Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Sad News: Rudy Nappi died March 13th, 3015

I'm breaking my hiatus prematurely to relay some sad news: phenomenal 20th century illustrator Rudy Nappi passed away three days after his wife, on March 13th.

Many of you have remarked about the artwork found on this site; Rudi Nappi is one of my favorites, to the point I dedicated a special page of his works here.  It has been one of my most popular pages, and Nappi in particular always managed to capture a sense of erotic urgency and arousal that other "pin-up" artists rarely did.

But he was not just a cheesecake artist; Nappi provided the illustrations for some of the most iconic works of the 20th century, namely the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew novels, among an impressive amount of other commercial work.

From a marketer's perspective the kind of work Nappi did is an increasingly lost art; once illustration ruled the advertising marketplace, and Chicago, New York, and other metropolitan areas bristled with commercial artists doing their work the old fashioned way, with pencil, ink, and paper.

When commercial photography became sophisticated enough to be used in marketing the periodicals of the mid 20th century began to move away from illustration and toward illustrative photos; while that, too, is an art, the work that Nappi and his colleagues cut their teeth on dried up over time.  Only on novel covers and the occasional bit of nostalgia did you see a hint of this again.

What is ironic is that the "sleazy" work that these artists did, and Nappi in particular, was brilliant illustration that conveys some very primal and powerful emotion.  In the way that master artists do, Nappi's technique became refined over time, and according to the dictates of the market.  But for me his best work continues to be the mid-century pulp illustrations he did so masterfully.

I find this particularly sad because I had hoped to find a way to interview the man this Spring, as we lived in the same state.  When you discover a monumental talent like Nappi's is in your backyard, it's painful to know you missed a chance to meet the man who inspired so much for so many over the years.

These are the emails I kindly received from his family:

Hello-
Rudy was my great uncle.  We got news this weekend that he passed away on Friday.  He was pre-deceased by his wife by three days.  March 10th for Peggy (Margarete) and Friday for my uncle.
My Dad, George Nappi, found your website and said the following about one of your covers.  Rudy often used family members for his illustrations.  
Dad said the following about the cover for Yesterday’s Love:



The man on the ground is my Great Uncle Charlie Zappalla,my grandmother's brother in law.  The little boyis my cousin Tommy Vreeland.  Aunt Justine's son.Man standing with the hat is Aunt Peggy's FatherCharles Shubert. The other standing man isUncle Rudy's best friend & best man EUEverett Upwall.  The women are changedfaces but posed by Aunt Peggy. 
Tommy was used as inspiration for the Hardy Boys and Rudy’s daughters were used as inspiration for Nancy Drew.
He was a great man – well loved by everyone who met him and will be much missed!
-Karla (Nappi) Gadecki


Yes, Karla, he will be.

From his nephew:

I am Rudy Nappi's nephew. I am sad to report that on March 13th 2015 he passed away, 3 days after his wife my aunt Peggy (Margarete). They passed away in Charlotte, NC where they lived. They are survived by his two daughters Lynn & Susan & their family's. In reporting his death I forgot to mention one thing. His name was Joseph Rudolph Nappi; but, he preffered to use his middle name Rudy. He was also known for his nature & wildlife paintings. He & my Aunt Peggy, his wife, went on safaris for the research on wild life paintings. I cannot recall the organizations he did the paintings for. 


Our collective thanks to him and his incredible talent for so many rich decades of entertainment. I would love for someone in the family to contact me, so that I could do a complete article in memorium.  Please let me know if there is anything we can do for the family. Our condolences to losing such a great man.

Monday, February 9, 2015

How The Manosphere Can Stop Campus Sexual Assault

When one of the world's most suddenly-famous porn stars, Belle Knox, scribed a post against campus rape for Huffington Post last year in which she stated how only 2% of rape claims are ever false, the irony was amusing.  Coming from Duke University, the home to one of the largest, most vicious false-rape claims in recent US college history, one might even be tempted to smirk.

The White House got behind the meme, of course, since they haven't done much public hand wringing on the subject lately, and suddenly it has a website (#ItsOnUs - more male shaming/white knighting) and it's a Movement.

I'm not going to try to re-hash misinterpreted and poorly gathered statistics on the subject here.  Others have done that far better than I could.  But that was just one symptom.  Along came "Yes Means Yes" consent laws in California and elsewhere, "Dear Colleague" letters, the UVa rape scandal, Mattress Girl, Lena Dunham's fabrications, and all of a sudden making out with a girl from the same school you go to is an exercise in legal and academic freedom.  I am going to criticize the really, really crappy marketing this here Movement has come up with.  Using threats and celebrity endorsements and blanket male shaming, it takes a decidedly misandrist approach to the subject.

Don't mistake me: I'm not pro-rape.  No one is.  Consent is essential to the exercise of good sexual practice.  But I've seen too many times just how prevalent the on-campus call of rape is.  The special rules, the town v. gown laws, all seek to make men more vulnerable to false rape accusations on campus.  I've also seen what a serial rapist can do to a campus, if undetected.

True story: a bud of mine, way back in college, had a dorm room threesome with his girlfriend and her best friend.  A total of 3 beers were consumed by the three of them.  He wasn't even particularly into it, but his girlfriend wanted to "help out" her best friend who was in a losing streak, and he was a stalwart dude, so he bit the bullet and had mediocre sex with two girls.

Three weeks later he hears rumors how he "raped" both women . . . despite the fact that his girlfriend insisted that everything was consensual.  Apparently her best friend got convinced by a Campus Feminist ("Building A Compelling Argument For The Manosphere Since 1983!") that her one beer and low self-esteem somehow counteracted all of that hazily remembered 'consent' stuff she had actively voiced.  Even if she had technically consented, the argument was, she was clearly taken advantage of.  Therefore it was rape.

No official accusations were ever made, no campus kangaroo court, no shred of evidence was ever produced, but my bud learned his lesson. He had indulged unwisely and dallied with the wrong girl . . . and he nearly had his life ruined over it.  He gave his girlfriend an ultimatum and quietly moved on with his life, older and wiser.

Things are even worse today, now that the anti-rape, anti-male crusade has become institutionalized.  Screwing a collegiate undergraduate from the same school you attend is dicing with Fate over your life.  (As most schools' campus codes of conduct only cover student-on-student or student-on-teacher sex, screwing a collegiate undergraduate from a nearby school is a LOT safer bet in most situations).

Today, I'm not sure I could even stomach what passes for dating and mating on campus.

But there is a way that the young Red Pill man can help stop campus sexual assault:

Drop out of college.

Seriously, fellas.  Think about what you are doing to yourself by inflicting this rose-covered vision of success on yourself before you're committed.

Getting into student loan debt of any size over classes like "Introduction To Digital Photography" and "Contemporary Topics In Hip Hop Culture" is just stupid.  When you're 30 and poverty stricken, perhaps it will suddenly become useful, but going to any kind of serious university (say, Belle Knox's prestigious institution) and spending enough to buy half a house every year for four years is insanity - particularly if you have no idea what you want to do.  And since most college-age guys do not, indeed, know what they want to do, college ends up being an expensive vacation you pay for for decades . . . and it doesn't even help that much getting a job.

Now that college men are being targeted for anti-rape crusades like this, you can add a potential life-ruining event into your expensive vacation - some extra charges may apply.  In addition to crippling debt, student poverty, and a murky future at best, you can add the specter of a campus show trial and the ruination of your reputation, just because that girl who had totally consensual sex with you last night has a boyfriend, and she feels guilty about what she did with you.


So why bother?  I don't say that in jest.  Once upon a time, in the glorious days of our patriarchal ancestors, the economy was such that a college degree was a virtual guarantee of employment and entry into the professional world.  Now, not so much. Today your "college experience" is going to look less like Animal House and more like some sad, desperate Indy art house flick that couldn't get an audience at Sundance.  Whatever privileges accrued because of your collegiate status are gone, now.

But your parents are on your back to do something, and OF COURSE they want you to go to college.  To get an Education.  To get a Good Job.  So you can attract a Good Wife and give them Grandchildren, while you make them proud with your career as a ____________ (anything but an Art Historian).   The problem is that this schedule just isn't working anymore.  Men are getting to college, finding the "collegiate experience" to be crappy, and are finding all sorts of excuses to drop out.

University educators are quietly freaking-the-fuck-out over it, as the campus sex ratios start skewing heavily female and the college graduation rates start doing more so.  Only they can't come out and say "Hey, we're scaring off all the dudes!" because that would be dis-empowering to the young women who are taking their places, and the daddies who are paying for it.  A majority of female students on campus is exactly what feminism wants, so making that a "problem" isn't a good career move for a college administrator.  Instead they're couching the issue in terms of "retention" and "graduation completion", and just not mentioning that the majority of drop-outs and never-finished students happen to have penises.

Thing is, this is an even bigger problem for the schools, and they know it.   As pleasing a prospect as a majority female campus is to the HuffPo crowd, it's a serious issue for the institutional health of a university.  Why?  Because female alumni just don't donate to schools the way that successful male alumni do . . . and they very, very rarely make staggering multi-million dollar endowments or pay to get buildings named after them, the way that patriarchal, egotistical alpha success-junkies do.  That's bad news for anyone into institutional giving.  College count on succeeding generations of alumni to fill the fund-raising gap, and a bunch of low-donor female graduates whose husbands (if any) really don't want to donate to the school where his wife learned about penises.

(Digression: UVa frats, do you really want to fuck with your college over their punitive treatment of your hallowed institutions?  Send out letters to your alumni requesting that they postpone any further institutional contributions to the college until a more reasonable and respectful approach to this issue is discovered.  Look at the number of alumni gifts that come from former fraternity members - you'll find it not only surpasses the gifts by non-frat almums, but that it dwarfs gifts from sorority alums.  If UVa realizes that it's going to fall short $10 million this year in its giving campaign, you'll start to get their attention.)

Consider that a college education, the usual 4 year sheepskin from pretty much any accredited school, is likely going to be required only if you are pursuing an advanced degree in a professional field, such as medicine, law, or STEM.  For most positions you are likely to encounter, your brand-spanking new degree that you worked so hard for is a tick mark on someone's form and an extra space on your resume, nothing more.  "Some college" tends to work as well as "College graduate" for most jobs.

So unless you have a burning desire to be a lawyer or doctor - at 18? really? - and have already dedicated yourself to your chosen vocation, going to college without a definite plan is a great way to waste your youth and your parent's money.

A better bet is to take 2-3 years off after high school, figure out your first career at your leisure, and work your ass off.  Coming back to school when you're older and wiser and have a better idea of what you want out of life saves time, money, and effort.

There's method to my madness.  In evaluating male and female patterns of occupational social behavior (because that's the sort of thing Sex Nerds do) it is becoming more and more clear to me that while Women Love Opportunistically and Men Love Idealistically, in terms of career development and approach to the workplace Women Work Idealistically and Men Work Opportunistically.

That is, when the most successful men and women's careers are examined, in general it can be said that men tend to "luck into" their successful careers or exploit an innate talent or interest, whereas women view work and their vocational aspirations in more noble terms.  This can keep them from taking the risks their male counterparts take, and keep them working in an unfavorable position against their best interest out of a sense of duty to the ideal - not the job.

(Yet according to feminism women's failure to get ahead in the business world is due to  "institutionalized sexism" . . .)

Dudes work differently.  You should exploit that by not automatically accepting a preformed template of success left over from an age where it actually worked sometime.  If men do best when they discover their own talents and interests and follow them opportunistically, then locking yourself into an ever-decreasing possible number of career paths through a premature commitment to academics might be the very worst thing for you to do.

Consider what your life would be like if you spent the 18-20 period in hard core monk mode?  Get a dumb job, enough to pay whatever expenses you have, and then pump iron and read every day.  In two years, you could read the hundred greatest books of all time, which I guarantee would be a more impressive education than you'd get from State U.  And six pack abs beat the Freshman Fifteen for SMV any day.

Some alternatives to college for the ambitious young man:

1) Military Service

Not everyone's cup of tea, but if you want the most basic, traditional way of "making a man out of you", then you can't beat military life.  Sure, it sucks.  It's supposed to.  But the skills you take away from it will last you a lifetime, and your chances of banging inexpensive Asian hookers goes up.  While being in the military during the middle of a shooting war is exciting, and potentially career-ending, it does train you for basic security and a bunch of other post-military job.  Plus there is a growing trend towards privatized security.  Let the US Army teach you everything you need to know to be a mercenary in the Third World, and develop your badass aura.

2) Religious Service

Rarely taken seriously as a vocation anymore, thanks to the dilution of religion with free-form spirituality (not judging, here, just observing) a young man of a contemplative or compassionate bent might consider investing two years of his youth in the service of his church or religion.  Mormons already do this as a mandatory act of transition to adulthood.  If you are Catholic, Lutheran or Buddhist consider finding a monastery and seeing if you can't volunteer and participate in monastic life.  If you're a Neopagan, consider devoting yourself in service to the Land for two years.  Or if you are spiritually inclined but ignorant of religion, consider taking two years to explore your faith in context of religion.  You might not gain great job skills, but in terms of personal and spiritual development it's hard to argue with the rewards of service.

3) Practice A Craft

Men work with their hands, even the ones who work with their minds.  Most dudes have at least the ambitions to build stuff, even if they don't have the skills or the basic idea how to do so.  If you've always wanted to build a guitar, a car, a bar, or a boat, now is the time to do so.  Find a guy who's doing what you want to do and ask him to learn.  Explore what talents your hands and eye might have.  Learn how to build a wall, lay bricks, pound nails, dig a ditch, pour concrete, paint, whatever it is that you have a talent or fascination with,, this is the ideal time for you to explore that.

4) Travel

"Backpacking in Europe" instead of going to college is such a cliche that it's not even humorous anymore.  But travel, as the venerable Roosh V has demonstrated, is an excellent way for a Red Pill man to broaden his horizons.  Beyond Europe there is a whole world of incredible discovery available to you, usually for a lot cheaper than even living at home, if you know how to travel.  Nor do you have to get a passport, if you don't want to.  Spend two years going to wherever you want to, doing whatever you like, and see what places and people speak to your soul.

5) Learn a Trade

If learning a craft isn't your forte, consider learning a trade.  Don't limit yourself to traditional male jobs like construction, if you can help it, there are a lot of perfectly good trades that can give you a good economic base from which to pursue more elaborate plans.  Bartenders tend to be low-skilled positions that can be found anywhere, and the perks are well-known.  Similarly learning how to be a high-end barista can get you work anywhere but Utah.  Cooking is another great skill, and one that lends itself to universal employment opportunities.  Believe it or not, learning how to cut hair allowed one of my friends to leave his depressing job as an analyst and embark on a world tour, with only his kit and his backpack.  He was able to work in high-end salons (where the pussy was righteous) but he would also offer to cut anyone's hair in the campgrounds he stayed in for just $10.  Two cuts and he'd paid for his rent and his meals for the day.  There are many good service trades that a young man can master pretty quickly, allowing him to start reaping the benefits of employment.  Find one and learn it.

One other advantage of skipping the boilerplate college experience?  It keeps you from facing a lower standard of proof in a he-said, she-said shouting match over whether her enthusiastic fellatio also implied consent for coitus, or not, and other such diversions.  Campus Sexual Assault has become a serious issue.  Everyone says so.  Clearly men are at fault.  So clearly the absolute best thing that we, as men, can do to stop this horrible scourage is to avoid college without a compelling reason to go there.

Sure, if you want to be a doctor and a lawyer, then go.  If you have a free ride lined up, GO.  If there is an actual reason beyond "I graduated High School and I didn't know what else to do", then yes, consider college.  But if not . . . don't believe the hype.  You'll have more fun, more money, and be in a better situation than if you went.  You can ALWAYS go back later, when you've figured out a career path to pursue and you've committed to it.  Your SMV and Game will be far higher then, anyway, and you'll have the sophistication to avoid most of the boneheaded pitfalls everyone else makes.  But don't go right out of high school.

This move serves not just you, it serves the forces of greater positive masculinity.  Women are already the dominant force in most colleges.  Let them be.  The corporate feminist Lean In model of graduate universities are producing are not who you want to tie your fortunes to as a man, anyway.

Better to get a solid STEM degree, or apprentice in a trade, and spend your leisure time enjoying your youth, not struggling to remember Medieval French that you will never use again.  By ceding the universities to women, men will actually improve their individual lots by making far better informed choices in academics, career, and mating opportunities.

Of course, that would be BAD news for college women, many of whom are secretly (desperately!) hoping they can land a future doctor or lawyer in time to pick up their $50k student loan debt for her Art History degree.  It would also be BAD news for college age women who want to marry in the future at all.  Less men at school means less "acceptable" partners for hypergamous marriage.  And less dudes on campus means an explosion of Puerarchy, those fellas feminists love to hate.

So help stop campus sexual assault.  Don't go to college.  It's really that simple.


Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Have Yourself A Very Red Pill Christmas

As the countdown to the holidays begins in earnest, there will undoubtedly be times in which you are thrown into a social situation with a self-declared SJW.  This can happen at virtually any time, and you can be accosted for just about any perceived transgression in an airport, on public transportation, at company parties, and, of course, the informal social gatherings that proliferate at this time of year.

In years gone by our attitude has been, traditionally, to clench our jaw and excuse ourselves at the earliest possibility, reluctant to engage.  That's not cowardice - that's a survival technique in a situation which could have long-lasting consequences.  
But some tides have begun to turn, and as feminism, in particular, has made 2014 The Year Feminism Jumped The Shark, you may be feeling a renewed sense of purpose as you consider squaring off with a loud SJW.  
If you are inclined to capitalize on the current wave, and have a desire to become a - albeit small - agent in the greater Culture War, the you might just consider exposing yourself to these relative strangers and doing a bit of Red Knighting.
Black Knighting, as we are all aware, is the overt process of using the established rules of liberal social justice against its very proponents.  A Voice For Men does this on an institutional level, and recently some serious overtures between the MHRM and the Manosphere have resulted in the metaphor of the MHRM being guerrilla warriors to the independent sniping of the various Manosphere blogs and other outlets (lookin' at you, r/theredpill).  Both, it was reasoned, were valuable techniques that could work in concert.  
I tend to support that idea.
To that end, consider Red Knighting: the covert agency of advancing Red Pill memes and ideas in conflict with the established feminist paradigm.  The purpose of this is not to convince or convert any SJWs - gods forbid, they're our best recruiting tool! - but to be seen engaging in dialog with said SJW with amused mastery.by others who are less convinced of the shrill righteousness of their cause.  
A good Red Knight may never publicly reveal his allegiance to TRP, but can turn what SJWs call "microagressions" into a verbal martial art, with a little practice.  You don't have to go all SJW-y to do it, either. You, too, can be a subversive Red Knight in your life, particularly on your travels during the holidays, quietly perfecting your own approach to TRP while also subtly lending your voice and (most importantly) your actions to relentlessly (but quietly) fighting this battle underground.
Our strength is not in our ability to organize and form a great, grand movement that can force social change at the meta level.  The guerrillas of AVfM can guard that flank.  In the Manosphere, our strength is in our decentralization and pervasiveness in society.  Here's how "microaggressions" can really be used to the benefit of positive masculinity.
You can start by refusing to rubber-stamp the "conventional wisdom" about a lot of our key issues by simply stating your opinion in short, controlled bursts. Your refusal to participate in the madness is, in and of itself, a statement. Short, pithy, borderline-trite come-backs that tend to shut down the conversation are best, and the holiday season - with the SJWs festively coming home to spread their crusade of bitter outrage to their families - is an outstanding place for a nascent Red Knight to pursue some entertaining bits of guerrilla ontology.
Some examples:
"Pay equity? Not until draft equity."
"Police report or it didn't happen."
"Feminism? I prefer science."
"Thankfully feminism broke the traditional gender role of me having to give a shit."
"One in five? Not according to the Department of Justice. Of the Obama Administration."
"Yeah, it's sexist. So is biology. I'm OK with that."
"If gender is a social construct why aren't little gay boys socialized straight by our dominant cishetero patriarchal culture? Oh, because their sexuality isn't a choice? Either is mine. I'm comfortable with that."
"You don't get to tell me how to be a man. Any more than I get to tell you how to try to be a woman. Thanks, feminism."
"Marrying a feminist increases your chances of divorce. Kinda like buying a pretty house on a fault line. But I'd love to hear of some actual evidence to the contrary."
"Equilibrium is a far more effective and pragmatic approach than equality."
"You cannot negotiate desire."
"Men love idealistically. Women love opportunistically."
"I'd be more inclined to consider pay inequity once there were more than 70 men employed for every hundred women."
"Which do you think has more rapes, UVA or a Federal Penitentiary?"
"Women control sex. Men control commitment.  Everywhere.  Always."
"Women talk. Men act."
"Equality or special treatment? Pick one and stick with it."
"It is not my obligation to change our society so that you may feel better about your life."
"Do not mistake my devotion to civility as approval or acceptance of your behavior."
"End sexist gender roles? That's just what I wrote on my Selective Service application. What did you write on yours?"
"Men have the right to withdraw their participation when it is not in their best interests. If it's a woman's body and her choice, then that is ours."
"How is reproductive coercion different from rape?  Just curious."
"In every presidential election in the era of mass media, the more attractive candidate has won. Why will this cycle be different?"
"Fatherhood is a sacred responsibility. Do not mock it."
"My sperm is viable until I'm in my 70s. I can afford to be choosy."
"Any reasonable man considers his relationships with women fungible. Occasionally he might find worthy of further investment. But that's a rare thing, these days. Like the last crap of a dying unicorn."
"I really just don't see the point to most men getting into a real relationship, these days. Really, what's in it for them?"
"The heart wants what the heart wants. And sometimes the heart wants a girl with a sweet-disposition, a pretty smile, big boobs, and no interest whatsoever in social justice causes."
"Feminists make great employees and lousy wives."
"If I was really ever going to treat you as an equal, we'd be fist-fighting already. You should value my sexism."
" 'Decent' is just another term for 'suppressed.' "
"Remember that your ability to complain about misogyny was purchased with the blood of patriarchs."
"Most men feel that feminism is about equality the way that most African Americans feel that the Confederate Battle Flag is about Southern pride and heritage."
"Nature makes a Woman. It takes other Men to make a Man."
"Why is the answer to fixing society's problems constantly hinging on convincing men to behave more like women?"
"Men built Western Civilization. You really don't think we could bust it? Or let it die from neglect out of spite?"
"There is as much evidence of 'The Patriarchy' as there is of the 'Vast Satanic Sexual Abuse Conspiracy' the FBI found exactly no evidence of."
"How is your definition of feminism functionally different than the definition of humanism?"
"If you had a choice between true social and economic equality that left you single until you die alone, or a lifetime of bliss with a loving partner in an overtly sexist society, which one would you choose to live in?"
"Sure, your partner count doesn't work against you. Unless you believe in science."
"If you're strong and independent, why would you want a man?"
"Do you need a man? No? Then don't worry. You probably won't get one."
"Wan't to stop campus rape? Stay out of college. Not you, Cupcake, I'm talking to you fellas. Seriously. It's a money pit and a minefield of bad decisions. Take a couple of years off and figure out what you want to do, first. It's not like your looks are suddenly going to collapse. Cupcake can date what's . . . left on campus."
"It's not 'Madonna and Whore'. It's 'Wife and Future Ex-Wife. Get it straight."
"The rarest of delicacies among die-hard feminists is wedding cake."
"Among the gender stereotypes feminism managed to successfully smash were chivalry and the incentive to commitment. You're on your own."
"If it 'shouldn't matter' who leads the relationship, then it shouldn't matter to you who will lead mine. Here's a hint: it will be me."
"So what will women do in a few years when cheap temporary vasectomies essentially rip their control over their reproduction away? Start hanging out in bars begging for fertilization?"
"Oh, yeah, that's just what a man wants to come home to: an aging, bitter executive with a freezer full of eggs and a predisposition toward divorce. That's a manly dose of marital and domestic bliss, right there."
"Men of quality are not attracted to your resume, no matter how many times your girlfriends tell you they are."
And so on. You get the gist. Subtle but direct jabs of Red Pill goodness. Use it sparingly, with amused mastery, and best against those outside of your immediate social circle.  Never get angry, never raise your voice, never loose that cocky grin and steely gaze. 
But when that perky SJW with the nose ring starts screaming about rape culture, or that embittered corporate feminist starts talking about gender oppression, smile . . . and then go at it like a gentleman.
Merry Christmas, Red Knights.  Go forth and be Men for the holidays.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Red Pill Marriage: "Don't Call Me That!"


 
I was expecting to break my blog silence with one of my traditional wall-of-text posts, which is still in the works and forthcoming.  But as I was flipping channels, after the last of the mid-season finales aired, I came across one of those unscripted reality shows featuring one of those super-huge, I-can't-believe-I-ate-the-whole-box-of-fertility-pills families. The scene showed the brood enthusiastically participating in the rituals of Christmas, and frequently cut from shots of cute kids doing horrible things to gingerbread to the husband-and-wife post-mortem interview.

The husband was bravely trying to put a good face on the Christmas-gone-awry, and in typical adoring Blue Pill fashion he gave all the credit to his wife.  In fact, he said something along the lines of

"...and none of it would have come together without the hard work of my wife."

But, apparently, such a self-deprecating and humble bit of praise wasn't adequate.  Instead of smiling thankfully and gratefully of his acknowledgement of her hard work and planning, she grimaced and growled:

"Don't call me that!"

Ouch.

 He didn't call her a bitch, a cunt, a whore, a slut, a goldigger, or any number of other bits of borderline misogyny to cause offense - the thing she objected to was being referred to as "his wife".  Blue Pill Boy immediately corrected, restating the latter half of the sentence using her proper name, but the look on his face said everything.  This, clearly, was a woman who did not value either her husband OR their marriage enough to embrace the title.

This would be shocking, if it wasn't also so abysmally common.  One of the most insidious cultural factors eroding the support and strength of modern marriages is the post-modern equal-partnership model (Blue Pill Standard) popular amongst the college-educated and forward-thinking.  This model evolved following the Great Divorce-a-Thon in the 1970s, in which newly-empowered wives took Second Wave feminism to the end-zone, essentially re-writing the script on men without their consent or consideration.

The BPS marriage emphasizes equality, of course, but in doing so it neutralizes those gender-based traits that actually help a marriage survive and thrive.  Women who insist on keeping their maiden name or hyphenating are sending a clear signal to the world - and their husbands: "I'm more concerned about my own aggrandizement than I am the success of this family".  Women who refuse to be called "Mrs.", and who even get angry if you refer to "her husband", as if such a dirty secret should be whispered in hushed tones, have helped denigrate the cultural underpinnings of marriage.

And then we come to those who actively eschew being called "wife".  After all the struggle for the dress and the ring and the party, they don't actually want the title.  Or, as far too many poor idealistic men have discovered over the last two decades, the job.

If the current Sexodus of men from marriage is disturbing to women, feminist and non-feminist alike, part of that reluctance for men to marry or even to commit is due to the injury feminism has made to the institution.  Feminism de-valued marriage from a monumental life-altering event in two people's lives to an aggrandized cohabitation agreement.  Feminism sees marriage as a temporary condition, a perspective at odds with most men's conception of marriage.  And the reluctance to embrace the idea, much less the term, of wife-hood has in turn given men little incentive to marry and every incentive to reconsider the entire topic of marriage.

"Don't call me that!" is an acid blast of feminine imperative to the masculine solar plexus.  When a woman openly - publicly - repudiates her union with her man by treating the title "wife" as an insult or slur, then that woman is demonstrably unsuitable for marriage.

Nor is this the first time I've noticed this.  I watched a feminist friend of mine almost have a mental meltdown when she had to refer to her former fiance as "her husband".  She looked guilty and ashamed . . . of him, not the ring.  She waved that sucker around like she was trying to land a jetliner.

I've seen other women admit to having husbands like they'd admit to having herpes.  There's an almost apologetic air to the admission, as if they have lost a bet or assumed an unfavorable mortgage. In conversation they may even go so far as to praise their husbands for some little thing, but this is almost inevitably followed with a disclaimer, as if a husbandly achievement is so remarkable for its own sake that no further elaboration is necessary.  "He actually got the kids up and off to school on time.  Even made lunches."

Seeing a woman openly bridling at being referred to as a wife by the ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET with the right to do so is brutally telling.  As a means of psychological control in the relationship it is almost ideal.  In rejecting the idea of "ownership" feminism considers implicit in the patriarchal oppression of matrimony, feminism also poisons the well for non-feminists by devaluing their own service and devotion to family.  When "wife" becomes a curse-word, you can just bet men will be glad to use that as a rationalization to further avoid commitment.


The Red Pill approach to this matter is very straightforward.  For single men, believe it or not it is actually in your best interest to respect the institution of marriage in your speech and actions, no matter how galling the expression.  Treating husbands as the de facto heads of households during social events will infuriate feminist wives, as will being referred to as "Harry's wife."  Denigrating marriage almost never gets you laid - even if you're looking to spin her into a plate, every woman looks for that impossible ideal of the bad-boy-turned-super-dad.

That doesn't mean you have to be vocally enthusiastic about marriage, either.  By cultivating the idea that marriage is a rare and special privilege reserved only for the most elite among women, you establish by your attitude the context you need to inject Preselection into your Game without actually having another woman around to do it for you.  By expressing your great reverence for marriage along with your cynicism that you will find a worthy-enough woman to become your wife, you set up a high bar that any woman of your intimate acquaintance is going to pay attention to, regardless of whether or not she is actually entertaining thoughts of a commitment.  Being pro-marriage earns you feminine respect, and being inherently reluctant to spend that precious coin on anything less than a unicorn makes you exceptional.

In fact, it's a single dude's benefit to point out bad marriages, and bad marriage practice to the women in his circle . . . if he can simultaneously point out good marriages, and marital practice to be emulated to his women.  It can't help but make them try harder.

The other advantage to being pro-(good) marriage is that it can cultivate you allies among married men. While a number of single dudes rightly suspect marriage in general, when they do meet someone who does it successfully the last thing you should do is try to pick apart a man's relationship.  The code among gentlemen has always been to support a man, once he has made the decision to commit.  It may have been the last free decision he ever made, but once made it should be respected, not denigrated.  When some young buck calls you an idiot for the sacrifices and hard work you've made over the course of your marriage, the inclination to intervene on his behalf with the police later that evening when things get out of hand will be far less compelling.

Similarly, when an old girlfriend shows up to the party and you can hook your solid, single pal up, you're going to be a lot MORE inclined if he didn't talk shit about your marriage.

There are those who maintain that marriage is essentially a Blue Pill sucker's game.  I disagree.  The growing number of Red Pill marriages (plug for r/marriedredpill and r/redpillwomen) prove that there are ways to do it right . . . and they don't involve shying away from calling your wife by her title.  Indeed, the embrace of "outdated gender roles" and the glorious acceptance of a complementary approach to matrimony based on equilibrium, not equality, are hallmarks of these marriages.

Call your wife "your wife".  It's helpful social mate guarding and yes, it does imply a sense of ownership.  You do have papers on her, after all.  Go further, if you wish, and call her by title: "Wife! Can you fix me a cup of coffee, please?"

Similarly, for Red Pill Wives calling your husband "Husband", as a proper title of address, helps reinforce not your chattel property status, as feminism claims, but your mutual roles and areas of responsibility in the common enterprise of running the ship.

"Husband" and "Wife" are job titles, and by referring to them you help shape a family culture that emphasizes the dual and complementary nature of the endeavor.  And yes, that implies a lot of "baggage": preconsent (in general) to sex, common property, inheritance, differing gender-based responsibilities to house and home.

A woman who shuns the term doesn't deserve it, A woman who embraces it should be celebrated by having the title used as it was meant, as a term of social respect.  Men socially ennoble women by virtue of our commitment, and it's rude of you not to re-affirm that commitment publicly by not using it.

So this holiday season don't shy away from using the terms - instead, help combat the rising tide of anti-marriage propaganda by treating the institution with the respect it deserves.  When most men make it clear to most women that wedding cake is only for the very best among them, then you will inevitably see a shift in perspectives.  And when you make it clear that the title you respect most isn't "CEO", "CFO", "President" or "Director", but "Mrs.", you will begin to see some erosion on the other side of the river.  Because when feminism runs afoul of the Feminine Imperative (which prizes male commitment), feminism inevitably loses.



Wednesday, October 29, 2014

AFC Spreadsheet Challenge Ends This Friday!



If you recall, a few months back I issued the AFC Spreadsheet Challenge, inviting all married men who were curious about the Red Pill to track their sex lives with their wives over a 90 period, starting August 1 and ending October 31.  As that day draws to a close, I encourage all of you to make that final push to get your numbers up or, conversely, begin the painful process of data analysis with the data pool that you've assembled.


How many times did you approach?  How many times did you initiate? How many times were you successful?  How many times were you rejected?  What reasons/excuses/rationalizations did your wife give you?

Remember, there is no right answer, except in the sense that you are evaluating raw, hard, objective data about your sex life.  Every relationship is different, so don't feel competitive with other men about your stats.  What's important is what you feel when you look down at those raw numbers, and realize what they say about you, your wife, and your relationship.  Without real data, it's impossible to spot a problem, much less fix one.


Feel free to share your results here (Anonymously, if you like), because while this isn't a competition, the whole secondary purpose of this exercise is to share data with your peers for review.  If you're working a Red Pill strategy, how does it stack up to the Blue Pill strategies?  Let's see what the data says.  And no embellishments, Gentlemen.

I'll probably leave this post up awhile.  As a brief programming note, I'll probably be neglecting this blog for a few months, thanks to one of my projects being green-lighted (could be an Ian Ironwood-written porn movie coming out, it seems) along with some other writing projects I need to focus on.  I'll still be lurking, don't get me wrong, but if I'm not as active on Twitter, here, and Reddit for awhile, don't get worried.  This is one of my most productive times of year.

Lastly, Happy Hallowe'en, and to my Pagan brethren, may you have a productive and reflective Samhain!








Friday, October 17, 2014

"Making Responsive Desire AWESOME": Feminism still has no answers.

I was hanging out over at Feminist Sex Nerd Dr. Emily Nagoski's blog, The Dirty Normal today, and I came across this post about how to make responsive desire (which most women possess most of the time) "awesome".  

Problem is, Emily's answer to it falls somewhat short of "awesome".  But she does invite her readers to tell how "spontaneous desire" people (i.e. most men, most of the time) deal with "responsive desire" people (i.e. most women, most of the time).

The responses that followed tended to be straight-up Blue Pill methodology, i.e. the "responsive desire" spouse still maintains the sexual control in the relationship and the "spontaneous desire" spouse is advised to "self regulate" (i.e. masturbate).

While I'm all for a good wank, the plain fact of the matter is that men don't get married so that they can masturbate.  Our desire for sex is paramount to most other considerations.  Open, honest communication, which Dr. Emily suggests is the winning strategy, tends to flow out of our mouths as "I'm horny and I'm bitterly disappointed that you rejected me again", to which the RD spouse usually says "deal with it."

So . . . no win for Emily, there.

Most of the following (my comment, too long not to turn into a post and in danger of being deleted in moderation) will not be a big surprise to most of you, but might be instructive to those who are new to the Red Pill.  Here is, in a nutshell, how I got here and why:

I'll bite.

My partner (wife of 23 years), like most women, falls into the standard 70%/30% responsive/spontaneous category, dependent primarily on her place in her menstrual cycle.  I'm about 80% spontaneous, 20% responsive.  For the first eighteen or nineteen years of our relationship we followed the Standard Model of post-feminist marriage, with hit-or-miss sexual encounters involving a large number of initiations on my part and a large number of rejections on hers.  Once we matured as a couple, things got a little better, but we were still largely depending on random variables and crappy timing.  Attraction was high, arousal was not.  That's mostly because we didn't truly understand the functioning male/female cishetero dynamic, until I started studying the potential for Female Viagra, which (among other areas) led me to this blog and Emily.

Emily's work has led me to conclude that the Standard Model used by most married couples post-1965, depending on the ideal of presumed equality of sexual experiences and outcomes between the genders, is highly flawed and works in a minority of cases at best.  It ignores the essential gender differences between cishet men and women, and depends on a range of low-return strategies that lead, eventually, to divorce.  It discourages, rather than encourages, pairbonding and long-term relationship survival, and encourages infidelity, socio-sexual polygamy, divorce, and the dissolution of families.  As sexuality is the root of marriage in every human culture, and as "married sex" is highly denigrated by both popular mainstream culture and feminist subculture, using the Standard Model as a workable theory is a recipe for failure.

In breaking down a workable replacement for the Standard Model, Emily suggested to me the SIS/SES mode, which makes far more sense and fits with the observable reality of cishet LTRs.  And when examining the Context Dependence elements of the SES, it became clear that no amount of chemical monkeying around with female sexuality is going to increase a given woman's over-all sex drive and satisfaction.  Pink Viagra doesn't exist.  Female sexuality is, as Emily has explained, just far too complex and sophisticated to respond to cheap neurochemical theatrics.

So . . . what's a standard model, spontaneous desire-driven husband to do? 

Current literature on the subject includes lots of "helpful" advice which falls into two categories: Treat Your Wife Like A Princess (let's call it Mode A), essentially using your resources to decrease her SIS until she's just so darned relaxed that she has no real reason to say no to sex; and then there is the much-smaller Mode B, which, among other things, does not advocate treating your wife like a princess. 

The problem is, Mode A doesn't work.  Oh, it can have a few short-term positive effects, but if the goal is to increase your sex life (as it is with most husbands with strong spontaneous desire) then Mode A involves expending a lot of resources for very little return.  It will make your wife feel good, no doubt, but . . . well, anecdotal evidence demonstrates that subservient, attentive husbands just are not having the crazy amounts of sex with their wives suggested by the Treat Your Wife Like A Princess model.  Quite the contrary.  There are so man Very Good Men who are doing everything under the sun for their wives, and their wives are still divorcing them for no particularly good reason.  It's a big enough deal that major news outlets are writing about it.

So, just how does your standard cishet married couple learn to deal with such issues?  For one thing, I educated myself about the difference between arousal and attraction.  Mode A emphasizes trying to build desire by fueling attraction - being supportive, communicative, and other stuff to work on the SIS.  All well and good . . . but it does jack to build desire.  As studies have shown repeatedly, doing laundry and housework does not actually lead to more sex for a married couple, despite two generations of feminist rhetoric to the contrary.  It might make the wife happier, but it actually decreases the amount of sex.  So Mode A is a fail, for this purpose.  Waiting around for her to ovulate so that you can take advantage of her brief spontaneous desire window is not the kind of sex life most husbands signed up for.  Indeed, once-a-month sex is the clinical definition of a "sexless marriage".

If Mode A builds attraction but not arousal, then . . . what?  Emily has little to say about stimulating the SES, in any helpful fashion.  And there's a reason for that.  Because the one thing that DOES consistently (and scientifically) tend to build arousal in women, as opposed to attraction, is dominant male behavior.  That's Mode B.  That's the mode that Emily and the rest of the current crop of sex educators doesn't want to delve into, for two reasons.  One, it's dangerously close (ideologically speaking) to nasty ol' patriarchy, denies women's agency, encourages male sexual "entitlement" (because men wanting to have sex is "entitlement") and otherwise contradicts the feminist narrative about How Sex SHOULD Work.  All that consent stuff Emily wrote about, after this post, for instance.

It's good stuff, don't get me wrong . . . but it ignores (as much of Emily's writing on the subject does) the ugly reality that regardless of what genderless pronoun constructions you try to use to describe it, generally cishet men and cishet women are very different in generalizable ways, when it comes to their approach to sexuality.  And while those generalizations do not describe every situation adequately, the do so well enough for most folks to be of use.  The fact is, if a man wants to learn how to invoke reactive desire in his wife consistently, then the only certain way to do that is to cultivate a male-dominant attitude and approach to both his sex life and his personal life.

And that really damages the whole "equal partner" construct that modern marriage is supposed to reflect.  Problem is, modern marriage is coughing up blood trying to swallow that particular pill.  That's not an issue for folks who view marriage as a temporary thing, as most modern women often do, but for men who value their commitment and wish to establish a permanent relationship, being an "equal partner" in a marriage seems about the surest way to kill it beyond criminal charges or an unemployed live-in brother-in-law.  The "equal partner" dynamic insisted upon by Mode A does not encourage female arousal.  It discourages it.  Husbands working under the "equal partners" mode do not initiate often, they do not persist after an initial rejection, and they are so mindful of their partners mental-emotional state that they will fail to initiate even when circumstances present themselves, leading to frustration on the part of both parties. 

Mode A "equal partnerships" do not encourage male-dominant behavior, they discourage it.  And in doing so, they discourage the arousal triggers that allows a man and a woman to properly function as a sexually-fulfilled cishet monogamous couple.  In short, the wife grows less and less aroused by her husband, even if her attraction for him waxes, and eventually an opportunity or a growing sexual dissatisfaction encourages her to seek for sexual novelty outside of the relationship to make up the lack.  Equal partnerships lead far more frequently to infidelity than male-dominated marriages.

That's the uncomfortable truth that Emily, and the other feminist-oriented sex researchers (and that's the vast majority, these days) don't want you to really understand.  There is no Pink Viagra, because women's sexual psychology is too complex to respond to a drug.  The drug it craves is psycho-sexual stimulation brought on by the context or observation of male-dominant social behavior.  Every time a wife exercises her "independence" at the expense of her husband, socially, she is sabotaging her own arousal for him, and her own possible sexual fulfillment as a result.  Every time a husband defers to his wife’s judgment, presenting a submissive side to her, he squashes his own hopes of a fulfilling sexual experience.

You want “concordant desire”?  You want “enthusiastic consent”?  You want “joyful succumbing”?  Feminist sexuality has no practical route to that for cishetero couples.  Not one based in reality and demonstrating any kind of success.  While bashing the shaming nature of our culture when it comes to sex – and quite rightly – the feminist-led sex education and research establishment in our culture has done little to rectify that.  Indeed, instead of decreasing the amount of shame, feminism has encouraged the wholesale shaming of male sexuality and male social dominance to the point where it has had a profound and widely-observed deleterious effect on men in our culture.  Men being socially dominant at work are told to “check their privilege’ by well-meaning feminists.  Men being socially dominant at home are told to beware of patriarchy creeping into their lives (without any explanation about why patriarchy might, in fact, be a good thing).

The feminist sex education industry has done some remarkable things when it comes to improving the understanding and sex lives of women.  But when it comes to improving and understanding the sex lives of men, or the practical functioning of an actual cishetero relationship, the political ideology of equality runs smack into the hard, cold science of sexuality.  Women dig dominant men, and are aroused by them.

Feminism discourages men from becoming dominant, and actively struggles against a culture that encourages men to be dominant.  Once Emily convinced me that feminism was just the wrong way to run my marriage, things got a LOT better.

By establishing a regime of socially-dominant and traditionally-masculine behaviors, the kind of stuff that leads directly to female arousal, not female attraction, I’ve managed to work with Mrs. Ironwood’s responsive desire and escalate the number of sexual encounters while reducing the number of rejections.  We went from once every 2 weeks or so under Mode A to five or six times a week, sometimes more, under Mode B.  Male social dominance, confidence (which is more than just knowledge and understanding of your body) and applied charisma did more to increase reactive desire and improve sexual joy than any amount of dishes, backrubs, and flattery.

Nor am I alone.  Thanks in part to Emily’s work, thousands of couples are now taking a second look at male dominance in their marriage, and end up saving and improving their marriages as a result.  Without, I might add, recourse to marriage counseling and other crutches.  While this is by no means a silver bullet, it is a far, far more productive strategy when dealing with a woman with strong reactive desire than anything I’ve seen come out of Emily’s work, yet. 

That may be in part due to her feminist identification, which precludes advocating masculine dominance in any setting, no matter how effective.  Or, she might surprise me and propose a workable and practical way to make the Mode A “equal partners” approach work in a way that invites the happy fulfillment of both parties, not just the woman, and a way that doesn’t encourage infidelity or presuppose the temporary nature of “commitment”, when it comes to marriage. 

But the science is there.  The practical application is there.  The peer-reviewed exchange of information is happening.  Techniques are being refined.  And the current surge of suspicion of feminism that’s surfacing in the popular culture is indicating that there is fertile ground for this approach to fall on.

I’m not tempted to believe Emily will respond to this comment, or even read it – she doesn’t, usually, considering our opposition on several points, and her unwillingness to read comments longer than her original posts.  But I leave this here to help inform any other poor husband desperately searching for a way to make his marriage work again.  You won’t find the answers here.  You will find some good information, but Emily won’t tell you how to make your wife aroused for you again, she’ll only be able to convince your wife that there isn’t anything wrong with her lack of desire for you.


If you want the real answers, you’ll have to seek them elsewhere.  But that’s how one spontaneous desire husband dealt with his reactive desire wife.  He rediscovered his masculinity, honed it into a helpful tool, and applied it wholeheartedly to his marriage.  Now he’s getting laid like a teenager and his union has never been stronger.  Hold that up to a 50% divorce rate and declining marriage rates, and see if you can find anything in feminism that promises better.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Breaking Beta: Ending Female Social Entitlement

Feminism has made a lot of "male sexual entitlement", the demon responsible for everything from catcalling and beer commercials to sex trafficking, according to the Cathedral.  Indeed, the feminist attack on male sexuality stems from its constant battle with "male sexual entitlement"; the feminist theory goes that if a man feels that he has a decent shot at having sex with a woman under nearly any normal circumstances, he's actually oppressing her with his patriarchal entitlement to her body, or something like that.




Because feminism can't wrap it's frizzy little head around the concept that the male desire for sex - which crosses all sexual preferences in our sex - is such a powerful force in our lives that we would willingly give up, say, a fulfilling platonic relationship with a woman if there wasn't a sexual component.  Despite the propaganda about gender equality, when it comes to dating and mating, feminism still jealously guards the female imperative to control sex in the SMP.  Feminism feels assured that if it shames and browbeats enough men, they will cease pitting women against each other in competition for the highly-valued mates ("Alphas", though they never use the term) and allow feminine society to determine which women should end up with which men and for how long.

Of course that's ludicrous, for many different reasons, but that's the feminist M.O. on mating: male sexual entitlement (male sexuality) is BAD, while female social entitlement ("Let's just be friends", or LJBF) is seen as some gracious gift nearly as valuable as the one she keeps between her legs.

Female Social Entitlement is the ugly dark side of the feminist equation.  You won't find it spelled out specifically in the literature, exactly, but it implicitly enshrines the AF/BB concept as an institution, when accepted.  And this, not coincidentally, is where many poor Beta boys start the inevitable downward spiral.

When a woman rejects a man, but doesn't want to lose access or support she can casually pick up from him at no personal cost to herself, using LJBF is a way her Rationalization Hamster can assuage her guilt for rejecting a dude who, on paper, is a Perfectly Decent Guy.  It's not that she dislikes the Beta Boy - she just has no tingles for him, and her hypergamous instinct tells her to shelve such a pristine dude for later, when her sexual capital starts to wane.

By attempting to make a social connection with an undesired male permanent with a LJBF, the woman is staking a kind of claim on his time and energy that she does not necessarily deserve . . . but she rationalizes it through her sense of social entitlement.  Why wouldn't a decent man want to be her friend, after all?  Why would he allow base sexuality to come between him and what she just knows in her heart is a fulfilling future of platonic social interaction?  Why wouldn't he want to introduce her to his circle of handsome and successful friends?  Is he that threatened by her?

Heh.

That's what Female Social Entitlement is: the expectation of an alliance based on an unreciprocated sexual interest.  It's a shit-test of the highest order, and women know it.  Indeed, to her mind, rejecting a LJBF shit-test is both a criticism of her worthiness and - as a result - her hamster must reconcile such a rejection with her own sense of self-worth (usually hyperinflated) by denigrating the male who dared reject her gracious offer of friendship.

But for the Blue Pill Beta Chump, LJBF is an insidious trap.  Not seeing it as the shit-test it is, they blindly stumble into the heart of female social expectation with their dick in their hands and end up frustrated, angry, and resentful.  If they do stick around long enough to witness the woman's unceremonious and inevitable impact with the Wall, they might just pick her up in a moment of weakness . . . still seeing her for the highly-valued potential she once had, not the last dregs of her sexuality she's reserving for him . . . or whatever Alpha she can scare up one last time.

Women who use the LJBF rejection don't understand the implied humiliation they are heaping on the recipient - they see their friendship as a valued consolation prize, perhaps ultimately more valuable than their own sexuality.  Friendship, to women, implies an alliance . . . with other women.  With men, it's decidedly a one-way street.  Of what value does a platonic female friend have for a dude?  Unless she's actively trying to get him laid, she's represents a waste of resources unlikely to pay any significant dividends.  She will expect her orbiting chumps to help her move, help her with work or school, bail her out of jail or trouble, come to her defense, and even loan her money without any sexual expectation because the concept of "friendship" varies so differently between men and women.
Yet if you attempt to challenge a woman on this, in most cases she will become rightously offended.  If of a feminist bent, she will attempt to shame you for your inability or unwillingness to control your sexual desires, degrade you for being shallow, and otherwise respond more or less as she would for rejecting any other shit test.

I've seen a number of adept players spin LJBF into something more productive, but it takes iron-clad holding of Frame and a cultivated insensitivity to female feelz.  The acknowleged master in my day was a pre-law Duke student named Trevor, who was the kind of short, aggressively-Alpha dude who made up for a lack of looks and build by utterly dominating Game.

When Trevor would hear LJBF, he'd get a concerned look on his face.  He could play it a couple of different ways, but usually the conversation went something like this:

SHE: "Look, I really like you, you're a great guy, but I don't want to be in a relationship right now.  Can't we just be friends?"

TREV: "My friends help me get laid.  Are you going to do that?"

SHE: "I beg your pardon?"

TREV: "I'm highly selective about the women I sleep with, and I'm even more selective about the people in my circle I call my friends.  They have one thing in common: they all are actively trying to get me laid."

SHE: "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!"

TREV: "True nonetheless.  They find it a rewarding pursuit - I can be a very, very good friend, (This was true - Trevor was highly appreciative if you found him a promising lead).  But if you aren't working in my best interest, you're not really my friend, are you?"

SHE: (Confused) "Uh, I guess so . . ."

TREV: "I mean, if you're my friend, are you going to introduce me to your slutty good-looking girlfriends?"

SHE: "No!  I mean, yes!  Maybe!  I . . ."

TREV: "See how conflicted you are about that?  Suddenly you're my friend, and you've promised to try to get me laid.  But you don't really want to let me screw your slutty friends.  Where does that leave us?  You keeping me from hitting on your friends?  The only reason to do that is if you want me yourself."

SHE: "You wouldn't really hit on my friends . . ." (preparing for another shit-test, now that she realizes that Trev is not your AFC)

TREV: "Honey, I'd fuck your two best friends on your bed while you watch, just ask any of my friends.  I'm in this to get laid, and either you're with me or against me." (it was the 1990s . . . I actually heard him use the line "if you don't blow me in the parking lot, the terrorists win" successfully once).

SHE: "That's so . . . crude!  Why can't we just be friends?"

TREV: "I've told you why, darlin'.  My friends look out for my pecker.  That's their defining characteristic.  Now if you want to be my friend, that's what you're signing up for.  Conversely, if you want to look out for my pecker by yourself, well, I'm open to that possibility as well."


And on and on it went.  By steadfastly holding Frame and denying the legitimacy of her Female Social Entitlement, he could turn a LJBF into a fast close in the space of three minutes.

Not everyone is so masterful.  Trev is now a very successful patent attorney, and he had natural charisma the way Sinatra had pipes.  But there are some strong lessons to be pulled from his Game.

First, of course, is that LJBF is a bona fide shit-test under any circumstances.  If you accept it, you lose.

Second, women have a natural feeling of entitlement to your friendship, alliance, and good will based entirely upon your sexual attraction to them (and their lackluster assessment of you as a mate).  This is not a bad-faith move, as it appears, it's just the residue of feminine hypergamy at work.  Stacking up a few orbitors is good insurance for BB later on down the road, post-Wall.  But if you don't want to be BB, then you have to disabuse them of the notion that your friendship - which serves as a diminished form of your commitment to her - is free for the asking.

What that does, in effect, is to de-value your own friendship while inflating the value of her sexuality.  She does not really mean to be a supportive friend, and you both know it.  But that does not mean that she will not impose on that friendship, if she has the need and opportunity, and you both know it.  It also means that her sexuality is more-or-less permanently off the table, regardless of your feelings on the matter.  And you both know it.

Beta chumps will get suckered on this play.  Alphas won't.  They don't cooperate with Female Social Entitlement any more than a feminist cooperates with Male Sexual Entitlement (unless he's really cute or has a motorcycle or something).  An Alpha will shut that shit down the moment it comes up.

A Beta aspiring to break the vicious, ugly cycle of LJBF often discovers that rejecting a woman's Female Social Entitlement - and dealing with the resulting ugly consequences of her hamstering - is often the first step on the road to breaking his Beta.  By valuing your interpersonal relationships and actual friendships as much as a woman values the sexual power of her vagina, you establish hand in any relationship you indulge in.  Keeping the idea of "female friends" as a capitulation to Female Social Entitlement, and a genuine disservices to the interests of the man in question, is vital to cultivating the masculine mindset that keeps your Game fresh and effective.

There are ways to use the "LJBF" cynically, of course.  Agreeing, ala BB, to "just be friends" and then using that friendship to get close to her own circle of female friends is one way to go about it.  I've seen a hardened player go through three or four girls in the same social circle by trading on the "Oh, I'm good friends with Julie, but she's not into the same sorts of kinks I am" line and make it pay off handsomely.  Of course, he left a trail of broken hearts and bruised hamsters behind, but that's the nature of the beast.

Lastly, for those of you genuinely offended by the idea that a man and a woman can't "just be friends", your idealism does you credit . . . but it's going to damage your social life.  The painful LJBF meme is openly acknowledged on both sides of the ideological spectrum, although the perspectives on it are different.  Feminism and its allies want you to believe that men are secretly noble and good and can "control their sexuality" enough to be decent to women without their sexuality becoming an issue, but that nobility is hidden under a thick layer of culturally-derived and artificial baggage about "gender norms" and stereotypes.

The Red Pill, on the other hand, acknowledges that men are sexual creatures whose primary goal in life is expressing that sexuality with as many women as he comfortably can - and that sexually non-productive relationships are an unnecessary drain on his resources.

Now the more Beta Boys we can get to recognize the reality of the latter, and start answering LJBF with the acid it deserves, the better.