I’ve taken to playing a game which is simultaneously fun and effective with the holiday hoez on the internet dating sites.
Her: 26, one kid, recently divorced after a 2 year marriage.
Me: y’r pal Boxer, hardcore misogynist.
Setting: text messaging, after matching on one of the silly phone apps.
I always ask the question what are you actually looking for within the first five minutes.
What she says she’s looking for is someone who could “start as friends” and “see where things go…” She lied. She says that she wants an LJBF, rather than the regular sexual encounter that she pretended to want on the banging site.
What she’s actually looking for are a large group of men who endlessly chase her, in hopes that she will choose one or more of them. The manosphere will clue you in to this, and it’s true. Unfortunately, the manosphere will then immediately lie to you, and tell you that if you accept this lowly position, you will never, ever get that ass.
Back when I was a young and naïve lad, I took the offer to become a slut’s LJBF quite frequently. I almost always got some mediocre sex, but only after an endless series of encounters punctuated by lies, flaking, demands, wasting money, etc.
When I got clued in (thanks to AfOR and Roosh V.) I began nexting wimminz like this immediately. That changed recently, as you can see above.
What I’ve started doing is reflexively messing with these bitches, by calling their hand and telling them I’m looking for someone to marry. I could excuse this descent into dishonesty with a series of good for the goose rationalizations, but I won’t. I’ll just tell you that it amuses me to do so. It has the effect of flipping the script, as I see the thirsty bitch immediately take the bait and begin kissing my ass in an attempt to take her seriously.
Of course, as she drops ever more frequent and transparent hints about meeting in the real world, I drop ever more ambiguous hints about looking for a wife, and not a friend, and wishing her well in her search for a celibate groveler.
The purpose of this series is to examine the—potentially causal—role that feminism plays in society’s ills. Part 1 discussed how the birth control pill biochemically alters a woman to act contrary to the evolutionary imperative: to optimally reproduce. Part 2 will introduce the Mouse Utopia experiment and some societal implications.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to two main mechanisms: random genetic mutation and natural selection. It’s a matter of established science that mutations occur as a normal course of life and that these are passed to children during reproduction. Natural selection means that those with mostly beneficial mutations survive and pass their genes to their children and those with mostly negative mutations do not. Populations that operate this way are under Darwinian-selection.
In the 1960s and 1970s, researcher John Calhoun performed experiments on mice to find out what would happen to populations where Darwinian-selection mechanisms were removed. He set up utopian environments: spacious with unlimited food and water, clean bedding, and no predation. He seeded the experiment with eight of the best and healthiest stock mice he could acquire. His goal was to test population overcrowding.
Initially everything went great. The mice reproduced as mice do and the population grew exponentially. But then something surprising happened. Long before the colony ran out of space, the population growth slowed, plateaued, and then began to fall as reproduction eventually ceased entirely. This led to complete colony extinction.
Females became more aggressive and male-like. They kicked their young out of the nest before they learned proper social behaviors. Males became disinterested in having sex. Females had to pressure the males for sex. Some homosexual behavior was witnessed.
Mice in the colony ceased to engage in normal, complex mice behaviors. They started clustering together into large groups in areas designed to hold smaller numbers. They would randomly attack each other. Cannibalism began, despite the unlimited food availability.
The most interesting were male effeminate mice who isolated themselves from the rest of the group and never had sex. They spent their entire day standing with others like them, eating, drinking, sleeping, and grooming themselves and each other. Calhoun described them as autistic creatures capable of only the most basic physiological behaviors. He called these the “Beautiful Ones” as their grooming led to clean, attractive, smooth fur coats.
When the social bonds of the colony ceased to function, Calhoun noted:
“Their spirit has died (the first death). They are no longer capable of executing the more complex behaviors compatible with species survival. The species in such settings die”
At the end of the experiment all that were left were the Beautiful Ones, females not interested in males, and social outcasts who did not perform normal mouse behaviors.
The Mouse Utopia experiments raise interesting questions about human populations. Prior to the industrial revolution, Western child mortality was around 40%, but this is now at 1%. Like Mouse Utopia, human populations have broken free of Darwinian selection. In Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?, I noted that humanity’s population pyramids are inverting. This is most advanced in Japan:
Japan’s population is falling. Women are not interested in children. Men have lost interest in sex. Many don’t even bother to masturbate. Evolutionary maladaptive behaviors are entrenched. There is no end in sight. Other countries, like China, are following close behind. In America immigrants are replacing the native population, masking the same trends. Across the world fertility rates continue to decline.[1]
What is happening to humanity?
Due to modern innovations in genetics, researchers have been able to identify a genetic mutation for autistic behavior (like the Beautiful Ones) in rodents to NLGN3 (paper 1; paper 2). Researcher Michael Woodley and his colleagues ran an experiment where sufficient numbers of captive-bred NLGN3 knockout mice were mixed with a population of wild mice. As in the Mouse Utopia experiment, the genetically-damaged mice caused social damage to the entire population. However, if the defective ones were removed, then the colony would begin to recover within as little as a week.
To explain these results, Michael Woodley formulated a general theory of Social Epistasis Amplification. The notion is that genetic mutations of a few can still have deleterious effect on the population of social species as a whole through genetic interactions at the social level (i.e. ‘interorganismal gene-gene interactions’).[2]
Human populations are experiencing the effects of social epistasis. Feminism is one example. Feminists, who often have high mutational load, routinely promote genetically maladaptive behaviors (e.g. the birth control pill; forced assent of homosexuality and transgenderism; delayed marriage) on those with low mutational load. Doing what they suggests literally harms society. Nearly every article on this site serves to highlight these points. Moreover, it is not sufficient to reject feminism: nearly everyone is influenced. MGTOW is one example of resulting maladaptive behavior.[3]
Future parts of this series will explore how we got to this point and expand upon these concepts in greater detail.
[1] And, unlike the mice, humans do not have unlimited resources.
[3] The “Beautiful Ones” were the mice analog of MGTOW: socially isolated and asexual. In Mouse Utopia, mice going their own way ended up destroying the colony.
It’s the holiday season. I know, because I’m starting to see men’s rights and MGTOW web sites declare as much, and in the same sentence, they’ll tell me about how our liberation from feminism is right around the corner. Nevermind the fact that they’ve been posting identical shit every single year since I started reading such web sites, which would have been something like 2007. Unlike the rest of them, I’m not going to lie to you. Nah, I have some practical advice for the lonely hearts, instead.
’round about mid October, I got my ass on Plenty of Rotten Tuna, OKStupid, Stumble, Snatch dot Com, Bender, and all the similar sites, just to enjoy the show; and, what a show it is, too.
Every desperate slut within 500 miles has suddenly regained interest in a relationSHIT, conveniently right before the holidays, when they’re suddenly confronted with the fact that they’re alone and no one likes their dumb asses.
As much as we may like to deny it, there are certainly male correlates to the holiday wimminz on the dating sites. Just as Jane is ready to get down on all fours to take dick in return for not looking like a total loser to her parents at Christmas dinner, so is John ready to suffer through dinner at Jane’s father’s house, in order to get some cunt.
It might not even be sexual. Maybe he just wants a few facebook profile photos to show his skank-ho ex that he can pull a better looking piece of ass. Whatever his motivations, it is wild season on the internet.
So I’ve been hitting lots of new holes in the past few weeks, and striking out with orders of magnitude more than I land. Such is the way of the holiday hoez. And I don’t have any doubt that I’m not the only one.
Of course, if you are one of those nearsighted men who wants a relationSHIT at this time of the year, you might be deceived by the scarcity of responses in light of the overwhelming traffic. A few things you will want to remember, my brothers.
In the first place, you aren’t going to find a decent woman on the internet. The decent girls don’t get on Tinder or Bumble, because they don’t need to. What you will find on the internet are beyond being called prostitutes. A professional skank-ho at least has the dignity to perform a competent service, with a minimum of hassles, and leave when the transaction is concluded.
None of the skank-ho bitches you meet on the internet are worthy of a decent man’s time or attention. A more meaningful relationship can be fostered with a cat or dog, and there are plenty of those down at the shelter. You may have to feed a pet, but that pet will not fuck your friends, wreck your car, or sue you for lifetime alimony.
Every bitch on the fucking sites has taken miles of cock, and no matter how sweet or innocent little Janie looks in her profile photos, it’s a safe bet that she sees you as nothing more than a new piece of furniture, to be used only so long as you continue to be amusing, and to be discarded the moment you become inconvenient.
So you can start crying tears at the fact that little Janie has quit responding to your messages, and send her ever more invitations to connect, making yourself look more like a thirsty simp. Or you can message Susie, Staci, Josie and Amy, and let one or more of them worship your cock, until that day that little Janie decides she actually does want a new rocking chair (with penis attached) and finally calls you up.
You can be absolutely certain that you are not the first chair that little Janie has lowered herself onto — in fact, your turn will most likely be in the mid three digits. No matter how tough you might be, or what a good earner you are, little Janie has already seen every simp move you can make, and your lovesick messages telling her how she’s “the one” is about as interesting to her as a Star Trek rerun.
When I was a little boy, I just assumed I would get married and have a wife, in whom I could confide things, through whom I would get children, and with whom I would build a complete life. Of course, when I was that age, I also assumed I’d get a flying car, just like the ones I saw on the Blade Runner movie, and I assumed that I’d be able to take a trip to Jupiter, just like I saw in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I can keep wishing it were so, and by extension, wishing that I could bring back the innocent mentality of little Boxer who was naïve enough to build such mental castles-in-the-sky, and the minute I act on such immature wishes, I have set myself up as prey for a wimminz, who will eventually divide my life’s work up between herself, the state, and a bunch of scroungy divorce attorneys.
Or I can live in the real world, and accept the material conditions on the ground as they actually exist. Life is not all bad here. After work yesterday, I met Angie, and fucked her hard. Then I went directly from her house to Rachel’s, and after a late dinner, I fucked that bitch, too.
Angie texted me this morning, wanting to fuck again this weekend. Rachel texted me this morning, telling me that I was an asshole, and warning me to shape up or she’ll quit talking to me. I texted Angie back, in a noncommittal way, and ignored Rachel. Stacy also texted me, inviting me to her place on Saturday. I’ll probably accept.
Happy Halowe’en. Happy Veteran’s Day. In case I don’t see y’all, Happy Thanksgiving.
“…you are trying to use non-Vox Day/Heartiste definitions of Alpha and Beta. I missed that footnote on the first reading and it makes your arguments disingenuous at best. An Alpha man is the specific man that a specific woman SHOULD want? That’s a hopelessly moving goalpost.”
It’s important to note that the Manosphere did not invent these terms and the way it uses them need not be scientific nor consistent. In the context of scientific research on hormonal contraception, we need to consider how the terms are used in the scientific fields (e.g. evolutionary biology and psychology; anthropology).
It’s also important to note that the definitions are inherently fluid as a function of selection and adaptation. Different traits will be selected in different times, places, and situations (e.g. socioeconomic differences). Nevertheless, certain genetic expressions are fairly consistent and non-variable.
Alpha traits are (merely?) proxies—or indicators—of genetic fitness. Good looks (e.g. facial symmetry; tall height), good physical fitness, no deformities, masculinity[1], wealth, and high social status all suggest good underlying genetics. It is fairly uncontroversial that most fertile women are attracted to men with these kinds of traits.[2]
Beta traits are those traits that are not alpha traits, that is, those traits that do not correlate strongly—at the population level—with genetic fitness. Such traits may include being fun, nice, woman-like (e.g. emotional; caring and nurturing; empathetic), physically sub-optimal, and unattractive.
“The most sexually attractive men are very often terrible choices for fathering children. The Pill is not driving such behavior. Women have always gone for the bad boys.”
Simply put, ‘alpha‘ implies genetic fitness and ‘beta‘ does not. Both sets can include both positive and negative traits. This is a very important point. While alpha traits indicate good fitness for reproduction, beta traits indicate long-term relationship stability and good child-rearing skills. A woman can mate with someone with any combination of traits, desirable or not. But—critically—reproductive choice is permanent and thus the more important consideration. It’s possible to influence and change her mate’s traits over time[3], but she can’t change her children’s genes after the fact.
“Women SHOULD want healthy, emotionally stable, productive men. Women DO want sociopaths, drug dealers and starving musicians. The Pill doesn’t change that.”
Not all such good men are beta men, nor are all alpha men sociopaths. Women do want these positive things and can find them in men of all types. Regardless, the alpha/beta distinctions are not about what any individual woman explicitly wants or should do. Choosing a mate in this context is amoral. It is her evolutionary imperative to find the best genetic match she is able to. Any given individual may fail at this task (either intentionally or unintentionally), but the pill lessens the desire for genetic (and sexual!) compatibility.
Hypergamy states that women will try to marry up. We know that there are upper bounds to this, for many different reasons (competition, limited selection, personal fitness, socioeconomic status, etc.). The most genetically fit man that an obese, low-intelligence, chain-smoking, tattooed, debt-ridden, short, blue-haired woman can mate with is going to be her ‘alpha’. He probably won’t have many (any?) really good alpha traits, but it’s the best that she can do personally.
In modern society there is now a disconnect between having sex and reproducing (and marrying). Abortion, contraception (e.g. the pill), social acceptance of fornication, and the rejection of patriarchy have all contributed to separating sex from the evolutionary imperative to reproduce. Historical societies, almost universally patriarchal, had structures in place to ensure that negative traits were suppressed socially and positive ones expressed. A modern woman can have it all: consequence-free sex, children with anyone (including bad boys), and having the State or a beta-male raise her children (e.g. society sanctioned cuckoldry).
Statistics on virginity show that women are almost universally promiscuous in their youth. Who they have sex with need not be who they end up choosing to mate or marry. There is really no question that women today are having sex with alpha men, but they are not necessarily staying with them. Not even Brad Pitt can keep a woman.
While on the pill women can have as much sex as she wants, but she won’t have children with anyone, alpha or beta. What matters is what she does when she goes off the pill. There are a number of possibilities. Is she giving an alpha children, but marrying a beta man? Or is she now denying her husband sex or frivorcing him?
So what we see is that the very structure of society has changed and the pill’s effects fit right into it. Whether this is causal or merely correlative is unclear.
[1] Another term that should probably be defined, if possible, more specifically.
[2] One well-known example is a woman laughing at a not-funny joke that a tall, attractive, muscular, wealthy man says while otherwise mocking a short, unattractive, fat man who does the same thing. Or how some men are praised for “getting in touch with their feminine side” while other men are rejected for the same.
[3] This almost certainly happens in almost all real marriages, but research on this topic is outside the scope of this post.
“Oral contraception affects a woman’s mind, smell, and mate choices”
What role does feminism as a social movement play in society’s ills? Is it a cause of the fundamental problems or merely a symptom? While many people in the manosphere have asserted that feminism plays a key causal role, this notion has been questioned. I’ll be examining this broad question over a series of articles. In the first article in this series, I’ll be considering the validity—and societal impact—of the claim that hormonal oral contraception (“the pill”) negatively changes the way a woman selects a mate.
To answer this question we will consider the recent research done by Gurit E. Birnbaum entitled “The Bitter Pill: Cessation of Oral Contraceptives Enhances the Appeal of Alternative Mates”[1] and the commentary by anthropologist Edward Dutton[2].
Reproductive Strategy
Before discussing the pill, let’s consider the evolutionary imperative: to reproduce. Evolutionary biology leads a fertile woman towards a somewhat unconscious reproductive strategy that maximizes her chances to pass on her genes as many times as possible. This involves the following three primary areas:
(1) Reproductive Fitness
A normal fertile woman will prefer alpha male traits[3] : physically fitness, good looks, and masculinity. These traits are proxies that indicate underlying good genes that give her the highest chance to produce healthy children with the lowest risk of genetic mutation.
(2) Compatible Immune System
A woman uses the body odors of men to help find the best genetic match that indicates immune system compatibility.[5] Ideally, she should find a match that is not too similar, but also not too far away. The goal is to produce healthy children by avoiding both inbreeding and conflicting alleles. Historically, this meant marriage involving the genetic equivalents of distant cousins.
(3) Seeking Men of High Status
A woman will seek a man of high status.[4] Her goal is to have as much wealth and support for her and her children. From an evolutionary standpoint, hypergamy is a proxy for genetic fitness.
This is a fertile woman’s natural state.
The Pill
Having established the natural tendency of women, we now ask whether the pill has any effect on this? The research indicates that it does.
While the natural reproductive strategy is expressed most strongly during a woman’s peak fertility—while she is ovulating—her overall preferences do not change throughout her cycle. By contrast, the pill works by taking a woman out of her fertility cycle and causes her to enter a period of semi-permanent infertility. This results in mental and physiological changes that cause her to unconsciously seek a non-reproductive strategy—inverting her default, natural strategy. Her focus shifts from reproductive success towards personal success.
(1) Reproduction is unimportant
A woman on the pill will seek beta male traits[3] : nice, fun, woman-like, unattractive. These traits make a woman feel validated and supported. She may become repulsed by the alpha traits that she would find attractive in her fertile state.
(2) Genetic Incompatibility
Rather than finding a good genetic match for having children, a woman’s desires shift:
“…women’s perception of men may serve a different function: pursuing cooperative partners who assist with child care (“good parents”) rather than genetically compatible partners. Women may therefore revert to having opposite mate preferences, becoming fixed on seeking less genetically compatible men whose body odor resembles that of their apparently supportive genetic relatives.”
A man who is genetically like her brother or a close cousin is going to be much more likely to support her than a more distant match, even though any offspring would be less genetically fit.
(3) Seek Men of Any Status
If children don’t matter, then a good genetic match is unimportant. Any man will do. If she wants sex, status doesn’t matter. If she wants wealth, she’ll be able to temporarily extract wealth from almost anyone. If she wants a husband, the average beta will suffice.
The Consequences of the Pill
Of course these effects are not absolute. Individually, woman both on and off the pill can make alternate choices. Nevertheless, the overall negative effects should not be ignored.
The pill alters a fertile woman into an infertile woman, changing her life plan. She’s biologically no longer interested in children (outward focused), but in what makes her most comfortable and supported (inward focused). The hormones in the pill cause real physiological changes that change her perception of men. Even her sex drive can change. While this is listed medically as a side effect, biologically-speaking it seems to be the point.
There are two potential major scenarios where this will cause problems.
First, a woman on the pill before marriage selects a poor genetic fit (beta). Eventually when she stops taking the pill, she will have reduced attraction to her husband and suddenly be strongly attracted to the alpha men she would have naturally been attracted to before marriage.
Second, a woman marries a good genetic fit (alpha), but who goes on the pill after marriage (to avoid children), will develop a lack of sexual attraction to her husband. She may start criticizing her husband for his masculine traits and viewpoints that she was previously attracted to.
The marriage in both scenarios faces a heightened risk of sex-starvation, infidelity, or divorce. But even if these things do not happen, the swings will likely cause personal relationship instability and discontent. One can easily imagine this contributing to mental disorders like depression.
Analysis and Summary
Dating and marrying a woman while she is on the pill should be avoided. Men married to women who go on the pill after getting married should be aware of the risks.
The pill contributes to genetic and relationship mismatches. Divorce risk for most marriages is highest during fertile childbearing years, precisely when she is most likely to change pill usage. Contrast this with a pill-free normative natural marriage entering the infertile years: the relationship is firmly established and her husband has likely developed sufficient beta traits needed for her long-term support. Such a marriage is unlikely to end in divorce.
When women on the pill hook up with or marry poor genetically matched men, it does two things: (1) it leaves their otherwise best matched man unmatched and (2) takes someone else’s best matched man. What does this look like? Well, women on the pill can potentially have sex with as many “bad-boy” men as they can, but they generally won’t marry them. They’ll marry poorly matched men. Single men will be left with fewer prospects, as their best matches are marrying the wrong men. Married men will be left with greater divorce risk as the women who should have been their wives marry the wrong men. It’s an unmitigated sociological disaster for both married and unmarried men.
So what is the role of feminism? Feminism promotes female supremacy through its key tenets—careerism, marriage-avoidance, and children-avoidance through easy contraception, abortion, and divorce. All of these are, of course, counter to the evolutionary imperative.
The pill, while not essential to feminism, is a tool with a synergistic feedback effect. A number of red-pill memes demonstrate this: (1) women reproducing with feminine men produce more genetically feminine men, (2) women reproducing with masculine bad-boys have feminine men raise their (now) sociologically feminine boys (e.g. marrying single mothers), and (3) the pill amplifies feminine marital discontent. The pill helps enable these and more.
[2] He has been accused of anti-semitism and supporting eugenics, demonetized by YouTube for various red-pill positions, and had his work rejected by academic publishers. He is friends with Bruce G. Charlton, who is not loved by our host. YMMV.
[3] What is meant by alpha and beta in this context? While there are certainly men who—from an evolutionary standpoint—should not breed, each woman’s ideal alpha may be very different. Alpha should be defined as the best evolutionary choice available to a particular fertile woman. The beta is a man who does not maximize her offspring’s genetic odds of survival. He’s a bad genetic fit for her. He may be someone else’s alpha or no one’s at all. The terms are relative and contextual.
The terms alpha and beta are not value judgments. For example, alpha men often have low dependability and beta men have high dependability. A woman will probably be doing well if she finds a man with a good combination of alpha and beta traits to see her through various life stages.
While the terms are frequently assigned motives and morality in the manosphere, the use here is merely descriptive of the ways a normal population of fertile women find the best genetic match for reproduction. Trade-offs can and do occur, resulting in deviations from the mean or expected behavior, but the general concepts hold.
[4] As with alpha and beta, high status is relative. Women seek the highest status that they can attain relative to their own status. This doesn’t mean they don’t marry men who have low-status in the absolute sense, nor does it imply that low-status men and women are unworthy of marriage. They are merely trying to maximize their genetic fit.
[5] Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odor preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264(1387), 1471–1479. (download here)
A woman wants a nice man, a man who will open doors for her, a man who treats her with respect at all times. A woman wants a gentleman who will let her trod his jacket, rather than muddy her toe. A woman would never give up the ass to a rude jerk…
The 23-year-old begged with Magistrates to impose an anonymity order on her trial to keep her case out of the public eye. Glencross’ lawyer Shelley Buchecker said there were multiple Facebook posts showing her client could be in danger following the savage beating. Goolang Magistrates’ Court, in Victoria, Australia, threw out the application under the presumption of open justice. It was ruled she would have to live with ‘demeaning and humiliating’ posts on social media after finding no evidence of threat among the messages. Open justice is based on the fundamental principle that the actions of the courts should be transparent to the public.
Apparently, there is one judge in Australia with the guts to say ‘no’ to the ho’. Good for him (or her).
Earlier we noted an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand feminists claim to be deeply concerned about health care and saving lives. On the other hand they promote policies and behaviors that cause increased numbers of deaths. One such example is the relationship between “Breast Cancer and Abortion.” Over at Sigma Frame, Jack writes in “How the Pill Kills” of another. For context, I strongly encourage you to read it before reading my supplemental commentary here.
In the United States, ~700 woman die each year (out of ~4,000,000) from complications related to pregnancy or delivery.[1] By contrast ~250 women die each year (out of ~13,000,000) from VT associated with oral contraceptives.[2] Similarly, the risk of getting VTE while on the pill is about 5x greater than the general population, while about half the risk of getting it while pregnant.[3]
As with breast cancer and abortion, we found that feminists play games with statistics to make it seem as if their policies and behaviors save lives rather than cost them. The same is true here, since these statistics do show that it is somewhat safer to be on oral contraceptives compared to being pregnant. There are multiple problems with this reasoning.
First, being on oral contraceptives is more dangerous than not being on them. It is significantly more dangerous than other pregnancy preventatives, such as breast feeding, NFP, condom use, abstinence, and sterilization. Indeed, the availability of viable alternatives makes oral contraceptives and their associated increased health risks one of pure convenience and choice. Since they are not required to prevent pregnancy, the proper statistical comparison is against the general population.
Second, the risk break-even for oral contraceptives compared to pregnancy is 2 to 10 years—taking the pill for as little as two years is similar in health risk to having a single pregnancy.[4] Even ignoring the first point, correcting for the average fertility rate of women and the number of years on oral contraceptives suggests that the adjusted lifetime risk to women on the pill is equal to or greater than the lifetime risks from pregnancy. Consider, Abbey Parkes, pictured above, who started on the pill at age 14 and was dead at 20. During that time on the pill she experienced roughly the risk of a pregnancy, without reaping any of the health benefits associated with pregnancy or experiencing the joys of marriage and motherhood.
Third, as we saw with breast cancer and abortion, the risk of harm is significantly greater than merely the risk of death. Surviving a negative health event is still a bad thing. The risk of dying compared to the general population is lower than the overall risk of non-death negative health events. Taking oral contraceptives not only threatens death, but also your quality of life.
In summary, we confirm once again that feminism leads to more unnecessary suffering and death in the name of the almighty orgasm. Being on oral contraceptives unnecessarily increases a woman’s risk of death and other negative health effects.
UPDATE: This post has been corrected to eliminate incorrect/unclear statistical inferences.
[2] Keenan, L., Kerr, T., Duane, M., & Van Gundy, K. (2018). Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis. The Linacre Quarterly, 85(4), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363918816683
[3] Peter Kovacs. “Oral Contraceptives and the Risk for Venous Thromboembolism.” Medscape. Oct 09, 2009 (referencing: van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR, “The Venous Thrombotic Risk of Oral Contraceptives, Effects of Oestrogen Dose and Progestogen Type: Results of the MEGA Case-Control Study”, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 2009 339:b2921).
[4] This is an estimate: pill use and pregnancy have different and varied side effects. Age plays a factor as well. It is also for comparison only: as per the first point, all real risk is relative to the general population.
Down below, Jason refers us to this character who calls himself “Coach Corey Wayne.”
Off topic, but someone sent me a “coach corey wayne” video about MGTOW. Never heard of this guy. Wish I hadn’t. If I ever meet him face to face, I will pull his skull through his large intestines.
This particular video actually reminds me of another simp, Dr. Nerdlove, who wrote a similar article back in 2012.
What truths to these men teach us?
The last technique I’ve used is to ignore her flaking out. I make other plans for the day and put her out of mind… until the day after. The day after the aborted date, I’ll either call – especially if I know I’m likely to get her voice mail – or send a text profusely apologizing for having forgotten that we were supposed to get together. After I give whatever bullshit excuse comes to mind – long night and overslept, got caught up by a deadline, something fairly minor – I’ll insist that I need to take her out in order to make it up to her. Again: this reframes the situation to where she is the offended party and feeling as though she’s owed something in recompense… especially if it’s being treated to a nice dinner.
When some useless cunt rudely wastes your time, you should reward her with an expensive night out at your expense. That sounds logical.
Do you gentlemen have any thoughts on this nonsense? Shout in the comments.
Somewhere as the fires died in the late 1990’s there seemed to crop up out of nowhere some people with “good intentions” that were giving men advice on how to date women, convince women to get horizontal with them, and to be that all around ‘life of the party’ guy that all people wanted to be around. You would be viewed with envy by fellow men; and women would just find you so desirable you could form your very own personal harem. Of course, when you decided to “settle down” you would have the best choice of the top women to make a family with.
These methods are not new. Throughout history there have been writings and musings about “what works” when trying to date, court, woo, wallow and win the love or the endearment of women. Myths, legends, stories and practical advice to men have been throughout the ages and cultures for men trying to navigate this dilemma of “what do women want in a man?”
The question is eternal as recorded history, and by no means never has been an easy one to answer. What works for one man, may not work for another. What one woman says and purports, another woman may have a very different outlook of what she expects in a man.
Even in the distant past, the then new “Playboy” magazine in the 1950’s was giving excellent style, music and advice to men about women. Though we all know that no one read the articles, everyone claimed they did. It did become a funny joke of sorts over the ensuring decades about this magazine. Kind of the same thing highbrow liberals and conservatives purported in the 1970’s “Oh, no. I don’t ever watch TV…..except for PBS, MASH, and 60 Minutes.”
Popular culture in the USA during the early Cold-War-era from television, and movies always gave us the story about a couple that was “meant to be” and somehow had to get the advice of the fool, a biddy old grandmother, a buffoon character who could never get love himself but somehow just had the right insight for the hero of the show in order for him to change, be attractive and win the heroines affections. Some stories were just plain entertaining. Some were sad, but all had a sense of “believability” in them. We, the viewing public in general knew how to separate fact from fiction and enjoy these mediums for what they were.
I won’t go into a detailed history of who started this, or who deserves the “credit” for what is now called “game”, nor will I go into what “game” is because if you are reading this, you have some general ideas of what it is or isn’t. Anything I say it is, will be met with howls ofprotest from advocates and detractors alike. I will state why I won’t play, and purport that women like you or they don’t. If women don’t, there really is nothing you can do in this modern world. If women do, game I suppose can help you become more of a douche-bag that you probably already are.
With that said, even these cretins who promote, live and drink this nonsense called “game” today can’t even agree with each other of what it is, or what it should be or what it isn’t. It has become a cult, like christianity and their never-ending sectarian debates over what jesus said and what he really meant, or what certain words mean and don’t mean. Game is like Amway sales and other pyramid schemes as well. The fervent believers will twist their boxer-shorts into a bundle about the foolproof merits of game, trying to keep growing that base of the pyramid, just like progressive liberals “if you could only just see plainly how it works, and just give it a chance….you eyes will be opened……” They seem to be more concerned of having you accept it, rather than debate if it works. Like christianity, they claim they are making disciples, and equipping and helping men, but for the most part they are just claiming how “right” they think they are.
They throw this boatload and minstrel show called “game” and its proven, foolproof results on men and then belittle the same men when it does not meet expectations or promises. They use shaming language, sneers and jeers. They heap insults and sarcastic slaps upon these men. Now, when they were trying to convince you of its merits, they were your “best buddy” and friend. It mirrors any cult today. If you dare question any of its supposed foolproof methods, they become a very hateful insulting angry group of bullies. There is something very evil in groupthink in these kinds of matters. Like Communism, company culture at Apple or other cults. A supposed band of brotherhood, welcoming and foolproof solutions to a very imperfect world full of fools. You try to leave? You don’t like? You disagree on any holy doctrine they may have?
You’re the dirtiest of traitors to men, you’re worse than Hitler…..or some other insult….and in “game” they pull their best insult “you’re actually a woman” and there was “no hope for you anyway”
Now, many will say “Well Jason / Lastmod…I disagree, you see I was a simp, and a chump but I watched some podcasts, read a book or two and now I am ladies man / banging nines and tens all nite / all day. It works.”
My reply is, well….that’s great, so what did you have to begin with? You see to make “game” on this superficial level work you had to have something to begin with. Were you just a tad shy, but you had exceptional verbal and communication skills? Were you always attractive but just a tad awkward? Were you always above average in looks, but just needed a new hairstyle, or some better fashion sense for your personality? Did you have actual interests aside from the “Star Trek” TV shows? Did you need to hit the gym a little and firm up?
That’s not “game” that’s just basic upkeep of being a well-rounded person. You can and have been able to get all this information from mens magazines dating back to the 1940’s in the USA…..and probably before then. Brushing your teeth is not “game” its basic hygiene. Women like a guy who has nice teeth, and fresh breath. If a young man doesn’t know that by the time he is a teenager, he has worse problems than finding a girlfriend. These webpages in “game” even talk about taking a shower and brushing your teeth. “Oh, you can’t get a girlfriend? You just need to shower bro!”
Even a hardcore “game” advocate wants to be with a woman who has some interests, and has some depth to them. These men don’t want a woodchuck girlfriend who only cares about her hair color or nail color. The actual deep concepts of “game” basically purport that all women think, act and behave exactly alike. No variance. From the virginal church girl, to the skankiest hooker down on lower Fulton Street in Fresno, California all behave the same:
Attraction isn’t a choice for them. They are just attracted to male dominance, leadership and confidence, it’s what they want and any guy can get this, and have this.
The problem lies in the fact. FACT. That we are not peg boards. Women and men can and do make good and bad decisions. Women, just as much as men are attracted to “good looking” people. I recall that stupid, but funny scene in that teen movie “The Breakfast Club” (1985) when the “rebel / alpha” guy (Judd Nelson) asks “teen dream” (Molly Ringwald) about if she would “date a guy who elephantitus of the balls……but he had a great personality, a cool car, lots of confidence….” And, of course the “teen dream” couldn’t do this.
Yet “game” tells us, that women just want confidence. Ask one- hundred women on the street what the word “confidence” means, you’ll get a hundred answers…..sure some similar, but all a shade different unique to that girl in question. Also add that “game” assumes a woman can never change. She is what she is. What she liked in a man at eighteen is what she will like at forty-five.
This open ended word called “confidence” now gets muscled up and twisted in “game” blogs, web-pages, and podcasts to mean nothing or everything. It’s being a boss. It’s being a leader with never clearly defining what being a leader means, and the responsibility being one entails. I am just about fifty years old. I have met very few actual leaders at work in any job over the decades. None in church and have not really been inspired to strive to be like most men who claim how much of a leader they are. Even on that silly PUA show with Mystery a decade or so back……the only men who did get dates and improve? They were better looking or came into that show “above average” looking anyway.
I won’t play this “game” and the rules are made by women. They set the field, men perform, strut and show what they have. Ironic isn’t it? This “game” claiming to make men into “men” has them behaving like women during a runway show or pageant.
Shhhh….but don’t tell anyone, especially the “game” advocates, they get really angry when you laugh at their folly. They are like the classic schoolyard bully….the can dish out the insults, the threats, the toughness…..but throw it back on them? They can’t take it.
“Our brother, Charles Darwin”
“Oral contraception affects a woman’s mind, smell, and mate choices”
