Feminism and The Burden of the Approach

Imagine a world where men and women were truly equal. Not just equal on an economic level, but on a societal level as well. This is what the feminists fought so long for, is it not? Think about dating. In order for any relationships, marriages, and procreation to occur, there must be an initial approach. Someone must break the ice. Someone must have the courage to walk up to a total stranger and say "hi" and subsequently spark interest and attraction through conversation.


That someone is a male, 90-95% of the time.


This does not sound like equality. Does it sound like equality to you? Why is it OK for feminists to be hypocrites on this particular issue? Women claim to be seen as equal to men in every way, but somehow this outdated social norm stayed in place. No, women do not want equality. Women still want men to approach and break the ice with them, ask for their number, set up dates in which the man pays, and later initiate a kiss or sex. She still expects him to get on one knee and ask for her hand in marriage. And still in most cases, she expects the man to be the breadwinner of the household.


Now what part of that says equality? We know that women are well within their means to meet men halfway on all of those things. So why don't they? All women benefit from the fruits of feminism whether they claim to be one or not.


Let's delve deeper into the burden of the approach. Let's examine the risks a man takes when he approaches a woman:


1. Rejection- This one is obvious. As men we expect to be rejected often and we are never given a reason for it. A woman will rarely tell you the real reason that she is rejecting you. She will make up an excuse, but you will never know what you did wrong or what is particularly wrong with you. This is especially troubling since it means that there is no way to improve because the man has gained no knowledge for the rejection. It could have be for anything. Only her, God and her girlfriends know


2. Embarrassment- Now I've been in many clubs and bars. I've had some success and some failures. Embarrassment is really an interesting occurrence. It can only happen when there is a power balance in a given dialogue. It happens when one party has the upper hand and the other party has the lower. The party with the upper hand is almost always the woman. Since the man approached her first, he is lowering himself and putting himself at a disadvantage. Now he is in many ways at her mercy. She can toy with him if she wants. She can lead him on. She could be nice and reject him, or be mean and reject him. She could even accept him and decide she doesn't like him later. The point is, there is an infinite amount of ways a woman could handle a man that has approached her. I'll give a recent example that happened to me in a bar. I came up to a pretty woman and started a conversation. Her and her friends were taking pictures so I jumped in on one. I was being spontaneous and having fun. She seemed to as well. After a few minutes, I asked her for a dance. She replied, "I'm not dancing with any guys tonight". Right there I knew she did not want anything to do with me, at least romantically. I took it in stride. Because it was a crowded bar, I really didn't have many places to walk to. So I stood around for a while. After a minute or so, she got up out of her seat and started dancing with random guys, right in front of me. Now you may ask yourself, "why would she do such a cold, rude thing?" Well I don't know and I never will. But what I do know is that there are many women out there just like this and because men are at such a blatant disadvantage and are always at a low position, they are at risk of this kind of thing happening to them all the time at social gatherings.


3. Physical Violence- That's right. There is a tendancy for women to say in their heads, "you and him fight". Women like drama. They thrive on it. One of the things they love is when two men fight over them. So whenever you see a bar fight, it usually involves a woman. It usually occurs because some woman felt like seeing her man beat up another man. Such is the cold hearted nature of most Western Women. I'll even give an example from my experience in a club: I approached a girl and out of nowhere some guy came up and tried to start a fight with me. I thought it was clear that she was single, but you never know I guess. She didn't do anything to provoke this exchange, but as you can imagine I put myself at great risk just by trying to talk to a girl. So to the women that say "just be yourself and approach a girl we don't bite! We'll be flattered that you came up to us!", you're full of it.



This is what men are reduced to. This is what men face everyday. Rejection, embarrassing, and physical violence. These are things that women never have to face in the dating scene. They just sit there like the conceited cunts they are and accept or deny advances. That is all a woman has to do: accept or deny advances.


This brings me to a recent controversy involving a feminist, Rebecca Watson. Everything started with a awkward moment in an elevator. She got on and there was one other man. The man complimented her by saying she was interesting. He then proceeded to ask her if she wanted to have coffee in his room. She of course made this video later complaining about how he was sexually objectifying her and other bullshit.






Does she realize that men will die virgins if they do not risk such awkward moments? Does she have any appreciation for his compliment? It seems as though Rebecca Watson and other feminists like her do everything in their power to shun, ridicule, and suppress male sexuality.


In her perfect world, half of the male population would be imprisoned for improperly approach women.

My Two Favorite Pornstars

Now I know what you're thinking: this blog is taking a lowbrow turn. But we as men sometimes must sit back and admire female beauty. It is why God put them on earth. I've watched an adequate amount of porn over the years as most guys do. I've been amazed at how hot some of these girls are, but these two in particular take the cake for me.

Jynx Maze






Brooke Lee Adams

Rape Culture and Its True Culprits

I was lying back while drinking beer and watching television. On the side of me is a female friend who is doing the exact same thing. A conversation ensues between the two of us about what a man must do in order to get a date with a woman. The context was of a mutual friend of ours who has trouble in this department. I told her the story of how he was recently rejected by a female coworker of his. She went on with her advice as to why he was failing with women. But somewhere along the line she said something that disturbed me and gave me a keen understanding as to why so many women get raped. What she said was not at all original or revolutionary in its essence, but when the words


“Sometimes a girl likes to be chased. She wants to feel wanted”


I instantly knew the root cause of the so called “rape culture” in the U.S.



Women are notorious for always warning men that “no means no”. For us men who have dealt with enough women, we know this to be pure malarkey. If “no” always meant “no”, many men would die virgins. There would also be fewer rapes as a result, because for once women would mean what they said instead of talking in indirect code language.


Women, many times, bring rape upon themselves. They purposely reject men, even ones they are interested in, in order to get him to chase her. Since women love to be the prize and the center of attention, leading a man on a wild goose chase through all sorts of hoops and mind games is all too common in today’s society. What this does is blur the line between what is acceptable for a man to do to a woman and what is not…because once we can all agree that women want to be chased, we can understand what a predicament it puts men into. Since “no” does not always mean “no”, there is no real way for a man to know when to stop his advances upon a woman.



My theory as to why women give such pieces of advice goes back to dark triad genes or the lack thereof. You see, when a woman tells a man that he should just be himself, or to respect women, or to give them compliments, or that “no means no”, what she is actually doing is bullshitting the male. This is a weeding out mechanism that women use in order to ensure that men who don’t get it never will. You see, women do not want nice guys to propagate their genes. They do not wish for them to be successful with women. This is why advice coming from women is never good; it has been sabotaged from the get-go.



Women have the power and control in the dating scene. This is important to note because it means that any and every problem with society in the context of female-male relations falls on the shoulders of women themselves. If women decide to start dating men who are genuine, nice, and honest, then that is what most men will become. Since women, however, are only attracted to males with dark triad genes, that is what most men strive to be. The ones that do not either are alone or being used. Moreover, since women have decided to make men chase and act in an overly-aggressive fashion in order to get sex, the rape culture pervades society. Make no mistake about it, women invariably cause most rapes.



Now, this is not to say that specific individuals who are victims of raped caused it or even desired it. The point is that women overall have created an environment in which only sexually aggressive, narcissistic, abrasive men are seen as sexually attractive (these traits are what women interpret as being “confident”). They have created an environment in which “no” doesn’t mean “no”, it actually means “try harder, keep going, I want to be chased, I want to feel wanted even though you’ve already made it clear that you want me. I want to play games and toy with you until I’m satisfied.” Men are constantly placed in awkward, unsure situations because what women want is always esoteric. Should he approach? If she rejects him, should he continue his advances because that’s what she may want deep down? Who knows? For many men, leaving things to chance is not an option. They will continue to press the issue in order to find out the woman’s true intentions.


Thus is the nature of women: enablers of the very thing they claim to despise the most

And....

He's back. As you can see, the new computer is in. There will be much more to come ladies and gents

About My Recent Absence

My computer went down a few weeks ago. This is the main reason for me not making any new posts. Its a cheap Dell Laptop that only lasted 3 years. It has a virus that somehow uninstalled all my drivers for keyboard, internet, wireless, etc. I'm close to fixing it but when I do I will probably just sell it on Ebay.

Once I get a better computer, I will turn this blog more personal. It will be an honest journal of my experiences in life that have led me to who I am today. These will be full of complete honesty. I will also, of course, continue to make the usual posts along with it.

Until then, cheers folks.

"Dark Triad" Genes

The bad-boy question has been answered by science.

Nice guy genes do exist, and many unfortunate men have them. Women want these genes severed from the gene pool and thus existence:

Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths

"Peter Jonason, of New Mexico University in Las Cruces, believes that these traits may have an innate, genetic component that explains why some men seem unable to stop themselves behaving badly."


- Steve Connor, "Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths",

The traits that he refers to are "Dark Triads". These are traits such as narcissism, thrill-seeking, psychopathy, etc. Basically, quintessential bad-boy behavior. This study proves that it is what women really want, while they lie about wanting a humble honest respectful guy. What a fucking surprise, right?

However, let's use our intellect to take this a step further. Let's go beyond what the study says using deduction and logic. If there are "dark triad" genes, or in other words bad boy genes, then conversely there must exist nice-guy genes. These are the genes many lonely men possess, and it explains why they are alone and suffering.

Like I've said many times before, for the most part women want to weed the nice-guy genes out of existence. That's why they reject so many men and also inform their social circles not to date us after the rejection takes place. They don't want to be treated well. Women want psychopathic narcissists and they are lying if they say otherwise. I'm tired of every girl claiming they want one thing then turning around and blowing some guy with a neck-tattoo and a criminal record.

The looks faction is close, but they fail to make the quantum leap and recognize it comes down to genetics. The confidence mafia (those that believe the key is confidence) are way off.

"Looks" and "Confidence" are simply byproducts of good genes. Its all genes. And women are quasi-eugenicists.

The Arizona Shootings: Who's To Blame?

Yet another mass shooting has occurred recently, ironically right around the time I posted about the one that happened back in 2009 (see below post). Is this nothing new? Has this not happened before and for a similar reason? Or was he a lone nut? The answer, as it usually does, lies somewhere in the middle. Like with Sodini, this shooting (and the reasons it happened) is not cut-and-dry. There is more to this guy than meets the eye, and it surpasses the nerd-loner stereotype in my opinion.


All politics aside, this man, Jared Lee Loughner, was deeply troubled.


Most leave it at that.

"He was disturbed"
"He was mentally ill"
"This guy had a few screws loose"

What sickens me about society is the cowardice and disturbing inability to display empathy for those deemed unstable. Loughner may have been irrational, but why does no one ask what made him that way? My answer to that is one that I will always have in these situations: society has trouble pointing the finger at themselves. No one wants to admit that perhaps, just maybe, there were other factors that contributed to Loughner's shooting rampage.


And what of Lougner's politics? There is no doubt that his conspiracies about the government led to hatred of certain politicians. Some of his theories had slight merit; for instance, language does indeed control thought. However there is not substantial evidence that the government is forcing or subtly encouraging its population to speak a certain way. There is such a thing as political correctness, but those who wish to exercise free speech are still welcome to do so.

When I first heard of this story, I immediately knew that his failures with women had something to do with it. I just had the feeling, deep down. And, sure enough, the Wall Street Journal proved me to be correct recently when the following article was published:


"Postings of a Troubled Mind"

Whenever something like this occurs, miserable interactions with women are a culprit, if not the biggest one. What cannot be stressed enough is the importance of consistence sex and companionship that a man needs to keep his sanity. Its no joke. Its life and death. We are seeing examples of it over and over again. Men need sex, men need women that truly care about them as a person. One might jump to say, "But all people want that, including women!" Well, women are not the ones that experience loneliness the way men do.

Here's a question everyone must ask themselves: If Loughner had a girlfriend that loved and cared about him, would this tragedy have happened? No one can say for sure. It is a question for critical thought.

Women and Eugenics

Scenario: After being rejected by a woman, you discover that she also informed her friends of the debacle. Now not only has she rejected your advances, but she also ruined your chances with several other women. What is this inclination that women have and where does it come from? I am here with an answer: Eugenics

The image that you see to the left includes tools that have further enabled most women to be quasi-eugenicists. They can now line up all their prospects conveniently on a screen and carefully select what genes they want to allow to propagate. Its almost like shopping in the cereal isle for women. The over-abundance of options that even average plain-janes posses is remarkable, and in combination with social media, they can all use their sexual prowess to their advantage like never before. Make no mistake about it, social media has benefited women exclusively and has almost done as much harm to men that feminism has.

The Theory of Modern Female Quasi-Eugenicists

I am not saying that women are walking around reading your genetic code as a scientist would. That's not what I mean by quasi-eugenics. Your genes are expressed through your physical traits. Gene expression. Also known as phenotypes. Its eugenics on a small-scale; women control who gets laid and how, therefore they control propagation. If they reject you, they are rejecting your genes. When they go back to their social cliques and inform other females of how you were rejected and humiliated, she is sub-communicating that your genes are undesirable, and all the women should reject your genes from passing on as well. Now, she has successfully ended the possibility of your genes propagating with several more women in addition to herself.

Hence my term, quasi-eugenics.

In the following video, Mystery explains how being a victim of quasi-eugenics in tribal times directly relates to fearing the approach of women today:




But there is something else....something, elusive. The "IT" factor that was discussed in a previous thread. I think that women have some sort of intuition or animal-like quality that turns them on to the "IT" factor.

This is why many men can't understand why they are single and it seems to defy logic. Isn't it curious how the dating game has always been sort of an inside joke? In other words, dating has always been a sort of "if you have to ask, you aren't getting any" type deals. Those who have it have it, and they can't even successfully explain it to someone who does not. Kind of like how women always seem to give bad dating advice, as if they want you to fail.

The "IT" factor is something that has yet to be discovered that some lack, and women know it. Most guys have it, but some don't. Maybe its facial symmetry. Most likely, it is the gene that women can sense.

I mean, there are certainly things that can transcend all else, such as wealth and riches. Especially in America. I'm not stupid enough to suggest that even being rich wouldn't help lonely men. It would. My theory by and large has to do with normal people who exist outside of the top 2% of American society. Other guys try to compensate in other ways, such as getting super-jacked, getting nice tats, etc.



Let me give you an example of why none of this stuff even matters anyway: George Sodini

* He was worth $250,000. That is financial security
* He had a nice house, car, and stable job.
* He was built. He worked out at LA Fitness Gym.
* He went to PUA conventions


As you can see, he did everything that most people would jump to suggest for you to do if you complain about not getting women. People will say,

"you need to make at least decent money"
"you need a career and goals"
"you need to workout and become healthy and attractive"
"you need to learn how to talk to women. "

George Sodini did all of this and some. He went right down the checklist of requirements that women have. Yet, it was all in vein. Why?

Quasi-eugenics. His genes simply were not desirable, for no discernible reason. Women severed his genes off from society; forced him into celibacy and loneliness. The female eugenicists destroyed Sodini, so he in turn took the lives of 3 of them. I'm not condoning anything, but you see my point.

The difference between this and regular sexual selection

The abundance of selection that these women have, specifically in Western countries.

Women may be this way partly by nature. But guess what: in the 50's, they could most certainly NOT exhibit quasi-eugenic behavior, because society put barriers in place that controlled their sexuality. Now, those barriers don't exist and women have all the free reign in sexual selection that they want. Also not all women can have the power the be quasi-eugenicists, but most do. As long as she is a 6, she is a god among insects and will enjoy endless options until she hits age 53. 5's as well. Women below this still have options but its not as much and not guaranteed

Michael Savage talked about this. He said that shame is a good thing. When you do bad in school, you should feel ashamed. When women act promiscuous, they SHOULD be shamed by society and scorned. Unfortunately that does not exist in the West anymore. To many weak-minded men allowed this to happen.

I must point out however that I think most women in the dating game fall within the 6-10 range. Beauty seems to be common; Mystery (a famous pick-up artist) said this himself. I can vouch. On my college campus I can honestly say that ugly undesirable women are rare; I find myself attracted to the majority of them. All it takes is the right outfit and makeup, and women can all look above average and be selective breeders. So therefore, the vast majority of women are quasi-eugenicists and have the power to do it to men.

Another example is the Middle East...the men there do not allow their women to be eugenicists and control what genes get passed on. The nice guys in the middle east get their genes propagated, as well as most men there in general, good-looking or bad. Why, social barriers (i.e public shame, beatings. harsh but its necessary)

In China however, the government has become the eugenicist. The gender imbalance there was deliberately done by the communist regime. Men there are screwed to hell and they report very low sexual partners on average...sad.

All women are quasi-eugenicists by nature and as long as they have complete sexual freedom with no barriers, nice guy genes will continue to be weeded out of existence. This is why you see more and more psychopaths and douchebags in bars and clubs hording all of the women. Women chose the fathers of these men for that very reason, make no mistake about it.