearls of pickup wisdom to dudes who seem to need it. i didn’t really believe the “pure heart” bit, as noted, but it is what she said. it isn’t out of the question that even gisele, supermodel though she is, went after him herself, a la aniston/pitt. he is a good looking sports-hero guy, and women at the end of the day are the choosers.

    i’d also be interested in your thoughts on my hypergamous post above (12:40 PM). is there an optimal social distance? whether based on wealth, education, or other status markers. other than golddigging, is there any downside to the clooney/cocktail waitress thing? assuming she is able to carry out a conversation and has a decent personality, heart, etc.

    Like


  117. hot chicks treat beta males the same way men treat homeless people on the street.

    as roissy said, they’re indifferent. similar to the homeless, when beta males start talking to the hot chick and asking for shit, that’s when they get angry. since they presume that a beta-looking male will step to them with nothing intriguing to say, in the same way that i assume a dude with no teeth dressed in tatters is going to ask for money, they take a somewhat hostile stance from the get go.

    the hostility comes from the predictability of the whole thing. beta men have nothing to whine about because they keep repeating the same boring lines over and again.

    Like


  118. Obsidian —

    MPT and Roe For Men will finally settle the Abortion debate because that way, both Men and Women get what they want.

    Yes, we’re advocating the same thing.

    To reduce opposition, I’d make MPT something that could be opted out of in writing if the putative father wishes it (or if both parents do), but would otherwise be automatic.

    Like


  119. Plenty of societies have found infanticide workable. The concept is the newborn infant hasn’t yet grown into real person hood.

    That practice has been banned in all of developed world pretty much regardless of religion. Infanticide is and was usually practiced out of compelling reasons such as poverty first worlders have difficulty imagining. A common method in ancient societies was exposure (a method used by Teutonic tribes during the Roman period), probably because killing one’s on child must be a pretty unpleasant thing to do.

    Like


  120. using the moral calculus of darwinian logic, hating fat chicks is more justifiable than hating betas, for the simple reason that uglifying fattitude is mostly self-inflicted while betaness has a strong genetic component.

    true. i don’t feel sorry for fat people, simply because its their choice to be that way.

    i’m not entirely sorry for betatude, either. but def more forgiving.

    but as thursday mentioned above, msot women don’t *hate* beta males. they are indifferent to them, until one of the poor shmendricks decides to make a pass at her.

    this is what bothered me. if a 5’6″ 180 lb 25 y/o woman hit on me in a somewhat normal way, i don’t think i would hate them.

    …but i guess maybe if multiplied by 100x per day, i might get annoyed. maybe, maybe not. i don’t think i’d be a fucking dick about it, though.

    Like


  121. thursday:

    Is it just me, or is Gisele just not aging all that well?

    she’s not aging well. all that tanning is finally taking a toll.

    lady rain, you may want to keep this in mind.

    maurice:

    i’d also be interested in your thoughts on my hypergamous post above (12:40 PM). is there an optimal social distance? whether based on wealth, education, or other status markers. other than golddigging, is there any downside to the clooney/cocktail waitress thing?

    the optimal social distance is the distance created by the acute angle between a man’s penis and his belly when he sees his girl naked. the smaller that angle, the more optimal the relationship is.

    downsides to dating a cute waittress? none, if she can hold a conversation. frankly, i’m surprised more alpha males don’t avail themselves of the clooney option, or rather, i’m surprised more alphas don’t avail themselves of it *openly and publicly*. i’ve no doubt many married alphas with aging wives are hitting up the mistress tip on the triple.

    as a commenter mentioned, a big reason men marry within their social class, even when it means they marry women less attractive than what they can get on the open market, is because the rigged divorce laws lock out the option of marrying low income hotties who could take them to the cleaners in event of a breakup.

    this is also a good explanation for why one cannot use the marriage market as a proxy for what men truly desire in the sexual market — there are too many confounding variables when marriage and all that it entails is introduced into the boner hardness equation.

    Like


  122. @lurker – i actually thought the bush side in the recount had the much, much stronger argument, and the outcome was what it should have been. but the months-long struggle had the effect of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome, rightly or wrongly. that’s all i meant by the comparison to royal infanticide – legitimacy of succession. nothing partisan. don’t be so paranoid! i’m actually a republican, believe it or not. just one with some functioning grey matter, unlike the morons on cable news these days.

    @doug – yeah, i agree that it looked that way, but that post is from the time of the pregnancy. since then, he attended the birth and has visitation in which the child comes and hangs out with Brady and Gisele. I bet he’s paying something, although i can’t be sure, but it would seem out of character for him to go apeshit trying to get out of it. the thing that struck me from that link was the “breach of contract” line. really? you can do that? require (verbally? notarized contract?) that a woman be on birth control, and if she is not then you can sue for breach? that’s even more clever than a prenup, if it is legally sound and not just the catchphrase of a gossip columnist. i wonder what our resident legal experts think. or whether they have heard of such a thing. it was news to me.

    @thursday- agreed, as noted, on my post – i didn’t buy her line but am not convinced a dude like brady needed to use a neg on her. he may have, and it may have helped him at the outset. but, you know, women are the choosers, and she may have gone after him for her own reasons. god knows he’s more of an alpha-type man, persona-wise, than dicaprio.

    Like


  123. Mr. M true. i don’t feel sorry for fat people, simply because its their choice to be that way.

    Most very fat people (re not 20lbs overweight) are that way because they are addicted to food in the same way that a junkie is addicted to drugs. Their food addiction is much physical as it is mental.

    Like


  124. on fatties/betas – there is a genetic aspect to obesity- i had a friend (male) who was overweight his whole life, then suddenly got religion and slimmed down. his metabolism was *way* slower than normal, so he had to control his diet rigorously and excercise fanatically. most people don’t have the willpower for that. not to exccuse fat chicks or fat dudes, but there *is* a genetic component in many cases, if not all.

    and betatude can be improved upon, as a fair number of people here have done, using game, rising naturally up through the social order with age, etc.

    Like


  125. not to exccuse fat chicks or fat dudes, but there *is* a genetic component in many cases, if not all.

    this is doubtful, unless genes can change so rapidly that the percentage of fatsos goes from 10% to 60% within two generations.

    no, obesity is mostly an environmental insult against the body. of course, it doesn’t help food-happy people that a lot of mass produced food, inc. is of the corn-based high glycemic index carb variety that will pack on the cottage cheesy pounds faster than a healthy diet of meat, fish, nuts and veggies.

    i didn’t buy her line but am not convinced a dude like brady needed to use a neg on her.

    it’s counterintuitive to many, but alpha males are MORE likely to run no-holds-barred, ultimate death match game on the hot babes they try to pick up. and that’s because game comes to them naturally, no forethought or handwringing required. for them, running game is like taking a piss. that sort of power is its own reward.

    Like


  126. Roissy obesity is mostly an environmental insult against the body. of course, it doesn’t help food-happy people that a lot of mass produced food, inc. is of the corn-based high glycemic index carb variety that will pack on the cottage cheesy pounds faster than a healthy diet of meat, fish, nuts and veggies.

    I I never thought the day would come but but but *struggles* Roissy is right. At least here in the good ole USof A. In countries where the obese are far fewer in number, the genetic component serves as the more greater catalyst for those who are overweight.

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/06072009/news/regionalnews/55_hr__erection_agony_173057.htm

    You guys better get a dose of that^^^ before the feminazis have this drug banned. Just make sure you use a lower dose than that poor man did.

    Like


  127. @roissy – (1) there are still a lot of rich alpha guys who have not gotten the memo and *still* get taken to the cleaners by ex-wives of much poorer origin. it would actually be interesting to see some sort of trend line of divorce settlements in aggregate, normalized against changing divorce laws, to see if prenups have any effect, courts are taking more into account women’s ability to support themselves, or men are just wising up. you know, to make this discussion a little more data-based. i wonder if there’s some law school somewhere that has done a study or keeps records like that. anyone know?

    (2) of course that’s right in most cases – most fat people eat too much of too crappy food. i guess my post could have been construed to say something other than that, though i was just citing the example of my friend who had to use constant, superhuman willpower to *not* be obese. but one example does not a trend make.

    Like


  128. @maurice- I read somewhere that only 10% of all fat people are that way because of slow metabolism/ thyroid issues. Most are overweight because food is their weakness. People don’t want to face facts and admit that they have a problem or they just like the way junk food tastes.

    Like


  129. Mr.M

    @Thursday – In the professional world I felt women held many, many men in contempt. Though, this is more along the lines of “they are competition.”

    Current feminism quite literally teaches women to hold men in general in contempt.

    The “wisdom” of feminism is that women pay little if any price for this in our current PC culture, and can rectify any issues by handing out “but you’re a good boy exception” cards to various men, as merited or expedient (the alpha male of the work group, etc.).

    Outside of this blog and a few other places, feminists simply aren’t shamed for anything but the most ridiculous hate mongering and rape expansion, and even that’s very dicey in many settings.

    It’s high time for a lot more push back.

    Like


  130. of R: “it’s counterintuitive to many, but alpha males are MORE likely to run no-holds-barred, ultimate death match game on the hot babes they try to pick up.”

    Indeed, hanging around real alphas, you see the effect of getting more ass than a toilet seat. Ultimate death match isn’t really it, it’s more like, who the fuck cares what you do, I am not going to take any shit, whereas most normal guys (I wouldn’t even think this is beta) would be willing to swallow some shit.

    Like


  131. You guys better get a dose of that^^^ before the feminazis have this drug banned. Just make sure you use a lower dose than that poor man did.

    that guy had priapism. it’s a condition of everlasting boner that won’t go down.

    back when i was a postpubescent stripling clocking in at over 100 erections per day, i had a one hour case of something akin to priapism. my boner saluted the sky, and… wouldn’t stop saluting. it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. steel forged boners can get really painful after a half hour or so. it felt like a balloon about to burst.

    but 55 hours? that dude is lucky he didn’t get gangrene of the penis. chop chop!

    Like


  132. [email protected] chic noir, very funny comment

    “that’s why we use pills, LR, until we get married to someone who wants to have children and raise them

    Silvia, me have so many options here in the states. We have pills ,rings, injections ,implants, spouses, creams, rain coats, and (now) even a morning after pill. There are really no excuses for women anymore.”

    Like


  133. “The idea that any woman deserves to get 400 million dollars for no more than being a wife for a long time is absolutely obscene. Just completely crazy making nuts.
    40 years ago that would never ever be contemplated.
    Mel Gibson is the mondo successful talent and businessman. Not his wife.
    This feminist concept that you automatically enter into a business partnership when you marry is absurd. That sure as hell wasn’t my intention.”

    Actually, the concept is really quite old; it’s found mostly in the Western states (and Louisiana) because the idea comes from Spanish rule. More recent enactments (1940) shows adoption to circumvent federal taxation. “feminism” wasn’t the motivating political force.

    If you don’t agree w/CP, find a way around like it before getting married.

    “as a commenter mentioned, a big reason men marry within their social class, even when it means they marry women less attractive than what they can get on the open market, is because the rigged divorce laws lock out the option of marrying low income hotties who could take them to the cleaners in event of a breakup.”

    Except people have tended to marry within their social class long before divorce was even a viable option; now adays try an awesome prenup.

    Like


  134. roissy back when i was a postpubescent stripling clocking in at over 100 erections per day

    Are you teasing me? 100 really?

    @dreamer, i am to please.
    *we*

    Like


  135. Lady Rain:

    Again you’re showing your selfish feminist self once again:

    Here are a woman’s choices:

    Pre sex:

    1. The pill
    2. Demand a condom+spermicide
    3. Deprovera shot
    4. IUD
    5. Tubal Ligation
    6. Diaphragm
    7. Demand he get a vasectomy
    8. Abstinence (say no!)
    9. Withdrawal
    10. Calendar method
    11. Use some or all

    Post sex:

    1. Morning after pill
    2. Abortion (irrespective of whether he wants the child)

    Based on my list either females are the stupidest species on earth, or…..mistakes happen.

    You see Lady Rain, women have a lot of BC methods at their disposal, and we all acknowledge the sexual urge in humans must be factored in for sexual intercourse. Well, she has urges and HE has urges…if she can abort, so can he…financially.

    The state should not have the power to force a man into fatherhood, just like it can’t force a woman into motherhood. Telling a man to wrap it up is great advice, I support you 100%, keep it going.

    Consent to sexual intercourse is not consenting to fatherhood, except in law…and this is so the government doesn’t have to look after irresponsible single mothers who fail at practicing my list above….because they’re morons

    How arrogant is it, from feminist corners, to call a man a “deadbeat dad”, when he never wanted to be a father in the first place? He just wanted to have sex, like SHE did….and a sperm met an ovum and boom…she has all the options and he has none..despite equally consenting to intercourse.

    Are you for equality…real equality, Lady Dumb?

    Both a man and a woman participate in the same irresponsible act, but only the male is labelled a deadbeat, the woman, who cannot afford to maintain herself and child without OTHER people’s money, is not a deadbeat, but instead the victim of a deadbeat. This is femlogic!

    Consenting to intercourse in NOT the same as consenting to fatherhood.

    I guess whores like yourself get to fuck for fun knowing you can stiff the guy for an 18 year annuity or simply kill his offspring. You’re a repulsive little trollop! And fucking dumb!

    Like


  136. maurice–

    since then, he attended the birth and has visitation in which the child comes and hangs out with Brady and Gisele. I bet he’s paying something, although i can’t be sure, but it would seem out of character for him to go apeshit trying to get out of it.

    He’s making the best of it, seems clear to me.

    This is for a number of reasons. For one thing, I guarantee you he’s paying a lot of child support. It probably was a negotiated thing that got court approval. I think it has to.

    As well his image is Mr. Nice Guy type alpha. Boyscout Brady. By all accounts the image is based on a lot of reality. Nonetheless it is his image. It would hurt him if he was perceived by the public to be an uncaring dad. Despite the story I linked (what had a slant many here would be happy with) we all know that the media and reporters have a very woman centric way of looking at these things. It wouldn’t be hard to smear Brady.

    the thing that struck me from that link was the “breach of contract” line. really? you can do that? require (verbally? notarized contract?) that a woman be on birth control, and if she is not then you can sue for breach? that’s even more clever than a prenup, if it is legally sound and not just the catchphrase of a gossip columnist.

    No. Wouldn’t work.

    Child support overrides everything these days in feminist America.

    The one thing he’s got going for him is being in the “high earner” aka super high earner category. That means he escaped formula child support. But it’s still based on his lifestyle (though not e.g. on the power or empire side of his income/money, rather how he’s spending it).

    That of course is still absurd. Note that income is given very short shrift in deciding whether to let foster parents adopt against the pleas of a “reformed” drug addict or whatever natural mother. It’s just not though to be important in that situation. But where it can be extracted from men by family courts, oh wow is it important.

    Like


  137. OK, here’s the deal:

    By their actions, Women are choosing single mommyhood. That’s OK, but the trick is, most of those same moms, want a “daddy” to basically foot the bill for the kid(s); failing that, they’ll get “help” from “daddy/hubbie” gov’t.

    Now the way things are worked out, Women hold ALL of the cards-they get to choose who gets lucky and who doesn’t but they also get to choose if they want or don’t want a baby-and, if they keep the baby, they get to literally, choose a dad.

    However-thanks to a number of factors all converging on each other in rapid fashion-the Internet, Game, and Science-Men now more than ever are beginning to see the Matrix, and *are* beginning to respond.

    Some are learning and applying Game to enjoy themselves before it all goes to Hell in a handbasket;

    Others are working hard to try to change the truly draconian laws against Men;

    But there is a large, and largely quiet, group of guys who will simply do *nothing*-theyll disappear, go off the grid, and simply not participate w/society in as many ways as possible. That means, among other things, fewer taxpayers, which Feminism needs in order to sustain itself.

    With a multi-year recession/depression upon us, with Men undeniably makin up the overwhelmingly majority of those laidoff or fired, I predict this, among other things, will kickoff the “dropping out” of the Betas in earnest. Keep an eye out for the press to finally get a clue and write about this say, at the earliest, this time next year; they’ll likely catch on arounf 2012 or so, just as the country tries to figure out if Obama is worth keeping around, or go for a Hail Mary political pass.

    As for child support and abortion, the issue is very simple. Until there is real redress-fullscale implementation of Mandatory Paternity Testing, AND, Roe For Men, Men will simply *walk away & disappear*. It will get harder and harder to collect arrears on ghosts. Again, although it could happen sooner, really expect to hear lots of reportage and the like from the Chattering Classes, w/the Feminist Lobby leading the charge, as they try to shame Men back into de facto servitude. It won’t work.

    As more and more Men simply disappear, and as the relatively few left develop their Pump and Dump skills into a high art, Women will begin to finally get a clue and begin to openly question the path they’ve been on for the past three decades. Of course, the question will be:

    Too little, too late?

    Holla back

    O

    Like


  138. Seroquel- Side effects of the anti-psychotic drug include persistent and painful erections, and three days later Yaduallah -.
    Lovelace, 65, allegedly did nothing “other than telling Mr. Yaduallah to apply ice to his penis.”

    Isn’t it funny that the nurse’s name is “Lovelace”.

    Like


  139. For the record, Chic noir believes men should pay reasonable amount of child support. Child support that takes such a large chunk of a father’s income that he can’t afford pay his rent is unjust.

    The 11 women who had 21 kids with the screw up should get nothing more than 2 bucks per month.* Don’t reward people for doing dumb ish.

    Quick question: what do you guys think about men who run away from their families after being married for umpteen years? Should they be forced to pay child support? It’s not fair to children that their father can up and leave them to sink or swim one day because it gets the urge to leave.

    *

    Like


  140. mr. M On that note, what happened to fem-x?
    one of three things:

    1. DougI ran her off.

    2. Her blog hits are so high, she doesn’t need to hang around these parts.

    3. She is off spending time with siggy or running behind women in short shorts.

    Like


  141. chic –

    Quick question: what do you guys think about men who run away from their families after being married for umpteen years? Should they be forced to pay child support? It’s not fair to children that their father can up and leave them to sink or swim one day because it gets the urge to leave.

    coming from a “victim” of that circumstance (except for the umpteen part), i don’t think its great, but things can work out okay.

    Like


  142. @Mr. M, so do you think the dad should pay child support?

    Like


  143. chic –

    Sorry didn’t really answer your first question: it doesn’t matter.

    A child from a single-mother household doesn’t care about a check; granted, my mother made a decent living and provided on her own.

    That’s what child support is for right? Providing for the child? IMO a flesh and bones role model > $1000 check/month.

    Like


  144. That’s what child support is for right? Providing for the child?
    It’s suppose to be but some women find other ways to spend the money. Some very stupid women use the money to take care of their new boyfriends.

    IMO a flesh and bones role model > $1000 check/month.
    I agree

    Like


  145. Once the last thread is dead, I am going to ask my question here.

    Roissy said: “If you say something stupid, goofy or impolite (hey, it happens) don’t backpedal or get flustered. Act as if nothing is wrong. Embarrassment is for the little people.”

    I say: No doubt. Embarrassment is indeed for the little people.

    Now, Beta Files:

    I’ve already said that some 85% of the time my emotional state is such that it is not possible for me to “act alpha” and/or to game. I can control my emotions relatively to how I do things pretty well. But man, this is the most Beta it can get. Imagine you’re always thinking of what is correct and acting accordingly instead of acting as a normal human being. In a way, it’s not that usual for me to act spontaneously. This because I am naturally very reactive instead of pro active.
    However, what I can’t do is to control my emotions in order to act alpha. I can do what is “correct” and not act spontaneously, but I’ll feel down for doing it. And, because I am feeling down, I cannot game and act alpha.

    However, all this is controlable to such an extent. What I am interested in to, is how not to feel down/embarrassed.

    Today, I was not very happy. But I was okay.
    Then, I saw my ten’s boyfriend. I saw him in such a context that it was evident that there it was impossible for me to compete with him. He just appeared to be much better than me in everything.
    I saw him and I froze. I just became deeply embareassed and fely badly the rest of the day. Acting the most beta-ish and stupidly you can think of.

    HOW CAN I GO THROUGH THIS?

    For you to have an idea of how this affects me, I remember one time we were all playing table soccer. I was teaming with my ten. We were winning 10-0 and similar. Then, her boyfriend walked in. She finnished the game with me. We won. She went to kiss him and happened to go alone to buy something and he stayed there.

    I was so fucked up that, despite playing the next game with a male against two girls, we lost 8-2.

    I just want to puch his face untill he cries. I can’t and therefore I feel like shit. And therefore, I became the most betish thing on earth.

    HOW CAN I FIGHT THIS?

    Like


  146. Virgin –

    Seriously, remove yourself from that situation. Its become increasingly clear you’re not going to get your “10” because you’re acting like a complete douchebag beta.

    Go approach other girls, other guys even, learn how to speak to people and work on your confidence. Get a hobby. Go workout.

    That, or just cut yourself. Your posts reeks of emo.

    Like


  147. chic –

    Personally, I think we need to remove TANF/welfare entirely. Child Support? Eh, $500/month max, maybe.

    Stop rewarding people for having kids, and force adults to act as adults.

    It still blows me away that I see homeless families that have 2-10 kids.

    Like


  148. virgin What I am interested in to, is how not to feel down/embarrassed.
    I can tell you what works for me but I am only a woman.

    fFr the most part I don’t feel embarrased if I do or say something stupid.

    The few times that I do, I think to myself “those people are lucky I engaged them anyway. ” or ” they aren’t so goodlooking anyway” ” trash with money” ” no class having idiots” ” their mother should of swalloed that night”

    @Try not to lose your cool if someone pulls your card. Only the most alpha of men can lose their cool and not look a fool. Remember that reporter Obama owned down a few months ago with ” because I like to know what I’m talking about before I say it”*& a mean mug*. The reporter lost as soon as he opened his mouth. The reporter’s stammering, long windedness, and erratic pitch left him wide open to get his butt handed to him.

    Chic maxim #1- People do what they think they can get away with.
    Chic maxim #2- Before you step to another human being, be prepared for the worst you think that person can.

    virgin @ 40-It’s fairly easy to unnerve the average person by simply remaining calm, giving direct eye contact, not fidgeting, control your pitch, and deliver verbal blows with the stoic face of a Spartan warrior ( for me with the sticking sweetness that makes me a girl ).

    Like


  149. @mr. M- V40 has had an 8 in his pocket but let her go to chase after his 10. His problem is he cares too much what others think of him and his choices.

    virgin40 Then, I saw my ten’s boyfriend.
    Your first mistake is in going after another man’s woman.

    I saw him in such a context that it was evident that there it was impossible for me to compete with him.

    and you shouldn’t
    He just appeared to be much better than me in everything.
    maybe he is, now go find that 8 who was yours for the taking.

    Like


  150. I agree with Obsidian, and we only need about 20% of men to go ‘off the grid’, or otherwise simply decide not to marry, in order to stress out most women.

    100 women competing for 80 men is much tougher than 100 women competing for 100 men. For one thing, it moves the ‘cliff’ from age 37 up to age 34 or so.

    Also, we have discussed the impact of this enough, that it is worth incorporating into a story that can be laced with subtle negs. For example, tell a woman who is 30 a story about ‘a friend of yours’ who waited until she was 34 to marry, and is now unable to get the men that she once rejected. Her college boyfriend now has a girlfriend 8 years younger, etc.

    A great story to incorporate into your Game, which will make her look for signals that she may be at risk of this herself (and thus making you more valuable in her desperate eyes).

    Like


  151. chic / virgin –

    the moment you start to pine over a girl. to think about her and put her up on a pedestal (as if saying she’s a 10 isn’t telling enough)…. this is the moment you need to back off and drop the girl from your mind. turn around. walk away.

    if its reached this far, you’ve already failed. no amount of game will save virgin at this point.

    find another girl, your 8, and go have fun.

    Like


  152. The black magic of retouching: http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html

    Some of those after-pix were worth every cent, I imagine.

    Like


  153. Tood,
    Yup, you nailed it-all of the Men don’t have to go off the grid, we just need enough to reach a tipping point, like what you mentioned, say a good 20, 25% or so. And on the other end, if we can get say, a solid 15% of Game-assisted guys employing the P&D strategy, along w/the pre-existing “marriage strike” and MGTOW thing, and trust me, Women will NOT be too happy about things.

    And w/the current economic climate, I say things kick off in earnest along these lines, perhaps as early as this summer, definitely by the fall.
    O

    Like


  154. on June 8, 2009 at 8:50 pm say it ain't so

    The very alpha Eddie Murphy in Raw says it best –

    Like


  155. Tood, Obsidian:

    “I agree with Obsidian, and we only need about 20% of men to go ‘off the grid’, or otherwise simply decide not to marry, in order to stress out most women.”

    the problem with this is that when these men go “off the grid” they don’t just disappear. it would be nice if these men would devote themselves to engineering, science, or the clergy, but a good portion would likely devote themselves to anti-social activity.

    up until recently, nations could employ their idle men in the military, but the large technological shift of military endeavors means less demand for these men.

    a large contingency of idle men is not a good thing. al-qaeda and right-wing militia movements in this country are chalk full of them.

    Like


  156. ScotchFiend says:

    Consider how few lady posters there were after the evisceration. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the other ladies were misting up in sympathy for such a hardcore smack down.

    i’m told finefantastic, db and lilgirl are having an old-fashioned lez out, complete with toys, tears and massive amounts of guilt. either that, or it’s the usual Oprah and Ben & Jerry’s pigout. I’m not sure which.

    kassyk is just too plain mean to attend either, and chic can’t follow directions.

    Like


  157. Obsidian,

    While I doubt that more than 2% of non-naturals can ever become moderately competent in Game (again, excluding those who are naturals to begin with), getting 20% to go off the grid or on a marriage strike is easy. Technology (software or hardware) will make this very easy.

    In fact, it may be close to that already.

    Another thing I would encourage American men to do is to migrate to Asia, early in their careers. Their careers, and their marriage prospects, are better there. They just need to gather up the guts of their pioneering forefathers and do it.

    The final remaining factor, of course, is Islamic encroachment into SWPL strongholds.

    Like


  158. but a good portion would likely devote themselves to anti-social activity.

    Well, yes. Those who don’t have good jobs, at least.

    Of course, the primary victims of this will be unmarried women. More men will form gangs to take things by force, usually from unmarried women (who happen to live in the same urban cores).

    Marriage offered a form of protection in the old days. That has been forgotten, but the importance of that, too, will be remembered soon. A housewife in the suburbs is just safer than a career woman in the city who goes home after dark.

    Like


  159. maurice–

    girls at that vastly lower social distance will be so happy to be in that relatinoship that they will be totally compliant – no mouth, no shit tests, no waves. another example of this might be mel and oksana. *** another example of this might be mel and oksana

    America has created a world where there’s never that extreme a social distance as long as the girl isn’t a complete idiot and maybe even if she is. That is if she’s beautiful enough.

    There are corners of America where this isn’t true. But it often is.

    The mere fact that these girls have been with a Clooney or a Gibson esp. if they network at all with the massive opportunities to do it they’ll have had, will give them B movie actress opportunities, if they aren’t hopeless at acting. And B movies or minor parts often don’t require much.

    As well personality matters huge. You really can’t assume that Clooney or Gibson want a doormat. Rather they just don’t need any social validation from their mate, so go for what they HAPPEN to run into that clicks with them big.

    What I WOULD assume in Clooney’s case, no choir boy Catholic he, is that his gf doesn’t bitch much about his philandering. She might some of course, but within bounds, and channels it into hot sex with him. Totally a guess, but I’d bet that’s a big job description for his live in gf’s. Not so easy to find in America these days or for the last half century and more, at least among hot women. Not impossible to find, just a real limiting constraint.

    Like


  160. say it ain’t so
    The very alpha Eddie Murphy

    are you trying to be funny?

    Like


  161. LR and her ilk (99% of women on this subject) seem to think that only men deserve the sanction of the law, and only women deserve the protection of the law, regarding childbearing.

    The awful situation for men is the result of men doing nothing. They seem to accept their 2nd class status. Strange.

    So, aware men have several options:

    1. Bank sperm and have a vasectomy.

    2. Insist on paternity testing, every time.

    3. Don’t get legally entangled with a woman who might abort your child, if you want the child. If she aborts it, just leave her.

    4. Only marry a woman of your own income level. Sorry to all you blue collar women who will never have a chance to marry up. You are often great people but a guy has to watch out for himself. You know who to blame. Blue collar men of course never had a chance to marry up.

    5. Realize that life is possible, and quite rewarding, without a woman at your side. Sex is a commodity, after all. If you want some milk, don’t buy the cow. If you aren’t an alpha, and won’t lower your standards sufficiently, or won’t make the effort to raise your status, just use prostitutes (They are getting desperate in this economy. There are bargains to be had, they say.) and smile at the wretched betas trying to impress girls. Hey. Smile at the wretched alphas gaming girls, knowing that all sex is paid for, either upfront, backend, or with time spent. (Time is not free.)

    Aware men should work at making successful lives for themselves. Women are just a small part of a successful life. In fact, a woman may make having a successful life much more difficult. Tom Brady is an alpha, like Mel Gibson, in part because they have built successful lives for themselves.

    BTW, this system of male servitude, which affects all men, not just betas, will only end when women can be charged with paternity fraud, and single women can be forced to work to help support their children eg. charge each single mother 1000 per month and make her go work, while using other single mothers to provide free childcare.

    This won’t happen anytime soon, so, it is obvious what men need to do. It really isn’t that hard learning to be self-centered and selfish and narcissistic. Just imagine you are a woman.

    Like


  162. Tood–

    While I doubt that more than 2% of non-naturals can ever become moderately competent in Game (again, excluding those who are naturals to begin with)

    I don’t agree with this at all.

    I’m thinking about myself when I say this, and moving myself down a couple of notches, but thinking the same principles apply.

    I taught myself game long before the word existed in the way we’re using it. A lot of that was unteaching myself chivalry in many or most situations, and a whole lot of what I’d learned at home and at school about how to be with girls. About half; the other half was good. But that was then and this is now, and now is worse for men in feminist America.

    What I’m getting at is this. If the man in question is a nerd, with poor social skills, little demoed leadership ability, no much of a sense of humor, a bit wooden and literal minded most of the time (or a lot those things), and so on, you’re right. Hard move. Most can get better and maybe your 2% can with application punch through to lesser alpha with those starting handicaps.

    However, I think there are a lot of white American men in particular with enough basic social skills material, but woefully bad feminist programming.

    If that isn’t holding a lot of men back, then what’s with the differences between generations that so many have noticed? Is the diff entirely in women and what they now respond to (more sex and less money / reliability, unless money is huge)? Or is it partly also changes the culture has wrought in pussifying gen Y men? I think the later is a factor. It was a factor even for tail end of the boomers generation (forgetting this ridiculous “Jane” generation (between boomers and gen X) or some crap newish minor meme that wikipedia’s putting out that I first saw a few days ago if I have the name right — can’t be bothered to check). It sure is for gen Y.

    Like


  163. Roissy,

    While I support your rants on women, I think that in your quest for an explanation you have missed one very fundamental issue.

    People behave the way they do because they think they can get away with it. Unless that illusion is shattered, nothing will change. People are intrinsically short-sighted, amoral and predisposed to abusing power if they are not held accountable.

    Men let women walk all over them, and you expect women to behave ethically??

    Like


  164. Roissy: it’s counterintuitive to many, but alpha males are MORE likely to run no-holds-barred, ultimate death match game on the hot babes they try to pick up. and that’s because game comes to them naturally, no forethought or handwringing required. for them, running game is like taking a piss. that sort of power is its own reward.

    Truth.

    I’m trying to figure out how to convey this.

    Although I wouldn’t say “death match”. Rather more like one game move or little neg after the other, basically playful, not trying very hard, just rolling off, on an easy roll that’s easy to return to.

    If you’re not TRYING to get hot girls to chase you, but they actually are without your doing much, then it’s not hard to be teasing about it. It’s almost hard not to be. A lot of what game’s doing I think is artificially mimicking the mindset and moves of guys who are in this situation.

    I’ve been in and out of these situations where it was really easy so it’s easier for me to see the dynamics, I think. If it was always all the time as easy as it’s been at other times, I probably wouldn’t be able to see the dynamics as well. There are these feedback loops.

    Get two hot girls competing for you and others will be drawn in and notice, and either compete or hold back and be ready to jump in if one of the other two stomps off, etc. Then when you know that’s how it’s going, you’re perfectly happy to take all kinds of risks. Which makes the two after you that much more nuts. And so on.

    Like


  165. I don’t agree with this at all.

    You might be a natural, or otherwise one of the 2%.

    Outside of people who are naturals, I think barely 2% really transform from Beta/nerd to competent with Game.

    I say this because so many men are going for expensive seminars, only to not see any lasting improvement after the Seminar high wears off.

    Frankly, enough material exists on the web, and enough discussion boards and lairs exist, that no one really *needs* an expensive seminar.

    But they aren’t learning, so they go.

    Plus, most men cannot do daygame approaches consistently. Those that can, cannot overcome the high flake percentage. These are major stumbling blocks, and traps many guys forever in a twilight zone of high theoretical knowledge of Game vs. nonexistent daily application of Game.

    Thus, I think only 2% of non-naturals of the general population (whether believers in Game or not), become moderately competent enough to consistently apply Game.

    Profession matters, though. Lawyers, salesmen, musicians, photographers, psychologists, etc. have a downhill battle to learn Game, while engineers, accountants, and perhaps doctors have an uphill battle. Just the nature of the professional skillset overlap with Game.

    Like


  166. on June 8, 2009 at 9:26 pm Marcus Aureliette

    5. Realize that life is possible, and quite rewarding, without a woman at your side.

    This may come as quite a surprise to some, but the inverse is also true.

    Aware men should work at making successful lives for themselves.

    Also true for women, not that it’s taken to heart by the majority.

    Like


  167. This may come as quite a surprise to some, but the inverse is also true.

    Not really. Men don’t flip wistfully through bridal magazines, or watch romantic ‘chick flicks’.

    Over the age of 30, the desperation to marry from women is palpably higher than that of men.

    Go to any major matchmaking website (Match.com, eHarmony), and among people over 30, there are more women than men. If you count paying members only, it is even more skewed towards a surplus of women.

    Like


  168. The little problem in your enthusiastic alpha fellation is that it cannot keep any complex civilization afloat.. and collapse is more likely to kill an alpha (guns really changed that equation)

    “Roissy: it’s counterintuitive to many, but alpha males are MORE likely to run no-holds-barred, ultimate death match game on the hot babes they try to pick up. and that’s because game comes to them naturally, no forethought or handwringing required. for them, running game is like taking a piss. that sort of power is its own reward.”

    Like


  169. Marcus Aureliette–

    Why don’t you reveal a little more about yourself?

    You seem quite interesting. You’re behind a screen name.

    Like


  170. on June 8, 2009 at 9:41 pm Marcus Aureliette

    People behave the way they do because they think they can get away with it. Unless that illusion is shattered, nothing will change. People are intrinsically short-sighted, amoral and predisposed to abusing power if they are not held accountable.

    But they didn’t always behave this poorly, did they? Not that I want to succumb to looking back longingly at The Good Old Days, but the concept of honor was not always the big, unhip joke it’s regarded as currently. At some point in the not too distant past, Virtue was actually its own reward. Where did that fall by the wayside?

    I expect that’s part of what the posters here are attempting to address with the talk of shaming badly-behaved women, although of course it’s not only women who are the problem.

    Men let women walk all over them, and you expect women to behave ethically??

    Yes, I do, and I say that as a woman. Because I don’t think it’s an issue of gender, but of character, and that’s something that has to start to be addressed quite early on in a person’s life.

    Like


  171. Honor-based systems work if there are consequences.

    //Not that I want to succumb to looking back longingly at The Good Old Days, but the concept of honor was not always the big, unhip joke it’s regarded as currently.//

    Can women ever stop lying to others and themselves

    //Yes, I do, and I say that as a woman. //

    Like


  172. on June 8, 2009 at 9:55 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Not really. Men don’t flip wistfully through bridal magazines, or watch romantic ‘chick flicks’.

    Neither do a substantial number of women.

    Over the age of 30, the desperation to marry from women is palpably higher than that of men.

    The desperation to marry is palpably higher in women who are desperate to marry, and since they’re the ones squawking the loudest, they’re the ones you notice. But not all women are desperate to marry; not even all women who’d like to get married are desperate for it.

    The biggest mistake guys on this site make is lumping all women together, as if we’re all the same in terms of likes, abilities, interests. There’s a lot more variation going on than is being entertained here, and seriously, not everything is drawn as strictly down gender lines as is made out to be.

    Like


  173. on June 8, 2009 at 9:56 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Can women ever stop lying to others and themselves

    How is what I said in any way a lie?

    Like


  174. Marcus Aureliette asked- How is what I said in any way a lie?

    Exhibit A

    //Not really. Men don’t flip wistfully through bridal magazines, or watch romantic ‘chick flicks’.

    Neither do a substantial number of women.//

    Exhibit B

    //Over the age of 30, the desperation to marry from women is palpably higher than that of men.

    The desperation to marry is palpably higher in women who are desperate to marry, and since they’re the ones squawking the loudest, they’re the ones you notice. But not all women are desperate to marry; not even all women who’d like to get married are desperate for it.//

    Like


  175. on June 8, 2009 at 10:00 pm Marcus Aureliette

    doug1:
    Why don’t you reveal a little more about yourself?
    You seem quite interesting. You’re behind a screen name.

    Well, Doug, I’m an outlier, that much is certain!

    Like


  176. Marcus Aureliette

    although of course it’s not only women who are the problem.

    Yes it is. ENTIRELY.

    Ok, got your attention?

    It’s entirely women that are entirely let off from any systematic scrutiny for issues by our current feminist culture. (Post feminist if you prefer.) That is, feminism itself is completely verboten to be questioned. Just entirely.

    Like


  177. Marcus Aureliette–

    But I like outliers!!

    Is that allowed?

    Rather one myself in various ways.

    Like


  178. on June 8, 2009 at 10:08 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Lucifer:

    Well, if you’re capable of decreeing what women are all like, and what they all want, then surely you’ve no need of Roissy’s sage advice, do you?

    Fact:
    Not all women are interested in bridal rubbish or chick flicks. This is a fact because I am a woman, and have zero interest in those things. If even one woman is not interested in these things, then the statement “Not all women are interested in bridal rubbish or chick flicks” is not only not a lie, but in fact a true statement.

    Does that clarify it for you at all?

    Like


  179. Lucifer
    Marcus Aureliette asked- How is what I said in any way a lie?
    marcus is telling the truth.

    Like


  180. Now that the Mansfield paternity presumption trumping DNA paternity testing has been overturned in the state of California, I wonder if a case can be made for the falsely accused fathers – especially in cases when the state was in charge of collection and payment to seek damages – not individually but _AS A CLASS_.

    “the injured party must be made whole”.

    In fact, judging from the article in Reason, some of the state&county agencies conduct was not only wrong but _UNREASONABLE_ and _WILLFUL_ – often this means treble damages.

    Like


  181. on June 8, 2009 at 10:13 pm Marcus Aureliette

    It’s entirely women that are entirely let off from any systematic scrutiny for issues by our current feminist culture. (Post feminist if you prefer.) That is, feminism itself is completely verboten to be questioned. Just entirely.

    Merely dismantling the inequities wrought by feminism will be insufficient. Unless honor/ethics/call it what you will is built back into the system across the board, for men as well as women, we’re doomed.

    We’re doomed as long as each side sees the other as The Other, an opponent to be outsmarted or conquered.

    Like


  182. Marcus Aureliette

    You’re too smart and outside the box thinking to respond to idiots, so don’t.

    Like


  183. Marcus Aureliette
    Not all women are interested in bridal rubbish or chick flicks. This is a fact because I am a woman, and have zero interest in those things

    what marcus said.

    I don’t think many women are into chick flicks. Most of them don’t do very well at box office.

    Like


  184. Marcus Aureliette–

    We’re doomed as long as each side sees the other as The Other, an opponent to be outsmarted or conquered.

    I LOVE conquering women.

    But my terms of peace are pretty sweet.

    Like


  185. lucifer People behave the way they do because they think they can get away with it

    chic noir Chic maxim #1- People do what they think they can get away with.

    *laughes evil laugh*

    I AM SATAN

    😈

    Like


  186. on June 8, 2009 at 10:23 pm Marcus Aureliette

    I don’t think many women are into chick flicks. Most of them don’t do very well at box office.

    I can’t speak to their success or failure (although they clearly have enough of an audience to keep them getting made) but I’d just warn against conflating “willing to watch romantic comedy” with “fervent longing for life to mimic romantic comedy”. That’s a very big leap, and it’s unlikely that everyone who buys a ticket is making it.

    Like


  187. Chic Noir–

    Most of them don’t do very well at box office.

    Movies in theaters (box office) are mostly watched by couples. Dating couples, LTR couples, young marrieds, etc. Not by any means entirely but when I look around in NYC it’s around 2/3 I’d guess, esp. when I make adjustments for likely gay couples.

    Men don’t usually like super chic flics. A certain amount of that can go over, if it’s sexy enough. Men usually have a fair amount to do with the movie choice, at least if it’s any kind of date concept. Even with young marrieds it usually is. Not so much longer marrieds, but they’re usually netfixing or cabling it.

    Chic flicks are I’d guess mostly made for the cable/DVD markets these days.

    Like


  188. marcus:
    If even one woman is not interested in these things, then the statement “Not all women are interested in bridal rubbish or chick flicks” is not only not a lie, but in fact a true statement.

    true enough, but you framed your initial statement as if it were pregnant (heh) with the implication that no reasonable inference can be made about gender differences in enjoyment of bridal mags and chick flicks.
    quoting you:

    “Not really. Men don’t flip wistfully through bridal magazines, or watch romantic ‘chick flicks’.”

    Neither do a substantial number of women.

    your implication is clear: one can’t make generalizations about gender differences in the enjoyment of stereotypically chick stuff.
    but of course you are wrong. generalizations are useful, and averages matter, and it is quite clear to anyone who isn’t living under a rock that women are far more likely as a group to read bridal mags and tear up for chick flics.

    Like


  189. on June 8, 2009 at 10:28 pm Marcus Aureliette

    doug:

    I LOVE conquering women.
    But my terms of peace are pretty sweet.

    LOL! No, I meant it in a more literal sense, where there’s a feeling of genuine antagonism, or outright hostility. Which is both unnerving and demoralizing, really.

    Like


  190. on June 8, 2009 at 10:40 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Tood:

    Profession matters, though. Lawyers, salesmen, musicians, photographers, psychologists, etc. have a downhill battle to learn Game, while engineers, accountants, and perhaps doctors have an uphill battle. Just the nature of the professional skillset overlap with Game.

    Woo hoo! I knew there was a reason for the ol’ J.D. on the wall.

    More on topic, I can’t help but wonder if a sizable component of Brady game is shored up by the man’s paycheck and/or status as a front-line quarterback with a fistful of Super Bowl rings. Nevertheless, it’s worth knowing that someone like him would pull a stunt of this sort.

    Like


  191. Merely dismantling the inequities wrought by feminism will be insufficient. Unless honor/ethics/call it what you will is built back into the system across the board, for men as well as women, we’re doomed.

    Of course. However, one woman who condemns the grotesque parody that feminism has become, is easily worth more than 10 men who condemn the same.

    Hence the grassroots popularity of Sarah Palin.

    Like


  192. on June 8, 2009 at 10:42 pm Marcus Aureliette

    roissy:
    but of course you are wrong. generalizations are useful, and averages matter, and it is quite clear to anyone who isn’t living under a rock that women are far more likely as a group to read bridal mags and tear up for chick flics.

    I wasn’t denying that women are more likely than men to read bridal mags or watch chick flicks, I was pointing out that not all women do those things, and it’s a mistake to assume that they do. It’s not simply a question of “men don’t/women do”, and anyone who insists upon viewing it only in that way is skewing the data before they’ve even begun to parse it.

    Generalizations are a useful place to start, but if you rely too heavily on them, you’re going to miss a lot.

    Like


  193. lucifer aka master and apprentice:
    Roissy,

    While I support your rants on women, I think that in your quest for an explanation you have missed one very fundamental issue.

    People behave the way they do because they think they can get away with it. Unless that illusion is shattered, nothing will change. People are intrinsically short-sighted, amoral and predisposed to abusing power if they are not held accountable.

    Men let women walk all over them, and you expect women to behave ethically??

    lucifer, you make a valid point about the limitations imposed on us by our imperfectible natures and cognitive self-bias. women have indeed been conditioned by the intersection of their bestial natures with the feminized culture of the last 50 years to dispense with the normal etiquette of ethical behavior. or if not in behavior, then at least in a polite nod to ethical considerations if for no other reason than the furtherance of social comity and a healthy sense of shame. lady rain is the endpoint — the singularity if you will — of where the degraded culture of the west has been headed like a freight train for the past three generations.
    as am i.

    where you make your mistake is in the presumption that i was seeking to reform a self-entitled bitch like lady rain.
    i was not.
    i merely wanted to hurt her for my pleasure, a wicked vengeance upon a royal cunt who earned every last one of my shivs in her hardened hide for the insouciance with which she marched into this blog, insulting me and my ideas, and by extension the readership, taking her lone angry bitchgrrl riot act with her from the cracked.com forum to my humble abode and shitting all over the place without a second thought to making the simplest effort to read and learn before vomiting her rancid petty gutterfilth femtard shibboleths all over the board.
    that my cruel public shaming seems to have made a dent in her heretofore impenetrable scud-sized ego is nothing more to me than a welcome side effect.

    Like


  194. you can’t like the devil and hate lies at the same time.
    or either you love lies and lucifer or you hate both.

    Like


  195. You treated her the way she should have been treated. If anything, you were not harsh enough.

    That woman is a cliff notes of what went wrong over the last 50-60 years. Too bad we do not burn witches nowadays.

    Even 100 years ago, such women were put on Cucking stools and waterboarded..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucking_stool

    //where you make your mistake is in the presumption that i was seeking to reform a self-entitled bitch like lady rain.//

    Like


  196. peter, your gnp linking days are over here. your running gag has long since outlived whatever you thought it was supposed to supply.

    Like


  197. .then he realized that nobody gives a shit about his blog

    You care enough about it to spam every thread with your cuntastic comments.

    Like


  198. marcus:
    I wasn’t denying that women are more likely than men to read bridal mags or watch chick flicks, I was pointing out that not all women do those things, and it’s a mistake to assume that they do.

    this is so obvious that it doesn’t need pointing out, unless the act of pointing it out serves as some personal catharsis for deliverance from the demons of darwinistic pattern recognition.

    Generalizations are a useful place to start, but if you rely too heavily on them, you’re going to miss a lot.

    the problem with the postmodern west is not too much generalizing.
    it’s too little.

    Like


  199. roissy,

    I think you might want to photoshop her face on a better illustration of this device. It was meant for women like her..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucking_stool

    Like


  200. “The biggest mistake guys on this site make is lumping all women together, as if we’re all the same in terms of likes, abilities, interests. There’s a lot more variation going on than is being entertained here, and seriously, not everything is drawn as strictly down gender lines as is made out to be.”

    totally, amplified by their insistence also that a few posters are really like the majority of women/feminists.

    Out of curiousity, what are the appropriate ways of shaming a misbehaving male, specifically an alpha or high beta? There has to be socially intolerable aspects to their behavior, things that should subject them to the male version of the lovely cucking stool.

    Like


  201. @Lucy,

    The little problem in your enthusiastic alpha fellation is that it cannot keep any complex civilization afloat.. and collapse is more likely to kill an alpha (guns really changed that equation)

    When civilization collapses, the alpha will truly be king – laws and customs will no longer stop him. Who do you think runs a barbarian horde, a beta provider? No, it is the guy who rules his fellow men and leads them to women and plunder, with him getting the choicest cuts of both.

    So, instead of your smooth-talking “civilized” alphas you will have brutal gang-member alphas. Playing field changes, game remains the same, not least because the reward for winning is the same (pussy).

    Like


  202. Be easier and more appropriate to photoshop one of these onto LR:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle

    Like


  203. Anarchy after the invention of the modern gun (last 100 years) has been quite different from the previous eras.

    //So, instead of your smooth-talking “civilized” alphas you will have brutal gang-member alphas.//

    Like


  204. on June 8, 2009 at 11:41 pm Seeking Alpha

    Roissy, you went to that Justice concert up in Canada, right? What’s a good first Justice song to listen to?

    Like


  205. on June 8, 2009 at 11:41 pm Lawyer from Hell

    O:

    “w/the Feminist Lobby leading the charge, as they try to shame Men back into de facto servitude. It won’t work.

    As more and more Men simply disappear, and as the relatively few left develop their Pump and Dump skills into a high art, Women will begin to finally get a clue and begin to openly question the path they’ve been on for the past three decades. Of course, the question will be:

    Too little, too late?”

    They will not stick with shame, nor will they be introspective enough to see themselves to blame.

    They will use fear on the Betas and will begin passing more and more draconian laws.

    Like


  206. And therein lies the greatest weakness of feminism.. you cannot force people to be nice to you for an extended period of time.

    //They will use fear on the Betas and will begin passing more and more draconian laws.//

    Like


  207. goofball maximus:
    um except that Roissy deletes all my posts

    lady rain, the commenter Rum busted you telling a flat out lie. you initially claimed to have not seen the infamous LR Porn post because your internet was down for a couple days, then you say today that you didn’t respond to the LR Porn post because i had blocked you. now, if your internet was down and you didn’t see the post for a couple days then you wouldn’t have known if i had banned you from commenting on it right after it was published.
    so which is it, lady? was your internet down, or did i ban you?

    Like


  208. on June 8, 2009 at 11:50 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Lucifer,

    As you well know, fear is the fundamental motivator of human behavior. Most people let it control them completely.

    Fear is what makes most men’s lives a living Hell. The are too afraid to be free.

    Like


  209. seeking badinage:
    Roissy, you went to that Justice concert up in Canada, right? What’s a good first Justice song to listen to?

    their most well-known song is d.a.n.c.e. can’t go wrong with that one.

    ps i would think mariachi music might better quench your aesthetic sensibility.

    Like


  210. on June 9, 2009 at 12:04 am Cannon's Canon

    al
    “Out of curiousity, what are the appropriate ways of shaming a misbehaving male, specifically an alpha or high beta? There has to be socially intolerable aspects to their behavior, things that should subject them to the male version of the lovely cucking stool.”

    There exists just such a shaming method… ready?

    … wait for it …

    … stop fucking them.

    Not so hard right?!

    Like


  211. sorry, publicly shaming them. not fucking them isn’t shaming, it just isn’t gratifying.

    Like


  212. on June 9, 2009 at 12:19 am Seeking Alpha

    You mean like Manu Chao?

    Like


  213. The image/metaphor of the thugs robbing McDonalds getting 100 times the eager young pussy of the decent guy the same age and annual income behind the counter of a McDonalds is Perfect.
    It is a oaken club well suited to bashing some awareness into the heads of those made stupid by feminism.

    Like


  214. “Most women don’t hate beta men. They only hate beta men that insert themselves, or that have been inserted, into their sexual purview.”

    All beta men have the right, and the duty, to “insert” themselves wherever they please. Women, not men, shall be the judged. It is better to be hated than ignored.

    Like


  215. @El Guapo: “focusing on them as a disembodied brain, go after some opinion, the more controversial the better, and then leave a “Is that so?…” hanging in the air with a slight back turn or look of disinterest, as if she stepped in it, and boy — let it roll from there.”

    El Guapo has revealed the secret reason most women vote liberal. Dumb peer pressure >> rational thought.

    Like


  216. Re Obesity: Its the carbos that are making America fat. The American medical establishment is reluctantly discovering this fact after they vilified Dr. Atkins and yet major studies are showing that low-carb diets work (lose wt, improved blood work, etc). Read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes on how the flawed low-fat/hi-carb diet was foisted on the American people and why carbs are bad.

    Pretty Lies Die: Roissy [email protected]:43: ” i merely wanted to hurt her for my pleasure, a wicked vengeance upon a royal cunt who earned every last one of my shivs in her hardened hide for the insouciance…” [snipped for brevity, but find it if you missed it]. One of the lies that must perish is that to express hatred for feminism or one of its victims (Lady inSaine) is to be a misogynist. This is a trick, a package deal. To hate feminism is to hate feminism and all the destruction they have wrought and nothing more.

    Roissy wrote…
    ” in fact, i have written many times that the greatest pleasure in life is to be in love with a woman who loves you back…”

    Echoing Roissy, some of you younger bucks may not have ever tasted the sweet nectar of a relationship with a truly feminine woman, uncorrupted by feminism. It is something worth fighitng for, literally. Unfortunately, such a treat is a rare find today and now requires some remedial training, if you know what I mean.

    Carry on.

    Like


  217. Much of “feminism” sucks. No arugment there. And almost all people who profess to be “feminists” today are man-hating whack jobs.

    But are we sure that the pre-feminsim era was really a better deal for men – even beta men? Was it really true that a beta was getting a better shake in the 1950’s? Or are we merely nostalgic for a time that never really existed.

    I see many professional women making a lot of money and supporting their own kids. Many of them are pretty good mothers at the same time during the evening but I can’t see them with the temperament to stay at home with small kids all day long. I realize that they are the exceptions. But without some of the social changes that were once called “feminism” these women would have had more difficulty and stigma working. They would have been stay-at-home moms. This would have been a waste.

    Chicks put out more than they used to. While a handful of Don Juan cads are getting much more out of this, higher betas are getting more pussy to. But I agree that the lower beta is getting a raw deal from this – he gets the used dregs. In cave man times the lower beta wouldn’t have gotten any either.

    But perhaps we should be blaming the concept of “romantic love” replacing arranged marriages rather than “feminism” for the plight of the lower beta in modern times. And perhaps “feminism” isn’t 100% the same as the “emasculation epidemic” that, starting with Europe, is turning America into a nation of pussies.

    Like


  218. Anarchy after the invention of the modern gun (last 100 years) has been quite different from the previous eras.

    Not clear to me how guns are going to equalize the betas, if that’s what you’re getting at. How does it work in places like Somalia which is anarchic with guns? Does not the biggest thug get the girls? I think he does:

    One of the interesting demographic things that’s happening right now is that single Somali women are flocking to the port town Bosaso where these pirates come out of in the hopes of marrying a pirate.

    In any case, if civilization collapses, the gun will rule for a short time – until the ammo runs out – and then it will be back to old school anarchy.

    Like


  219. @firepower: “i’m told finefantastic, db and lilgirl are having an old-fashioned lez out, complete with toys, tears and massive amounts of guilt.”

    i actually did leave a comment on that thread: http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/is-lady-rain-in-this-porno/#comment-88920

    i didn’t think roissy’s post was out of line. i do wish the best for LR, though, and had hoped that that post might have been a catalyst for a genuine desire to change. and i’d bet that 99% of guys who read this blog (including roissy himself) feel the same way, though some are a bit more caustic about saying it.

    Like


  220. btw – why is it that guys immediately imagine women ‘lezzing’ out, hopping on top of a big purple saguaro, or stuffing our faces with ben n’ jerry’s anytime they think we’re upset about something? personally, i hit the gym.

    Like


  221. If I may, I’d like to point out something that I’ve noticed in the back and forths thus far.

    Liz/Marcus and Chic Noir are in essence, barking up the wrong tree; whether most Women do or don’t enjoy bridal mags, or whether they do or don’t enjoy chick lit/movies, etc, is completely beside the point.

    Additionally, they are talking to the wrong people.
    Feminism is the issue here, because it was large part the reason why Women like them, will, whether they like it or not, bear the brunt of its unintended consequences.

    Let us assume for the moment that both Women are indeed good people and would make fine mates for similarly disposed Men. The problem is, as Whiskey so eloquently put it the other day, there are too many “bad bills” in the “monetary system” for any right thinking and reasonable Man to risk making an investment and thus, getting a bushelfull of bad money as a result. He’ll want to hedge his bets at best, and at worst, *won’t buy/invest at all*. Leaving good Women, good people like Liz and Chic out in the cold.

    What both ladies need to realize, is that Feminism has made their lives much harder, because they tore down the very things both of these ladies, by what I gather in their writings, actually value in people generally, and in Men in particular; both would, I think actually like a more old fashioned, genteel and chivalrous sort of Man. Well, I am very sorry to tell you both this, but in our world its a risk no right thinking Man can afford to take.

    As Novaseeker has said over on his blog recently, the “hidden” if not ironically the real and true casualties of Feminism, are the Women who don’t want to be pumped and dumped; who don’t want to be made to stand up on subways and busses when in another time Men would offer their seats; who don’t want to be shoved aside to get through a door; who, if another Titanic-like situation occured, don’t want to end up being shark food; who don’t want to be abandoned and made a singlemom by default. The so-called “coarsening of the culture” is in fact, or at least a very big part of, the intentional undoing or unraveling of a delicate system that actually was a benefit *to* Women. Now Women are in many ways, on their own.

    Much has been made by the Feminists/Women about Rape, and to a large extent rightly so, for it is a disgusting act and heinous crime; many Women were either severely wounded or killed outright.

    But what Feminists won’t tell you is that Rape wasn’t addressed meaningfully, until Men took it on, and this makes sense-only Men could stop Rape.

    The same holds true for Feminism-at the end of the day, only Women can stop it. Nothing Men can do will reallymake a difference insofar as tamping down “demand”. If it happens at all, it’ll be because Women, particularly those like Liz and Chic, decided to reign it back in.

    Until the great gettin’ up morning happens though, if I were either Liz or Chic, I would be afraid.

    I would be very, very afraid.

    Ladies, I say to you, that your “enemy” or problem, take your pick, ain’t Roissy; its Jessica Valenti. Perhaps either one of you might consider dropping by her place at Feministing and say hello.

    The Obsidian

    Like


  222. Roisy said,
    “as a commenter mentioned, a big reason men marry within their social class, even when it means they marry women less attractive than what they can get on the open market, is because the rigged divorce laws lock out the option of marrying low income hotties who could take them to the cleaners in event of a breakup.”

    I find it hard to harbor much more than physical feelings for women of lower social class than me. They are essentially pure fucks. It is entertaining when they cum, but I know in their minds they have a fantasy of a deeper emotional involvement with me that I simply will never be able to provide them. I usually make it clear to them that chances of commitment with me are unlikely. What is sad is that some of them are so sweet and generous with me. During the honeymoon of “love” they would be awesome. But the honeymoon always ends.

    I could never trust them with marriage because of “half” and also I don’t want to father children that are more likely to be mentally slow. I even think of higher class women when I fuck them – I’m essentially masturbating with their vaginas. I don’t know why this is nor do I think it is “right” but it is just the way I am.

    I think it is good to think ahead about not only what it would be like to be married with a chick but also what it would be like to divorce her. My soon-to-be ex has been pretty good about the whole thing and I think it’s because I married someone like me on more than a looks level. She’s still getting a shitload of money though…

    Like


  223. JerrDogg,
    If the evo-psych theory holds, its completely understandable why White guys on average put so much into pairing off w/someone of the same class and so on, and just being extremely picky overall. But I do think there comes a point when the whole exercise becomes more than its worth.

    As has been said so many times, there is nothing a Man can’t get out of a relationship that marriage could have afforded; simply put, there is no need for a Man to marry now. So, if you happen to hit it off w/that young hot waitress, go for it. It costs you nothing.

    O

    Like


  224. O,

    Yeah, I agree I’m picky. But I know that if (when) I knock a chick up that I’ll invest a lot of my scarce time and energy in seeing to the well-being of my child. By being choosy about the chick, I make sure that I’m have a better chance of getting the most out of that parenting experience. I have a sick fantasy of my obit reading “survived by 12 kids … including 3 sons who graduated from Westpoint”.

    Like


  225. I don’t know if “class” is really the right word since there is quite a bit of mobility from generation to generation. I don’t give a hoot about if a chick grew up in a trailer (as my soon-to-be-ex did and I did for most of my childhood), just as long as she’s not headed back there.

    Like


  226. JerrDogg wrote…
    Much of “feminism” sucks. No arugment there. And almost all people who profess to be “feminists” today are man-hating whack jobs.

    Agreed. However, feminism has been such a dominant force in the culture for 40+ years that it has corrupted the very concept of a healthy male/female relationship even among men and women who claim to repudiate it.

    JerrDogg continued…
    But are we sure that the pre-feminsim era was really a better deal for men – even beta men? Was it really true that a beta was getting a better shake in the 1950’s? Or are we merely nostalgic for a time that never really existed.

    This is another feminist red-herring; “Oh, the PUA’s want us all to go back to Kinder, Kuche, Kirche” Do not fall for that feminist lie, this is not the issue. Speaking for myself, I do not want a passive dish-rag of a wife. I want a woman who understands and is comfortable with her own feminity and my masculinity and the fact that the male/female relationship is about submissive/dominance or follower/leader. This is the reality the feminist cannot abide but it is true. It is inherent in the sex act and colors all male/female relations and psychology.

    Contrary to the feminist, submission does not necessarily imply low-self esteem. Who a woman submits to speaks volumes about their actual self-esteem not the fraudulent grrl-power psuedo-self-esteem. A woman of authentic, high self-esteem will only submit to the highest type of man not thugs and bad-boys.

    The bottom line is that feminism has made women, the supposed benefactors of feminism, miserable. Today we have the sorry spectacle of passive/submissive males and aggressive/dominent females hopelessly struggling to find happiness that will never be found.

    Like


  227. Tarl asked “Who do you think runs a barbarian horde, a beta provider?”

    Apparently there is a warrior gene and its linked to gang membership. Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the “warrior gene,” are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns.

    Here is the link, with the talk about the genetic basis of being alpha or beta I thought this might be of interest.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605123237.htm

    Like


  228. Somewhat off this topic but still applicable to this blog:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105008712&ft=1&f=1001

    Who do you think is getting the sexual hookups and who is getting the light makeout hookups.

    I think this is what the alphas are talking about. I hope the betas are getting the message.

    Does anybody still doubt Roissy’s view of women?

    This is what I mean by cross checking what Roissy says. That boy checks out.

    So, who the hell would want to marry a career women who has spent her best years working and screwing a variety of men?

    Like


  229. Z at 2.32, thanks for that photo.

    You’ve inspired me.

    Back to the topic at hand, and social security and child support issues.

    LR, I read the article that Z posted when it first came out. With respect to the guy getting reamed, and the agencies doing nothing to ascertain the truth, it’s a rather common story, and unsurprising when it appears that the State agencies get a kickback from Fed government for collecting child support.

    I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but when incentives to the State governments are on the basis of:

    (A) The paternity establishment performance level.

    (B) The support order performance level.

    (C) The current payment performance level.

    (D) The arrearage payment performance level.

    (E) The cost–effectiveness performance level.

    then Blind Freddy can see that there might be a bit of a disincentive for cutting men some slack.

    Like


  230. on June 9, 2009 at 8:06 am Comment_Whatever

    I’m considering committing 20% of my remaining money to oil PUT’s today.

    Chartists, what direction does the painted tape close of 68.09 indicate for oil? It dropped from 68.50+ to 68.09 in less than ten minutes, http://www.ino.com charts show this, and then immediately popped back up to 68.50+ after close. So someone wanted it to close down for the day, or for some other reason to hit that 68.09.

    So what wrong signal does the fake 68.09 close send?

    I’m hoping the fake signal says oil is going ‘up’? From other things, I’m already fairly convinced that oil is headed down in the medium term, however, all the other manipulations, especially currency, I’m seeing make me think it may exceed 70 first.

    What say gig, Darth, and other traders here?

    Like


  231. As I have often said, “I don’t do specific investment advice.”

    There are several reasons for this, among them being:

    I’m not a registered investment advisor. That is, it is actually illegal for me to run someone else’s money (other than as a trustee, such as for my daughter.)
    It is flatly impossible for me to calibrate someone’s risk appetite and capacity, both physical and mental, to absorb possible loss, over The Internet or, for that matter, without an extensive inventory of someone’s income, assets and liabilities. (By the way, most so-called “financial planners” don’t do nearly enough in this regard to FULLY understand their clients.)
    But at turning points in the market – such as prior to 2008 – it was easy to see what was coming – even if timing was somewhat uncertain.

    This is one of those times, and it compels me to publish a list of “10 things you must do now” – that is, if you have your eye on the ball.

    The last week’s wild gyrations in the bond market have made clear that Bernanke and his “pals” are quickly losing control of the bond curve. Friday’s selloff in 2s was particularly ominous as that money did not go into equities or precious metals – it simply “went”. The 2year is commonly thought of as the “demarcation line” between the short and long end, so when I saw 2s get sold down the antenna went up in a major way.

    It is one thing for people to flee the long end of the bond curve; that’s bad. Its another for people to flee Treasury bonds in general – that’s an unmitigated disaster. The auctions last week showed that there is an incredible appetite from foreigners for very short term government debt – 4 week to 52 week bills – where the indirect bidder activity was at or close to double historical norms. This, in the face of the incredible amount of issuance that is occurring, tells me that they’re selling something to replace it with these short-term instruments. Friday told us what the “something” was.

    Folks, we have taken the wrong road. At the fork in mid 2007 and indeed into 2008 when the fork was still accessible I wrote extensively on the path we had to take if we wanted to avoid at best a Japan-style flatline of the economy for years, and at worst something beyond the 1930s in terms of awful.

    We have done nothing to rid ourselves of toxic debt. The implosion of the PPIP, the latest incantation of the “Super-SIV” (remember that?) makes clear: government will not force recognition of losses and thus the clearing of the market, as doing so would destroy too many who have bribed, er, made “campaign contributions”, to the political sphere.

    Worse, government not only took on these debts themselves (via The Fed and Treasury with their “support” programs) but continues to issue more and more debt to fund what is a categorically-insane federal budget – one that is, this fiscal year, going to run a deficit of some forty percent. To put this in perspective when George W. Bush was President many (myself included) were screaming about 10% fiscal deficits. Barack Obama proposes to run a deficit four times greater in percentage terms. Where are all the media and other pundits who were yelling about Bush’s “deficits for war”? Silent, that’s where, because this time the person doing it is a Democrat.

    But math doesn’t care about politics. Math IS.

    As a consequence we will instead face the music that this debt overhang will impose on us, whether we like it or not. We have now transferred some $12 trillion in either liabilities or “promises” to The Federal Government, representing a tripling of the “public float” of outstanding debt and a doubling of the nominal amount.

    This approaches the GDP of the nation in “additions” and exceeds it in total – a demonstrably unsound liability and at or beyond the “warning levels” that Moody’s, S&P and Fitch have said would trigger possible “AAA” downgrades. That is coming, whether it happens now or later.

    The demographics also cannot be argued with. The boomers have had their retirement decimated. Even with the market levitating at a P/E (on GAAP earnings) of some 120 times (!), they’ve still lost more than 30%. Computing P/Es on “operating earnings” is a sham and a fraud, declaring that investment and credit losses don’t really matter, yet if you go over to the WSJ “data page” or Yahoo’s, that’s what you’ll find. (Why do they do this? That’s easy – if you saw a P/E of 120, what would you do as an investor?)

    As the boomers are forced to pull their retirement funds they will come out of stocks and ultimately yank the underpinning out from under all asset classes. It is inevitable.

    You have undoubtably seen the “quotes” up above on the banner of this page. Those are not abstract musings. They are mathematical computations of where the indices and those names should be trading without the excess liquidity provided by pulled-forward debt demand. Will the indices and names get there? Probably not, because not all debt-driven demand will disappear. But it is a sobering reminder, in your and my (along with everyone else’s) face of exactly how much fraud we have countenanced in our financial system.

    Pulled-forward demand cannot be pulled forward a second time. You can keep layering it up but each layer leaves behind interest expense and a principal overhang, both of which must ultimately be either paid off or defaulted.

    Now add to this the foolish (arguably insane) pandering to the UAW in favor of bondholders with both Chrysler and GM. The government (wisely?) decided to make “secured” bondholders in GM whole – something they didn’t do with Chrysler. Who were they? Largely the very same banks who got TARP payments. Gee, what a surprise. The “ordinary bondholder” – that is, the retiree or parent trying to finance their kid’s college education got hosed, while the UAW, who was also unsecured, got more than twice the recovery they should have. Worse, none of their “legacy costs” – pensions, medical and hourly pay – were brought in line with competitors. GM and Chrysler will go bankrupt again, this time after draining more than $50 billion out of the Treasury!

    Honda and Toyota executives have to be chuckling at the stupidity of our government, and salivating at the opportunity to take GM and Chrysler apart – for a second time.

    The risk of a “sudden stop” event where the bond market tells the government to “piss off” has never been higher. A ratcheting up of the yield curve, when the average maturation of government debt is now just under 4 years, could easily double interest expense in the budget. This would put the government in a nasty box: either curtail spending by twice that much (that is, roughly $800 billion) immediately or the addition to the deficit could force another ratchet higher in yield. This is a “death spiral” that can happen with amazing speed. If it does, everything you think the government should provide will disappear and asset prices – all of them – will collapse along with the economy.

    How likely is this outcome? About 60%. Not certain – yet – but too high. A couple of years ago I would have pegged this sort of nightmare scenario in the 20% range. Back in September and October, 30-40%. In March, 50%, but driven by pension fund explosions in the large-cap space. Now that seems to be temporarily off the table due to the rally in the stock market (gee, think Bernanke saw that risk too?) but the problem wasn’t resolved – they just shifted the risk once more, this time to the Treasury curve. If the government is once again forced to pull liquidity to defend the Treasury complex (and I believe they will) we will ratchet the risk higher, as the stock market will again decline precipitously but we will have cleared nothing, leaving the risks as cumulative.

    How many times can we “kick the can”? An infinite number of times? Absolutely not. Each kick fills the can with more and more sand, until you stub your toe.

    Do you want to be investing in stocks right now? Why? On the back of a 40% rally? If you missed it, you did. What are the odds of another 40% increase? Back to 2007 highs? With unemployment knocking on 10%? – the “more severe” stress test scenario – and almost certain to not stop there?

    Now consider the risk of a 40% decline – that is, back to the March lows or worse. Unthinkable? Think again; it happened before, didn’t it? Care to bet against the macro economic environment?

    Don’t say you weren’t warned.

    So without further adieu, here’s my list of 10 things you need to be doing now:

    Stop listening to those who claim that “The Market is telling you the recession is ending/over.” Baloney. What was the market telling you in October of 2007 when the SPX hit 1576? That everything was great and “subprime was contained”, right? Any more questions on that piece of nonsense?

    Get out of debt – NOW. Revolving debt in particular is murderous. If your credit line hasn’t been cut back or your interest rate jacked, you’re one of the few. It will happen. Going bankrupt due to increasing debt service requirements (with or without job loss) sucks.

    Stop spending more than you make – in fact, do the opposite – start saving. NOW. You need to be saving 10% of your gross income. Not net or “excess” – gross. These funds serve two purposes: an emergency fund (which you’re likely to need) and if you have one already it will also serve as a fund to buy up assets that will be puked up when things get really bad. You don’t get wealthy by selling to some other sucker – you get wealthy by buying when nobody has any money to buy – that is, by driving the hardest bargain you can imagine!

    I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: have the ability to make it even if you lose your job. Most people say three months of reserves are necessary. I’ve said six months to two years, and I’ll reiterate it. And reserves means cash, not credit. Parked in a credit union is ok – but be prepared to make that actual cash in a big honking hurry if you need to. How do you know if you need to? If and when the first Treasury auction fails, the market crashes below the 666 March low and/or a big bank fails, you need to.

    Pull ALL of your business from ANY bank that has received federal assistance. The community banks and credit unions have been screwed by the crony government interests in two ways – first, by regulators allowing bankrupt banks to pay overly-large CD rates when they’re insolvent (that’s fraud on its face) and second by proposing to tax them through FDIC assessments to pay for the sins of the imprudent. Withdraw your consent and assistance – move your funds to a credit union or local community bank, but before doing so ask to see their financials and look specifically for over-leverage in commercial real estate and other development “assets”. HIT THE BAD GUYS IN THE WALLET – THE ONLY PLACE THEY UNDERSTAND!

    If you have assets in the stock market, and have thus enjoyed the rally off SPX 666, either sell or hedge that exposure RIGHT NOW. The upside risk is what – 10%? What’s the downside risk? 50% or more. You can hedge effectively with PUTs which have gotten much cheaper as the VIX has fallen, or simply sell out and go to cash. In my opinion you’re insane to play for another 10% gain when you may suffer a 50% loss, but that’s my view. Just don’t say you weren’t warned if you do nothing and the collapse occurs!

    Figure out what you’re going to do if we suffer a “sudden stop” and be prepared to execute that plan. Consider what a collapse in trucking, for example, does to the food supply into major cities. This is a low-probability risk right now (perhaps 10-20%) but if it happens major cities will become free-fire zones within hours. A gun won’t do you a damn bit of good when there’s a potential rifle barrel sticking out of every window and the person behind it is interested in the bag of groceries you’re carrying. You are not Rambo (and by the way, have you noticed that Rambo always goes after bad guys in some small, flat hellhole? Ever wonder why? With a sniper rifle poking out of every second window even John Rambo doesn’t stand a chance.) Those who live on the coasts have hurricane plans. Everyone needs a “sudden stop” plan, and it must not rely on access to credit of any sort, because if “it” happens that access will disappear instantly. For people in rural America, this might not be that big of a deal. For those who live in big cities it is – and its something you probably haven’t thought through to the degree you need to.

    Don’t count on metals. I know, I know, we’re going to hyperinflate and gold is going to the moon. I have one question: Can you eat it, drink it, run your car on it, sleep under it, or screw it? No? That’s a problem. A “sudden stop” is not a hyperinflationary event – it has good odds of being quite the opposite. God help you if you put your eggs in that basket and are wrong.

    Acquire lawful means of self-defense. Your odds of being victimized are roughly 1 in 100 annually under normal conditions. What happens when its 1 in 5? Think it won’t be? Ok, if doesn’t really get bad then you spent money on something you don’t need, but you still have it and can sell it (even if you take somewhat of a loss.) If you wait, and then decide you need it, what are the odds of being able to find a firearm? And by the way, weapons you don’t know how to use in a competent and cool fashion if you need to are worthless or worse. This means range time and/or professional instruction, and both take time, effort and money. Again, this is called “hedging” – your life and property, this time (instead of your investment portfolio)

    Figure out who your friends are – and aren’t. This isn’t about who you like. Its about who you can trust with your back – no questions asked. If things get bad the second-to-the-last thing you want to be is alone – right before being around anyone who is less than 100% trustworthy. Think about this point long and hard – this doesn’t mean dumping acquaintences now, but it does mean knowing who you group with if you need to – and who you avoid

    KARL DENNINGER

    Like


  232. as far as I know, JP Morgan is still renting the idle ships in the coast of Singapore to store oil.

    Like


  233. I just stumbled on roisssy.wordpress.com for the first time. LOL

    So many people love roissy!

    Like


  234. Liberalism and Socialism necessarily create hierarchical social structures (the disseminators of created truths must control its promulgation).

    In the hierarchical network the greater the network connections to a central node (government, judiciary, welfare, education etc.) the weaker the connections to outlying nodes (family, relationships, children).

    As connections represent power the outlying nodes (beta men) are necessarily the weakest nodes. As women are the objects of state propaganda they are interspersed between the central and outlying nodes.

    Libertarianism seems to be the only answer to the socialist liberal (read feminist) polity.

    Like


  235. on June 9, 2009 at 8:41 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Hey Gig,

    You’re barking up the wrong tree here with your long-winded Karl Denniger bullshit posts.

    This is a blog about game that is written with the supposition that money, for the most part, will not be beneficial in scoring snatch.

    As we have discussed many time, feminism has empowered women to make their own money, so they seek dominance elsewhere, preferring thugs who live “on the edge.”

    My guess is at this point, most women prefer an in-debt, ex-con with tattoos, to a responsible, intelligent college grad with a mortgage paid off an enough money to buy your ass into white slavery.

    How do I know? Because I’m the latter. That’s why I’m on this blog.

    Money won’t buy you shit with women in this new feminist-infused regime. That’s why we need game.

    I’m gonna take what Whiskey said a step further: I’ll bet being a killer holds more away with women today than being rich. All over New York, there are lonely lawyers and bankers jerking off alone, while hundreds of women write killer Scott Peterson mash letters.

    Like


  236. However it is NOT “her choice only” in actually BECOMING pregnant since that requires sperm. I could just as easily say, “what are you bitching about….paternity tests only cost a few hundred….they’re available, go get them”.

    Lady Rain, we all know it takes two to tango, but the only person who knows exactly what contraception is involved apart from a condom is the woman.

    It’s not exactly unheard of for women to lie about being on the Pill. It’s not unheard of for women to remove a diaphragm, or an iud.

    It’s also not unheard of for women to steal sperm these days, either.

    Like


  237. Roissy should do a post on what is happening in Australia at the moment. Jodi Gordon, a starlet here and former model, was found on the weekend in an outlaw motorcycle gang member’s waterfront flat. What makes this hilarious, is that she has been dating the heir to one of Australia’s richest men for two years.

    As Roissy has stated before: women will choose Alpha criminals, and a life of excitement, over money anytime.

    The 1950s fantasy of building up a ‘career’ and all that bullshit is a fucking joke when you go out every night and hit on women with no consequences whatsoever.

    Like


  238. on June 9, 2009 at 9:04 am Seeking Alpha

    DoBA

    This is a blog about game that is written with the supposition that money, for the most part, will not be beneficial in scoring snatch.

    I don’t think Roissy would agree with that. Money will always give you an advantage. While you can’t measure ‘alphaness’, given two equally ‘alpha’ people, the guy with the money will do better.

    But certainly I agree that money is not sufficient.

    What it can be though is a confidence booster. Instead of using money as a crutch (‘will you date me? i have money that i can spend on you’), you can use it to help build self-esteem and inner game (‘i am a successful man who has made his way in the world. perhaps i will grant you some of my time little girl’).

    Like


  239. on June 9, 2009 at 9:14 am Marcus Aureliette

    this is so obvious that it doesn’t need pointing out

    Apparently not to the poster who initially made the generalization.

    the problem with the postmodern west is not too much generalizing. it’s too little.

    And on this we disagree.

    Liz/Marcus

    Who is Liz?

    Let us assume for the moment that both Women are indeed good people and would make fine mates for similarly disposed Men. The problem is, as Whiskey so eloquently put it the other day, there are too many “bad bills” in the “monetary system” for any right thinking and reasonable Man to risk making an investment and thus, getting a bushelfull of bad money as a result. He’ll want to hedge his bets at best, and at worst, *won’t buy/invest at all*. Leaving good Women, good people like Liz and Chic out in the cold.

    You are ignoring the flip side: that there are also too many “bad bills” on the male side to warrant the investment of good women.

    What both ladies need to realize, is that Feminism has made their lives much harder, because they tore down the very things both of these ladies, by what I gather in their writings, actually value in people generally, and in Men in particular; both would, I think actually like a more old fashioned, genteel and chivalrous sort of Man. Well, I am very sorry to tell you both this, but in our world its a risk no right thinking Man can afford to take.

    No right-thinking man can be gracious to a complete stranger on the street because if he gets married, he might get taken to the cleaners? Whaa?

    That is laziness talking…or possibly betatude. Gentility and graciousness cost nothing whatsoever, and again: these concepts are not the domain of either gender. I realize I’m a complete anachronism and the fact that I practice what I preach will probably be regarded as highly impractical, but these concepts are not dead yet.

    I’ll offer my seat to anyone who looks like they need it more than I do and being able-bodied, I don’t expect a man to stand so I can sit; I hold doors open for whoever happens to be behind me. Do Unto Others is the Golden Rule for a reason, and it doesn’t have anything to do with ovaries vs penises.

    As Novaseeker has said over on his blog recently, the “hidden” if not ironically the real and true casualties of Feminism, are the Women who don’t want to be pumped and dumped; who don’t want to be made to stand up on subways and busses when in another time Men would offer their seats; who don’t want to be shoved aside to get through a door; who, if another Titanic-like situation occured, don’t want to end up being shark food; who don’t want to be abandoned and made a singlemom by default. The so-called “coarsening of the culture” is in fact, or at least a very big part of, the intentional undoing or unraveling of a delicate system that actually was a benefit *to* Women. Now Women are in many ways, on their own.

    Some of us don’t have a problem with this, because while that “delicate system” might have been a benefit to some, it was a gilded cage to others.

    There’s a very easy way to avoid being pumped & dumped: don’t sleep with strangers! Self-restraint is one of those things that’s needed across the board: women are not being pumped & dumped by themselves.

    There is precisely one person whose coarseness — or lack thereof — you can control: your own. That’s where it begins.

    And to the posters who write women off as being incapable of rationality or morality: you’re part of the problem by not demanding more of them. Women are as capable of morality as men are; by asserting they lack the ability, you’re giving them carte blanche to not even have to make the effort! Good luck with effecting change in the face of that.

    The extended adolescence and sense of entitlement of Western societies are by far the biggest problems we’re facing. Addressing it is going to mean foregoing some of the pleasures you take for granted, and either men or women attempting to lay the blame for that entirely at the others’ feet are nothing more than wayward children crying, “But they started it!”

    But perhaps we should be blaming the concept of “romantic love” replacing arranged marriages rather than “feminism” for the plight of the lower beta in modern times. And perhaps “feminism” isn’t 100% the same as the “emasculation epidemic” that, starting with Europe, is turning America into a nation of pussies.

    I think there’s some truth to this theory.

    Like


  240. on June 9, 2009 at 9:22 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Seeking Alpha,

    Are you the guy who runs that stock market/money Web s ite?

    Also, I’m not sure I agree about the money thing, but whatever. Sometimes the more successful you are, the biggest the loser you feel because you assume the success would translate into success with women and it doesn’t. You wonder why things were easier when you were a peniless 19-year-old. I do, anyway.

    Like


  241. Consider how few lady posters there were after the evisceration. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the other ladies were misting up in sympathy for such a hardcore smack down. I guess Roissy isn’t joking about unlubed anal.

    Scotchfiend, I just don’t have a lot of time to follow the blog and keep up with it all. Still got the rugrat, still got work and a stocktake coming up so weekend work, and a film shoot the weekend after next.

    Otherwise I’d be happy to get right into it all.

    I can see where Lady Rain is coming from, because I was that young once, but I also threw off the shackles years ago.

    I’m also lucky that I have a daughter and not a son. It’s difficult enough finding decent male role models for a girl as a single mother. As it is, I’ve made sure mine goes to a school with 5 male teachers – some schools here don’t have any – she goes to Scouts, and she sees her father regularly.

    She also gets time with her grandparents and her father’s extended family. My oldies are both dead, so unfortunately she misses out on my father.

    I think LR not dating is a good idea for her son’s sake, because if the questions haven’t started about daddy, they probably will at some stage.

    Children want two parents, and they want to know who they are. If they don’t say anything to you, they will say it to someone else.

    It’s bloody hard work raising kids whether you’re alone or you’ve someone with you to share the load, and it’s even harder when you’re trying to combat decades of feminazi dogma such as women can have it all, and women can be whomever they want without regard to consequences.

    There are alway consequences.

    And it’s not the parents who always suffer them.

    Lady Rain needs to read more carefully to see what’s actually being written here rather than taking the surface stuff.

    There’s so much more going on, and if she can get her head around Game and how it works – and why it works – then I suspect that would stand her son in much better stead.

    Like


  242. on June 9, 2009 at 9:30 am Seeking Alpha

    DoBA,

    No, but I do work in that industry.

    It sounds like it’s more a problem with your inner game rather than a problem with the money.

    you assume the success would translate into success with women and it doesn’t

    But as Roissy has taught you, that’s a false assumption. It’s not the money’s fault, it’s the assumption.

    It was easier as a 19 year-old because you cared less. That still works. Your money is your own and shouldn’t be spent on some random girl that hasn’t proven herself worthy of it.

    Like


  243. on June 9, 2009 at 9:37 am Marcus Aureliette

    Big O:

    I want to stress that I was not calling you beta. On rereading I see it could come across that way, which is not at all what I intended. I was referring only to the theory, not the theorist.

    Like


  244. on June 9, 2009 at 9:44 am Tupac Chopra

    Reality:

    That Aussie story is just too perfect.

    Like


  245. on June 9, 2009 at 9:55 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Nilk: “…and she sees her father regularly.”

    If you bred with someone you can still get along with and the dad is in the child’s life, the problems are usually minimal. This is judging from experience and statistics.

    The problem comes when women breed with thugs who have no conact with the kid. All kids ask question and demand answers about dad. All kids. I’ts never “probably.” Kids take the rejection personally. Add that to the crappy thug genetics and you have disasters. Multiply that by millions and you have a broken society (or subculture).

    Someday, I’d like to write about my experiences with this.

    Like


  246. I wish everyone followed the golden rule….It is something to aspire for, though I know it is unrealistic.

    Like


  247. As for as holding ideals of being feminine w/o being a feminist, it is absolutely possible. It’s all in how you behave and expect to be treated. Slutty behavior is a disrespect for your own well being. Women who claim to want it all, usually end up dissatisfied. There is a big difference between respecting yourself and behaving entitled.

    Like


  248. roissy

    peter, your gnp linking days are over here. your running gag has long since outlived whatever you thought it was supposed to supply.

    thank fucking christ – that was funny…like the first 90 times i viewed it. that was the hack “Raymond J. Johnson, Jr.” schtick of blogworld

    Like


  249. “But what Feminists won’t tell you is that Rape wasn’t addressed meaningfully, until Men took it on, and this makes sense-only Men could stop Rape.”

    How so? (the first clause, not the last.)

    Like


  250. @reality – i’d be surprised if roissy doesn’t pick up on that Australia story. it fits too perfectly with the theme of the blog. note that she regres “what happened” “what SHE DID.” advice for the media mogul: flush her out of your life, now, without mercy, and let her go back to her biker-bar gang bangs.

    @gig – i’m with you that the crisis is far from over and that the market will fall again, probably hard, but not on the survivalist stuff. things were worse in the 30s, and things are not likely to get to the mad-max stage now, because of what might happen to the stock market or two-year Treasuries. Deficit spending is supposed to be what happens during a crisis or a war, and when things turn back up in a few years (as they must), we will have the chance to grow out of the debt. (whether there is the political will to reduce it is another question.)

    the U.S. is still a safe haven for a lot of foriegn capital, because emerging markets are much more volatile, and europe/japan are less adaptive and slower-growing economies. there are strengths and flexibilities to the U.S. system that you are writing off. Even if GM/Chrysler and the big banks (Citi, etc.) go under or are drastically shrunken – good riddance, because a harder and deeper recession will make the recovery that much stronger and more sustainable when it comes. keeping zombie companies and banks alive with cheap debt and subsidies has been a big part of the problem. The collapse of the U.S. auto industry is frankly decades overdue – thank god it’s finally happening.

    Like


  251. Marcus Aureliette,
    Hope I spelled that right.

    I thought you were the former poster here named “Elizabeth”; I had been given reason to believe this was so, but if not, my bad, no hard no foul.

    I was going to respond in point for point fashion, but I think what you said about yourself is 100% correct-you are impractical, and if I may say so, unrealistic. That’s not to say that you advocate aren’t wonderful things and ideas, but the real world simply doesn’t work that way, if it ever did.

    Regardless of which side one comes down on, an intellectually honest person would have to say, even after a casual look at our world today (USA, I mean) and agree that in the areas that matter, Women undeniably have the upper hand; for more on these points, run a search in this forum for the term “Four Sirens” as explained by Roissy. Things are not equal, nor was that the aim of the Feminist Lobby.

    My bottomline point MA, was that in a funny ironic twist of fate, some of the biggest losers of the Brave New World the Feminist Lobby has had a direct hand in creating, aren’t the fellas, be thay Beta or not; the biggest losers will be good Women like you and Chic. For more on this point, please see Novaseeker’s blog.

    In the meantime, I am content to agree to disagree.

    O

    Like


  252. Never thought I’d ever be giving the Man props, but I was just watching Dr. Phil a little while ago, and he did a show on Roe For Men, which we’ve been discussing a bit here. He had on Matt Dubay, his attorney Mel Feit, his mom, Gloria Allred and another couple who had a story to tell. I felt Dr. Phil deat w/the issues in a fair and evenhanded manner.

    Brothers, I am hopeful. Ms. Allred got called out on the carpet by Mr. Feit for being for WOMEN’S RIGHTS, not *reproductive rights*, which was Feit’s position. He argued his “case” very well, and when Dubay’s mom chimed and in, and made the powerful point that if Women enmasse were forced to be mothers against theit will, the female half of the country would be in an uproar. The audience clapped loudly on that point.

    All Allred did was attempt to bully the conversation and commit some of the worst kinds of Ad Hominem by attempting to appeal to the audience’s emotions, rather than deal w/thhe clear imbalances in reproductive rights law.

    My Brothers, I feel a disturbance in the Force. Little by little, not just Men, but Women, a key constituency, are beginning to see the light. Roe For Men, along w/Mandatory Paternity Testing, just to name a few, are only a matter of time now.

    The future, looks bright.

    Holla back

    O

    Like


  253. on June 9, 2009 at 11:41 am Dr. Grzlickson

    Ray J. was way funnier than Peter. You can call him Ray, or you can call him Jay…

    Like


  254. Roe for men, or total abortion bans, are the only two logical ends we can come to on the issue.

    Feminazis and herbs have long tried to make some sort of weird-“hijacking my body” argument about pregnancy that flies in the face of common sense. Pregnancy is no more hijacking a woman’s body than a conjoined twin is, and is, in fact, removable after a short period of time. Even more importantly, equating mammalian reproduction with hijacking is the sort of lunacy only cult movements have.

    But that’s feminism for you.

    Like


  255. O: do you have a link to the Dr. Phil broadcast?

    Like


  256. @ ScotchFiend & Firepower

    “Consider how few lady posters there were after the evisceration. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the other ladies were misting up in sympathy for such a hardcore smack down.”

    It’s sweet that you guys missed me. I was in the middle of a move across the country, and we’re still trying to get internet set up (should happen tomorrow morning). I’m a California girl now.

    If I repeat stuff, it’s because I’m too lazy to read through the entire comment thread:

    @roissy, z

    Re: Mel & Paternity testing

    – I was under the impression that this was a result of Gibson’s other children wanting to secure their inheritance. Paternity testing, fine, but I don’t think it’s as huge of a step as you’re making it out to be.

    @lurker

    “Is Gisele pregnant too now? My gosh, Brady’s got super sperm, cutting through the b.c. of 2 “career” women who probably planned on chinese babies and surrogate mommies after they ahd established their “careers.””

    a) Gisele is not pregnant

    b) “after they had established their ‘careers’ ?” Um, Gis is the highest paid supermodel in the world, at about $37 million. I think she’s “established” herself pretty well.

    Like


  257. Obsidian-

    when Dubay’s mom chimed and in, and made the powerful point that if Women enmasse were forced to be mothers against theit will, the female half of the country would be in an uproar. The audience clapped loudly on that point.

    That IS interesting and hopeful.

    Thanks for that report.

    Like


  258. DOBA All over New York, there are lonely lawyers and bankers jerking off alone, while hundreds of women write killer Scott Peterson mash letters.
    No they are out shopping and partying. It’s fun being single. Being in a relationship w/wo marriage is stressful. You have to check in or worry about another persons feelings. Sometimes you will curtail your hobbies and plans to please them. One person (usu male) will try to dominate the other. You are supposed to give the other person part of your heart and you must trust the other person.

    Remember that many of the 35 and under sec grew up in single parent families or divorced homes. Many of them have a very jaded view towards love and marriage.

    Like


  259. lady [email protected]

    i don’t think that yu understand the issue or the implications. It is wider than just one confused man screwed over by the system.

    “This guy also didn’t know that if he moved he had to fill out the change of address card from the DMV if he’s a legal, licensed driver in the United States? Not changing his address is punishable by fine, therefore he got fucked because he failed to follow the law.”

    Hell I didn’t know this. And it smacks of fascism in any case, the notion that I have to constantly keep the system updated of my every move in order to be in compliance with the most minute aspects of the law is contrary to the entire spirit and ethos of our civil society. Really. It bespeaks an anal retentive bureaucratic obsession with pea counting that is part of the problem in our society today. The paternalistic notion that the government is the ultimate arbitrator and has the power to decide what we do and do not deserve and that the onus lies primarily on us to defend ourselves from frivolous claims.

    The legalistic notion that free individuals in a free society have the onus of blame and burden on them to ensure they are in compliance with legal writ in their day to day lives is something new and recent to American thought, and it is noxious.

    Deep down inside you have to know this is fucked up and unjust, if you truly do not see it then god help you. Being called by remote courts to answer bizarre claims of which you know nothing is something STRAIGHT out of a Kafka novel, straight out of some central or eastern European idea of centralized statist control over the individual.

    You are free from birth by virtue of who and what you are, not by government dictate or arbitrary act.

    I find the lack of compassion for the man in that article really startling and offensive.

    Like


  260. Chic,
    Sorry sis, but I can’t cosign what you just said. Nothing personal, and Whiskey can back me up on this, the Durex condom surveys, to say nothing of NYC public health surveys, say something different. As I know peeps who work in the latter org, I can tell you, that you sis, are in the *distinct* minority. Lots of NYC chicks like to get it on, and yup, dude who’s done a bid in Ryker’s Island has at least as good a chance, if not better, of landing groin first into some nice poon, as Mr. Merril-Lynch on Wall St.

    Jam, if you’re reading along, its real easy to find: go to Google and type in roe for men, dr phil, hit “enter”. You should be good to go after that.

    O

    Like


  261. @mu- some women like to get it on but they don’t want the relationship baggage that comes with it. Also, many women keep an FB(usually a former bF with talent) on hand for when the urge hits them. Sad to say mu, the entertainment media plays a huge role on how young American women, it seems British as well, think and behave. It’s more The Hills than SATC. The women in the former loved dirt bag boyfriends. SMH, even one of the boys left his girlfriend to chase around the female player.

    The FB gives the woman the option of having fun at 10pm and being free again at 11pm. There is no where is my dinner did you iron my shirt run my bath water type stuff going on.

    off topic: I don’t often hear the average young woman talking much about feminism. We enjoy the privileges of those who came before us worked to achieve. We can make a link between with younger blks who no little about the Civil Rights Movement but enjoy a Jim Crow free America. It’s just human nature I guess.

    *shrugs shoulders*

    Like


  262. LILGIRL:

    It’s sweet that you guys missed me. I was in the middle of a move across the country, and we’re still trying to get internet set up (should happen tomorrow morning).

    psh, more like disappointed you’re a slacker. what should it take you – like, 10 seconds to set up a computer? Only an asian male can do it faster. maybe an indian. the dot kind.

    Like


  263. @ Firepower

    Heh. You’re right, I should’ve rigged up a wireless router with some wires and a pair of scissors. It seems these homies down and around Silicon Valley are all about protecting their internets, though, so I keep getting kicked off of wireless and I’m too cheap to pay for the hotspots. Internet guy is coming tomorrow morning, though, so you’ll see me around more often, darling.

    Like


  264. on June 9, 2009 at 7:12 pm Dave from Hawaii

    Dave in Hawaii gets my vote as Alpha of the Year. He’s probably more useful as a role model than Brady. JMHO.

    Thanks for the compliment, Whiskey…but HELL NO.

    I’m still learning my way around this stuff. I still slip up sometimes and find myself having to remember where my balls are…

    …but really, it’s not as great a struggle after awhile.

    You know how people say they have a “Gaydar?”

    I think after all this time reading, contemplating and writing on this blog along with my previous studies on game theory, I’ve developed a “Betadar.”

    And it’s almost second nature already. I see things, I see how couples interact, and I now immediately recognize and analyze the relational dynamics and where the dude falls in the Alpha/Beta/Omega scale. And in terms of my own words and actions, I now find myself vigilantly THINKING of the things I say before I say them now…all with the express purpose of deliberately avoiding Beta chump behavior…not just with my wife, but with every person in my life.

    The fact that I have to spend so much mental energy on maintaining this state of consciousness is certainly should disqualify me from any kind of consideration for “Alpha” of the day, let alone year.

    As roissy wrote, natural alpha’s run game without thought, because it is their nature.

    I’m still working on it, and it may take me a long, long time (if not ever) that it becomes second nature to me.

    See, I now realize my inherent problem – though I was raised in a relatively stable, two-parent home, my Mom ruled the roost with absolute authority, because my Father has based his entire existence on her emotional state.

    While my father never acted beta around other men, in the home, he was thoroughly pussy whipped. In fact, he still is to this day…and I now recognize the subconscious resentment and contempt that my Mother has for him for being so beta, and how that has basically shaped the state of their marriage. The only reason my parents never got divorced is because of their religious convictions that make them take their vows as inviolable.

    In this regard, my parents are the perfect representation of the template of traditional marriage screwed up by my mother adopting the modern feminist values that drive her to compete with my Father rather than compliment him in the power dynamics of their relationship.

    After all, it’s certainly the pattern I fell into once I got comfortably married. I was merely following the template my parents gave me…except, once I “took the red pill,” and saw things clearly, I was able to break out of the template and move my consciousness into the much more natural one in which I embrace masculine dominance and deliberately refuse to kowtow to the feminine emotional state…not just from my wife, but from my mother, my sisters-in-laws, my mother in law…etc.

    Like


  265. you’re forgiven. but a real asian is ‘industrious’ enough to get scissors to work. hey, if you wan’t free interwebz, wear the xs boy shorts, then bend over a lot when Internet Guy is laying his cable. but, you already know that.

    Like


  266. @ Firepower

    “you’re forgiven.”

    SWEET.

    Like


  267. as a follow up to this, i have now officially witnessed some truly alpha body language. check this out (there are commercials, but skip to the 16 minute mark, and if you have to suffer through them don’t worry, it’s tequila so there are hot girls involved):

    http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=229895

    also, re alphas and tom brady and giselle, leo is breaking up with bar in search of hotter ass. i wrote about both of these, and i think it’s interesting that the random sergeant makes me hotter than death valley in the middle of august but leo just elicits disgust and pity.

    Like


  268. Chic,
    The one discussing relationships here is you, I’m afraid; I don’t recall anyone else, myself included, necessarily talking about that. Most of the Men here want to first and foremost, get laid, which I have no problem with. Now, many of us would also like to have a bit more longer lasting, but that’s secondary, not primary.
    And again, the Durex survey mentioned by Whiskey, and my contacts in the Public Health Depts both here in Philly and NYC directly contradict your views: no doubt a number of Women have fuckbuddies; but since we both know that a piece of Good Wood is hard to find, that would make sense, right? I mean, its proven that Women don’t particularly mind sharing a Men with formidable Carnal Skills. The stats speak for themselves.

    O

    Like


  269. [email protected]
    “Sad to say mu, the entertainment media plays a huge role on how young American women, it seems British as well, think and behave. It’s more The Hills than SATC.”

    Yep.

    British women seem worse in this regards, in particular over the last 10 years. It’s a huge turn off, I’m like “Don’t these chicks have a single original thought in their head at all?”

    Highly disappointing.

    Like


  270. LR:

    Sure, it’s a shitty situation for the guy…but what person with half a brain would accept “denying paternity by phone” as something that sounds legitimate? The moment those words were uttered I’d have been skulking through law documents in moments. I feel like if a guy gets that in the mail and really ISN’T the father he’d be rushing down there to submit paternity asap, but instead he just called? It sounds really fishy to me all around.

    I have to agree. If I ever got a mail like that, I would take all necessary steps required to clear things up.

    Obsidian, I like your creative use of euphemisms. Is that African-American style or just you?

    Like


  271. on June 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Big O:
    the biggest losers will be good Women like you and Chic. For more on this point, please see Novaseeker’s blog.

    Not intending to equivocate, but that depends entirely on how you define “losers”. For women whose primary goal in life is getting a man/raising a family, certainly the going is tougher than in, say, my mother’s day. For myriad reasons, not solely due to the rise of feminism.

    On the other hand, I am free to devote myself to what interests me and earn my own way without being beholden to anyone, which is what I’ve wanted since I was a small child. This amount of autonomy was simply not available to my mother’s generation the way it is to mine, and I deeply appreciate it.

    I’m not arguing that either scenario is better or worse, only that they each have advantages and drawbacks. The current state of affairs may be the lonelier of the two and certainly not everyone is cut out to cope with that, but then marriage is hardly a magic charm against loneliness, either, if 3/4 of the married people I know are anything to gauge by.

    And before I’m leapt upon as a feminazi supporting the current regime because it allows me to whore it up: I’m a distinct throwback, in that I have never had sex outside a committed LTR. When not in one? Celibate. Don’t do bars or pick-ups, never had a one-night stand, never been pumped & dumped and never will be. I’d probably be considered an ideal candidate for a LTR by most of the posters here, if not for the fact that I am a) not hot, and b) an ancient, decrepit crone at the advanced age of 35. Also, I would never put out within any sort of three-date timeframe, because intellectual attraction has to be present well before physical attraction even has a chance.

    So no, I’m not the norm, and I certainly wouldn’t characterise myself as a loser in the game of Life. But I’m living proof that women, as a gender, are not some kind of hopeless, moronic, morally-bankrupt inferior class. Many of them may be behaving that way, but there’s nothing inevitable about it.

    Like


  272. Marcus Aureliette, it is precisely your autonomy which is the problem for men. Your autonomy to be so choosy and at not whore it up, not put out, and not settle down either. Yes, you are supporting the current regime like any feminazi and I deeply resent your autonomy as much as you love it. Don’t you see that female economic autonomy and male sexual opportunity are directly opposing forces, and that is why we hate feminism so much?

    Like


  273. on June 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm Marcus Aureliette

    So, Arpagus, no woman, regardless of abilities or proclivities, has the right to opt out of pairing up? Although you still reserve that right for men, should they so choose?

    I’m not exploiting anyone, I’m not denying anyone anything. I’m not opposed to having a partner, but it’s also never been the goal of my life. I wonder if there’s ever been a man who felt that way about it? Hmmmm. I doubt very much I’ll be a parent because I don’t think I’d be very good at it, and child-rearing isn’t something that should be entered into lightly, any more than marriage.

    You resent the fact that I live a moral, upstanding, non-slutty, yet solitary, life? Oh noes! Because my solitude has an impact on you how, exactly? Surely no man’s ego is going to be bruised by the fact that a 5 prefers to work for a living and pursue her own interests rather than attach herself to a man who’ll resent her for not being the ageless 8 he thinks he deserves.

    And your solution to this is what? Mandatory marriage for women across the board, but optional marriage for men according to their whim? Yeah, best of luck with that.

    There’s no pleasing some people. You guys bitch about women being money-grubbers: not one. You bitch about women being amoral sluts: not one. Now it’s “You’re at our bottom threshold of attractiveness and we wouldn’t want you anyway, but you’re independent, and we HATE that!”

    You’re no more about fairness than the feminazis you rail against. You’re just the flip side of them.

    Like


  274. It is a fact that when women get autonomy, they reject a lot more men, expressing their inherent selectivity to the extreme because they can afford it. Either sleep with alphas and raise kids as single moms, or be mostly chaste like yourself. This is a problem whether you like it or not and no matter how righteous you feel, because when lots of men are unhappy, it will cause social unrest sooner or later.

    >Although you still reserve that right for men, should they so choose?

    I personally have no problem with giving up that right. I’d even take an arranged marriage and am envious of men in societies that give them that.

    It would be best if we all could choose, and some women opting out would not be a problem, but the scale they are doing it at today probably will.

    And where do you get the idea that we all think we deserve an ageless 8? I certainly don’t. Is it because you are so choosy that even though you admit to be a 5 yourself, men in your own range are invisible?

    Like


  275. Basically dependency meant the predominance of monogamous pair-bonding in the West as ideal and praxis for a certain period of time, say from the rise of bourgeois marriage as a model for the lower classes as well to the end of the Sexual Revolution (1840s–1979). That era is now over, and without that incentive to pair up, there is no indication that women will do so. Arpagus is being blunt, in that he is willing to lament the old order, while most men facing the situation are social liberals who are just pissed off that they don’t get the goodies resulting from women’s social and sexual independence.

    Like


  276. on June 10, 2009 at 4:39 pm Marcus Aureliette

    It is a fact that when women get autonomy, they reject a lot more men, expressing their inherent selectivity to the extreme because they can afford it. Either sleep with alphas and raise kids as single moms, or be mostly chaste like yourself. This is a problem whether you like it or not and no matter how righteous you feel, because when lots of men are unhappy, it will cause social unrest sooner or later.

    OK. I’m willing to deal with that when it comes, because the alternative — hobble one half of the population for the convenience of the other half — is completely insane to me.

    It’s not my duty to be some guy’s sexual outlet, any more than it’s any guy’s duty to be mine. If I meet someone who loves me as much as I love him, fine. But you’d be surprised at how often that doesn’t happen.

    I personally have no problem with giving up that right. I’d even take an arranged marriage and am envious of men in societies that give them that.

    There are places which offer that option right now, if it means that much to you. Certainly it makes more sense for you to go to one of them rather than impose it upon those of us who most emphatically do not want it.

    It would be best if we all could choose, and some women opting out would not be a problem, but the scale they are doing it at today probably will.

    But you still haven’t offered a realistic solution to what you see as the problem.

    And where do you get the idea that we all think we deserve an ageless 8? I certainly don’t. Is it because you are so choosy that even though you admit to be a 5 yourself, men in your own range are invisible?

    I get that idea from the men I have dated. And no, it’s not that I’m so choosy: I actually have only ever been interested in men you’d likely tar as betas. I like men like myself: hardworking, faithful, fair-minded, not into partying, and with a larger than average dose of nerdiness.

    Apparently, if a nerdy guy gets a nerdy girl who treats him very, very well, eventually the time comes when the nerdy guy assesses the situation and says, “Hmm. She’s totally devoted to me. If this 5 likes me this much, then I should be able to get a 7 to like me at least half as much. I deserve better!” When that happens, he is more than free to go test the theory, but I’m certainly not going to wait around to see how it turns out. I’ll do without rather than be someone’s second choice. If that’s a problem for you, that’s too bad. You can have my autonomy when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    Like


  277. If this 5 likes me this much, then I should be able to get a 7 to like me at least half as much. I deserve better

    you talk like the classical pump and dump victim. your opinion is not verified by facts. most men beta-ize in relationship (search “dave from hawaii”” in the blog). this is why it is women who usually break up.

    this is a woman’s classic. take the alphas experience and generalyze it.

    Like


  278. on June 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm Marcus Aureliette

    you talk like the classical pump and dump victim. your opinion is not verified by facts. most men beta-ize in relationship (search “dave from hawaii”” in the blog). this is why it is women who usually break up.

    I talk like someone who was asked a question by another poster, which is what I was answering. And no, not a pump & dump, but a LTR which ended. These things do happen, you know.

    I was not attempting to speak for anyone or make any kind of overarching case. If you take more from it than a citing of how I came to hold the opinions I hold, that is your issue, not mine.

    What I experienced was factual, not theoretical, and considerably more useful to me than any statistics you care to bandy about here. If you’d rather use theory to make your choices, feel free. I’ll take empirical evidence, thanks.

    Like


  279. But you still haven’t offered a realistic solution to what you see as the problem.

    For starters, get rid of all affirmative action. End welfare to put an end to much single motherhood. Remove the unfair incentives for women to divorce. Feminism has caused the problem, so destroying feminism should go a long way, without actually oppressing women (unless you feel that not having special entitlement programs for women constitute oppression of women).

    But you are right, this is probably not realistic, because of people like you. Women won’t give up their special privileges and the alpha males will support them. So the only realistic solution is violence. Make it too costly and unsafe for you. War of attrition, if not revolution.

    There are places which offer that option right now, if it means that much to you. Certainly it makes more sense for you to go to one of them rather than impose it upon those of us who most emphatically do not want it.

    Totally unrealistic. Families arrange marriages, and I have none there.

    Like


  280. Yes, you are probably worth your salt, but there are plenty of women who aren’t in other professions.

    Like


  281. I don’t think there is a need to get rid of single mothers like yourself, because they would be so rare.

    Yes, instead, women lie to beta males and pretend to love them, while secretly fucking their alpha paramours when their husbands are out.

    Fuck you Arpagus.

    Like


  282. #maurice
    “@firepower – yup, and leo has already traded up to bar rafaeli, a younger and spiffier model (double entendre intended). his alpha status will remain as a movie star, but once a sports star retires, his status goes way down.”

    Bar Refaeli and Leo are quits. Apparently she wanted to move in and he didn’t. He was also seen flirting with several women while partying last month.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2475154/Leonardo-DiCaprio-and-Bar-Refaelis-relationship-has-come-to-an-end.html

    Like


  283. on June 11, 2009 at 2:03 am Marcus Aureliette

    For starters, get rid of all affirmative action. End welfare to put an end to much single motherhood. Remove the unfair incentives for women to divorce. Feminism has caused the problem, so destroying feminism should go a long way, without actually oppressing women (unless you feel that not having special entitlement programs for women constitute oppression of women).

    No, I don’t think that. I also don’t think that feminism, in and of itself, is the main source of the problem, although I do think it has been badly exploited by radicals with agendas…but I digress. By all means, get rid of the unfair incentives, as well as the inequitable laws which make marriage such a raw deal for men. Institute MPT, while you’re at it, because even one guy being swindled into supporting a kid not his own is too many.

    But you are right, this is probably not realistic, because of people like you.

    “People like me”? The kind who…work for a living? Who don’t take handouts? Who don’t get any special privileges and wouldn’t take them even if they were offered?

    I have news for you: people like me are not the problem. Again, the whole “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” approach is a lot of wasteful bluster. It’s not the binary issue you’re making it out to be, and you’ll never set it right as long as you persist in treating it like one.

    In fact, if you want female support for your cause, you’d do well to become a bit more discerning about who the transgressors actually are, rather than lumping us all in together in your assuming-the-worst fest. If you’re going to condemn good women along with all the money-grubbing amoral sluts, why should the good women trouble themselves on your behalf?

    What you condemn is the rotten behaviour, not womenkind. You might actually get somewhere by targeting that.

    So the only realistic solution is violence. Make it too costly and unsafe for you.

    Some of us will be prepared. Although I don’t think it will come to that in my lifetime.

    Like


  284. Marcus Aureliette,
    I’ve addressed many of your points on the #1 Herb thread. They are my comments and responses to Dreamer, and while they focus more on African American concerns, they nevertheless address many of the points we’ve discussed here. Check it out.

    O

    Like


  285. @marcus-

    “because the alternative — hobble one half of the population for the convenience of the other half — is completely insane to me.”

    your arguments above are good and fair, mostly. but i’d quibble with the above line. not for the “convenience” of the other half. for the stability and continuity of the species. nature doesn’t care if you and i are happy with our mating choices, but it does care if a next generation emerges and is raised in a stable environment. for brainy primates like us, that means a two-parent household.

    sexual freedom, female equality, no fault divorce, etc., though good things on the individual happiness level, made nuclear family units less common and stable. also harmed the extended-family networks that have always been so important in more traditional societies, including ours in the past. and that lack of stability and support is a contributing factor to crime, learning dysfunction, social decline, etc.

    they also make men and women less satisfied with the mating game in other, depper psychological ways, as discussed here elsewhere.

    so arpagus is wrong when he thinks women should lose the choices they have so, apparently, he can get a girlfriend. he needs to learn game for that – there’s no way the genie is ever going back into the bottle. and on those grounds, what you wrote is absoutely right. but larger picture is not so simple.

    Like


  286. @MA, I could kiss your feet for this:

    In fact, if you want female support for your cause, you’d do well to become a bit more discerning about who the transgressors actually are, rather than lumping us all in together in your assuming-the-worst fest. If you’re going to condemn good women along with all the money-grubbing amoral sluts, why should the good women trouble themselves on your behalf?

    All women consider/concern themselves with/advocate for the welfare of men, because 1) we have sons, husbands, nephews, and 2) although we don’t NEED men, we want them and admire them. They are delightful and sexy. But the run away comdemnation here won’t engender good will.

    Like


  287. on June 12, 2009 at 1:22 am Marcus Aureliette

    joker, smoker, midnight toker:
    your arguments above are good and fair, mostly. but i’d quibble with the above line. not for the “convenience” of the other half. for the stability and continuity of the species. nature doesn’t care if you and i are happy with our mating choices, but it does care if a next generation emerges and is raised in a stable environment. for brainy primates like us, that means a two-parent household.

    Thank you for the kind words, however, I think the way Arpagus was phrasing it was that he’s resentful that I have a choice because that means some guy, somewhere, isn’t getting laid. Which is not only completely looney-tunes and faulty reasoning, but also not concerned in the least with the propagation of the species.

    Besides, Nature will always be satisfied; there is no danger of us running out of humans. Certainly in the history of humankind not every adult who lives to maturity has paired up and reproduced, and still we managed to get this far, have we not? Nature doesn’t really care all that much about the stability of the environment, either; in fact, Nature rather prefers to shit-test the tenants and see who makes the cut.

    I totally agree about two-parent households, although I think a single parent can do an admirable job if they take care to have sufficient role models of the gender of the missing parent in the child’s life. No, that’s not ideal, but it won’t contribute to the downfall of society, either.

    I agree that there are many causes for the current state of affairs, but seriously, calling for women to be “demoted” (for want of a better word) is a) not possible, and b) wouldn’t be a solution to the problem, even if it were possible. (Not that you were doing that, but it’s both so illogical and so self-serving that it’s impossible to let it pass uncontested when I see it presented as Arpagus was doing.)

    Big O:
    I’ll try to ferret out the other thread you referenced. Lots of stuff to sift through here, and not enough free time to do it justice!

    Like


  288. Certainly in the history of humankind not every adult who lives to maturity has paired up and reproduced, and still we managed to get this far, have we not?

    No, but fully twice as many women than men have managed to pair up and reproduce, and some of us losers are very, very, resentful about that and will at the very least cause some violent disruption if we can’t find a mate.

    Like


  289. Arpagus,

    Is it possible that you’re so fixated on the so-called-beta elements of your unconventional lifestyle (the graduate study, the possible lack of a car) that you’re missing out on women who are actually attracted to you? I “have nothing” and can’t lie about it, but one of the things I keep consistently getting is the “you look better than your profile” when I use an online service and some Indicators of Interest in person, usually from very nerdy women.

    In the long term, I have to “save” my life by working on my thesis in a frenzy, because otherwise I’m just a stay-at-home gimp with no car and an MA (instead of Ph.D) as my highest personal qualification.

    Like


  290. Eurosabre, you are right about no car. I don’t even have a driver’s license. That is, I had an American one, but it expired when I turned 30 and getting one here is ridiculously expensive. I don’t consider it feasible that there are women who are already actually attracted to me that I am missing out on. Even when worked with about 30 women over two summers — a daycare where I was the only man — none could possibly be interested. And in the classics department here at the graduate level there are currently no girls.

    I have also been trying to meet women online for five years without success. Only one girl has agreed to a date. After traveling all the way to Birmingham, England, to meet her, the first thing she said was “don’t get your hopes up” and that she was meeting another guy from Hotornot that same night. Total disaster. I have found that as long as I am distant enough that a meeting in the flesh is not immediately realistic, women are interested in talking to me. I can meet women in places like Singapore, China, Colombia or the US and things seem to be going well, but as soon as I am ready to actually get a plane ticket they flake. Local women are not interested at all. In my experience women only use online dating sites to find someone to talk to, pretending to be romantically interested until there is a chance of actually meeting, at which point it becomes clear that they were never serious.

    Like


  291. Arpagus,

    I don’t have any answers, really, except that Bergen must have a decent night-life, and you’ll have to go out and do everything step-by-step. Game is codified, and you can learn it by rote. I am, of course, pretty depressed, and I have to force myself out there, but the idea is that the basic processes are known and you don’t have to invent everything yourself.

    Like


  292. Great infothanks (why i got an error when i try to subscribe to your feeds?)thanks

    Like