Monday, December 14, 2009

The Regret Brought on by Feminism, in the Eyes of a 60 Year Old Woman

I hadn't spent time with my parents in a long time up until very recently. We're not estranged or anything. We have a very loving and friendly family; simply I have been busy being an adult and living my life. My parents are fucked-up people, like most people, and like most Boomers parents they gave me some weird notions about men and women, but they are good at heart and I am way past the point in my life where I worry about things like that.

Anyway, in the course of spending a couple weeks in close proximity to my beloved family, I had some interesting discussions with my dear mother. I think she has always assumed that I would get married... certainly in the past I talked about it from time to time. Well, several years have passed since we truly talked about that kind of thing, and I think I surprised her with how much I have changed. I surprised myself, actually. Having a discussion with a long-lost family member is almost like having a discussion with a past version of your self.

Having just returned from Africa and Europe recently, I dropped a casual remark about how American women move like battleships. She said, "You mentioned that the other day, too."

"Really?" I said. I genuinely didn't recall saying that, though I don't doubt I did. It's become such a casual, throw-away observation for me that saying it in no way stands out in my mind. But my mother is used to the classic pedestalizing that's only functional in a patriarchal society, that such comments stick out in her mind, I suppose.

But she's not totally blind to how things have changed. My mother may be in her 60's, but she's not stupid. She recently told me a story about a girl I went to high school with, let's call her "Heather." Heather was pretty hot back in the day, if I recall. I fully expect that she turned out to be a good-looking adult woman, but I haven't seen a picture. My mother brought her up because she's "going through a divorce."

(Incidentally, you have to love the shameless dodging of all responsibility inherent in that passive voice construction, "going through a divorce." As if it were something thrust upon you by an outside entity. You "go through" an IRS audit. You don't "go through" a divorce. You choose it.)

Heather and her husband have been married for less than two years. She's taking the house they bought with his money and, of course, alimony. When my mother told me this story I couldn't hide my contempt. I basically spouted off about how marriage was a terrible, terrible idea for a man in the United States for precisely that reason.

My mother gave me a somewhat concerned look, as if she agreed, but did not want to fully confront what I was saying. "But, Dogen, don't you think it just shows how important it is to pick the right woman?"

I shook my head sadly. I didn't want to lay the full force of my opinion on my poor, aging mother. I just told her that everyone thinks they have found the "right person," and it's foolish to assume you must be the exception. Besides, I do believe my mother once encouraged me to ask this Heather girl out because she "seemed sweet." And besides, I told her, American women don't know how to cook or clean; they don't know how to be sweet and genuine; and they are generally sluts (I phrased that part a little more gingerly); and yes, they move like battleships.

She countered that it's because "women in this country have more equality," (implying of course, that women in other countries must live under the boot of patriarchal tyranny).

I said, "No, not more equality. That's the official version. But really, it just means that they are more like men and less like women."

"Well," she said, "women are expected to act like men. They have to. They have to work in the business world and stuff. People need two incomes to get by today." (My mother worked full time most of her adult life in addition to raising four kids — of course my Dad worked and raised the kids, too.)

"They brought that on themselves, Mom. That wasn't the case for most of Western history up until about 30 years ago. Women wanted it to be this way, so they got it."

My mom got that miffed expression I know so well that means she doesn't want to talk about it anymore. But she added, "Some women wanted that. The loud ones. A lot of us would have been perfectly happy to raise our kids and love our husbands."

I let the topic go. I didn't want to make my mom any sadder than she was. But the way she said it nearly broke my heart. This is the awful world we have created, where people are afraid to make the choices that should make them most happy, because it's not "equal" enough. My mother's own generation victimized her — though to a degree, of course, she took part in it. It's never totally black and white. But to hear my mother say that, to see the sad expression in her eyes, filled me with sadness and with contempt for all the misery brought about in the name of "equality."

Vee must all suffer in zee name of eqvality. YOU VILL BE EQVAL!!!

Friday, December 11, 2009

Are Confident Girls Sexy?


Time and again I hear girls bragging about their high self esteem and tell other girls to work on their level of confidence as dating advice (if you care, go read some online ads at dating sites and you see what I mean).

There is no doubt that a man's "confidence" as one of the most obvious outward signs of male status/power has a profound effect on women. But is the opposite true as well?

If you ask most guys, including those who are obsessed/cerebral about meeting women, the answer will be a clear "no". The only think that makes a woman attractive is her looks.
The dating market follows two simple laws:

Women judge by Appearance

Men judge by Looks

Or, as biologists express it:
"male preferences typically focus on direct indicators of female fecundity such as body size, and rarely result in the evolution of ... sexual displays in females."

Could it be, then, that women mistake their own preference as that of the other sex?

This is almost certainly true. Men often fall victim to the same fallacy and obsess about their looks instead of working on their "sexual display". Most men have a hard time accepting that their looks do not matter at all. So it is not too surprising that women do the same mistake. Given the profound gender difference when it comes mate selection, we all fail at putting ourselves into each other's shoes.

Yet, it is also conceivable that the story is not that simple when it comes to male selection. Most women I talk to can easily produce anecdotes that seem to prove their point. According to these stories, even some of the most gorgeous girls can fail to "score" when they are depressed or needy - not unlike guys.

I tended to be skeptical about these claims, but having had the unique opportunity to "coach" women in meeting men, I realized that there is truth to that. Women who smile a lot and happily engage in conversations at the bar seem to invite more approaches by guys than the same girls sitting broken heartedly in a remote corner with obvious sadness in her eyes. Surprisingly, neither her choice of clothes, nor the amount of approach invitations seem to matter in that situation. Guys shy away from a woman who radiates "not being in the mood".

Even more surprisingly, I have witnessed many times how even the most attractive girls can ruin their chances by becoming openly aggressive, "needy" and too direct in their approach to men. Women who openly become sexual and try to score make outs with any guy who is brave enough to not run away from their ravenous display of peaked libido, consistently go home alone. They typically launch (each other) into an escalating display of man hunt that eventually prevents guys from approaching (at least the guys they are actually competing for - the horde of drunk guys that mistake this situation as a unique opportunity to score a cheap drunk fuck get rejected accordingly).

More so, while the female preference for male dominance/status displays is as ubiquitous in nature as the male preference for direct signs of female fertility, there is an increasing amount of controversy among evolutionary biologists whether or not males might also judge females by more indirect behavioral cues (in any case, there is increasing appreciation for a profound role of male mate choice).

Taken from that angle, there might be reason to doubt the simple assumption that all a woman needs to be hot are a cute, face, great tits and ass. While a slim body, a voluptuous rack, full hair and a smooth symmetrical face all indicate female health, youth and fertility, there are more factors to guarantee a man's sperm to meet a fertile egg.

Certain ailments will express themselves in behavioral differences due to physical and mental discomfort. And given the lack of significant changes in a woman's physique during ovulation (estrus), all a man has to go by to dissect the girls that promise the highest chance of instant insemination success are subtle cues in her behavior.

It does not seem to be too far fetched, then, that women claim that they do not only care about their looks based on past experience. A woman's appearance can conceivably boost her sexiness (think pole dance). This can be contrasted with the observation that a man's looks do not matter at all. So, when it comes to choosing mates, men might be the more complicated (and choosier) sex after all.

How to make sure you sleep alone on New Year's Eve

My first contact with the seduction community went awry. To this day I wonder what difference it could have made had I listened any earlier.

It was just days before New Year's a few years ago when a friend of mine called and asked me about my plans. I hadn't any. He hung up, and arrived at my doorsteps a few hours later with a big smile on his face.

"No excuses" was all he said, and minutes later I sat in his car on my way to NYC.

His plan was to visit friends of his and stay there for a couple of nights, including the big one, to finally get a chance to actually see the all drop. I was not sure what to think about that.

It was late that night when we arrived in Brooklyn. The flat was located in one of those "upcoming" areas that people in their late twenties like to populate. We knocked on the door, beers in hand.

A petite Asian girl with shoulder long hair opened the door and smiled. She was tomboyish, but cute. We went inside and met the other people. A young Chinese girl, rather pretty despite her bad teeth and a guy with long blond hair pulled back in a pony tail. He was the one my friend knew from his college days. We sat around a table and started to banter. There was an instant connection. We went out to Harlem that night - and had a blast. We went for breakfast the next day - and had a blast. We all reassembled for dinner at night, just to go hit the bars again.


The next morning my friend's buddy took me aside. He had rightfully sensed my naivete with women, and was poised to take those goggles of ignorance off my eyes. His initiation was well set out. By talking about evolution, he had caught my interest. He showed me a copy of "The Game" and proudly flashed his black fingernails. What I thought was just another trendy, hip, artsy, New York metrosexual fad turned out to be a gimmick to attract women!

I was captivated for a bit. I smiled nervously at his obvious accusation of being unattractive. I flipped through the book which looked like (and he called) the Bible, shaking my head in disbelief. It all seemed so - out there. Guys running around laying girls as if it were a sport. Isn't that what you stop doing once you leave the frat house? What's wrong with just having a girl friend?

Yet, everything he said seemed to make sense. My curiosity turned into excitement when I realized that he basically suggested a practical application to the evolutionary theories floating around academia. Could it be true that one can use the knowledge about our biological roots - something I strongly believed in - into your own advantage? There would be a certain irony if you could prove it to work on those very same people that deny the instinctive nature of human behavior.

But the black fingernails...


I just couldn't get my head around the black fingernails. It just didn't seem to make sense. It didn't seem right. Did he really do it just to get laid? I just couldn't take it seriously. He sensed my skepticism and gave up.


My friend and in ended up staying longer in NYC than originally planned. On New Year's the girls lead us over to one of their friend's places in Queens. It was an apartment close to the river. The fire stairs were rigged so that one could get up on the roof, where she actually put some furniture for lazy summer afternoons. We were promised a party, but there were only two drunk girls lingering at that place who looked disappointed when they realized that our group made for a total female-to-male ratio of 5:3 (with one of the guys being too close a friend to serve as walking sausage).

The social dynamics shifted accordingly. When we got (heavily drunk) on the roof around midnight to watch the fireworks taking off across the river, the girls had lost all ability to hold back. I felt like a naked supermodel walking into a hardware store. The New Year hugs became thinly veiled attempts at making a physical connection. Later on, one of the girls even stripped down to her lingerie "to get ready for bed". Each time a girl showed interest in one of us, the other ones got even more interested. I soon realized that none of them had planned to sleep alone that night.

But, amazingly, we all ended up doing just that.


Sometimes I think back to that trip in disbelief. What happened that night was the result of (everything that is wrong with) the "nice guy" mindset. I had cockblocked myself by believing societal norms. I had actually believed that these girls were not interested in casual sex. If they were, so I thought, they would send a clear signal. And lacking social calibration and an understanding of sub-communication I had completely missed that they were basically screaming it right into my face.

What I didn't realize that night is  that girls cannot go around and loudly proclaim that all they want to do tonight is put their mouth on the member of the guy with the least amount of kindness in the room.Unless a man demonstrates that he is not "judgmental", women will always behave as if they the only way to their happy trail is through a series of dinners, flowers and poems.

And if a guy clearly shares this mainstream belief, girls are forced to adhere to that stereotype even more in order not to lose their face. Now I know that the girls that night had thrown around nonreciprocated signals to the point of frustration. They were stuck between their urge for rough steamy sex and the need to play along as pure angels in search for a husband. And one of the most important differences between frustrated chumps and successful men is that the latter are able to see through that scam.

This is a perfect example of when what many think of as acting "friendly" is not only stupid but really an asshole move. I did not just frustrate myself that night, but more so the women who had brought themselves to the brink of publicly declaring their slutty fantasies - just to be turned down by a "judgmental" guy.

And that is what it looks like from a female perspective, as women cannot fathom that many guys act this way out of ignorance. The men they lust for under any normal circumstances are not the type of guys who are confused about a woman's sexual desires. It is only when average frustrated chumps get into an extraordinary situation such as the one described above that women are forced to face the reality of (and pay for) their own selectivity.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Ego Boosters

The better beta (aka Mark Baachman) put up an interesting post about the female tendency to come up with pseudo male ego boosters, typically at the early stages of a relationship.

We all know them. Here are some classic examples:

"No one has ever made me cum like you do."
"This was the best sex I ever had."

"You are so big."
"You and me have the perfect physical fit."

"I've never done this before."

All of these lines are obviously designed to stroke the male ego (and as Mark lines out rather clearly all of them are easily dismissed if you really think about it).

Just think back to the time of your own initial experiences, or read the posts on internet boards by insecure, inexperienced guys who are striving to become better with women:
Guys with little sexual experience often get plagued by enormous doubts about their erection size and duration, sexual performance, or whether or not she orgasmened.

All of that stems from one and the same fear:
Has any of my predecessors achieved to induce similar or greater pleasure to my girl?

Of course, all of this goes away once a man climbs up the sexual hierarchy. Increased experience proves any man that what he really should focus on during sex is his own pleasure, not hers. After banging a barage of chicks in rapid succession a man will also realize that worries about "technique" and "performance" are male concepts and irrelevant to girls. Great sex for women is defined by their emotional experience before during and after. And when it comes to penis size - as a good friend of mine once put it: "It's like worrying whether your mouth is too small for talking. Once you give speeches regularly the whole idea just seems absurd."

So who is the target when a woman pretends to be inexperienced and overwhelmed by the sexual prowess of her current lover? The fact that the occurrence of these lines is strongly linked to relationships might be a clue. While the ultimate female fantasy is the paradox of having a beta-ized relationship with an alpha male, most girls do not succeed in tying down the top dogs. Most long term relationships are held by guys who fall in the middle of the "Fuck, Marry, Kill" trichotomy.

It is conceivable, then, that women use these lines in relationships with the (unconscious) assumption that they are dealing with a rather inexperienced man. And in order to achieve commitment she will have to deal with his doubts (on paternity certainty), especially if it is clear that she has experience. A man might be more likely to stick with a woman if he believes that she is unlikely to find a better sexual experience somewhere else. There is a reason that men throughout cultures world wide prefer to marry virgins.

But, how come women say these things even if you obviously are a highly experienced man?

There are two clues for that. The first is that women seem to really believe these lines when they say them. It is a classic example of the female "what I feel is what is real". Women in relationship often describe their previous sexual experiences as "faded away". Female promiscuity does not arise from a desire to have many partners in rapid succession. The female mind is able to absolutely focus on the man at hand (no pun intended).
The other clue is that pretty much every guy I know has heard one or more of the above at least once in their lives. This consistency across women and circumstances suggests a deeper, presumable biological (instinctive) root. Just like shit tests, there might be a genetic basis for this type of behavior.

Taken together, there is reason to believe that when in a relationship, women will go through an emotional phase where they fantasize about the sexual prowess of the man they are about to "get more serious with". In my experience this happens at the exact transition from (ir)regular "sexing" to "seeing" each other. More so, women will do so regardless of the type of man they are with, thereby inducing the feelings that are well described in Mark's post if the man is experienced enough to cut through the bull. The ultimate reason for this strange behavior is to soothe a man into a state of higher (assumed) paternity certainty.
It therefore is just another shit test.

Monday, December 7, 2009

The Other Enemy of Masculinity

Some weeks ago, reader el chief left a comment about his suspicions on the link between pollution and the seemingly increasing trends in gender abnormalities.


As a professional biologists I have learned to be skeptical about environmental doomsday scenarios, yet skepticism always goes both ways. However, a quick google search at the time revealed less data than interest group propaganda, along with controversies surrounding some of the most straightforward, simple questions.

It all came flashing back when I flipped through an issue of "Men's Health" while doing cardio at my gym (Despite its tabloid makeup, MH often surprises with very insightful and well written docus on general health issues such as the alarming decline in NIH funding and the massive problems arising from the profound irrationality of the animal rights lobby - all of them recommended reads).

To my great surprise (given the pc/feminist brainwash we encounter daily in the mass media) the editorial of the December issue closely mirrored some of the complaints we know from anti-equalist/men's rights blogs: Men of all ages are much more prone to health issues (men are designed as the expendable sex), yet somehow women seem to get first when it comes to fighting gender-specific disease.

If you have the time, I urge you to read the piece entitled "The Lost Boys of Aamjiwnaangfor yourself (or at least the brief summary on their blog). But in either case, keep on reading. There is much to say about the suggested link between polluting chemicals and lowered levels of testosterone in young men given the context of this blog.

The article title refers to a reserve of Indigenous Canadians that borders on a region so heavily industrialized it is nicknamed "Chemical Valley". As you might expect, there is quite a bit of pollution around there. At least there are much higher concentrations of man-made chemicals in the water and soil of this region than the doses that we all are exposed to. And that sandbox-scenario allows scientist to get harder data on possible links between these substances and changes in human physiology.

And this is where it gets interesting.

There is a whole bunch of studies that show that there is a troubling trend in industrialized nations, including the US, Japan and Canada: Women give birth to less and less men.

Nature has an efficient way to deal with the fact that men die more easily than women: It produces more male babies. Normally, there are 105 baby boys for each 100 newborn baby girls. Thanks to their frail genetic makeup, the higher susceptibility to diseases and the testosterone-caused accidents stemming from increased risk-taking behavior, most of these boys will be long dead when the baby girls enjoy their retirement. But by producing more male babies, there are at least enough men around to inseminate the stronger sex. Yet, this effect is about to disappear.

The problem is that nobody really knows why. The effect is still rather small, and there could be many external factors contributing to the overproduction of girls (just think about it: women often take hormonal contraceptives for years and generally get kids later in life than they used to). And then there is the problem that "correlation does not imply causation". Not surprisingly then, there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the interpretation of these data in the scientific community.

So how can you find out whether one factor might be more causal than the others? The best way is to perform measurements where the factor under scrutiny gets altered while everything else remains constant. This can be done in the laboratory (using animals). And the results of these experiments point at the pollutant toxins: many of the substances that permeate our environment in never before seen concentrations act as feminizers. By blocking testosterone and/or mimicking estrogen these "endocrine disruptors" have shown to gender transform a whole variety of species that get exposed to them (estrogen and testosterone are not restricted to humans or even mammals; they act the same way in fish and lizards and many other animals).

But how can you show that this is also the case for humans? This is where the Native Canadians in the Chemical Valley come into play. Given that they are even more exposed to these chemicals than the rest of us, they should suffer more from the consequences. And when it comes to the ratio of newborn males, it couldn't get any more clear: While researchers found the expected overproduction of baby boys during the eighties, things have changed drastically in the late nineties. Now only 35% of newborns are male (you can imagine the consequences for those communities).

But, while this is not the only heavily polluted area that features a decrease in the ratio of male offspring (there are interesting parallels to at least two incidents in Italy and Taiwan), there still remains quite a bit of controversy if chemical pollution is to blame for the worldwide decline in men. Yet, even the spokesmen who were hired by the chemical corporations dare only say that the data is not yet conclusive and that "there needs to be more work" done. That does not sound to me like they are convinced of the opposite, let alone be willing to relocate their own families into this region and voluntarily restrict their fluid intake to the water in those rivers.

As the article lays out - the chemicals under suspect tend to accumulate with age in male bodies, and have the additional property of being extremely potent in rather small doses. And while the article focuses on a single effect - the decline in male offspring - one can but wonder what other changes these feminizing chemicals might have on the male body and mind (cancer is one of them). After all, low testosterone is known not to do anything good to men:
•    fatigue / lethargy / depression
•    impotence / loss of libido
•    loss of muscle / weakness
•    gynecomastia ("man boobs")

So, what are these substances that researchers list as main suspects?
[Note: I am no expert and all of this consists of second hand information]

- found in 92.6% of Americans
- AVOID (likely source): drinks from plastic bottles and canned food (any packaging marked with a '3' or a '7' inside a triangle)

- large class of chemicals; produced during incineration and other industrial processes
- they're now part of our food chain and literally almost everywhere around us
- AVOID: fat (choose lean meat and low fat dairy instead); cigarettes (no brainer); microwaving, scrubbing and dishwashing plastics

- found in 73.8% of all Americans over age 12
(99.7% of us carry the breakdown-product DDE, which has similar feminizing properties)
- likely source: banned pesticides; still lingering in the soil
- AVOID: non-local produce, unwashed produce, unpeeled root vegetables (i.e. carrots and potatoes)

- used as plastic softener (increasingly phased out)
- AVOID: fatty foods, certain personal care products, packaging labeled with a '3' inside a triangle (some might contain phthalates), rooms recently covered with PVC tiles

- found in 99.9% of all Americans over age 12
- likely source: pesticides that got banned globally decades ago; yet still in our food chain (esp. fish and wild game)


So there you have it. While not uncontroversial, it is possible that we are exposed to feminizing agents potent enough to induce measurably impacts our physiology. Whether any of these chemicals (or their combination) could have an effect on hormone-regulated behavior is pure speculation. Yet, it would be surprising if anything strong enough to alter our gonads would spare gender-specific behavior. When it comes to a population wide decline in masculinity and manly behavior there might be more factors at hand than the cultural impact of feminism.

Friday, December 4, 2009

He said, she said

I can well relate to the feelings that Marquis describes when he, sitting in a boring business meeting, smells a woman on the fingers of his hand, and wonders while scanning the room what life must be like for the other people. Staring into the bored and boring faces of lifeless men who radiate a general lack of interest, passion and masculine spirit, it becomes blatantly obvious that their world is not yours. And your life entails events they only know from cable TV - far removed from what they believe is possible for a man like them to achieve. And since this is the majority of people that we are surrounded by there is a sense of strangeness to oneself. You're a wolf hidden among sheep.


The masculine mind craves to be daring and explorative. Men need risk and adventure. It is literally part of our DNA. And it is not like these guys would be able to deny their nature. What these men do is substituting the kick of living out wild inner urges with stale, fake, second hand experiences. Marquis mockingly refers to "Halo" as the unthinkable alternative to his action packed life of danger and debauchery. There is a reason that we think of "gamers" as pathetic underdogs who trade a wild youth for lonely late night couch sessions, unproductively interacting with other creepy guys. Video games are the lesser man's adventure porn.

Having said all that, I just bought an Xbox. And I fucking love it.

My apartment reflects the various (admittedly geeky) projects I have going at all times. Cameras and lenses for my amateur photography. There's my geeky 8'' telescope that provides me with night time motives. The keg in which I brew my own beer in. A guitar. A MIDI keyboard for my sorry attempts at creating music. I was obsessed with rare plants for a while, which I paired with some Monarch butterflies that I raised as pets. The art on the wall, while exclusively from friends, are testament to my attempts at drawing. My books and classical music collection are stored away, so most room gets taken up by my sports equipment. I can't remember the last time I was bored. I have no need for a TV. 

And it is because and not despite all that that I love this machine.

Yes, it can be creepy and sad to get your stereotypes confirmed by checking out an online multiplayer game avast with the the forlorn chat of ever adolescent guys who think that "cool" is equal to using swear words during virtual shoot outs. And while you wonder whether your impulse buy made you one of them, there are flash backs of that feeling of estrangement you had during the meeting.

But for me, the console basically acts as a geeky central media device that wirelessly links my music library or internet radio to my surround sound system. I stream free movies and occasionally rent a good TV show or two. It is easy to browse facebook and MSNBC news clips (well, both ain't that great, but still...). I linked the toy drums that came with the box to my music set. And I love the concept of an interactive trivia show. It's addictive to test your general knowledge against 100.000 other people simultaneously while a moderator comments live. And if you watch these clips, it quickly gets clear that the Xbox will soon evolve into an interactive telecommunication device that households won't go without.

And to my big surprise - women love it, too. Granted, I tend to be surrounded by ambitious, high achieving girls that are in competitive jobs, but the passion that a plastic guitar can unleash in these girls is astounding. No wonder, apart from the "classic" first person shooters, games become increasingly more attractive to women as they combine increased physical activity with social aspects (the online trivia features a "He said, She said" episode that is designed to pit guys against girls). House parties can turn into even greater fun with a set of plastic guitars, drums and some microphones. Some games appeal to women as much as men. If you still are caught in the early phases or male betterment and look for ways to invite women over to your place, here is a hint.

The reason I write this post is the comment an anonymous reader left the other day. Whether he was trolling or not, there is a point in noting that having a passion - any passion, even if it is video games - can reduce your neediness towards women.

Of course, as noted above - if that passion turns into your sole activity in life it will turn against you. But I see many friends repeatedly do the same mistake over and over again with their girls - they give up too much of their own lives to make space for the relationship. But by letting their partner become a hobby, they essentially lose the independence that women need to see in a man to keep up their interest. In these rare occasions, it is conceivable indeed that a man's new found passion for something other than the woman he sees could rekindle an ailing relationship.

In any case, and importantly, an Xbox can be a lot of fun. And just that.

I still haven't played Halo yet.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Would you rather?

Inspired by roissy's post today, I have decided to step out of the Ivory Tower of Evolutionary Psychology that I commonly use to veil my personal stories and share an experience that is private enough to me to make this a first.

The experience I am going to share relates to the question as to whether the betrayal of a woman you (literally) cared for "only hurts because of dishonesty" or whether it is comparable or even more damaging to the male psyche than physical assault of the worst kind.

I honestly cannot relate to the latter, but here is a first hand account of what it is like to find out about a woman's disloyalty after more than half a decade of a picture-book (beta) relationship. As to how the magnitude of such experience compares to the potential impact of physical assault - you be the judge.

It was in my early twenties when I moved in with a girl that I would spend more than the next six years with. I had plenty of experience by that time, including short flings and the heart break following long(er) term relationships. What made this relationship different is that it closely resembled married life.

I did not actually marry this woman, nor did we have children together, but by any other standard we lived the life of newly weds. There was mutual respect and virtually no fights between me an her. There seemed to be an ideal mix of overlapping and distinct interests as well as a match in temperament and personality that made for a successful team in life. For many we were "an ideal couple" with a seeming lack of relationship problems. We seemed inseparable.

I found out about her infidelity after heading to work early one morning. There had been a build up of changes in her behavior that had made me increasingly suspicious. But I still was not prepared for the undeniable physical evidence I encountered this morning.

My body's first reaction was an intense rush of adrenaline. The only time I had ever felt a kick of similar intensity was after slipping and nearly falling off a slim ridge into certain death during a hiking expedition in the Alps.

My hands started shaking. My heart started beating strong enough that I became aware of it despite the shock. I was unable to move. My mouth went dry. And my thoughts started racing. It is easy to fool oneself into believing something that ain't really there, but I can easily relate the thought processes ensuing this event to the Kubler-Ross stages of grief - in much more rapid progression.

The next thing I remember is extreme nausea. My blood pressure must have dropped since I felt very cold all over sudden. I started trembling and put on my jacket again, but still felt as if drowned in ice water. This sensation would not go away for the next couple of hours (my loss of appetite would last several days).

Just to be clear about it. There was nothing I could do about any of that. I was at work and in no way interested in showing any external sign of my inner mental state. I tried to "man up", and mentally put my feelings aside to deal with it at a more appropriate time and place. My body did not obey my will.

I had an appointment that morning which proved difficult to cancel. I tried to show up at the meeting as if nothing had happened. To no avail.

The moment I entered the room, I was asked to sit down, and given a glass of water together with anxious questions whether everything was alright. It was embarrassing since we were in the presence of clients. I tried to joke off my colleagues' concerns and asked everyone to focus on the task at hand. It didn't work. I clumsily rushed to work - and ended up screwing everything up within a matter of minutes.

Next thing, I was asked to sit down and this time I had to confess that I was troubled by something that "had happened earlier this morning". I assured everyone that I am okay again and we went back to work, but only minutes later my colleague suggested that he could finish it by himself and I should take a break.

I walked out of the building, and the next thing I remember is driving aimlessly around in my car. I must have done that for hours. I ended up confronting that girl, packing some stuff and sleeping at a hotel near work. I felt extreme anger. At the girl. At the guy who she was with. At myself. More so, I felt deep humiliation. 

Part of the thoughts that run through a man's mind at that point is how deep the betrayal could have possibly went. Who knew about it? How long were you left in the dark? How could that happen to you?

What seemed to hurt the most was that I had believed that what I did was everything I was supposed to do. I had worked hard on being a perfect partner. And it was from her (and other women) that I had heard that this is the least I could do since women in happy relationships (supposedly) do all that and more. The full extent of a lie does not need to be explained to someone who suffers its dire consequences.

[Little did I know that it would have been better had I just done what I wanted. By following her wishes and needs and acting along the societal code of how a boyfriend behaves I had made a fool of myself.]

The reason for the massive physical and mental changes that I lived through at the time are obvious. Our animal instinct will invoke panic in anyone who is about to leave this planet without leaving a biological legacy behind.

A man has to decide whether he wants to sacrifice the joys and excitement of a never ending pussy-parade in his life for the ease and comfort offered by a stable relationship, and (often) vice versa. So for the male psyche going down the relationship route, finding out that the time, feelings and money invested in a woman were not reciprocated (as her part of the deal is to ensure high paternity certainty) is like finding out that your hard-earned 401K was raided.

This needs emphasis. When this (admittedly rather mundane) episode happened to me, all I could lament about at the time was that I had lost a good part of my "wild twenties". But I was still young, childless and unbound by any financial repercussions (such coming from a marrital contract). My 401K was not needed for retirement yet. I was in the green, yet my brain went amok.

Given that, I cannot imagine what it must be like for a man to find out about a woman's disloyalty when it has actual repercussions on his prospects to procreate (not because I have the strong desire to procreate, but because the reaction triggered by his reptile brain will be way, way more brutal).

Cuckolded men stare into the abyss of a negative 401K account balance on the day of their retirement. They literally fucked up. On the great tree of life that has continually branched from the first DNA on earth up to their existence, they are a mere dead leave that is about to fall off. All they worked for. All they ever believed in. All of it - in vain.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Indirect Effects of Mass-Betaization on Society

Instead of another elaborate long post lamenting about what has already repeatedly been said before ( and much more eloquently so), here are just some quick (recent) links to illustrate the point.


Men giving up I: Omega male escapism
There is an increasing trend among young men to skip chasing skirts for extended hours on the web. This has been most thoroughly documented among young Asian men, where adaptation to masturbation has caused an endemic of "vaginal ejaculation disorder" (that is, even if these men get sex they can't enjoy it). So, no surprise, then that a size able number of Japanese men has petitioned their government to pass a  law legalizing marriage to manga comic characters. And now one of them couldn't even wait for that to happen, he just does it.
This is a (considerable) step forward from prolonged adolescence, porn-addiction and mere social isolation. The otaku/gamer culture has found its own ways to deal with sexuality involving an abnormal ratio of trans-gender fantasies and extreme forms social anxiety.
During on of my trips to Tokyo, I have visited one of the infamous internet cafes in Akhibara that have literally become home to some of these guys. Each floor sports several lockable booths that entail nothing but a comfy chair and a internet-linked computer (as well as as some handkerchiefs). There is a shower and a vending machine and a 24/7 concierge that sells anything from tooth paste to ties. People actually live there. Close by are "maid cafes", where guys can engage in harmless flirting with girls pretending to be sailor moon. A popular offer of theirs is to let a guy rest his head on their thighs for a while (a "knee cushion"). You can also "hire" women for a day to go shopping with you. All of them are dressed manga-style and none of them allows as much as a kiss.

Men giving up II: No sex means no need to make money.
Herbs are on the rise as a direct consequence. Guys who are happy with living in a fantasy world just need the bare minimum of existence. A men without any hope for getting laid will find it difficult to convince himself that he should work his ass off for that big house and the sports car. Often times the burden of paying for food, shelter and internet access falls on parents (who naturally rebel against their unnatural burden of providing for a man in his prime). Unthinkable just a few decades ago, you can now find men in their thirties still living at mom's.

Men giving up III: Rage-induced killing sprees.
Remember the guy who went on the killing spree in a Pennsylvania gym some months ago? He had a blog, where he made things crystal clear:
“Why do this? It seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So, err, after a month of that, this little [expletive] has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48.”
He is not alone: Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in a rampage at Virgina Tech in 2007 once claimed to have seen “promiscuity” when he looked into the eyes of a woman on campus.

Yes, these are extreme examples (especially those intermingled with a different culture), but my point is that there is a general trend upwards. And this will continue as long as the causing factors keep going upwards, too. 

If I am right, this is just a hint of things to come.