Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A Revolution in Paradise

On my most recent trip across the Atlantic, I was flipping through the free newspapers provided by the flirtatious flight attendants when the following train of thoughts started rushing through my mind.

The Economist had a front page piece on "woman power", commemorating the fact that women are about to become the majority of the American work force (they already are in several other Western countries).

The commentaries on the subject were surprisingly bearable, if not mildly interesting. Apparently, even within feminist circles it now gets noted that the original strive for gender-equalization conflicted with the reality of gender specificities. So far so good. What I had not fully realized is that this notion has flipped into a rather common movement of female supremacy, with women using "biological findings" to support the notion that some "feminine" qualities make them better suited for high profile positions.

The main economics course at the university I attended started with a professor stating (only half jokingly) that you could either make it to the several hours of lectures every week, or save the money on textbooks and subscribe to the Economist. It's a no b.s. news magazine. And that is because when money is on the table, even the biggest ideologue becomes rather rational real quick. Not surprisingly then, the commentary regarding female supremacy more than devastated that argument.

Given the strengths of the phenomena we are dealing with, I have no doubt that a hundred years from now, there will be little understanding for our society's struggle with the obvious:

Men and Women are different. 
Our natural gender roles are largely complimentary. There is no better or worse. 

(before you object - read on; I will deal with the issues you probably have in mind down the line)

It is fascinating to see that women increasingly realize that the original ideology of feminism isn't their actual cup of tea. Instead of following along with the feminist codex, women have decided to go cherry picking. The modern woman wants all the plus sides of "emancipation", such as her own income and free reign over her sex life. What she doesn't want is clothes that don't make her look and feel sexy, man hate and some other things that got promoted by the first generation of feminists.

And as a result of that - FANFARE! - feminists start thinking and writing like realist/masculinist/roissysphere/MRA/MGTOW bloggers!

Take these excerpts I got an article on "what went wrong" with feminism from The Telegraph (the other newspaper I read that day):

 "It started with Girl Power and has sunk into mindless hedonism. ... has sexual equality backfired?"

Sound familiar?

Yes, women have cherry picked their  "new rights" . To quote:

"In previous generations many women had to repress their physical needs and experiences in order to fall in with social conventions, and feminism was needed to release them from the cage of chastity,"

That was then. Women fought that successfully. Now we have:

"A generation of young girls is interpreting liberation as the right to ...  no-strings sex, celebrating one-night stands as notches on their designer handbags. For them, STDs are almost a badge of honour, eating disorders commonplace and men who talk of love and commitment are sneered at for "going soppy".

That is British for "silly"/"sentimental". Take that beta males!

Women now slut around happily  (with guys who are not "going soppy). Until they reach the late twenties and panik for husbandry that is. Women want money to buy stuff and are willing to work hard for it. Women want the studs and are willing to work hard for that, including eating disorders and plastic surgery.

So, young women want the no-commitment hotties. Lots of them. And they don't want any of that other crap that the old school feminists had in mind. But, of course, what the feminist author takes away from seeing what we all see, is a deep concern for "The Return of Sexism" - and thereby entirely drops the ball.

The point she is missing when contemplating modern slutism is the same point that feminism missed as a whole:

How does all of this affect men?

As I wrote above, the gender roles were there for a reason. The system worked. Each side brought something in, and got something out of the deal that is any social interaction.

One could argue that the deal was always biased in favor of women (as masterly done in the must read Dr. Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power"): Men in the role of bread givers were forced to work harder, fight more and die earlier. They also have no biological certainty in their offspring and therefore run the risk of investing all their resources (materially and emotionally) into another man's child - an evolutionary suicide. Men were as powerless as women (or had it even worse).

The fact that there was a "Rebellion in Paradise" - not by the weaker (male) side, but by the side that felt the most sexually repressed is telling about the powers of biological drive.

To be fair - women were sexually repressed and reliant on men for resources. And they did away with that dark side to their gender role.

But nobody did away with the dark side of the male gender role. Men are still expected to pay for dates (and children, and even their ex-wives), which results in men still choosing more profitable jobs and stress related disease. Women now are the majority of the work force while men are still the majority of the armed forces. The list is long.

And now women even did away with the sentimental men (until their late twenties that is). But the problem is not that they voluntarily subject themselves to sexism.
The problem is that they thereby cut off another slice of the ancient gender deal. As Lupo put it so eloquently:
"In ye olden days of yore, the post-30 woman would actually have given you the best years of her life: the pre-30 years. Instead, they generally give the best years of their life to the dong-carousel, and take it out on the poor saps who date them later in life."

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon

The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is one of the most interesting internet memes I know. There is a common definition floating around the web. And it is very successful - as most people can relate to what it describes:

"The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon occurs when a person, after having learned some (usually obscure) fact, word, phrase, or other item for the first time, encounters that item again, perhaps several times, shortly after having learned it."

However, as much as we all seem to be able to relate to it, there is no actual scientific basis to it other than just another cognitive bias: selective attention. While we tend to ignore information that we cannot relate to, we are eager to connect any newly incoming data to the existing semantic network of personal knowledge that is our brain. As a result, there is no actual research on the topic and the wikipedia regarding this lemma entry gets repeatedly deleted.

The term "Baader-Meinhof" stems from a group of German communist terrorists that was active from the late sixties until the late nineties. Despite their rather respectable death toll, they never managed to get any fame outside the borders of Germany. thus, for Americans, hearing about "Baader-Meinhof" for the first time resembles one of these moments where we get in touch with a large chunk of knowledge that we never even knew before existed.

As of late, the "Baader-Meinhof" has popped up on several web pages again. The main reason for that is that a 2008 movie on the events surrounding said terrorists has been made available on the Netflix instant movie list. It is done well enough (and the competition bad enough) that it propelled into the top ten within weeks. Thus, the number of people who experience "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon" by actually learning about "Baader-Meinhof" has reached an all time high.

For me (having grown up with Baader-Meinhof on the daily evening news), the true "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" is something entirely different.

And the movie portrays it quite well:

What the Baader-Meinhof story reminds me of, is the magnetic effect of outlaws on women. More than that, it is the willingness of women to go all the way out, and even kill when under the influence of an uber-alpha male.

[I am not saying that men are not susceptible to the charisma of demagogues. What I am referring to is a sexual component that makes matters more complicated - and fascinating.]

To the left you can see a photograph of Anrdeas Baader, the leader of the original group (of mostly women), who started it all.

It is this exact photograph that instigated my thoughts on this matter (long before realizing the connection between female attraction and male social status). It was back at college when I shared an apartment with a female friend of mine. We were platonic friends, but pretending to be a couple increased our changes of getting an apartment significantly (people were afraid of renting out to groups of young, single men).

I had known her for a while, and I was aware of her liberal tendencies (no surprise), but I still was flabbergasted when she put up a life size poster of said terrorist's profile next to her chich crack-y New Age paraphernalia. When I asked her why she would put up a mass murderer, her immediate response was that "he is hot".

And she did not stop there. Soon, I would be initiated to the "hotness" of Che Guevara, Charles Manson and other "bad boys" of political recent history. In each of these cases, she had some "political" reasons to justify her admiration, yet it really all boiled down to one: These men were rebels. Living life "without compromise" and "with a passion". A passion mostly for themselves, but disguised as a higher moral motif to drag others along.

While the German movie about the Baader-Meinhof terrorists unveils this very mechanism with which Andreas Baader hypnotized the women who followed him into his grave, one has to dig a bit deeper into another cinematic attempt at a similar story. In "Public Enemies", the story of John Dillinger and "Billie" Frechette is told as a true love-y life-long romance. 
Which it was. 
For her.

The web site "" (note the plural), which advertises a book on the "Women of the John Dillinger Gang." draws a slightly different image than the lovey-dovey movie. one that fits way better into the alpha status world view. One that describes my own personal version of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon rather well.

In her own words: "I'm not sorry I loved him. That part I couldn't help. I'm sorry what happened to me and what it cost me after I was caught."

It is important to note that women are not attracted to evil. They do not really care for what reason the man they fell for kills. They are attracted to policeman and thugs alike. All that counts is the high social status (behavior) that comes with these societal roles: "I like John's kind. I don't mean because he was a criminal and carried guns around, and wasn't afraid of police or any one. There was something else. John might have been a soldier or something else besides what he was."

That "something" is essence of what draws women to men of this kind like moths into the flames. 
It is expressed in how these men walk, talk and act. It is reflected in the reaction of those around them. It is an invisible force in the social universe. That "something" that women sense in these guys is the high social status that we ascribe to men with a fearless will to gain power. 
A woman will always prefer to be number two to a strong man than the number one of a weak man.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Strawberry Fields Forever

"Franz may be strong, but his strength is directed outward; when it comes to the people he lives with, the people he loves, he's weak. Franz's weakness is called goodness. 

Franz would never give Sabina orders. He would never command her, as Tomas had, to lay the mirror on the floor and walk back and forth on it naked. Not that he lacks sensuality; he simply lacks the strength to give orders. 

There are things that can be accomplished only by violence. Physical love is unthinkable without violence...What if she had a man who ordered her about? A man who wanted to master her?"
[M. Kundera - The Unbearable Lightness of Being

This post is destined to fail, but I will still give it a try. I have previously bragged about a routine I had developed years ago that has revealed to me the ubiquity of female sexual responses. I have been asked to post a description, and after some hesitation I have decided to reveal it in its entirety. 

I have two aims in doing so. First, I want to analyze why and how it works. I am curious for your input. Second, I want to enable female readers to test themselves. What I describe below worked on any woman I tried it with. I claim, it would work on you, too (when I say "worked on", I refer to a positive emotional response). Be honest in your response. Keep in mind, it is hard to put yourself into the actual situation when you are reading this from your arm chair. I will try to add as much situational information (such as about my tonality and body language) to enable the reader a "feel" for how this goes down in reality.

I strongly believe that congruency is important when working with routines. The stuff below really is based on my life and has many truly autobiographical elements to it. I have shared the routine with other guys before and the overwhelming response that this "is so you". Note, for example, that I have a slight European accent. I can not imagine this routine to work for guys who are of the calm, serious kind (this routine is meant to be fun).

Thus, while this might work on any woman, it might not work for any man. 

I have used this routine in a diverse set of contexts (it does not require a bar-type of situation). It is designed to work even if you open a group. yet, if you aim "for the kill", your chances go up exponentially if you do your homework:

Instead of just screening girls for their attractiveness, use the same glimpse to check for "where she is at". Is she happy or sad, energetic or tired, alone or with friends? As I will outline below, one can use the same routine (as in the words that get spoken) to almost opposite effect. What seems funny when delivered one way will be sensual when delivered another. Calibration is key.
There are many more small things one can do to transform the environment into an ideal situation.
Just as an example - since the routine leads to rapid isolation of the girl, group management is key. One way to achieve that simply is to sit on a bar stool, removing the stool next to you, effectively creating a gap. In a crowded bar situation this will lead to girls ordering drinks right next to you. They will be away from their friends and in need of conversation while waiting to be served. You start from a great vantage point since you are comfortably seated and she is literally approaching you already.

the routine:
An ideal way to launch into an opener is to be as casual as possible. A stranger watching you from a distance should assume that you know the girl since years.
So here goes:

"Do you like strawberries?" (friendly, expectant smile)

[This works because it is brief, asexual, socially acceptable and highly unexpected. It will make her curious as to why you would ask that and is almost impossible to shoot down. Note that it is a question and hence an open loop.]

Wait for a response, but keep in mind that her response doesn't matter (I got "I am allergic" once or twice in reply - it didn't change things a bit).
"I freaking love strawberries. You know why?" (smile, slowly shake head with raised eye brows)

[It's brief, likely to mirror her positive response and ends with a rhetoric question. "Freaking" sub-communicates that you are gentleman-y polite, nice and savvy enough about social rules thereby lowering her anxiety to get socially embarrassed by your approach. The hook starts forming.] 

"Where I am coming from, we have these fields. All summer you can go there throughout the day. They give you a small wooden basket. You can eat and collect as many strawberries as you like. You pay by the weight. It is awesome. But you know what is best?" (slowly get more intense, focusing in on her. The open friendly smile gets slightly impish)
[As boring as it sounds, it evokes pleasant imagery and she will still be hooked. She knows you got a point, but can't quite figure out why you are telling her all that. And it is very hard for a woman to just walk away from an open question. Again, note how her answers don't matter at all.] 

"Nobody watches the fucking fields at night!" (almost whispered, so nobody else can hear; end on a seductive smile)   
[This is a key moment. The word "fucking" is essential and needs to be stressed in a non-aggressive way. She gets your intention now, and her surprise primes her for some excitement.]

"So, if I really like a girl. You know what I do?"
[It is essential to refer to a third person ("a girl") and use present tense. You start forming a fantasy/daydream now.]

"I take her by the arm, just like that..." (offer your arm, in a gentleman-y way)
[This is very light (reverse!) kino, your first sub-communication of dominance/leadership - and a compliance test which will help you calibrate. If she does not take your arm, you made a mistake at any point above. Be insistent for a moment, but make sure the social awkwardness does not turn against you if she really refuses to go along with that. Don't forget to reward her with a smile if she does what you want her to do. 
If you don't have her isolated just yet, do it know by walking away with her to a safe, but secluded spot.]

"... and then, we jump the fence.  It is slightly illegal, you know, but so much fun. And we sit down in the dark and eat as many strawberries as we want." (laugh and free your arm again)
[That little bit about breaking the law takes care of the bad boy vibe. Remember that pacing is important. You do not want her to destroy your spiel by asking you questions or firing up shit tests already. Don't rush, but lead her along, always giving her a slight piece more of what turns into an actual role play fantasy.]

"So we sit there in a warm summer night, watching the stars, eating strawberries - and you know what I do if I really like you?" (smile)
[This is hidden qualification. She wants you to like her, of course. We all want to be liked. Even by the people we don't feel attracted to. The story got fun and exciting. You surprised her before, she wants more of that.]

"I would have a backpack on me. And in there... I'd have a bottle of good, tasty red wine. Did you ever try strawberries with red wine?" 
[The sensuality is key. But this is getting cheesy. We deal with that by breaking the intense focus and teasing her a little bit.]

"Well, just imagine. It is dark. How do you tell the good strawberries from the bad ones? Once in a while you bite in a berry and it is awful." (laugh loudly and break the tension by adjusting your body language as if you would not be sexually interested in her any more; the overall effect should be as if you were disappointed by her silly lack of thinking about this problem)
[This part is deliberately anti-climatic. I often give the girl a slight push on her shoulder at this point (the "you should have thought about this!' kind) as contrast to the increasingly close connection that was formed before. Things had moved too fast up to this point. You give her a break and demonstrate your willingness to walk away. Your intention should get a little bit more ambiguous at this point again. A nervous laugh on her side is the best reaction at this point.]

 "So this is where the wine comes in. You get a bad berry, you take a sip of wine and everything is great again. And if I really, really like you and you have been a good girl... I would have another surprise. You have any idea?" (get close to her again as you say this; lower your voice)
[You just pushed her away, so open the loop to hook her again.]

 "Well, we sit there under all these stars and get a little tipsy from that wine, and all those smells and tastes. I would have something else in that backpack for you." (smile a lot; get away from her a little bit again)
[This needs to be delivered in the genuine fun, pleasant way that it promises; it contrasts directly with the short shocking break that reminded her of the bad berries.] 

 "I have this red satin tie that I use to tie women to my bed frame." (no smile; demonstrate the action)
[There is a moment of shock after all this cheesiness, but she will not be entirely surprised. This is when you get "The look". She will glance at you from the corner of her eye'; secretly, knowingly, expectantly. She is preparing for a make out and it most cases you could go in for a kiss right there and then. Better is to use that sexual tension by amping it up some more.]  

"... but for you, I have something else in mind." (impish smile)
[Needless to say, by this time your bodies should almost touch.]   

"I would use it as a blindfold. ---"  
(relax, lean back, then:)
"Do you like chocolate?"  
[This is the silliest question of all, but, again an important break from the intensity and sexual spell. Lean all the way out. Make it seem like you changed the topic.]

"Have you ever had chocolate and red wine?" (get in again)

"I'd have a selection of different kinds of chocolate. Good European chocolate. White, dark and bittersweet. And I'd break it into tiny pieces, and take that blindfold and put it around you..." (pretend that you have a satin tie that you put around her head; do not touch her until the very end where your arms are at the back of her head, then slightly touch her hair as if you would "by accident" when tying the tie. It will send shivers down her spine.)
[This is a big compliance test. You can never touch a woman's hair if she does not trust you. Touching a woman's hair in public is like touching her thigh or butt. Strangers and creeps are not allowed to do that. If her friends are around somewhere, they will keep an eye on her and this moment always sends off an alarm. They will gauge her reaction closely. Do not attempt this move if you sense resistance!]

"... and I would keep my head right next to your ear, just like so. Because this is not about kissing. This is about so much more. I have now robbed you of your most important sense. All that remains is smelling, tasting and touch." (whisper in her ear; the last words need to be said in a very sexual way.)
[Never mind the logic. We do not care about hearing, we are getting to the climax of sensuality, and she is about to swoon.]

"... and I would take the chocolate, piece by piece and tell you to stick out your tongue - like that."
[Final compliance test. Bite your lower lip as she does it.]

"... and put on that tiny piece and tell you to take it in your mouth. And - uh, uh - don't be greedy! Do not swallow!" (fatherly, as if she is a silly girl. Do not fear to ruin it by building up some tension or breaking the spell by making her laugh)

"... instead let it melt. In your mouth." (slow, seductive speech; move your head from her ear towards her mouth)
[It is easy to go for a kiss at this point. For good effect, you can remind her to close her eyes "since she is blindfolded". If you are really good, you let her do that and go in for the kiss, but stop short at her mouth. She will kiss you when she opens her eyes.]
There are many ways to follow up on that. Remember that a bar make out significantly reduces the chance of a same night lay (you gave her what she wanted). So, if this is not about winning a bet about scoring a make out within 5 minutes, simply let her ask her questions ("who are you?"/ "where are you from?" / "do you always do that?") now that she is attracted to initiate the "comfort phase". If you need more attraction, it is easy to follow up the above with Captain Jack's "strawberry fields" routine.

Although it is entertaining, I have not used this routine in more than two years. There are significant downsides in using long routines when meeting girls. It is good to have a bunch of standard answers to standard questions, but a long routine stifles any spontaneity (which is the fun part) and will hold you back in your personal growth. What it can do, however, is reveal the uniformity of human reactions to well crafted parts of social engineering. Just like we have predictable (emotional) reactions to great movies, music and other trigger pulses, a good routine will yield predictable reactions, too.
No need to feel bad about getting attracted to me, ladies. :-p

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Women are all the same - Part II

"She had come to him to escape  a world where all bodies were equal. She had come to him to make her body unique, irreplaceable. But he, too, had drawn an equal sign between her and the rest of them: he kissed them all alike, stroked them alike, made no, absolutely no distinction between [her] body and the other bodies. He had sent her back into the world she tried to escape."
[M. Kundera - The Unbearable Lightness of Being]

I had two epiphanies in my life as to the question of individuality and uniqueness.

The first insight I gained into the reality behind the comfy illusion of "self" that we bathe ourselves in I got thanks to More specifically, the recommendation system they set up for anyone who is crazy enough to rate his purchases.

At the time I was your typical hip, early twen who prided himself in his exquisite and eclectic taste in the fine and not so fine arts. I was surrounded by and surrounded myself with geeky nerds, fashionsitic hipsters, rowdy jocks and music snobs. And it rubbed off on me, of course. I prided myself in being neither of the above but a little bit of all of them at the same time.

I was particularly proud of the very out-of-the-ordinary selection of music that would constantly blare in my apartment, car and headphones. My friends and I were on the constant quest for the rarest gem that we could show off to each other. My mix tapes (and later mp3 CD's) sported Viennese A capella groups from the late thirties next to Russian high school bands improvising on self-built synthesizers. Given that even within that group I found my own taste in music, I felt like the uniquest being on the planet. Who else would enjoy the weird mix ranging from classical and fold music to modern mainstream all the way into obscure metal, experimental noise and cutting edge electronica?

My literary taste was similar eclectic. I was one of the few who commuted between the humanities and tech-y parts of campus, proud to be able to discuss the problems of postmodern deconstructionism with one set of people and the latest progress in magnetic resonance spectroscopy with another. And my young show-offy self felt the need to let the whole world know by uploading all my irrelevant opinions on the individual elements of my private library to the rating system (well, there also was a free book coupon for every ten reviews submitted).

It was then that it happened.

After literally registering more than a hundred books in my possession, I returned to the home screen one day and felt compelled to check the recommendations produced by the vast database exploiting similar users.

I was intrigued to find out that all of the ten books that got recommended to me by after it had learned about my reading habits were books that I had already read or was about to read.

But what really blew my mind was that all of the then top music CDs that were selected for me - based on my book selections alone! - were bands in my current playlist.

It was amazing. I had not rated a single song and I had never bought a CD at this retailer.
All that the system knew about me was my taste in literature.
And that of others, of course.
And as it happens, there are many, many guys out there who share my interests and tastes. To the degree that they also like the same music.

It was then that my idea of being a unique individual crumbled. If there was anything that I would have used to "prove" that I am different form anyone else around me, it would have been the one way in which I (thought) I expressed my youthful individuality: my eclectic collection of music.
And it had failed.

But accepting that you are just one of the many, replaceable as any other individual that lives and has ever lived is just part of the realization. The even bigger, more shocking insight is gained by realizing the lack of uniqueness by those who surround you.

When I started out "picking up" women, my biggest obstacle was the most basic social skill of all: Holding up a conversation of small talk.

I remedied that problem by crafting a routine that I would use time and again on the girls I got interested in. It started out as a couple of sentences that I stole from other guys that posted their successful use online. But over time, I transformed them into my personal life story and added detail and effect to it.

I repeated the routine dozens of times, sometimes altering small nuances of what was being sad and done, and I soon had a feel for what resulted in positive reaction and what better got dropped from the little play I put on for the object of my desire. After more than a year and literally hundreds of approaches, I had it perfected.

The routine I had developed consists of approximately 3-5 minutes of constant talking. It ends with a kiss. I almost always made it to that end. What is remarkable about the experience of "running it" is that virtually all women react the exact same way when they encounter it. The predictability of reaction enabled me to win lots of bets (I have not used that routine in almost two years). But what is more than any online bragging or cheap bar makeouts I got thanks to its invention and perfection is the philosophical insight it gathered me: I still remember the shock when I first realized this, and part of that feeling never went away.

Experiencing first hand that any woman will give you the exact same look at the exact same moment in your spiel is outright frightening.

I realize that all I have achieved is a little glimpse into what social engineers do on a daily basis. I have found some buttons to push. Buttons that we all share.

And just like the guys at Walt Disney accidentally found out how they can exploit our natural tendency to like faces with big eyes, a big protruding forehead and a small nose and mouth, I tapped into a natural tendency of women to feel positively about certain male traits.

And just like we all fall for artificial and caricatured cuteness thanks to the genetic programs that are part of our human condition, women fell for some of the cheesy lines I whispered in their ears. Thanks to the power of our biological determined mind, the (emotional) result was entirely predictable.

There is a flip side to the female lust for alpha males.

By wanting "nothing but the best", women get drawn to the same few men in hordes. All their uniqueness and romantic ideas about individuality falter as the sexual tastes of women of all colors and ages align.

It is right there and then when women become all the same.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Women are all the same - Part I

I am not shy to stand up for the wisdom I share (and receive) by maintaining this and following other blogs in real life. I believe that much of the contra-intuitive and surprising insight that (a subgroup of interested) men have found in the past decade or so about female sexuality is eternal truth in the form of biological rule, nature's almighty law - and therefore of utmost consequence to each and every member of our society.

Using a massive database of systematic experimentation and a free flow of the resulting empirical knowledge (field reports) combined with critical thought (thanks to the intelligence of the masses), we have learned that female sexuality had been stifled throughout the ages - for a reason.

Society has lifted the veils and stigmas that men had put upon women under the assumption that these restrictions were morally questionable and ultimately obsolete - and now face a new reality. We have the unique opportunity to study female mating behavior in the near absence of social control. And for those who believed the old myths of "horndog men" versus "virtuous females", the effect is mind blowing.

There are good reasons, however, to discuss these things in anonymity. Putting a face, titles and biography to a publication tends to bias the reader's view. The lack of credentials forces the lazy mind to investigate the value and validity of someone's scribbling by form and content of the text at hand alone. The lack of personal endorsement has the added advantage that there is no need for self censorship. While any text that bears a name is ridden with that person's need for praise and approval, the only justification of existence of an anonymous text remains the dissemination of a thought "that needed to get out". This is the reason we enabled the option of anonymous commenting on this site (which is the most popular option used), and post using pseudonyms.

The last and saddest reason for the demand of anonymity is that the ideas we are discussing are not just contrary to mainstream belief - they threaten the entire status quo. The seducer's insight into female desire is powerful and dangerous. Those of you who enjoy the selection of blogs we list as friends (and related blogs), know what I am alluding to. Once anonymity is lifted, the quality of shared insight declines thanks to the inevitable kick in of self-censorship and fear of legal ramifications.
Anonymity provides protection for ideas that are ahead of their time. Ideas that would get shot down in any conversation outside the veil of fake identities. Ideas that are truly revolutionary.  Ideas that come with too much of an emotional baggage. Hurtful truths, who by virtue of being are powerful enough to instantenously right kill the p(r)etty lies that we tell ourselves.

Some of the insights that the diverse Pick Up Artists, Men's Rights Activists, Evolutionary Psychologists, Seducers, Free Spirits and Critical Observers of the Zeitgeist in our blogroll share are more controversial than others. And I believe that the reason they get attacked with utmost fervor is that they insult the female idea of self.

You see, for women, the idea of "being different" is quintessential. Two idiosyncratic puzzle pieces fitting together is is the very basis of the female dream of monogamy (with an attractive male) - the ultimate emotional need of any woman. Two matching individuals. The ultimate idea of romantic love. The heart of any romance novel or chick flick. 

Without the belief in inner beauty and the importance of "character" and "personality" for relationships, any woman will be ripped of her ability to sleep calmly. If "inner beauty" doesn't count, there is little hope for even the most attractive girls given the certain rapture of outer beauty by father time.

So maybe it does not come as a surprise that, when I went back to our own comment section and compared it with those of others, I realized that the strongest reactions by (mostly female) commenters followed posts related to one of the deepest unspoken, paradigmatic assumptions of "Game" are discussed:

For sexual attraction personality doesn't matter.

All the seduction techniques we have at hand work on this assumption (and do so well):
There are (almost) no "type-specific" techniques. The things we discuss work "on women" and not on just a select few. We even go so far to assume that if sex doesn't happen it was due to the man's (and ultimately the technique's fault)!

And I postulate: rightly so! The old clitoral joke "under the hood they're all the same" is true when it comes to female sexuality. Just like it is true for male sexuality (ever wondered why "Playboy" magazine works?).
After all, we are dealing with the raw, unchangeable laws of nature here.

The belief that "each pot finds its lid" is not just a romantic idea, but the base of our society. The harsh truth - there are few sexually attractive individuals and lots and lots of compromise - is a deadly blow to the ideal of monogamy.

We all want to be special little snowflakes.

And to some extent we are.  Of course, there is truth to our uniqueness. Yet, it is far more limited than we think.

And completely irrelevant for the sexual marketplace.

A woman's youth and overwhelming beauty as well as a man's earth shattering power are enough to short-circuit any one of our brains. Sexual attraction works in a one dimensional universe.

The result may be painful to bear for us (and women in particular), but taking of the pink tinted glasses to stare into the gory face of reality is the only way to act rationally. And time and again it has been proven that  acting rationally is the winning strategy in life. It might be another addition to the list of insults that humans had to endure during the past century such as the realization that we are descendants and part of the animal kingdom and the realization that we are not in control of our actions:

We get loved for what makes us sexually attractive and not for what makes us unique.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Today's Male Writers are Pussies - UPDATED

Comments were particularly good for this entry so I've copy and pasted some comments and my response below.

I'm frankly astonished to read this article in the New York Times. But, of course, the books section has a separate editor.

A woman [I think many men underestimate how key women will be in restoring sexual balance in our culture... many of them crave a return by men to real masculinity] writes about how the last generation of famous, male, American novelists (Updike, Mailer, Bellow, Roth) were lusty, sexually aggressive and sexually interested fuckers. And how the current generation of famous, male, American novelists (Franzen, Wallace, Chabon, Eggers, Safran Foer), are like wounded little pussy boys who would rather wallow in their own sensitivity than fuck a girl hard like she really wants.

So these things go in cycles. I predict there is a generation now writing, about 15 years younger on average than Jonathan Franzen and David Eggers (God I hate him), who will write some of the most sexually aggressive, testosteroney literary fiction in history. I might even know someone who's doing that right now. Wink wink.

The Naked and the Conflicted

--end original post--

selected comments and my response follow.. —Dogen

John Smith said...

it's nice to think that we're some type of vanguard...mayhap one day some well-known chap might perchance mention his blogroll as having been influential in pursuing a forgotten literary tradition of masculinity. one can only is after all the beginning of a new calendar year.

Charlie said...

Doesn't one of the characters in Jonathan Safran Foer's Everything Is Illuminated have sex with his wife through a glory hole because he somnambulantly beats her if they're not separated by a wall? And I think there's another character who has prodigious amounts of sex, starting at like 11 years of age. Some of these guys are far more interested in sex than the article implies. JSF wasn't so much not interested in sex as his characters had to deal w/ puritanical repression of the sex act, which makes complete sense given contemporary attitudes.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if I can agree with this. You can clearly pick out a few male writers that aren't pussy whipped, which would make your whole point moot. Example Tom Clancy or Brett Easton Ellis. "Sabrina don't stare at it. Eat it" Awesome fucking line.

John Smith: I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. But at the risk of seeming foolish, yeah, it is nice!

Charlie: That's a good point, and one I should have addressed if I wasn't such a painfully lazy blogger. You are absolutely right, some of those writers (Franzen and DFW for sure) have some pretty sex-obsessed characters. I haven't read the Safran Foer scenes you reference (or don't recall them). But I do remember that famous scene in Franzen's "The Corrections" when Chip masturbates himself using the chaise longue in his apartment, and of course he has sex repeatedly with his attractive younger female student.

On the surface, this refutes the point of this post. But I think the NYTimes author does a good job of pointing up the difference between a zesty, lusty obsession with sex (earlier generation) and a hinky, self-recriminating obsession with sex (current generation). And I think this is the key difference. Certainly Bellow and Updike take on sex unblinkingly, and happily, even when it leads to pain or suffering for their characters. And the remarkable thing about Portnoy's Complaint is that features one of the most self-conscious, sex-obsessed and confused narrators in all of fiction, and yet you never get the feeling that Roth really has a problem with any of the sex. Contrast Eggers or Franzen, who may mention sex and even wallow in it, but with whom you always get the feeling that they hate themselves for being sexual men.

I recognize that I'm probably splitting hairs here, but such are the joys of literary criticism. No one can ever definitively prove me wrong! Anything goes! Huzzah!

((And we have completely left out the entire school of white, male, extremely influential literary fiction writers that have been called "American Paranoid"... specifically Thomas Pynchon for the earlier group, Don DeLillo for the mid-term group, and Chuck Pahlaniuk for the current generation, but this comment is long enough already... and it's an Evo-psych/Sex blog, not a litcrit blog, right?))

Anonymous: That's another good point. Any era will have plenty of writers on any side of a given issue. I could name also, to further your point, Chuck Pahlaniuk and Michel Houellebecq (though he's not American, of course... anyway, there are others). But I think that just further proves the point. Bellow, Roth, Updike, and Mailer were/are the GODS of their generation, according to people like the New York Times (all I mean by the NYT is the "cultural arbiters of the day... politics is irrelevant here... or it is only secondarily relevant; my point is, WHO do the current arbiters of good taste consider "great"?).

Today the GODS (as far as white, male Americans) are considered to be Franzen, Wallace, and Chabon (I don't think Eggers really pulls rank with these people at the same level, and thank goodness... I think Eugenides is working his way into this group, but if you have read "Middlesex" you understand how this only strengthens my point). It's immaterial whether these writers deserve their elevation. The point is... these are the writers that get elevated these days, the ones that rise to intellectual prominence in our era. These are the writers that reflect our times. Tom Clancy sells a hell of a lot of books, but very few people will read a Tom Clancy novel in 100 years, whereas lit-crit scholars (only a few, of course, but some) will still read David Foster Wallace in 100 years. I love Tom Clancy and I don't mean to rag on him, but it's fucking true.

Finally, incidentally, I have to say, I really really think David Foster Wallace was the best American writer of the last 20 years or so (white, black, male, female, purple, green, transgendered, vampire, hippopotamus, leprechaun, upside down, or inside out). Yes he has huge, gaping flaws. Yes "Infinite Jest" is almost unreadable. Yes, the NYT woman is right to say that he suffered from his generation's (and ours) unfortunate neurosis about male sexuality. But he alone of contemporary writers that I have read (and I humbly submit that I have read a LOT), DFW combines...

1) blinding, raw, scary, native intelligence of the Dante/Shakespeare/Rain-Man kind

2) a deep love of writing, the written word, the sound of words, the effect words can have

3) respect for the emotional experience of the reader; a desire to reach out to the reader and humbly engage him/her in emotional communication; an aversion to lecturing the reader or preaching to him/her (Pahlaniuk for all his talent lacks this). A humble and somewhat bewildered LOVE OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS

4) the cojones to try new and weird stuff in his writing. Much of which doesn't work at all. Much of which does. The bizarreness that Harold Bloom marks out as the true mark of an all-time great (and yes, I am talking about the Milton and Melville kind of great here).

Combine #4 with 1-3, and you get some spectacular failures along with some of the most intense, evocative, generous, and astonishing writing of modern times. DFW was GENEROUS, that's the best word I can think of.

Anyway, no one is reading this comment at this point, but my point was that it pains me to group him with Franzen, Chabon, and especially Eggers, and ESPECIALLY that fraud, Safran Foer, because I consider DFW about five cuts above those others. But it's true, on the charge of being scared of his own masculinity, I think DFW was guilty.

God only knows how many such sins I myself am guilty of. I'm aware of about 87 myself, and I'm sure I'm blind to another 900. DFW was a better writer than I'll ever be, and might have been a better man (though how do you measure that? and the poor bastard offed himself with a wife and kid in tow, which is a black mark if you ask me, mitigated as it might be by his clinical depression). Anyway... DFW was a big-hearted enough son-of-a-bitch that I feel somewhat guitly even criticizing him. Ironic, I know, for those of you used to me pontificating on why this or that girl's hair did or did not meet my criteria for being properly yankable. What can I say? I'm a softie underneath it all.

Thanks for the comments, y'all.