You Can’t Bring Your Dick Back, but You Can Kill Muslims

george_takai_militaryI know it’s hard for the precious reader to fathom the idea that the person writing this piece has ever had trouble with the ladiez, but it’s true! There are times when I go out to the bar, talk to a few broads and strike out! I realize that I look unfathomably good, but it indeed does happen. I’m trying to make myself look better through a tough workout and diet regimen, which will flatten my stomach and bring out my chest, so I strike out less. But indeed, there are nights – many of them – where I’m forced to retreat to my room and have sex by my lonesome, coming up with all manner of depraved scenario in my head (I don’t watch very much pornography), giving myself the satisfaction I was unable to obtain via some skank or lonely barfly.

Of course I’m not alone in this regard; most men aren’t Casanovas. And, since our teachers taught us in sex ed that strokin’ the ol’ pole is a natural function, there’s nuthin’ to be ashamed of. In fact, it’s damn near necessary sometimes. Hell, it’s SO necessary, that when you HAVEN’T jerked off in a while, your body will force you to extract some of your milky, white testicle ooze during a wet dream.

And just to gross out the reader even more, when I was drunkenly and sloppily banging Jo the ex-stripper, who does the “fill in puzzles”, and I kept pumping and pumping and pumping, blowing one wad after another and charging back up within seconds before pumping and pumping and pumping some more, she asked the fundamental question about the male sex drive; “aren’t you satisfied?” In fact, she privately messaged me and told me “you were like a machine last night!”

Machine-like fucking notwithstanding, she understood that the male sex organ, the DICK, if you will, CRAVES satisfaction; that rising feeling that keeps getting better and better and better until it peaks and a release occurs, causing semen to shoot out of the tiny slit in the head of the mushroom. When women say, “guys only think with their dicks”, they’re right. The NEED to satisfy the urge is so incredibly strong that guys will lose friendships, get into fights, risk their lives, accumulate great amounts of wealth and build entire civilizations because of it; men have gone to war, and empires have been destroyed because of it. I’m not going to go into the specific seduction techniques a woman would need to control a man via the power of the male sex drive, but let’s put it this way; if you’re a woman of even moderate attractiveness, you pretty much never need to work.

On top of that, many women have NO IDEA how therapeutic sex can be. People say music soothes the savage beast. Wrong; sex does. It releases endorphins, truly taking the “edge off” a shitty day and calming the nerves. In Falling Down, all Michael Douglas needed  was a good blowjob…

So, what happens when you can’t relieve the tension in your loins?

The most striking thing about Born on the 4th of July was how Tom Cruise’s character had lost his dick in Vietnam. The fact that he had to piss through a tube was bad enough, but the hooker he hired was utterly useless. What could she do for him? Rub his back? Lick his ear? Those are the things you do to tease a man before giving him the payoff, that is pleasuring his holy mushroom. Hell, my dick instantly hardens when someone rubs my nipple. All pleasure sensations eventually lead to the dick, and he didn’t have one.

In Sam Fuller’s World War II epic, The Big Red One, after an explosion, one of the characters feels around his crotch and excitedly exclaims, “I still have my dick!” And don’t think there is ANYTHING funny about that. You could lose both arms, both legs, both ears and both eyes, have your tongue sliced off and half your face blown off, but if there’s a woman who can stomach blowing or fucking you, somehow life JUST doesn’t seem so bad.

You’re probably thinking, “yeah, okay, okay, I get it. Guys need their dicks, but what’s you point?”

I’m getting there, asshole!

Trannies are this week’s topic du jour thanks to Donald Trump banning them from serving in the military. And, while I have no problem with this decision, all sorts of issues have been brought up with regards to this sub-sub-sub-sub sect of society, one that nobody even thought about until some mentally ill assholes decided to shove their daddy issues down everyone’s throats.

“Transgenderism” is completely made up bullshit. You’re either a transvestite, which means you enjoy wearing women’s clothing, or you’re a transsexual, which means you had your dick cut off and replaced with an artificial vagina.

divine_2.0

And don’t get me wrong; I love John Waters’ films, but I would NEVER considered Divine to be a woman, and neither does John Waters.

“But, Edwin”, you say, “I STILL don’t understand what this has to do with men needing their dicks.”

Well, dipshit, what happens when a man becomes a transsexual? He done can’t use his dick no mo’. The physical male pleasure center is GONE, baby, and it ain’t NEVER comin’ back. I’ve read that the phony vagina uses the same nerves from the original penis, and the penis head is crafted into a clitoris of sorts, but I highly doubt the same satisfaction is ever achieved again. I mean REAL women, ya know, the ones who were born with a vagina, a uterus, an XX chromosome and the estrogen that makes them so emotional, complain that they have a hard time getting off. So the idea that one could achieve with an artificial vagina the same satisfaction one once achieved with his dick is pretty hard to believe.

Of course, the man who decided to become a “woman” knew all of this, right? Well, you would think. One of the biggest arguments against the “transgender” trend is that there is a 40% rate of suicide associated with it. The most popular and naturally foolhardy explanation for the high rate of suicide among trannies is that they get bullied and harassed to the point of wanting to off themselves.

Think about this VERY carefully… VERY VERY VERY carefully…

WHAT FUCKING GROUP OF PEOPLE HASN’T BEEN HARASSED AND BULLIED AT SOME POINT DURING HUMAN HISTORY??!!

According to this article, the high suicide rate among “transgendered” people has nothing to do with discrimination, but their high level of mental illness and depression. I’ll take it one step further. I would LOVE to see an HONEST study which EXPLICITLY measures the suicide rates of post-op trannies; because, you know what we call pre-op trannies in non-retarded land? MEN WHO DRESS LIKE WOMEN!!!

And remember, once you make the “transition” to the dickless side, there is no going back; no more nights of looking at whatever gives you a boner and relieving tension in a few simple strokes; no more splattering your goo onto your bedroom wall or sex partner’s face; no more endorphin release… it’s ALL gone…

On the other hand, if the ridiculous idea of aiding and abetting a dinky percent of the population pans out though Supreme Court fiat, and trannies are eventually allowed to serve in the military, they could relieve all their pent up sexual frustration by blowing away Islamic terrorists, so I guess it’s a win win.

The Red Pill

red_pill_poster

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrossgood

I’m truly thrilled that The Red Pill, the documentary from Cassie Jaye about her “journey” from being a feminist to not being a feminist via the Men’s Rights movement, has received an 8.7 on IMDB and a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. Honestly, I am. It means people are opening their eyes and starting to listen to something other than the mainstream, “women is so oppressed” narrative.

But let’s be honest here; unless you’re an anorexic, nerdy sissy boy, who only hung out with kinda cute, glasses wearing hipster gurlz, the ones that LOVED being your friend, but made you wonder why YOU’RE always being friend-zoned in favor of guys with a fraction of your intelligence, and THEN made you feel GUILTY for complaining about it, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about The Red Pill. The movie treats feminism as if it’s the main problem in our society, rather than one of the many weapons used by the cultural Marxist and globalist beast to try to destroy Western civilization; in fact, the notion that it could even BE a left/right, or rather globalist/anti-globalist issue, isn’t even touched upon. I’ve never considered myself a Men’s Rights activist. Many of the figureheads in the men’s movement don’t even see it as a left/right issue. I’ve actually known many “anti-feminist” men who don’t realize that feminism IS a form of leftism, and that supporting anyone on the left IS supporting the very ideology they say they’re against. Or to put it more succinctly, A Voice for Men editor Dean Esmay’s support for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the 2016 election is tantamount to a civil rights leader in the 1960s supporting George Wallace.

There is a segment that lasts all of one minute – among 120 of them – that addresses how, in the 60s, the equality warriors switched their target from capitalism to patriarchy, but it’s so dinky, that one wonders why Jaye even bothered putting it in the movie in the first place.

But if we’re going to REALLY be addressing the elephants in the room, and if above all else, film is a visual medium, where the images are intended to elicit a reaction, it’s actually kind of infuriating watching shots of the cutie Cassie Jaye, who resembles a plumper, rounder Christina Applegate – don’t worry, Cassie, I wouldn’t make you lose 15 lbs. to have a seat on MY casting couch – interviewing pathetic looking, depressing old men, as they tell their stories about losing everything to a system that’s stacked against them.  I mean, JUST THE FACT that she’s IN the frame with them getting all misty eyed, listening to them talk about how they got royally screwed, while not addressing how incredibly privileged she is in our society by being blessed with hotness, struck me as painfully disingenuous. I mean, sheeyit, lady, you may be a narcissist, but do you have to make it that obvious? But who knows? Maybe this will lead to other women joining in an anti-feminist insurrection.

In The Red Pill, Jaye interviews key figures in the Men’s Rights movement; honestly the only ones I recognized were Paul Elam, Dean Esmay and Karen Straughan; I’m too lazy to look up the rest of ’em. One of them was a 60s male feminist, but changed tracks when he realized all that “freedom” women achieved by tossing off the “shackles” of their normal, middle class lives in favor of becoming spinsters and cat ladies didn’t provide the satisfaction they once imagined it would. But basically, we learn about all of the typical men’s rights talking points; women who trick men by not taking their birth control and enslaving them to a life of child support payments; men who see their coffers depleted in custody battles only to get to see their kids a couple hours a week; female on male spousal abuse not being taken seriously; male rape not being taken seriously; lighter prison sentences for women for the same crimes men committed; men working life threatening jobs to provide for their families only to be told they’re oppressing women; the male/female wage gap myth; and of course there’s a bit of male circumcision thrown in at the end for all the mondo fans. Don’t tell the Jews, though; they may get this movie shut down in your town (psst, I’m allowed to say that because I am one)!!!

We’re also given the counterpoints to these arguments from some harpy at Ms. magazine, some gay Jewish guy and of course the loud, shrill and obnoxious Big Red, who kinda resembles my former friend Sarah.

But another thing that bothered me about the movie is that it didn’t really address how feminism negatively affects women. Maybe Cassie Jaye hasn’t learned about hypergamy yet or that the only things feminism really accomplished was making it easier for men to get laid since it made women sluttier, while boosting the sales for antidepressants and keeping pet store owners in business. At VERY least, Jaye addresses that getting catcalled and having to look pretty (aww, poor baby) don’t really seem to be that big of problems in comparison with getting crushed to death in a coal mine avalanche, getting blown to bits on a battle field or having your life savings drained. And hey, in about 20 years, once the flesh starts to sag and wrinkles start to show, she won’t even HAVE to worry about getting catcalled.

A decade ago, when I was at Grand Valley State University, I picked up a book from the women’s center called Transforming a Rape Culture. At the time, I thought it was the stupidest thing I’d ever seen, and most people balked at the suggestion that all men are rapists or predisposed to commit rape. Also, apparently it wasn’t considered “oppressive” to refer to slutty women as sluts; it was just honest. In fact, I LOVE sluts! They put out the quickest, and thanks to all that female empowerment, they’re not just damaged women with daddy issues! All of this was before Obama was even President. A lot has changed since then. Men can now put on dresses and call themselves women; women who get gang-banged by twenty dudes are considered “empowered”; men who ask women on dates can be accused of sexual assault; man, has society progressed! Thank you Cassie Jaye for setting the clock back about ten years.

How Science & Philosophy Became “Passive Aggressive” & “Pathetic”

privileged_sex

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

The minimal excerpts used in this are from a source that was written in an appeasing , complimenting manner. ‘Brain Sex’ is a book regarding neuro-science & biology in general to establish basics of harder science. What is gathered in summation is that cognition of males as concentration, while females’ diffusive. If you state to the affect of the latter to females, they would generally react with diffusion, only proving the establishment further. I have referenced this source a few times not because it’s the greatest in the field, but because this book is just a good source as an introduction to those stuck on lower levels of social studies, as it tries to diplomatically bring the basics of complexities against the pressure of the influence of such diffusion.

Don’t try to defeat Feminism by addressing on its level. Defeat Feminism by overwhelming it with the technical. When a feminist or related tries to interject, just simply belittle with to the affect: “I don’t deal with that cultural type of stuff, I’m more concerned with science”, & remain as strict as possible with this non-argumentative argument. When the second retort comes back, use to the affect of: “Again, with all due respect, the way the debate is set would just limit the field I’m involved with/ the explanations would take too long & it can’t be explained in just one debate, it takes a process of many days, actually” – using the strategy of implying that they don’t provide well.

Both interpretations – complaining by feminists & the like or by sexual appeal – of the primal masculinity from the female are not progressive. I’m willing to accept a simplistic reduction for a preparation that, yes, historically males have been more aggressive & violent. We had to be because we were wired that way from attempting to provide for & organize societies that had it’s beginnings in chaos. This basic fact is what a vast amount of the even anti-feminists who are still sociologically & politically limited would call “anti-male”, but it’s really just a stern fact. In fact, it’s actually pro-male because it’s giving the blunt truth. Considering that I’m willing to accept this simplistic reduction because you need those basics to expand intricacies, in contrast, are females even willing to try to understand? Of course not. For one case, the ‘Blank Slate’ premise is highly influenced by feminine callousness.

This is an excerpt from that source (not the pictured one): “The brain biases persist & strengthen as children grow up, “seeing” life through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, & more natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance, shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special sort of sight test. They looked through a contraption raher like a pair of binocular, which showed the left & right eye two different images at the same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had been shown exactly the same images. Boys saw more things, Girls saw more people……………….This male advantage in seeing patterns & abstract relationships – what could be called general strategic rather than detailed tactical thinking – perhaps explains the male dominance of chess, even in a country like the U.S.S.R., where the game is a national sport played by both sexes. An alternative explanation, more acceptable to those who would deny the biological basis of sex differences, is that “women have become so conditioned to the fact of male chess playing superiority that they subconsciously assign themselves lower expectations”; but this is a rather willful rejection of scientific evidence for the sake of maintaining a prejudice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Men sometimes become exasperated at a women’s reaction to what they say. They do not realize that women are probably “hearing” much more than what the man himself thinks he is “saying”. Older females have a better memory for names & faces, & a greater sensitivity to other people’s preferences.” Even this preparation of basic confirmations presented with ease & in a lessened way was received with scorn (Just some proof of one of these instances: Search for a recorded debate (more like deflecting by mob-rule than debate): ‘Sex In The Brain: Do Men And Women Think Differently’), therefore, proving that the attempt of civility of science, what females sometimes refer to in fem-speak/barbarism as “being too nice”, will be burdened by female-hood. Females are a burden to the advancement of scientific & philosophical progress, & feminism is just one of those influences of gynocentrism. When this book was initially published – a tool to help females, it was controversial because of the very facts itself that the book communicates that females are “emotionally intelligent” have the “social intuition”, but, really, it’s just that females are petty. Sarcasm: Yeah, females really know how to socialize, as if that’s even a hard skill to learn. They’ll insinuate males so thoughtful in abstractions don’t know how to socialize – “lost”, but what’s actually happening is that those males are already gathering abstract patterns that they already made the estimations & analyzed the results – sometimes wrongfully called “defense mechanisms”, which makes the others wrongfully believe that they are qualified to make a judgement just by that mistaken observation as reliable. Females know how to socialize on the childish level because they are like children themselves.
This tendency that females have to judge tone, body language, expression, etc., makes them better candidates for communicating with, for example, infants, sure, but this is double-sided because it also makes them prone to misinterpretations & making false predictions on the more abstract levels, such as often wrongly thinking that an introduction means there’s nothing more mysterious. I will not type with lessened ease & become victims as those poor scientists who constructed that book did, so I will just bluntly state: womens’ retarded n.l.p. manner of “thinking” combined with their collectivism makes them gullible enough to comprise the majority of voters, then voting for candidates on the basis of stamina, tone, body language, rhetoric, etc.. You can’t discern a leader’s level of testosterone for a nostalgic fetish by a casual observation, but that’s essentially the symbol of what female voters vote on the basis of. That would actually require the accuracy of science instead, science chosen to be explored by males who still have those high amounts of testosterone but would rather chose to be intellectual than actors, but, of course, such males are “sad “beta” males with low t..”

The notion that science, logic, philosophy, detachment, etc., (even as I reuse “etc.” – considered redundant) being “passive aggressive” or “pathetic” is a feminine borne one. A robot can give plain, realistic analysis & the person receiving can react emotionally due to not deriving certain preferences, then becoming angry at the robot. It’s the same thing of females deflecting their inadequacies on masculinity.
Because of female’s burdensome n.l.p. manner of thinking, there are whole industries dedicated to wasteful gynocentric activity, akin to lifestyles of becoming intoxicated with alcohol to speak at a woman’s level. Generations of males so ordained by femininity they’ve become like females, & using deflections towards males who aren’t amused by the theatre & female’s immature sexuality; “ You don’t have enough experience with women.” That’s not even earning lessons, that’s entertainment. Those males who have lots of conquests will conclude similar things about female nature, but from a defensive stance, that the analyzer has in retaliation because they know it to be true.
Feminine borne projections, ranging from “gay”, “can’t get laid”, etc., often not even limited to execution by females, are caused by the fact that females bribe their sexuality to males who are ready to become actors like females, through implicit shaming & other means, which guards the fact that females cause major problems in society, fostering anti-meritocratic feelings by placing higher value on femininity with the expense of implying that science & the like is “beta”, or some un-methodical assumption.

The Mediator Between the Dick and the Heart Is the Head

20160910_101305If a woman were to ask me advice on men, I’d say there are two ways to a man’s heart; either really, really good sex or occupying an intellectual, weird or arty space that is predominantly occupied by men.  In both cases, a woman has to have acquired a modicum of attractiveness, but even if she’s overweight or has some other physical flaw, she’ll still be pined after by at least a handful of men within her attractiveness range.

In the case of snagging a guy through good sex, a woman has to be so good at sex, perform sex acts so satisfyingly that, after all is said and done, the two bodies lying on the fluid covered sheets look less like a couple in post-coital glee, and more like two soldiers dying on a battlefield (albeit naked and sweaty); before being ready to go again an hour or so later.  This will inevitably guarantee that a man comes back to the same woman; that he’s not just going back to get some because she put out, but because of HOW she put out.  Soon she’ll have him thinking and obsessing about her, ignoring all those other flaws, like her advanced age, reckless behavior or propensity for getting the men around her into fights (more on that later).

In the case of women occupying a weird, arty or predominantly male oriented space, all women have to do is occupy a weird, arty or predominantly male oriented space.  Whether it’s taking an interest in music that women typically don’t listen to, like Captain Beefheart or Magma, or just becoming funny; I mean FUNNY, not re-telling an anecdote that “you had to be there” to find funny, but funny.  Or in the words of my former manager at the retail store I worked at before I rudely quit without warning her, “I became funny and developed a personality before I realized I was pretty.”

In either case, the effects on the male psyche can be absolutely devastating and will leave a man in a state of despair that won’t have him coming out of his house for days, as he drinks and hopes that his crush will reciprocate.  It’s embarrassing, sad and a place we’ve all been before.

Like, for instance, what happened to me a few years ago…

About four years ago, I went to Grand Rapids to see Mastodon with openers Ghost and Opeth at a venue called the Intersection.  Since the gig was over at midnight, and Grand Rapids is a 2 o’clock town, the guy I went with and I went to local bar to close out the night.  At the bar, a female friend of mine kept signalling over to me as I was buying my first drink.  When I walked over to her, she said, “jeez, looks like you care more about alcohol, than pussy!”  I gave her a double take, thinking she was just being cute, but she was actually telling me that her friend wanted to fuck me that night.  Jeez louise, holy self confidence (in spite the fact that her friend was seven years older than me, and as I learned that night, her age was beginning to show)!  At that point, she introduced me to her friend and we chatted it up, and, being a bit drunk, kept saying things like, “put your arm around her!”, to which I said, “okay, okay, I got your point.”  I made sure to scan her friend’s body and saw that her thin, yet somewhat curvy form filled out her slutty dress just fine and thought, “excellent!”

I parted from my buddy, and went with this bordering middle aged woman to a hotel.  If you want to read the jizz-filled details of our encounter, you can do so here.  I’m not going to mention who it is, but you can probably guess from the context clues. Ah, what a glorious passing of the night, a wonderful liaison that would soon be destroyed by the rising of the sun.  In the eyes of many, this was nothing more than a cheap encounter, a series of satisfying fucks followed by lots of snuggling in our sweat, semen and vaginal juice covered sheets, but to me?

When we put our clothes on, I thought it was so adorable that she was in her gothy schwag, and I was in my black denim and motorcycle jacket, that I had us hold hands when we walked out, after which we had lunch, and then parted ways discussing meeting again.  I even got her number and called during the week just to talk.  Yeah, this is how much her fucking me had fucked with my brain.

To my luck she’d be traveling the two hours to MY neck of the woods THE VERY NEXT WEEKEND!!!   She and her gay faggot goth friends, who I hate, were going to go to the Leland City Club in Detroit, to dance to “oonce-oonce” goth sounds among trench coats, Hitler haircuts, goth braids and robot platform boots.  That same weekend there was a punk gig at my friend Alexis’ house.  Oh, how I wish I had gone to the punk gig rather than stepping out of my comfort zone.

That Saturday, we talked about meeting, and she even said, “man, my friends are going to be pissed if I leave them, but whatever.”  Ha cha!  Life was sooo good!  I was going to get fucked again by a nearing middle aged goth skank, whose somewhat droopy frame indicates she was once curvy and tone, and we’re going to lay around on a fluid soaked mattress again!

Except that is not what happened.  Her friends sabotaged me every step of the way; making up lies, telling her I suck, making it absolutely clear to her that, “bitch, you will be leaving that loser, and I don’t care if you slept with him because you’ll find another.”  When the end of the night approached, like a true female sociopath, she gave me no hints that things had gone awry, allowing me to drink myself into a drunken, happy stupor.  Then, as their shuttle to the hotel where they were staying arrived, without so much as a word, she left me.

With the mix of alcohol, high anticipation, disappointment, feelings of disrespect and embarrassment, it’s a wonder I even ended up home that night.  If a woman wonders what drives a man to do reckless and stupid things, there it is.

Of course, after bitching to mutual friends, who couldn’t care less that this cunt had screwed me over, I got over it, forgot about it, and moved the fuck on.  The story SHOULD have ended there, but it didn’t…

Two year later – not to two days, not to weeks, not two months – she apologized to me in a private message, which explained what happened, how she was influenced by her stupid friends, how she fucked up and how she no longer associates with that group of people.  At first I thought, “why are you telling me this now, and why should I care?”  Then it struck me!  She LIKES me!  CLEARLY this is why she messaged me.  I mean, why would she otherwise?  I live two fucking hours away from her, so CLEARLY she was messaging me because, not only was she wrong for what she did, but now, she realizes the greatness that is me, and wants to put things right.  I know what you’re thinking, so don’t even say it.  To make the story even more embarrassing, I played this jam and this jam right after I got the message.

That week, I anticipated every interaction with this person, who, mind you is now two years older, has a kid I had no idea about at the time and, to be honest, is kind of a shallow minded nitwit.  So, that Saturday, I said, “SURE, I’d LOVE to drive two hours to Grand Rapids to go out on a date with you!”  When the day actually approached, she told me that, because her post office job had her work until the wee, late hours of 7PM, she would be too tired to do anything.  AW NAH, son… the pressure cooker burst, and I let her have it.  I’m not going to tell you what I said to her, but you can infer that I used a word that rhymed with “runt” at least once.

WHAT THE FUCK was wrong with me?  This is what I’ve been reduced to?  Pining after a 37 year old broad, with an okayish middle aged woman body, who listens to Marilyn Manson and needs to cake on a pound of makeup to hide the wrinkles she’s developed through copious amounts of boozing?  I’m 30 years old; there are guys older than me who are dating cute, young chicks, and I’ve been reduced to THIS?!

All of this happened two years ago; after I spent a day moping and bitching, I read a few Roosh V articles, specifically the article called “Are You the Player or Are you Getting Played”, and, like an alcoholic who gives up cold turkey, I immediately went to the OKCupid and began messaging girls like I was sending out resumes.  Within a month, I was going on dates, sleeping with girls and made dating into a casual affair that could potentially lead to a relationship; the feelings I had for that woman, who, if my recently seeing her at a bar in Grand Rapids is any indication, is now 39, still single and covers her wrinkles with EVEN MORE makeup, are effectively dead.

Okay, there’s one more part to this story that’s kind of funny and deserves to be told.  After my freak out on her, she contacted me a third time to see if I was going to see Pentagram in Grand Rapids.  This time, the reason I drove out was strictly to see Pentagram (with Bang, Radio Moscow and another band I forget at the moment). I didn’t even know she messaged me until after I arrived in Grand Rapids, so her being there was neither here nor there.  In fact, I had went with a different friend, also a woman, but purely platonic.

When I ran into this person, she was extra-cordial.  I thought, “oh no, what’s going on? Not this again.”  Halfway through the night, however, she decided to turn cold on me.  I think it has to do with what another woman told her about me, and, since this person has zero agency over her own actions, she decided that, in spite inviting me out, she would turn into a cold bitch – truly a sociopath.  As it turned out, she was talking to this guy, who also happened to be on the sex offender’s registry (do girls get turned on by that type of thing?), and, for no reason whatsoever, he started giving me shit, saying things like, “nobody wants you around here.”

Considering this guy is only a head taller than me, but about my same build, I pushed him and goaded him.  Then, outside the venue, we got into it.  He got me on the ground and was pounding on my head before a cop pulled him off of me.  Naturally, this girl, who has no soul, rather than saying, “what are you doing? Stop!”, just stood there and watched.  Being that I was the one getting hit and that my face was covered with scratches and bruises, obviously the cops were going to side with me.  So, when the officer asked me, “how do you all know each other”, considering that a. she practically got me into this fight, b. she was ignoring me when I talked to her after I got beat up and c. she’s all around a worthless human being, whose only value is that of a semen collector, I responded with, “we had sex in a hotel room.”

Her response was priceless, “what?! Why did you just say that? How could you?”  Heh, heh… you cheap, dirty whore.

Oh, and I DID press charges, because, fuck that guy.

PRIVILEGE ACCUMULATES FROM ASSOCIATIVE DISCIPLINE & ALSO HOW THE MAJORITY CONSENSUS RUIN DEFINITIONS

brain_sex

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

SERVICING THE WORLD BY ATTEMPTING TO BUILD & ORGANIZE SOCIETIES IS A SACRIFICE. DUE TO THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE HISTORY OF “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”, IF YOU WILL, THERE WILL INEVITIBALLY BE SOME ACCIDENTS & SOME SHODDY STRATEGIZING, WHICH WILL VARY IN DEGREE FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE THOSE LESS CAPABLE TO ALWAYS SIT BACK & YELL “OPPRESSION”

FEMALES & FEMINISTS TEND TO FIXATE ON THE SECONDARY SIDE PRODUCT HORRORS OF WHAT MALE LEADERSHIP BRINGS, WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE MUCH LARGER BENEFITS MALE SACRIFICE/SERVICE HAS BROUGHT.

THE NEARLY MYTHICAL, ANCIENT FEMALE FRONTED “AMAZONIAN” SOCIETY HAS BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY VIOLENT, & THIS IS PROBABLY WHY IT WAS RELEGATED TO ITS OBSCURITY – PROBABLE SELF DESTRUCTION.

DEFINITIONS BY THE POPULAR ARE NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHEN LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY FULL OF TOO MUCH UNDESERVED EGO, WHICH IS THEN ONLY REINFORCED BY ITS OWN ASSERTED SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT, WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE. LET ME HIGHLIGHT & REPEA AGAIN: THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE, RATHER THAN INVESTIGATING FOR THEMSELVES WHAT ACTUALITY IS, & WHO PLACE TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON APPEARANCE & WHAT FEELS TO BE ACCURATE.

WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS A BIT SHOCKING, & IT IS NOT JUST CLEVER WORD PLAY OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY, ETC. THERE ARE CITATIONS IN THIS. YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS FOR YOURSELF FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.

THIS IS NOT WHAT MANY WOULD CLAIM AS STEMMING FROM AN “INFERIORITY COMPLEX”. THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED SCIENCE.

THIS IS MAINLY MEANT TO, FIRSTLY, REFUTE A CLAIM HELD BY THE MASS CULTURE WHO TEND TO MISTAKE PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE FOR GENDER CHARACTERISTIC, & ,SECONDLY, REFUTE THE DEFINITION FROM HIJACKERS WHEN THEY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT MINDLESS MACHISMO IS WHAT DEFINES MASCULINITY, WHEN, IN FACT, THAT DEFINITION HAS ONLY BEEN GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHER FEMALES. THEY ARE NOT BEING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE ACTING A CERTAIN WAY IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED BY FEMALES. KEEP IN MIND THAT FEMALES HAVE A NATURAL PROPENSITY TO COLLECTIVIZE.

THE LATTER IS DERIVED FROM PHENOTYPE, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY BIOLOGICAL.

NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT WHEN SPEAKING OF A SUBJECT SUCH AS SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, OR ANY INTELLECTUAL SUBJECT FOR THAT MATTER, ON A MEDIUMS THAT IS FREQUENTED BY HORDES OF AVERAGE PEOPLE, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ELUCIDATE.

THE PHENOMENA OF MASCULINE FEMALES, WHICH IN SLANG TERMS IS CALLED “TOM BOYS” – FEMALES WHO CARRY MORE MASCULINE TRAITS LIKE BEING MORE LOGICAL, BLUNT, & HAVING MORE MALE FRIENDS WITHOUT SEXUAL TENSION BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPOSED TO MORE TESTOSTERONE VIA PRE-BIRTH, WHILE IN SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS CALLED SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, THIS PHENOMENA ALSO APPLIES TO MALES. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A WORLD THAT GLORIFIES TRUE SCIENCE, THE CONCEPT OF “TOM GIRLS” IS NOT WELL KNOWN, NOR IS IT ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.

I READ THIS STUFF FROM SCIENCE, SO I KNOW TO BE SURE OF MYSELF. I DON’T JUST RECEIVE SOURCES FROM RANDOM PEOPLE AT BUS STOPS OR ONLY “VLOGGERS” ETC..

IN THE BOOK: ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ BY NEUROSCIENTIST SIMON BARON COHEN, WHICH IS WRITTEN FOR THE LAYMAN BECAUSE TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS NOT SUITED FOR THE POPULACE, ALONG WITH THE PARALLELING: ‘BRAIN SEX’ BY GENETICIST ANNE MOIR, IT IS SANELY CONCLUDED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF ULTIMATE MASCULINITY, WITHOUT THE “TOMGIRL” ASPECT, IS FOUND IN MUCH MORE CIRCUMSPECT, LOGICAL MALES WHO ARE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH OBJECTS, WHILE MALES WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH RELATING/SOCIALIZING, ESPECIALLY ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, WITH OTHERS ARE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF “TOM GIRLS”. ‘BRAIN SEX’ IS EXCELLENT, HOWEVER, THESE DIPLOMATIC WORKS OF SCIENCE CONTAINS EXTRA COMMENTARY. I JUST TAKE THE ORGANIC SCIENCE.

THE IDEAL OF MASCULINITY IS CONFUSED IN SOCIETY BECAUSE THE NOTION OF THE ARCHETYPAL DARING, BARBARIC MAN HAS BEEN HABITUATED. THE LATTER NOTION IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT IS HABITUATED THAT JUST BECAUSE MANY FEMALES ARE RECEPTIVE TO SUCH MALES, THAN IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT IS THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS WRONG.

IT IS A PLAIN FACT THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BUILT & ORGANIZED ARE MALES, BUT THIS MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT RECOGNIZED BECAUSE, NOT ONLY IS THIS DETACHED MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC FREE OF PRONOUNCED VANITY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE SOCIETY WOULD RATHER BE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LATEST MOVIE THAN SHOW INTEREST IN WHO PUT THOSE ELECTRICAL CABLES AROUND.

SO, YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT THOSE “NERDY” MALES ARE “EFFEMINATE”, “FAGGY”, “WHIMPY” OR WHATEVER FROM THE INCULCATION OF THE POPULACE, BUT TRUTH REMAINS THAT ULTIMATE FORMS OF MASCULINITY IS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH INTROVERSION & CLINICAL LOGIC OS SOME DEGREES.

NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED IN A WAY THAT GIVES THEM MORE & QUICKER ACCESS TO VERBAL COMMUNICATION, HOWEVER, THAT JUST MEANS THAT FEMALES ARE MORE TALKATIVE. IT DOESN’T ENTAIL THAT THEY ARE MORE LOGICAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

FEMINISTS LIKE TO USE THIS THIS LITTLE FACTOID TO TRY TO STATE THAT FEMALES ARE AS SMART OR SMARTER THAN MALES, WHICH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST PROVES THE ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THIS TALKATIVENESS IS OFTEN USED FOR MANIPULATION OR UNHARNESSED VERBOSITY, BUT THEY COMPLETELY DISREGARD THAT THIS FINDING MEANS NOTHING OF WHAT THEY ASSUME.

IN FACT, IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ SIMON BARON COHEN REVEALS THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED TO BE SYMPATHETIC, AT LEAST VAINLY SYMPATHETIC ANYWAY, & THIS “SYMPATHY”, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, IN CONJUNCTION TO THEIR TALKATIVENESS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN CASES OF FEMALES PASSIVELY “AGREEING” BY DEFAULT WITH THE MALE APPROACH/COMMUNICATION.

SO MALES’ COMMUNICATION IS LESS FREQUENT BUT MORE MEANINGFUL & HONEST, WHICH IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES’ EXPLAINS THAT MALE RATIONAL IS DUE TO THE MALE BRAIN’S INNATE MEANS OF SYSTEMATIZING, WHILE FEMALES’ IS MORE FREQUENT BUT LESS MEANINGFUL & UNGENUINE.

AS THE OLD SAYING GOES: FACT IS MUCH STRANGER THAN FICTION.

♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

IN CONJUNCTION TO THE FACT THAT FEMALES ARE GENERALLY COLLECTIVIST, THEIR OBVIOUS ANTI-SCIENCE MAKES THEM ANTI-MASCULINE

PHILOSOPHY GAVE BIRTH TO SCIENCE, SCIENCE GAVE BIRTH TO CIVILIZATION. SCIENCE WAS CREATED BY “BETA” MALES, IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE DEFINITIONS, WHICH I DON’T LIKE TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY CAST BY GYNOCENTRISM, OF “ALPHA” & “BETA”.

SOME LOVE TO INSINUATE THAT IT WAS OVER BOLDNESS THAT CREATED SOCIETY, BUT THIS WAS ONLY USED SECONDARILY FOR STRATEGIES OF WARFARE & RELATED, WHICH WAS OFTEN DONE TO MAINTAIN RANK TO IMPRESS DUE TO GREED. CONGRATULATIONS ON PROCLAIMING TO BE SO TOUGH, BUT WHO’S REALLY THE TOUGH ONE WHEN IT IS SURGEONS WHO HAVE TO REMAIN DETACHED WHEN OPERATING? DETACHMENT IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TOUGHNESS. OTHERS JUST INDULGE. THE MAIN THING THAT OTHERS  HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY IS GENE REPLICATION & SUPPORTING ECONOMICS.

MASCULINITY IS NOT ONLY JUST SIMPLIFIED TO HORMONAL FACTORS; THERE ARE NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS AS WELL. HYPER RATIONALISM = HYPER-MASCULINITY.

IT IS OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD THAT LOGICAL ONES ARE “SENSITIVE”, BUT, ACTUALLY, SUCH TYPES EXHIBIT EXTREME STRESS LEVELS THAT OTHERS CAN NOT PROCURE. THAT IS A MUCH BROADER MEANING OF “MALE DISPOSABILITY”; IT’S NOT JUST WHEN A WOMEN DESTROYS A MAN OR WASTES HIS TIME, IT’S THE FACT THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE VERY LITTLE REGARD FOR THOSE WHO TRULY SUCCOR.  I BELIEVE FEMALES HAVE MUCH MORE OF SHALLOW EMOTIONS, WHICH RESULTS IN SPOILING THEM DUE TO MISLEAD CONCEPTS OF THEM BEING “MORE IN TUNED WITH NATURE” ETC., BUT MALES HAVE LESS FREQUENT YET MUCH DEEPER EMOTIONS. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE. WHEN MEN HAVE THEIR OCCASIONAL EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS OF CRYING OR WHATEVER, WE REGARD IT AS “PATHETIC” OR “EMBARRASSING”OR WHATEVER, BUT FEMALES’ MORE FREQUENT OUTBURSTS OVER TRIVIALITIES IS SEEN AS SOME SORT OF “FEMININE MYSTIQUE”.

WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO MALE EXPERIENCE & THOUGHT PROCESSES RATHER THAN WASTING IT ON FEMALES.

Always look to science & true philosophy, especially to understand sex differences. What is generally required to understand the female mind is a masculine mind because the female mind is mostly shameless – generally not self aware. Females’ narcissism is often mistaken for being “more introspective”. Most that is true about females has been written by males. The mainstream culture’s falsehood is inculcated by females. Don’t look for deep truth there or any practical idiot telling you “what you need to do” to “understand” females.

What ultimately led man to achievement today was not being physically stronger or meaner than all other animals. It wasn’t the testosterone laced risk-taking behavior that cost many men their lives. It was intelligence. Physically, we are one of the weakest animals on this planet. But intelligence allowed us to side-step biology. We didn’t have to be the strongest animal, we just needed to know how to kill the strongest animal in the most proficient way from a safe distance. And it was not just risk taking that allowed us to advance as a species, it was calculated risk. Being intelligent enough to know when and when not to take on those often fatal liabilities.

The whole “Alpha male” facade is just a ploy to commercialize the desire other males have who want to be like them that has been molded by bad logic of females. Just as females have an inherent drive to see themselves as valuable and males as disposable in contrast, some males desire to see themselves as the one who is different – one of the few males who females actually value. It is as instinctive to men as gynocentrism is to both men and women together. This is where the brutal “alpha” aesthetic comes from that tries to compensate for their lesser intelligence & lesser achievement by pretending he is special with less merit & acting meaner to boast “worthy” of the prized vagina. Because a man dominating others historically attracted women, that is what appeals to these males, & many powerful males are going to capitalize on this desire men have to be the “Alpha”. The source of this “alpha” attitude to be mean, subtly or explicitly, comes from the females’ position to select the tools. One instance of a female being attracted to a perceived “intruder” will only cause these “alpha” primitives to react meanly or skeptically – the de-valueing of another innocent male for “getting out of line”, which females often do as well if such a male offends her. This is sometimes referred to as a “sigma” male – a male who appears “alpha” momentarily because his approach from the “zeta” position that does not fit pronounces his image. Intelligent males are realizing this stupidity & they don’t want play the “tool” game that is set by her judgement anymore. They don’t want to expend energy catering to the female while she passively places her demands.

Some Origins Of Sadomasochism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

more_you_know

I always try to re-word so that points are not forgotten. Key concept: Gynocentrism/”patriarchy”, etc., is just obscurintist & glamorized self abuse by masculinity because society drives itself to the feminine checking of the inaccuracies of weak-or-strong, too-nice-or-dominant, etc.. Women like being secretaries for bullies & other idiots. Consider the extreme invasion by the religion of Is***. Who called for that policy? It was a female politician. The other argument is: “Well, that’s because it was control by J***”. The point is though is that females are actually receptive to being controlled by such.

First, there needs to be a differentiation of contexts of emotional states: The feelings of masculinity that actually does matter that is useful for alarming – an aspect of logic, often signifies as something “wrong” to gynocentrism. The normative kind of emotional state to be automatic is the kind that is a detriment to masculinity. The latter type is what I mean when stating that emotions are bad, not the former.

WARNING: I do not wish to cause misery to other males – strictly educational. This is regarding a sensitive subject – the realities of male genital mutilation, generally hidden & continued to be accepted, even by vastly males as a means of obliterating the pain. That too is traditionalism. Subordination inhibits the need to know. It’s a subordination to traditional instincts. The reality of circumcision is so disagreeable that it is usually avoided consciously or subconsciously, & this answers why those who are not in denial are labeled as just anecdotes. Repression & denial is the means of what is happening. It is difficult to make empirical evidence of denial because it is evidence itself that is altered or denied.
I any case, anecdotes do sometimes matter because some can notice what others can’t.

This is not “disgruntled extremism”. In fact, it’s a calling for the apposite of it. This is going to confuse many, but if you actually read all of it &/or try to make an effort in understanding female mate bias of context to the prearranging harsh history – selecting for mostly action, not intellect, which its repository of instinct has actualized into the modern tributary of that female mate bias, it’ll be understood better. Females have much more sanctioning power than they realize, & it’s due to their primal “filtering.” It’s a custom that has morphed from the female extracting, stretching to the “patriarchal” modernity. That’s right, I blame female nature for such contingency.
All the past times of attempted civilized debates of feminism, male-&-female biology, gender, sex differences of cognition, etc., have been reduced by the apposition of the juvenile: “you’re-a-pussy”/”you-have-problems-with-not-being-able-to-increase-confidence”, etc., or even try to give me advice on how I can become “better” for their stupid registration – completely missing the points. You know why that is? It’s because all those reoccurring patterns are translations of their core nature of having the opportunity to exercise filtering.
It’s time for truly rational males to exercise filtering for our registration.

Disclaimer: I do not 100% endorse, completely, every single author & every single thing I derive from. My research is of an eclectic one. Being detached & objective means accumulating many facets, then connecting & finding missing links.

A study by a cognitive psychologist from the University of Southern California & co-author of a paper featuring some of it’s findings in the Oct. 6, 2010 issue of the Journal NeuroReport found that when men under stress saw angry faces, they seemed to not want to engage. There’s that masculine rational fear deemed by mass society as “bad” or some kind of “illness”. Contrastingly, as usual, females were more insistent. This neurological basis signalizes females’, of varying degrees, amorality/hybristophilia – the attraction to extrinsic commotion, villains & wrath – lazily described as “sympathy” by most.
Specializing in a given field reduces completion of other integration, hence why it’s called “sympathy”. Greater interest in synthetic formulas & components does not necessarily guarantee fuller exactitude.

~3,500 cuttings are performed every day [1997] in the U.S., one every twenty-five seconds.
33% of American pediatricians & obstetricians oppose, yet don’t necessarily disclose, it. Some nurses & doctors refuse to do it.
Financial incentive is one motivating factor as to why it is done.

Parents continue ignorance by confusing benign intentions with effects; believing that non-intended harm equals no harm to occur.

Pavlovian, along with most psychology, conditioned reflexes is a field that interests me. The following are some unpopular aspects of it.

Psychologists have known for a long time that trauma sets, often hidden from awareness, long term effects. You could be psychologically damaged & not even know it, or not know how it happened.
An infant’s eyes tightly close during circumcision.
Levels of cortisol – hormone release as response to stress – are high during circumcision.
Increase of excessive heart beats, even over baseline, per minute have been recorded. This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.
Infants tremble, cry vigorously, & in some cases become mildly cyanotic – lividness or blueness of skin caused by pressure of skin due to prolonged crying. It is an abnormal type of crying.

By the late 1800s & early 1900s, it was believed that a baby had similar level of consciousness to a vegetable. By the mid 1940s there were changing understandings of infants. Pediatrician Benjamin Spock (yes, real last name. You can check the sources on end.) reported in 1946 that infants are more cognizant.
Infants can generally distinguish between the vowels i & a on the next day following birth.
Infants require attendance to proper sensory responses. For one, infants’ deeper breathing in response to tactile sensation gives more oxygen to tissue. Stroking causes better alertness.
Infants do have their own set of well-developed thinking. It’s just of a different type.

From the Journal Of Sex Research, Davison & Money of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine reported that changes includes drastic diminished penile sensitivity. With relatively little effect of arousal, it can be described like callused fingers a guitar player receives.
I have even read from an independent research article a long time ago without a citation that the procedure actually takes away a chemical occurrence that would otherwise happen between a male & female to be much more committed to each other. It’s believable, & there’s tons of research one can do on it.

Extreme pain, bahavioural modifications, risk of complications, & loss of protective, sensitive tissue, resulting in diminished gratification – “But none of this could be true.” “We were too busy paying attention to that new style, or the comedy-skit, or score from the team of the west-coast, etc..” People have close to no idea of what’s really happening. Facts are naturally altered or withheld because of feelings. More damage is then done due to concealing rather than disclosing truth. The authentic & benign hyper-sexuality of masculinity has actually been regressed as those who were “sexually molested” or “free-loading” males when that sexuality would make the male-to-female interaction more of an actual friendship than sports & mostly business contracts. There’s been reports, which I have reduced for the sake of convenience, one can confirm from the cited source on the end of this article, that adult males could compare effects before the practice & after, & that after it was done, it was similar to being incapable of holding something normally with hand due to wearing a glove. I think this could possibly contribute to females’ mass perception of genuine intense attraction called “put-on-a-pedestal”. As an intact male, it’s been my experience that my more passionate & intensified sexual interest was interpreted by many females as an exaggerated, fake act by me, either that or that I had something “wrong” with me for having my passions more grand. This is a common reoccurrence: males honestly show how much they like a female, she then sees that as “too needy”, “weakness”, or something stupid. This is not an issue of semantics, so please save the retorts of: “females love attention”. Like vampires, they lead astray to traps & waste time, even including for “alphas”, because they lack persistence, & often just use that attention for entertainment with plausible deniability.
We live in a very juvenile world because females don’t respect male intellect, & then they opt for other males stuck on their level.
The police is one case of such males stuck on their level. I’m not a hippy, so I believe they’re a necessary force, but they have major problems with believing the fact that they often shouldn’t believe females. Not to brag, I don’t live an average life. I’ve had some critical periods. I’ve been incarcerated before shortly due to having aspects of my philosophy “cock-blocked”, if you’ll allow me to use that ridiculous analogy, by the chivalry of police officers when they allowed females to take advantage of freedom of speech & abuse it by lying after I’ve given “extremist” dialogue in public. All I did was harmless commentary. I then heard other inmates speak of getting arrested after restraining their female partners who had knives & other violence, etc.. Even some that called the police for their safety were blamed on the males by police & then arrested. I’d also advise to not even publicly debate with them. Present all content on the other formats. Even if you were to make a report to police that they did something to you, you’re more likely to get arrested because the police prioritize females’ claims.
What I type as results of gynocentrism were not originally intentionally planned. That is my point; gynocentrism causes & enhances accidents because of the fact that females are bad planners, & their nature also monopolizes social structures. It was a process of embracing stupid or mediocre men, replicating genes of stupid or mediocre men, & then following those stupid or mediocre men.
Most of actual importance was created by rationalizing males mostly undesirable to females – division by females of the meme replicators from the gene replicators, combining their characteristics with the latter.
Contrary to what the deconstructed author of the book believes, which I think is due to that he’s more of a specialist on medicine, this is not a result of suppressed feelings. Instead, this practice is feelings carried on a systematic level with utensils. It requires a longer, thoughtful process to devise other methods of treatment than relying on methods of foreordained instincts to nullify, especially when confronted with the annoying task of examining genitals maturely. Instinctual activity has often such a direction that it persuades one as an efficient means for the avoidance of more options requiring patience. Preference of quicker practicality & emotions is consistent with the general difficulty of being aware of & expressing intellect. Cultural, derived from historical instincts, over-reliance on emotions has caused inclination to adopt practicality as the great arbiter between fiction & fact so that quick feelings of convenience can be liked.
I do not call for hysterically, “reversed Feminism”, or for something fanatical, such as FGM – clitoridectomy or excision of its hood, apart of culture of the Persian Gulf, which overlaps with MGM, & neighboring regions. Those actions are just another subset of the preordained instincts. Instead, disallow the value of intuition over intellect that has promoted weeding of a rationalist renaissance – masculine monopoly. It is not the scientific-method. It is anti-intellectual intuition as a hasty vagary to get-it-over-with, & even monetary desires, infused by habitual drives, posing as the scientific-method.
Simplistic interpretations of the “patriarchy” lacks accuracy.
In this game of status-forging, healthy only limited to certain extant, with females watching & selecting & upgrading for other deals by ambiguous commitment, it’s going to be a “juggle” by masculinity with mistakes & even some spontaneous self-abuse. It’s the way it’s been by natural history & it’s the way it is recently. The varying displays of “machismo” are largely unnoticably controlled by femalehood’s inculcated intuition. Though males can seek such displays of status, it’s not enough. Females seek connections with others to gain & use status. Male, determined by gynocentrism, status-forging has a price; it is incompatible with understanding & creating a disciplined principles/true rationalism – “weakness” – by patience.
Females with apparent inflated egos are only threatening to males because these males subconsciously know it’s going to be extra competition to gain rank to her inflated self. Males have somewhat of a method to try to stay away from this; opting for females on mainly the level of a limiting physical attraction – good choice. Male fear of female sexuality can be if that female sexuality is pronounced, & if that is pronounced, female lack of integrity is also pronounced.
Concern with being a bland-minded acquirer of capital undermines concern for cultivating masculinity – better standards, promoting better self-esteem. The self esteem of males has already been ruined by circumcision.

There are several types of memory. Painful experiences in neonates can lead to psychological sequelae. Remembering, for instance, something you saw two hours ago requires a different type of memory than knowing how to tie a knot or recalling a place you’ve been associated with heightened sensation. Memory is not limited to only intellect, but body & emotion also. Long term memory has been demonstrated behaviorally in various mammals & other animals. Considering simpler animals have long term memory, it’s about 99.9% likely that infants have it also.
From neurological & developmental analysis, newborn infants can have trauma & retain memory of it. A sector of society has projected their inability to consciously remember that time on the infant. We store memories of that time, just generally don’t have access to them immediately. According to a psychological survey, the majority confirmed that forgetting was due to retrieving problems & not loss of info. from memory storage.
A mother explained that her child of 6 years old crawled through a tunnel & said to her: “This feels like when I was born”. Similarly, birth Primal can be studied by simulation. Psychiatrist Nandor Fodor was the first to propose accessing trauma memories by simulation.
Many types of psychopathology are connected to the birth experience – “vibrations” reverberating. Can you believe it?
The DSM IV classifies PTSD, & not limited to, as resulting from extreme traumatic stressor beyond routine life of a given average maturation. Responses include intense fear. Instances of which are torture, etc.. According to the DSM IV, PTSD includes symptoms of impulsive & self destructive behaviour, etc.. By definition, in conjunction to other facts cited, circumcision is traumatic. Like other traumas, it is repressed. Psychological problems increase as age of child decreases. Adult males with such experiences have adverse behaviour responses, mainly undetected by society. The revelation is that we have a society of unhealthy males, continuing instinctive self abuse. Just a personal anecdote: The level of “machoness” preordained by gynocentric instincts has alienated & maladjusted me, who never had this procedure done to me. What is considered normal is the society we have. It’s completely normal to have a bad society of varying degrees of exaggerated gallantry & just indifference/nihilism.
Symptoms of PTSD vary. The hidden – long term effects generally not of awareness but evident in behaviour – PTSD of circumcision has a contributing factor of violence as just one of those varients. Violence can also be exhibited in different ways, which may not even be capable of classification of crime statistics.
Subsequent distrust & aggression is connected. The systematic practice teaches to be angry or accept loss. Trust is a prerequisite for setting discipline of commitment. Disruption of development of better communication to females for future is impaired. It is very strange that the artificial mold of masculinity is what females admire mostly. Although these artificial moldings of masculinity are external forces reinforcing females’ malleability, the admiration by females reveals innateness of themselves. Gynocentrism is much older than such clinical practices. Originally, gynocentrism monopolized by females reinforced artificial displays of masculinity, &, coequally, artificial molds of masculinity reinforced further monopolization of gynocentrism by female-hood, &, as typed further, females also have a collectivist hive-mind by which they check of an anti-intellectual binary classification. If you know about such, etc., or type about such, very hypocrytical, you are an archetypal “creep” or “serial-killer” to them, even though those traits of harmless typing & thinking are the antithesis of the accidents of the intuition of gynocentric gathering.
To specify though, I’m not typing that intellectual males should present themselves as offers of “take me, please”, but, rather, especially to eliminate potential usurpation from supposed “intellectual” females – high rate of potential traps, always maintain a female on the incommensurable level for masculine self-preservation of rationalism.

Dissociation – erasing associated pain from traumatic experience, both physical & humiliation – results from trauma. Dissociation is a response of a psychological survival mechanism analogous to numbing a part of ones body to inhibit extreme pain. A boy actually makes himself believe it didn’t happen, thus actually altering himself. Based on clinical neurological research, traumatic & painful experience can actually cause long-term physiological changes in the neurochemical & central nervous system. Brain-imaging studies conducted on adults with histories of sexual abuse of childhood were reported to have reduced size of hippocampus, which is a zone of the brain associated with memory. Also, low scores of adults who had been abused were reported on another test of verbal short-term memory. Circumcision actually alters brain development. Presence of high level of the stress hormone cortisol, which is increased 3-4xs in the blood stream correlates with deep memory imprinting.

Connections to sadomasochistic behavior & child-hood injuries has been noted in psychology. Common elements of S-M behavior & circumcision include pain, struggling, bondage, & a loosely, originally unwanted, associated sexual context.
Not “minor anecdote” – trivialized report: One man reported to have S-M fantasies since he could remember. Further claiming it’s not normal to have S-M fantasies by age 4.
There are other factors to the phenomena & “normalcy” of severe S-M, since females also have an interest in it, but genital male mutilation is a major contributor. Some intact men also participate in it, although much less to the same seriousness of buying leather, & living-the-lifestyle, etc., but that’s just mostly from cultural introduction.
But what exactly caused such a barbaric practice to be normalized? One has to go back even further to the natural history by a context of evolutionary psychology.
When I type about this, I’m not referring to a generic slap on the buttocks, loud cursing, hair-pulling, etc. – fast & hard sex. I’m referring to an entire practice of b.d.s.m. – the type that females tend to be much more interested in, both as a sex act, as well as a simplistic rating instinct they treat males with.
B.D.S.M. has it’s origins in the practice of circumcision, but such practices itself were by-products of the origins in feminine weeding – “vibrational” gynocentrism monopolized by femalehood altering phenotype – mostly done by intuition – barely recognized. Anyone who has a serious understanding of evo.-psych. & Darwinian science knows that females are attracted to mostly authority. Do not confuse rationalism with authority. They’re 2 separate things, which only occasionally overlaps. The feminist & cultural idea that sex-is-about-power is also manifested from the b.d.s.m. mentality of female nature. Yes, I’m sure there’s some aspects about sex being linked to power, such as procreation to expand more legacy, etc., but it is not directly synonymous. Sex as power is a feminine projection because they aren’t necessarily interested in forming a friendship with benefits of sex, romance, or whatever you wish to call it. To be thorough, I’m not typing about it as a generic, or fast, etc., sex. I refer to b.d.s.m. as an entire mentality that females superficially employ, & not just in-the-bedroom – a feminine mentality, not just physically, much more intrinsic to them; “Humble, intelligent males are possibly useful, “creepy”, “pathetic”, & frustrating, which is funny because males of the apposite of humble & intelligent are by definition creepy. Females are attracted to or ordain to be instinctive males, hence why society is docile & even stupid. For the reactionary is the natural selection of females, & why we need to learn to control nature.
Culture is not a friend, & it perpetuates false selves.
Don’t believe it when females state they are “pan-sexual”. There is nothing “pan” about the various transliterated binaries of slave-or-master, bashful-or-not, instant-failure-or-instant-upgrade, “autistic”-or-fun. Different males think differently. If you are different from that binary, you are a “freak”. Their evaluation methods is just insufficient & outmoded. Most products of merit have been due to different, thinking-outside-the-box.

A study by researchers affiliated with University of Montreal presented 1,516 adults with a list of 55 different sexual fantasies ranging from sex with multiple people to sex with objects and animals, and more. The participants ranked the intensity of each fantasy and described their favorite ones in detail. Nearly 65 percent of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52 percent of women said bondage revs them up, 36 percent fancy spanking, and 28.9 fantasize about being forced to have sex. (For the record, a significant number of men were turned on by the same things — even though guys were more likely to fantasize about oral sex, group sex, & ejaculating on their partners.) What that reporting of the questionnaire directed to males omits is, firstly, significant number does not specify same or more frequency, &, secondly, there’s no specification as to whether some of the overlap of female sexuality is innate to masculinity when the questionnaire disregards the conditioning effects of circumcision, &, thirdly, there was no specification of the rating of intensity of overlapping sexuality. The study also stated that these females enjoy such sexuality, but don’t necessarily want it to come true. Translated from masks of femininity, meaning: they’re waiting for it.
(The source of that study was delivered to me by e-mail from a Cosmopolitan article. Exact date & page of it was not specified.)
the rape-fantasy is so popular with females because it takes away the burden of actually having integrity. Most of what females do is by intuition-by-nature. They have bad planning methods, poor communication predicated on the baby-communication level of body language/facial expressions/tone, etc., so they have no or little discipline & lack of commitment. The truth is is that female nature is actually “macho”. The intellect has an effect of cuckolding males by feminine rating. Narcissists are drawn to other narcissists – a fake or minor aspect of masculinity that females have ordained or selected from their “solipsistic” schema – & that’s the nature of gynocentric monopoly – feminine sexual selection.
The culture of b.d.s.m./ taming the dumb animal, which requires becoming the lower animal to “top” the dumb female animal, again, not just as a generic fast/hard sex, etc., but an entire practice, emphatically, actually has it’s roots in male genital mutilation/self abuse, which, by “coincidence”, for a lack of a better description, females have a kinship to. M.G.M. interferes with male sexuality & corroborates with female psychology innate to it’s selective bias hundreds to thousands of years ago – a non-consensual practice done by the system that females accidentally enhanced by instinct.

Rather than more cooperation by females, what results is more implicit demands by females because of the impulsiveness associated with it, & females also have dichotomous preferences of males for two different reasons – one for desire, the other for usury, which will be read in a separate article.
So females want monetary symbols to discern provision for birth. Ok males, be literal & just provide for that. You don’t have to show other symbols. Females are quite capable as well.

The so called “rape culture” that feminists complain about is a fantasy retained by a vast percentage of females, including feminists, but you can not explain all of what is typed to them, or even just the general public, because they have absolutely no, or poor, understanding of evolutionary psychology, conditioned reflexes, how statistics works, Charles Darwin, or just plain psychology. It is natural for narcissists to deject what they can’t understand. Because of the limited understanding, they try to contrive definitions to make easier cohesion out of something too hard for them, so then using the quickest assumptions or trivialities; “sad loser who can’t work on himself & change for a woman”, “disorganized text/lifestyle”, etc.. Feminism is just mostly highly inflated opinions, assumptions, & a very simplistic interpretation of history – all not scientific. History is not categorized in the pyramid of knowledge as an actual science. They will claim this a “veil of semantics” because they just can’t understand it, & they are more concerned with what provides for a basis of confidence. Females have a “rythmic”, if you will, registration, none of which is encased in this.

This is the most essential point of this article: Our fight-or-flight beginnings were of the-survival-of-the-fittest, so now in our modern civilized times, when those instincts are no longer mandatory, it is morphed derivatives of that. I will repeat: THIS WASN’T ORIGINALLY PLANNED, & THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT; GYNOCENTRISM & FEMALE’S MONOPOLIZATION OF IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS & INSTINCTS. It’s not their fault. Well, it is largely their fault, just not intentional. Tautologically: the environmental influences, particularly circumcision, alters masculinity, & the environmental influences were already caused by pre-selection by females. Halting the cycles of gynocentric intuition that reinforces feminine estimations requires different & newer strategies. Such strategies would be conceived by males not for associative female recognition, but by incitement of a modified, learned masculinity via leadership of dissuaded males with concentrated options.

It’s a very mind boggling issue, but this is how it manifested: Our beginning climates were situated for females to have a sexual preference for reactionary males, not intellectual. They claim it’s mostly for hygienic purposes, (more complicated than that) but had females selected for intellectual males originally, we would have devised other methods of hygiene. Females have a higher rate of urinary tract infection than males, not that I’m advocating contrasting treatment, yet no procedure for them. Now, because gynocentrism is still monopolized, the notion is varying degrees of humble & intellectual males being “creepy”, “pathetic”, frustrating, or possibly useful. It wasn’t planned by females; it was just simply a natural accidental result of the instincts they ordain.
So, yes, females are basically choosing toxic forms of masculinity by a cyclic process such as this: There is the implicit offerings. Some males are used for mainly resourceful reasons, some males are desired for their impulse. Since female consciousness is limited, they don’t know how to take other males, they can’t revolutionize opting. More traits of docile characteristics & reactionary are promoted. End result: Commonality of the population makes intellectual males a minority.
Inhibition of female monopolization of gynocentrism would alter production of toxic masculinity. That’s why this kind of info. needs to be applied as a protocol to masculinity for the rationalist proprietorship of policies of approach – minimized accidents, stupidity, mediocrity, & checked feminine appraising & feminine sexual selection.

Females chose what they could understand, or, rather, allowed them to not understand. Rationalism has not been respected by female nature. When has it been commonly the case of females respecting males for who they are? It’s always about giving to females.
Unlike the female m.r.a. – “bipolar” poseurs with a sloppy judge of character, which is why they can’t understand the denser processes of male-female interaction, & this is going to offend many, there is a class of barbaric, stupid, inauthentic males, but these males critiqued by the feminine are the result of their own will. Rationalism then gets blamed for the bad representation of masculinity. The female m.r.a.s. love to talk more about feminism than judge themselves. In the ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Let’s Destroy Him’ video. The commentator only critiqued how feminists call nice-guys “evil”, a.k.a., creepy, then only once admitted that “we think their pathetic”. That itself is just as bad as calling them evil. “Patriarchy” is not synonymous with rationalism. It’s synonymous with female nature. “Patriarchy” is a product of the semi-consciousness/impulse of femininity. The “patriarchy” enhanced by female fraternization indicates more about female nature than it does about male. Consider Isl**** culture where harsh treatment is done to females, as well as males. But this is a result of “karma”, not to use mystically; meaning: cause & effect; their mindless intuition selects, so mindlessness begets. In the hip-hop song: ‘My Neck, My Back’, Khia Shamone tells-it-like-it-is, rude & made easy: “The best comes from a thug…. You might have cheese (money), but fuck that nigga, get on yo knees….” That is a naked representation. You can learn a lot of underlying truths from endemic communities. Much of Isl**** culture is more agrarian, but with that, different translations. “Patriarchy” = obscurantist self abuse by males glamorized, & if you abuse yourself, you abuse surroundings.

Anecdote: Yes, I know it’s just an anecdote, but many males will identify with this: My father was a friendly, hard-working, successful male. He just wanted to humbly come home to eat hot-dogs & watch action movies ( &, interestingly, he’s also intact.). He had some pretty obvious high testosterone levels, & yet again, his wife eventually concluded him as a “wuss” because he never actually wanted to show any displays of defeating in petty argumentation.
Also, during my adolescence, because I never had this practice done to me, I reduced much of the ritualized associations so common with others’ sexuality influenced by the practice. Because of my personal reduction, other females didn’t like me as much.

What Mr. Goldman is missing is a more integral understanding of Darwinian science & female sexual selection, as typed in the first 2 introductory paragraphs.
As Buddhist purists know, although not explicitly because they do not welcome politics from intruders, of female nature – “the daughters of Mara” – is that they are of a demonic nature which leads to unconsciousness – cuckolding the intellect. This is not a theological analysis. This is one of patterns in many diverse, far-ranging fields. Paralleling the Darwinian science, Buddhist understanding is basically that female consciousness selects or ordains for sin-fullness of varying degrees. You might get from someone like the Dalai Lama that females are “good”, “wonderful,” etc., but it’s just a way to fend what they don’t want away. Females started the cycle. A Buddhist had predicted that allowing women in would cause his teachings to survive only half as long – 500 years instead of 1,000. Some such ancient declarations have been eliminated from texts. Your turn – Happy-hunting!

Obscuring info. also has some of its origins in gynocentrism, which can be analyzed in a bluntly-put sequential pattern; transcending gynocentric socialization by analysis; “extremism” is labeled by pleasure/females; frustration sometimes occurs to slandered analyzer; observation then is further slandered as “hysteria/”criminal”, etc.; “comedy”, etc., of male argumentation from pop. culture.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Bill Burr: You can’t criticize women because men are busy trying to have sex with them.
Female sexuality – political, dramatic, & crafty – is completely excusable, yet there’s frequently some beta males & females denigrating, compared to a ratio, the bodily/visuo male sexuality as “low”, “immature”, “trashy”, etc.. The reality is is that female sexuality is much more detrimental. Beta bureaucrats are willing to sometimes defend & apply legal measures with the feminine critiques of pornographers recording females dressed playfully with pigtails, vomiting on phalluses, or other images of slimy gapes, etc., & that we should be cautious of this sort of thing, yet why can’t we apply critiques on b.d.s.m. themes much more common & innate to female psychology? I’ve even criticized females in public of their varying versions of hybristophilia, & they look at me like I’m the wrong one. The former – an issue of choice of bodily juxtapositions & functions, while the latter – an issue of rationalizing & even the integrity of the future of the species.
There’s the other argument that beta males & the like will try to use to defend hybristophilia of female-hood; that it’s these females having a noble cause to try to change such bad men for the better, but why would you defend that when those females could apply that desire to build something beneficial with more rational males?
Associated physiological responses are evident. “Adrenaline shoots through me”, states one outcast, again, as typed firstly, masculine rational fear is interpreted as “bad”, a “sickness”, etc.. The general lack of curiosity as a defense mechanism about such a practice is strong. There is an aversion to learning potentially ego-threatening new info.. If you consider the defenses maintained by the vast popular to guard a lack of curiosity on just that single issue, consider other experiences males have, often blamed on those males, of being psychologically destroyed also declined. This is an anti-/a-objective culture where you’re here to be “macho”, entertaining, or automatic. “So, that’s just anecdotal when that one states adrenaline shoots through him”. Correction: To reiterate: there is a general lack of curiosity as defense mechanisms & mass cognitive dissonance as well as forgetting. Do people want to know about something as common as the interwork of slaughterhouses, just as an example, not a debate on veganism, & other things of that nature? Male disposability, not just in terms of divorce & male-female relational problems, is not a strong meme because, by even claiming that, males are already type-casted as non-entities.

Source: ‘Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma’ By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., pgs.: 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 31, 56, 75, 87, 89, 98. 117 & 118.
Not an excellent book, but has some good facts & is better than nothing on this highly riddled issue. Some truth & some fallacies. The author fails to make the connection that the practice is not a product of rationalism, but, in fact, it’s actually a product of instincts-by-nature. There’s also too much favoring of feminine emotions & claiming that masculinity is the main source of such reactions, but, in fact, it’s gynocentrism that leads to instincts/intuition.

Braving the Slut Mine of OKCupid

okc_profile_pic_3.0What a stud!  With the weather warming up, my shedding a few pounds and women shedding a few layers of clothing, it’s time to get back into the dating game.  Since I’m a tech tard, I don’t have a tinder account and, since I don’t really have enough patience for pickup artistry and want to guarantee that I’ll be able to sleep next to a warm body more than once every three months, I don’t go to bars with the explicit purpose of picking up ladies.  Therefore, it seems like my only choice is braving the slut mine of OKC, in spite the fact that it seems to have all but entirely been picked clean of anything worth picking.

And because I’ve become the expert at OKC dating with a reasonably high success rate, I’ve come up with this handy guide on how to work OKC for maximum results.

Your entire purpose of getting onto OKC is to convince a complete stranger to meet up with you so that the two of you can fornicate; I actually have to thank many of the ladies who haven’t been spooked by all of this rape hysteria out of letting me pick them up at their homes.  One thing is clear, though; if a woman doesn’t sleep with you the first night, she absolutely is not interested.  Even if she DOES sleep with you the first night, that’s no guarantee that she’ll be interested.  So, let’s just say, the whole purpose of getting onto OKC is for you to find someone who wants to fornicate the night you meet her; all you have to do is not give her a reason not to.  You can worry about what happens between the two of you later; that’s not what OKC is for.

Next, you have to get it out of your mind that you’re looking for anyone in particular.  Getting a girl from OKC or getting a girl in general these days is less contingent upon what mutual interests you have and more based on whether or not you’ll feel disgusted with yourself after waking up next to her the following morning.  In other words, if you message three girls because you see that they’re all huge Magma fans or they’ve seen all of John Cassavetes’ films and you think you’ve found the love of your life, you will rarely if ever get a message back.  In the dating market and basically in every other aspect of life, women have the upper hand.  The market is saturated with lonely and horny guys, so you have to be open minded even if she is a Harry Potter fan.

You have to have an iron will.  Your hunt for women has to be completely emotionless and based purely on your desire to find someone who will let you put your penis inside her, and you have to send out message after message after message to God knows how many women before any respond.  Getting pussy is like looking for a job.  You don’t send out two resumes to your favorite jobs and hope one of them bites.

Best bet is to have a template that you have saved, so you don’t have to keep typing the same stupid message over and over again.  For example:

“I see that you’re a big fan of _____.  What do you think of _____?  I’m actually a really big fan of _____.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

If you see she’s a fan of horses, you can write:

“I see that you’re a big fan of horses.  What do you think of saddle sores?  I’m actually a really big fan of Freddie Got Fingered.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

Or, if she’s a collector of old lawnmowers:

“I see that you’re a big fan of lawn mowers.  What do you think of riding mowers?  I’m actually a really big fan of hiring illegal immigrants to do my yard work.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

Or, she comes from a family of taxidermists:

“I see that you’re a big fan of taxidermy.  What do you think of having your own body stuffed when you die and having someone put it on display for people to commemorate your life?  I’m actually a really big fan of filling dead cats up with lard.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

That shows that you have read the profile so you’re not JUST going off of what she looks like.  Unfortunately some women have so little imagination that they put things like “hanging with my friends”, as if you assumed that she doesn’t have any friends.  Also, most women these days claim that they’re “sarcastic” or that they’re really good at “sarcasm.”  What that really means is they have carte blanche to say any disgusting, obnoxious or unpleasant thing they want and, if you want some sugar that night, you had better put up with it, bub!  I talked to one women who said that, if she didn’t like me, she would pretend to go to the bathroom and leave me.  Oh, that is SO funny and totally not indicative of something she actually does.  I did, in fact, tell her that that “joke” was quite the turn off and cancelled the date.  See, ladies, men can be put off by things that YOU say as well, and we’re not the ones buying all the Prozac.  So maybe learn some manners, k?

Make sure to say enough about yourself in your profile so you legitimately seem like an interesting person that a woman would want to hang out with, and make sure you look cool in your pictures.  Get a female friend to snap a few good shots for you.  Some tips I have are don’t smile in any of them and make sure to have at least one where you’re actually doing something so girls think you’re an active person.  Oh and, if you can’t figure out NOT to put something like “all you women are looking for is a good time with my money, why am I always friend zoned, wah wah wah” or “why do you bitches always go with the the assholes when I’m such a nice guy” on your profile, then you probably should have your internet taken away from you and be forced to interact with real people.

The girls on OKC can be broken down into three basic categories; attention whores, horny trollops without children and horny trollops with children.  Let’s expand on these:

Attention Whores: Basically, if a girl is super, fuckin’ hot, like an eight through a ten, and she’s on a dating site, she’s an attention whore.  There’s literally no reason for her to be on OKCupid other than to continue to feed her narcissism.  She never responds to messages but always “complains” about how her inbox is full, and she’s got tons of little satellite men who are more than willing to be friend zoned by her to catch a whiff of her anal vapors.  Yet she doesn’t go out with ANY of them because none of them have been truly able to scratch that itch.  You have to be like someone super important, like the creme de la cock to be with this type.  In other words, she’s the most chaste person ever until a popular indie rock band comes to town.

Horny Trollops Without Kids: Believe it or not, these ladies actually might want a relationship.  The highest level of attractiveness any of these ladies ever reaches is a seven, but since when was a slightly overweight, curvey seven, who is also really pretty, that bad or shameful to be with?  Or a girl with a hot body, but has the face of ET?  Especially in the age where better than average looking guys have to settle for less and less.  My only tip on how to get these ladies is just learn to be fun and sociable, learn a tiny modicum of game (like, I mean, don’t be a pussy and go for the kiss) and don’t unload your spergy, in depth knowledge of every Hawkwind album on her unless her OKC profile explicitly says that she’s a huge Hawkwind fan, and you’ll be in like sin.  I’m not kidding; when I put the work in, I can nail someone about every other week to once a month and, if one doesn’t work out, I just go for another.  The only exception is during the cold months.  Then women tend to flake more often, either not answering your texts or coming up with bogus excuses to not meet up with you, since they’d prefer to snuggle by themselves under a blanket, than go out for a couple hours and end up snuggling with another human being.  And once they break the date, don’t try to reschedule because, if a woman is “too sick” to go out that night, she just isn’t interested.  At least she spent 20 seconds to come up with an excuse and didn’t just stop responding!  Don’t take it personally.  Women can’t even stay loyal to their own friends, let alone someone they’ve never met in person.  It’s pretty tough these days for me to take what a woman says at face value unless she’s giving me directions or something trivial like that.

Horny Trollops With Kids: You might think that, because a woman is a single mother, she would want a man in the house to help take care of and raise the kids, ya know, so the kids are raised by a complete family.  You would be wrong.  You just have to ask yourself where the actual father is and why she didn’t stay with him.  The answer: what difference does it make where he is as long has his check arrives on the scheduled date and he can play babysitter every other Saturday?  Believe me: single moms LOVE this arrangement.  They get to play act at being moms – i.e. be “heroic” –  a few days a week, then get to slut it up on the weekends.  The last thing they need is a long term relationship to screw up that arrangement.  But at least you get laid!  Too bad these mothers are raising a generation of neurotic freaks.  Also, they tend to flake a bit more; ya know, “couldn’t find a babysitter.”

You’ve been advised about how to OKC, you’ve been given the crash course on how to start a conversation and you’ve seen the three types of women you’ll meet.  The rest is up to you.

Here are three, final tips before I depart:

  1. Be EXTREMELY weary of a woman who looks surprisingly good, yet is overly eager to go out on a date with you.  She’s either aged severely or put on weight since the pictures on her profile were taken and assumes that once you’ve had enough alcohol or weed in your system, that you’ll overlook these minor details.  DON’T BE TRICKED!!!
  2. Although this seems obvious, overly eager guys, of which I’ve been at times, seem to forget; if a woman ONLY takes closeups of herself and doesn’t have a single full body shot, she is fat.
  3. Although your level of tolerance might be higher than mine, I’d highly suggest avoiding women who use words like “polyamorous”, “pansexual”, “non-binary”, “cis-gendered” or “heteronormative.”  They’re just fancy ways of saying, “daddy didn’t love me, and now I’m getting back at him by being a slut.”  Obviously avoid feminists.

And there you have it.  If you’re willing to put in the work, you should soon be having sex with moderately attractive women, some of whom have real jobs and real concerns, who you’ll be able to maintain a relationship with for at least a few weeks.