Tuesday 9:46pm

February 5, 2012

My phone doesn’t show any missed alerts, which means she hasn’t called or texted me since getting off work. I am slightly annoyed, since I know she  has started revealing to people that we’re fucking. Except that we’re not fucking — despite the fact that she put my dick inside her this weekend, which I wouldn’t really call fucking, since I was mostly asleep at the time.

I consider the impact pornography has had on my sex life and general ability to relate to women, and decide I would be better off without it. The fact remains that she hasn’t called me tonight, and that chafes me ever so slightly. If she really liked me, she would have called, knowing my tendency to worry when I don’t have enough information to make an informed decision.

I’m eating frozen blueberries, because I’ve heard the antioxidants in blueberries prevent cancer, and I have a testicular ultrasound scheduled for this Friday at 4pm. I worry that my boss will think I’m not serious about my job if I take too much more time off work to get medical tests. I’m pretty sure that beating cancer would improve my lifetime earnings by close to $250,000. I’m also falling in love with my nurse practitioner. She’s a cancer survivor herself. That’s probably why she ordered the tests.

The girl who hasn’t called me doesn’t seem to be very emotionally aware. I’m mostly convinced she’s either sleeping with, or just emotionally manipulating, my best friend Bradley. On the other hand, that could be my excessive and irrational mistrust of all people. The evidence for that belief doesn’t seem to be overwhelming, but since I have trouble thinking of counter-evidence, I find it hard to dismiss out of hand. I decide that if the possibility exists, it would be more embarrassing to dismiss it and be caught unawares later, than to hold an irrational position forever and just feel cautious and hard-headed.

I can’t shake my obsessive thoughts about my nurse practitioner. She has breast implants, and I think surviving cancer is probably the only set of circumstances in which I would endorse a woman getting breast implants. I would love a big tumbler of Dewars on the rocks right now.

There’s probably not enough binge drinking in my life at this point for me to make the really hard decisions about what happens next, like do I go to grad school or just continue climbing the corporate ladder. The next most important question is, can I fuck that 31-year-old tart they just installed behind my desk without my current work girlfriend finding out? Her face is so basically perfect, I don’t even care that she has almost no tits. I have thought about fucking her in the stairwell a disturbing number of times, without a condom. I would definitely want to come inside her without a condom. I wonder if she would notice if I masturbated and came in her hair while she was on the phone. I think I’m going to start ordering two drinks at a time when I’m at all but the fanciest restaurants. Are my shoulders starting to seize up from my kettlebell class?

The thing about my co-worker (the 31-year-old, not the one I’m not fucking) is that she’s unlikely to get drunk near me unless it’s at work sponsored event. Could we fuck at one of those without anyone noticing? Probably not. It would be more ethical not to flirt heavily with other women I work with, but I think it’s almost inevitable. Our only stage upon which to play out romantic jealousy plots is work. This is extremely unprofessional behavior but it might not be able to be helped.

It’s now 10:01 (also the name of a very pretentious restaurant in my neighborhood), and no call or text from the coworker I’m not fucking. I can’t believe how thoroughly she’s dissing me. I wonder if a trip to the Llave del Infierno strip club and a handjob from a stripper would make me feel better about the situation. I could order two drinks at once.

Since I’ve been writing for about 15 minutes and produced about 800 words, I can surmise my writing speed is about 3,108 words per hour, which is really quite spectacular and should more than make up for the fact that I’m so inept at having real relationships. It’s probably the best idea to just go to bed now, so I can get enough sleep to encourage protein synthesis in my shoulders, lats, gluts, and quads. I’m supposed to go to a South-side lounge tomorrow with my friend Randy, and speak to a girl I find attractive, to get over my fear of approaching women. With the  anger I feel from being dissed tonight, I get the distinct impression that will be no problem. I should probably also meditate again before I get in bed, to cleanse myself of this negativity and re-center my mind in a happy and positive place that allows me to consider the very real possibility of a stable, monogamous long-term relationship with a woman who is three years my senior, has a much less valuable undergraduate degree than me, and yet somehow still makes 94% of what I make.

Advertisements

I recently wrote and posted the best craig’s list personals ad ever. How do I know it was the best ever? Well, because about 100 women told me so.

Here is a typical response:

“Wow I have to say I’m a little old for you (48) and probably not your type but you should get a response from every woman in (XX city)! Yours is definitely the most fun and funniest post I have ever seen on Craig’s List, usually, they are sick and disgusting but yours was amazing! You must have funny oozing out of every pore on your body . . . anyway just wanted to say I wish you luck and am sure you will have no trouble finding a great girl!”

This post is a great example of typical female psychology. If a guy is funny, and he posts a funny ad online, then he should get laid like a rug, and married, and kids, and wealthy. Everything will be OK as long as you are a really, really, funny and amazing guy.

Well, I am a really, really funny and amazing guy. And you know what? The world doesn’t work that way.

This is how the world works:

  1. If a woman is looking for love online, either browsing personal ads or answering craig’s list personal ads, she is defective in one of the following ways: addict. overweight. ugly. angry. mean. single mom. deeply conflicted. low self-esteem. shitty job. no career. no ambition. wants kids. wants financial support. trying to cheat on husband. etc. etc. etc.
  2. The really hot, quality girls are either married, or in “monogamous” relationships. The scare quotes around “monogamous” just mean that they might slip up and sleep with a friend or a random dude in a bar if the mood strikes. Nobody finds out or if they do, they’re forgiven.
  3. The really hot, quality girls spend all their days in a corporate environment (since men and women are equal now) and then go home to their bore-friends who fuck them in pretty much the same way  all the time. (I know this because I’ve been one of those bore-friends).
  4. The really hot, quality girls might go out on a ‘girls ‘night’ but then it’s all about drinking and dancing and looking hot and only occasionally, in a very rare instance, letting themselves get fucked. So-called ‘players’ or player wannabes will spend 90% of their effort trying to find or manufacture those instances when an otherwise ‘claimed’ woman will open her legs for just one night.
  5. The really hot, quality girls are therefore SEQUESTERED away from any really hot, quality guys who may be single.
  6. The really hot, quality girls who are SOMEHOW STILL SINGLE are therefore free to sigh, “where are all the GOOD guys?” Simple because they have constructed (or rather, allowed society to construct for them) a CLOISTER around their lives so they have ALMOST NO CHANCE of meeting a decent guy outside of an alcohol-soaked dance club where they won’t remember anything anyway.
  7. The way for an awesome, funny, intelligent guy like me is NOT TO POST PERSONALS, but to go out to an alcohol-soaked dance club, insult women, insult men, and generally act like an arrogant douche-canoe until a girl is amused enough to let me drag her back to my car / apartment where I will proceed to pound her like a cheap steak, an event that will go down in her personal history as ‘the best night of passion of my life’ due to her filling in all the awkward gaps caused by alcoholic memory erasure with scenes from her favorite romance novel, but which will expose ABSOLUTELY NONE of my best qualities, and therefore lead to no number exchange, no further conversation, no personal expansion, no authentic encounter, no mutuality, no connection, and nothing, in other words, worth doing at all.

If you’re a hot, funny, attractive, intelligent single guy, and you don’t live in NYC, LA, SFO, or (maybe) Chicago, the best thing you can do is either A) move to one of the aforementioned places and join the rest of the human dating race, or B) slit your wrists right now.

Because the online thing doesn’t work.

I have to say, I like guns.tsmg.gif

This topic is a little off base of what I usually write about here, so I’ll be brief, but I do think it’s important.

New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy recently dusted off old H.R. 1022, which you can track here via OpenCongress.

A summary of the bill follows:

A bill, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, that greatly expands the list of prohibited weapons. The definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon is broadened in the bill, to include many guns that are currently legal. The text of this bill contains a long list of specific guns that would become illegal to possess, if it were enacted. Additionally, it would make the private transfer of any assault weapon illegal.

Now, a lot of bloggers are going nuts about this bill — “The Dems are trying to take away all our guns!” and “This is 10x worse than Clinton!” and “THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!”

But if they looked closely, they would notice that this bill is absolutely 100% D.O.A.

First of all, it has NO co-sponsors (nobody else is dumb enough to support it).

Second of all, it’s been referred back to Committee, where it will most likely die an inglorious death.

It’s probably just horse-trading.

Nobody is willing to sign on with her, because not only is anti-gun legislation largely ineffective from a policy standpoint, it’s also an absolute non-starter from a political standpoint.

Standing Armies vs Well-Organized Militia
Bills like this, and gun-control legislation in general, always comes back to the 2nd Amendment: Let’s review:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2004-antique-rifle-lg.jpg
This is a Jeffersonian concept that is related to the idea that the free State would not be keeping standing armies. Since we do have a standing army (and an extremely expensive one at that), some anti-gun activists will say that there is no need for a well-regulated militia.

To which I reply: a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, would be desperately needed in such times that the freedom of said State was under attack by aforementioned standing army.

To wit: Bush’s grab for control of the National Guard.
To wit: Corporations empowered to raise their own standing armies.
To wit: our ‘broken’ Armed Forces , over-stretched because of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now possibly Iran), and their current inability to protect our own nation in the (admittedly unlikely) event of an attack on our own soil.
Gali assault rifle
If this country continues it’s slide into corporate autocracy, I’m sure that pretty soon a whole lot of Democrats are going to wish they owned assault rifles, and a whole lot of Republicans are going to be glad they do.

Urban vs Rural
Others argue that gun control is really an issue between the soft-palmed sissy urbanites — locked in their glass condos for fear of the gritty urban gun battles taking place in the ‘bad’ parts of their city — and the rural gun owners, those rugged individualists who are either salt-of-the-earth hunters or crazy survivalists stockpiling bunkers of illegal assault weapons, depending who you ask.
deagle1.jpg
I think it’s unquestionable that urbanites and others living in metropolitan areas have a much different relationship with firearms than rural people.

It’s easy, when you are in a city and hearing about people get shot weekly or even daily, to be logical and think “Well, the guns are the problem. We should just ban all the guns and then nobody would get shot.”

On the other hand, the rural people, who have grown up around guns and treat them with respect and understand their power, can’t get their heads around this. “Take away our guns? Yeah, when you pry them from our cold, dead fingers.”
A rural marksman.
Urbanites, of course, then decide that anyone who was so strongly in favor of gun ownership must be a bloodthirsty thug — since all the people they associate with gun use in the city are either thugs or other People of Low Moral Fiber.

But they’ve got it backwards, because when you go out into the country, “gun people” are often the nicest people around.

This is the disconnection between urban morality and rural morality: In dense urban areas, there are gang wars, drug deals, “reps” to protect, and guns will be made available as tools in these social constructs regardless of their legality, since they are part of American culture.

In rural areas, a different kind of morality holds sway — more traditional moral and family values, respect for nature and the environment, respect for individual liberties and the power of guns. The cultural love of guns holds true here, too, but here, the guns are used in an entirely different way.

These are broad characterizations and as such obviously gloss over subtlety and nuance, but I think are no less useful for all that.

So it should be easy to see why the argument so quickly gets out of hand between an urban anti-gun liberal and a conservative pro-gun rural: they’re arguing across cultures and moral systems. The issue of gun control is really incidental to their argument.steyr-gb.gif

Here’s the reality: guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE with guns kill people. And the legal or restricted status of guns in urban areas will do absolutely diddly-squat to curb gun violence and violence in general.

You think criminals can’t get guns once they’re outlawed? If they want guns, they can get guns. If anything outlawing certain weapons makes them MORE likely to be available on the black market.

It’s the Economy, Stupid
I believe that the presence or absence of guns really has nothing to do with the rates and levels of inner-city violence.

People’s subjective feelings of happiness and hope, on the other hand, do.

When the economy is up, and unemployment is low, and real wages are rising (adjusted for inflation) and the poorest 10% of our population believes they have a chance to better their circumstances, crime will be low, because the perceived risks associated with criminal behavior will outweigh the perceived potential rewards that could probably more easily (and less riskily) be gained by legitimate employment or other opportunities.

When the economy is down, and unemployment is high, and real wages are stagnant or falling, and the poorest 10% of our population believes that they have been forgotten by the politicians and all sectors of the economy, then crime will rise, because the perceived rewards of criminal behavior will outweigh any other perceived rewards that an individual could gain by other means.

In closing, I believe all citizens of the United States should be able to purchase long arms, handguns, semiautomatic and automatic assault rifles, so long as they go through a mandatory gun safety and usage training course, and registered each and every weapon they owned as well as disclosed ammunition amounts.

I also believe that all gun-owning citizens should be required to take independently-verified marksmanship tests, the results of which would be tabulated and placed in a state database, so the state could evaluate the quality and amount of firepower that was available to it in the event of a “citizen’s militia” call-up.

Finally, I believe the Fed should butt out of state’s rights and the existing state militias (National Guard). In this respect I am all for strengthening state control and Governors at the expense of the Federal system.

And to conclude, a photo of the Israeli TAV-21 assault rifle, a gun I’d quite enjoy owning:

300px-tavor-latrun-exhibition-1.jpg

Redefining Seduction Reviewed

February 26, 2007

I don’t remember how I came across the website Redefining Seduction — all I knew was that, as a an avid student of human mating behavior and researcher of all the latest dating and mating theories, I had to read the book of the same name.

The draw was obvious. This book, co-written by writers and activists Donna Sheehan and Paul Reffell, promises to produce “The Joyous New Women’s Movement that Men will Love Too!”

Knowing from personal experience how difficult it is to write anything that pleases both men and women, I was interested from this angle — and also because the book promised to, among other quotes from the website:

Picking up from Darwin’s theory of Sexual Selection, Redefining Seduction is an audacious and evocative look at male and female sexuality and the mating game. The premise of women as being in the evolutionary driver’s seat will undoubtedly have huge implications for generations to come.

The premise of women being in the driver’s seat, eh? Well, obviously I can agree with that idea, to a point: I do believe women happen to be the “choosers” of their sexual partners, in one way or another, although this generalization often has limits.

But I was very curious what others had to say, especially others who billed themselves as “evolutionary behaviorists” who had plowed 5 years of research into this book.

Redefining Seduction as Scholarship
I sprung for the $10 e-book version and read it in a few days. It is a small book, at barely 100 pages (including the epilogue), and honestly, I was a bit surprised at how little new information was presented in it.

The authors claim to have spent 5 years researching the book, but honestly, I did not see evidence of 5 years’ worth of original research. The “notes” section that supports their in-text assertion has barely 20 citations.

Obviously, this depth of research did not convince me. I myself have written 100+ page research papers in under three weeks with works cited sections stretching to over 100 citations.

So how does this book stand up as a scholarly work? Not very well.

As a Seduction Manual for Women
Some of the highest praise I can give the authors of Redefining Seduction is that, in their Notes section, they say of the perennial female-seduction guide The Rules: “prolongs the myth that women can beat up on men emotionally and expect to get away with it.”

As great as that is, and as much as this book wants to break paradigms of female behavior, the only real support it offers for the efficacy of its new methods is the success of the two author’s relationships: the book opens with the story of how Donna Sheehan “seduced” Paul Reffell, and returns repeatedly to their relationship over the course of the 100-page book.

Women take great pleasure and comfort in social rapport with other women, and the feeling of solidarity that comes from reading another woman’s story — but if a woman doesn’t identify instantly and closely with Doona (who seems to be the primary and only author, despite Paul’s name being on the cover), she’s sunk.

The book doesn’t even feature the multitude of compared women’s stories that books such as He’s Just Not That Into You do.

As practical guides go, the book does suggest some really basic moves (such as “make him comfortable” and “say positive things” and “touch him lightly”) but does not present a comprehensive “system” or method that is very different or new at all.

In fact, the farthest it goes is saying “keep your eyes open for men, and start chatting them up wherever you see them, take the initiative.” That’s it. That’s pretty much Redefining Seduction in a nutshell.

So, as a seduction manual, I would say this book falls pretty short as well.

It may remind a few women that they are living in the 21st century and there is more leeway for them to take some initiative, but beyond that it really doesn’t advance knowledge or open any new doors.

Devilish Details
Even more shocking, I found this book flat-out got it wrong in key places.

It says men will share the “minutiae” of their relationship lives at the first provocation: which seems a clear case of projection (women do this often, but I haven’t met a single man who does).

In the “Sex” section, it says that “so-called vaginal orgasms result from the stimulation of the clitoris.”

Wrong.

It also says “the clitoris is the center of the climax.”

Wrong again.

Then it goes on to compare orgasm to winning the lottery, and attributing a woman who has an orgasm on first intercourse with a new partner as “lucky”.

What a blatant perpetuation of not only feminist tropes, but plain old downright bad anatomy!

At one point, it leaps to the hasty generalization that “men with dogs have given up on finding a woman.” Uh, actually, the majority of single men I know who have dogs have them because they know that dogs give them opportunities to meet women.

At another point in the Sex chapter, they cite a study that says fully 37% of women wanted men to wait between one and three months before trying to initiate sex.

I couldn’t help thinking, are these women over 65 years old, or what? I don’t know ANY population of women in the U.S., except maybe evangelical Christian virgins, who would want a man to wait that long to try to initiate sex.

The book further mis-characterizes men as indiscriminate breeders — “seed sprayers” — who are incapable of empathy, kindness, or making a good decision on who to sleep or partner with. This is one of the book’s greatest weaknesses, since it is not only sexist and shortsighted, but also misandrist.

Getting It Right
The book does have a few high points, where it gets the analysis of women and men right.

It says at one point that all men “want a woman who is attractive to him and others in some way, a woman who ‘resonates’.”

It DOES warn against blaming men for their actions, which is good, to a point — but on the other hand, it applies this standard of blamelessness to men in other odd situations, such as after a date (“It’s not his fault if he doesn’t call you back.”) Applying this logic to women is what leads to frustrating flakey hate-inspiring modern women, so while I am grateful to see a woman applying these same moral standards to men, I am still concerned that they exist at all — personal responsibility is a good thing.

And finally, it does advocate women be more outgoing and friendly, and not so fearful (of the ever-present threat of “rape”, right?), saying, in a great passage:

Our personal fortress in which most women, especially urbanites, hide in fear of strangers…it’s the closest a woman can come to feeling how it is for most men at all times when they are in public. These defenses are all products of…..[a]….mindset that has created the suspicious and fearful atmosphere that tyrants thrive on.

And, to it’s credit, the book does advocate safe sex.

Save your Money
At $10, I figured I couldn’t possibly waste money on this book, but I was very nearly proved wrong. The authors seem to think they can effect global change with this 100-page polemic against helpless “masked” males: here’s a snippet from the blog that accompanies the book:

Men are designed for focusing on the job at hand, creating stuff, destroying stuff and spraying seed wherever they can. Women are designed for seeing the whole picture, creating connections and creating life from raw seed. Men are not designed to choose their mates. This according to Charles Darwin and his Sexual Selection theory (read the book!).

Actually, Darwin never said men are hapless seed-sprayers incapable of choosing a mate. That’s an extrapolation that the authors have used to put words in his mouth.

Men are designed to display their best traits. Women are designed to select their mates. So, guys, that’s why so many of you have been rejected so many times when you made the first move.

No, guys get rejected because they don’t understand how to approach women in the right way, a way that will appeal to the woman.

And it’s partly why so many marriages end in divorce. Male-initiated marriages are more likely to end in divorce than female-initiated marriages. Google it sometime.

This is because women, when they initiate marriages, initiate marriages with limp-wristed Beta males who are already whipped prior to the “proposal” and are essentially the woman’s domestic and economic servant for the rest of their naturally born days.

Men don’t divorce the woman who proposed to them because the woman won’t give them permission to.

But wait, they’re just getting warmed up:

Now it’s time for women to use their biological seductive power to reclaim their true role as the civilizers of men. Women are the drivers of evolution, through their mate choices, their child-rearing, their ability to understand the bigger picture and thereby the consequences of their, and their mates’, actions. Women are the only hope for steering men away from their path to certain destruction.

Not only is this again returning to the misandristic sexist trope of “men aren’t as mentally capable as women” but it’s saying tha, in effect, women are superior, and would make better political leaders, and can single-handedly bring about a ‘taming’ of the violence of human (whoops, male) nature and save the day.

Well, let’s look at some female political leaders. Janet Reno (remember Elian Gonzales?) Condoleeza Rice. Need I say Margaret Thatcher? Right, I think women make swell political leaders.

Sorry, I don’t buy this sexist trope, and neither should you: humanity suffers because of humanity, not because of men — there are good men as well as bad, and good women as well as bad. Setting it up as a battle between evil men and good, nurturing women is completely counterproductive, given that in reality it is a battle between GOOD men and GOOD women against EVIL men and EVIL women.

And thus concludes my book review. I can’t write another word about this thing: and I cannot recommend this slim manual (I won’t call it a “book”) to anyone.

In the city I currently live in, there is a shortage of Alpha males.

Most of the men in this city are laid back, relaxed, many are effeminate or downright metro. There is a large and openly out gay population.

This is a major metropolitan area, and it is a very liberal, progressive city in a Blue state — the sort of metropolitan area Republican Presidents fear to tread in.

Although it has vibrant local art, music, food and wine scenes and is additionally very high-tech, the men here still leave something to be desired; the nature of the city and the area itself seems to draws effete men to it; and the men here who do play at being “alpha” do so in a churlish, frat-boy way. There are very, very, few of what I would call “natural alphas” that are over 27, single, attractive,  and not douchebags or assholes in some other way.

The women here, on the other hand, are VERY dominant.

Going along with the openly gay community is an open and vocal lesbian community. Women are seen walking openly hand-in-hand down the street while nearby male couple do the same thing. Openly lesbian women are appointed to prestigious teaching positions at local universities.

And that’s what cued me in; a lesbian University professor I once had who, way back then, challenged my assertion that Good Sex ought to involve Emotion.

“I can have sex just based on physical attraction,” she said. “I don’t think emotions have to come into it. And I’m a lot older than you, I think I have a little more experience.” She said this in the context of an undergraduate class in Women’s Studies.

Different place, different time, different woman, same message: I can have sex just like a man.

– I can objectify the targets of my desire;

– I can see them as nothing more than living, breathing sex-toys;

– I can fuck them without regard to their emotional lives;

– I can use them and cast them aside, and move on to the next.

Just like a man can.

And I am free to develop that masculine dominance exactly in proportion to how scarce actual masculine dominance is around here.

By now, I’ve heard this refrain from many women — all of them “dominant” women who were either openly lesbian or strongly bisexual. None of them particularly effeminate — many of them embracing traditionally masculine characteristics — short hair, androgynous clothing, male sex roles, and so forth.

None of them I considered particularly attractive.

What I’m developing here is a social theory that dominant women spring up in the absence of dominant men, and take on their sexual roles.

Or, put another way, assertive, masculine (butch) women are a product of submissive men.

When assertive, masculine, Alpha males are in short supply, women take up the natural slack and expand to fill the power-gap left by those men: they get jobs like them, harass and harangue like them, dress like them,  and try to fuck like them.

This would never happen in a region with a healthy supply of dominant, masculine males: Texas, for instance. A woman who wanted to be dominant would not only not venture to go there (because she’d get laughed right out of her butch attitude) but also, women born in those areas are LESS LIKELY to get the idea that they need or want to develop dominant, traditionally-masculine traits — they see dominant men around them, they understand the power of femininity, and they don’t see any reason to change the status quo.

To further test this theory, I have examined (in fine detail) some women from the vast rural areas outside the dense urban center.

These women are, to a one, more feminine, more attractive, and more interested in and responsive to a dominant,  man.

So now you know. Female dominance is adaptive; female submission is natural.

Friday — angry tourists, acting in self-defense, put the smack down on a mugger who threatened them with a .38.

The tourists, including an ex-Marine, were passengers on the Carnival cruise ship Legend, when they stopped off in the Limon neighborhood of San Jose, Costa Rica to take some pictures when they were accosted by a thug with a gun.

The mugger was killed, his neck snapped — probably by the ex-Marine. The tourists put his body on their tour bus and took it to the police to report the incident.

No charges were filed, since the killing was an act of self-defense.

Live in fear? Hand over your treasure to avoid trouble? Or stand up to intimidation and bullying, and snap that low-life motherfucker’s neck?

I am a strong supporter of martial arts training and deadly force training for all men — not only because it enables justice like this, but because it usually teaches discipline and the proper application of force along the way.

The U.S. is currently stuck in some serious shit overseas mostly because the civilian leadership of our country has never received adequate training on the appropriate use and limits of lethal force.

My platform: an ex-Marine in 2008.