Once Upon a Slut

I just finished reading one of the most talked about books of last year (Sex at Dawn), and boy was it a turd. Generally liberals and science mix about as well as cesium and water and this book is no exception. Under the guise of “truth” two lefies tackle the socio-sexual question “are human beings naturally monogamous” ….or more accurately … “should modern males take issue with contemporary females being such sluts”.

Of course you know the authors’ agenda before you ever make it past the first page, but it’s the half-assed way they attempt to convince the reader to believe there bullshit that is downright insulting.

The nature of women hasn’t changed in thousands of years. What has changed is their environment. Water of 5 degrees is not water of 50 degrees is not the water of 500 degrees, but its still fucking H2O. Likewise the sexual nature of women is always to engage in sex in the way that is most beneficial to her. .. given the circumstances. And what pray tell would make anyone say that the circumstances for women circa 10000 BC would be conducive to promiscuity as a smart reproductive strategy? Not a damn thing other than ideology, combined with ulterior motive.

In a zero sum world where you are the weaker sex, creatures want to eat you, doctors don’t exist, taxpayers don’t foot the bill for your child‘s care, and the only cure for disease is whatever nature decides to cook up, it is not in the best interest of women to fuck everything that moves… not even close.

Contrast this with current situations like Sweden where whoring is a female birthright. Literally. Such blatant sex capitalization is possible now and not prehistorically, why? It’s simple … the conditions endemic to a Swedish Matriarchy did not exist.. at Dawn. Combine male invented birth control like the pill and condom, hideable sexual pasts, mandated parental leave for men, slut shamer shaming, anti-male prostitution, rape and divorce laws, cosmetic surgery and the fertility industry and of course you will get a nation of raging sluts.

So after laboring over 22 chapters detailing the “good ole days” of supposed female sexual liberation, I conclude that this best selling garbage ain’t even fiction, It’s a fucking fairytale.

Confidence my ass!

There’s only one question in the world that if you ask 1000 American women, they’ll all agree on the answer. “This” they say is all a man needs to have the ladies wrapped around his finger.

Wear the product they call “confidence”, women promise, and you’ll soon be swimming in pussy like a dude from an Axe commercial. But observe any confident man and you’ll know rather quickly that it’s a downright lie. Now that’s not to say confident guys get no action, cuz they do, but that’s only in comparison to shy guys, who get no action at all.

Now one would think that, being the horny as young males, visual creatures that feminists purport them to be, women would be able to overlook a shy guy’s shyness and throw him some lovin’. Throw him some lovin’ in the same way that shy girl, whose shyness is of no obstacle to the hornier than rabbits, visual creatures that men purport ourselves to be, are thrown.

But alas women don’t throw shy guy anything at all. Shy guy is fucked, only figuratively of course. Hmmm. I wonder why?? Maybe it’s because said women are afraid of being raped. I understand that being raped is a big fear with women and why women NEVER EVER go home with a guy they just met. And especially shy guys who are obviously way more likely to be rapists than confident guys.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

Poor shy guy! If only he were a confident guy. Then women wouldn’t think he was a rapist, but instead throw themselves at him being that women are visual creatures and as horny as any young man.

So what does confidence TRULY afford a guy in the sexual arena?

Confidence gets a guy nothing more than a chance at success, which is better than the “no chance” a shy guy has. The confident man, is able to step to the plate, start swinging, and hope that a lady eventually throws him a pitch to hit. Shy guys, however, are relegated to the sidelines because A) women don’t like shy guys (they could be rapists, remember?) and B) because women don’t share the burden of sexual initiation.

But all is not roses for the confident guy. For while he does have a chance to get some, he’s also smack in the middle of the gentler sexes’ attention whoreing, cockblocking, flaking, dead end flirting, and hypergamous star fucking… or if you’re politically correct… the right to female sexual agency. Hmmm. Maybe the shy guy doesn’t have it so bad after all?

Now can you see why women love confident men? Confident men are chumps… giving a lot and expecting nothing in return. They dance like trained monkeys entertaining the womenfolk (“He’s so fun!”), and stroking their “shegos” with little to show for it at the end of the night. That is. Unless confident guy gets lucky. And he will on occasion. Which the shy guy never will….as he might be a rapist.

Enter the asshole. The most sexually successful guy of all… by far. Now, confident for sure… just like the confident guy, but also blessed with the penchant for coloring outside the lines… the distinguishing characteristics of the asshole. You know the characteristic I mean, the one that Bill, Eldrick, and Jessie possess. And by Bill, Eldrick, and Jessie I’m talking about “Slick Willy” Clinton, Tiger “Ihop” Woods, and Jessie “White Power” James.

Assholes, such as the 3 aforementioned, have no respect for morality, ethics, taboos or conventions. And nothing turns women on like breaking the rules… being the emotional junkies they are. Monica Lewinsky sucked off an older, married man who was a sitting President, not despite all those things being true, but because of all those things being true.

Tiger Woods sunk his balls into those 18 holes, not despite the fact that he was a married star golfer, but because he was a married star golfer.

And Jessie James banged his way through hundreds of sluts, not because he was the world’s most eligible bachelor, but because was married to a porn star, then married to a mega star, but most importantly because he was always married to the tip of his dick.

Chicks dig assholes. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

The Definition of Alpha

With the massive attention given the decades old phenomenon of game from PUA, MRA and feminist communities one would think that after all this time there would at least be a shared understanding of such a core game concept as alpha. But one would be wrong. And what astonishes me most is not that there is a disagreement over “alpha” (for that is to be politically expected), but that there is disagreement over the very definition of such a simple term. Like fingerprints, no two definitions of alpha seem to coincide. I have heard everything from the overly simplistic “dominant“ to the feminist butthurt “entitled misogynist” as a description. Neither of which, by the way, is even close to correct.

Unceremoniously, alpha is the 1st letter in the Greek alphabet. And its position there both etymologically and spatially references ranking and importance within it’s group. Applied to the animal kingdom, to be 1^st in the group is to be the organism with the most access to the resources of that group. Food, labor, and sex all qualify as resources. In the wolf pack alpha gets to eat first. In a lion pride alpha gets sole access to mating. And to even the most casual observers of game it is obvious that mating is the resource with which PUA’s are most concerned.

So what then qualifies as alpha in the game community are those qualities that give a man greater sexual access to women. Note that I said access, not success. Also note that I said sex and not reproduction. The involuntarily celibate, PHD that has 150 offspring via his sperm bank deposits is not alpha. While his reproductive efficiency might impress Darwin, it’s women’s collective sexual receptivity that determines what is alpha.

Keep this consensus in mind when the inevitable discussion about what constitutes alpha behavior arises. The litmus test for all things alpha is quite simply this… Do chicks dig it? And by that I do not mean your chick, your chicks, or what chicks say they dig, but what chicks in general ACTUALLY dig.