A NY Times article, Sorority Evictions Raise Issues of Look and Bias, raises some hard questions about how college women behave.

Not really.

As if we needed any more proof that college women (and especially college women in sororities) are shallow and vindictive, the story details how a tiny sorority at a tiny college in Greencastle, Indiana — student population 2,400 — effectively kicked out all their overweight, ugly, black, Korean of Vietnamese women.

The purging, initiated by the sorority chapter’s higher-ups from Delta Zeta headquarters in Oxford, Ohio, was probably in response to an annual psychology professor’s survey that asked students to characterize the different sorority groups on campus.

While other sororities got labels like “Daddy’s little princesses” and “Offbeat hippies”, Delta Zeta claimed the prize: “socially awkward”.

Let me point out that the psychology professor, a Ms. Pam Propsom, conducted this little survey ostensibly under the guise of part of her psychology class. My question is, exactly how valuable is a survey that asks students to stereotype sorority girls?

To show the power of stereotypes? College women ought to have learned that lesson well enough in high school.

So a female psychology professor initiates a catty popularity-contest “survey” with questionable educational value, and other catty women, in charge and trying to damage control the bad PR their precious sorority is getting, swoop in from Delta Zeta headquarters, interview 35 sorority members ostensibly in the context of their “commitment” to the organization, and kick out the 25 ugliest and fattest.

And, then the NY Times picks up the story and exposes them all as silly bitches.

You really need to look at the article to see the awful justice in full light of day — the story includes photos of many of the women kicked out, and it’s true, they are not pretty, and they are overweight.

But kicking them out on these grounds and trying to cover it with a tissue-thin fantasy about their lack of commitment is just laughable.

Just more evidence to confirm what I’ve always believed: sorority women at that age are pretty sad. Even sadder are the adult ones who never grow out of the mindset. I’d say they are good for one thing only (sex), but my experience is, often they are disappointing even in bed.

Porn. Porn where they would all excel — not only would it give them an outlet for their catty, competitive energy, it would give them a paycheck for acting fake.

Advertisements

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.

What the hell is this country coming to?

In a report done in early September of 2005, Ed Bradly of CBS News’s 60 Minutes reports on the country’s current “abstinence-only” sex education, and the fact that almost $1 billion dollars worth of federal funding (that’s YOUR tax dollars, folks) have gone into a faith-based educational black hole that actually teaches today’s youngsters that condoms are ineffective and unsafe.

You can watch the report in its entirety over at One Good Move. It’s a real eye-opener. The full transcript is here.

Some of the highlights:

Amy and Rick will be taking their virginity pledge at a music and light sex-education show called Silver Ring Thing. In the last few years, Silver Ring Thing has received more than $1 million in federal and state subsidies. Its aim is to encourage young people to put on a ring and promise to abstain from sex until marriage.

You really need to see these “Silver Ring Thing” shows to believe them. Imagine a nightclub for kids, only with bad Christian rock and a Christian youth minister haranguing kids about the dangers of condoms — and little skits about how BAD sex is unless done in the context of marriage.

Hitler-youth-rally-esque gatherings like the Silver Ring Thing are the reason I’ve been seeing all these “promise rings” popping up on younger women in the past 5 years. We’ll return to those promise rings in a moment.

[Denny] Pattyn [Christian youth minister and founder of Silver Ring Thing] doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases…

“My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom,” says Pattyn, “I don’t think it’ll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom.”

Wow, that’s great, Minister Pattyn, and you know what, you’re absolutely right — because you taught your sweet little 16-year-old daughter that, last night I fucked her raw and she contracted HIV from my gold-plated big-swinging Player Dick (which incidentally has been places you don’t even want to imagine).

You’re right. A condom didn’t protect her. I wasn’t wearing one. She said she didn’t believe in them.

Now she’ll have to deal with the social stigma and health issues of having an STD for the rest of her life.

How do you feel about not telling her to use a condom now?

Columbia University’s Peter Bearman co-authored the most comprehensive study ever done on adolescent health and sexuality. He says, “Sex education doesn’t cause all these negative outcomes. What causes these negative outcomes is kids who are having sex and aren’t protecting themselves.”

It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs — and there was some good news.

“Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half….The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex,”

And that is exactly why predatory men like me just LOVE this whole Promise Ring movement — we get an entire new crop of fresh-faced, ripe young girls who have “saved themselves”; they think they’ve been saving themselves for marriage, but as it turns out, they’ve been saving themselves for US.

So when we seduce one of these Promise-Ring sporting chicklets, we can be pretty sure that, if we hit them at the right time,

A) they are probably relatively free of STDs, compared to women with some sexual experience
and
B) they will not ask us to use a condom.

Our protection from disease is virtually guaranteed by their increased abstinence, and their protection from *our* potential diseases, that we may have acquired from a lifestyle of promiscuous unprotected sex, is virtually nil.

In other words — spending $1 billion in public funds to generate a new crop of 1 million fresh-faced virgins that don’t believe in using condoms? Hell yeah! Now that’s what I call government!

There’s another little ancillary side-benefit:

“Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don’t have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex,” says Bearman.

As social commentator Bill Maher remarked famously, Abstinence Pledges Make You Horny.

Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.

And, not only are they highly likely to break their Promise, but they are ALSO likely not to tell anyone about it:

“They’ve taken a public pledge to remain a virgin until marriage. The sex that they have is much more likely to be hidden,” says Bearman. “It’s likely to be hidden from their parents. It’s likely to be hidden from their peers.”

Wow. Just wow.

So let me get this straight:

  1. Promise girls are actually going to have sex 88% of the time
  2. Promise girls are more likely than other girls to be open to having oral or anal sex prior to finally having intercourse
  3. Promise girls are highly unlikely to tell ANYBODY about #1 or #2

I honestly cannot think of a better set of characteristics for a young female population that is perfectly positioned to be seduced and taken advantage of by older, wiser and more sexually experienced men.

The Silver Ring Thing and other abstinence-only sex education programs not only virtually guarantees that its students will eventually have sex, it also virtually guarantees they will have MORE TYPES OF SEX in the process, and be secretive about the whole thing!

I thank you, Bush administration. From the bottom of my heart.

Political rationale for these faith-based abstinence-only programs is a little weak in the “brains” department, though:

Claude Allen is President Bush’s domestic policy adviser and point man on abstinence-only education: “If I were to say to that same group of kids, you know what, don’t drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive, make sure you wear your seatbelt.”

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Driving a 2-ton piece of metal at speeds up to 70 mph while under the influence of a central nervous system suppressant is a little bit different than letting you boyfriend stick his pee-pee in your hoohah.

You could kill someone while drinking and driving, regardless of whether your seatbelt is buckled: I don’t think you run the risk of killing anyone as a direct result of having sex with a condom.

Plus, I bet Claude Allen lets his partner slip on a condom before railing him in the ass. Just a guess.

-=-=-=-=-=
Final Note

As it happens, I have a personal connection to this story:

On my bedside table, right next to my alarm clock, is a glass bowl. Inside are all the Promise Rings I’ve taken off “pledgers” over the years.

It’s better than notches on the bedpost.

The Princess and the Player

February 13, 2007

In My Beef with Feminism I describe the contradictions of modern-day feminism; in Feminism’s Greatest Mistake, I point to the natural consequences of social and “emotional” liberation.

Ironically, it is the recent mis-steps by modern-day feminism that have enabled modern Western women to fall as such easy prey to “The Player”.

A “Player” is a man or woman skilled at social interaction who manipulates a woman’s emotions for some less-than-noble purpose. It may be to get sex from a girl who would otherwise refuse. It may be to suggest to her that her boyfriend has been unfaithful, and thus plant seeds of doubt that will lead to the break-up of the relationship (so the boyfriend is “available” for a rebound fuck).

The Player plays a woman’s emotions as skillfully as a concert violinist plays a Stradivarius, and wrings from her shifting patterns of labile emotionality a result that is personally beneficial. Some people also call this person an “emotional vampire”; a social predator who feeds with a delightful sense of irony on tumultuous emotions casually inspired in others by misrepresentations of the self.

Players and emotional vampires were not common before the destruction of social patterns of value, because they could not gain traction among men and women with strong basic social values, such as: keep your word, stand by your friends, don’t lie, regulate your emotions. Abdicating responsibility for your actions via your emotions creates a gaping vulnerability to manipulation by a skillful emotional player.

The dismantling of these basic conventions has constructed The Princess and the Player as two opposite but complimentary social caricatures: the Princess, flippant and emotionally labile, is selfish, petulant, demanding, inconsistent, petty, and catty — the Player, ruthless and calculating, is exploitative, egocentric, unctuous, mendacious, penetrating, and fake.

Neither is able to experience healthy attachment, so while they may come together to feed on one another for a time, and experience some measure of purely biological bliss (in sex), a deepening and strengthening bond, and the personal growth that would entail, is not truly possible.

And that is a personal tragedy with dire social and cultural implications.