➢I don't know why guys ask women how to be more attractive. I think at this point we've come to at least some level of understanding that attraction is gut-level. It's instinctive. You can't explain your instincts; all you know is whether or not you feel it.
Asking a woman the traits of a good man will usually lead nowhere. just as asking a man to define a good woman usually doesn't lead anywhere. BTW, "good sex and good sammiches" is a funny reply, but that's about as helpful as when girls say "he has to make me laugh."
There's a reason why the traits of masculinity has always been passed down from one male to another, from father to son. Somewhere in the past few generations, the link between father and son has largely been severed. Blame it on divorce rates, blame it on 40 hour work weeks, blame it on the school system if you like - but the rift is there, and adult men are discovering that masculinity doesn't magically appear at puberty; it must be learned - and many adult men are discovering that they don't have a single clue where to learn it from.
For over a decade, different men have taken up that single goal of relearning natural masculinity. First they started as pickup artists, then transitioned to 'dating gurus,' then 'self-improvement.' There's been a lot of BS, and in that mound of BS, there have been diamonds. Here's what I've learned:
➢What is a good man? A good man is a man who is a leader in his relationships. In a woman's eyes, a good man is one who is indisputably masculine and confident, inspires confidence, and has integrity.
Read those last four items and memorize them. Burn them into your brain, because they're important.
Masculinity ignites femininity. Confidence allows him to get what he needs and wants. Inspiring confidence makes him a leader and builds up the people in his life. Integrity makes him a man that people (and especially women) trust.
Build up these four qualities. Learn the nuances of who you and, and build yourself as a person. Gain introspection, humility, strength of will, courage, and the host of other characteristics that changes a simple boy into a man of quality. Then watch as women open up to you freely, knowing that they are safe in your presence.
You see, women have trouble explaining the traits of a good man - but they DO know how a good man makes them feel.
A good man makes them feel Safe. Feminine. Sexy. Special. When he turns his eyes on her she feels her heart warm and flutter at the same time; she feels all at once flustered and yet sensual to every curve of her body. She feels appreciated and spicy and soft and respected, and ready - all at once.
What's more important; she loves feeling like this. Most guys don't inspire these feelings. Most girls have to put up emotional walls and take on a masculine role in order to navigate life. They feel this lack of masculinity in the men around them, and for many women it's incredibly frustrating. Whenever you see the complaints from women about how "there aren't any good men these days," and "every guy is a fuckboi," this is inevitably what they're referring to. They have to put up emotional walls to survive, and they hate it. In the presence of a good man these walls aren't needed, and they come tumbling down as the woman radiates in her feminine beauty, happy be flower, surrendering to his arms. You ever notice that quirk where a girl gets in a great relationship with a great guy, and suddenly her attitude and personality makes a sudden shift to the absurdly happy positive? This is why - and notice how the girl's friends all respond too: with happiness and jealousy, and asking if her man has any brothers.
Four traits to manhood. Learn them - and you'll suddenly find women reacting to you in a completely different way.
Kudos to Scott McKay. This isn't my material, this is his. He is worth your time. http://www.deservewhatyouwant.com/
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Smash the Patriarchy While Wearing High Heels Why Don't You...
➢Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I think this is getting a bit stupid.
I now have seen - both in my personal life, and in various online mediums - multiple transwomen, of various political and social backgrounds. Yet, they all seem to carry two similarities.
So on the one hand, radical feminists (amongst whom these transwomen tend to self-identify) are arguing that gender is a social construct made to privilege males in society...
...and yet every transwoman I've met or seen without exception has made serious efforts, ranging from makeup to surgical modification, to appear classically beautiful as per societal standards of feminine beauty.
Now, this seems a bit confusing to me, because generally you'd think people who claim to have "seen the matrix" of social constructs would generally defy them whenever their own personal preferences differ from the mainstream.
And yet, there's this massive trend, which smells to the high heavens of some form of hypocrisy.
I don't get it - why claim that gender is totally a gender construct, and then intentionally try to match that construct while claiming that you want to tear it down or otherwise free people from being obligated to follow it? You might as well extol the virtues of veganism and condemn the meat industry while chowing down on a Big Mac.
This leads me to a few conclusions. I'm not sure which is correct, but I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in between.
But hey, don't take my word on it. If you consider yourself a feminist, and have a male friend who's in the middle of transition, and you see them slipping into following those patriarchal definitions of feminine beauty, be sure to stop them and tell them that they don't need to wear makeup in order to feel feminine or feel like a woman.
I dare you. Unless of course you have a good explanation for why virtually every single transwoman claiming to be a feminist also happens to spend an extraordinary amount of effort attempting to fit the "patriarchal" definition of feminine beauty. I'm more than willing to hear an alternate explanation.
I now have seen - both in my personal life, and in various online mediums - multiple transwomen, of various political and social backgrounds. Yet, they all seem to carry two similarities.
1) They make attempts to look feminine and beautiful
2) The vast majority of them self-identify as feminists (note: "vast majority" is from a sample size of about twenty, so bear that in mind).
So on the one hand, radical feminists (amongst whom these transwomen tend to self-identify) are arguing that gender is a social construct made to privilege males in society...
...and yet every transwoman I've met or seen without exception has made serious efforts, ranging from makeup to surgical modification, to appear classically beautiful as per societal standards of feminine beauty.
Now, this seems a bit confusing to me, because generally you'd think people who claim to have "seen the matrix" of social constructs would generally defy them whenever their own personal preferences differ from the mainstream.
And yet, there's this massive trend, which smells to the high heavens of some form of hypocrisy.
I don't get it - why claim that gender is totally a gender construct, and then intentionally try to match that construct while claiming that you want to tear it down or otherwise free people from being obligated to follow it? You might as well extol the virtues of veganism and condemn the meat industry while chowing down on a Big Mac.
This leads me to a few conclusions. I'm not sure which is correct, but I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in between.
1) Transwomen aren't actually attracted so much to being a woman, so much as being in a feminine role. Alternatively...
2) Transwomen intuitively understand that femininity isn't just a "social construct," and that there are deep biological (and thus psychological) roots connecting femininity to being sexually female. Given this...
3) Radical feminists are blatantly lying to both themselves and others when they claim that gender roles are mere social constructs. Just how self-aware they are of this lie is a different question altogether.
But hey, don't take my word on it. If you consider yourself a feminist, and have a male friend who's in the middle of transition, and you see them slipping into following those patriarchal definitions of feminine beauty, be sure to stop them and tell them that they don't need to wear makeup in order to feel feminine or feel like a woman.
I dare you. Unless of course you have a good explanation for why virtually every single transwoman claiming to be a feminist also happens to spend an extraordinary amount of effort attempting to fit the "patriarchal" definition of feminine beauty. I'm more than willing to hear an alternate explanation.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
How to Eliminate Neediness and Inspire People to Respect You in One Easy Step
It's okay to be alone.
Depressing statement, right? For many, it's a scary statement too. It's incredibly ironic too, considering the huge level of interconnectivity that people experience on a daily basis in the Western world. One of the most striking statements to my ears, one that has rung true for me in the past and most of the people I've met, is this:
Sometimes I feel like I'm in a room full of people, and and yet I'm completely alone.
The feeling of loneliness in a crowded room can be a painful feeling. There's no denying that, but-
This is the BUT statement. This is the statement where I sound slightly feminist-y, despite staunchly rejecting feminism, because let's face it - as much as feminists go on about helping men get in touch with their feelings, they seem to have a really hard time going about it as they talk about drinking "male tears" on twitter and tumblr and other social outlets.
See, as a man who actually appreciates masculinity, I'm not a fan of being a wishy washy precious snowflake when it comes to emotions. BUT (and here comes the statement) - I am a full proponent of being present to oneself, and understanding what I feel at any given moment - because real men don't lie to themselves. From there, my choice to emote or be stoic is entirely my own. Not only that, but when I'm aware of myself, I become more aware of others, which only improves my ability to communicate with women. That's for another conversation, however.
We seem to run from loneliness. It locks us up, causes us to be needy, and dependent upon the outcome of social situations. You can feel it, the impulse to be completely manipulative and try to almost force the girl to like you, to want you, to need you almost as badly as you want and need her to like you - often without you even knowing if you actually like the girl for who she is in the first place.
And you need to understand the critical component to this: being okay with being alone and feeling loneliness will not cause you to be any more alone, or feel any more lonely - in fact, it'll make you feel a lot better.
Take some time to be alone. Get to know yourself. Start to enjoy your own company. How will you expect a woman to eventually choose to enter your world and walk your journey with you if you can't walk your own journey in the first place? Women don't want to be the center of your world. They want you to be the center of theirs. In other words, be the star of your own life, not the planet orbiting someone else's. If you can't stand to be alone, then you can't create your own world to draw women in. This also applies to guys who are petrified of being judged by others. Guys, everyone else is basically busy worry about everyone judging them, far too much to actually spend time judging you. Stop worrying about what others think, and spend more time focused on what you think.
More than that, if you cannot stand to be alone, then you will never be able to stand for your own principles - because sometimes, standing for your own principles requires you to stand alone.
I'm pretty sure I could go on, but I've said plenty here. Take some alone time to discover who you are, what you love, and to enjoy your own life. Then, invite people into that life.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Don't Go to College Unless You Have These Reasons
➢A note to my Facebook friends who are going to college under the following situations:
a) No clue what your major is
b) "I'm going here to party and have fun and experience college!"
Stop right there, don't fill out your college application yet, I'm about to save you a crap-ton of money. People who answered "a" check out section "A," and "B" for section "b."
a) No clue what your major is
b) "I'm going here to party and have fun and experience college!"
Stop right there, don't fill out your college application yet, I'm about to save you a crap-ton of money. People who answered "a" check out section "A," and "B" for section "b."
A) If you're not sure what you want to go to college for, realize: it probably doesn't matter. Statistically, there's a good shot you'll work in retail for a while after getting your degree. But there's another level to this that you should understand: You don't have to love your job. You merely have to tolerate it. This may sound a bit off, but follow me on this. Nobody loves being a construction worker; they do it because it brings in the bucks. Ditto for nearly every other hard labor job - actually, over 90% of jobs that exist in this world. You probably won't love your job.
So don't try to get educated for a job that you'll love, because 90% of the time you're shooting for a pipe dream. Instead, get into a job that you're good at. Understand that loving a job has a lot more to do with the people you work with than the actual work of the job itself. Get a job that pays a decent amount of money, and then use that money to do the thing you love. Love surfing? Great, become a computer programmer, and make enough money that you can afford to spend two months every year in Hawaii catching the waves. It's way better than ending up as a burger flipper in Florida, believe me. Unless you have a solid, planned out path that will lead you to your dreams (and most of you don't; you'll find this out later), focus instead on making yourself a good living.Now for the people who answered "b..."
B) Seriously, are you SERIOUSLY going to put yourself in 50 thousand dollars of debt to get drunk and have shitty sex you won't remember the next morning? BTW, it WILL be shitty sex, because you can't emotionally connect when you're drunk and besides that you've had almost zero practice.
Girls: you're going to learn really quickly that you can't bang a guy into a relationship. Guys: you're gonna learn really quickly that "fuckbuddies" is a total myth. Either you are gonna catch feelings, or she will. It's called Oxytocin. Look it up.
But hey, if you really HAVE to have that "college experience," here's a plan to do that which will save your wallet. Get a job, and rent an apartment near campus. Take ONE class at that college, maybe two if they actually interest you. You can get your whole college experience, meet tons of people, hit up the parties, have pocket money, and have zero debt after four years. You will leave your friends looking like chumps after they graduate, because chances are they'll end up in retail anyways, and you've got four years up on them.
PS, girls that go to college in order to get married: do this and you can still meet your future hubby, AND save him 50 thousand dollars of debt. Best wedding present ever? You bet.PS, none of this applies to the STEM field. If you want to become a chemical engineer or a biologist, you still need that degree.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Socialist Memes; aka "Why My Satire Blade Never Goes Dull"
➢There's a socialist on my facebook page who likes to unwittingly spew socialist crap on Facebook from time to time. Granted, he doesn't realize it's crap, but that doesn't stop me from informing him. Here's the original pic, and my response.
A banker, a worker, and an immigrant are sitting at a table.
The banker runs a printer 20 times with a picture of a cookie on each page, and hands them out, assuring everyone that it's exactly the same as the real thing.
The banker gives the immigrant the plate of "cookies" first, because the immigrant promises to work for cheap, and hey - raise the minimum wage, right? For everyone but the illegal immigrant, of course. The immigrant only takes a half cookie at a time, but eats so many that by the time the worker gets to the plate, there's only five cookies left. The banker charges everyone for 20 cookies plus 8 cookies interest, goes broke, then asks the government for a new printer.
The worker claims he's not getting enough cookies and shouts at the banker for being a meanie, and writes a really inaccurate meme about cookies that anyone who knows about economics would recognize as patently false. He then votes in politicians who promise to fix the problem with printers while ignoring the problem of broken ovens, feeling incredibly self-satisfied as he does.
Also, illegal immigrants do steal jobs, and the rich democrats who go on and on about "a living wage" have no problem whatsoever hiring the cheapest (aka immigrant) labor possible for their own businesses. But that's a story for another time.
Dating for Single Moms - Leave the Grenade in the Crib.
➢I'm obsessive in my information-gathering. Recently while trolling the internet for hot chicks, I came across a really cool girl who it turns out ALSO blogs about relationships - and moreso than me! I only upload maybe once a month; go figure. While most of her stuff is mocking guys who post absolutely horrible messages on dating websites (it truly is laughable how sad the state of manhood has fallen in this world), a few of her pieces are filled with stuff that... surprisingly...
And you know what? Her reasons make perfect sense. It's up to you to read the post; I think she makes excellent points. In fact, her argument is makes so much sense that I quickly commented on the post, adding even a few more reasons why. Ladies, if you've got a kiddie and you're on the market for a boyfriend/husband/whatever, it's important for you to understand from the male's perspective why a guy might flee from your profile, even if he doesn't really have a problem with kids at all. Here follows that perspective:
➢Personally, my drawback almost never has to do with the presence of a kid – but rather, the accompanying attitude that (generally) comes with a kid. When a girl puts “I have a kid and (s)he’s my world” down, What I hear in my mind is, “I'm obsessed with my child and am no longer a person unto myself. I will prioritize this child over everything, including you, even if we end up being in a serious relationship." I have no interest in pursuing a relationship in which I have to prove myself more important than a kid 1/10th my age - I’m interested in a dating a woman, NOT her kid.
“I have a kid” in a profile is kind of like saying “I’m not creepy” in a message. SUREEEE you're not a creep. SUREEEE you’re not gonna let the date get derailed by every little thing and be so worried about the kid that you can’t even enjoy yourself, I believe you…. (not).
On the other hand, I would have MASSIVE respect for a girl who didn’t feel the need to broadcast her tiny human sidekick at first, who choose to bring it up at a later time, and who I could tell loved her kid, and also wasn’t weighed down by him. I’m interested in finding a wife someday, and I’d like to become a husband – not just a replacement father figure for a failed relationship with casualties of war. If I knew becoming an equal partner in a relationship was the main goal, then becoming a father without having to change any diapers would just be an added bonus.
PS: Here's a quick example (both single fathers and mothers) that you can get an idea from:
Say you have your online profile, and get into a conversation with someone. When you get to the point of a phone conversation (or the planning stages of a date, if you skip the phone conversation), it'd be totally appropriate to say something along the lines of, "By the way, I don't want this to be a big deal, but I think it's important for you to know that I have a kid. You won't meet [him/her] any time soon, and we're obviously just getting together to see where things go, but on the off chance that things get serious, I don't want you to be blindsided by it. Okay?" - and just leave it at that. Remember, things have to go well between you and your potential mate before you even bring the kid into the mix, so it's much easier to take it one step at a time. First see if the two of you click. THEN if it starts to get serious, that's where you test the waters with the kid and see where it goes from there.
Also, single parents: I said this already, and it bears repeating: Don't introduce your kids to every single person you date. It's cruel to the point of being abusive. Your child does NOT need a revolving door of temporary and fleeting mother/father figures. Wait to introduce your kid to someone that has real potential for being your future mate.
I agree with.
-Which is rare, for me. It's not that most girls don't know what they respond to when it comes to men... most are just really bad at explaining it. And I don't fault them for it, any more than I fault men for being equally clueless on the whole. Either way, this girl was a lot of fun to chat with, and I'll probably have a lot more convos with her in the future.
Case in point: I recently stumbled upon this entry in her blog, where Soon2BeCatLady makes a daring proposition about single mothers/single fathers. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but it makes sense. Ready for it?
"If you are a parent, you should not list on your online dating profile that you have kids."
And you know what? Her reasons make perfect sense. It's up to you to read the post; I think she makes excellent points. In fact, her argument is makes so much sense that I quickly commented on the post, adding even a few more reasons why. Ladies, if you've got a kiddie and you're on the market for a boyfriend/husband/whatever, it's important for you to understand from the male's perspective why a guy might flee from your profile, even if he doesn't really have a problem with kids at all. Here follows that perspective:
➢Personally, my drawback almost never has to do with the presence of a kid – but rather, the accompanying attitude that (generally) comes with a kid. When a girl puts “I have a kid and (s)he’s my world” down, What I hear in my mind is, “I'm obsessed with my child and am no longer a person unto myself. I will prioritize this child over everything, including you, even if we end up being in a serious relationship." I have no interest in pursuing a relationship in which I have to prove myself more important than a kid 1/10th my age - I’m interested in a dating a woman, NOT her kid.
“I have a kid” in a profile is kind of like saying “I’m not creepy” in a message. SUREEEE you're not a creep. SUREEEE you’re not gonna let the date get derailed by every little thing and be so worried about the kid that you can’t even enjoy yourself, I believe you…. (not).
On the other hand, I would have MASSIVE respect for a girl who didn’t feel the need to broadcast her tiny human sidekick at first, who choose to bring it up at a later time, and who I could tell loved her kid, and also wasn’t weighed down by him. I’m interested in finding a wife someday, and I’d like to become a husband – not just a replacement father figure for a failed relationship with casualties of war. If I knew becoming an equal partner in a relationship was the main goal, then becoming a father without having to change any diapers would just be an added bonus.
PS: Here's a quick example (both single fathers and mothers) that you can get an idea from:
Say you have your online profile, and get into a conversation with someone. When you get to the point of a phone conversation (or the planning stages of a date, if you skip the phone conversation), it'd be totally appropriate to say something along the lines of, "By the way, I don't want this to be a big deal, but I think it's important for you to know that I have a kid. You won't meet [him/her] any time soon, and we're obviously just getting together to see where things go, but on the off chance that things get serious, I don't want you to be blindsided by it. Okay?" - and just leave it at that. Remember, things have to go well between you and your potential mate before you even bring the kid into the mix, so it's much easier to take it one step at a time. First see if the two of you click. THEN if it starts to get serious, that's where you test the waters with the kid and see where it goes from there.
Also, single parents: I said this already, and it bears repeating: Don't introduce your kids to every single person you date. It's cruel to the point of being abusive. Your child does NOT need a revolving door of temporary and fleeting mother/father figures. Wait to introduce your kid to someone that has real potential for being your future mate.
Monday, July 20, 2015
How to Have Great Sex w/ Women, Part the First
➢Catchy title, right? I'm serious too. Here's how, with three easy steps.
Step 1: Take your hand off your dick, and zip up your pants. This may seem counterintuitive, since sex usually requires your hardness to be rocking the midnight breeze, but bear with me here.
Step 2: Close your porn browser tabs. Drag your porn folder to the trash bin. This is slightly less counterintutive, since most girls would rather fuck a dude rather than sit with him and watch a different dude fuck a girl that isn't her.
Step 3: Go outside and meet women. Fucking duh.
Before the idiots go off about how "beneficial" porn is, let's address some points here, which should be obvious to everyone who isn't dead set on justifying their favorite idiocy:
But more than this, you've gotta realize... your masturbation habits are fucking up your ability to relate to women and your ability to fuck them senseless.
Sad, but true. This isn't voodoo shit, this is basic psychology. Remember one simple fact:
You know this to be true. The best moments, the best conversations, and frankly the best sex... what are they conspicuously lacking?
It is experientially true that when we have our best moments, the really good ones, our heads are usually completely absent of thought. The little monkey in our head has finally shut up and let us enjoy the moment, for once (assuming you've got such little control of the devil).
So how does this relate to porn? Imagine what your normal porn activity consists of. You spend the first portion finding a video, aka using your cognitive thought process. You probably quit a few videos, because they feel too fake and ridiculous. Depending on how you do porn, the porn tab might be paused for a bit to read facebook, watch a youtube video, search for even more porn...
Remember all those times you tried to get sexual but it got incredibly awkward because you kept getting trapped in your head and got really self conscious and kept making stupid mistakes? Well it's not surprising...
You've been teaching your body to associate sexual turn-on with higher end cognitive function. Those idiotic baboons in your head? You're literally training them to pop up in a full frontal assault with sexual encounters, every time you do stupid shit like multitask with porn. Good job, moron.
Not to mention, if you're a man, then sex usually involves you being in the dominant position, and taking care of yourself and the woman you're with. She wants to surrender to you, but she's only gonna do it if she feels safe and attended to in your presence. Guess what, bud? When you jerk it off, you're only paying attention to your cock.
Not only that, but you're probably not feeling sexy through your whole body when you play the nightly fiddle. After all, who would? But guess what, great sex means being aware of your whole body, and that of the person you're with. Yet another way in which porn sets you up to fail.
Keep in mind, if you're like most single guys... then the amount that you masturbate FAR outweighs the amount that you're spending inside a woman.
Hell, I'm not even covering the benefits that are testified to by guys who get away from porn completely.
But you know how I know you know what I'm saying is true?
Because you, like every other guy in the world, pretty much hates the majority of porn, and they hate it for the same reason. And I don't even have to tell you what that reason is - you already know.
And you wouldn't have to hate the vast majority of porn if it didn't affect you.
~BTW, girls who read romance novels, especially erotic novels: you're just as guilty. And if you loved 50 Shades of Grey, congrats on being a hardcore femme porn user.
Step 1: Take your hand off your dick, and zip up your pants. This may seem counterintuitive, since sex usually requires your hardness to be rocking the midnight breeze, but bear with me here.
Step 2: Close your porn browser tabs. Drag your porn folder to the trash bin. This is slightly less counterintutive, since most girls would rather fuck a dude rather than sit with him and watch a different dude fuck a girl that isn't her.
Step 3: Go outside and meet women. Fucking duh.
Before the idiots go off about how "beneficial" porn is, let's address some points here, which should be obvious to everyone who isn't dead set on justifying their favorite idiocy:
Porn doesn't help you figure out what you like sexually. Any person who's said this to you is a damn liar.
Yes, it's true that orgasms are medically linked to increased prostate health, yadda yadda. It's also true that sex with real vaginas is infinitely better than sex with five fingers and a bottle of moisturizer.
But more than this, you've gotta realize... your masturbation habits are fucking up your ability to relate to women and your ability to fuck them senseless.
Sad, but true. This isn't voodoo shit, this is basic psychology. Remember one simple fact:
When it comes to sex, the mind is the enemy.
You know this to be true. The best moments, the best conversations, and frankly the best sex... what are they conspicuously lacking?
Overthinking
It is experientially true that when we have our best moments, the really good ones, our heads are usually completely absent of thought. The little monkey in our head has finally shut up and let us enjoy the moment, for once (assuming you've got such little control of the devil).
So how does this relate to porn? Imagine what your normal porn activity consists of. You spend the first portion finding a video, aka using your cognitive thought process. You probably quit a few videos, because they feel too fake and ridiculous. Depending on how you do porn, the porn tab might be paused for a bit to read facebook, watch a youtube video, search for even more porn...
Remember all those times you tried to get sexual but it got incredibly awkward because you kept getting trapped in your head and got really self conscious and kept making stupid mistakes? Well it's not surprising...
You've been teaching your body to associate sexual turn-on with higher end cognitive function. Those idiotic baboons in your head? You're literally training them to pop up in a full frontal assault with sexual encounters, every time you do stupid shit like multitask with porn. Good job, moron.
Not to mention, if you're a man, then sex usually involves you being in the dominant position, and taking care of yourself and the woman you're with. She wants to surrender to you, but she's only gonna do it if she feels safe and attended to in your presence. Guess what, bud? When you jerk it off, you're only paying attention to your cock.
Not only that, but you're probably not feeling sexy through your whole body when you play the nightly fiddle. After all, who would? But guess what, great sex means being aware of your whole body, and that of the person you're with. Yet another way in which porn sets you up to fail.
Keep in mind, if you're like most single guys... then the amount that you masturbate FAR outweighs the amount that you're spending inside a woman.
Hell, I'm not even covering the benefits that are testified to by guys who get away from porn completely.
But you know how I know you know what I'm saying is true?
Because you, like every other guy in the world, pretty much hates the majority of porn, and they hate it for the same reason. And I don't even have to tell you what that reason is - you already know.
And you wouldn't have to hate the vast majority of porn if it didn't affect you.
~BTW, girls who read romance novels, especially erotic novels: you're just as guilty. And if you loved 50 Shades of Grey, congrats on being a hardcore femme porn user.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Walk this Way
➢A beautiful woman is a sultry vixen, a string of curves hanging perfectly in the universe, a monument to gravity defiance and youthful skin-lust.
The beauty of a woman is contained not only in her saint, but in her sexuality. To describe a woman is to describe the beauty and body and mind which separates her from a man and makes her distinct from the other sex. Without lust and drive she is merely a faceless human being, veiled and unknown.
A woman loves a man who sees her for the woman that she is. He must see her for her hopes and dreams, likes and dislikes... the song that brings tearful memories of joy; and the tree that fills her with bitterness. But he must also see the other half of her, the part of her that takes over when the heat spreads to her cheeks and lips, and she feels a rush of sensation, a tingle of anticipation. He must be the man who takes her and ravishes her and completes her.
Without the second half a man is neutered before a woman. To refuse to acknowledge the sexuality that defines a man and a woman is to deny the very reason for a man and a woman to exist.
The beauty of a woman is contained not only in her saint, but in her sexuality. To describe a woman is to describe the beauty and body and mind which separates her from a man and makes her distinct from the other sex. Without lust and drive she is merely a faceless human being, veiled and unknown.
A woman loves a man who sees her for the woman that she is. He must see her for her hopes and dreams, likes and dislikes... the song that brings tearful memories of joy; and the tree that fills her with bitterness. But he must also see the other half of her, the part of her that takes over when the heat spreads to her cheeks and lips, and she feels a rush of sensation, a tingle of anticipation. He must be the man who takes her and ravishes her and completes her.
Without the second half a man is neutered before a woman. To refuse to acknowledge the sexuality that defines a man and a woman is to deny the very reason for a man and a woman to exist.
Friday, June 12, 2015
The NAACP is bust - and the black community knows it
So news has broken that the leader of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP...
wait for it...
Is not black. And I mean not just "half white," I mean, she's the whole nine yards white, with German, Czech, and Swedish heritage. She faked being black by using tanning sprays and using hair tricks, and going as far as to pretend that an unrelated black man was her father.
What's interesting, of all things, is not the fact that the NAACP mistakenly hired a liar. It's not even the fact that she pretended to have a black family, going so far as to pretend that her adopted black brother was her son... nor the fact that she faked being discriminated against on the basis of her blackness... no, what I find insanely curious is the fact that...
That means that the black man who was asked (paid?) to pretend to be her father didn't care that she was a white woman pretending to be black and leading a part of the NAACP...
Her multiple black friends (she spent years inserted into the black community) who undoubtedly knew that she was really white said nothing...
Despite the fact that rumors had circulated for years that Rachel Dolezal was really white, and despite the fact that undoubtedly dozens of African Americans knew of the facade, not one black person cared enough to out her as a fraud when she headed the NAACP.
Instead, it was her parents who outed her - and I guarantee it had nothing to do with any sort of anger about her "appropriating black culture." After nearly six months of this charade, the parents (who had been completely cut from Rachel's life) went to the media, because her mother was upset about her being such a horrendous liar.
So... the black community that knew her didn't care enough to speak up when she went from merely faking an ethnicity to claiming to represent that ethnicity on a city-wide level. Not the people who weakly suspected her to be a fake; not the people who strongly suspected her to be a fake; not the people who knew for a fact that she was fake...
-and no, the outrage you see happening now in the media is irrelevant. Of course the black community has to be "outraged" at the lies; otherwise the NAACP loses total face, instead of partial face. It doesn't change the facts, though.
wait for it...
Is not black. And I mean not just "half white," I mean, she's the whole nine yards white, with German, Czech, and Swedish heritage. She faked being black by using tanning sprays and using hair tricks, and going as far as to pretend that an unrelated black man was her father.
'Black' #Spokane @NAACP leader #RachelDolezal outed as white http://t.co/y1veMefQ4r #11Alive pic.twitter.com/1NPwvDkVbv
— Michael King (@mhking) June 12, 2015
What's interesting, of all things, is not the fact that the NAACP mistakenly hired a liar. It's not even the fact that she pretended to have a black family, going so far as to pretend that her adopted black brother was her son... nor the fact that she faked being discriminated against on the basis of her blackness... no, what I find insanely curious is the fact that...
Rachel Dolezal wasn't outed by a member of the black community.
Rachel Dolezal was outed by her pasty white parents.
That means that the black man who was asked (paid?) to pretend to be her father didn't care that she was a white woman pretending to be black and leading a part of the NAACP...
Her multiple black friends (she spent years inserted into the black community) who undoubtedly knew that she was really white said nothing...
Despite the fact that rumors had circulated for years that Rachel Dolezal was really white, and despite the fact that undoubtedly dozens of African Americans knew of the facade, not one black person cared enough to out her as a fraud when she headed the NAACP.
Instead, it was her parents who outed her - and I guarantee it had nothing to do with any sort of anger about her "appropriating black culture." After nearly six months of this charade, the parents (who had been completely cut from Rachel's life) went to the media, because her mother was upset about her being such a horrendous liar.
So... the black community that knew her didn't care enough to speak up when she went from merely faking an ethnicity to claiming to represent that ethnicity on a city-wide level. Not the people who weakly suspected her to be a fake; not the people who strongly suspected her to be a fake; not the people who knew for a fact that she was fake...
NOT ONE BLACK PERSON SAID A SINGLE WORD
Which pushes forward a single conclusion, I think:
The NAACP is irrelevant to the black community. The black community is done with other black people -real or fake- claiming to represent them. Not only that, but even those who worry about social justice (you know, the people that would have jumped over one another to befriend Rachel Dolezal after her public proclamations of victimhood) didn't care enough to do anything.I think the black community is starting to care less and less about the concept of social justice - or at the very least, the black community in Spokane. I think that's a good thing.
-and no, the outrage you see happening now in the media is irrelevant. Of course the black community has to be "outraged" at the lies; otherwise the NAACP loses total face, instead of partial face. It doesn't change the facts, though.
The NAACP is bust - and the black community knows it.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
How to Break Free of the Friend Zone
➢I hate the word "friend zone." The word feels dishonest, and time and again I find that the people who use the word are being exactly that - dishonest. That's not to say that men in general are lying idiots (no more so than the lying idiot women that inhabit the world), but rather that some men just can't help but be willing to compromise themselves when it comes to any piece of moist flesh they find their blood shafts aroused by.
Yes, this is a harsh post. I can't explain why I'm talking like this. But know that even though I write with a very, very harsh tone, much of what I say is backed with an incredible compassion towards the people who act like this - not because they want to, but because they don't know any other way of behaving.
Because of this, it's important to understand where you stand in society if you exhibit these behaviors. For those who find themselves in the friend zone (aka you find yourself attracted to a woman with whom you're "just friends," and you're dumb enough to actually use the term...), two general situations tend to apply. They are as follows.
Never mind the fact that lying and manipulation are both incredibly unattractive and happen to be the hallmarks of men with incredibly low standards. Never mind the fact that there are over 3 billion other women in the world, and you're obsessing over this one chick. Never mind the fact that this girl could be hooking you up with her one hot friend who's single if you'd just stop with the idiocy...
But hey, I'm sure there's plenty of ego-gratifying self-pity to go around in the friend zone. Listen, there's a short maxim I'd like you to memorize. I wouldn't call it an ultimate principle of life, but it's pretty damn close, so here goes:
Women of quality deserve men of quality, and vice versa - so, if the girl you like is a woman of quality, what do you you need to be in order to deserve her - hell, in order to even show up on her radar?
...now you're getting it.
Btw, I understand your predicament, you guys who are stuck in the "friend zone." You've been lying for months, maybe years. "I can't say something now, what will she think?" Well, lying hasn't gotten you anywhere this far; you might want to try something new. PS, a small number of you may have previously confessed your love to her - and it was a train wreck, then you laid low for a while while she ignored you, then you slowly got back into her good graces by either apologizing or pretending nothing had happened...
Listen: being weak and inconsistent isn't attractive either. If you're in the "friend zone," it's because you're behaving in a way that is fundamentally not sexually attractive to the girl in question. This is basic psychology.
And to answer your next question, the one you're not actually daring to ask: yes, if you're honest with the girl AND stick to your guns and choose to be someone who actually keeps to their standards, you may lose the friendship. But then again, a friendship isn't a romance, is it? And clearly the friend zone route isn't getting you anywhere. Better to have a non-friendship with a girl who respects that you have boundaries, than to have a false friendship with a girl who thinks of you as "her little brother" (and not in the erotica incest porn way either).
It's time to be honest with yourself about what you want. Hell, you might not even want the girl. You might just be super interested because she seems so unattainable and for no other reason. But whatever it is, you need to actually address it. Lying to the girl is lame, cowardly, and it's wrong. Nobody wants to be in a relationship built on a lie - whether that relationship is romantic or not. So stop torturing yourself. Be brave. Step up. Exit the friend zone. I promise, regardless of the outcome, you'll love yourself a lot more because of it.
In case you're wondering how to avoid the friend zone in the first place, take this conversation as a starting point, and work your way from there.
-and then you walk away, or change topics, and it's no big deal. I guarantee the girl has never had that happen to her in her life - and she will remember you. Alternatively, if you can manage to actually keep it in your pants when it comes to hot girls, and form a group of hot female friends that you are genuinely just friends with (remember, no bullshitting yourself on this. It has to be real.), you put yourself in a really good position to meet a lot of great women, and have women of quality vouching for you. When a girl recognizes that you are a catch, she will try to set you up with other great women in her life. Why?
Because great men are a rarity, and women love to have them in their life, even if only as friends.
Guys, forget the friend zone. Ditch the concept. Stop trapping yourselves in emotion-zapping, torturous friendships that are based on a lie. If you like a girl, be honest about it. There are 3 billion of women in the world, and most of them are a fingertip away from an introduction. Don't screw it up by lowering your standards on the hopes that one girl will lower her standards to match. You're better, and you deserve better.
~end.
PS, not that this is related or anything, but to those married people: if your spouse is your "best friend," then you're really bad at making friends. Marriages without a social life are death traps, to even the healthiest marriages.
Yes, this is a harsh post. I can't explain why I'm talking like this. But know that even though I write with a very, very harsh tone, much of what I say is backed with an incredible compassion towards the people who act like this - not because they want to, but because they don't know any other way of behaving.
Because of this, it's important to understand where you stand in society if you exhibit these behaviors. For those who find themselves in the friend zone (aka you find yourself attracted to a woman with whom you're "just friends," and you're dumb enough to actually use the term...), two general situations tend to apply. They are as follows.
The loser: "Sure she rejected me, but if I lie and pretend that I'm totally okay with just friendship, maybe one day she'll realize her mistake!"
The coward: "I haven't even stated my intentions, but maybe I can trick her into falling for me if she just gets rejected by someone else and I'm there at the right time."
Never mind the fact that lying and manipulation are both incredibly unattractive and happen to be the hallmarks of men with incredibly low standards. Never mind the fact that there are over 3 billion other women in the world, and you're obsessing over this one chick. Never mind the fact that this girl could be hooking you up with her one hot friend who's single if you'd just stop with the idiocy...
But hey, I'm sure there's plenty of ego-gratifying self-pity to go around in the friend zone. Listen, there's a short maxim I'd like you to memorize. I wouldn't call it an ultimate principle of life, but it's pretty damn close, so here goes:
If you're not willing to be honest with yourself or with the girl, you don't deserve the girl.
Women of quality deserve men of quality, and vice versa - so, if the girl you like is a woman of quality, what do you you need to be in order to deserve her - hell, in order to even show up on her radar?
...now you're getting it.
Btw, I understand your predicament, you guys who are stuck in the "friend zone." You've been lying for months, maybe years. "I can't say something now, what will she think?" Well, lying hasn't gotten you anywhere this far; you might want to try something new. PS, a small number of you may have previously confessed your love to her - and it was a train wreck, then you laid low for a while while she ignored you, then you slowly got back into her good graces by either apologizing or pretending nothing had happened...
Listen: being weak and inconsistent isn't attractive either. If you're in the "friend zone," it's because you're behaving in a way that is fundamentally not sexually attractive to the girl in question. This is basic psychology.
And to answer your next question, the one you're not actually daring to ask: yes, if you're honest with the girl AND stick to your guns and choose to be someone who actually keeps to their standards, you may lose the friendship. But then again, a friendship isn't a romance, is it? And clearly the friend zone route isn't getting you anywhere. Better to have a non-friendship with a girl who respects that you have boundaries, than to have a false friendship with a girl who thinks of you as "her little brother" (and not in the erotica incest porn way either).
It's time to be honest with yourself about what you want. Hell, you might not even want the girl. You might just be super interested because she seems so unattainable and for no other reason. But whatever it is, you need to actually address it. Lying to the girl is lame, cowardly, and it's wrong. Nobody wants to be in a relationship built on a lie - whether that relationship is romantic or not. So stop torturing yourself. Be brave. Step up. Exit the friend zone. I promise, regardless of the outcome, you'll love yourself a lot more because of it.
In case you're wondering how to avoid the friend zone in the first place, take this conversation as a starting point, and work your way from there.
"Hey, so are you single? You seem like a really cool person and I think I'd like to get to know you more."
No sorry, I have a boyfriend. We can still be friends, though.
"Nah, it's okay. To be honest, if you're as cool as you seem to be, I probably wouldn't want to be just friends with you, and I don't do the crappy sideways shit. So we won't worry about this, okay? Have a great day."
-and then you walk away, or change topics, and it's no big deal. I guarantee the girl has never had that happen to her in her life - and she will remember you. Alternatively, if you can manage to actually keep it in your pants when it comes to hot girls, and form a group of hot female friends that you are genuinely just friends with (remember, no bullshitting yourself on this. It has to be real.), you put yourself in a really good position to meet a lot of great women, and have women of quality vouching for you. When a girl recognizes that you are a catch, she will try to set you up with other great women in her life. Why?
Because great men are a rarity, and women love to have them in their life, even if only as friends.
Guys, forget the friend zone. Ditch the concept. Stop trapping yourselves in emotion-zapping, torturous friendships that are based on a lie. If you like a girl, be honest about it. There are 3 billion of women in the world, and most of them are a fingertip away from an introduction. Don't screw it up by lowering your standards on the hopes that one girl will lower her standards to match. You're better, and you deserve better.
~end.
PS, not that this is related or anything, but to those married people: if your spouse is your "best friend," then you're really bad at making friends. Marriages without a social life are death traps, to even the healthiest marriages.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Handguns, AKA the NRA's Magic Penis Pill
What, do you carry a gun to feel safe? Are you so scared of life that you have to carry a weapon everywhere??
➢ Seriously. How often does this question have to be asked?
Okay, fine. I'll answer.
You know how house robbers scout before picking their mark? They look for certain clues, certain visuals that indicate to them a good victim. Why? Because criminals are lazy. They'd rather pick an easy mark than prepare for a difficult mark. That's why house robbers prefer people who are on vacation, for example.
It's also why criminals are vastly in favor of increased gun regulation. They also tend to lean heavily democrat, but that's a story for another time. Side note: want to knock down the chances of a break-in by nearly 100%? Put a pro-NRA sign on your lawn, and a fake security system sticker in your window.
...but we were talking about me carrying a gun on my daily routine, not about me being smart in protecting my home.
In general, a person carrying a gun for self defense purposes will carry that gun for... well.. self defense. But just for fun, let's talk about one of the street crimes that will more commonly come to mind: getting mugged.
Muggers are criminals. And like all criminals, muggers are also lazy, and fond of success. So like all successful criminals, successful muggers target people who have the highest potential to be easy victims, and they use strategies that are the most effective on these easy targets.
"Duh," you may say. "Tell me something I don't know."
Sure. I'll tell you how muggers pick their marks.
Muggers pick people with bad body language who appear unaware of their surroundings.
Muggers us the tools of fear and intimidation to get what they want.
Read that again, and let it sink in. And if that describes you, you should probably work on that.
This is a fairly simple and straightforward formula, but you see... people are incredibly stupid - which is why they wander around all day with their face in their iPhone and hunched shoulders.
The body language is important because people who have poor body language tend to be people who are lower on the social ladder - which means that they are more easily cowed and controlled (sorry to say it. It's true. If you're offended, you're the problem, and should immediately invest in growing a spine.). Lack of situational awareness means that you are easily thrown off guard, and when threatened, will most likely freeze in fear rather than actually defend yourself.
By the way, this is a good time to address a common myth: there is no such thing as a fight-or-flight response. There is, however, a fight-or-flight-or-freeze response. And it's that last response that muggers count on when they pick their target.
This is why I carry a gun, and train with it. This is also why I work on my posture and body language, and try to be aware of my surroundings. Here comes the counter-intuitive part...
I do this not necessarily because I want to be able to shoot any potential muggers dead in their tracks, but because my training makes it far less likely that I will need to do so. By improving my body language and situational awareness and carrying a gun (in my case, I currently open carry), I immediately put myself in the "do not fuck with" category of any mugger I happen to pass. Why?
Because muggers are lazy. And hey, if I happen to come across someone else being mugged, I now have the bonus of being able to stop it, because (surprise) guns trump knives.
In short, I don't carry a gun because I'm scared... I carry a gun because I'm not. I just happen to recognize a good tool when I see it.
➢ Seriously. How often does this question have to be asked?
Okay, fine. I'll answer.
You know how house robbers scout before picking their mark? They look for certain clues, certain visuals that indicate to them a good victim. Why? Because criminals are lazy. They'd rather pick an easy mark than prepare for a difficult mark. That's why house robbers prefer people who are on vacation, for example.
It's also why criminals are vastly in favor of increased gun regulation. They also tend to lean heavily democrat, but that's a story for another time. Side note: want to knock down the chances of a break-in by nearly 100%? Put a pro-NRA sign on your lawn, and a fake security system sticker in your window.
...but we were talking about me carrying a gun on my daily routine, not about me being smart in protecting my home.
In general, a person carrying a gun for self defense purposes will carry that gun for... well.. self defense. But just for fun, let's talk about one of the street crimes that will more commonly come to mind: getting mugged.
Muggers are criminals. And like all criminals, muggers are also lazy, and fond of success. So like all successful criminals, successful muggers target people who have the highest potential to be easy victims, and they use strategies that are the most effective on these easy targets.
"Duh," you may say. "Tell me something I don't know."
Sure. I'll tell you how muggers pick their marks.
Muggers pick people with bad body language who appear unaware of their surroundings.
Muggers us the tools of fear and intimidation to get what they want.
Read that again, and let it sink in. And if that describes you, you should probably work on that.
This is a fairly simple and straightforward formula, but you see... people are incredibly stupid - which is why they wander around all day with their face in their iPhone and hunched shoulders.
The body language is important because people who have poor body language tend to be people who are lower on the social ladder - which means that they are more easily cowed and controlled (sorry to say it. It's true. If you're offended, you're the problem, and should immediately invest in growing a spine.). Lack of situational awareness means that you are easily thrown off guard, and when threatened, will most likely freeze in fear rather than actually defend yourself.
By the way, this is a good time to address a common myth: there is no such thing as a fight-or-flight response. There is, however, a fight-or-flight-or-freeze response. And it's that last response that muggers count on when they pick their target.
This is why I carry a gun, and train with it. This is also why I work on my posture and body language, and try to be aware of my surroundings. Here comes the counter-intuitive part...
I do this not necessarily because I want to be able to shoot any potential muggers dead in their tracks, but because my training makes it far less likely that I will need to do so. By improving my body language and situational awareness and carrying a gun (in my case, I currently open carry), I immediately put myself in the "do not fuck with" category of any mugger I happen to pass. Why?
Because muggers are lazy. And hey, if I happen to come across someone else being mugged, I now have the bonus of being able to stop it, because (surprise) guns trump knives.
In short, I don't carry a gun because I'm scared... I carry a gun because I'm not. I just happen to recognize a good tool when I see it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
To Touch Her Flesh
➢This is perfect. And awesome. Copied from here. I had to put this on the blog, not only to share, but as a reminder for myself.
FOR THE MEN: on what your touch does for women's bodies
Women don't know what their bodies feel like until you touch them. All of them. Their hair, their feet, the back of the knees, that little spot on the back of the neck, behind the ears, between the toes, that nook where her thigh bones meet her pelvis, in between her butt cheeks.... EVERYWHERE. Some places are so well hidden we've never felt ourselves there.
We often don't know we have bodies until we are touched all over the place and touched A LOT.
This is why some women LOVE to be touched and will lean in like a pretty kitty, and others will be shy about being touched or not want it at all. Not everyone is ready for the body experience, not everyone is ready to let go of pain and shame.
What women really NEED to relax into their sensual bodies is a space where they are not expected to give back or feel threatened by a fear of loss or abandonment. They need TIME. They need to move through all their own trust and surrender thresholds. This can challenge you if you feel inadequate of have a lot of sexual shame yourself, and that's good, because all her trust thresholds will help you dissolve your own discomforts and fears.
Great sex, great intimacy, great pleasure requires time. No rushing. No pushing. She needs time to sink into her body and relax into you and the experience.
Being touched and touching is an art form in and of itself. Giving and receiving energy. Your hands communicate SO much from the pressure you exert, the speed at which you move, the attention you put into it. She can feel in an instant how confident you are about your body and hers, if you are afraid to hurt her too much so you're holding back your sexuality, if you're not really giving to her unconditionally but you just want something, if you are trying to manipulate....
She can feel it in SECONDS whether she's aware of it or not. And her body will respond or recoil. SECONDS.
Your hands communicate everything. More than your words. She can feel how present or not present you are just by how you touch her.
No you can't save a woman or activate her inner goddess for the sake of your own spiritualized ego. If you're doing that then get a grip and take care of your own shit before you go around trying to open women to prove to yourself how much of a masculine man you are. Seriously, it's gross and manipulative so stop it and forgive yourself if that's what you've been doing.
No you can't love a woman more than she loves herself. Well, I guess you can, but you'll be frustrated every-time. This is not a thing where you can touch her enough for her to realize how amazing she is.
This is what intention is. Precision. Purpose. And you can practice honing your attention in your own touch of your woman.
If you're into creating harmony and peace in partnerships, then this is a key role you will play in her life. It's not your job, but it's a gift you give in service because when you see the exponential results of your investment here, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
FOR THE MEN: on what your touch does for women's bodies
Women don't know what their bodies feel like until you touch them. All of them. Their hair, their feet, the back of the knees, that little spot on the back of the neck, behind the ears, between the toes, that nook where her thigh bones meet her pelvis, in between her butt cheeks.... EVERYWHERE. Some places are so well hidden we've never felt ourselves there.
We often don't know we have bodies until we are touched all over the place and touched A LOT.
This is why some women LOVE to be touched and will lean in like a pretty kitty, and others will be shy about being touched or not want it at all. Not everyone is ready for the body experience, not everyone is ready to let go of pain and shame.
What women really NEED to relax into their sensual bodies is a space where they are not expected to give back or feel threatened by a fear of loss or abandonment. They need TIME. They need to move through all their own trust and surrender thresholds. This can challenge you if you feel inadequate of have a lot of sexual shame yourself, and that's good, because all her trust thresholds will help you dissolve your own discomforts and fears.
Great sex, great intimacy, great pleasure requires time. No rushing. No pushing. She needs time to sink into her body and relax into you and the experience.
Being touched and touching is an art form in and of itself. Giving and receiving energy. Your hands communicate SO much from the pressure you exert, the speed at which you move, the attention you put into it. She can feel in an instant how confident you are about your body and hers, if you are afraid to hurt her too much so you're holding back your sexuality, if you're not really giving to her unconditionally but you just want something, if you are trying to manipulate....
She can feel it in SECONDS whether she's aware of it or not. And her body will respond or recoil. SECONDS.
Your hands communicate everything. More than your words. She can feel how present or not present you are just by how you touch her.
No you can't save a woman or activate her inner goddess for the sake of your own spiritualized ego. If you're doing that then get a grip and take care of your own shit before you go around trying to open women to prove to yourself how much of a masculine man you are. Seriously, it's gross and manipulative so stop it and forgive yourself if that's what you've been doing.
No you can't love a woman more than she loves herself. Well, I guess you can, but you'll be frustrated every-time. This is not a thing where you can touch her enough for her to realize how amazing she is.
This is what intention is. Precision. Purpose. And you can practice honing your attention in your own touch of your woman.
If you're into creating harmony and peace in partnerships, then this is a key role you will play in her life. It's not your job, but it's a gift you give in service because when you see the exponential results of your investment here, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Hey Babe, You Hungry?
➢ This line is so common it's a bad joke.
What's bizarre, is how little men STILL understand what the woman is saying.
Let me clue you in: the answer will almost ALWAYS be "I don't know."
"I don't know" is translation for, "Listen honey, I know you want to take care of me and you're doing it by prioritizing my needs, and I appreciate it. But this is food... it's not a need, it's a desire - and you're not even stating what you want, which means you're not just prioritizing me, you're discounting your own desires entirely in favor of my own. That's really unattractive. I want a man who is decisive and who leads, and who gets me. You don't get me, which is why you have to ask me. If I really had a preference for food, I'd have hinted and you'd have picked up the hint. But clearly I haven't hinted or you're not paying attention to me, and I'm not too happy about it. In either case, the way you redeem yourself is by growing some balls and LEADING me somewhere. Babe, it's not about the food, it's about spending time with you - most restaurants have enough menu items that I can always find something I want. So for Pete's sake be a man and pick something.... I don't know, what do you want?"
PS, fellas... if you were a real man, you'd make life an adventure, and live adventurously. If you make being with you fun and exciting and challenging for her, she will follow you everywhere, even to restaurants she hates. Would you rather she be in love with a guy who makes her feel happy, excited, and on her toes? Or would you rather her be bored, with your balls in a little plastic box she carries in her purse while she eats food that she kinda likes but is ultimately irrelevant because flavors fade?
It's not about the flavors. It's about the experience.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Defeat Gender Roles with this One Easy Trick
➢Some feminists claim that there aren't any innate differences between men and women, but that gender roles are purely societal constructs. Let's take this down logic road shall we?
If men and women are inherently the same, then the patriarchy is is either a social construct, or a mass conspiracy by all men.
BUT: many feminists also claim that masculine oppression of the feminine is a worldwide phenomenon that stretches through history. It'd have to be a hell of a coincidence for two completely equal sexes to have such singularly one-sided oppression occur over every single society, so it's clearly not a social construct.
Thus, the only reasonable conclusion for the consistent oppression of one gender by a gender with no innate character difference is conspiracy....
Across continents, centuries, different cultures, and language barriers, with no real proof of global collusion ever surfacing. Which is completely idiotic. This leads to one conclusion:
The patriarchy is the matrix.
And you are a battery.
➢Side note: if feminists want to claim that men and women are intrinsically the same, AND that men have systematically oppressed women, this has real world implications.
The first is this: if men and women are equal, and women outnumber men in many societies (for example, America), then we HAVE to conclude that women are co-conspirators in their own oppression on the whole.
The second, more menacing, is this: if men and women are the same, and men have systematically oppressed women, this suggests that feminists believe women have the same instinct to oppress - they just happen to be worse at it than men, historically. Which brings us back to the feminist movement as it is happening today... are they really rooting for equality?
Probably not.
If men and women are inherently the same, then the patriarchy is is either a social construct, or a mass conspiracy by all men.
BUT: many feminists also claim that masculine oppression of the feminine is a worldwide phenomenon that stretches through history. It'd have to be a hell of a coincidence for two completely equal sexes to have such singularly one-sided oppression occur over every single society, so it's clearly not a social construct.
Thus, the only reasonable conclusion for the consistent oppression of one gender by a gender with no innate character difference is conspiracy....
Across continents, centuries, different cultures, and language barriers, with no real proof of global collusion ever surfacing. Which is completely idiotic. This leads to one conclusion:
The patriarchy is the matrix.
And you are a battery.
➢Side note: if feminists want to claim that men and women are intrinsically the same, AND that men have systematically oppressed women, this has real world implications.
The first is this: if men and women are equal, and women outnumber men in many societies (for example, America), then we HAVE to conclude that women are co-conspirators in their own oppression on the whole.
The second, more menacing, is this: if men and women are the same, and men have systematically oppressed women, this suggests that feminists believe women have the same instinct to oppress - they just happen to be worse at it than men, historically. Which brings us back to the feminist movement as it is happening today... are they really rooting for equality?
Probably not.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Nazi Germany and the Christian Conundrum
A long time ago when I was back in high school, I had a fondness for debating theology online. One of the most annoying discussions I ever had at the age of 17 centered around moral absolutism - what is the length that we will go not to sin?
I don't remember the exact question posed to me nearly a decade ago, other than it being something about a man and a gun and being given an ultimatum to renounce my faith or someone dies.
But this past year the question surfaced again, with a new face upon it.
I was visiting two friends in Ohio, and found (to my utter astonishment) a church that I actually enjoyed attending! To most people this might be a minor joy, but to a man with an undiagnosed condition that causes him to pass out in the middle of lecture series-type events, this was nothing short of a miracle.
Until the pastor defended selling out the Jews to Nazis.
Of course, that's a bit hyperbolic. The sermon was about lying, and the importance of not making excuses for lying. One thing that I was astonished by was the fact that the pastor explicitly invited people to stay around after the sermon for a question-and-answer session. Never in my 25 years have I seen that happen at a church, and being the natural asshole that I am, I had to stay. Cue up the IRL version of Godwin's law.
And dammit, someone beat me to the punch.
What about those Christians hiding Jews during WWII in Nazi Germany? It wasn't uncommon for the secret police to go around looking for Jews that were still hiding inside the country. If you were hiding Jews, and the SS came to your door and asked, would you lie, or would you tell the truth?
I mean, hey, let's not beat around the bush, right? What might be described as the most polite, Christianly-loving all-out debating war broke out between the asker, the pastor, and myself. He thought that in such a scenario, it's impossible to justify lying simply because we think killing is worse. Myself, I was in the camp of, "I'm gonna lie my ass off to the Nazi bastards." Then again, I never was the best at public debates. We parted cordially, and I got an email address from the pastor. Again, I was really, really impressed. If I didn't live several hundred miles away from the church, I'd gladly attend there regularly.
This is the email I wrote, edited because I'm probably incredibly vain:
Hey Zach,
Jonathan here. I visited the church with [my two friends] and had a few zealous questions that got interrupted by [friend]. I wanted to complete my thoughts and get your response, but before I proceed I just wanted to make it clear that I completely respect your opinions, lest my eagerness to contradict you in the questioning session implied otherwise. :) Anyways, onto the topic:
My contention that the truthfulness should be considered a vocal absolute comes from multiple directions, but let me continue for a moment from where we left off. We discussed the example of Nazi Germany, and the idea of moral absolutism.
To be upfront, I agree with moral absolutism. I don't think there are some sins that are "more [spiritually] acceptable" than others. However, I don't think that the question of lying to a Nazi is a question of 'which moral is more important.'
I brought up the idea of honor in the ANE, and the concept of being responsible for others, and one's honor being tied (in part) to one's ability to care for those who are under oneself. If I take someone under my protection, there is a contract between myself and that person - I have promised to care for them. In the case of hiding Jews in Nazi Germany, I have promised to hide them from the Nazis and protect their very lives against what is plausibly one of the more visible forms of evil that have existed in this world.
So it is the case, that if I promise to hide someone and take them under my care, and a group of Nazi SS come to my door asking if I am hiding Jews, I am faced with a conundrum. The conundrum is NOT one of killing vs lying (aka, it is not a question of moral absolutism). Rather, the question is one of truth vs truth: do I tell a lie and say that I am hiding no one, or do I turn my commitment to protection into a lie?
I would far rather *risk* sacrificing my reputation with a faceless Nazi SS officer, than to choose to sacrifice my integrity and my honor as a man who can be trusted to protect those who come to him for help. This is the point that I wished to make previously, but perhaps wasn't as eloquent in saying: when it comes to those extreme examples, my honor and integrity to God comes first, and I think it absolutely inarguable to state that it is more honoring to God to deceive a Nazi SS officer (whether by misinformation, omission, distraction, what have you), than to give up a person to whom I have righteously promised my protection.
This of course is not to detract from the rest of your sermon, the large part of which I found myself agreeing with to a large part. I don't say that lightly, either. I rarely find sermons to be applicable (let alone accessible on a personal level), and you are the only pastor I've seen who intentionally takes questions at the end of a sermon. I cannot tell you the level of appreciation I have for both of these traits I have observed. If I lived locally in Ohio instead of visiting all the way from [my state], I would certainly be coming back next week. :)
Sincerely,
Jonathan
The pastor responded in a much less verbose manner; I've included the relevant portions:
Jonathan,
In the scenario that you paint, one of pitting a "promise" against a "promise" I don't disagree with your conclusion.
My concern, however, is that we run to that scenario - one which is very limited and very specific - and create a template for saying, "So, there might be other cases where this kind of thing is okay" and find ourselves never really dealing with our own deceit and deception.
Thanks for coming and for sending this email. Have a great week.
There you have it... sort of permission to baldly lie to the face of a Nazi.
Should you ever end up in 1940's Nazi Germany that is.
Don't forget your Nazi uniform. And maybe leave the Stars and Stripes underwear at home.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Let's Avoid 1984, Darling
So Indiana passed a new law recently that essentially affirmed the rights of individuals to decline to engage in free business transactions if their religion compels them to do so, without fear of retribution from the government.
Well, sort of - if you don't want to buy insurance for religious or personal reasons, there's still that "tax" that will kick you in the ass to penalize you for *not* buying something. But I digress.
The interesting thing is, this law isn't the important thing. Indiana already had an endearingly large lack of anti-discrimination laws present, and thus the law is more symbolic than anything else.
So of course, twitter must therefore symbolically shit its pants - or embroiled itself in righteous indignation, depending on the color of the pants of the person you ask.
The law didn't say anything about the kind of discrimination which a business could commit on religious grounds, nor did it specify any religions. However, many people seemed to think that a stunning lack of any specific mention whatsoever implicitly means that the law is condoning Christian businesses denying business to LGBT folk.
And of course at this point in the conversation the Colorado bakery comes up. It always does. Let me ask a quick question: this one story hit the news like a thunderclap, but where were the followup stories revealing hundreds of cases of gay individuals being denied baked goods on account of their sexual activity?
If the answer can fit on one hand out of a nation of over 300 million people, I'm going to guess that discrimination isn't really a problem right now - at least as far as anti-gay discrimination is concerned.
You see, it's not the whole phrase that the enraged care about, it's only that first half: "anti-gay." The other word is fine to them, depending on the usage.
And that is in fact the phrase I've come across: "protected class." Gays are special, drunks are not.
So then, what do you do when a drunk gay man walks into a store and the owner throws him out?
This is the second, important part, for those of you who find Indiana's law to be atrocious.
If you take offense, then you truly believe that gays are a special class - not just above drunks, but above the public in general. This is classism. The alternative is that you believe businesses should never discriminate ever, in which case God help you if a gunman ever enters your minimart.
If you don't take offense, then you've got a separate problem. If you're okay with a store owner throwing out a drunken gay man because he's drunk, and not because he's gay, then the source of your anger has nothing to do with his act of discrimination, but the thoughts that were in his head before he chose to commit that action.
In other words, bigotry is officially a state-enforced thought crime in Colorado. And you're cheering it on only because you don't like the particular thoughts in question.
This of course is an inevitable result; the thought crime is only a step away from a hate crime.
For instance, a hate crime like racially-driven murder, wherein certain parts of society take umbrage that, not only was the murderer filled with murderous contempt during the time of the murder, but that there were also some bigoted thoughts going on as well. This of course makes the murder extra scary - though I imagine to the man who's been murdered, it doesn't make a lick of difference.
As I said before, the REAL lesson here is to be taken not from the words of the law, nor from its passing, but rather from the reaction that it caused.
Because we now know that there is a sizeable portion of the society who would rather accept the concept of thought crimes into law and who would rather give up freedoms of commerce rather than allow a lesbian couple to have a sad face and find another bakery to bake their cake.
Nearing the end of this post, I'll address what seems to be the most coherent argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws. This was posted as a comment by TJ, aka "The Amazing Atheist" in the comments section of his youtube video on the subject, found here.
TJ, when you open a business, you are NOT serving the community; you are serving your customers. The "community" is only available to access your business on the terms that you choose; this is in part why businesses are allowed to have closing hours. Remember, a philosophy is not a contractual obligation - the only time when a business is literally serving the community is when it is doing government-contracted work.
It is also patently false to assert that discrimination against a particular sect undermines general commerce - the only commerce it affects is that of the business owner. Moreover, to assert that denial of service by one business constitutes a relegation to second class citizen is preposterous, and is a logical conflation. Moreover, I can guarantee that you yourself, if you owned a building that you allowed the public to access, would choose to remove "particular segments" of society; several of those segments have already been named, but I think we can comfortably expand the list to include rapists, extremist Muslims, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
While it is true that laws are legally binding, the mere existence of a law does not ipso facto justify its existence, and businesses have no reason to believe that laws against discrimination bring societal cohesion, since well over half of the states have existed just fine without them (as you yourself pointed out). Positive societal change has always come despite the government, rather than at the hands of it. I'll remind you what happened the last time the government tried to provide "social cohesion" - the death tolls reigned in the tens of millions.
Of course, all this dialogue ignores an incredibly pertinent question to ask: if a business owner decides to deny business to a gay couple immediately after learning that they're gay, but refuses to state his reason...
How far are you willing to go to try to read the business owner's mind and prove that he was thinking anti-gay things before you realize just how willing you are to punish thought crimes?
Personally, if I saw that lesbian couple from the bakery fiasco enter my shop, I'd be inclined to deny them service - not because they're lesbians, but because they're the type of people who would be okay with the destruction of someone's life work simply because that person was brave enough to stand for what they believe in, and that thing happened to be the "wrong" thing.
Destruction of someone's life based on religious opinion is not only despicable, but quite possibly evil. And that lesbian couple can go fuck themselves.
...in Christianly love, of course.
Well, sort of - if you don't want to buy insurance for religious or personal reasons, there's still that "tax" that will kick you in the ass to penalize you for *not* buying something. But I digress.
The interesting thing is, this law isn't the important thing. Indiana already had an endearingly large lack of anti-discrimination laws present, and thus the law is more symbolic than anything else.
So of course, twitter must therefore symbolically shit its pants - or embroiled itself in righteous indignation, depending on the color of the pants of the person you ask.
The law didn't say anything about the kind of discrimination which a business could commit on religious grounds, nor did it specify any religions. However, many people seemed to think that a stunning lack of any specific mention whatsoever implicitly means that the law is condoning Christian businesses denying business to LGBT folk.
And of course at this point in the conversation the Colorado bakery comes up. It always does. Let me ask a quick question: this one story hit the news like a thunderclap, but where were the followup stories revealing hundreds of cases of gay individuals being denied baked goods on account of their sexual activity?
If the answer can fit on one hand out of a nation of over 300 million people, I'm going to guess that discrimination isn't really a problem right now - at least as far as anti-gay discrimination is concerned.
You see, it's not the whole phrase that the enraged care about, it's only that first half: "anti-gay." The other word is fine to them, depending on the usage.
Is the customer an asshole? "Oh sure, discriminate against him, that's fine."
Is the customer drunk? "Oh yeah, kick him out!"
Is the customer a formerly convicted pedophile? "I'd beat him up myself!"
Is the customer gay? "No sorry, they're a protected class, and not to be trifled with."
And that is in fact the phrase I've come across: "protected class." Gays are special, drunks are not.
So then, what do you do when a drunk gay man walks into a store and the owner throws him out?
This is the second, important part, for those of you who find Indiana's law to be atrocious.
If you take offense, then you truly believe that gays are a special class - not just above drunks, but above the public in general. This is classism. The alternative is that you believe businesses should never discriminate ever, in which case God help you if a gunman ever enters your minimart.
If you don't take offense, then you've got a separate problem. If you're okay with a store owner throwing out a drunken gay man because he's drunk, and not because he's gay, then the source of your anger has nothing to do with his act of discrimination, but the thoughts that were in his head before he chose to commit that action.
In other words, bigotry is officially a state-enforced thought crime in Colorado. And you're cheering it on only because you don't like the particular thoughts in question.
This of course is an inevitable result; the thought crime is only a step away from a hate crime.
For instance, a hate crime like racially-driven murder, wherein certain parts of society take umbrage that, not only was the murderer filled with murderous contempt during the time of the murder, but that there were also some bigoted thoughts going on as well. This of course makes the murder extra scary - though I imagine to the man who's been murdered, it doesn't make a lick of difference.
As I said before, the REAL lesson here is to be taken not from the words of the law, nor from its passing, but rather from the reaction that it caused.
Because we now know that there is a sizeable portion of the society who would rather accept the concept of thought crimes into law and who would rather give up freedoms of commerce rather than allow a lesbian couple to have a sad face and find another bakery to bake their cake.
Nearing the end of this post, I'll address what seems to be the most coherent argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws. This was posted as a comment by TJ, aka "The Amazing Atheist" in the comments section of his youtube video on the subject, found here.
...when you open a business, you are serving the community. To discriminate against a particular segment of society undermines all of commerce and it relegates people in the community to second class citizen status. I think the freedom of the consumers far outweigh the freedom of business owners. All businesses must operate within the laws of the society they exist within (except for black markets, of course). Laws against discrimination are just one of many requirements businesses should be expected to cooperate with for the sake of societal cohesion. If they do not wish to comply, I do not wish for them to be in business.
It is also patently false to assert that discrimination against a particular sect undermines general commerce - the only commerce it affects is that of the business owner. Moreover, to assert that denial of service by one business constitutes a relegation to second class citizen is preposterous, and is a logical conflation. Moreover, I can guarantee that you yourself, if you owned a building that you allowed the public to access, would choose to remove "particular segments" of society; several of those segments have already been named, but I think we can comfortably expand the list to include rapists, extremist Muslims, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
While it is true that laws are legally binding, the mere existence of a law does not ipso facto justify its existence, and businesses have no reason to believe that laws against discrimination bring societal cohesion, since well over half of the states have existed just fine without them (as you yourself pointed out). Positive societal change has always come despite the government, rather than at the hands of it. I'll remind you what happened the last time the government tried to provide "social cohesion" - the death tolls reigned in the tens of millions.
Of course, all this dialogue ignores an incredibly pertinent question to ask: if a business owner decides to deny business to a gay couple immediately after learning that they're gay, but refuses to state his reason...
How far are you willing to go to try to read the business owner's mind and prove that he was thinking anti-gay things before you realize just how willing you are to punish thought crimes?
Personally, if I saw that lesbian couple from the bakery fiasco enter my shop, I'd be inclined to deny them service - not because they're lesbians, but because they're the type of people who would be okay with the destruction of someone's life work simply because that person was brave enough to stand for what they believe in, and that thing happened to be the "wrong" thing.
Destruction of someone's life based on religious opinion is not only despicable, but quite possibly evil. And that lesbian couple can go fuck themselves.
...in Christianly love, of course.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Prevent Rape Today!
I chanced upon the #Feminism hashtag on twitter, and I saw this beauty of a picture. Indeed, it's brilliance was so overwhelmingly bright that I was inspired to write a response, an ode if you will, to its utter and sheer magnificence. This follows below.
For those that are at risk, these are some great rape prevention tips. #feminism pic.twitter.com/1olg0gGuw6
— Jeremiah Gibbs (@jeremiah_gibbs) March 21, 2015
Hark! What an intelligent sentiment! I should ask for consent! And here I was, an almost-rapist, somehow thinking that women had no capacity for reason or choice! My, what a mistake I almost made, but you sir, despite your posting this merely with the intention of taking pleasure in preaching downwards to other people, you have saved me!
Of course, I know not of all those other rapists who rape women despite a lack of consent because they simply do not care about a woman's consent, but forget helping women watch out for such a monster! Nay, this one picture has changed me through snarky shaming, and now the world is ever so slightly better off!
And mayhaps there are more poor ignorant would-be rapists, caught in such a position only because they couldn't figure out how to tell if a woman is non-consenting though such obvious signs as kicking, screaming, and saying the word "no." What a marvelous concept, this wonderful sign!
Lo, what a great service you do, pretending that rape only occurs because of idiot men! Surely your great deed here shall be remembered for all time, having stopped at least one potential rapist! Never mind the reinforcement of the ignorant stereotype that rapists have no clue what they're doing, or the perpetuation of the idea that women shouldn't defend themselves, nay, this one sign, I declare: it has wrought GOOD in this world.
Women! Care not for carrying mace or making smart decisions about who you spend time around; merely show the men in your life this sign, and all shall be well! Homeowners, fret not about an unlocked door or car with an open window, merely place a sign snarking at robbers, and surely they will repent of their ways! Men of the Cloth! Forget not that humans are a flawed species prone to evil, and merely tell them not to do bad things any more, and surely those evil among us shall stop!
For is this not the way of things? No man is evil, except that he forget not to rape or steal in the morn! And lo, those among us unfortunate enough to have forgotten not to kill, for clearly such otherwise clean men did not murder out of malice or intent to destroy the life of another despite their lack of consent, no! We merely forgot to show them a twitter post telling them in a snarky manner to avoid killing while pretending that all men are so stupid as to not know the value of life!
QUICK MAN, write another sign! Soon we shall stop all crime! Woe to the ignorant criminals who know not what they do!
Now if only I knew what to do with all this Rohypnol that I so innocently bought...
Society Is a Terrible Lover
I have a theory. Bear with me for a moment, because it's a doozy.
Today you hear all this hullabaloo about "don't get married yet! Figure out who you are first!"
Yes, I call it hullabaloo. It's total horsescrap. Know how I know? Just look at history.
For the larger part of history, relationships went something like this:
- child spends most of young life learning the trades/duties of his/her parents
- child hits puberty
- young adult meets a girl, or as was more often the case, is arranged with a girl
- young adult gets married at the ripe age of 16
Now, there are some people probably muttering to themselves, "but they also lived shorter lives, too! That's why they did it!"
No, to those dimwits. There was never a point in time where someone said to themselves "gee, we're dying at age 35, maybe we should try marrying the kids at a younger age!"
Nor has the increase in life span dictated a later marrying age, vague correlation does not make causation.
The reason why people wait longer to marry is for two very explicit reasons:
Meanwhile, time passes by, and you spend years in a state of being nature never intended you for. It's no wonder our current state of humanity is fucked up.
And why do you think it is that the longer someone waits to get married, the harder it is for that person to form a romantic relationship, or create a stable marriage?
Maybe it's because when they finally "found" themselves...
Today you hear all this hullabaloo about "don't get married yet! Figure out who you are first!"
Yes, I call it hullabaloo. It's total horsescrap. Know how I know? Just look at history.
For the larger part of history, relationships went something like this:
- child spends most of young life learning the trades/duties of his/her parents
- child hits puberty
- young adult meets a girl, or as was more often the case, is arranged with a girl
- young adult gets married at the ripe age of 16
Now, there are some people probably muttering to themselves, "but they also lived shorter lives, too! That's why they did it!"
No, to those dimwits. There was never a point in time where someone said to themselves "gee, we're dying at age 35, maybe we should try marrying the kids at a younger age!"
Nor has the increase in life span dictated a later marrying age, vague correlation does not make causation.
The reason why people wait longer to marry is for two very explicit reasons:
- Education has forcibly lengthened the "childhood" years beyond the puberty stage.
- Many of the basic social skills by which people meet and attract each other has failed to pass from one generation to the next, owing to such factors as the breakdown of communities and the nuclear family, the war of the sexes, and the internet. Yes, I did just say the internet. Yes, I understand the irony.
Casting the second reason aside for the moment, I'd like to make a very obvious point that, despite being obvious, many people seem to miss. We like to laugh at the idiotic rebelliousness of children that seems to magically appear during puberty. We think to ourselves, "oh they think they know everything, don't they? I used to think that too, until I got older and realized how stupid I was."
Here's the obvious point: maybe kids hitting puberty are supposed to know everything about adulthood by that age - and society has completely failed to prepare them for it. The fact that this fierce inclination towards independence that occurs during puberty is no mistake on nature's part, that's meant to happen: what's not meant to happen is for kids to hit puberty, try to be an adult, and get rebuked by society and forced to remain a child for the next 4-8 years.
And of course, you shouldn't be married if you're a child, now should you. And since neither society nor the family ever helped you form your identity (radical notion: your identity is NOT something you magically conjure from the abyss of self-consciousness), you get told that you need to set out on a vague, meaningless journey to "find yourself."
Meanwhile, time passes by, and you spend years in a state of being nature never intended you for. It's no wonder our current state of humanity is fucked up.
The brain doesn't hit maturity until somewhere around age 25, and yet for the vast majority of humanity's existence, marriage has been somewhere around the age of 16. This sounds silly, until you ditch the "find out who you are first" line.
Maybe, just maybe, we're meant to figure out who we are with another person. We're supposed to marry while our identity isn't solidified. Perhaps our identity is supposed to intermingle directly with another person. After all, why do you think people use the phrase "my other half" to refer to their spouse?
And why do you think it is that the longer someone waits to get married, the harder it is for that person to form a romantic relationship, or create a stable marriage?
Maybe it's because when they finally "found" themselves...
They were utterly alone - and that's their identity.
Why Some Men Suck at Relationships
"Omg dude look at that girl!"
"... Dat ass, man. Dat ass. I'd do her."
"Dude you don't even know...."
I work a job that pairs me with men, and I witness this conversation from time to time. The younger the men, the more often it happens, regardless of whether or not the men are married.
What bugs me isn't the married aspect; I've seen married guys and girls talk this way enough to know that it's almost always just that - talk.
What bugs me is the assumptions behind the conversation. "I'd do her." Based on what? Clearly not her personality, or her attitude, or even her smile. Often the convo happens based solely on the view from behind, with an incomplete picture of what the girl looks like.
Acquiescence to sex based on just a few attractive body parts. That bugs me. It bugs me because of the implication, a mindset that I have witnessed time and again in man after man, to an alarmingly high percentage.
'She is worthy of mating simply by virtue of being attractive; I am not worthy of mating and must convince her to like and want me."
And it pisses me off - not merely because that mindset is completely unattractive (though it is horrendously so), but because it is so indicative of masculinity today.
Not a toxic masculinity, like so many feminists are convinced of, but a degraded masculinity. A masculinity destroyed by multiple factors in our society, starting at birth and continuing into adulthood.
A baby boy is borne. Immediately, half of the nerves in his penis are cut off in a procedure known as "circumcision," a process in the past justified by now disproven medical ideas or with the intention of stopping masturbation. Today the reasons are tradition, religion, and "I think a boy looks better cut."
That male child grows up, governed mostly by his mother in a world where half of marriages are broken by divorce and in which single motherhood is lauded, to the bewilderment of every sociologist.
For the boy, there is no "Wait til your father gets home!" His mother, the nurturer, is also his father.
Even if his parents are still together, the boy spends most of his time with his mother while the father works, or at daycare under the supervision of women while both of his parents work.
The boy goes to school, and again is both taught and under the authority of mostly female teachers, where he must sit still in a state of passivity and accept teaching while stifling any urges to run and explore. He meets other girls, and learns quickly this simple rule: "you can't hit girls. Never ever hit a girl, even when they hit you."
Never mind that boys and girls are of near equal strength up until puberty. Boys can't hit girls. And if girls hit a boy? Well.... Boys can't hit girls.
Finally the boy hits puberty. Fascinating new urges hit his body and he experiences new feelings and responses to the female sex. But he is unsure what to do. Women have always been the authority over him, and his urges to take responsibility for his own life are stifled five or more years of school and female authority.
If you were to ask him why he has trouble talking to girls he might shyly look to the side and stammer, "I dunno." His father never taught him how to be a man. The time when boys had become men for the past ten thousand years has come and gone, and he is still treated as a child by the authorities over him, most of whom are still women. He feels unhappy and unfulfilled at a deep level, and has no idea why.
If he's lucky, he won't have been put on rydalin or any one of many drugs assigned almost exclusively to any boys who are more active than the female teachers would prefer.
And this is only in the first eighteen years of his life.
Finally the boy makes it to college, his first real breath of freedom and individual responsibility - whereupon the first lesson he's taught in orientation is that men are rapists, and need to be educated on what consent is (As if the only difference between a rapist and consent is that the rapist was just terribly uninformed). He's told that if other men rape, he's responsible for that. If he suggests at all any smart things a girl could do to avoid rape, he is accused of rape apology and victim blaming.
He attend classes which are again dominated by female teachers, and forced to sit in a passive manner in the same boring fashion he's experienced for the past twelve years.
He gets told that men are oppressive monsters while women are underprivileged, even as he notices a larger percentage of females in college, and a larger percentage of female graduates, and - not unironically - a larger percentage of female-only scholarships and grants.
The young man watches as a fellow classmate is accused of rape, a rape he is sure never happened, and witnesses his classmate's reputation is destroyed, along with his grades and his ability to attend the college anymore, based solely on an unfounded accusation. He researches online, and discovers story after story of men who have been out in jail for years based on accusation alone.
He further researches, and discovers the higher male suicide rates and higher male job injuries that belong to his demographic. He attends a class on feminism, where his opinion is regularly shit down because he is a "cis white male," which he discovers isn't sexiest or racist, because he is in power (despite being in a classroom filled with females and led by a female teacher in a college where he is a statistical minority).
When he dares to ask what "institutions" men have power in, he receives little to no explanation.
When he goes on Twitter to ask feminists about feminism, he finds himself blocked over and over again as he questions their assertions.
If he manages to graduate college, the young man enters a world in which his job requires sensitivity training, in case he didn't know that groping random women was wrong.
He hears about a male friend who was abused by his wife but couldn't find a shelter, and was laughed at by the police. All the shelters seem to be for women, and the political action is about helping women.
If he goes to jail, any sentence he receives will be an average of twice as long as a woman for the same crime.
If he marries, any divorce is 70% likely to be initiated by his wife, and his marriage has a decent chance of failing. Despite the fact that women are more likely to cheat than men in committed relationships, he is the more likely to pay alimony.
He wonders why men even get married at this point. And when he questions why he has such struggles talking to and gaining the interest of women, he is told that it's because of "toxic masculinity."
And if he dares to talk to men who have learned any number of basic social skills to attract women, he is deemed a misogynist and part of the problem.
He spends a lifetime only watching women he desires, too afraid to treat them as normal people. So he goes to the Internet and finds porn, where he fantasizes and picks women for their attractiveness alone. He cannot fathom rejecting a beautiful woman because of an unpleasant personality - not because he's so shallow as to not care, but because he views himself to be so inferior as to not have a choice.
And that's a damn shame. I see these men everywhere.
Oogling at women and talking about girls being "out of their league..."
Walking behind their wives at the mall, with short uncomfortable steps and eyes fixed on the ground.
Going to bars to get "liquid courage" because they don't have a social life that introduces them to people naturally.
We have a crisis with men today - and it has nothing to do with "toxic masculinity."
These men don't have any masculinity at all. How can they, when they're not allowed to become men in the first place?
"... Dat ass, man. Dat ass. I'd do her."
"Dude you don't even know...."
I work a job that pairs me with men, and I witness this conversation from time to time. The younger the men, the more often it happens, regardless of whether or not the men are married.
What bugs me isn't the married aspect; I've seen married guys and girls talk this way enough to know that it's almost always just that - talk.
What bugs me is the assumptions behind the conversation. "I'd do her." Based on what? Clearly not her personality, or her attitude, or even her smile. Often the convo happens based solely on the view from behind, with an incomplete picture of what the girl looks like.
Acquiescence to sex based on just a few attractive body parts. That bugs me. It bugs me because of the implication, a mindset that I have witnessed time and again in man after man, to an alarmingly high percentage.
'She is worthy of mating simply by virtue of being attractive; I am not worthy of mating and must convince her to like and want me."
And it pisses me off - not merely because that mindset is completely unattractive (though it is horrendously so), but because it is so indicative of masculinity today.
Not a toxic masculinity, like so many feminists are convinced of, but a degraded masculinity. A masculinity destroyed by multiple factors in our society, starting at birth and continuing into adulthood.
A baby boy is borne. Immediately, half of the nerves in his penis are cut off in a procedure known as "circumcision," a process in the past justified by now disproven medical ideas or with the intention of stopping masturbation. Today the reasons are tradition, religion, and "I think a boy looks better cut."
That male child grows up, governed mostly by his mother in a world where half of marriages are broken by divorce and in which single motherhood is lauded, to the bewilderment of every sociologist.
For the boy, there is no "Wait til your father gets home!" His mother, the nurturer, is also his father.
Even if his parents are still together, the boy spends most of his time with his mother while the father works, or at daycare under the supervision of women while both of his parents work.
The boy goes to school, and again is both taught and under the authority of mostly female teachers, where he must sit still in a state of passivity and accept teaching while stifling any urges to run and explore. He meets other girls, and learns quickly this simple rule: "you can't hit girls. Never ever hit a girl, even when they hit you."
Never mind that boys and girls are of near equal strength up until puberty. Boys can't hit girls. And if girls hit a boy? Well.... Boys can't hit girls.
Finally the boy hits puberty. Fascinating new urges hit his body and he experiences new feelings and responses to the female sex. But he is unsure what to do. Women have always been the authority over him, and his urges to take responsibility for his own life are stifled five or more years of school and female authority.
If you were to ask him why he has trouble talking to girls he might shyly look to the side and stammer, "I dunno." His father never taught him how to be a man. The time when boys had become men for the past ten thousand years has come and gone, and he is still treated as a child by the authorities over him, most of whom are still women. He feels unhappy and unfulfilled at a deep level, and has no idea why.
If he's lucky, he won't have been put on rydalin or any one of many drugs assigned almost exclusively to any boys who are more active than the female teachers would prefer.
And this is only in the first eighteen years of his life.
Finally the boy makes it to college, his first real breath of freedom and individual responsibility - whereupon the first lesson he's taught in orientation is that men are rapists, and need to be educated on what consent is (As if the only difference between a rapist and consent is that the rapist was just terribly uninformed). He's told that if other men rape, he's responsible for that. If he suggests at all any smart things a girl could do to avoid rape, he is accused of rape apology and victim blaming.
He attend classes which are again dominated by female teachers, and forced to sit in a passive manner in the same boring fashion he's experienced for the past twelve years.
He gets told that men are oppressive monsters while women are underprivileged, even as he notices a larger percentage of females in college, and a larger percentage of female graduates, and - not unironically - a larger percentage of female-only scholarships and grants.
The young man watches as a fellow classmate is accused of rape, a rape he is sure never happened, and witnesses his classmate's reputation is destroyed, along with his grades and his ability to attend the college anymore, based solely on an unfounded accusation. He researches online, and discovers story after story of men who have been out in jail for years based on accusation alone.
He further researches, and discovers the higher male suicide rates and higher male job injuries that belong to his demographic. He attends a class on feminism, where his opinion is regularly shit down because he is a "cis white male," which he discovers isn't sexiest or racist, because he is in power (despite being in a classroom filled with females and led by a female teacher in a college where he is a statistical minority).
When he dares to ask what "institutions" men have power in, he receives little to no explanation.
When he goes on Twitter to ask feminists about feminism, he finds himself blocked over and over again as he questions their assertions.
If he manages to graduate college, the young man enters a world in which his job requires sensitivity training, in case he didn't know that groping random women was wrong.
He hears about a male friend who was abused by his wife but couldn't find a shelter, and was laughed at by the police. All the shelters seem to be for women, and the political action is about helping women.
If he goes to jail, any sentence he receives will be an average of twice as long as a woman for the same crime.
If he marries, any divorce is 70% likely to be initiated by his wife, and his marriage has a decent chance of failing. Despite the fact that women are more likely to cheat than men in committed relationships, he is the more likely to pay alimony.
He wonders why men even get married at this point. And when he questions why he has such struggles talking to and gaining the interest of women, he is told that it's because of "toxic masculinity."
And if he dares to talk to men who have learned any number of basic social skills to attract women, he is deemed a misogynist and part of the problem.
He spends a lifetime only watching women he desires, too afraid to treat them as normal people. So he goes to the Internet and finds porn, where he fantasizes and picks women for their attractiveness alone. He cannot fathom rejecting a beautiful woman because of an unpleasant personality - not because he's so shallow as to not care, but because he views himself to be so inferior as to not have a choice.
And that's a damn shame. I see these men everywhere.
Oogling at women and talking about girls being "out of their league..."
Walking behind their wives at the mall, with short uncomfortable steps and eyes fixed on the ground.
Going to bars to get "liquid courage" because they don't have a social life that introduces them to people naturally.
We have a crisis with men today - and it has nothing to do with "toxic masculinity."
These men don't have any masculinity at all. How can they, when they're not allowed to become men in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)