Few Good Men.

This post is inspired by a post last week over at The Obsidian Files. Obsidian, whom I've found to be a very perceptive social commentator, noted how hard it is for a woman to find a good man. Good men being definitely in short supply.

And I concur; I do think it is difficult for a woman to find a good man. As I alluded to in one of my very early posts on the subject, I've been quite amazed at the number of, what I would consider high quality women, who have presented to my rooms with reactive depression secondary to loneliness. I don't think many men realise just how crushing this is to a woman's self esteem and sense of self worth. Unlike the posse of misogynists that make up most of some of the less salubrious Game discussion forums, I don't think women are in general evil, misandric or hypersexual. Most of the girls that I met in life or in my professional capacity have seemed to me to be normal girls who want to find a good man and settle down. Now don't get me wrong, there are downright mean and nasty specimens of womanhood out there, but they probably in the same proportion as they are in men.

Now many men may think that women's expectations are too high, but I disagree. Women are hard wired to marry at least equal or up, so the higher up a woman is in the world, the higher the man she desires. And for a moment put yourself in the woman's perspective. Suppose you are an average guy, can you make yourself attracted to fat, classless, ho? A woman has to satisfy certain criteria before you start feeling attracted to her. As many of the game commentators have mentioned, many of the Anglo-cultured women have ceased to be attractive. Their manners, grooming, attitude and weight all repulse normal male nature. As men our "hard wiring" finds them unattractive.

I believe the the reason for the "good man shortage" is mainly due to the "success" of of several cultural factors. The widespread uptake of tertiary education by women, the prole drift of culture, particularly male culture and the change in the nature of our tertiary level education: The emphasis of this education shifting from a broad based knowledge, to a high degree of specialisation from the outset.

Now one of the unintended consequences of educating women is that we have raised the bar of what a female considers attractive in a man. In this post I discussed that triggers of sexual and emotional approval in a woman are displays of dominance in a male. Now dominance is a relative thing, for a man to be attractive he must be more dominant than the woman, hence the problem for the super alpha female is that there are actually very few men who are more dominant than her. Her dating pool is actually much smaller than that of her less dominant sister. Now dominance is a multifaceted things composed of what would would consider broadly as masculinity. It tends to encompass a whole concept of virtues, including perseverance, intelligence, strength and so on. Now a man may display levels of dominance but he needs to display them with intelligence, and if this is lacking, then he will be unattractive to an intelligent woman. Himbos are good for short term flings but are not long term committal material.

The "problem" is however, that at the moment, females outnumber males at college. We are doing a better job educating women than men and currently int the U.S. 43% of college students are males and 57% female. Assuming that women don't want to marry down, that means for every female college graduate there is only 0.75 males. Of course the picture is more complicated than this, but just on the basis of the difference in the numbers of the educated, there are going to be a lot of deeply unsatisfied and single female college graduates.

The other issue of course is not just the numbers enrolled but the quality of the education and the differing experiences the different sexes have through college. Universities have ceased to be places of generalised learning, instead they have become institutions of advanced trade, especially in the more scientific degrees. And it's in these courses that the men tend to congregate. On the other hand, the Arts degree's tend still encourage a wider range of learning(at least within the Arts) and the atmosphere of the Arts faculties tends to encourage at least the development of some kind of aesthetic sense. So what we get at graduation is extremely practically skilled but mono-dimensional males, and generally educated( but with limited practicality) women with a cultivated aesthetic sense: Skilled bores vs aesthetic belles; Nerdy/Jock Guy, Arty Chick. Of course, these are broad generalisations, but anyone who has been through the university system will recognise the stereotypes.

In our Westernised "Woman's Nations", our societies are now producing more broadly educated and smarter women than men. But given that women prefer to marry either equal or up due to their nature,it's obvious that there is going to be a severe shortage of men who will satisfy them at the psychosocial level. More and more women will assume power in our societies, but they will rule with lonely hearts. Good men will be hard to find for a long time to come.

The Dominant Female.

Continuing on the theme of the alpha submissive female, I thought I'd make a few comments on the alpha dominant female.

Like all Alphas, these individuals are able to impose their will on others and are in control of their lives. They characters posses a combination of both psychological strength and will power. These are the women, who in their most benign, compel through manners and intelligence, and in their malignant form, assume the guise of the office bitch. They are the women the media laud and they posses the characteristics of success, discipline, intelligence and drive.

Now the Alpha Dominant female is the person who calls the shots in the relationship. She dictates the terms. When challenged, she will not defend but attack. Insulted, she knows no limit in reply. Slighted, she will seek her vengeance. If the relationship is not to her liking she walks. What we have in such an individual is akin to Nietzsche's "will to power ". These women have incredible psychological strength.

This is the type of woman that is able to triumph against adversity alone. They are incredibly successful in nearly everything they undertake ........................except their personal lives.

In dealing with these women, one of the recurring themes that comes up is of their inability to find a worthy mate. Firstly, there is the problem of finding an equal and not partnering "down" and secondly there is the problem that a lot of men are quite simply frightened off by this type of dominant woman. Admittedly a lot of these women actually end up being married; they're smart enough to know that the biological clock is ticking and that they need a father for the child, and unlike their less intelligent sisters, are prepared to accept a less than perfect man . This immediate solution does however lead to long term problems.

Slowly, but surely, over time they start to show contempt to the man. "I have to make all the decisions", "He's always making mistakes", "I can't trust him with anything". Her intellectual and character superiority become self-evident to her and she begins to despise her spouse.

This is an interesting phenomena and one that really hasn't been explored much. I mean why does a woman find a man that she can boss around contemptible? Why, in the age of Feminism, does leadership of a relationship produce unhappiness in the female leader? Why is emotional weakness, lack of ambition, etc. a turn off to women? It seems to be a universal trait and it's not something that seems to happen naturally to a man.

Why are weakness, indecision and lack of ambition so off putting to women?

Personally I don't believe that there is a contingent explanation. I believe that women are wired up that way and this response is part and parcel of a feminine nature. It's in their nature to recoil when these traits are displayed in a man, furthermore these non-masculine traits seem to switch off sexual desire.(Speculation:Presumably a helpless man resembles a child and triggers off a mothering response in a woman. The mothering response is however asexual with regard to the object of its intention. i.e women don't want to have sex with children)

Recent research looking into how the brain responds to erotic images indicates that a fair amount of subconscious erotic recognition processing occurs even before a person is aware of it. Our response to the erotic is not a conscious willed activity. Or in other words, if you lack the features that switch on the sexual response, there will be no erotic attraction. Being nice to a woman in the absence of triggering the cerebral erotic response will not get a man love or sex.(Fortunately men can learn Game)

Link 1:

"In this study, we demonstrate that information that has not entered observers' consciousness, such as [invisible] erotic pictures, can direct the distribution of spatial attention.

Link 2:

As subjects looked at the slides, electrodes on their scalps measured changes in the brain's electrical activity called event-related potentials (ERPs). The researchers learned that regardless of a picture's content, the brain acts very quickly to classify the visual image. The ERPs begin firing in the brain's cortex long before a person is conscious of whether they are seeing a picture that is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

But when the picture is erotic, ERPs begin firing within 160 milliseconds, about 20 percent faster than occurred with any of the other pictures. Soon after, the ERPs begin to diverge, with processing taking place in different brain structures for erotic pictures than those that process the other images.

Now if a woman is genetically programmed to positively erotically respond to dominant male traits this raises some interesting issues. Firstly social conditioning is going to have a limited impact in modifying the response. Secondly, the more a man defers to a woman, lets her take control and seeks her approval by trying to please her, the less he appears a man and the more he appears the child: the less erotically inclined she will be towards him. Men who accept the gospel of radical feminism become less sexually attractive to their wives.

Now I believe in what might be called "Thomistic psychology". That is, men and women have different natures and needs, and that acting contrary to one's nature or having one's natural needs unsatisfied will lead to unhappiness. This idea of a "predictable female nature" was of the things that provoked my interest in the Game community. Furthermore, both St Thomas and the Gaming community taught that you can't escape nature, it forms the core essence of who you are. Your gender is not a social construct, it's innate.

Now, if you take this "natural" approach to female psychology a lot of things begin to make sense. Men who display decision, dominance, intelligence and ambition are going to trigger switches in a woman which will facilitate sexual attraction. Women with poor self control are going to follow their instincts while women with greater self-control are going to cognitively evaluate their mate with regard to his suitability. A lot of girls have poor self-control; especially when alcohol is involved and consequently a lot of regretted sexual activity occurs after drinking.

Now, one of those natural needs which people seek is a mate and the Alpha dominant woman is in a non-enviable position in this regard. Without a mate her life is empty, and she is saddened by this state of affairs. On one hand she wants to be loved, but on the other, her character and strength overpower nearly all men, so its very difficult to find a mate as her subconscious erotic buttons only get pushed in the presence of an even more strong willed person than herself. As she exceptional, her pool of mates will be very small, declining in proportion to her intelligence and strength of will. On the other hand if she chooses a man less "psychologically strong" than herself, she is going to find her mate erotically repulsive to the degree in which she can dominate him. At best it ends up being a marriage of friendly convenience, at worst, she will eventually leave.

This is why the only happy Alpha woman is the woman who has found a more assertive man than herself. The only happy Alpha woman is the Alpha submissive; the Alpha dominant travels alone.

The Sex Diaries

I've often felt that you can judge the quality of a man not only by the character of his friends but also by the character of his enemies. I generally operate on the assumption that if the Left hates you, then your likely to be alright till proven otherwise. With that in mind the hatred that the feminists directed towards the book The Sex Diaries by Bettina Arndt piqued my interest.

It is a shame that Australia is such small blip on the world cultural radar, because sometimes we do produce individuals which deserve a wider audience and I feel that Ms Arndt deserves more airtime than she has been currently given.

It also needs to be understood that Ms Arndt is in no way a politically or culturally conservative, she was in the forefront of the sexual revolution here in Australia and I can remember as a child here name being bandied about derogatively by sexual conservatives and she was one of Australia's first sex therapists.

Her book The Sex Diaries was the result of her research looking into the sex lives of 98 Australian couples. It's an easily readable book, with excerpts from the diaries which the participants were asked to keep about their sex lives. While the research is anecdotal and has its flaws, I feel it has some merit and is an accurate gauge of state of marriage in Australia: It makes for depressing reading. In reality the book is not a book about sex, but a book about relationships, and the sad fact is that many relationships are clearly dysfunctional.

The biggest message that has come from the book is how sexually starved the majority of men are in their relationships and how totally uncaring many of their wives are. It needs to be noted that she also deals with sexually unsatisfied women and happy couples but as other reviewers have noted it's the sexually and emotionally starved man which makes the biggest impression.

As Arndt documents; in most cases the wife starts of with a high libido but over time her libido diminishes and her response to this is to shut of sex supply to her husband. What comes across as most disconcerting however is how just callously indifferent a lot (not all) of the women are to the husband's situation. Indeed what is really off putting is how so many men try so hard to please the woman with progressively diminishing returns.(Game advocates will recognise the fallacy of the approach)

What also seems to come across in Arndt's book is how our modern culture seems to have belittled men's sexual desire while at the same time inflating the importance of women's. Women have been taught by our feminist culture that having sex when you don't feel like it is wrong. Men have to learn to accept it: And men are. Apart from the callousness of the women what struck me was just how hard men were trying to keep the marriage going.

The book isn't all moans and groans and Arndt illustrates that some marriages are are full of sex. They also tend to be the most intimate and the partners seem the most "connected". What struck me about these relationship was that each of the partners were "other focused" while in the sexless marriages one or both of the partners was completely self-focused.

Ms Arndt is a intensely pragmatic woman who can actually empathise with the situation that the men are in. She also seems to go to pains to explain how sex is important to men on an emotional level and how men perceive sexual refusal as emotional refusal as well. Her solution to the problem of a woman with low libido is for her to " just do it" for the sake of the marriage.
Her rationale being, that even if a woman is uninterested initially, she will be interested and enjoying herself in the end.

The feminist response was as predictable. Ms Arndt was accused of being an apologist for rape, sexual assault and was denigrating women, blah, blah, blah: We've heard it all before.

Here are two book reviews that are worth a read. Link 1. Link 2
Also worth reading are some of the articles which can be found at her site. She has some very good articles on divorce and the law's current anti-male prejudice.

Ms Ardnt also talks about the diminishing female libido and how to treat it. Personally I found this the weakest part of the book, but then again Mrs Arndt has not heard about Game.

This felt appropriate for today.

Warning: Gore.





... but nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for.

Game and its limitations.

I am a deeply conservative. I am Catholic. I believe there is an objective right and wrong. I believe in the principles of "Game".

Though I had not heard of the term "Game" until a couple of years ago, I had come to the same conclusions, both through personal experience and through clinical practice. I stumbled onto the "Gaming Community" while trawling through the net. The best writers of the group articulated what I too thought, and had informally, on the net, developed a body of knowledge on the subject.

By nature I'm both a cynic and an empiricist. I cut through the bullshit. I believe in Game because it explains human nature and the other theories with the exception of one don't. Thomistic philosophy also asserts the existence of an human observable nature which is different for both men and women. Men and women are different, not because of programming or evolutionary biology or whatever other shit: Men and women are different in their core, their essence. Anyone who can synapse two neurones and who does not have pus in his eyes and shit in his ears can see this as self-evident truth. Feminism is a lie.

It is a lie that has caused immense suffering. Suffering to both men and women, and it is one of the reasons that I am gainfully employed. I dish out the anti-depressants for a psychotic world where both men and women sob to me about their loneliness and insecurities but are unprepared to change. Their culturally conditioned behaviour the cause of their problems.

No shit. A woman finds you unattractive because you don't I have a pair. I don't either. No Shit. Men find you unattractive because your a manipulative bitch and your constantly asserting your "rights" whenever any challenges you. I find you unattractive as well. Fuck, how hard is it to understand that men should act like men and women like women. But my two cents of advice gets drowned out in culture that the preaches the opposite. Our culture wants people to act unnaturally.

While Game has a good deal of truth to it, it also lives with the matrix of this culture. It's most articulate proponents are immersed in the matrix. Many of the lesser proponents are psychologically unbalanced and suffer from the man with a hammer syndrome. To the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. They believe game can fix everything. It can't. Game's only utility is that it is an antidote to militant Feminism, otherwise it's pussy worship.

If you think about it, unrestrained game is actually feministic. Most of the gaming community measure their "Alphaness" by the amount of pussy that they can get. And as pussy has to be freely given, therefore a woman has to approve of her mate. Game is all about gaining pussy through female approval. It's making yourself pleasing to women.

If you want to live for that, that's fine by me. I've got other stuff to do.

Now don't get me wrong. The ability to attract women is a virtue that needs to be cultivated and it has many uses, but it's not the only virtue. A man has to live by others as well.

Game can't fix up corporate greed, military incompetence, divorce laws etc. I can't fix up low brow culture, American Idol or bad architecture. In fact, game untrammelled by other restraining forces will only amplify the problems. Hedonistic game directs the will to satisfaction of self above all else. It is the same philosophy that drives the corporate bankers, the muck raking journalists, sleazy politicians, pole dancers and slutty wives. It's the philosophy of the ugly people.

I have great respect for Roissy as the Game theorist if not the man. His knowledge and ability to express the intricacies of the female psyche are unsurpassed. I've met lots of super intelligent people in my life and he towers above most of them. Seriously, if you can see past the "decoration" and the "hedonism", there is profundity that you will not find in any psychological textbook. I would honestly give him a professorship. The problem is that his philosophy of life is destructive to Western Culture. He freely admits it. knowing how to attract women should not be a man's sole imperative in life.

Parasites and Lovers.

A while ago I posted some musings on the nature of modern love. I think one of the reasons divorce is so high at the moment and relationships so transient is that the approach that people take when it comes to marriage. Presently, lots of people enter marriage selfishly, seeing it as a beneficial institution and that their partner a source of utility. In fact, one of the most off putting things about the evo-bio community is that their understanding of marriage is formulated along these lines. Their justification for marriage being an "exchange" of goods. At the time I was grasping for a terminology which would adequately express what I saw as the pathology in modern relationships. A few days ago I was browsing through Poetry of The Flesh's blog and stumbled on this quote which seemed to be what I was looking for.

I see a lot of glorifying of feminity, of women encouraging others to take control of the relationship they are in, the use their feminine games and wiles, to withhold, until they get what they want. And these things work on most men.

Rules like the man should always pay for the date.
Rules like until he proposes, you're allowed to date and sleep with whoever you want.
Things that tell you it's okay to pout, to withhold sex, to expect him to read your mind and grovel.
To throw a fit if he doesn't remember your two month anniversary.
Lessons on how to get him to pay for everything.
On behaviors you should expect from a man.
To know if you're in a good relationship.
And those Cosmo articles that make me want to use the glossy edges of the magazine to slice open my own wrists before I would suffer through reading them.

These things make being female sound like being cattle at an auction, where instead of checking health, they check feminity expressed through how much a woman can beta-bitch her man.

It's not a partnership, only a symbiotic relationship between different kinds of parasites, if the man is lucky. If he's not, it's more like he's got a growth of mistletoe on his branches, and it's not looking for a kiss. (My emphasis)

Parasites live off their hosts, without regard to the host's well being. The only interest of a parasite is its self-interest. When the host stops giving it what it wants, it leaves; or if the parasite is particularly malignant, it will suck the life out of the hosts without any regard to it.(Modern woman in divorce). The psychological outlook of the parasite is simply what is in it for me.

A lot of "love" is this type of love. The benefit that this type of parasite gets from a relationship is the hedonistic pleasures derived from the host. When the host stops being pleasing the relationship stops. It's important to understand that this type of person's love is the love of what they can get from you, not the love of you. It's a selfish love. One can see how two such people can get together. Initially, both see qualities in each other from which each derives pleasure, and as men are drawn to pleasure, both are attracted to each other. There is proximity but no bond. But over time the as the pleasures are habituated their intensity is lost. Slowly the attraction fades, and the parasite moves on till it can find someone else to feed its hedonistic appetite. Two strangers in a one night stand are proximate yet alone, there is no connection. Together yet apart.

Contrast this with the behaviour of a symbiote. This type of organism sees its well being as directly aligned with the well being of the host. This type of organism does derive pleasure directly from the host, but more importantly it derives pleasure from the well being of the host as well . A symbiote not only "consumes" it also "gives" to the host. Indeed what the symbiote gives may be out of all proportion to what it gets from the host. In a mutually symbiotic relationship each is linked to the other by the very nature of the relationship. Indeed they are obligated to each other. They may be oceans apart but they are together, since their well being is conditional on the other. Without one the other fades, they are united by their very existences.

Since symbiotic love requires at least a recognition that we have obligations to another, it is no surprise that in a culture that preaches rampant individualism it is rare. We are training our children to be selfish. The world's future lovers are going to be parasites.

Five Stars.

A few weeks ago commentator Thursday wrote an interesting piece on How Social Conservatives and Traditionalists Got It Wrong About Female Sexuality. The Thinking Housewife seems to be thinking along broadly similar lines. The Unfaithful Wife makes for good reading.

BTW, She has a very good site. Very, very Good.