Traditionalism and Female Sexuality

Commentator Thursday wrote an article which I felt deserved far more discussion that what it received. How Social Conservatives and Traditionalists Got It Wrong About Female Sexuality dealt with an issue that I feel has been poorly handled by the conservative movement: Namely, female sexuality and its social implications. The traditionalist influence on the conservative movement is , I think, responsible for this. Its conception of womanhood is wrong and conservatism’s failure to rectify the issue goes a long way to explain feminism’s triumphant march through most of 20th century culture. We were fighting the wrong battles.

As a young man debating Socialists, I would be often appalled by the glib manner in which socialists would dismiss facts about Communist atrocities. I often wondered to myself, why did unjust salaries arouse indignation whilst horrific murders not? Why did some things get picked through with a fine tooth comb whilst more important things glossed over?

As I have gotten older, it has slowly dawned upon me that the difference between socialists and myself was at a more fundamental level than simple difference of opinion. What separated us lay in our relationship to the concept of the truth. To put it bluntly, I believed in the entirety of the truth whilst liberals are "selective” in their acceptance of it. For whatever reason, socialists, liberals--call them what you want--all seemed to have a habit of ignoring facts which would challenge their preferred view of thew world. Take for example the racial IQ debate. Now, I believe that there are differences in racial IQ, but the implications of this fact are complex and cannot be simplistically reduced. But when the facts are presented to a liberal they are cognitively ignored either through processes which attempt to render the fact irrelevant or denied outright. Ignoring facts did not bother them. It bothered me a lot.

Orwell, who was a great chronicler of the intellectual pathology that facilitated the rise of socialism, never as far as I’m aware got around to naming this intellectual pathology. Which is a shame since I think it is the core pathology of the authoritarian mind. Socialism would have been impossible without its operation. The term I propose is Thought-filter, the ability to reject inconvenient facts which are out of line with the desired state of affairs.

In the novel, 1984, a person with a good thought-filter--(as determined by the Thought Police)--accepted party orthodoxy without question, even when presented with self evident facts contrary to their beliefs. Perfection of this state was achieved when the individual was presented with a contradictory facts yet no incongruity was noted and hatred was generated towards the “inconvenient truth”. Thought-filtering is the triumph of ideology over the truth, a state where the mind prefers its own conception of reality rather than the real world. Debate at any member of Greenpeace or Feminist and you’ll get the picture. Facts which don’t support the cause are irrelevant. Raising them, bad manners worthy of censure. It is the motive force of Political Correctness.

Now it would be false to assume that this intellectual pathology was solely confined to the Left. The Right has had its own periods of successful thought-filtering and many so called conservatives operate within a similar mindset and frequently it is a quite widespread phenomena. A lot of conservatives have a problem with “Game” and despite overwhelming and scientific evidence, dismiss it. The case in point being Lawrence Auster and his rejection of “Game”. Now I’m going to pick on Auster not out of any particular reason, rather, he is typical and high profile social conservatives who rejects Game.

Now I presume that Auster rejects the concept of Game because of:

The hedonistic lifestyle that he assumes is part of it.
The assumption it makes with regard to female nature.

Firstly, there are plenty of bloggers who believe in Game yet don’t believe in Hedonism. If Game could be given a definition then it would be; the knowledge of how women think,what women find attractive and the capability to apply that knowledge effectively. If Auster’s objection to Game is that it is inherently Hedonistic he is quite simply wrong. However what I suspect is that what Auster really objects to--and I could be wrong--are the assumptions that Game makes with regard to female behaviour. To quote from Thursday’s article;

Traditionalists have done a fairly good job of recognizing female imperfectness in areas other than sexuality, and their critiques of feminism often had traction because of this. But traditionalists haven’t really come to terms with the dark side of female sexuality. Traditionalists never really addressed why women were attracted to rakes and bad boys in the first place, nor why they would leave good men for the same. It was all chalked up to some sort of “trickery” on the part of the rake or some moral inadequacy on the part of the nice guy husband.

Now, I think Thursday is far too charitable to the traditionalists, their error is far deeper. Not only have they failed to see the “Dark side” of female sexuality, I think many of them don’t see any female sexuality at all: except perhaps for the limited necessity of childbearing. The concept that a good woman actually aches for sexual pleasure seems to either escapes them or horrifies them. To the traditionalists, women being both “lofty and high” are devoid of the base instincts that are so ever present in the male. The thought that a good woman actually may desire a good hard shag is at odds with their conception of a good woman.

Now, I think that the most vigorous proponents of Game also get it wrong. Women are sexual, but not as sexual in the same way as men. Women who have slept with lots of men, don’t seem to see it as some achievement. In fact, many of the exploits of sexually promiscuous women seem to have a “put on” quality to them They seem to have multiple partners more to prove that they are “liberated” than out of natural desire. To quote Catherine Millet:(For the pedants out there, there are always outliers)

"Yes, I f..ked for the pleasure of it," she writes retrospectively, "but didn't I also f..k so that f..king wasn't a problem?"

Anecdotally, it would seem to square up with my observations at work. Sex and love seem to be more intermixed in women than in men; where they’re discrete. In fact, a lot of the female promiscuity that goes about today is probably more a response to social pressures placed on women than natural sexual desire. Roger Scruton’s sublime insight is on the money;

Women have been shamed into being shameful.

Social pressure and culture are very important determinants of female behaviour, including sexual behaviour. But these are not the only determinants, so is natural sexual desire. And it’s this natural sexual desire that traditionalists refuse to recognise. Or when they do recognise it, they see it as a defect rather than an intended design by the Creator. Their thought-filters are working in overdrive.

Personally, I think that this Western traditional aversion to female sexuality has it roots in a residual Gnosticism in Christianity, which tended to place the spiritual at war with the corporeal. The problem is though, that man is both spirit and flesh and each has a legitimate existence. The problem with a lot of "real world" Christianity is that it tended to want to deny the legitimacy of the flesh. The idea of Christianity was to tame our passions, not kill them; which with regard to sex it tended to encourage.

The other big problem with this view was the assumption that what was pleasing in God’s sight was also pleasing to the opposite sex. Hard work, prudence, self denial etc, whilst all are good for the well being of the community, don’t really turn a woman on. There seemed to be a failure to recognise that moral virtues have little if any sexual attributes: Virtue isn’t a turn on. Courtly love was all about kindness, grace, supplication and romance. It was never about the knights brooding presence, good looks and sexual assertiveness. The smarter approach would have been to combine the two, but in the war of the spirit against the flesh, the spirit won.

The net result was that what arose culturally over time was the idea that the good and relatively asexual woman and the excessively polite man would be drawn to each other by the strength of their virtue. Which is not the way it works in the real world as many a polite beta male has found out.

Now some people may think that I’m being hard on Christianity, but I bring this little anecdote to my defence. During a Papal Audience, the late Pope John Paul II, raised the issue of the female orgasm (how the husband should see that wife is satisfied) to the look of astonishment of many of the cardinals. The fact that a Pope, talking about normal marital sexual relations, should elicit such a response says a lot of what the “institutional” Church thought was appropriate to say in polite company. In other words the intimacies of sex were not appropriate. His “revolutionary” theology of the body was revolutionary in that he preached that sex, and hence our animal natures, were good. The revolution lay in affirming the goodness of our sexual natures. It could be only considered revolutionary if the previous teaching did not consider it that way. It would be fair to say that the Church had a problem with sex, especially female sex. Admittedly it is now trying to rectify the situation now but two thousand years of ascetic teaching are going to take a long while change.

Where traditionalists get it wrong is in their preference for their this fictional “pure noble woman” model of female sexuality to its real world counterpart: The fantasy is preferable to reality. Though the evidence of the truth of Game is overwhelming it is dismissed by the traditionalists. Game offends the traditionalists not so much in its assertions(which they deny) but in its results.(which they try to explain away). Their refusal to acknowledge Game is in many ways like the socialists’ refusal to acknowledge the superiority of Capitalism as a system for generating societal wealth; an exercise in reality evasion. It's in this way that the traditionalists resemble the feminists, both rejecting rejecting reality for their preferred ideals of womanhood. Thoughtfilters in overdrive, willed blindness is preferred to seeing the truth.

Female Narcissim. Stating the Obvious.

An interesting article in The Daily Mail. Note, narcissism seems to be increasing for both sexes but especially for the fairer sex.

Thoughts on the Beautiful and Sublime: A Reply to Thursday.

Commentator Thursday put up quite a good post on the subject of the beautiful and the sublime. I thought I'd offer him a reply.

Whilst I am a conservative, I've never been a big fan of Burke. Burke's meditations on beauty, as his meditations on politics, seem to display more description of the fact rather than an understanding of the subject. His describes conservatism more than he understands it; likewise on the subject of beauty.

To a certain degree, I subscribe to the Platonic idea of Forms, and the more perfectly a thing resembles the form from which it partakes, the less flawed it is. Everyone, I imagine, has seen the comedy skit of the beautiful woman who enchants the man until she smiles,revealing her rotten teeth, at which point the man becomes repulsed. The "flaw" in the woman quashing the sensation of beauty. In fact it's quite interesting to speculate as to why there even is such a thing as perfect teeth. Why does a certain arrangement and colour of teeth give us pleasure and deviation from that ideal lead to the sensation of progressive repulsion?

It would appear, at least to my mind, that the mind has pre-concieved notions of how things should be or if you believe in the supernatural, the mind the has the capacity to recognise things as they are meant to be.

This capacity to recognise "perfection" is a sense of the intellect. In the same way we can feel pleasure from our physical sense organs, stimulatating the intellect through sense data, i.e sight can cause pleasure to arise in the intellect. Beauty is the pleasurable sensation felt in intellect's apprehension of the perfection of form. Ugliness, it opposite.

Thinking of beauty this way explains things which a first would seem incompatible. A gargoyle, which is physically repulsive, has its beauty insofar as it conforms to the perfect form of a gargoyle. War, something so horrible and destructive, can also generate a sense of beauty insofar as it is a perfect example of war. This why we can speak of things as "terrible beauties", things that are bad but perfectly bad.

The appreciation of beauty is also contingent on the intellect, that's why we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The ignorance or refinement of the intellect determines the conditional status of the perception of beauty. The cultivated man and the moron will disagree with regard to the nature of beauty as the dullard's intellect, through either deficiency or habituated neglect, is incapable of apprehending the perfection of form. To a dullard, beauty is reduced to its most primitive form; sexual. The refined man wants more because his intellect is habituated to demand more.

With regard to female beauty, I think its wrong to think that there is one type of female beauty, in the same way that one can err in thinking there is only one type of perfect colour. In order for a woman to be beautiful she must approach perfection as a woman and in the specific features that distinguish herself. Audrey Hepburn with a scar on her face does not equal Grace Kelly with a pimple on her nose. Rather each woman becomes more beautiful as she approaches the perfection of herself. The less flawed a woman is the more beautiful she becomes.

This of course leads us to the concept of the sublime. The sensation of the sublime become more apparent as the subject apprehended by the intellect approaches perfection. Then not only does the intellect percieve the subjects perfection of form but the subject in question is apprehended in its entirety. Mountains are meant to be thought of as dangerous, oceans and the night skies vast, the desert barren. A man standing on the beach alone infront of the vast sea is meant to be feel both beauty, awe and terror as the see is capable of inspiring all these things. As the the thing apprehended by the intellect approaches more perfectly it's form, it also becomes more efficient in transmitting to the intellect its nature. Marilyn Monroe "oozed sexuality" because she closely approached one of the forms of female sexuality. The intellect could apprehend her sexuality without effort. Thefore objects which are meant elicit fear become more efficient in eliciting the effect the more perfectly they approach the form of the thing they are meant to be. Tiger cubs progressively elicit more fear as they become adult tigers. It follows therefore that some of the fear associated with beauty arises from the nature of the thing considered beautiful.

However, there is another aspect of beauty that needs to be considered, and that is once beauty is apprehended, men seek to keep it in their gaze; they desire to posses it. Failure to achieve it is a cause of grief and pain. And just as beauty is a positive sensation arising from the sense of the intellect, fear is also a sensation of the intellect based upon the intellect's perception of potential loss. A fearful man is a man who percieves he is in a position where he can potentially lose something. Be it his material possessions, pscyhological well-being or his life. Once a thing lost, grief sets in. Grief is the intellect's sense of loss. It follows therefore the more beautiful a woman a man desires, the more fear their will be at his approach, since he wishes to gain what he finds beautiful. It is in the intellect's appreciation of the fear of rejection from whence the fear associated with beauty arises.

There fore the fear associate with beauty can arise from fear projected by the nature of the object apprehended by the intellect and by potential of pleasure that loss of that object.

The Bilble says that no man can see the face of God and live. For years I thought this meant that God would punish a man for looking at him, but I was wrong. Dante gave the first clue to my intellectual error. When Dante first gazes upon Beatrice she tells him to turn away from him, as her beauty will kill him. The film, Somewhere in Time deals with the same theme, of a man so capitvated by the beauty of the woman he loves that he simply wills himself to death.(Yes, I know its soppy) It think it is this mechanism that kills men when gazing upon God. Seeing him we will fall in love with him instantly and not wish to live on this earthly vale any more. The judgement of God will be in that moment where he decides whether to accept us or not. The terror for a moment will be horrifying since the potential loss will be everything. The damned will be those whom falling in love with God upon seeing him will be rejected. Their grief will be eternal. The terror of beauty is in its possible rejection of us.

Mencken on Democracy.

Next time you wondering why government sucks and why they can't do anything right, ponder these thoughts by H.L. Mencken:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

In a democracy, the fools that govern us have earned their right by popular assent. The morons in government are the mirror of the people. The people stink.

Idiot.

More wisdom from the Fairfax Press.

What do Haitians need most? To get away from Haiti



Haiti is dysfunctional society because it is run by Haitians. And while the disaster is Haiti is truly terrible: it is terrible and yet utterly predictable. Professor Hale has commented on the disaster and its causes and quite simply, he's right. Poor building practices in a corrupt society mean that building codes(which no one even to bothered to propose ) don't get enforced. When the inevitable earthquake happens, the predictable disaster ensures. Tragedy.

But poor building practices are not the result of government fiat, but of a culture. A culture that values the short term over the long and culture that places little value on life itself. The War Nerd wrote an interesting article on the culture of Haiti. Bottom line; a corrupt society from the top to the bottom. Once again for my pea brained detractors, not all Haitians are corrupt; only most of them. Now this may be cruel thing to say to a nation which has suffered so much misfortune, but facts are facts, Haitian culture does not seem to be able to produce men capable of disinterested service even in the midst of so much foreign aid.

Now I can understanding that people are moved by the plight of Haitian individuals caught up in the earthquake, but feeling good about oneself and actually doing something useful are two different things. Now Chris Berg's article is full of errors which will compound the problem instead of making it better but the question I want to ask is, should we be importing people from a dysfunctional culture which is the product of those same people?

People who are pro-immigration tend to ignore this fact. The influx of Italian migrants into Australia and the U.S. was not a one sided thing. In importing Italians, America and Australia profited from both a better cuisine and worse a criminal element, the Mafia. And whilst on balance, I think Italian migration a good thing, it serves to illustrate the point that when a man brings in migrants he brings in more than just the man, but his ideas, his culture and the way he lives. Of course the dominant culture also makes its mark, so what happens in the end that a fusion occurs, the flavour of which is dependent on the elements of the mix. S

Now the question to ask is, are there cultures which are bad, which are incompatible with our way of life? Do we want more Haitian culture in our society? A culture that seems to glorify the thug, the bling king, self interest and opportunism. A cursory look would suggest not, and idiot would propose spreading the contagion around the world.

To a pro-immigrationist, multiculturalism means a different cuisine every night, retiring home to your uppity white suburb at night. The wogs are good to visit but you don't really want to live with them. The problem though is though, if you bring enough people from a bad culture into your country you also bring a bit of that bad country in as well. As many your own poorer people who--because of economic necessity--have to live next to the newly arrived immigrants will tell you, not all immigrants are fun to be around with. But that demographic does not make social policy. The world does not need more Haitis.

In fact the only time Haiti ever seemed to have a period of prosperity was when American culture was forcibly imported into Haiti. Some cultures seem to bring more benefit than others.
What Haiti needs is not exodus of its people but good governance, and if the local culture can't produce men that can govern humanely then perhaps humane men should force good governance on Haiti from the outside. This of course is true but politically incorrect.

The Ghost of Lionel Murphy.

I imagine most of my North American readers will not know who Lionel Murphy was. As part of the 1972 Whitlam Labour Government, Lionel Murphy was appointed as Attorney General of Australia. This government in my opinion was the most destructive and influential force to ever hit the social fabric of Australia.

To American readers, to get an idea of the effect of the 1972 Labour government on Australia, it was like being catapulted from 1950's America to 1972 America in the space of 3 years. It was a heady time that even I, in my childhood then, can remember

One of "Lionel's" most influential "achievements" was the introduction of "no fault" divorce. An idea whose malignity has corroded the core of the Australian family. I live the reality of the consequence of this socially progressive legislation every day. Impoverished and depressed single mothers, neglected and undisciplined children, lonely men and grandparents who have a new role in being the primary carers for their children. By and large the biggest losers of "no fault" divorce are women and children, and of course you can guess who were its strongest proponents; the "caring" Left and feminists.

It was this case (It's worth following the link)that got me thinking about Lionel. The good and well mannered father getting totally screwed over by the legal system. But the the real victims here are the children who will have his capricious wife's bad behaviour as example and who not have the example of their father. The other victims will be other women. What man in his right mind will want to marry on these terms? Through the mind of every young man that reads this story will run the thought that this too could happen to me. Just as each crime makes us a little more wary of strangers, so to does each unjust divorce make us wary of marriage.

The party that is premised on class war was never going to be a good planner of social cohesion.

The hundreds of thousands of kids who are going to bed tonight with one parent only, can thank Lionel. So can the single mums who are tired, alone and struggling to make ends meet. So are the men who are drinking themselves drunk out of loneliness. Lionel's ghost haunts them all.

For what its worth, Lionel Murphy died disgraced. Not that you would guess it from his fellow travellers. He was convicted of corruption but avoided jail because of prostate cancer. Still the Christian in me thinks that justice is being done. Pity the poor children.

Till Death Do Us Part................Sort of.

The HILDA Survey, run by the University of Melbourne, is a large survey into the demographics and opinions of approximately 19,000 Australians. Recently I was leafing through it searching for income distribution data when I came upon some data which some of my readers might find of interest. Considering that Australia is part of the Anglosphere, I think that it's findings could be considered as broadly applicable to rest of it.

The data in question concerned itself with attitudes towards marriage and relationships. The people surveyed were given specific questions and their answers are given below.
(click on the image for a clearer view)

1) That Marriage is an outdated institution.



Comment: It whilst the majority of people still believe in marriage, women are still its biggest supporters.

2) It is alright for an unmarried couple to live together.



Comment: I think this is a good measure of how de-Christianised the country has become. Practical Christianity as opposed to theoretical.

3) That Marriage is a lifetime relationship and should never be ended.



Comment: Whilst most people believe in marriage, it seems that serial monogamy is what they consider as "marriage".The majority of people do not believe that marriage is a permanent state. Curiously, that in this age where men are afraid to commit, except for the 20-24 age group, men seem more committed to the idea that marriage is permanent than women. Something that I wouldn't have expected given that women seem more preoccupied with getting married.

4)That it is alright to divorce even if you have children.



Comment: Once again, another surprising finding. It would appear that the majority of women, with the exception of the elderly, do not see the incentive in staying in the marriage for the sake of the children, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is detrimental to their well being. Sticking together for the sake of their children seems to be something men, especially younger ones, are prepared to do.

5) That it is alright for a woman to have a child as a lone parent.



Comment: Once again the "caring sex" shows that, especially in the child rearing years, self gratification overrides child well being. It must be admitted though, that the majority of both sexes see sole parenthood negatively.

6) That Children are happier living with both mum and dad.



Comment: I personally found these findings horrifying. Amongst the majority of women in their reproductive years, the ideal of a two person family had been abandoned. Please note that men did not share these views. It would appear that a majority of women have a more "flexible" idea of what constitutes and ideal family than men. It is then no surprise at what the results were when the following question was asked.

7) Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.



Comment: Whilst the majority of women don't support gay marriage rights, it would appear that an uncomfortably significant minority would support such a measure.

Looking at these findings it is of no surprise that the majority of divorce is instituted by women. Whereas men seem to see marriage as a commitment, women seem to see it more as a relationship. More importantly, women seem to see it solipsistically; their conception of marriage being a state recognised relationship rather than a commitment of two people to each other, through thick and thin. I make that statement on the observation that the well being of the children is secondary to the quality of the relationship. The idea that a mother and father are necessary for a child seems to be a concept that has been abandoned by a majority of women as an ideal. Children, according to the majority of women, can thrive equally in any type of "committed" relationship. This my friends is Bullshit. Men and women it would seem have different conceptions of what marriage is.

Now it needs to be stated that not all women think this way, but it would appear that the majority do. I really do like women and am not naturally misogynistic, but when I see figures like those above........................it really makes you wonder.


(Note: The above tables were reproduced without permission from The Statistical Report of the Third Hilda Survey found here. I have reproduced them in good faith on fair use grounds.)

Bah, Humbug.

I'm in a curmudgeonly mood tonight. I've had a bad day at work. Too many stupid people in the world.

I've been rather gloomy of late, reflecting on the decline of what was once the pre-eminent civilisation on this earth. And like others, I sense a profound unease about me. That something is wrong, that something malevolent lurks, and that our wealth, prosperity and comfort is all illusory. In the book of Ecclesiastes there is this comment:

5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: 6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. 7 I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Today we had this article in the local paper; it reminded me of that passage. Typical union blackmail and thuggery. I know many professionals who have studied for years who will not be making that kind of money: ever. Scientists, engineers, teachers etc. It appears that in Australia at least, the benefits of an education certainly aren't material. The average "tradie" in Australia is apprenticed at 16 and on his own at 20. There is no educational debt and frequently much of the money they earn is undeclared.

Now it may appear that I'm just have a case of the sour grapes. Personally I couldn't care less how much these people earn. But in a society where this kind of thing happens it becomes a society that corrodes the value of an education. In the short term it really is no big deal but in the long term it kills the society. Taking a bigger picture view of things, across the board, our politicians have created a system of governance which rewards folly and in turn punishes virtue, not just here in Australia but in all of the West.

How did we get this way? The cause of the West's demise is multifactorial, but if I were to try to reduce it to its bare essence it would be as follows:

1)Bad philosophy or in other words the rejection of traditional morality and epistemology.
2)Uncritical Media: The transmission media of bad ideas. Philosphers influence the media which in turn influences the public.
3)Democracy: The granting of the vote to people by virtue of having a pulse. Take a look at this site. Although it mocks the average citizen who shops at Walmart it bears reflecting that each of these citizens (with such evident good judgement) is entitled to same share of political power as the most prudent and virtuous citizen. They vote like they dress. They are the voting block which bad philosophers rely on to bring their political ambitions to fruition. The left hand side of the Bell curve is the Devil's.

Thinking about it really gets a man down. I mean really down. So many stupid people It would appear that the odds of reversing the trend are insurmountable. Yet there is hope.

As Christopher Dawson once said, If we were to put ourselves in Ancient Rome and ask ourselves where the world's next big idea would come from, no one in their right mind would suggest that the next big thing was brewing in the far off province of Palestine. Still that's what happened. Everything was stacked up against the early Christians, and I mean everything.

Still in the end, they kicked arse. they took over Rome and produced the World's greatest civilisation. No one sane sitting in those Ancient Roman forums would have predicted it. I have this strange feeling, and though it is totally without any logical basis at all, that it will soon be time for round two of Christianity vs the world. And based on past performance I've got a pretty good hunch who s going to win.

With that in mind. I'd like to wish all of my small band of readers a Merry Christmas. Notice, I did not say Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings or any other crap. And note as well: Merry Christmas, not Xmas. I don't give a flying fig about the Greek Chi. Peace and Good Will to all men and if you get offended by these sentiments then piss off.

Your Great Grandmother wasn't a Ho.

Following up on the previous post and its implication that the First World War was the time when the rot set in with regard to Western Civilisation, the following data from the research of Mr Lewis T Terman seems appropriate.

Sex research existed before Kinsey and while limited in scope, seemed to be more objective and of higher quality than nearly all of it that followed it. One of the few researchers in the field at that time, Lewis P Terman, published a book in 1938, The Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. This was a wide ranging study looking at what made marriages happy and it involved 792 couples. It is of interest because it was one of the first studies to ask about premarital sex. He found the following rates of premarital sex amongst women in the following cohorts.

Before 1890: 13.6%
1890-1899: 23.6% (This is the generation that reached young adulthood about WW1)
1900-1910: 48%
Post 1910: 66%

Now admittedly most of the women who did have premarital sex did so with their future fiancee, and sleeping around did not really gain societal traction till the 50's, but what really stands out is the change post WW1. Then as in now, it was the lower classes that lost their virginity first, whilst the better educated and higher classes kept chaste till later. Still the big changes seemed to have happened about the time of the First World War. It really was a different world back then.

1914 and all that.

Unlike most people, I don't think the Sixties were a big deal. In my mind the great change in the West occurred with the First World War. In the intellectual sphere everything changed then. Central Europe died, Russia(Communism) was born, Tradition in the arts was put aside and modernity embraced. The rot of Western Civilisation set in.

Now whilst I agree that the Sixties were a period of great change, I always had the impression that it was more a time when the veil came off rather than anything new was dreamed up. People's habits did not change as a result of the Sixties, the habits had changed long before; rather a veneer of respectability covered everything and until the Sixties people still paid lip service to traditional ideals.

The profound changes in the Catholic Church were more probably a reflection on the fact that the faith was in reality for most a socially conditioned habit rather than the result of an active faith, and so when it became socially acceptable to leave, people did. Likewise the great sexual liberation of the Sixties was not so much a liberation as an acknowledgment of what was really going on behind the veneer of domestic respectability.

With that in mind this paper should make for interesting reading. This article is also of some worth.

I Live in Bedford Falls

One of my favourite movies is, It's a Wonderful Life. I'm sure many of you have seen it but for those who haven't, its a story about a man who gets to see what the world would of been like had he not been born. George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, is a good man who runs a savings an loan, and basically through small acts of sacrifice, helps build up the community in which he lives(interestingly its a good tale on the merits of responsible banking).The town he lives in is Bedford Falls, a picture of what we would like to think is small town America. Clean, decent and neighbourly. Shakespeare had a great term for the feeling that Capra evoked in his image of Bedford Falls, "domestic awe".

In the movie, George has an evil competitor, Mr Potter, who would surely find a place on the board of Goldman Sachs today. When George gets to see what Bedford falls would be like if he had not been born, it becomes Pottersville, a sleazy, "exciting" town of violence, booze and sex. Where everyone is in it for themselves. George, seeing what the world has become without him realises his life is not worthless and gains a new appreaciation for it.

I never watch the ending of the movie, because I sob like a baby.

Now the person who most inspired me to start blogging was Theodore Dalrymple. I had accidentally stumbled onto him whilst surfing on the Internet and found what he said was the mirror of my professional experience. Whilst he has spent much of his professional career working in the British psychiatric system, I have spent a lot of my profession career working with the lower classes of Australia, and can vouch for their similarities with the British proletariat.

My own childhood resembled pretty much life in Bedford falls. My parents were working class. They were frugal but lived their life with dignity. We always had enough to eat, our houses(and gardens) were spotless and we lived in a community where people looked out for one another. Even my parents, whom I resented on many occasions, never game me the impression that they did not care for me. Even if I wanted to, I could not have been neglected and in my youth, I could remember my parents keeping the door of the house unlocked when they went to the neighbours. I thought everyone lived this way.

I was of course wrong. Although I had inklings that there were working class people that lived differently to ourselves I had not really encountered them in large numbers till I started working in my professional career. Spend any time with the bottom rung of society and the you realise that it assumes the visage of Hobb's world: nasty, brutish and short. Violence is random, sudden and without explanation. Social atomism and personal responsibility are absent. Self-gratification is the sole motive of their existence. Rudeness, outright lying and aggressive self assertion are commonplace , and after a while one becomes desensitised to them. The world of the underclass is not just materially deprived, it's different. It's horrible. The concepts of permanence and restraint are lost and human beings are motivated by their animal urgings. One can never be "at ease" with these people since they are constantly evaluating you for any potential advantage they can gain from you. Relationships are viewed from a point of potential advantage. Its every man for himself. Alliances rather than friendships. Hookups rather than love. Turn your back, they'll steal your stethoscope. Every medical history of tinged with the realisation that they may not be entirely truthful. Every relationship, an act of potential manipulation. They are the citizens of Pottersville.

Working in this environment crushes the spirit. There is a kafka-esque quality to it, to which the social services(and the Law) contribute no end. Any attempt at virtue is systematically crushed, vice encouraged. Acts of kindness, decency and self restraint are the exception and not the norm. You do literally become hard-boiled and cynical. One becomes so used and desensitised to evil, that what shocks are not acts of depravity but acts of goodness. The psychological effect of working in such an environment is "spiritual drainage, and as I have followed Dalrymple's writings for the past few years I have noted in him, like in myself, a weariness, and a revulsion at the spiritually toxic environment that makes up the life of those in the bottom(and the very top). It makes me ever grateful for the life that I have and it's also why I could profoundly sympathise with him in this post. I too know that feeling.

The problem is now that this prole culture is drifting into "respectable" society. When I read sites like Roissy in DC and The Errant Wife, I feel like I'm breathing the air of Pottersville. Prole habits are pushing aside the traditional bourgeoisie virtues and indeed many of the middle class now resemble "gilded proles": middle class incomes with untermensch habits. The bourgeoisie are dying.

Now you would imagine that given a choice between Pottersville and Bedford Falls the choice would be easy. This article in Salon illustrates the depth of our corruption. Still this reply to the article is worth quoting:

When George was in Bedford Falls he called it a “crummy little town” and is one of the down sides of being from Bedford Falls—having the capacity of visualizing a different reality--the counter factual--in which one can live free from desperation, tragedy, and tyranny. You know that you’re really in Pottersville when it starts looking good and the only difference that is meaningful is the quality of the bars.

Still pockets of decency remain, and coming home from work there's been many a time when I've felt like George Bailey, grateful for the friends and family that I have. Grateful for the life that I have and the simple pleasures. Grateful for an oasis of goodness in a sea of self-inflicted evil. I know that life can be so much worse.

I work in Pottersville. I live in Bedford Falls.

A Happy Thanksgiving to My U.S. readers.

Zen

For what its worth, I've written this post for young Christian men. Hedonists simply won't understand.

As a man who is naturally Hedonistic, I'll be the first to agree that virginity is one those things that hasn't got much going for it. The pleasures of the flesh have much more worldly allure than the distant heavenly rewards of the ascetic virtue of virginity. The problem is though, the prohibition of fornication, comes from the mouth of God himself, and a man who wants the live the faith has gotta get on board. My conversion to the faith happened in my college years. (The details are irrelevant, it's proof that God has a sense of humour) and in that environment of plentiful supply of sex and social encouragement to partake, I got religion.....Lucky me : (

Now, one of the misconceptions that non-Christians are frequently guilty of, is the assumption that when a man becomes converted to the faith he ceases being a man. People seem to think that when a man begins to worship God, he ceases to have any interest in sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. As many a TV Evangelist shown, that a man with an interest in God frequently has an unhealthy interest in sex.

As a result of my conversion I took my religion seriously though reluctantly, and while the flesh always remained willing, my conscience was pretty effective at stopping me giving in to temptation. That is not to say I still did not go out with women or try push it to the absolute limit. But I imagine many must have thought me gay(If they only knew, I kept my religion personal), when I rebuffed their sexual advances. I thought my faith was a curse. Here I was in ocean of women, in their prime, but not allowed to touch. But a curious thing happens to a man when he goes out with women which he cannot have sex with, the nature of his relationship with women changes.

As the nice beta I had thoroughly imbibed the contemporary romantic ideation with regard to women. They were sugar and spice and all things nice. Now, I am naturally of a genuine and courteous nature and acted the part of the chivalrous male. As any man with even the slightest knowledge of Game could have predicted , I got rejected many times, despite doing all the supposedly right things. The psychological consequences were predictable. Repeated sexual and romantic frustration had destroyed my self-confidence around women. In your teenage years, whilst all about you are wallowing in lust, nothing more thoroughly confirms your undesirability than, when everyone else is paired, you are alone. Partnering was a way of self validation.

The other issue was of course the way I looked at women.

I don't think women really appreciate the effect of beauty on a man. It really does cast a spell over a man. When in love, a man can literally so no fault in his beloved. Women in their prime years are simply amazing. I imagine that it's why artists are painting young naked women all the time. They are simply incredible. And it's not just in their sexual allure. It's in the little things. The way they move, their smell, the feel of their skin, the way the hair falls around their shoulders and so on. It consumes a man while at the same time overwhelmingly sabotaging a man's critical faculties. The beautiful woman becomes the good woman. It is said that a woman with many faults will be forgiven if she is beautiful, it's not that she is forgiven, it's just that beauty blots out the faults. A man's brain simply stops working. I was no different.

It was with this mindset that Christianity struck me like a thunderbolt. Religion became a real and meaningful thing, not something you paid lip service to. I was compelled to live the faith, including the prohibition of fornication. Which of course meant that you could pick up and go out with a girl but you couldn't have sex with her until you were married. Bummer...... or so I thought.

However, this created a curious state of affairs in me. I was caught between two opposing forces. The flesh which wanted to be sated, and the soul which wanted to be good. My response to this dilemma was to push sex into the back of my mind whilst out on a date. Indeed, in order the keep the libido in check I would tend to concentrate on a woman's other features, the further back I pushed the beauty and sexual allure, the more pronounced her other features became. What I found was a revelation.

Stripped of their sexual allure, many women had nothing else to offer. Women whom I hung around with because of a potential sexual interest, suddenly became uninteresting; no actually repulsive. Not just that, many were down right mean, manipulative and self absorbed, some desperate social climbers, some obvious gold diggers, others seriously psychologically disturbed, and far too many coarse and undignified. Indeed, it came slowly as a revelation, that stripped of their sex appeal, a huge proportion of women(not all) were unattractive as human beings. Had my male friends possessed the moral characteristics of some of these women, they would not have been my friends.

But it also lead to a further realisation. That I was a better; much, much better person than many of the women that I wanted to bed. It slowly dawned upon me. I........ was........quality. The urge for female validation evaporated, and female qualification assumed its place.

I met so many women that disappointed, that I seriously began to wonder if there wasn't something wrong with me. I began not to give a damn about their opinion of me. Instead of being the needy beta seeking female validation, I started not rejecting women because they repulsed me. Before I would let a women into my life they were going to have prove themselves to me. Women who knew how to use their sexual allure to manipulate, were shocked when I didn't respond. Beautiful women perplexed when I spent the evening talking to her plainer friend. The perplexed look on their face proof that the world was definitely unpredictable. If I was going to commit to a woman, I wasn't going to settle for second best and many women were deeply flawed.

Being able to tame the sexual beast bought other benefits. I initiated when I pleased, the gnawing sexual urge, there, but not forcing my moves. If she became tiresome, I left. Insulting, she was put down. I maintained control at all times. Shit tests were not an issue, since if she didn't like response, I couldn't care less if she walked. The girls that met me thought I was arrogant. I had reached a point where I really didn't care at all if a woman liked me. But not feeding the sexual beast kept me hungry. I never became apathetic. What had happened is that I had inadvertently developed strong inner game. I had achieved the Zen state.

My disqualifiers of women were both looks and character. She had to be feminine, a hottie and good natured.. I like people who are nice, polite and honest. A woman who lacked grace or class fell in her desirability to me. Many a hot 9 or 10 would on closer inspection drop to a 3 when she opened her mouth or after she had a few drinks. I would be lying if I said the converse was true (for myself at least), 4's may of become 6's with good character but they would not have moved up to 10's.

This did not mean that every woman I met, liked me. Nor did women magically flock to me. In fact I'm certain I would have picked up much more had I cared more for my appearance. But my success rate went up, way up. I still got rejected, but because I was never in awe of a girl's beauty and had not invested much time in her the loss was small and the injury slight. Move on.

The practice of sexual self-control whilst restraining my libido opened my eyes and inadvertently gave me strength of character. It allowed me to appreciate a woman's beauty without being a slave to it. When the dangling carrot of sex ceases to be an incitement, you begin to judge women by other assets. Many had nothing. It seems strange and such an elementary insight, but while brain was down below I could not see it. But more importantly this change in me wasn't conscious, it sort of happened by accident.

Now it is possible to gain this insight through disciplined Hedonism. Roissy too, wrote of this insight, in one of his "Sixteen Commandments of Poon":

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”............

(My bold type)

Now it would appear that that Alphadom can be approached from many directions. And it would appear that the Zen like state of the two approaches is the same. But that would be wrong. For the Hedonistic Alpha a beautiful woman's spell is neutralised by sexual satiety. Whilst the Christian Alpha neutralises through sexual self control. Is there a difference?

Well in terms of picking up women I doubt it. I think both approaches will work just as effectively, but in the longer term, especially when looking for a long term mate, I think the two methods lead to quite different outcomes.

Firstly the hedonistic approach is aimed towards easy sex and plentiful sex, the Christian approach toward finding a mate. The hedonistic approach is directed towards the sexual quality of the partner, the Christian approach to both the sexual quality and the character of the partner.
Christian men want hotties as well, but good hotties.

Commentator Roosh V has written two excellent posts on dealing with the psychological consequences of Hedonistic game. It's interesting that the men who are most practiced at game seem to despise the women who most easily give them what they want. The girls they seem to value the most are the girls who have not slept around, but as the gamesters write off a girl if she hasn't provided the goods after the third or fourth date, they're actually screening for unsatisfactory women. The predictable effect is that the women that they score are low quality. No, that does not mean that they score unnatractive women, it's just that their attractive women are of low quality. The imperative in their mindset is sexual satisfaction. The girl that doesn't provide the goods (in other words the girl that doesn't sleep around) is the one they're going to pass over. The joy of hedonism is that you get to enjoy the company of the low hanging fruit of female virtue.

The Christian approach superficially has little to recommend it. The barren desert of abstinence vs the lush oasis of sated lust: The Spartan approach vs the Persian. But it seems to toughen a man up in the way hedonism doesn't. If you can tame the beast in your pants then there's a good chance that you can beat other vices as well. The other advantage is that without the distraction of sex, a man can choose more based on character,something that is more enduring than beauty. Beauty's spell is neutralised. That's not to say that a man can't appreciate beauty but he learns to see past it, he gains the skill of seeing the woman behind the mask.Indeed the man can be more selective for the traits which mark quality in a woman. Instead of trying to have sex with her, he's trying to get to know her and then have sex with her.

When I read the HBD and game blogs and see an author say that men choose women solely on the basis of their beauty, they're using a different metric to me. I don't think many of these commentators actually realise just how distasteful a woman with bad behaviour is. But then again they can't see it. What matters when I look at a woman is both looks and the ephemeral qualities that make up "class". If there is none of that, then no matter good how she looks, she doesn't matter. After a while you really do develop a highly attuned skank filter. You learn to recognise the flakes, the disturbed, the manipulative and the easy. The problem with this though is, that your moving a much smaller pool of women, albeit it is of a higher quality. (That's the other thing, I started to avoid the the declasse and became known as a snob). It's a consequence of like being attracted to like.

And before anyone thinks I had excessively high standards, I did. I was playing for keeps, this wasn't a game. My treasure, my good name and my future children (and all that frustrated hedonism) had a vested interest in the choice of my mate. She had to be exceptional. She is.

It needs to be remembered that while sex is an act, love is a state of being, the two are correllated, not conditional. You can have all the sex in the world but not be in love. The converse is true as well, you can love passionately even without the sex. Love by its nature is other focused, it is conditional on the qualities of the other person. The other interesting thing about about it is that love is not chosen, it's an involuntary reaction to the other person, you just can't will yourself to do it. Exceptional men will only be inspired by exceptional women. The Zen master realises that skill is not just in being able to attract, but in being able to attract the right ones.

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.