‘Society doesn’t owe you sex’ debunked

‘Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask instead what you can do for your Country.’ – John F. Kennedy

Most welfare and public works projects are founded upon the basis of ‘it’s good for society’. And they’re usually at least somewhat right: roads, schools, public parks, endowments to the arts, sciences, and humanities, disaster preparedness (of which I consider NASA a crucial component, considering Earth’s last major extinction was caused by an asteroid)…  Many of these kinds of things, if not abused, are good for society, and the cost to the individual is very minimal. On the other hand, there is most certainly high potential for abuse of welfare state and public works ‘good ideas’: most notably the prison system, but also historically, the Holocaust.

‘Work will make you free’, a sign posted at the gates of a Nazi concentration camp.

The problem is that many of these institutions benefit some more than others. And if one happens to be a certain class of person, this might all stack up on him to a point where he feels enslaved, collectively, as though he is paying into society, and being made to work for a society, but not getting much back out, or perhaps what he gets back out of society is hollow and meaningless. It’s entirely possible to be expected to give too much and work too hard. For instance, before you’ve even paid your expenses, they take taxes out of your check. Your employer and the tax man get theirs first, and you have to make a life of what’s left over, after funding a bunch of shit you may not even agree with, which Thomas Jefferson, our most brilliant founding father, described as deplorable, even as he was founding the public education system, with these caveats in mind!

Moreover, some kinds of people enjoy better safety nets than others, even though they have actually contributed LESS. Some people are more included than others. These privileged people of whom I speak are the wealthy, the beautiful, and the popular. And like all privileged people, they often misattribute to personal merit what is actually the product of… well, tacit exploitation of others on their part, really.

What does this mean in terms of sex and society? Well, look at the painting ‘Happy Birthday, Mr. President’, and apply the famous Kennedy quote to it. Think about how sexist that is, for Kennedy to tell a woman, especially one of lower status and background, to consider the group’s needs instead of her own. He was inherently privileged in all three of the above ways, and yet he was telling normal, ordinary people they owe their lives and servitude to his own general and particular visions of society. But a situational gender reversal should seem just as bad. When Hillary Clinton said this to a group of men, many of us felt just as bad about it as women must have felt when John F. Kennedy said it to them.

Thing is, Hillary Clinton is likely to want her men to perform different tasks for her than John F. Kennedy wanted those women to perform for him. Mainly what Hillary wants is for men to fight and die in war, or perform all the grunt work, which is actually far less pleasurable work than being a sex worker. And even though this is obvious, Hillary still misassigns victimhood, and sympathy privileges, to women, in what is truly terrible accounting!

Some men’s sex lives are so mishandled and misreported, and in many ways it is like Stalin and the Ukraine. See, the USSR came in with its Red Army, which raped and enslaved the countryside of Eastern Europe. They then confiscated all the grain, and said ‘We are going to centrally store and administrate all of this grain, so that it may be distributed fairly.’ But then they didn’t redistribute the grain fairly. In fact, the USSR deliberately starved several million people, while at the same time propagating a public misconception that everyone was well-fed.

The modern feminist movement does this to men as well, and stuff like #believewomen is at least partially the culprit. And this is a significant contributing factor to why women have more sex than men, on average. But of course, beauty and wealth standards make this sex with the same statistical minority of guys, leaving most of us out. So it’s like the whole town pays for it, has to watch, and many may deeply resent it.

While that cute couple enjoys a nice date, and while the underground meth orgies persist into the wee hours, society still tells the average person ‘No one owes you a sex life’. Two people in my Facebook feed have posted this or similar, in the week following the Canadian van attack. Both of them are uglier and poorer than me. One of them has a wife and child.

Besides pointing out that, if society doesn’t owe me the fulfillment of my needs, it certainly doesn’t owe women maternity leave and stuff like that, especially not out of MY pocket, I’ve figured out a 2-word counter to this favorite argument of beta cuck virtue-signallers:

SOCIAL DARWINISM

Assuming these are liberals who say this shit, none of them wants to be thought of as a social Darwinist. And yet, that’s exactly what they have expressed via their hypergamistic tendencies and laissez-faire social negligence: survival of the fittest when it comes to reproductive rights. So it puts them in a really awkward position of intellectual dishonesty, when you point that out to them, publicly.

To be clear: I’m not advocating for some kind of government system that forces women to have sex with men. In fact, even if such a system DID exist, I would have very little faith in it, to provide me with a mate that meets my personal standards, nor would I derive any joy from being the owner (or leasee) of a sex slave, especially one conscripted by the government.

What I’m arguing is: women have already implemented a system that directly robs men of time and money to pay for things like alimony, child support, maternity leave, female healthcare burdens, romance, etc… With government guns in our backs. And the end result is: wear and tear on our muscles, minds, wallets, and free time.

So at the very least, as long as this system stands, we can claim moral superiority to these privileged psychos, who have been not just socially enabled, but GOVERNMENTALLY enabled to be amoral and incompetent. So you end up with a dating pool full of ‘Cash Me Outside’ girls, and the kind of men who like those kinds of girls end up being the only ones who get to survive and reproduce.

[There should be a picture of one of these couples here, but I don’t want to call anyone out specifically. I’m sure you know one.]

 

So they are in fact, preserving their right to control the gene pool. Which is essentially, Social Darwinism, and clearly shows their one-sided, paper-thin commitment to liberal ideals. In the case of maternity leave, the case you’re making is literally this: Society doesn’t owe men sex, but men owe society for the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE’S SEX LIFE.

So basically, men are expected to solely bear the entire burden of social conscience. This is why I hate regressive liberals. They take away all the best aspects of liberalism (sex, drugs, and cultural authenticity), and what we’re left with is bland slavery to (often gynocentric) collectivism.

 

And because of ensconced sexual repression, this has gone on for years, and men are only just now beginning to talk about it, something they are alternately, arbitrarily encouraged and punished for doing, in a way that cheats the excluded middle from both ends, and encourages learned helplessness syndrome.

On one hand, you say men need to stop being so stoic, and start addressing their issues, especially those that require communal participation to solve…  But men are often punished for doing so. This is because men’s thoughts, feelings, desires, and needs are often considered ‘threatening’. And yet many contemporary liberals don’t similarly consider activism from those who are supposedly more marginalized. Nor is it ever acknowledged when men are deliberately manipulated and provoked.

And a lot of people say, ‘Don’t you think it’s for the benefit of society that women have these safety nets and comforts?’

Sure. I also think it’s for the benefit of society that individual males are not so alienated from the benefits of society, and included in the costs, that they snap from anger, and go on rampages that kill random civilians, rampages I myself or anyone anywhere might very well end up victims of, randomly and meaninglessly. And this is only going to increase in occurrence, for it is a direct consequence of modern liberalism, and implementing these cold, detached systems which only enable the negligence of common people. ‘I don’t have to include that person, because I voted for a system that takes care of them, and I fund it with my taxes’. Well, the system, sucks, man!

Finally, the most frustrating practice is when the same people who say ‘We don’t owe you anything’, conversely make the argument ‘You owe us everything’…  And for many, it amounts to a lifetime of slavery, the individual being collectively exploited, and for women that might involve being raped, but for men, it usually involves alienation. The more alienation a man endures, the less relatable he is to everyone else (especially anyone he might truly desire), the more difficult it is to find a fair match for him, and the more personal cost there is to his social capital.

And that’s everything in an information society: social capital. One cannot get rich or popular from good ideas alone. One must be well-positioned in the social hierarchy to profit from any good idea, even his own, otherwise it will almost certainly be plagiarized by middle-men who get between content creators and the means of production. For instance: what if you had gone to Harvard in the late 90’s/early 2000’s? You might have been in the room when they were hashing out the implementation of an online payment system, you might have had something to add to the discussion, and you might have eventually ended up with stock in PayPal.

But if you went to a less well-connected school, or were not privileged enough to go to school at all, you could have wholly engineered a similar online payment system by yourself, and still be nowhere near as successful as Elon Musk. Because you didn’t have the connections to make your idea a household name, and your competition did. So success isn’t just about hard work, or ingenuity, it’s also about social position. And sex is unacknowledged to be a huge part of that.

Point being: many people make the argument: ‘big deal if someone is sexless or friendless. No one needs sex or friends.’ And it’s partially true: you don’t actually physically need either to survive…  but lack of either can most certainly lower your quality-of-life, and even hurt your career. In fact, since we know from scientific research that having sex regularly is a mental AND physical health boon, that it calms people with endorphins, and can be helpful to our concentration, then it can also be said that an alienated, sexually-frustrated person might be scatter-brained and unhealthy. And then a liberally regressive society punishes them for that, instead of giving them the help they need, or implying the help they need is actually a mental institution, an opinion I like to call ‘Man, Interrupted’.

Worse yet, our problems are often exploited by racketeers, and then we are stigmatized as exploitative addicts, who have deliberately propped up these racketeers, at the expense of women. Those in favor of legalizing prostitution say that it’s for the public good to placate guys like Elliot Roger, but they don’t acknowledge the social and psychological cost of being party to either side of these transactions, or being stigmatized as a john.

So it’s kind of like saying ‘Nobody starves in America, because there’s a McDonald’s on every corner’, ignoring the fact that McDonald’s is unhealthy and evil, and some can’t even afford McDonald’s! Finally, they never acknowledge that, just like marriage isn’t right for some people, prostitutes and strip clubs are not agreeable to some dispositions either, and that doesn’t necessarily make someone gay! It may be that promiscuity turns your stomach, you’ve had bad past experiences, or you are simply worried about what partaking in prostitutes might do to your reputation or personal psychology, thus preventing a healthy marriage. Being that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, insomuch as there is an opportunity cost to all choices, toxic relationships (and habits) often prevent healthy ones. And yet we are driven to toxic habits and relationships by the unavailability of healthy ones, for many people.

All this considered, people often say: ‘If you don’t want to endure the negative effects of unpopularity, stop making yourself unpopular’. But ostracism is not something the individual does to themself. This is a victim-blaming mentality, and very hypocritical. Ostracism is something the group does to the individual, collectively, deliberately, in an attempt to make them commit suicide, and it’s only considered a problem to be effectively addressed when it results in mass public shooting. Terrorism, and negotiating with terrorists, reigns supreme, in a society in which ‘fear is your only God’. Social problems and sexual deprivation often drive people to drug habits, and they are punished for that too, further splintering society. The causes of these toxic behaviors are rarely addressed meaningfully, and the symptoms are often punished severely.

What is this collectively driving people to? Well, reactionaryism, really…  It’s yet another case of ‘apply conservative values to someone, and they become conservative, apply liberal values to someone, and they become liberal’. IME, though, if you apply totalitarianism to someone, they will eventually become an incendiary anarchist, to the detriment of both society and themselves.

So, finally, I think: Not only does society owe YOU a sex life, society OWES ITSELF to include you, so that you do not suffer, and so that society does not suffer the loss of YOU, or your lashing out at it. It’s really that simple. Nobody who thinks ‘society doesn’t owe you sex’ can properly call themselves liberal. They are sadistic, punitive, exploitative fascists, and socially Darwinist as well.

So, having registered this complaint, what is my proposed solution? Well, I’m not proposing mandatory socialization… I personally take a lot of solace in my right to be alone, my right not to be stuck with someone I don’t even really like, just so some bureaucrat, who considers human beings interchangeable parts, can put a check in a box. I do think runaway capitalism has caused economic problems, which exacerbate these issues… But mostly I think this is a social problem, which requires a social solution.

First of all, we have to stop raising our children in such a way that promotes adversarial gender relations. We need to teach men the absolute necessity of female consent, sure, but also acknowledge that a man’s consent is just as important. Prostitution, like any other insidious exploitative business, exploits insecurities to sell a product, and many men don’t appreciate being shamed or otherwise driven to compromises they ultimately regret, which can have very negative psychological consequences.

Second of all, we need to teach people how to reject eachother sexually, which is often a necessary and healthy thing for a person to do, given their current, specific individual situations, but without destroying that person psychologically, or deliberately alienating them from their communities in general. This is actually very easy to do, and it often involves simply avoiding suicide ideation lingo: ‘everyone, always, never, no one’, etc. In other words, don’t say ‘I don’t like you and nobody does’, instead say ‘I don’t like you personally, but I’m sure there is someone out there for you.’ Or simply, ‘You are beautiful, but you aren’t my type’. How about ‘We’re wrong for eachother, and a relationship would hurt both of us.’?

Third of all, we must question traditional gender roles, ESPECIALLY in regards to romance. Men, and especially men recovering from bad personal situations (which may very well not be their own faults), should not constantly be exploited in a series of Farmer’s Daughter scams, while others around them have fulfilling relationships, and expect the exploited class of chronically single men to not to be bitter or lash out. Women can do things for themselves, so stop doing everything for them. For your benefit AND theirs.

Finally, we need to work to dismantle trifling, exploitative social hierarchies. The fraternity mentality of pledging, being hazed, and paying dues…  It’s ridiculous. A person is destined to be with their spouse. Stop being a bridge troll to whoever naturally should be someone’s rightful spouse! Stop keeping people separated from eachother, as a means of exploiting them, or ensuring they can’t band together to unseat the regular threat of ensconced tyranny.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not a douchebag. I don’t have, and have never had ‘self-care orgies’, and I look down upon the class of people that does. Even though some of them are wealthy and powerful people, I liken their behavior to Patrick Bateman’s. I don’t even go to strip clubs, as they have always seemed to me to be exploitative businesses, towards both their employees and clientele.

I am simply someone who has done a lot of time in solitary confinement, been made to feel guilty for what little human contact I’ve had, as if I’m the problem. As if I’m the one putting damaged goods into the world, commitment-phobic, etc. Stop punishing the good people and rewarding the bad people. That’s how to create a more just society, and one which is not so prone to random acts of violence or social unpleasantness.

Slut Privilege and Socio-sexual Power Structures: how sex cults and sexual collusion are used to oppress and exploit the individual

Social Capital Theory states that ‘social networks have value’, as there are ‘collective or economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups’.  How does this apply to sex?  In many ways.

‘Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round‘ opined the Dead Kennedys in their final cutting-room floor compilation ‘Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death‘.  Unfortunately, they were not far from the truth, as sexual coercion is a major behind-the-scenes motivator in much of human behavior, especially in sexually repressed societies.

Sex has been used to influence the outcomes of trials, legislation, and even elections.  Sex has won and lost wars.  Sex has made or broken celebrities.  Sex has floated or sunk major industries and businesses.

Imagine a workplace where almost everyone is having sex with eachother, except for a few isolated individuals.  Would it not stand to reason that those included in the office sex club would be treated better than those ignorant to it, left out of it, or those who willfully abstained?  Sex creates emotional bonds, making those we have had sex with seem to be crucial, whereas those with whom we share no sexual bond are considered unimportant, or expendable.

This phenomena is the underlying basis of what some have called ‘slut privilege‘.  Contrary to popular liberal stereotype, slut-shaming is not the only consequence of promiscuous behavior, nor is it an undeserved consequence.  Because, what most social liberals refuse to admit publicly, is that a promiscuous person actually has MAJOR SOCIAL ADVANTAGES over a more prudent monogamist.  These advantages could have positive effects on one’s career, finance, social life, or even systemic influence.  Which is exactly why it’s SO DIFFICULT to take complaints of slut-shaming seriously.  Even if slut-shaming could be considered bullying, the social benefits of promiscuous behavior FAR OUTWEIGH any social stigma that might be incurred via promiscuity.  Hence, I would argue that sluts SHOULD BE made to feel ashamed of themselves, as should any exploitative, oppressive, or manipulative person.

This is made obvious to most women as early as junior high: the promiscuous girls get invited to all the parties, whereas the girls who don’t ‘put out’ are often ostracized or looked down upon.  Sex has been the basis of many social networks, and as stated above, SOCIAL NETWORKS HAVE VALUE.  The woman who gets around will have more access to capital, job opportunities, and many other amenities, whereas the woman who doesn’t is often limited to her own abilities.  And the same could apply to a very attractive or desirable male.

And we’ve only so far covered one-on-one sex.  Group sex adds a whole other dimension to this social influence and privilege.  Imagine a whole network of promiscuous people working together, across borders and between businesses.  It would be easy for them to recruit new members, and add the abilities of these new members, even systemic or financial capabilities, into the repertoire of this ‘fuck mob’.  In fact, the more sexually repressed a person or society is, the easier it would be for such a sexual organization to coerce them.  The deliberate creation of taboos such as sex and drugs are often used to exploit repression.  And there’s no law against it, in fact, institutions of law often support these kinds schemes, even if unwittingly.

Most men would love to have a menage trois before they die.  It’s on the bucket list of most men, however ethically complicated this Earthly desire may be.  If a sexual organization could offer this service to a man, what would he be prepared to give up for it?  Money?  The favorable decision in a child custody case?  The suppression of a potentially damaging publication?  The falsification of scientific or medical data?  Nuclear launch codes?

That might sound laughable, but it really isn’t.  Because such organizations really have infiltrated governments and multinational corporations at high levels, influencing their behavior in ways that affect millions of people.  In the Cold War, for instance, some of the best spies were beautiful women, who used their sex appeal to gain access to privileged information in the context of industrial espionage.  Or on a pettier level, perhaps the pretty girl with big boobs gets promoted over the uglier guy who does a better job, either because she is sleeping with the boss, or maybe he just likes looking at her better.  Hence, often times, when an irrational decision is made by a stakeholder or even a governing body, it is often speculated that, in order to make such an unlikely thing happen, ‘somebody must have fucked somebody’.

Now, because these kinds of sex cults are often secret and exclusionary, herein lies the exploitation of the ‘Average Frustrated Chump’.  He doesn’t know why he isn’t getting laid, or why other people seem to miraculously have better job opportunities than him.  His existence is lonely and without help from anyone.  Meanwhile, his co-workers, bosses, police, and perhaps even legislative representatives are all in a gang-bang behind his back, and using their socio-sexual alliance to oppress and exploit him in workplace, social, and democratic contexts.  Resources, opportunities, and systemic influence is stolen from this hapless outsider by sex cults, and he often never even realizes why.

Because sex is considered taboo, these organizations say that their secrecy is necessary to avoid persecution, but in reality, the secrecy of these organizations is all about rule from the shadows, and exploitation by subterfuge.  Not only is the Average Frustrated Chump kept in the dark to these organizations, but he is secretly slandered by them, his sexual, social, and even professional value discounted by their false consensus and defamatory propaganda.  As the old adage goes, “Democrats lie together.”  And to themselves as well.  The first step in blaming the victim is refusing to acknowledge that your behavior victimizes other people.  Because the Average Frustrated Chump is deliberately alienated by society, he is less productive, and then he is blamed by that same society for this.

But these kinds of sexually-based social power structures can even be oppressive or exploitative of their membership, because they are almost always hierarchical.  In any sex gang, there are the people who have the most money, are the most beautiful, or the most ‘fresh’, and these people are often given preferential treatment over lower-ranking members of the group.  So, not only is the person left out of the group exploited by a gang that takes any available resources and opportunities for itself above outsiders, and has a high ability to do so, but the lower-ranking members are also exploited, often made to ‘make their bones’ by turning tricks for the gang.

A person of wealth, means, beauty or power is often courted by these groups, who use such an individual for their own purposes, without even revealing to this mark the existence of the over-arching sexual organization.  Which is really sick when you think about it.  A man’s money and power often make him a target of these kinds of organizations, who send their agents to mess with him, under the pretense of genuine romantic relationships.

On a more street level, organized crime often uses prostitution rings to protect drug rackets.  If a member of a drug ring is busted by police, he can often ‘take care’ of the charges against him by bribing the cop with sexual graft, if he has prostitutes under his command.  It’s not illegal to get the cops laid, cops need love, too, right?  This is why strip clubs are so often used as money-laundering and cop-appeasing facets of drug cartel type organizations.  The women who work there are on drugs such as methamphetamine or ecstasy, which drive them to promiscuous behavior, and then that promiscuous behavior is used to coerce and bribe police and financial institutions.

Now, there are many who will make the argument that polyamory is perfectly ethical.  I am not one of those.  Besides the social and emotional baggage it creates, I’ve simply seen prostitution used to corrupt far too many institutions, both public and private, and the cost is often human decency.  Cry as they might for ‘social justice’, sexual deviants are often a major source of political and financial corruption, and this is why sex in politics and business is so frowned upon.

Sex as a means of cultivating privilege at the expense of others, or dominance over others, is a perversion of human decency.  Sex should be an expression of love and affection, not power or control.  This is why monogamy is still the most ethical of sexual practices.

Body-type and Slut Acceptance: Rhetoric Commonly Used to Get People to Cheat Themselves

Two major tenets of the postmodern feminist movement are body-type acceptance and anti-slut-shaming rhetoric.  In today’s lesson, I aim to expose how this rhetoric is abused by hypocrites to get men (and women!) to cheat themselves, and settle for inferior specimens who are beneath them.  First on the chopping block:

Body-Type Acceptance:

One has to understand that Body-Type Acceptance and promiscuity tend to go hand in hand.  The higher one’s beauty, moral class, or intelligence standards are, the harder it will be for them to be promiscuous.  Because the more rigid one’s standards are, the smaller their dating pool gets.  Hence, the most promiscuous people (or, in a clinical sense, those afflicted by sex addiction) tend to suspend judgement of their sexual partners.  This usually involves viewing other people as sex objects, rather than sentient beings who are subject to moral scrutiny.  You can’t really judge an inanimate object, you can only judge sentient beings.  Hence: guns, drugs, money, etc…  these things aren’t intrinsically bad, but some people are bad about them.  I maintain that if people were objects, they would be immune from judgment, but because people are sentient, they are subject to judgment.  But liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that not only are people not objects, but they are also immune from moral judgement.

When a sex partner is seen as a generic blank, and not a unique individual, it’s easier for them to be treated as sex objects.  This is the basis of sexual communism and interchangeability.  Conversely, a hopeless romantic would see one particular person as ‘special’, hold them in higher regard than others, and use that as a basis to pursue them romantically.

I was briefly friends with a community of models in Austin.  I say ‘briefly friends’, when what I really mean is that I was auditioning them for real friendship by hanging out with them and getting to know them better.  Ultimately, they did not meet my standards.  Don’t get me wrong, they were all very beautiful people, but most of them failed to meet my ethical and intelligence standards.  It was a swingers’ club full of atheists and social liberals, and I eventually deliberately alienated myself from it, so as not to waste my time with this distraction from my quest for a true equal.

One of the social institutions of this community was a male model, who happened to be somewhat wealthy and organizationally powerful, so there was a high degree of alpha white male financial, social, AND beauty privilege associated with this person.  Given that he is a male model and a public figure, I could name him, but I won’t.  I will only destroy his rhetoric.   He championed himself an egalitarian, and would often opine very vocally about body type acceptance, everyone is beautiful, etc…  The problem with his little act, was that he was a total hypocrite, and this was quite obvious.  His main squeeze was a beautiful model, and yet he still felt entitled to more women, often frequenting strip clubs to pick up fodder for affairs and threesomes.

The situations where this colossal hypocrite would bust out the body-type acceptance rhetoric, was mostly when he was trying to pawn someone off on a lower-ranking member of his hierarchy, or an outsider.  His game basically boiled down to: “Even though I bang all the hottest chicks in this club, you should settle for this fat girl I don’t want, because body-type acceptance.”  And I think most people will find that the social institutions who run these kinds of games are all crooked and hypocritical like that.  They take the best for themselves, and try to get everyone else to hook up with the leftovers and undesirables.  The unstated, secret, inner doctrine that these people have, which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, is that beauty belongs to the wealthy, and those of lower economic class should get stuck wit the ugly girls.

But the champions of body-type acceptance are not all male feminist douchebags.  In fact, most of them are females with a rather one-sided view of feminism.  Now, let’s just say that a woman told you: ‘I only date men who are at least 6 feet tall.’  This is her standard, and any liberal community would be expected to accept that.  Because of all of these biased double-standards about ‘consent’ (It’s legal to extract sexual consent from a man while he’s intoxicated, for example, but not from a woman), it’s not really socially acceptable to question a woman’s standards.  On the other hand, if a man said, ‘I only date natural red-heads of proper height to weight ratio’, this would most probably be labelled as ‘typical male superficiality’.

So the idea here, is that women have a right to exert a personal preference when it comes to their romantic standards, but men don’t have this right.  We are supposed to take whoever comes along and be grateful.  Where this really gets into hypocrisy is that these same people who expect the straight man to take whatever he can get are, at the same time saying, ‘Don’t hate gay men for their biologically determinant tastes.’

Many straight men have the minds of engineers and designers.  Symmetry, balance, geometry…  these are the things that excite us, in fact, most sport cars, the hallmark of the straight male, are designed to subconsciously appeal to men in a sexual way.  So it’s really bullshit to say on one hand, ‘This gay guy’s attraction to the same sex is OK because it’s inherent in his brain chemistry,’ but simultaneously, on the other hand, say, ‘That straight guy is superficial, for only being attracted to models.’

My personal stance on the issue is that everyone has their personal preference, and that’s fine.  I don’t hate gay people for wanting to hook up with their own gender.  I don’t hate straight people for finding certain physical traits, that certain members of the opposite sex may or may not have, especially attractive or unattractive.  Instead, I acknowledge that these sensibilities are inherent, or the product of life experience.  We all have different tastes because we have different genes and different life experience.  And that’s fine.

Where I draw the line when it comes to beauty and sexual entitlement, is the person who wants partners who are ‘out of their league’, or too many partners.  In my experience, any inequity in a relationship will eventually destroy it.  If she has too much baggage and he hasn’t been around, that will eventually cause issues.  If she is prettier than him, or has more social capital, that will cause issues.  My problem, as a person of high intelligence, has always been finding someone capable of relating to me on my level, and I’ve tried to compromise in that regard before, but the results were disastrous, believe me.  Attempts at compromising ethical and beauty standards have also been met with similar failures.  And just like any time a male is expected to compromise romantically, I was singularly blamed when that compromise failed.

I firmly believe that people should be looking for their equals, or partners who can match what they themselves bring to the table.  So, you have to kind of evaluate yourself in a brutally honest way, and then pursue potential romantic partners on the same level.  Of course, natural or intrinsic traits, such as beauty or intelligence, should weigh more in this consideration than temporary or artificial traits, such as legal status or finance, which can change for better or worse in a heartbeat, let me tell you.  A relationship based on artificial class will not survive the tough times, and cannot properly be considered real love.  A relationship based in genuine attraction and true love, both mental and physical, will survive bankruptcy, and even incarceration, an endurance which I think is beautiful.  Others might disagree, but I think they are classist and totalitarian to say that a beautiful woman should only marry a rich man, or that a woman should leave a man who is the victim of oppressive government polices (such as the Drug War).

Personally, I would probably rate myself as a 7 or an 8 on the beauty scale.  Not perfect, but no slouch.  Passable, in other words.  Of course, this is all relative.  As a man of slightly below average height, I may not appeal to taller women, and that’s fine, because they don’t really appeal to me either.  I happen to be a bit of an androgynous ‘pretty-boy’.  Some women like more rugged-looking, conventionally ‘masculine’ men.  It really depends on what type she likes.  And that’s fine.  I have my type, too.

Beauty standards are further complicated by the fact that, everyone likes a pretty girl, but no one likes a pretty boy. Further evidence that beauty privilege is a social phenomena confined to the female.   I had this thought as someone complimented me on my youthful appearance today. Most people don’t realize I am 34, and I still get carded to see R rated movies.

I responded to the compliment: ‘It’s a curse. You know, no one ever puts me in charge. No one wants to take orders from someone who looks young, no matter how intelligent or educated. Women my age don’t take me seriously, and the women who do take me seriously are often too young to give me the kind of relationship I want. Other men are often predatory or territorial with me, because they are insecure. If anything, my looks make me a target of exploitation and abuse.’

People often say, ‘High standards might be OK for you, but what about the overweight or not conventionally attractive?  Doesn’t your dating philosophy leave them out?’

And I would argue that no, it doesn’t.  Because everyone has an equal, or a whole class of people with a similar level of beauty, intelligence, ethics, etc.  Sometimes, people are even attracted to eachother even though they don’t ‘match’, and that’s fine, too, as long as the attraction is mutual.  Where people run into frustrations is where they want more than they can or should have, when they want a particular person who is fundamentally incompatible, or when they like someone who doesn’t like them back.

I think in terms of monogamous commitment, ‘body-type acceptance’ has a valid place in the sunset years of a marriage.  No one looks their best when they are elderly, but you owe it to the relationship to stick it out, anyway.  After all, you are aging just as quickly as your partner.  But that doesn’t mean I think skinny, good-looking guys should hook up with fat, ugly girls out of desperation and compromise, unless they have a fetish for those kinds of women, and some guys do.  I certainly wouldn’t stand in their way, because it’s one fewer attractive male I have to compete with for available females.  But I would never pressure anyone to compromise his beauty, intelligence, or ethical standards, even if he happened to be in a bad (but temporary) legal or financial situation.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the plight of the less conventionally attractive person, the less ethical person, or the less intelligent person, but would I settle for one in the context of an intimate relationship?  Absolutely not!  I would hire one, frequent one’s business, value one’s opinion or friendship, etc…  But I’m not one who is amiable to giving or receiving pity sex.  Again, it’s the very idea that romantic relationships should be as equal as possible, because a relationship undertaken on uneven ground is not likely to be a positive one.

Anti-Slut Shaming:

Remember that male model I discussed earlier?  In addition to body-type acceptance, he was also a preacher of slut acceptance, or ‘don’t shame a woman for her sexuality’ rhetoric.  And, while this rhetoric certainly has its place, it can and often is abused.  In the case of the male model, he would often use this rhetoric to get people to settle for his leftovers.  ‘I fucked this girl in the past, and no longer want her, but you should accept her, even though I was all up in that at one point in time.’  Basically, this man sexually exploited young, naive women, then tried to pawn off his baggage on the rest of the community, when he got bored and felt entitled to a ‘new’ model.  He seemed to think of women as cars.  You buy them new, drive them for awhile, then pawn them off on some broke college kid in need.  That really did seem to be his philosophy on women, and I didn’t much care for it.

These types of sexual exploiters often refer to themselves as ‘sex-positive’ feminists, also known as ‘female chauvinist pigs‘.  Sex-positive feminists often like to claim an ideological monopoly on the concept of feminism, which has many interpretations to many people.  More traditional feminists tend to be less sex-positive than modern, third-wave feminists.  Sex-positive feminists, however, tend to be the least educated, most vocal, most promiscuous, and most socially despotic of all the different varieties of feminist.

Now let me just say this:  We all make mistakes when we are young, especially romantically.  I am not above this.  There is no instruction manual for love, and even if there were, it probably wouldn’t be allowed in public school.  Those who don’t have the privilege of older, wiser relatives and true friends to guide them in the matters of the heart, are doomed to figure these kinds of things out via trial and error.  And those people are not personally at fault just because no one educated them as a youth.  I say this because I am one of those people.

However, statistics don’t lie, even if they often don’t tell the full story.  The more sexual partners one has had, the less likely they will have a successful, happy marriage.  Now, this is a general rule, but it has many exceptions.  A person who is willfully promiscuous, for example, is different from someone who never had that intention, or grew out of it after adolescence.  So, someone could have a number of sexual partners in their past, that could be because they themselves had this drive to be promiscuous, OR, it could be that this person NEVER intended to be promiscuous, but, for whatever reason, kept picking or was limited to partners who screwed them over, or were deceptive towards them.  I consider myself the latter, and that can be difficult to explain.  All I can  say is that there is screwing around, and getting screwed around.  We should hold the former responsible for their own debauchery, but not victim-blame the latter.  After all, there is always the class war to consider, and some men, especially those who are the victim of class warfare, are never allowed near the kind of woman who would actually do right by them, and are instead diverted or limited to promiscuous women, or kept in a cage of involuntary celibacy.

It can be hard to get married or have one’s monogamous intentions taken seriously when one has been sexually exploited by the promiscuous.  I myself am the victim of this mentality in my community, that blames me for being the victim of slutty sociopaths in my youth, and the kind of ‘guilt-by-association’ that entails.  This is one of many reasons I slowed down a lot, sexually, in mid-life and the wake of a bad divorce, and started more carefully examining my romantic options, a practice which some might say borders on sexual paranoia, or even ‘hypocritically projective slut-shaming’.

But, I maintain that, being a sensitive person, and having been hurt before, judging potential romantic partners for their past is something I have to do, as a defense mechanism from getting hurt again, or making similar bad romantic selections to the ones I have made in the past.  The gritty truth is, if you really are a hopeless romantic and a monogamist at heart, you have to be romantically discerning, otherwise, not only will you be hurt, cheated on, jilted, unsatisfied by superficial casual sex relationships, but you may even be typecast as a slut, and restricted from better opportunities on that basis.

And once again, as these statistical realities go both ways down the gender street, no one is going to blame a woman for rejecting a man on the basis of his past willful promiscuity.  And yet, when a man employs these same standards against women, the feminists and the liberals cry ‘slut-shamer!’  The reality is, I don’t care if slutty people, male or female, are slutty together.  They aren’t my type anyway, so let them go do that with eachother.  It’s none of my business.  What I don’t like is when more romantically innocent men and women are drawn into these kinds of shenanigans via social dishonesty and subterfuge.  Because that was me at one time, I didn’t appreciate being victimized and exploited in this way, and I don’t like seeing it happen to others who share my disposition on the matter.

The truth is, for a man like me, who is sincerely a hopeless romantic and monogamist, because that’s the way my emotions work, I know damn well that there are only certain types of women who are emotionally able to provide me with the kind of relationship I want.  So to be socially coerced into settling for less than that, is unacceptable to me, and I maintain that I have every right to exert that personal preference.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that liberal communities use Anti-Slut-Shaming and Body-Type Acceptance rhetoric to rationalize forcing men, often through social subterfuge or coercion, to settle for women who are not their equals.  And when the resulting bad relationship inevitably fails, they always blame the man, even if sticking the unlikely pair together was wholly the bad idea of the community.  Don’t let this happen to you!  It is often the practice of chauvinists to instill in people a sense of insecurity and desperation from being alone too long, or kept apart from the right partner, but my advice is to rise above this, exert some willpower, and hold out for the class of partner you deserve, no more, no less.

30 Reasons Why You Should NOT Date Yet Another Feminist

Most women and even many men these days claim to be feminist, even though it’s a tired, worn-out label that carries an extremely negative connotation. A more gender-neutral term is Gender Egalitarianism, which is what classy intellectuals say. But let’s face it: most of the people, male or female, who use the word ‘feminism’ are not classy intellectuals. They are shitty people who use spurious, emotion-based ideologies to rationalize irresponsible behavior and utter lack of social conscience. The cold hard truth is that, whether you’re a hardcore feminist or a hardcore masculist, you probably belong in a loony bin.

Anyway, as an often liberal idealist, but sometimes conservative pessimist, I have dated a few feminist women, and I can pretty much tell you what you are in for if you choose to waste your time with that garbage. Their rhetoric is easy to spot. In fact, I’ve built up so many defense mechanisms against these personality types, you might even say that feminism is my trauma trigger.

1. They tend to be very biased

Think about it. The word ‘feminism’ is biased in itself. It carries a connotation of matriarchy, female chauvinism, female bias, and liberal special interest. Remember that special interests are less about egalitarian ideals, and more about ‘getting theirs’, often at the expense of a generation of white males who had nothing to do with slavery or patriarchy, and are far removed from any benefits thereof. You advocate for the power of the vagina, and you HAVE a vagina! How self-centered.

Feminists tend to see things in terms of women versus men, or how men have historically hurt women, thus, they are unlikely to recognize or value your plight and perspective as a man. And this will ultimately make your relationship with them very one-sided. They seem to have difficulty acknowledging that we are all victims, and how the unique weaknesses of both sexes are used to exploit and control them.

2. They will control you socially, behind your back

Women have a power that they don’t like to admit: social power. Many people, both male and female, admire them, and that will lead to people taking their word over yours, manipulating you on their behalf, offering them opportunities that you have never had, or helping them cover up their faults to your eyes. Women will interfere in your social and professional life by misrepresenting you to the rest of the world, via claiming to be the ultimate authority on you, by virtue of having an intimate relationship with you.

3. They will attribute any problem you have with them to your own deficiency

This is predictable via the way feminists interact with you in every day life. If you express resentment of their privilege at your expense, or their oppression of you via social powers, they will say, “Wow, you have issues.” But this is merely projection. They are the ones with issues. And when they say: “You need help”… More projection. They are the ones who need your help. They need you to shut the fuck up, unquestioningly pay their bills, and stop talking about social issues in a way that doesn’t apologetically pander to the feminist cause, because it makes them look bad. So in order to discredit your complaints, they reduce your thoughts and feelings to ‘whining’ and ‘abnormal psychology’, in the minds of your community.

4. They will blast you after the break-up

Women can be just as possessive and jealous of men as men are said to be of women. Thus, after a break-up, they will talk negatively of you, whether justified or not, for the sake of cock-blocking you from any other woman who might be interested. This is their way of crippling you, socially, via an abuse of gossip power, even while they get to ‘move on’ all over the place, often with your friends and family. Or maybe they don’t want you to be with anyone who is prettier, better off, or smarter than them! Remember that totalitarians rely upon misinformation to control the public mentality, even regarding yourself, and feminists can be extremely petty.

5. They will rationalize emotionally

Those who embrace the feminine nature wholly, in defiance of the masculine perspective, often throw logic, reason, and independent thought out the window. Expect your feminist girlfriend (or boyfriend) to be a victim of groupthink, and a slave to her community, as well as an impulsive, emotional thinker rather than a reasonable person.

6. They will hold you to many double-standards

I can’t even begin to go into feminist double-standards while maintaining a pretense of comprehensiveness. They will cheat even as you are monogamist, they will look down on your perspective even while ensconcing their own, they will expect you to contribute to privilege imbalance for their benefit, at your expense, they will hold you to traditional male gender roles even as they gleefully abandon their own.

7. They will cheat on you

Feminists consider infidelity their right. To expect fidelity from a feminist is a foolish hope. Some of them might try to justify it by offering you opportunities to screw around with other women, but most of them will go to great lengths to cover up their infidelity, in order to give you a false impression of monogamy, even as they enjoy a polysexual lifestyle without you, in order to keep you ‘clean’, while they get dirtier and dirtier.

8. They will secretly, chauvinistically, consider you inferior

Again, remember that ‘feminism’ connotates a female-centric perspective. Contrary to the doctrine which they propagate, they don’t care about the equality of the sexes. They mostly believe in dominance of the male by the female, not through explicit force, but via social subterfuge. Even if you are more competent than they in technical matters, they will laugh at and take advantage of your social ineptitude, having long since realized that social power is the power that underlies the deployment of all physical force.

9. They will socially and sexually monopolize you by making you feel as if you have no other options

Beware of false consensus effect, the projected idea that you aren’t going to find anything different out there, or that all jobs are the same, all communities are the same, all women are the same… Maybe there are better jobs, communities, and love interests out there, but you are being dragged down and held back from them, by the one you’ve trusted more than anyone else. But the truth is, there are plenty of women who aren’t feminists, and maybe you would be better off with them! Or maybe you would be better off alone than enduring yet another exploitative, abusive relationship with a woman who has a typical, cookie-cutter feminist mentality.

10. They will attempt to shift your existence and perspective to a more female one

Expect your feminist girlfriend to drag you to chick flicks, feminist activist group meetings, and yoga class, just to emasculate you, and inundate you with female perspective, often one which disrespects and defies your own. Make no mistake: your feminist girlfriend has an agenda for you, and they will push it via coercion and subterfuge, if necessary.

11. They will sell you out to other liberal special interests

You haven’t fucked a black girl? You must be racist. You haven’t considered homosexuality? You must be a homophobe. You haven’t donated enough to the poor? You must be classist. As a member of a liberal kommunity, expect your feminist girlfriend to pressure you to buy into other liberal special interests. This is the socio-political source of their power: making concessions to other special interests in order to obtain their accomplice. And if they don’t have their own resources to commit to this end, yours will suffice.

12. They will support the patriarchy even while denouncing it, and you

My ex was a self-styled ‘feminist’. She cheated on me with (among others) a veteran. So how can she ever admonish anyone for ‘supporting the patriarchy’? The military is the most patriarchal organization I know of, and the biggest whore-mongers in the world. It’s all about that ‘macho man’ sense of sexual entitlement. Don’t think your woman won’t feed into that, at your expense, just because she outwardly denounces it, and YOU, for supporting it, whether you do or not, whether you have suffered by its hands moreso than them or not. Don’t think she won’t value money, systemic authority, or popularity more than your love and devotion.

13. They will play chauvinistic ego games

Even as they admonish you for judging their baggage, they will judge yours. Even as they implore you not to judge their bodies, they will laugh at the size of your penis, or your love handles, or your receding hairline. This is all about making you insecure, desperate, and more dependent upon them for self-esteem. Or even hypocritically implying that you need a woman’s love to validate your own existence, which, if you did that to them, they would cry sexism.

14. They will victim-blame you

If something happens to you, it’s your own damn fault. Even as they admonish you for ever suggesting that a woman is the cause of her own problems, they will apply this same rhetoric to you, as a man. If you resist their playing of the victim card, they will call you a victim-blamer, even as they accuse you of having a victim complex for all the times you have resisted the expectation that you take personal responsibility for everything everyone has ever done to you.

15. They will go to great lengths to cover up their shortcomings

You see, in the mind of a politically aware and active feminist, everything is a socio-political battle for moral superiority. Thus, if she fails, she will see this failure as an invalidation of her feminist ideals, and she will try to cover up that failure the way a criminal defense attorney tries to suppress evidence of her client’s guilt in court. The lengths that women are prepared to go to in order to accomplish this cover-up is ridiculous, and often defies material sense.

16. They will imply your ignorance, even via an inferior education

You have a degree in human psychology? In their minds, it will never trump that community college class they took on women’s studies. Whether they know more or not, they will assume that they are more enlightened and sensitive than you, by virtue of being female, and nothing more.

17. Your relationship with them will always be adversarial

This betrays the ideology they were raised to believe in: that you are the attacker and they are the defender. They will never trust you completely, no matter how much you trust them. You are a man, and therefore, you are the enemy, even if you are an enemy who has something they need. If you want your relationship with your woman to be like the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia, go ahead and date a feminist!

18. They will always be more loyal to other women than to you

Sexually, socially, economically, and politically, feminists are members of the sisterhood first, and your significant other second. Realize that women of such loyalties are leveraged far beyond the loyalty that your relationship with them entails. And don’t take it for granted that they won’t cheat on you with OTHER WOMEN, emasculating and socially imprisoning you by doing so.

19. They will deceive you

Lacking the force of physical and analytical superiority, feminists will always fall back on social dishonesty and exploitation, in order to keep you under their thumb. They see this power as a check to your own, even if you abstain from using your powers against them, as a conscientious objector to the battle of the sexes. They consider it their right to lie to you about their history, identity, and intentions.

20. They will be over-privileged, relative to you, even as they accuse you of being over-privileged

You will be hard-pressed to find a feminist who has never been invited or attended an orgy, even if such privilege is far out of your reach. Women also have more social and employment opportunities than you, even if they are incapable of taking advantage of them. They have probably lead easier lives than you, with less hardship, less systemic oppression, and more social privilege. This won’t stop them from privilege-shaming you.

21. They will have a rose-colored outlook on life

Because feminists are over-privileged, they will perceive the world through rose-colored glasses, often admonishing you as ‘negative’ or ‘judgmental’ for holding a more realist perspective, born of hardship. And if another man comes along who is willing to tell them what they want to hear, instead of the truth, watch them run off with him, leaving you out in the cold!

22. They will blame you for the actions of other men

Whether it’s their fathers, the President, the CEO of British Petroleum, or whoever, you must share the blame in solidarity with the other men, whether you condone their actions or not. Remember, to a stereotypically-thinking feminist, you are ‘one of them’. Your masculine gender assignment over-rides any individualism you may have.

23. They will judge or rate you via petty materialistic standards

Even the most liberal of women expect you to make more money then them, drive a better car, be handsome, famous, or both, and live in fancier digs. If you don’t, there must be something wrong with you. If you have renounced such priorities as a matter of ideology, they won’t respect that.

24. They will lean on the system

All liberals are dependent upon the system. Many people agree that the poor need help. Many are even willing to pay a tax to pay for it. But no one actually wants to get their hands dirty by helping the poor. Instead, they consider themselves as having done their duty simply by voting for a detached, cold, and sterile government system to treat the lepers, so that they themselves don’t have to touch them.

And if there is ever a dispute between yourself and a feminist, watch how fast they get the law, the police, the courts, even the legislature involved! Liberals are all closet authoritarians, and often depend upon a hierarchical system to carry out their biased vision of social justice.

25. They will be leeches with delusions of independence

In a society, like America’s, that runs on privilege, independence is hard to define. Many wealthy heirs will describe themselves as ‘independently wealthy’. But they aren’t independent. They are totally dependent upon their family’s wealth. Many feminists are the same way. Thought they may parlay their sympathy privilege into a successful career or higher-than-average standard of living, they are still dependent upon the community that provides for them. Only the highly capable are truly independent. And even then, a master chef still depends upon sous chefs, busboys, waiters, and stakeholders to make their culinary visions reality. Very few people are totally self-sufficient. Most of us are just gears in a larger mechanism, even if we maintain delusions of independence from or superiority to society.

26. They will neglect their physical appearance

Shaved heads, hairy armpits, and no make-up. If that sounds attractive to you, then by all means, date a feminist! Don’t expect for them to let YOU get away with not grooming, though.

The ones that dress up, they seem to be doing it for everyone else but you. You’re the one they feel like they can be their worst around, so you see the worst of them and everyone else sees their best.

27. They will exploit you on way or another

Sexually, materially, emotionally, intellectually, and socially, feminists will take advantage of you, and take more than they give, leaving you that much more bitter and dissatisfied for the next love interest that comes along. They will take your ideas, take credit for your work, take your credibility and reputation, take your intellectual property, take your own ideals and turn them against you, take your money, take your friends, take your career, life’s ambition, destiny, take your soul. And then no one will want the hollowed-out remains of what once was a very fine young man.

28. They are mostly either sluts or teases

Which do you want: a girl who leads you on, wastes your time, energy, and money, having no intention of sleeping with you at any point, and ultimately leaving you high and dry? Or would you rather have a woman everyone has already had, and anyone can have? Because those are your options when you pull from the feminist pool.

29. They live in the past

Your past. Their past. The relationship’s past. A thousand years before either of you were born. Expect them to keep bringing it up, even as it becomes less and less relevant.

30. They are insecure

They failed to live up to the male ideal of what a female should be. They have bad karma. they have mental problems. They have physical defects. Whatever it is, they are insecure about it, and they will project that insecurity onto you, and over-compensate for their inferiority complex by dominating you somehow.

Conclusion:

What does the female community do to men they perceive as ‘anti-social’ or ‘misogynist’? They ostracize them! Perhaps what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Don’t give these women the time of day. Maybe a little time out in the corner will change their perspective. As for male feminists, most of them are insincere, and their motivations are transparent, but their tactics are the same as the sisterhood’s.

The Cycle of Romantic Victimology

It starts in high school. He’s a horny liar driven by hormones. She’s an irrational princess living in fantasy world, driven by emotions. He tells her everything she wants to hear. The fairy-tale where they ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after.

Eventually, she puts out. After awhile, he gets bored of her. All her little imperfections he ignored in the name of getting laid start to really bother him. He begins to wonder if he has cheated himself, and begins to find other people attractive. Finally, he breaks her heart by leaving her and pursuing other women she knows, possibly even her friends or family.

She spends a lot of time depressed. She feels ruined by false promises and bad sex. The next man won’t find her as desirable as when she was young and pristine. The first one’s insincerity discredits every other man who uses the same lines, even if they are sincere. But eventually, life goes on. She is still human after all, with needs and desires. She moves on. She doesn’t want to let one asshole ruin her ability to trust others and have a good time being social.

And then the victim becomes the victimizer. It’s simple transference. She’s still mad at that first guy, so she projects him onto random guys she meets, and hurts them before they get the chance to hurt her, thus giving her the feeling of having ‘won’ the relationship. She finds them in nightclubs, bars, community college. She leads them on, spends their money, loves them and leaves them, or just teases them. They’re all just douchebags anyway, at least in her mind. Whether they really are, or not. Some of them don’t become douchebags until she works them over, and just like her, her victims become victimizers. It’s all nothing but a jealousy competition.

Eventually, her lifestyle catches up to her. An unwanted pregnancy, career or scholastic failure, an STD, a substance abuse problem. She ends up in counseling. After winning her trust through empathizing with her plight, her therapist finally breaks it to her: You have a victim complex. You need to start raising your standards, taking control of your life, refusing to play the same old games everyone else is playing. No more business as usual: set your mark, and enforce it.

For the nice guy from a decent background, with a good head on his shoulders, it begins later. College, maybe. He’s been socially isolated since high school glory days, if they ever even happened for him at all, gone past. The flaw in the Golden Rule is that it assumes that everyone wants the same thing. Most women want to be left alone, so they leave him alone, to his disappointment. Most of his sexual appetites are filled by porn. Women only play bait and reel games, and he’s smart enough not to chase rabbits down their holes. Maybe he has the odd encounter with the opposite sex in college, but they aren’t ultimately very satisfying, even if he brags to his friends to pump up his own hype.

Eventually he graduates, settles into a career, and starts feeling entitled to a real relationship. Marriage, family, social stability. But dating sucks for him, like it does for most men, even the handsome and wealthy young professionals: He takes some ungrateful bitch out, only to find out she’s an idiot, and then he doesn’t even get any, nor does he even end up wanting it most of the time. He wants it from some hypothetical perfect girl, but never the flawed piece of shit to whom he has actual access. Even if he does score, it’s usually with a well-used village idiot, and he feels shame afterwards.

If he has any standards at all, he finds the women who meet them to be extremely uncooperative. He knows himself well enough to know what he likes and doesn’t like in a mate, and he always feels like he’s settling, so sometimes he just gives up, not dating or being social for months or even years at at a time. Society can’t or won’t produce an equal partner for him, so instead, what they do is keep him alone and miserable until he is older, less attractive, less well-off, and more desperate. Then they try to get him to settle for someone who is beneath him, so that men of more privileged backgrounds can take all the best opportunities for themselves.

These guys who talk about getting pussy all the time… they are either liars or rapists. They exaggerate their lifestyles to try and hype themselves and make everyone else jealous. He falls victim to the competition from other males and even females, who sabotage him and lie behind his back. If he is lucky, his career is unaffected by his lack of social capital, or the emotional instability of being single and alone in the world.

There are plenty of options he doesn’t want, but the most desirable women have all the options, all the social capital, and he is always a mere supplicant, even if over-qualified. Often times, the men women ignore completely end up better off than the ones they take some interest in… just enough interest to get his hopes up and break his heart before they move on to the next exploitable target of opportunity… He has enough of a social conscience to not want to exploit women, but sometimes it seems to him that’s what they want. And sometimes he feels exploited.

It’s sad that there are actually uglier nerds even more socially alienated him, or militant feminists, whether male or female, and they consider him ‘over-privileged’… If you consider it a ‘privilege’ to waste a bunch of time, energy, and money just to find out that she’s incompatible and you don’t get any, then yeah, maybe… He tries to explain to the betas that they aren’t missing much. There are still people who say he’s gotten more chicks than them, or more attractive women than them… But every woman he ever actually got ended up screwing him around. The emotional trauma and baggage reputation isn’t usually worth the rare sex that actually happens. Even when he has a good career, money in the bank, is relatively attractive and talented, women don’t take him that much more seriously than the guy who doesn’t have any of that going for him.

The anti-marriage atheist crowd tries to brainwash him into becoming a polyamorist, or at the very least, spend a bunch of money trying. Whores play ego games, and try to make him feel bad for not getting laid. Feminists and religious people alike tell him he is going to Hell for the little sex he has actually had. A female’s desire can make a man a target… in a bad way. In a town full of white knights trying to save women from their own bad judgment, misinformationists who either break down their social enemies or hype their social allies, people who are judgmental of eachother’s relationships (Do you really think THAT’S the right guy for her?!?!) And let’s not forget about insecurely jealous lesbians and feminists who want to sabotage any kind of healthy heterosexual relationship, which they see as ‘patriarchal’. Liberal, pretentious, big city bullshit, basically

Eventually the man develops learned helplessness. He hates being alone, but doesn’t want to settle for an unsatisfying partner, and the women to whom he is most attracted physically seem to be over-privileged, under-capable, and lacking in social conscience. When he finally meets the girl from the first part of this essay, she thinks she knows what’s wrong with him, because she assumes that this terrible thing she just learned about herself must also apply to him.

“I think you have a victim complex,” she tells him, “Grow some balls. Man up.” She’s basically projecting her victim complex onto an actual victim, which is the worst form of victim-blaming there is, because it discredits the victim even as it blames them. And in the case of women, ‘taking control of your sex life’ is ’empowerment’, but for men, ‘taking control’ is rape.

But she doesn’t realize that, even though they ended up in the same place, he took a totally different route to get there. Nobody ever wined or dined him, he paid for everything the whole time. It was either that or give up and be alone. But the women from his past were all just using him for material things, just as sure as the men from her past were using her for sex. Perhaps at the time, their social lives made them feel empowered, at least more than the average frustrated chump, but looking back, they both realize what fools they have been. Really, either one of the genders involved in this story could be the victim or the victimizer, chronologically, in that order, or both at once.