Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?
As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.
Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:
1. The Femcunts
These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.
2. The Partisans
These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.
3. The Lemmings
You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.
So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.
There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.
*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.
**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.
Anyways, how did I miss this? Scientists actually reviewed Mystery’s accelerated seduction blueprint, and what they discovered will surely wither further the already diminutive hearts of manboobs, freaks, monsters, feminists, losers, dweebs, omegas, white knights, traditionalists and slithery “academics” pretending to be feminists in order to score hipster chick poon: The concepts underlying game strategies are factually grounded, and game works!
The dating mind: Evolutionary psychology and the emerging science of human courtship
ABSTRACT
In the New York Times bestselling book The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2006), the world was granted its first exclusive introduction to the steadily growing dating coach and pick-up artist community. Many of its most prominent authorities claim to use insights and information gleaned both through first-hand experience as well as empirical research in evolutionary psychology. One of the industry’s most well-respected authorities, the illusionist Erik von Markovik, promotes a three-phase model of human courtship: Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction. The following review argues that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology. Two texts which represent much of this literature are critiqued and their implications discussed.
Jesus H. Christmas, this entire paper reads like it was ripped straight from Chateau Heartiste archives. And what was that muffled sound in the distance? Ah yes, the pffft of aneurysms popping in the heads of game denialists posting hater comments from under their beds.
This review deserves a detailed look, so let’s begin.
For the present analysis, we examined several popular works from the [dating coach and pick-up artist] Community. The Community consists broadly of heterosexual men who market various tactics, techniques, and methods to meet, date, and ultimately seduce women. Both published books and online forums offer opportunities to garner and share this information with a wide audience of people interested in improving their dating and romantic success.
Two main texts were chosen for this analysis. The first text, entitled The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed (Markovik, 2007), is widely regarded as one of the most important works in the Community. The second text, written by Markovik’s protégé and New York Times columnist Neil Strauss, also known on online forums as Style, is entitled Rules of the Game (Strauss, 2009). The two texts were selected mainly for the authors’ prominence and popularity in the Community.
I don’t have a problem with the two texts the review authors chose to analyze. [Disclosure: I never read Rules of the Game, so my opinion is based on what others have told me about it.] You can argue for this or that seduction manual or PUA forum compilation, but if you had to pick only two sources, these two would qualify as legitimate encapsulations of the major pick-up strategies.
The general starting point for much of the Community’s literature, whether explicitly stated or not, often begins with Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment.
According to Trivers’ (1972), the sex with higher parental investment (i.e., time and energy spent in gestation and rearing offspring) will be choosier with respect to mate selection. As a consequence, women very rarely accept propositions for casual sex with strangers (Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher, 2005), typically imposing a much more careful and rigorous screening process before consenting to sexual activity (Grammer, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001). On the other hand, human males as the biologically less investing sex, often have little to lose by mating with as many females as possible (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Indeed, Schmitt et al. (2001) have shown that men desire more lifetime sex partners, seek sexual intercourse sooner, and are frequently more motivated to seek casual sex than are women.
In the absence of a clear understanding of the biological bases of such differences, the courtship process and ensuing relationship dynamics can often appear confusing, frustrating and even debilitating. Such conflicts of interest in men and women’s sexual strategies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), often coined “the war of the sexes”, can be a significant cause of conflict and ultimately failure to find and maintain a lasting long-term relationship. However, as we will argue, this conflict is not inevitable. The knowledge of our evolved sexual strategies gives us significant capability to improve interactions between the sexes by choosing appropriate actions and deactivating others – ultimately reducing conflict between men and women. In this respect, we argue that when properly and ethically understood, the dating and seduction industry, despite its provocative label and origins outside of academia, is founded on solid empirical research as well as first-hand courtship and relationship experience. Ultimately, it is our suggestion that an informed appraisal of this information will ultimately help to lessen conflict and improve dating and relationships between men and women.
Knowledge of female sexual nature and game can improve relationships between men and women? Now a whoosh is heard. The game haters just spontaneously combusted.
Direct conversational openers typically begin with a very bold and straightforward proclamation, directly to one’s prospective romantic interest. For instance, a typical example of this type of opener might be: Hi, I saw you standing there, thought you looked attractive, and wanted to say hello. While apparently awkward or unimpressive to the inexperienced, many Community enthusiasts will swear by the ability of this approach to generate instant attraction in a prospective romantic interest. And indeed, there may in fact be psychological research to legitimate this claim. For instance, research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al. 1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women (as such an approach would clearly seem to demonstrate).
A direct opener will signal social dominance, self confidence, and high status by its mere use. The brazen opener is itself the alpha male signaler. My suggestion when using direct openers is to be sure your body language is sufficiently alpha to be congruent with the words you are saying to the girl. Otherwise, you will quickly get blown out, because incongruence during the opener is usually the death knell for any seduction attempt.
The second type of conversation starter, referred to as an indirect conversational opener, often begins with an off-handed opinion or question, at first merely designed to capture attention. For example, indirect openers often include apparently random queries such as, Excuse me- a friend and I were debating something. Could I have a female opinion on how a man should treat a lady on a first date? (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In stark contrast to a direct opener, the specific content of an indirect opener is often irrelevant; the more important objective is often to smoothly get a conversation started.
The big advantage of indirect openers is that you can generally hit on hotter women than you can with direct openers, because the latter tends to elevate the risk of getting insta-rejected if the girl happens to dislike your look, style, walk or wiry nose hairs, all of which are traits you display before you’ve even opened your mouth. Plus, hotter girls expect to get hit on more, so indirect is better for catching them off-guard, and for settling your nerves. (This rule of thumb breaks down when you get to the 9s and 10s of womanhood, who are so intimidatingly hot to most men that they paradoxically get hit on less frequently than their looks would suggest they do.)
[T]he conversational content at this point generally moves into interesting personality conveying material, such as humor, an exciting personal anecdote, a fun game, or even a simple piece of stage magic, intended to solicit attraction from a prospective romantic interest (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Markovik (2007) describes the advertisement of such qualities as “Demonstrations of Higher Value” (DHVs), which it is claimed, cause an increase in mate value and create attraction, thus providing the person access to more desirable mates. And indeed, psychological research has shown that many of these qualities, when well-presented, can often be quite attractive to the opposite sex.
For example, in a recent sample of UK personal advertisements, women rated charming social skills, wittiness, and a good sense of humor as among the most desirable traits in a prospective date (Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), which would seem to reinforce the claims made by the community (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009).
“Looks are everything.” – some loser justifying his inaction.
The Community further advocates a peculiar strategy known as “pre-selection” which is claimed to be often useful in crowded social gatherings (Markovik, 2007). Pre- selection is a strategy whereby a man in a public gathering will establish an innocent acquaintanceship with an attractive woman, gaining her trust, comfort, and friendship, only to later use her presence by his side to attract other surrounding women that are actually the intended object of his desire (Markovik, 2007). The phenomenon where females will copy or imitate the preferences of other females for a particular male mate has been documented in a wide variety of species, and is commonly referred to by evolutionary biologists as mate choice copying (Bennett, Lim and Gilbert, 2008; Dugatkin, 1992; Freed-Brown and White, 2009). Moreover, there is now increasing evidence to suggest that such strategies, whether intentionally practiced or consistently understood by those using them, are also found in humans (Eva and Wood, 2006; Hill and Buss, 2008; Place, Todd, Penke and Asendorpf, 2010).
A hot female friend who is willing to be your pivot is worth her weight in fluffy stuffed animals.
The second reputed phase of human courtship, building mutual Comfort and Trust, further seems to have a significant degree of support by various psychological research studies. Firstly, once Attraction has been established, community literature advocates the importance of taking the time to build rapport, comfort and trust before proceeding with seduction (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Indeed, psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review).
The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building, and the reason is likely because most men are naturally worse at the former. But in my experience, I see a lot of men dropping the ball during the comfort stage. I can’t count how many times I’ve witnessed some girl smiling broadly when she first meets a guy, and then watch as her smile fades to a grimace the more he talks. (I like to jump in at these opportune moments, because girls are… how shall I say?… more pliable to my charms when left in such a dispiriting state by some other inept man. You could call this strategy, Attraction by Comparison. It’s a productive strategy because most men are inept with women.)
Trust and comfort is often further established through the use of kinesthetic touch, or what the Community often refers to simply as “kino” (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). For instance, from a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.
If you showed me twenty men hitting on twenty women, and all I could see was how many times the men touched the women, knowing nothing else about their interactions I could predict with stunning accuracy which of those men would be getting the lay.
The final reputed phase of human courtship, Seduction, begins once mutual Attraction and Comfort and Trust have been established between two individuals. For instance, women typically require more time and intimacy to develop the same amount of passion as men (Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999). Consistent with psychological research, the Community often advocates what is known at the “seven-hour rule”; the idea being that a woman typically needs a minimum of seven cumulative hours of rapport- building in order to develop a strong emotional and intellectual connection (including shared interests, shared values, and a deep inter-subjective understanding) before consenting to sexual activity (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In order to accomplish this objective, the community encourages a process of mutual self-disclosure, whereby each gets to know the other person on a very deep and intimate level (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009), reinforcing psychological research on the development of relationships (Collins and Miller, 1994) and compassionate love (Hatfield and Rapson, 1993).
Alpha males are not stone walls. They understand that there will be a give and take in any seduction. They just know that it’s better to give a little less than they take.
In conclusion, it would seem clear that there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community. The three reputed phases of courtship, Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction, are supported by a significant and steadily growing literature based in physiological, social and evolutionary psychology research. […]
In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, one particular strategy known as “peacocking,” (in dubious reference to Zahavi’s (1975) handicap principle) involves wearing very ostentatious clothing specifically designed to exploit evolved cues for what women find attractive (Markovik, 2007). Although research has shown that women generally find social status attractive in men (Buss, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), thus far there is no direct evidence in support of this particular behavior. A similar strategy, known as “negging”, has been claimed to increase a male’s attractiveness by demonstrating he has high standards (Markovik, 2007). For example, a male might exclaim, Wow, those are great fingernails! Are they real? Oh, no? Well, they still look nice. Consistent with this argument, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) have shown that men who appear to have high standards are considered more attractive than males who do not; nevertheless, there is currently no direct evidence that “negging” is universally effective. An important area for future research would be to more closely analyze a broader spectrum of community literature and determine the scientific veracity of unsubstantiated claims.
Hopefully, academic feminists and sniveling manboobs will retreat to their cuntcaves under my assault of brutal mockery and real sociologists can in future conduct studies examining the effectiveness of other, specific game and seduction tactics, such as the aforementioned negs, and even pick-up and relationship techniques CH has introduced and described here, including “agree and amplify” and “instilling dread“.
Maybe, just maybe, they will even have the courage one day to study the peculiar allure assorted assholes, douchebags, psychopaths and jerks exert on attractive women.
[T]here may be important unrecognized ethical implications from using portions of this material. For instance, it has been argued that the initiation of touch or “kino” throughout the courtship process and alleged prioritization of physical over verbal consent may at times problematize interpretations of consent (Denes, 2011). To this end, we do contend that such material has the potential for abuse and urge caution with the use of the Community’s material, especially in the context of short-term relationships where sexual activity may be the sole objective. On the other hand, within the context of helping people to initiate long-term, stable relationships, we argue that informed male behaviors are not so unlike women attempting to manipulate perceived attractiveness through the use of perfume, cosmetics, clothing, liposuction and cosmetic surgery, and thus disrupt normal mate choice by men (Roberts, Miner and Shackelford, 2010). Therefore, if such practices allow men to approach, attract, and connect with women in similar fashion, we wholeheartedly endorse the ethical practice of such materials for establishing meaningful long-term relationships.
I believe it is this blog, this seducer’s stronghold, this digital palace guarding a horde of priceless knowledge that pierces the puzzle of pussy, which was at the forefront of elucidating for the skeptical masses how game could be useful for long-term relationships and marriage. Chateau Heartiste makes it impossible for knee-jerk haters and ignoramuses to caricature the science and art of streamlined seduction and learned charisma as the domain of frat boys spitting corny lines, or oily club hounds sidling up to skanks for a shot at the bathroom BJ.
Not that there’s anything wrong with bathroom BJs, but the caricature has been demolished, and now the haters must face the gut-punch reality that game works, and works well for men from all socioeconomic backgrounds and all romantic circumstance.
One day, perhaps sooner than the haters would dare contemplate in their most fevered nightmares, this formula:
will come to be seen as revolutionary to the human sciences as E=MC² was to the physical sciences.
How many women do men really want to fuck? The answer, if surveys are to be believed, is a bit less than infinity. Scientists are baffled. A reader writes:
I’ve said on your blog that I consider you a bit of an outlier, someone who places much more importance on sex than the average man. I thought I should bring some data to back that up. The average man seems to only want about 6 lifetime partners. And gay men, who presumably can get as much sex as they want don’t all go hog wild. If we judge by teh gey only about 32% have more than 10 partners, while only about 18% had more than 20. Perhaps numbers would be higher without AIDS, but blowjobs (raw) and sex with condoms are both pretty safe, even for gays, so I’m not sure how much to count that. However, even with AIDS, 18% is nothing to sneeze at so you’re not that much of an outlier. As for myself, I too sympathize at least somewhat, in theory, with the guys who want to rack up large numbers. But I try not to judge other people’s sexual proclivities by my own.
None of this contradicts the finding that men are considerably more promiscuous by inclination than women. It just means they aren’t outrageously more promiscuous by inclination.
Ah, self-reported data. Of sexual desire. The least trustworthy data there perhaps exists. As I’ve noted before, people are never more apt to lie than when they are being asked about their sexual habits, or about their sexual desires. The hamster is a rationalization machine first and foremost for sugar-coating lust, the most primeval of the primeval emotional juggernauts that silently yet relentlessly infuses and guides our every thought and action.
But that aside, I actually don’t have much beef with what this self-reported survey data says. I’m not at all surprised that men, when asked how many women they would want to sleep with in the next months or years, would choose a number not fantastically higher than that chosen by women. The hamster resides in male brains as well, (though it is a far less sturdy specimen than that found spinning in female brains), and will happily spit out “acceptable” answers that adhere to social expectations for virtuous behavior. Sometimes these acceptable answers are completely unintentional, and reflect less a hypocritical posturing to conform to cultural pressures than an ego-assuaging, knee-jerk bromide to buttress one’s self-conception.
But reality has a way of intruding on happy thoughts. If a researcher had asked me at age 18 how many women I would want to sleep with in the year ahead, I might have offered, with some haughty self-righteousness derived from precious feelings of romantic abandon and insta-pedestalization, one or two as my optimal number. Had that same researcher asked me, ten years later and post red-pill (as the scallawags would say), how many women I had slept with in the previous year, the number would have been considerably higher than the one I suggested was optimal before a pussy potpourri of options opened themselves to me.
To put it more simply, most men are not going to admit, to themselves or others, that they want to fuck hundreds of women. Or, more precisely, they aren’t going to admit that they would be interested in fucking hundreds of women if the option to do so were readily and uncomplicatedly available to them. Men and women both don’t really like to think of themselves as sex fiends.
And this goes as well for gay men, who, though they have less formidable obstacles to hurdle on the path to sexual release than do straight men, are still nonetheless straitjacketed by some unforgivable rules of the sexual marketplace, such as the fact that ugly gay men are not going to have the same number of opportunities for amassing partner counts as that afforded to handsomer gay men; and of those opportunities the less favorably endowed do have, the urge to capitalize will be much enervated.
And therein lies the crux of skepticism I hold about these sorts of “hey, tell me about your sex life and most secret fantasies!” self-reporting surveys: they aren’t telling me what men, or women, would do IN REAL LIFE if they had no restrictions on their buffet of mate choice. They are only telling me what numerically-bounded desires men and women — most of them by nature enduring severe restrictions on their sexual or romantic opportunities — are acclimatized by circumstance and lifelong experience to expect, and thus to valorize, for themselves.
To find out what men would avail themselves of in real life, we have to examine what kinds of partner counts real men with virtually UNLIMITED OPTIONS acquire. For that, we need to find those men who live with few, if any, constraints on their ability to fulfill their desires.
Men with few restrictions on satisfying their carnal cravings are men with options. By restrictions, I mean anything that could act as a force against the full realization of one’s desires. If most women don’t find you desirable, then you are working with limited options, and this is true no matter how much you tell yourself or others that your small sample platter is just the right amount to slake your desire. If women find you desirable, but social expectation or political calculus discourage your follow-through, then you are working with limited options.
For these reasons, some very alpha men who could theoretically clean up with women don’t make the UNLIMITED OPTIONS MAN cut. A married CEO who could conceivably entertain a harem of adoring lovers is limited by his wife, children and close acquaintances to behave according to certain norms that preclude harem-building. The President of the United States, a super alpha by dint of his station alone, would suffer tremendous blowback from the consequences of sleeping with even a tiny fraction of his admiring thong-y throngs.
No, the men of our modern society who are free in the best sense of the word… the men who have limitless options with women… are unmarried rock stars and famous actors. There are others, but these two groups best exemplify the unchained man. What kind of man has the lustful fervor of millions of women directed at him, and who would not suffer much of any consequences in his personal or career life from indulging in his bounty?
Well, George Clooney comes to mind. Here’s a guy whom women love, and who would not jeopardize his career or social status by sleeping with the maximum number of lovers his heart (and groin) can accommodate. And how may women does such a man with nearly unlimited options accumulate over a lifetime?
A lot. And these are just the women the media know about. Or the women Clooney wants the media to know about. The true number is likely in the hundreds, maybe thousands if we count one night stands and short flings.
PUAs also make the list of men enjoying veritable limitless options. The haters will slip into hate overdrive upon hearing this, but skilled womanizers, as many PUAs are, luxuriate in the attentions of many women, and don’t pay a price for satisfying their desire. The successful PUA does not have a wife or family to protect from his predations, nor does he have a political career that would crumble from public airing of his dalliances. He is, in contrast to the mass of mediocrities railing against his lifestyle, a free man able to meet his own needs, in whatever capacity he deems satisfactory.
This is not to say that men don’t desire long-term relationships with women, or to say that men would not be happy banging fewer than one hundred or more women in the course of their lifetimes. It is simply a perspicacious reminder that, as with women, what men may claim about their ideal number of lovers is often less a true measure of their visceral desire than it is a mental palimpsest revealing underneath the restricted range of limited options within which they necessarily resign themselves.
To quote by way of illustration a billion ugly, obese feminists with severely curtailed options in the dating market:
“I don’t NEED a man!”
My take on this matter, sociological stabs at the truth notwithstanding to the contrary, is that most men are inclined to periods of “settling down” monogamously with a woman of outstanding quality, but that most men would also rack up considerable numbers of lovers between and during their monogamous downtimes if there were no consequences to suffer and they had the option to acquire those lovers relatively effortlessly and expediently.
Since most men labor with a limited menu of options, what we see transpiring in the real world are the top 10-20% of free men acting in accord with the rhythms of their primitive compulsions, and a horde of less-free men learning to love their meager choices.
You want to be a man with options.
The option to love recklessly, or love faithfully.
The option to marry, or to sow your oats as an eternal bachelor.
The option to have kids, and to be assured of your paternity.
The option to date monogamously, or to date profligately.
The option to stay, or to leave. On your terms.
The option to give ultimatums, and to ignore ultimatums.
The option to screw around, or to start a family.
The option to do what you want, when you want it, and to do what others want, when you want it.
This year is the Year of Men With Options. There has never been a time more suited to teach men the art of options than right now, when options everywhere for men seem to be shrinking.
Cheap Chalupas takes a breather from undermining the ethnic cohesion of his country of birth for a glorious experience of authentic face-stuffing to link to a Pitchfork story about the pittances that rock stars get paid today. In the comments, “lords of lies” responds with an interesting take on why there are so few bands today who have any staying power beyond one or two radio-ready songs.
the era of the long-lasting arena rock band with scores of top ten hits is over for four reasons:
1. the low-hanging fruit of novel guitar riffs has been picked clean. it’s just much harder now to compose more than one or two catchy tunes that don’t blatantly rip off songs from the past, autotune to the contrary notwithstanding. how many ways can the twelve-note scale be arranged? depressingly, there may be a limit. plus, the ready availability and replayability of forty year old rock songs means that current artists can’t plagiarize the past without getting called on it. this was perhaps not so much the case for past artists, who could safely crib from older songs that weren’t subject to so much radio or internet replaying.
2. the incentive structure has changed. a dude who pens one decent song can get on stage and score chicks for years, maybe even decades, based on that frantic bestowal of fame. internet play action and advanced marketing offer instant fame to the fly by night, one hit wonder musician. the pussy rewards for male artistry flow faster and stronger today than they did in the past, thanks partly to unshackled female hypergamy and partly to the betatization of the average american male. as a result, the self-perceived need to pump out multiple albums of high quality work has diminished.
3. easy living (c.f. porn, video games, endless plates of food stamps) has taken the edge off the urgency to create a compendium of works of spectacular art that can win over a large and dedicated audience of admirers and payers. men, in a word, are being medicated into comatose feminized stupor by dopaminergic distractions.
4. diversity is our lack of diversity. the advent of the diverse playground known as the internet has created so many ostensible musical niches appealing to everyone’s most personalized tastes that it has, paradoxically, made music *less* diverse, by funneling would-be artists into similar musical paths which maximize the odds their voices will be heard above the din. what point is experimentation and building an oeuvre for the long haul when your potential audience is so prefragmented and fickle? may also explain why music is getting louder today.
i’d add that there exists the possibility as well that people in the west are simply getting less creative in some genetic/physiological sense. perhaps it’s all those BPAs in our plastics and Pills in our water.
It’s a good question why the modern music industry produces so few “stadium rock” bands anymore. Prosperity likely has something to do with it. And the reasons given above are plausible, if not proven. You can make the case that someone like Justin Bieber (update: yesterday’s news) or Kesha is the 2012 equivalent of U2 or Led Zeppelin based on sales numbers and breadth of fame, but the comparison is rendered a mockery under any actual music-based standard. Platinum-selling country music stars and remixers rappers featuring X, Y and Z are about the closest present-day analogues to long-lasting power rock bands of the past.
This is not to say there is not good music being produced today. I like a lot of stuff that’s come out in recent years, mostly from fly by night, non-mainstream eclectic acts. But most of the stuff I like is by a multitude of bands that tend to disappear after one hit album (which usually contains no more than three righteous songs). Even looking at top 40 songs, the bands comprising that radio-ready list have little staying power. fun. has a couple of catchy tunes, but does anyone seriously think they’re going to pump out one stellar album after another, for years on end, like Zeppelin or The Beatles or even Nirvana did?
As for the main complaint that musicians don’t get paid enough from internet radio royalties, I have to agree with this:
cry me a river. hard to get worked up over the financial travails of quasi-rock stars. do people realize what motivates men to form bands and play on stage? they do it all for the nookie. the girls they get couldn’t give a rat’s ass how little they make from pandora plays. this is why there continues to be a steady stream of aspiring young men throwing caution and their bank accounts to the wind in hopes of becoming the next indie flavor of the month.
When the day comes that dudes stop picking up guitars and warbling beta ballads to score poosy is the day that I’ll entertain their griping about illegal downloading.
Cheap Chalupas takes a breather from undermining the ethnic cohesion of his country of birth for a glorious experience of authentic face-stuffing to link to a Pitchfork story about the pittances that rock stars get paid today. In the comments, “lords of lies” responds with an interesting take on why there are so few bands today who have any staying power beyond one or two radio-ready songs.
the era of the long-lasting arena rock band with scores of top ten hits is over for four reasons:
1. the low-hanging fruit of novel guitar riffs has been picked clean. it’s just much harder now to compose more than one or two catchy tunes that don’t blatantly rip off songs from the past, autotune to the contrary notwithstanding. how many ways can the twelve-note scale be arranged? depressingly, there may be a limit. plus, the ready availability and replayability of forty year old rock songs means that current artists can’t plagiarize the past without getting called on it. this was perhaps not so much the case for past artists, who could safely crib from older songs that weren’t subject to so much radio or internet replaying.
2. the incentive structure has changed. a dude who pens one decent song can get on stage and score chicks for years, maybe even decades, based on that frantic bestowal of fame. internet play action and advanced marketing offer instant fame to the fly by night, one hit wonder musician. the pussy rewards for male artistry flow faster and stronger today than they did in the past, thanks partly to unshackled female hypergamy and partly to the betatization of the average american male. as a result, the self-perceived need to pump out multiple albums of high quality work has diminished.
3. easy living (c.f. porn, video games, endless plates of food stamps) has taken the edge off the urgency to create a compendium of works of spectacular art that can win over a large and dedicated audience of admirers and payers. men, in a word, are being medicated into comatose feminized stupor by dopaminergic distractions.
4. diversity is our lack of diversity. the advent of the diverse playground known as the internet has created so many ostensible musical niches appealing to everyone’s most personalized tastes that it has, paradoxically, made music *less* diverse, by funneling would-be artists into similar musical paths which maximize the odds their voices will be heard above the din. what point is experimentation and building an oeuvre for the long haul when your potential audience is so prefragmented and fickle? may also explain why music is getting louder today.
i’d add that there exists the possibility as well that people in the west are simply getting less creative in some genetic/physiological sense. perhaps it’s all those BPAs in our plastics and Pills in our water.
It’s a good question why the modern music industry produces so few “stadium rock” bands anymore. Prosperity likely has something to do with it. And the reasons given above are plausible, if not proven. You can make the case that someone like Justin Bieber (update: yesterday’s news) or Kesha is the 2012 equivalent of U2 or Led Zeppelin based on sales numbers and breadth of fame, but the comparison is rendered a mockery under any actual music-based standard. Platinum-selling country music stars and remixers rappers featuring X, Y and Z are about the closest present-day analogues to long-lasting power rock bands of the past.
This is not to say there is not good music being produced today. I like a lot of stuff that’s come out in recent years, mostly from fly by night, non-mainstream eclectic acts. But most of the stuff I like is by a multitude of bands that tend to disappear after one hit album (which usually contains no more than three righteous songs). Even looking at top 40 songs, the bands comprising that radio-ready list have little staying power. fun. has a couple of catchy tunes, but does anyone seriously think they’re going to pump out one stellar album after another, for years on end, like Zeppelin or The Beatles or even Nirvana did?
As for the main complaint that musicians don’t get paid enough from internet radio royalties, I have to agree with this:
cry me a river. hard to get worked up over the financial travails of quasi-rock stars. do people realize what motivates men to form bands and play on stage? they do it all for the nookie. the girls they get couldn’t give a rat’s ass how little they make from pandora plays. this is why there continues to be a steady stream of aspiring young men throwing caution and their bank accounts to the wind in hopes of becoming the next indie flavor of the month.
When the day comes that dudes stop picking up guitars and warbling beta ballads to score poosy is the day that I’ll entertain their griping about illegal downloading.
The dude who runs the Evo and Proud blog has an interesting post about earlier male maturation rates indicating that females may be favoring cads over dads as mates.
There is thus plenty of genetic variation for selection to act on. No need to wait for new mutations. But why would there be natural selection for earlier male puberty?
One reason is that early puberty is genetically linked to other sexual characteristics. In particular, a class of X-linked androgen receptor alleles is linked in males to aggression, impulsivity, sexual compulsivity, and lifetime number of sex partners and in females to paternal divorce, father absence, and early menarche (Comings et al., 2002). It is likely that these alleles also influence male pubertal timing, but research on this point is lacking—apparently because it is difficult to find a marker for pubertal maturation among boys that is as salient as age at menarche among girls (Ge et al., 2007). Early male puberty thus seems to be part of a “package,” or more precisely a reproductive strategy, that affects the way men go about finding a mate. Natural selection may favor one strategy or another, depending on the current cultural environment.
Is natural selection now favoring the “cads” over the “dads”? That might be what’s happening. As sexual relationships become less stable and shorter-term, women will ignore men who are oriented towards stable, long-term relationships.
I am on record as hypothesizing that two major sexual market shifts are pushing boys to earlier puberty: 1. Diversity and 2. Unrestrained female hypergamy.
Diversity of different groups of boys who mature at different rates would tend to favor the selection of boys with alleles for earlier maturity rates, given a sexual market that benefits sexually aggressive cads. Or, late-maturing k-selected boys will conform to the norm for r-selected early-maturing boys instead of the other way around, given a lack of cultural or circumstantial constraints on female sexual choice.
Female hypergamy — women’s desire to mate with the highest status men they can get, given what their looks and willingness to put out can afford them — is the complementary force that pushes evolution to select for earlier maturing, and thus more caddish, boys.
If earlier puberty among boys is real, no matter the cause, and is indicative of women favoring cads over dad, then core philosophical underpinnings and cultural analysis of the dating market found at Le Chateau Heartiste are validated in some measure.
You’ll notice I titled this post “Are the cads outbanging the dads?” That was deliberate, because there remain questions about whether cads are actually breeding more or less than dads. Outbanging is different than outbreeding. A woman could casually ignore potential beta dads throughout her teens and 20s (her prime years) for a sterile ride on the cock carousel with alpha males, only to settle down later with a beta male and bear him 1.8 children. Cheap and easy contraceptives thwart the natural procreation advantage that alpha males would normally have over beta males in the state of nature, so it is very possible that alpha males could be winning the Banging Sweepstakes while losing the Breeding Sweepstakes.
Evidence that cad outbanging and supercharged female hypergamy is occurring resides in the later age of first marriage rates, and the lower overall marriage rate, as well as the higher STD rates among women.
And there is evidence for cad outbreeding as well. Serial monogamy — which is a form of soft polygyny — is on the rise, and men who have had more than one partner have more children than men married to one woman.
On the other side of the debate are the GSS (General Social Survey) gurus who marshal self-reported evidence that dads are winning the breeding wars over cads.
I remain skeptical of the GSS data, but give it its due. My contention has never been that cads are having more children, but rather that cads are having more premarital sex than dads with higher quality (read: better looking) women when those women are in their sexual primes. This, not the discrepancy in fertility rates between alpha and beta males, is the contraceptively-aided shock wave that is roiling the sexual market and upending organic rules thousands, perhaps millions, of years old.
A society of both cad ascendence and civilization is unsustainable and incompatible. One or the other will go, and the pendulum with either swing back to dads or civilization will regress to accommodate the rise of women choosing cads. All social and economic indicators (particularly the debt overhang), and my personal experience in the bowels of the dating market, lead me to be pessimistic about a happy resolution to this building tension. Hopefully, I’m wrong, but in the meantime I’ll do what is necessary to secure my pleasure.
Beta males who get stuck in the friend zone (“LJBFed”) with women are rightly mocked for their self-defeating clinginess and the burden of their blue balls. But the strategy — if it can be called that — to befriend girls that one would like to fuck must have some utility for some men some of the time, or it wouldn’t exist in the state of nature. And, if one observes women through the years, there are those beta male orbiters who do manage, through sheer force of persistence or ungodly patience for a stroke of luck to come their way, a tender five seconds of intimacy with their female friends which the girls immediately regret afterward.
So you might say the undercover beta male orbiter strategy is extremely long-term, with no guarantee of sexual closure. It’s a painfully slow and laborious process for extracting sexual favors from girls, so why then do some egregiously betas do it? Well, because for these kinds of weak men the pain of the subversive orbiter strategy is less painful than the pain of outright rejection from busting a move that would destroy all their hopes and the delicious uncertainty that acts as mental lube for their masturbatory daydreaming.
However, if approaching and hitting on girls with sexual intention is simply out of your realm of possibility, then there are ways to conduct your undercover orbiter strategy that will maximize your odds of a bang with the torment of your dreams. I lay them out here.
– Always talk about the girls you are dating, fucking, or seeking same from to your girl “friend”. Do so in a way that does not seem try-hard; that is, offer it up like an afterthought to some other topic that triggers the segue.
– Limit your friendzone time to drinking, shows, art exhibits, and house parties. Try to avoid shopping or other quintessentially girlie or best gay boyfriend activities. The object is to do friendly things with her that mimic real dates, while avoiding doing those things with her that strengthen her impression of you as “one of the girls” (who happens to have a penis, if the rumors are true).
– Immediately and without qualification change the subject when your girl “friend” begins talking about a guy she likes, or the dudes she’s fucking or wants to fuck. Once you go down that road, there’s no turning back from eternal LJBF hell. She will never see you as a sexual creature if you are willing to listen to her sob stories about other men plowing her clean.
– Don’t make a production of her wistful musings about other guys, though. Don’t change the subject by exclaiming your refusal to listen to her dating life; doing that opens her to suspicions that you really like her, and if your Undercover Orbiter strategy is to work, you can’t put yourself in a position of needy weakness. Better to change subjects by simply changing them, as if you didn’t even hear her comment about the serial killer she really wants to boff who offed her twin sister.
– You’re going to want to invoke feelings of latent jealousy as much as possible. A girl “friend” that you are orbiting may not consciously perceive you as a potential lover, but when she sees you holding court with other girls, or flirting with one of her friends, her instincts will kick in and she won’t be able to control a growing desire for your preselected malehood.
– Use her as a target for practicing your teasing skills. A platonic girl friend (but you know better, don’t you, tiger) presents an excellent opportunity for honing your cocky teasing skills. And a welcome bonus is that she may start to want you after all your gentle insulting.
– Once in a while, she’s going to unload that “I fucked a hot dude last night” conversation bomb. Do not react negatively, even though you will feel intense burning jealousy mixed with disgust. In fact, do not react at all. Raise an eyebrow, and say something along the lines of, “Tell me more when the wedding date is set.” The idea is to ridicule her idea of a fulfilling dating life. More good replies: “Your parents would be proud”, “Hey, congratulations, you magnificent slut!” (say this with a shit-eating grin), “This is news?”
– Your one advantage, if you can call it that, is that you are the guy who is “there for her” when times are tough and she needs a shoulder to cry on. Occasionally, like when Jupiter aligns with Uranus and her oxytocin levels are off the charts, a girl will feel strong intimate feelings for the emotionally available and sensitive beta male. That’s when you leap in. You’ve been laying the groundwork for months, perhaps years, and now it’s time to cash in your “terrific guy” chips for a shot at her weepy vulva. Bust your move by gently stroking the back of her hand for hours. Progress to giving her many more hours of cunnilingus when you’ve gotten an unambiguous green light for bedroom intimacy. (Your green light will need to be unambiguous, because pushing hard for sex over her coy protestations will strike her as terribly incongruent with your personality, and she will recoil.) Finally, be prepared for waves of regret to wrack her mind in the morning, or even as soon as when the tip of your penis grazes her labia. Allow that she will need this time to regret her actions, and take the necessary precautions to avoid a feminism-inspired legal imbroglio by wiring your place with audio and video recorders the day before she arrives. You can never be too safe.
– Finally, preemptively dump her after the first time you bang her. Yes, that’s right, unceremoniously dump the girl of your dreams, your White Womb. As her confirmed beta orbiter, there is little chance she will want more sex with you after her moment of weakness (that’s what she will think it is), let alone a relationship, if you do not take steps to push her in that direction. And pushing her in that direction means pushing her away from you. There’s nothing more infuriating, and hence, more alluring, to a woman than a man who has inexplicably made himself less available to her after sex. Especially when that man has spent so much time prior being the guy she could count on. This is script-flipping on steroids. You must make her stop seeing you as her reliable, sensitive, asexual friend, and that means you need to start becoming less reliable, less sensitive, and more sexual. A preemptive dumping is just the strong medicine a girl “friend” needs to being the healing of her “regretiness”. Don’t do it the very next morning, but don’t wait too long either. You have to get the jump on her before she hits you with the “I don’t want to ruin our friendship” sermon. Timing is critical. You want to be the bearer of that message before she is.
– If you are slow to act, and she manages to “dump” you first, you have a counter maneuver. Agree with her. “Yes, this was a mistake. We need to stop so we can remain friends.” (Never mind the bizarre logic of this statement; with women, emotions are what matter.) Then, in the days immediately following, see her once, and then cut off all contact for a few weeks (or months, as the circumstances require). Cutting off contact means taking a full day or two to reply to her texts or vmails or IMs, and not making a big deal about it when she inquires why you are being distant. Act as if she is the one imagining things are wrong between you two.
– This is hamster manipulation of the highest order. You are the one instigating the Distancing Protocol, while blaming her for perceiving something that’s “all in her head”. This contradictory tactic spares you from leaving an impression of butthurtness, and keeps her in a constant state of self-doubt. From such fertile psychological ground sprouts the chaser-chasee inversion algorithm, a seduction ploy that is the special sauce which underlies every womanizer’s exotic power over their prey.
Sometimes, in moments of deep reflection, I wonder… just what delusional depths can the typical American woman plumb? I thought I’ve seen it all… attack lawyers bitching off the shoulder of sensitive niceguys… I watched cockblocks glower in the bar near the target babe. All those delusions will be spun in time, like hamsters on wheels. Time to self-deceive.
But now I see there is more out there. A bigger, better, faster hamster. A rodent so enormous on a wheel spinning so violently it creates its own black hole of irrationality, sucking in logic, reason and common sense to an event horizon doom.
Behold: The Hamster of Hamsters. The Mother of All Rodents. The MOAR you know… the more you despair that America is in the grips of a virulent, and wholly undeserved, narcissism determined to sink the nation ship with the utmost alacrity.
The beast hungers:
In that sense, vanity is yet another stick with which people are beaten — because women are told, constantly and without any real deviation from the message, that they have to look a certain way to be worthwhile, to be of value. To be REAL, in some sense.
This is, of course, utter bullshit. Because any woman who identifies as a woman is a real woman. There’s a lot of different ways that can look and they are all valid.
“Because any woman who identifies as a woman is a real woman.” Is this the ur-tautology? Or just the usual gibberish from the usual losers unable to cope with the revelations from clear thinking?
Leaving aside for the moment any presumption this particular breed of hamster vessel knows what she means by the word “valid”, it is absolute falsehood that all women have value no matter what they look like. A morbidly obese land whale has almost zero romantic value to nearly all men. A woman who is so disgustingly fat she ceases to retain even the merest shimmer of womanly shape is a female of very low physical value.
Her post seems melancholy to me in some ways, caught and struggling in the web of the social expectations that are thrust upon women.
Expectations exist because we are biological machines with biologically-based desires that react to specific body types. When those body types deviate from the desirous norm, we recoil as if we have seen a monstrous creature of the nightmare world.
if you are fat and you accept your body as it is, you are often bombarded with “Your fat!” (they never get the “you’re” right) [ed: female humor] in email and comments and sometimes in person, as though you need the reminder because you’ve risen above your station.
If you accept your fatness, then you wouldn’t be bothered by people calling you fat. Is Donald Trump bothered when people say to him “You’re rich!”?
One of the best things I ever did for myself was to consciously make an effort not to judge people’s bodies.
Here comes the patented feminist self-contradiction within two sentences…
I do not care if your hipbones stick out.
But you noticed, didn’t you, Judgy McJudgemytwoextrabeefpattiesonasesameseedbunfueledwideloadass? The “hipbones stick out” descriptive excess is classic fatgirl speak for healthy weight, slender women, hidden under an obfuscating layer of plausible deniability that she “does not care” about those skinny girls and their jutting hipbones. Fat shits just love their propaganda that the world is about to be overrun with thin women on the verge of mortal anorexia.
Your body is awesome.
Yes it is.
I do not care how many chins you are packing.
Men do. And that’s what matters.
Your body is awesome.
No it’s not.
So is mine.
I’ll be the judge of that.
Awesome, indeed. Awesomely rotund.
“So is mine.”
It’s like listening to a small child argue. The mind on display here is underdeveloped like a child’s, but at least children have the excuse that their brains are still a work in progress. This is an adult woman talking like this. Acting out like a petulant brat that reality is what she says it is, and so there!
“There’s no place like my body. There’s no place like my body. There’s no place like my body. Yay, I’m happy with myself again!”
If you wish for it hard enough… well, you’re still a fat crap.
My vanity — when I am not compromised by my own intrinsic self-doubt (two days before my period, like CLOCKWORK) — is of the traditional form. My vanity is in thinking that I am absolutely worth being looked at, absolutely worth being seen. Absolutely worth thinking of myself as talented.
Correction: You’re not worth being looked at, you’re not worth being seen, and goshdarnit, you’re absolutely not worth thinking of yourself as an alternative and equally worthy female form. And this fact will not change no matter how much you lie to yourself otherwise. It will never change until you change the fact itself, by losing weight and slimming down to a reasonable facsimile of a sexy woman. In your case, the fact itself looks to weigh about 100 unnecessary pounds.
Vanity is distasteful in people who at least can claim some justification for feeling vain; we may not like it but we understand. In contrast, vanity is farcical delusion in people who don’t possess a scintilla of real world evidence to justify their bloated self-regard. The vanity untethered from reality is a joke; it’s Generation Lookatme! on uppers, their heaving bulk held aloft by a helium-filled entitlement complex. The best thing for society would be to have these BubbleBoars disabused of their fanciful self-delusions. Of course, it might take more than a few stabs with the soulkilling shiv until they get the message. There’s a lot of ego blubber to cut through.
I wouldn’t call that inflated. I wouldn’t call that undue. I’d call that actually having a pretty good grasp on being confident that I am, in fact, a worthwhile human being.
A person’s actual worth is inversely proportional to the efforts she takes to convince herself of her worth.
Other than the death fatness and the blue hair, I’m actually pretty conventional in my appearance, according to the social beauty imperative: I am white, I have a clear complexion (mostly), I have thick curly hair on my head but little body hair. I have an hourglassy shape.
You’d have to be sober-ish to think she’s hourglassy. Hey, I thought all body types are worthwhile? She shouldn’t preen about her clear complexion and hourglassy shape. Is there something wrong with hirsute women?
I am still going to advocate for everyone being at least a little vain though. Because “pretty” should not be the sole criterion for “worth being seen.” Because “pretty” is actually kind of a bullshit narrow construct.
The hamster has gone suborbital.
In fact, when people who do not fit into the effing oppressive beauty standard that is going on in America are vain as hell, I love it.
“I am a beautiful, healthy woman. Fuck you, dad!”
I think it’s powerful and subversive and political and awesome.
No, it’s just retarded and transparent and silly and self-defeating.
Because fuck those folks who think you don’t deserve to be seen.
The problem is that there’s too much of you to see.
It’s worth clarifying as well — not only is no one required to participate in beauty culture,
No one is required to participate in breathing oxygen, either, but there are consequences if you choose non-participation.
you are still awesome and worth being seen [for the degenerate freak show you are] if you reject beauty culture entirely.
ftfy.
If vanity is about excessive pride in our appearance, well, let’s just say I’ll be damned before I look in a mirror and hate what I see just to avoid being vain.
Interesting reasoning. I didn’t know the opposite of vanity was self-hatred.
My only caveat regarding the awesomeness of vanity? Your intense and concentrated awesomeness does not mean other people are not also awesome.
I bet she doesn’t think Todd Akin is awesome.
Jane and the xoEditors actually have a whole new project in the works that will celebrate all things VAIN. It’s pretty hella exciting.
I used to think that setting these insipid behemoths straight would require nothing more than ignoring them. The sexual market is cruelly indifferent to one’s constructed vanity, and fat shits would find in short order how unloved they were by men with options. But now, I dunno… cold indifference doesn’t seem to be doing the trick. Pointing and ridiculing is the next step in the campaign against raging American female egotism, and if that doesn’t work, well, there’s always diabetes, chopped feet, and early death.
Why do I put crazed egomaniacs like this woman on the breaking wheel? What’s the point of being so mean to someone who is probably nice to puppies when she isn’t eating them? I do it to set an example for the others. To push back against evil ideologies that infect innocent minds. And make no mistake, this woman’s message is evil. If other women who had not yet ruined their bodies by blowing up to her repulsive dimensions took her words to heart, they might feel entitled to let themselves go, figuring that their body is beautiful no matter what it looks like, and shame on you for saying differently.
And then the world would be a little bit sadder, a lotta bit uglier, and a hella lot fatter. And that would be decidedly un-awesome.
