The Experiment: I refused to go to that new Twlight movie

Before I get into the rest of this, I know this was Thanksgiving week, but I didn't get that raise to $250,000 a year I was expecting from my job now that I have gotten laid.  I guess there really is no connection between success in other areas of life and sexual/relationship success.

I got back from travelling for Thanksgiving yesterday and got together with Rachel.  We had sex.  There isn't a lot to say about it since all of the first time stuff I told you about in my last post doesn't apply here.  Again, I must have done at least a halfway decent job since Rachel seemed pretty happy.  I still don't have a good feel yet for how sexually aggressive I should be.

This morning Rachel started talking about how she hadn't seen the new Twilight movie yet, and "we should go".  (Why does a 28 year old woman want to see that movie?)  Obviously, I refused very strongly.  This precipitated something of an argument for a minute leading Rachel to say something I won't repeat exactly, but it was along the lines of, "PMAFT, why do you have to be such a big dick?"  That was it for me.  Rachel was out of here.  As I was pushing her out the door, Rachel was like, "I'm sorry!!!!  I'm sorry!!!!", but that didn't stop me.

I have been juggling two women for the last two weeks, and I don't like it.  I was looking for a reason to dump one of them, and this was as good as any.  I just got a text message from Rachel apologizing again and begging me to take her back.  I'm not inclined to take Rachel back since I don't want to juggle two women, but if anyone else has any other ideas, I'm listening.

The Experiment: Where are the angels coming down from Heaven?

Depending on your perspective this will either be good news, bad news, or you don't care.  Kristen's STD results came back, and yes I actually saw them.  And she is STD free so you know what that means.  She was really ready to go.  Everything from the way Kristen dressed to what she said and did was screaming take me now.

I have to admit I was nervous.  Some of you know I did some "research" on a few things and that did help.  While it didn't make me an expert, it did prevent me from getting lost and looking like I had never done this before.  Kristen suspects nothing.  I was worried about not being able to get it up and things like that.  I was able to relax.  We had dinner beforehand, and I did drink some wine so took the edge off.  (I also made sure not to drink too much so I didn't end up with "whiskey dick".)

It was fun of course, and there were some new experiences for me.  Some of them were pretty mundane.  For instance, I have been sleeping in a bed big enough for two people for many, many years, but I always slept in the middle.  This is the first time I slept on one side of a bed that size.  It may seem silly and mundane to you, but its was new to me.

I was expecting some angels to come down from Heaven after this, but that didn't happen from the way many people claim getting laid is so important to being taken seriously.  The mysteries of the universe weren't revealed to me.  It wouldn't have to have been all of them, just a few would have been enough.  We will see tomorrow if I get a raise at work.  Lots of people claim that virginity loss is required to have real, high paying jobs.  Given that I was pulling down a massive salary before losing my virginity, I'm expecting that tomorrow I will start earning a salary of at least $250,000 a year.  (Given my current salary, it has to be raised to at least a quarter of a million dollars for those guys to be right.)  If this doesn't happen tomorrow, then you guys can make it correct by sending me money.  Since this is a one time payment, all you guys who believe that financial success and sexual/relationship success are tied together, must send me at least half a million dollars ($500,000) total between all of you before I will admit you're right.

One thing this experiment has shown me so far is that there was no "improvement" involved.  I have read plenty from people who claim that going from not getting laid to getting laid means that you have "improved" yourself in some nebulous way.  It's nebulous since self improvement in all other cases is clearly objective.  Regardless, I didn't change myself in this experiment.  I didn't "improve" myself in any way.

Kristen made me breakfast this morning, and when I say made breakfast I mean actually made breakfast (specifically omelettes).  I take this to mean I must have done at least a halfway decent job in nailing her since I would assume that women don't make breakfast for guys who failed to satisfy them in bed the previous night.

Even now after having sex, there is still a great deal I'm still feeling out and getting comfortable with.  I don't have a good grasp of just how sexually aggressive I should be.  There is a lot to be said for turning a woman's expectations that you will be sexually aggressive as soon as possible on its ear and making her beg for it instead.  Sofia at GirlGame said that being chased sexually gives women a position of power.  It seems like a good idea to deny that power.

I still amazed at how easy so much of this was.  Of course, the idea that this would be like getting blood from a stone has not left my mind yet, so compared to that anything is "easy".  I am also noticing something along the lines of all I have to do is tell Kristen (or Rachel) that I want something and they deliver.  Is that part of being dominant and them being submissive?  I really don't know (yet).  Like I said, I still feeling my way around so much of this.

I know many of my haters are really pissed now since they can't call me a loser virgin anymore.  I expect some invention from them to come up with ideas to work around this problem.  I look forward to reading the nonsense they come up with.

Spearhead Article: The Light of Truth of Paternity Testing

Recently, the New York Times had an article on paternity testing which has already been commented on by our own Roissy and Female Masculinist on their respective personal blogs.  The men in the NYT article are all the victims of fraud.  In any other context, the legal system would consider this a case of outright fraud.  What this means is that the simple technology of paternity testing has acted as the light of truth exposing the entire family law system from lawyers to judges as corrupt and supremely dishonest.


The other area where paternity testing has shown the light of truth is with female behavior.  Before paternity testing the only way a man would know for certain if his wife/girlfriend had committed paternity fraud against him was if he was away from his wife/girlfriend for an extended period of time when conception would have taken place.  Now, it's possible for men to know the truth both individually and globally.  Depending on who you ask the cuckoldry rate is somewhere between 1% and 30% with 10% being a commonly cited number.  Without mandatory paternity testing it's impossible to know the exact percentage.  However, the exact percentage doesn't matter so much since paternity testing has shown that paternity fraud does happen enough that every man should be concerned about whether his kids really are his kids.

Before paternity testing women and male white knights would claim that "women would never lie about paternity".  Since paternity testing has proven this to be a myth, they have moved to "biological/genetic connections don't matter" and shaming language.  Take this quote from Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband.  My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are.

First, take notice of the shaming language.  Beyond that this quote is incredibly self serving.  I would bet serious money that if McCarthy had a medical problem that was inherited or otherwise required family medical history she would change her tune really quick.  And what about all of those adopted children who go searching for their biological parents?  According to her that shouldn't happen.  It's all just more proof that McCarthy is claiming that fatherhood doesn't matter and engaging in anti-male shaming language.

If a genetic connection doesn't matter for fatherhood that why does it matter for motherhood?  The article points out that hospitals go to great lengths to make sure that the baby a mother gave birth to is the baby she leaves with including footprints, matching ID bands, guarded nurseries, surveillance cameras, etc.  If genetics does not matter then why doesn't the government take all babies after they are born and randomly reassign them to parents?  It's because genetics does matter.  Every other position is self serving shaming language, and paternity testing has exposed this.

Mandatory paternity testing will probably not happen in the future since women and male white knights will oppose it.  However, that does not matter since the most significant change from the creating of paternity testing is the knowledge men now have that cuckolding is a serious problem.  Men are now aware of the need to make sure that his kids are really his, and nothing is going to put that genie back into the bottle.


(As with all spearhead posts, comments are disabled so comment at The Spearhead.)

There's another name for this: Hell

There was this sketch on Saturday Night Live about life in the 50s.  Watch it below.  (I added the youtube upload as well as the hulu one so you should be able to see at least one.)

There's an alternate name for this situation.  It's called Hell.  While this is from Saturday Night Live and is humorous, this isn't that far from what the socons want for all of us.  Sure the wife looks miserable, but that's part of the joke.  Look at how the husband is miserable too.  It's a lot more subtle, but you can see it there.

My colleague, zed, over at The Spearhead has pointed despite all of the problems caused by feminism, the fact is that feminism by accident freed men.  This is because feminism removed all of the societal requirements placed on men.  This is also why men are happier than women now.  It makes perfect sense when you think about it.   Do you want to go back to this version of Hell in the video?  Of course not.

Fembot Bingo!

If you're reading this blog then you're familiar with shaming language.  Quite possibly, I have more experience being the recipient of shaming language than any other man on the planet.  There is the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.  I found a new variant of it, Fembot Bingo:

This covers a great deal of shaming language.  To personalize it for me, you have to add "is a reptilian alien", "is a member of the Illuminati", etc.

Just Another Day In Paradise

There is this Middle Eastern place for lunch half a block away from my office that I occasionally go to.  I have been there enough times that the owner recognizes me as a semi-regular customer.  I went there for lunch today and the owner was behind the counter.  There was the usual hi, how are you.  For his side of the how are you he said something interesting, "You know.  Just another day in paradise."

This got me thinking.  I get made fun of and/or attacked by plenty of people online for being a virgin and for GMOW.  If I told anyone IRL about this aspect of my life the same thing would happen IRL.  The fact is that my life is better than theirs to the point that compared to their lives, I'm living in paradise.  This is true of my life compared to most people's lives in general.

The biggest reason is that because I'm a MGHOW I'm free.  I look at all of my married (male) coworkers, friends, acquaintances, business associates, etc. and unless they just got married three months ago, they are slowly becoming more and more miserable.  This is not surprising since they are trapped.  Several of my coworkers got together to take this automotive repair class.  That's sensible enough because if you're willing to spend the time it can save you a lot of money.  But the real unspoken reason is that these guys have been semi-exiled from their own homes in a way.  They are looking for a way to spend time in their garages away from the rest of their house and family.  They are the ones working to pay the mortgages on these houses, and they have been exiled from most of their property!

Then you have the divorced guys.  If you're reading this blog, then you don't need me to go into detail about the devastation that happens to men during divorce.  I do have some interesting stories like with this one guy I know who got married at the top of the housing bubble.  Since he got married, he "had" (as in his wife made him using shaming language who was probably helped by a realtor named Suzanne) to buy a house.  Given the insanity of house prices at the time, he ended up buying a house that is about a far away from DC as you can get while still being considered in the "greater DC area".  They got divorced a while back and he got stuck with the house.  He has been trying to sell it with no luck.  For now he is stuck with a hugely long commute each way to work with lots of traffic.  That is pretty telling.

The unmarried guys are the best off, but too many of them think they "need" a woman.  All this means is that these guys are easily manipulated by women.  (Even game won't protect you from this idea as we can give examples of guys who know game, but still place way too much importance on women.)  I do my best to convince these guys otherwise, but a lot of them are willing to go into the slaughterhouse.

I'm free, and these guys aren't.  I'm able to go where I want, do what I want, and not make stupid financial decisions due to female shaming language.  This permeates to all aspects of my life whether its being more financially secure than them or being happier since I don't have a harpy sucking the life out of me.  Compared to most people, I am living in paradise.

If you think I'm being asinine about this, the read this post about the marriage timetable from The Better Beta and reconsider your view.

Death of the West? - Using Historical Models

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the death of Western Civilization.  You can read what Dennis Mangan, OneSTDV, Prime (twice), and Ferdinand Bardamu had to say about it.  I was going to weigh in on this, but then I realized that this was going to take several posts, so I decided to start a series of posts about this subject.  They will all have the "death of the west?" label on them, and I will write them as I have time interspersed with all my other posts.

You will notice that I have death of the west followed by a question mark.  That's because I'm asking the questions is Western Civilization really dying, and if so is there any way of turning it around.  While there are a lot of problems that do have the potential to bring down Western Civilization, there is also a lot of sensationalism, defeatism, misunderstandings and half truths involved.  While I do have my own guesses about the answers this is a journey I am on with you so I don't know where it will lead.  I'm going to try my best to do this using reason and not defeatism and sensationalism.  Get all of your "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" out of your system before you continue reading.

Let's take a look at historical models.  When talking about the death of the West usually, some type of historical model is invoked.  A common one is the fall of Rome.  That makes sense.  There are plenty of parallels between the modern world and the decline and fall of Rome that anyone can come up with.  However, it is not a one to one mapping.  There is no way it could be.  Technology is one huge difference (and this will be the subject of subsequent death of the west? posts).  There are others.  In other words, there are limits to the use of the Fall of Rome as a historical model (as would be true with any other historical model).  That doesn't mean the Fall of Rome is completely useless.  We just have to recognize that there are limits.

Another problem is not fully understanding a historical model.  Take the Fall of Rome again.  When people talk about the Fall of Rome what they are really referring to (usually) is the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire.  The Byzantine Empire lasted for another thousand years.  Aspects like that could be important in using a historical model like the Fall of Rome because it tells us different things.

The historical models that could help us may not be well known.  The reason why the Fall of Rome model gets used a lot is because its something we are all familiar with.  It may or may not be the best model.  Other models might also provide useful knowledge.  Take the fall of the Sassanid dynasty of Iran, the last pre-Islamic dynasty of Iran.  The Sassanids had fought several wars against the Byzantines which depleted their treasury leading to high taxes and subsequent rebellions over those high taxes.  They had also expanded their empire into several client states which weakened the empire.  There was infighting among the dynasty which led to a woman taking over as empress for two years who some historians have described as a feminist.  All of this made the Sassanid empire weak enough to fall to invading Muslims.  Sound familiar?  Like with all historical models appropriate skepticism must be applied, but this is one model to consider.

Sometimes historical models can be stretched to the point where they make no sense.  One model that comes up in this context (or specifically the fall of the United States) is the collapse of the Soviet Union.  While there are a few (and only a few) aspects that are comparable, the fact of the matter is that the collapse of the Soviet Union is not a useful model.  You may remember that Russian KGB analyst that claimed that the US will break up in 2010 as shown on the map below.

This is an example of how applying the collapse of the Soviet Union to the US in nothing short of lunacy.  It would take me days to document all the ways this guy is wrong so here is a few.  You have the basic things problems such as why the US would break up on state lines as opposed to natural borders.  The republics of the USSR had more natural borders.  Why would Arizona and SoCal end up as part of the Chinese controlled state given the Hispanic population there?  The deep south will fight to the death rather than become a part of Mexico.  South Carolina will never join up with the EU.  The "Central North American" republic can't exist as a part of Canada or as a client state since in either case that would mean Canada would effectively cease to be Canada.  The list goes on and on.

Even if you think this makes sense and all that is needed is some adjustments of the borders, you're wrong.  The reason why is because this is not about the breakup of the US.  It's shoehorning the breakup of the Soviet Union in North America and is based on Russian fears of being absorbed by their neighbors.  It fails a real analysis of the United States so no matter what you try, it isn't salvageable.

I used this example because I wanted to show you just how far historical models can be taken out of their original context.  This gives us no useful knowledge.  The only reason you heard about this Russian KGB guy and his so called analysis is because of sensationalism.  Who wouldn't want to get a bunch of web hits by talking about how the US is about to breakup?  A lot of people enjoyed reading this since it allowed them to run around screaming, "OMG THE US IS ABOUT TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When we anaylize the possible death of the west, we need to do in a sober and reasoned fashion.  Sensationalism, hysteria, and drunk Russians will not help us.  That is what you need to take away from this post more than anything else.