Letter from an omega

I respond to a reader’s questions about game, sexuality, and masculinity over at The Spearhead. A snippet:

All life, from protozoa to plants to puppies, is possessed of one primary goal – survival. I separate survival into two subcategories - corporeal survival and genetic survival. The former entails staying physically alive, and the latter consists of passing on your genes to the next generation; reproduction, in other words. The Mystery Method posited a similar premise, with survival and replication being the purpose of every living entity. Every living being wants to reproduce, and will do anything in its power to accomplish that goal. This includes human beings; half of what we do is done for the purpose of attracting members of the opposite sex. It was Dave Chappelle who joked that if women were willing to have sex with men in cardboard boxes, guys wouldn’t bother buying houses. So yes, sexuality is one of the greatest determinants of human thought and behavior.

You know how it works. Read the rest and comment over there.

The things a good woman must know

PROGRAMMING NOTE: I have a post at The Spearhead that will be published later today.

The intellectual bankruptcy of game’s haters, part deux

Earlier this week, I took the time to rip apart ever-present game hater Justin for a blatantly obvious untruth he spilled over at Anakin Niceguy’s blog. Shockingly enough, Justin opted to pop in yesterday and respond. He’s got guts, I’ll give him that. Unfortunately, he squandered the opportunity to defend himself and only dug his hole deeper. Join me, studio audience, for Round 2 of Blogger Beatdown!

Wait, aren’t you the guy who said if you had a daughter, you would marry her to a good Mormon boy? What a hypocrite you are.

THAT’S your opening shot? A feeble me-too remark grasping at a tangentially related point? Weak, man – weak. In case you’re wondering, folks, here’s the post that Justin is referring to (which, interestingly enough, was a reply to another blogger I had intellectually eviscerated). Hypocrisy, you accuse? You’ve clearly never heard of the sexual double standard, which is here, near, dear, and not going anywhere.

You admit that men like you are scumbags and you wouldn’t want your own daughter to have anything to do with you. Yet, you persist in your self appointed role as Prophet of the Cult of Game in spreading its poisonous ideas as far and wide as you can.

And this is why I don’t want to bother debating you. Like Larry Auster and Todd White, you insist on substituting moral kvetching and barely-disguised insults for rational thought and debate. In absence of knowledge about what game is, you fill in the gaps with your own half-baked prejudices and biases. You’re like a hotheaded young atheist who reads two chapters of The God Delusion and bursts into the nearest church declaring Christianity to be a lie and a blight upon the earth. A hint, pal: when a large group of diverse individuals are claiming that you don’t know anything about the subject on which you are bloviating, the problem probably isn’t them – it’s YOU.

Your bull about game being a “cult” that doesn’t accept criticism is, like most of what you say, not substantiated by the facts. Just off the top of my head: Anakin Niceguy, Hestia, Mike T, Mark Richardson, Professor Hale, MarkyMark, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, RAMZPAUL, Slumlord, Obsidian, and Sparks123 are all bloggers who have criticized game and the attitudes of some of its practitioners in valid, reasonable, rational ways. Few accuse them of not understanding game, because they bothered to actually learn about it (and in the case of Obsidian and Sparks123, actually practice it) before writing about it, instead of sounding off like ignoramuses on a bully pulpit.

Dude, until you can answer the question seriously of what you will do with a daughter, you have earned the title of moral degenerate, which you apply by your own admission.

What do you do with a daughter in the modern world? You have three options:

1. Tell her firmly and seriously that if she has sex out of wedlock, you will disown her without a second thought and throw her out of your house. Put the fear of the gods into her and she’ll stay chaste. It worked for my little sisters.
2. Arrange her marriage for her.
3. Join and raise your children in a strict, isolated religious sect.

Otherwise, she’s on her own in the stygian abyss, and her choices will more likely then not lead to disaster for her and heartbreak for you. Sucks, but there’s nothing you or I can do about it. We are but drops of rain in the storm. To quote Thursday:

Nothing will happen to reform our truly corrupt Western societies until something goes seriously, overwhelmingly wrong. It’s going to get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does. In such circumstances, there really are only two options: huddle down in a small religious community (the Benedict option) or make hay while the sun shines (the Roissy option). In any case, submitting to the practices of the mainstream of society is a not a realistic option for the truly aware. I can’t really believe so many people simply aquiesce to it.

And do you really think I’m injured by your barbs? Getting called a “moral degenerate” from the likes of you is a point of pride! It’s the writer’s equivalent of a war wound, something to brag about at the next Round Table meeting.

Oh, and to address your primary claim, that I lied. That is not true. I may have been mistaken in characterizing the questioner as a Gamer, but no lie was involved.

“May have been mistaken”? Nice copout. You were mistaken, full stop.

Now, you claim to have not lied in your assertion. Assuming for the sake for convenience that you’re being honest, I left a second possibility in the post – that you’re “a moron who can’t read.” Back during the Rathergate scandal, speculation swirled over whether Dan Rather knew that the documents were forgeries and put them on the air anyway. If he knew that the memos were fake, that would make him dishonest and thus unqualified for his job. If he didn’t know that the memos were fake, that would make him an idiot who didn’t bother to keep tabs on his people…and thus unqualified for his job. My friend, you are in a double bind. If you lied about the man that Elusive Wapiti responded to being a practitioner of game, that makes you dishonest and junks your credibility, or at the very least throws it into question. If you didn’t lie, as you claim, that makes you stupid…and junks your credibility, or at the very least throws it into question. Either way, you’re screwed.

Now, it’s a fact of life that it is much easier to destroy then to create. One incident of plagiarism can result in a student’s expulsion from university. One mistaken slip of the knife can cost a surgeon his medical license. One fabricated story can end a journalist’s career. In committing such a huge error, an error that no one else would easily make, you have torched your intellectual capital in one great bonfire of vanity. The next time you write on game, relationships, sexuality, or related topics, all your detractors need to do is cite your mistake here to ensure that no one will listen to you. Any hopes you had for providing a counter-voice to the Roissysphere are dead, done, finished. Not only that, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, which would undo some of the damage. You’re not just a fool, you’re a coward to boot.

As the title of my blog indicates, I hold truth in high regard.

You may “hold truth in high regard,” but this incident shows that you wouldn’t recognize it if it jumped your bones.

Your character attack on me is unwarranted, unbalanced, and unjust.

Oh, someone’s attacking you on the Internet? You poor wittle baby, you! You unfortunate creature of glass bones and paper skin! Another online tough guy who can dish it out but can’t take it.

This isn’t some fancy schmancy fencing match between gents – it’s brutal gladiatorial combat, where the loser gets his guts splattered all over the ground to the delight of the screaming crowds. And I’ve been enjoying splattering yours. If you’re so thin-skinned as to whine like a spoiled woman when someone challenges you, you don’t belong in this here thunderdome. You think this is abuse? You think this is “unjust”? If you can’t take this, how can you take the abuse you get in life? If you don’t like it, leave – delete your blog and move to a cabin in the mountains where nobody can bruise your oh-so-delicate ego.

Well, that’s that, Justin. Instead of being a pathologically dishonest thinker, you’re a terminally stupid one, and a coward who can’t even admit guilt when it’s plainly obvious to everyone. You’re like so many moralistic faux-macho chest-beaters – all bluster, no muster. And since you’re not a cute chick, you can’t count on the Save-a-Ho Brigade to swoop in and cover up your foolishness. In any event, your credibility is gone and you’ve been reduced to a joke, unqualified to lecture anyone on masculinity or game. And the truly hilarious part is that you were hoisted by your own petard, and have only yourself to blame. I suggest you take your own advice: “man up” and “stop talking like a bitch.” Oh, and enjoy the humble pie – it’s my specialty.

Sacrilegiously delicious image of the day

Image from BACONJEW, a blog run, appropriately enough, by a Jew who loves bacon.

Hat tip: Half Sigma.

The bloodlust of modern man

If you haven’t already, you should check out this post by T. aka Ricky Raw, in which he skewers the recent “poverty porn” flick Precious. This passage struck me in particular:

I watched it in a predominately black theatre, and many of the scenes the audience was laughing or cheering at were disturbingly inappropriate, and much of that seemed deliberate based on how over-the-top the subject matter was presented.

Has anyone else noticed this trend of people laughing or cheering at movie scenes that are supposed to make the viewer feel uncomfortable? Two years ago, I saw Black Snake Moan, a film in the same exploitative vein as Precious, only focused on poor rural whites as opposed to poor blacks. During one pivotal scene in which the main character, played by Christina Ricci, physically assaults her mother with a shovel, some asshole two rows behind me was hollering hysterically through the whole thing. It was just one jerkoff, though, so I forgot about it at the time.

It happened again when I saw Watchmen, where a good third of the audience was driven to hysterics and cheering during the scene in which the Comedian attempts to rape the Silk Spectre. The film was already making me nauseous (the only movie that had ever done that to me), and watching the audience cheering on rape, violence, and brutality almost made me walk out out of sheer anger and disgust. I frankly wanted to take every single one of those faux-macho, hairy-palmed comic book geekazoids out in the backyard and beat the shit out of them, given them the beating their fathers should have given them. I managed to sit through the rest of Watchmen without starting any fights, but the dark, nihilistic gestalt of the film combined with the sick audience reaction put me in a deep depression. I spent the rest of that night in a dejected mood, drinking bourbon and watching Nostalgia Critic videos.

Has anyone else seen this phenomenon and been similarly repulsed?

Women don’t get to define female beauty

I’ve got lots of ideas knocking around my skull, but it sometimes takes external stimuli in order to get them out of my head and in comprehensible form – like this catty blog post by real-life libertarian girl Ilana Mercer concerning Christian martyr-cum-amateur porn star Carrie Prejean:

“Blond Squad” is a synonym here for the conservatives’ chick of choice. She can be brunette, although that is not preferable. She has to be dumb.

Prejean’s looks comport with what I’ve termed the porn aesthetic. She is most certainly not beautiful.

Those who’ve been conditioned to consider beautiful women who look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth will object. But you only have to think of Audry Hepburn, or the bare-faced Julie-Christie to remember what natural, striking beauty is.

Following Mercer’s link leads us to a post where she defines the “porn aesthetic“:

…they represent what I call the porn aesthetic the essence of which is not true sensuality or real physical beauty, but something that corresponds to the lowest form of sex. They are pornographic phenoms theirs are faces that men want to see on hookers; on women they have plain crude sex with. They look well-used, cheap, unrefined, and whorish even in their youth.

That post serves as a teaser for this column she wrote for WorldNetDaily, “Sluts Galore: Scenes from 2006”:

Ideas about feminine beauty are bust. The sublime 1350 B.C. bust of Queen Nefertiti showcases her fine cheekbones and graceful neck. Her Western contemporary look-a-like, down to the perfectly shaped dainty face, was Audrey Hepburn. Catherine Deneuve embodied the French ideal of female beauty, immortalized in the bust of Marianne.

But forget these regal beauties; they, apparently, have nothing on the double-chinned, large, flat expanses that make up Britney Spears’ crude mug. Nefertiti, Hepburn, Deneuve—your patrician pulchritude no longer excites the “porn generation”; the sly, weasel-like looks of a Paris Hilton do.

The culture’s aesthetic preferences are now shaped by the basest of instincts. I call it the porn aesthetic, another example of which is Hue Hefner’s harem of hos. The three kept creatures are currently starring in a reality show called “The Girls Next Door.”

According to Wikipedia, “The prototype of the girl next door is often invoked in American contexts to indicate wholesome, unassuming, or ‘average’ femininity.” Like Ali MacGraw in “Love Story,” perhaps? Hef’s hos have bleached, cotton-candy hair, augmented by extensions, silicone breasts, and demented, syphilitic grins. But according to an entirely new sensibility, they are the girls next door.

So, according to Miss Mercer, Carrie Prejean isn’t beautiful because she looks like a woman that men instinctively want to bang, and Audrey Hepburn IS beautiful because she looked like a woman that men instinctively DIDN’T want to bang. That’s a statement so retarded only a libertarian woman could argue it in earnest.

Both Roissy and Obsidian have argued in the past that women, not men, determine which males are alphas in the context of mating and sex. The flip side of this, by way of Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity, is that men, not women, determine which females are beautiful. The primary purpose of female beauty is to help us men determine who is most worthy of receiving our sperm-missiles, and the yardstick we use to measure it is the penis. The harder the dick, the hotter the girl – it is that simple. To demonstrate how Mercer is incapable of grasping this concept (like most women), here’s her picture of the girl she claims “is most certainly not beautiful”:

Carrie is a bit more masculine then I’d like, but I’d still hit that and come back for seconds, thirds, and fourths – and so would most normal, non-outlier (read: not David Alexander) dudes. She’s an 8.

Here’s Audrey Hepburn, a woman Miss Mercer singles out as an example of “natural, striking beauty”:

Audrey’s no slouch face-wise, but she had a body like a prepubescent boy. 7.

And here’s Mercer’s other example, Julie Christie:

I’d hit it…with six beers in my system and to break a dry spell. 5, possibly a 6.

Now, I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Ferdinand, you reductionist, cock-centered, evo-psych-loving pig-dog, you’re wrong! In past epochs, women’s beauty was determined by higher concepts then what men got off to!” Take your romanticist golden age crap and stick it where the wind breaks. The female beauty ideal has always been determined by what men wanted to nail, as Lynne Lawner wrote in Lives of the Courtesans:

Falling in love with statues and paintings, even making love to them is an ancient fantasy, one of which the Renaissance was keenly aware. Giorgio Vasari, writing in the introductory section of the Lives about art in antiquity, tells how men violated the laws, going into the temples at night and making love with the statues of Venus. In the morning, priests would enter the sanctuaries to find stains on the marble figures.

Yes, that’s right. Those beautiful Greek marble statues that are supposedly symbolic of a higher ideal of beauty? Guys were so turned on by them that they dry-humped them and shot their sticky loads in their crevices. I hope that visual is permanently burned into your brain. And all of those paintings of beautiful women from the Renaissance? They were the jerk-off fantasies of the men who created them. Yes, we of the male species really do think with our little heads that much.

Now, if Miss Mercer wanted to argue that women are becoming less feminine, I’d agree. If she wanted to argue that women are becoming more crass and vulgar, I’d wholeheartedly agree. But the cock doesn’t care about a woman’s class or behavior; it just wants a nice, warm, attractive place to snuggle for the night. Mercer’s notion of “true” female beauty springing from something other then what men want to fuck is pure bullshit. Her vision blinded by female solipsism and her mind dulled by historical ignorance, she can’t help but get it wrong.

And, ladies, if you think it’s unfair that we get to determine what we find attractive in you, keep in mind that it’s also unfair that you get to determine what you find attractive in us. We can’t help our dicks any more then you can help your pussies. This is the Age of Flesh, where the desires of the loins rule all. I don’t make the rules, I just point them out.

The intellectual bankruptcy of game’s haters

Fellow travelers in this area of the blogosphere might be familiar with a guy named Justin, who runs the blog The Truth Shall Set You Free and occasionally comments at Elusive Wapiti’s, Anakin Niceguy’s, Φ’s, and The Spearhead. Justin is opposed to game, denouncing it as “evil and stupid” and claiming it fosters a “destructive” worldview. Thursday described him as a “hyper-moralist” on the spectrum of game detractors:

Hyper-Moralists – Don’t like the fact that the main discoverers and theorists of game are almost all libertines and/or nihlists. They also don’t like that game contains techniques for getting women to have premarital/extramarital sex, and that it seems too consciously manipulative.

In any case, I’m not interested in debating Justin or dissecting his arguments, as trying to have a debate with individuals like him is like trying to convince an Orthodox Jew to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior. You might as well ram your head into the wall. However, I recently caught Justin in a little lie that has all but destroyed his credibility on this topic, so I’m calling him out on his flagrant dishonesty.

Justin wrote this over at Biblical Manhood:

E.W. [Elusive Wapiti] just did a post responding to a question from a Gamer about if he were unfortunate enough to have a daughter. That is the fruit if Game, to poison your outlook on women to the point where you would regret your own daughter’s birth.

There is just a teeny tiny problem with the statement above: it is completely wrong. Not subjectively wrong, but objectively “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west” wrong. The post that he’s talking about is “Mailbag: Gusto Hat Eine Frage,” published at The Spearhead last week. Elusive Wapiti was responding to reader Gusto who wrote this:

If I’m unfortunate enough to father a girl, what should I do to make sure she grows up with the right attitude?

Those are the only words from Gusto that Wapiti had in his post. Take a look at this sentence, folks. Is there any way to divine that Gusto practiced game from that one line, or that he even knows what game is? If your answer is “yes,” get me the name of your dealer so I can know what brain-damaging drugs you’ve been abusing in your free time. There is no evidence, none, that game had anything at all to do with Gusto’s question. Gusto himself left two comments on the post, one in which he defends himself against Justin’s assertion that he shouldn’t have kids and mentions he is a high-functioning autistic, and another in which he thanks Wapiti for answering his question. In neither comment is game mentioned or even hinted at, and since Gusto says he is autistic and implied he has difficulty understanding people in his first comment, I am confident in saying that he most likely does not practice game.

Additionally, while game is a frequent topic of conversation at the virtual Algonquin Round Table that is The Spearhead, Elusive Wapiti did not discuss, make reference to, or mention it in his post once. Not once. Not only that, game did not come up as a topic in the comments at all. Discounting the unrelated sidebar, searching for “game” in the post using Google Chrome’s word-finder feature turns up a grand total of three usages, listed below.

One comment from Jabherwochie:

The two Demaines continue to work closely together and have many joint works of both mathematics and art,[13] including three pieces of mathematical origami in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York;[14] their joint mathematical works focus primarily on the mathematics of folding and unfolding objects out of flat materials such as paper and on the computational complexity of games and puzzles.

One from Thursday:

As me and my teacher friends say, the kids just want to fuck and play videogames.

And one from Eumaios, quoting the above Thursday comment verbatim.

Unless you’re like Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind and able to divine secret messages from completely innocuous passages of text, there is no way to claim that ANY of the above statements have ANYTHING to do with game, consergame, seduction, or whatever you want to call the science of winning a woman’s sexual and romantic interest.

So what can we ascertain about our friend Justin from his tiny little fib here? There are two possible conclusions:

1. Justin is a liar who has no qualms with twisting the words of others in order to libel his opponents.
2. Justin is a moron who can’t read.

If you case his blog for a bit, you’ll find that Justin clearly isn’t stupid – in fact, he’s well informed and correct on a number of topics. Therefore, we’ll have to go with option number one.

Now, pardon me if I get this wrong, but isn’t there a Biblical commandment that forbids lying? “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?” A God-fearing man such as Justin ought to know this. I wouldn’t make a huge deal out of this, but Justin is one of those hypocrites who wraps his arguments against game in a film of moral superiority. He even had the balls to call me a “moral degenerate.” And here he is, violating the very codes he is supposed to live his life by. I have no quarrel with the religious, but people who break the moral laws they use to attack me and my compadres just piss me off.

I never claimed to be a saint or even that good of a man, but I strive to be as honest as I can be. I despise liars and hypocrites, and if I had ever believed in God, my conception of hell would be something akin to Dante’s, with the aforementioned groups occupying prime real estate just above Satan’s chambers. If people oppose game, that’s their business, but I’ll not tolerate them lying to my face in a transparent, intelligence-insulting fashion. In his statement above, Justin has revealed himself to be a man lacking in both integrity and intellectual gravitas. Keep this post in mind the next time you catch him spewing his empty moral platitudes and sterotypical shaming language insults around the blogosphere.

You tangled with the wrong blogger, holmes. Now feel the pain.

God hates Albany, and we’re all going to hell

Yep, everybody’s favorite too-homophobic-to-be-true church is coming to town:

The city school district is preparing for demonstrations by members of a Kansas church protesting the Albany High School performance of “The Laramie Project.”

Westboro Baptist Church members are expected to be at the high school Friday, Nov. 20, before the second performance of the play. The church is led by Fred Phelps, who says homosexuality is to blame for the deaths of soldiers in the war on terror.

Albany students say they were inspired to perform the play, about the life of a college student beaten to death because he was gay, by the church’s protest in Albany last year.

Phelps wasn’t at the protests eight months ago, but members of his Westboro Baptist Church stood outside the school. Five held “God hates fags” signs. They stomped on an American flag. They chanted about dead babies and how America’s lapsed morality was causing the deaths of its soldiers.

Am I the only person who thinks that Fred Phelps is some sort of FBI agent provocateur who’s being paid to make Christians look bad? Westboro’s entire gestalt hews too closely to the stereotypes that insular, atheist, left-wing blue state SWPLs have of God-fearing heartlanders to be believable. Anyone else think Phelps will end up being unmasked as the Hal Turner of American Christianity?

Linkage is Good for You: Common Cold Edition

Why do I always get sick at the most inopportune times? When I was in school, I’d always fall ill around exam time, and nowadays, I always get sick either on the weekends or on days I already have off from work. Spending a whole day curled up on the couch watching TV and eating chicken noodle soup would be more tolerable if I got to use up one of my sick days for once. The mind is willing, but the body feels like shit.

Eh, enough of my complaining, on to the new guys:

omegaman93555 profiles the omega male.

Mark Baachman dissects common lines that women use on him and writes a slut dictionary.

Dan states eloquently that men and women are equal but different.

sparks123 describes his journey into the world of game.

Also check out Feminist Critics and Renee’s LiveJournal.

And the rest of y’all:

Prime writes on liberal biorealism.

Chuck reports on how commitment causes a woman’s sex drive to drop.

Dave from Hawaii gets disgusted by fatties with FUPAs.

Novaseeker takes down the bogus idea that all of the major religions teach the same thing.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech critiques models of Western decline and brags about how good he has it.

Roissy elucidates how to play the game when you get older.

Obsidian outlines the value of game and writes on the death of the American working class.

Whiskey analyzes the fall of Gossip Girl and Dollhouse and what it means for Hollywood.

Donald Pittenger discusses his issues with libertarianism.

Al Fin states that Detroit is an advance look at what Obama’s America will be like.

Alpha Dominance writes on the controlling and narcissistic nature of modern moms.

11minutes tells of the fall of the greatest seducer he ever knew.

Master Dogen pens a paean to beautiful women.

Anakin Niceguy criticizes evo-psych extremism.

Anoukange applies Jungian categories to men.

Alex Birch mocks the ludicrousness of anti-Americanism in Sweden.

Max looks back at his youth.

From Girl Game: LILGRL gives her recipe for pot roast and Aoefe compares dating to the stock market.

Hunter Huxley states that human nature is responsible for the doom of human civilizations.

Kimberly blames feminism for the inability of modern women to find love.

Khankrumthebulgar posts on how feminism encourages women to behave in life-endangering ways.

MarkyMark dissects an incredible Craigslist post from an incredibly deluded woman.

OneSTDV asks if we can halt the fall of the West and writes a guide to gym etiquette.

Eumaios relates his discovery of game.

Roosh rips into single women who intentionally have children.

Alkibiades gives his reasons for hating sorority rush week.

Aoefe tells the tale of her first love.

Hestia praises The Good Wife’s Guide.

Genius gives his idea for getting more Jews to marry.

Marquis realizes the ridiculousness of the unalienable right to vote.

Robert Stacy McCain defends Twitter narcissism.

Hugh MacIntyre pounds the last nail into the ADQ’s coffin.

Slumlord writes on the dilemma that dominant women face and notes the dearth of good men in the modern world.

Vera reminisces on the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Ross Jeffries blows the lid on seduction community scamsters. (Hat tip: Assanova.)

Guy White explains how Alexa works to his anti-Semitic detractors.

Richard Hoste smacks down Meghan McCain.

Ron Guhname states that abortion has a dysgenic effect on the American population.

Rod Lott lists five books with sexy covers.

Indomitable Thoughts asserts that a female-centric society is a litigious society.

Bryan Caplan gives his thoughts on the twentieth anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s fall.

Lew Rockwell asks why socialism is so popular around the world.

The Chronicle Review asks education experts whether too many people are going to college. (Hat tip: Denis Dutton.)

Agnostic identifies a proven way to empower women that runs counter to feminist claims.

Robin Hanson reports that women are evolving to be fatter and shorter.

Daniel Larison claims that the GOP will not make a comeback in 2010.

Silas Reinagel elaborates on how modern life has destroyed masculinity.

John Robb explains how globalization is changing the nature of loyalty.

Half Sigma debunks the idiocy of the phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

David Goldman explains how the British government has declared Judaism to be racist.

Steve Sailer writes another column on Mad Men.

Tim Mohr reports on how the West hijacked the fall of the Berlin Wall for their own purposes.

Vox Day gets annoyed at women who whine when their men play video games.

The double standard persists because women enable it

slwerner left this brilliant comment over at Seasons of Tumult and Discord:

““When girls sleep with multiple people on different occasions, she is labeled as a ’slut’ or ‘whore,’ but when guys hook up with multiple girls they’re seen as heroes to the male race,” said Rachel Sloane, a senior at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.”

Okay,

Where are all these guy’s who supposedly make hero’s out of other men who happen to “score” a lot?

While I can honestly say “more power to ya” to a successfully promiscuous man, I certainly don’t regard him as a hero. And, I’ve never met any other men who do either.

So, let me just come right out and ask, “Do any of you guy’s idolize or make hero’s out of other men based on their success with women”? (I’m asking this seriously)

I suspect that the most we do is acknowledge another man’s ability to get women – because we realize that it actually means something – as opposed to effort a woman would have to go to in order to get men. But, I just don’t see any hero-worship going on.

What I personally suspect is that it is ONLY women who so idolize promiscuous men, and give them a heroic status. They, and they alone, are the ones to blame for this perceived double-standard. They’re just looking for a way to blame men for it by claiming men make hero’s out of male-sluts.

All that would have to happen to end the double-standard would be for women to start thinking of promiscuous men as a) probable carriers of STD’s (the science actually bears this one out) the way men do of promiscuous women; and b) as bad choices for long-term relationships (which, they are) – again, the same way men view promiscuous women.

If women could somehow bring themselves to devalue promiscuous men the same way men devalue promiscuous women, voilà, the double-standard would end.

But, as a practical matter we know that women are not going to stop longing after men with proven sexual track-records – no matter how good a sense that would make.

Which is why they seem to feel the need to make being a slut as admirable to a man as a man being a stud is to a woman.

But, just like women aren’t going to stop admiring studs, men are not going to start admiring sluts. And, there are damned good reasons not to. Men just seem to have better sense in this regard.

Logic alone would suggest that the better approach is the one typically taken by men. So, in the end, if women do not want to adopt the better logic, they just going to have to come to grips with that supposed double-standard.