Time Lapse: Brutal Honesty

➢They paused at the top of the hill; he stared off into the distance.

"You can't trust me."

He finally broke the silence.

"You can't trust me to hold back or play nice. The first opportunity I get I will fuck you, I will fuck you into oblivion. I will take your body and fill you with pleasure until your your eyes roll into the back of your head with pleasure and you can't remember your own name."

She blinked. Silence surrounded them again; the slightest breeze carried with it the chill of autumn to raise goosebumps on her arm. Her voice came out in a small squeak:

"You promise?" 

"...On that, and that alone, you can trust me." 

Passion and Intent

➢They were lovers, but not yet. Madly in love, they had pledged to remain virgins until marriage, and each day that pledge became harder and harder to keep. His hands explored, his lips tasted, the touching sent thrills through her body that she'd never before experienced.

"I'm going to marry you."

The words were iron, dropped out of nowhere. He looked deep into her eyes, his slight smile betraying the mountain of strength and warmth she'd already set her heart upon months ago. The wind played lightly at her hair, brushing it across the cleavage showing from her sun dress, her body still tingling from where his hands had been a moment ago, her neck yearning to feel his lips again, her hips swaying lightly, firey with the wet itch of desire. Her heart had stopped for a moment at his words.

"Im going to marry you," he repeated, his body closing the gap between them, his voice dropping to a whisper near her ear, "and when we do I'm going to claim you, claim you in a way that you've always wanted but never had before. I'm going to take care of that itch, that desire deep inside; I'm going to fill your heart with light until you can't take it any more, and you're mine."

She flooded. Her arms pulled her desperately to him, her lips guided to his by his hand, his other arm slid securely across her lower back, just grazing the top of her butt as she kissed him, hard. Through the heat and wet and passion a single thought managed to claw its way out of the frenzied kisses. 

Oh why can't we be married now? 

The Booty-Blinded Curse

➢The following short twitter conversation is entirely relevant to what I have to say.

1/ If you are a guy and want to spike feelings of desire in your relationship:

- Be assertive and confident
- Be mentally present

— Pat Stedman (@Pat_Stedman) September 4, 2016

@Pat_Stedman If it can be solved, I think being more present solves it 90%.Showing up makes all the difference when difference is possible!

— Kathryn Hogan (@KathrynmHogan) September 4, 2016

Exactly. During pursuit of a girl, men focus due to new chemistry/sex. Lack of attention later kills her attraction. https://t.co/Jh6a65Yp1E

— Pat Stedman (@Pat_Stedman) September 7, 2016

@Pat_Stedman @KathrynmHogan worse yet, getting trapped in the head obsessing about the girl.... Then 'becoming present' feels dangerous

— General Cusswords (@yaycapitalism) September 7, 2016

@yaycapitalism @Pat_Stedman beautifully said. I'd love to understand that more! Are you willing to share?

— Kathryn Hogan (@KathrynmHogan) September 7, 2016

➢I swear, this shit happens all the time - guy meets girl, guy is entranced by girl, girl is initially attracted but starts paying the guy less and less attention. Meanwhile the guy gets a sinking feeling deep in his gut, a sense of desperation and anguish. Some call it romantic...

I call it romantic dipshittiness

I can't condemn it entirely; I've been in this exact scenario - I won't lie about this in the least. I think at this point in our culture, this is an experience most men can identify with, and for some men, it's the story of their lives. But for the sake of me not being a dick, and also for patting myself on the back for my linguistic elegance, let's go with a more proper term: Drowning In Beauty.

Drowning In Beauty is what happens when a man comes across a woman who is so beautiful, it 'short-circuits' his brain and overwhelms his ability to act like a normal human being. In movies, this is typified by the guy sputtering and acting like a fool; in my experience the most common symptom is one most girls can identify with easily: the guy goes into "interviewer" mode, asking bland and boring questions, without having any real conversation:

Hey, so uh, what's your major? Cool. Yeah, um what's your job? Neat. Cool. What's your sign?

Etc, etc, somebody shove a gun in my mouth already. "Interviewer mode" is the most common symptom, but other manifestations exist as well: "total asshole," and "oddly silent." For the purposes of me being too lazy to explain everything thoroughly, we'll assume that even though three symptoms are completely unalike, their root cause is essentially the same:

The girl is so beautiful that the guy finds himself completely incapable of being himself. Not only can he not act like himself, he's forgotten how to be himself, for all intents and purposes.

By the way, before I brand myself as a total asshole, let me state again for the record: I've been there. On very rare occasion, I still find myself there (but only because I'm dumb and flirt over twitter). So understand, me writing this post is a case of, "I want you to fix this. Seriously, random guy on the internet. As much as I'm an asshole, I'm at least a(n) (mostly) honest one."

Like my recent post about getting out of the Friend Zone (which totally applies in this situation too), most guys turn into assholes, interviewers, or mutes for the simple reason that they don't know what else to do. They literally are missing the linguistic programming necessary in order for them to not come off like a total weirdo.

This may sound counter-intuitive, like "dude just talk to her like a normal human being, duh" but it's important to understand, social habits are complex programmed behaviors which are often astoundingly resilient to any form of logic. Everything from simple behaviors like shaking hands to complex behaviors like deep conversations have mental programming involved. The same mechanism that allows us to tie our shoes without thinking also allows us to hold conversations without having to preplan the first twenty seconds of each response we give.


When a man is drowning in a woman's beauty, it is often because he's not used to relating to beautiful women in a healthy way. The programming in terms of body language, vocal tonality, speech patterns, etc. is completely missing, for whatever reason. And so, in a very real sense, the guy doesn't know how to be genuine, because he is in unfamiliar territory where he doesn't have control of his own neurological responses. In this way, telling a guy "just be yourself!" is akin to blindfolding him, tossing him in a room full of furniture, and yelling at him, "it's easy to get out, just walk out the door!"

Well duh, he'd walk out the door if he could see it, asshole.

This is the essence of why advice like "just be yourself" is often completely unhelpful. FYI, girls: if you've ever been on a date with a man who seems determined to force you to lead no matter how many times you practically beg him to be a man, this is generally the reason why. Asking a man to lead when he has no idea what he's doing is like taking a teen who's never driven before, throwing them in the car, and saying, "Okay take me to the other end of the country" without a single bit of instruction. Most teens who had never driven before would be scared, and I wouldn't blame them. The same is true with men who are drowning in beauty. A man who is drowning in beauty cannot be honest, because his mind is dominated by the beauty of the woman he is with.

A man in this situation is afraid to admit the truth, because to admit the truth is to admit his inadequacy. Most guys end up running the opposite way, pretending everything is okay, and becoming a liar.

SIDE NOTE GUYS: STOP LYING TO WOMEN. THEY GENERALLY CAN SENSE WHEN YOU'RE LYING TO THEM IN BEHAVIOR OR WORD, AND IT'S A SHITTY THING TO DO.

Guys in this place are in real danger of my other favorite term: Fear of Engagement. Because the guy is so overwhelmed by her beauty, he decides that the woman is qualified to be his mate, and thus everything he does is devoted to getting that same decision from her. All his standards instantly go out the window, and he becomes practically immune to any red flags she might give off.

Pay attention to the next thing I say, fellas, it's important:

PRE-QUALIFYING WOMEN AND REFUSING TO HOLD THEM TO YOUR STANDARDS IS NOT ONLY BULLSHIT, BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UNATTRACTIVE.

Seriously, what woman wants to be around a guy who handles her with kid gloves? What woman wants to be with a guy with no standards? If you lack the capacity to reject a woman you're with based on her bad behavior, then she cannot respect you.

So let's fix this issue. Pay attention again guys, because here is the gold. This is how you get out of your head when you're stuck there, when you're busy being 'booty blinded,' and you realize you're losing the girl.

Stop the conversation. Get her attention. Take a deep breath, let the silence hang for a moment. And try something like this:

"Listen, I've been stuck in my head for the past bit and it's been killing me, because I feel like I can't give you the attention you deserve. Give me a minute here, I need to take a moment to get rid of any expectations or neediness, okay?"

Chances are she will be dumbstruck, but either way nearly any girl who's a decent human being will give you that space. Take that moment, take a few deep breaths, and..

Let go of any expectations or neediness

Stop expecting her to be perfect

Stop needing her to like you

Nobody is perfect, and the only person who needs to like you is you.

Now go out there and make her speechless. 

Update, 08/05/2017: This post is in serious need of revision. While some of what I say is accurate, it's important to note that generally the following is true:

The higher the fear of rejection by a woman, the more a guy is likely to act like a fool. Generally, the more beautiful the girl is, the higher the fear of rejection.

On Death

➢Death is simple for me. The pain of death is the price we pay for the joy of love. We can ask how it's possible for us to hurt so much, but the why is very simple. The more you love someone, the more it hurts to lose them. And the more it hurts, the better. It means that you really loved them, and that what you had was worth the having. And there is little more that you can ask for than that.

A Tale of Two Relationships

➢People see things differently.

You'd think this an obvious statement, but somehow it manages to go right over our heads, so I'll say it again. People see things differently - and this goes double for a relationship. It's part of why we have these sayings like "boys are stupid and girls are crazy," and consistently accuse the other gender of being from a different planet.

Case in point: Matthew Santoro and Nicole Arbour. For roughly eight months this youtuber couple dated, each doing their own channels. Just recently, Matthew released a video in which he described his experience of being in an abusive relationship. He didn't name Nicole in that video, but the implication was more than clear. Shortly after, Nicole released a video entitled, "Abuse Story - My Side of Things," where she categorically denied abusing Matthew, and talked about the overall suckiness of the situation.

Of course, both sides claimed they broke up with the other person. Which I really don't care about. I'm not going to talk about it here. But I've observed a very interesting tendency of the public to take sides, especially when it comes to public breakups. In this case, the public seems to be categorically on Matthew's side - the comments of his abuse video seem to be almost universally supportive.

On the other hand, Nicole's comment section has been generally filled with nastiness.

- And it should come as no surprise. After all, our society makes it a point to stand for victims, and protect those who are hurt, which is never a bad thing. That being said...

I believe both of them.

You read that right.

I think that Nicole didn't see her behavior as abusive, and that she does view the situation as sucky, and she does wish Matthew well - and, I believe that Matthew views the past relationship as abusive, and has been genuinely hurt.

As a recovering douchebag ("recovering"), I've noticed how two sane people can watch the same interaction, and come to completely different interpretations of it. So, let me throw in a few wildly assertive relationship points that might explain exactly why both Nicole and Matthew believe what they believe.

When a strong personality with boundary issues gets in a relationship with a weak personality with boundary issues, the resulting relationship will be dysfunctional. Period.

Nicole Arbour is a strong personality, there's no denying that. On the other hand, Matthew is a sensitive, kind, caring individual who deeply values the input of others. Throw in a bit of crazy-hot-bitch jealousy, and it's unsurprising that Matthew, not being able to enforce his boundaries, quickly found himself cut off from his social life. This brings me to point two:

If you are going to wear the pants in the relationship, you had better take damn good care of your partner's emotional and psychological needs, because in the end you will be held responsible for them.

And Nicole is facing the backlash for that right now. Granted, she probably didn't want to wear the pants in the relationship, but she did, and she didn't do it well, and now she's facing the results of that. Nicole probably wanted to play the standard feminine role in the relationship. That role includes allowing the man to take a greater charge, including enforcement of boundaries. When that man doesn't know how to enforce his own boundaries (let alone take care of his significant other's boundaries)... You get where I'm going here?

Good.

The real thing to understand here is this: a personality that is famous on screen isn't necessarily the best person to be in a relationship with in real life. You may have discovered this any time in the past hundred years of observing Hollywood relationships struggle to achieve a success rate of anything beyond the five minute mark.

Matthew was bad at protecting and enforcing his own boundaries, and got hurt as a result. It genuinely sucks, and my heart goes out to him. No one deserves to be hurt in a relationship. I hope he recovers, and finds a healthy relationship, and gets to a place where he can express his boundaries and have them respected. Everyone deserves that.

Nicole may not have been intentionally abusive, but her strong personality definitely lended a hand in Matthew feeling like he did - and that's something that she will have to figure out how to deal with. One of the great lessons all people with strong personalities must deal with is learning to say no to themselves on the behalf of others - because not enough people say no to them.

Side note: Nicole. Listen darling. You dated a youtuber who puts his whole life on video, and even bragged a couple times about the popularity of your relationship in the public sphere. This may come off as a bit mean, but you should have figured this out already: If you don't want your private life public, don't involve your private life with a man whose job is making public money off his private life.  How hard is that to understand?


Finally: Matthew was right. If you are abused, don't keep silent about it. Tell someone, if only your best friend at first. Even if you are male. As a guy myself, I implicitly get the inherent shame and feeling of "less than" that goes along with admitting to abuse. Here's the thing: if you're being abused, you're already at that stage. And you will only get better by getting help and getting out and getting strong again.

When Midnight Strikes, Will Donald Turn Back Into a Toupee?

➢This post won't have any relevance a decade from now. That being said, it IS relevant now.

I really like the way Trump treats the media, and is destroying PC culture. That's awesome.

But, there are some things that aren't so awesome about him, and it's giving me serious reservations. I think it's pretty obvious by now that Trump has an ego. A big one. Not just a big one, but one that possibly rivals Obama's ego. Now granted, I'd rather have my narcissist in the White House than the progressives' narcissist in the White House, but...

How about at least a narcissist with solid philosophical backing?

And to answer the nay sayers: No, he really doesn't.

Trump may have positions - I don't deny that. He simply has no philosophical roots to his positions; they don't have any deeply held core principles propping them up. That's why a decade ago Donald Trump was perfectly fine with partial birth abortion. He didn't actually care about the issue at the time; he merely said it because he was a New Yorker, and he didn't care, so he picked the most popular "official" position of New York.

Now Trump wants to represent conservatives - so he'll represent conservative positions. But once he's president, what's to stop him from deciding suddenly that he doesn't represent just conservatives; he represents all people. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, because most people have some form of philosophical core. Hell, even Barack Obama, as jaded and narcissistic as he is has a philosophical core (of sorts).

But Donald Trump is a populist. And when he gets into the White House, he may decide that he represents everyone. And he'll pick the loudest people "in the middle" to represent.

Of course, the media controls the perception of what "the middle" is, so while Donald Trump is blasting the media, he's also going to suddenly start doing everything they tell him to do, because he doesn't really have a political opinion of his own. Will he still do great on certain things? Certainly. He will probably do exceedingly well in regards to the economy and America's foreign affairs. But socially, not so much. He simply doesn't care.

Donald Trump is smart enough to destroy the media hold on politics, and officially put an end to any idea of political correctness. That in and of itself has value - and it sends a really clear message to Washington that nobody buys their bullshit any more. But, if Donald gets owned by the media's portrayal of America, then all of this ends up being a big joke.

And Donald has one hell of an ego. Hell hath no wrath like a Donald scorned, but hell is no icier than a Donald pretending nothing ever happened - and we can't ignore the fact that Donald HAS lied about his own words in the past.

Or conveniently forgot, as it may be. I sincerely hope he doesn't conveniently forget any of his campaign promises once he's in office.

Progressive Hatred of Capitalism: a Theory

➢While the particular ideologies of conservatism and progressivism are explained at the fundamental level by r/K theory (and philosophically and emotionally explained by Thomas Sowell and Evan Sayet, respectively), I want to address a nuance of liberalism: the instinctual hatred of capitalism.

Of course, many liberals will loudly proclaim that they don't hate capitalism, "per se." However, I find myself rather unconvinced, when nearly every policy put forth by liberals entails severe regulations on the "free" market, and liberals consistently espouse a near-vile hatred of corporations, and generally anyone successful within the capitalist system (i.e. the majority of rich people).

Consider our poor. Most people with a shred of humanity within them have compassion for the poor, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. And yet, there is a consistent claim levied by the progressive left that  conservatives hate the poor - a claim that has persisted for decades despite studies showing that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do. There are arguments as to whether the divide is actually religious or political in nature, but the general principle remains: the more 'traditional' or conservative a person is, the more generous they are with their own money (on average).

So why this blatant falsehood? Why is it that progressives, who are more than generous with other people's money, would blatantly push a falsehood?

- As a side note, some liberals will tell you that they're being taxed too. That may be true, but they want the rich and the corporations to be taxed more, and I've yet to see a liberal write a check to the government for the sole purpose of charity. Any person giving this line is being facetious.

The truth is, conservatives view poverty differently than liberals do. Conservatives make a *distinction* between different kinds of poor: the deserving poor, and the undeserving poor. One of the primary reasons why conservatives prefer to keep their money and donate via choice is their ability to decide who to give it to. The incredible waste and frivolous expenditures of the government make a second, incredibly compelling reason.

The conservative is perfectly fine with giving help to people who are truly in a scrape, and who genuinely are trying to get out - but they have very little tolerance of people who are simply lazy and looking to get a free ride. Moreover, Conservatives believe that personal intervention is vastly more effective than impersonal money-throwing.

So with this in mind, this is my proposal for why progressives hate capitalism and insist on government charity over personal:

1) Laziness - As we established beforehand, progressives are statistically less likely to give to charity. Why put forth effort to actually figure out who's worth helping out when you can just let the government take a cut of your paycheck and sloppily do it for you? Related to number one is...

2) Self-doubt - or more specifically, self-doubt of the American people. In the same way that the average American thinks they're a better driver than average (spoiler: I'm a terrible driver), it'd be no surprise for us to discover that most progressives think themselves as charitably average as well. And given their poor charity rates, switching America from government charity to private charity would be a night mare... if progressives were the average. Luckily, they are a minority in America.

3) The undeserved poor - this is the big one. And because of that, I'm switching back to paragraph format.

You'll see a strain of thought within many progressive posts, comments, articles, etc, regarding wealth - that it is unearned. Every time a progressive complains about the rich, and how evil they are, and how bad corporations are, they include a tiny implication: "this person or company is evil, and their wealth is undeserved. That's why I think they should be taxed so highly - I want their wealth taken away and given to someone else. Preferably me - oh and those other unfortunate poor too." Progressivism doesn't believe in capitalism, because progressives are anti-competition. And because they don't think wealth is undeserved, they're against discriminating against the undeserving poor - because that would mean them.

On the other hand, most conservatives aren't afraid of discriminating against the lazy poor and undeserving poor in society. Why?

Simple. Conservatives believe in competition. And that means they're willing to try and fail for what they believe in, and because they're willing to try, they're not the undeserving. But you'll rarely (if ever) hear a progressive admit to this. Why?

Because up to 80% of drivers think that they're above average in driving - and we all know that's impossible.

Don't get it yet? Try this quote on for size:

"It's very hard to get a man to understand something when his very livelihood depends on him not understanding it" - Stefan Molyneux