How consent of the governed makes everybody gay
January 24, 2014 § 37 Comments
Some of my readers are no doubt finding this tedious, but the beatings must continue until rationality improves.
It has been suggested that modern women are attracted to bad boys (men who make poor fathers) because women themselves just have an inherently disordered nature in that respect. Women are basically all (or almost all) just like homosexuals inasmuch as their sex drives are intrinsically disordered.
It has been further suggested (repeatedly) that to the extent that men defer to bad boys it is because those bad boys get all the chicks. I suspect that this counter-empirical insistence reflects an obsessive focus on women and all things female. If you think that you aren’t considered a bad boy because you don’t get female attention like the bad boys, you are probably obsessed with female attention (or its lack) and you’ve badly misunderstood the situation.
Men generally do to some extent admire/fear/respect/defer to bad boys because the bad boys get female attention — the feedback loop John suggests. But women are not the only reason for male deference to other males, by any stretch of the imagination. Women are not even a primary reason why some men defer to other men. There may be a feedback loop, but it isn’t an isolated self-referential system with no other inputs.
Female attention is one of the spoils of social dominance; it is not a primary cause of social dominance.
Men determine the de-facto deference hierarchy, and women respond to that determination. Women know that in a confrontation, contextual-alpha-dork is going to back down and submit to M Shadows — if M Shadows pays him any attention at all. Women know that in a knife fight Bill Gates is going to run away from Tommy Tats-n-Piercings. You can’t fool them into thinking otherwise.
Men, not women, determine the masculine hierarchy. Modern liberal men – that is, almost all men in the modern West – deny the legitimacy of masculine hierarchy. Even where there is de-jure hierarchy (Bill Gates over his subordinates, say), it is (required to be) fully voluntary: Gates only exercises authority by consent of the governed, over ‘subordinates’ who can up and quit any time. There is no absolutely binding command to it, just mutual self-interest and free choice. De-jure hierarchy under liberalism is not like natural masculine hierarchy: it is a very effeminate cooperation, that is, cooperation backed by no real binding authority with teeth, acknowledged as such.
Because an attempt to deny masculine hierarchy is an attempt to deny nature, liberalism cannot actually prevent masculine hierarchy from emerging. All it can do is categorize masculine hierarchy as sociopathic.
So the masculine hierarchy which emerges under liberalism is sociopathic, and the result is that modern women are attracted to sociopaths.
(Expanded from a comment to this post).
Zippy Catholic 
One must also remember the two ways in which men and women primarily rebel against God.
Women rebel by attempting to gain leadership and defy orders.
Men rebel by shirking leadership and responsibility.
You see this in Adam and Eve. Eve defied God directly, and Adam defied God by allowing her.
As such, the Bad Boy thing makes perfect sense. Men are shirking responsibility – both the ‘nice’ men of the church and the bad boys. Neither act responsible or as the leaders God intended, though the ‘nice’ men delude themselves to thinking they’re more Godly when they are disobeying Gods will for them to be leaders.
Meanwhile, women get to defy God’s wishes, fall to the temptation of bad boys, AND get to submit to the bad boys themselves. They are able to achieve all their rebellion, while falling for a lie of emotional (un)fulfillment by submitting to a man.
The whole thing is horribly twisted and wrong.
[…] is a toolbox, Zippy” he told me. “You don’t understand how badly liberalism has emasculated modern young […]
I suspect, deep down, that God has given this country over to madness. There is precedent. In Romans (chapter 1) the apostle Paul talks about how God gives men and women over to unnatural and debased passions. Typically we think that means homosexuality, but it can include degenerate heterosexuality, too.
Read Romans 1 from about verse 21, and tell me it does not describe the state of things.
Free Northerner has a roundup of some efforts to get away from Game and stake out Christian Masculinity.
I guess the other question is whether the establishment of these hierarchies is conscious or voluntary, or just as involuntary as women’s attraction.
In other words, is lecturing the manosphere not to celebrate players any more likely to be successful than a teenage girl’s mother telling her she should date that nice captain of the chess club instead of the tattooed biker?
—
I guess one answer is that the manosphere bloggers do in some sense seek out these PUAs, read their books, etc.
Just because a woman finds herself attracted to a bad boy doesn’t mean she has to sleep with him.
And just because men find themselves deferring to a player doesn’t mean they have to celebrate them.
“If you think that you aren’t considered a bad boy because you don’t get female attention like the bad boys …”
“If you think he’s not A True Coolguy because he doesn’t get female attention like A True Coolguy should …”
There, I fixed it for you.
Re: originally. Eve sinned and rebelled against Adam by listening to what she considered A True Coolguy even though Adam did not defer to that bad boy. Instead, Adam sinned by listening to her mirate about the other guy.
Re: “You can’t fool them into thinking otherwise.” Apparently many men also are as deceivable as women. For example Jon Cryer is the same size (within 1%) as Charlie Sheen, and is a long time health nut with low body fat, a triathlete, skilled (ranked) with a sword and other martial arts, and an excellent and highly trained singer, dancer, and musician (to the extent any of that matters). In contrast Sheen has a bigger jaw.
No one has suggested that. It is our society, not women, that are disordered. But the disorder in our society is the opposite of what you claim it to be.
In the normal society the better males, the ones that are good at communicating and cooperating sort out the hierarchy between themselves by non violent or not very violent means, and then present a united and extremely violent front against inferior males. Thus, in the normal society, a black thug does not swagger, because he is likely to get the crap beaten out of him. In our society, a black thug does swagger and a white engineer cringes. So the female is attracted to the black thug.
In a normal society, the elite males are like cavaliers. A large part of the art of pickup is to teach males to act like cavaliers, like elite males in a normal society.
In our society, it unacceptable for a white to insult a black, or a male to insult a female, but fully acceptable for female to insult a male, or black to insult a white. Indeed, as the George Zimmerman case showed, there is widespread acceptance that it is legitimate for a black to physically attack a white, but not for a white to defend himself. This is abnormal, and women respond to this abnormality.
tl;dr
Women are attracted to killers and criminals because of anarcho tyranny, because of the overclass underclass alliance.
James:
It is clear that you would like to disagree with me; but in this case it isn’t clear that you actually are disagreeing with me.
Peter Blood:
Free Northerner has a roundup of some efforts to get away from Game and stake out Christian Masculinity.
Yes, that’s good to see.
I do sympathize with Dalrock’s expressed desire to just stop talking about “Game”-the-label and focus on what has been lost; and I wouldn’t call into question the priorities different men of good will set for their own blogs and commentary.
But in some quarters it isn’t just a matter of not prioritizing talking about the perverts and their catechism. We should not capitulate to labeling masculinity ‘Game’, any more than we should capitulate to labeling child murder ‘choice’. There isn’t any way to be neutral on questions like that without ceding substantive ground to lies.
Words mean things, and I’ve always sensed that the word “Game” really appealed to the nerds among us, who often see life as a game, or as a system that needs to be “gamed”, or as a giant Matrix that should be hacked.
The word (label) “Game” actually retards maturation.
John:
I guess the other question is whether the establishment of these hierarchies is conscious or voluntary, or just as involuntary as women’s attraction.
My guess is that, like with many lizard-brain functions (eating, breathing, fighting, etc), it is possible to direct and guide onesself to some extent. Calling carb cravings voluntary is a step too far; but prayer and fasting can work wonders on carb cravings.
My posts wouldn’t be completely pointless even if this was just an exploration of how things are, with no capacity to influence even our own reactions to them. But I think we do have some capacity to push our own responses in a better direction. Certainly we have some capacity – though again that doesn’t imply an omnipotent capacity – to decide which men we will defer to and, perhaps more importantly, which we will not.
I suppose there’s also the matter of developing “muscle memory” or vices and virtues, where we get in the habit of doing things a certain way, and then that becomes natural to the point that we don’t dare question it.
Deferring to men in spite of sexual immorality may be a bad habit. Deferring to men because of sexual immorality almost definitely is.
Attracting women is a game, and it can be hacked.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/all/
Head-in-sand is the most ridiculous posture to take.
Nobody is advocating head-in-sand. Quite the opposite, actually.
It is a moving-goal head-in-sand, a plowing of the sand with the head, a Monty Python sketch at best.
1. “Game works.” “No, it doesn’t”.
2. “Yes, it does. See?” “That didn’t work. That was a fluke anyway.”
3. “It’s still working, again and again. See?” “Ha! You call that working?”
4. “Game would work for you too.” “No, it wouldn’t.”
…
x. “See? Told you Game works.” “You call it Game, I call it something else.”
Given that a particular man desires a particular woman to be attracted to him who wouldn’t normally be attracted (I contend this is the vast majority of men. If it doesn’t apply, e.g. any particular woman is already attracted, then he is in the abnormal minority, and it doesn’t apply.)
1. Women respond to men in odd but manipulable ways.
2. It’s actually quite a limited set of things that effect the desired response.
3. There are shortcuts. He doesn’t have to climb Everest; in fact, embarking on preparations for a climb of Everest is counterproductive.
4. The set of applicable shortcuts has been sort of codified as Game. It seems like cheating, like a secret staircase or elevator, especially to those who have invested heavily in ropes, carabiners, pitons, etc.
5. The only Actual Negative about it all is that a lot of bad men have taken these shortcuts before you did. And they will continue to do so whether or not you do.
So what is the male hierarchy actually built upon?
JF12
{1. “Game works.” “No, it doesn’t”.}
If game works so well, then why is Krauser batting .027 percentage?
If in the seventies, my average was that bad, I would have ended up maybe having ONE sexual encounter before getting married! The only thing that game can claim, is that through the discipline of persistence, you will eventually, (for the best, maybe 3 in a hundred times) find a like minded woman, who wants sex, and end up bedding more woman in your lifetime, then if you didn’t persist. PERIOD! The actual psychology behind the PUA collective, has been proven, by the likes of Krauser, to be nothing more then placebo for getting laid.
But where I do think that game psychology may have legs, is in the exact opposite of the PUA fraternity, in long term relationships. There may be certain attractors that are common amongst females, degrees involved without saying. The strongest one being, as Athol so succinctly put it, “quit being a puppy dog!”
But to believe, that in a 2 to 3 minute dialog, a woman’s “inherent” nature discerns that you are alpha, so she gets the tingles, is just phantasy!
If a pretty woman walks on a beach, and a PUA doesn’t hit on her, does she even exist?
I contend that to the PUA she doesn’t exist. They’re heavily selecting. Even if they were to hit on every attractive woman in a particular place, which would be highly inefficient and nearly impossible to schedule, that means that they’re not hitting on attractive women who are in a different place at that time.
So now we have to define “pretty”.
According to the PUA sites I visit, their take is a thin girl, preferably with a boob job. Me thinks that most men from 60 years ago or later would see this type of woman as looking sickly.
Using their vernacular, Evo Psych would say that we developed with a taste for larger woman, with wide hips, as these would be signs of health and better chance of birthing. OH MY GOD! if we just take a quick peak at the art of the mastewrs, why this is exactly how the women are depicted, yet the PUA’s want us to believe that in just sixty years, we have evolved out of our million year journey of preferring plump woman to stick figures? LMFAROTFP!
Maybe this stick figure body type is usually associated with woman with low self esteem, negative body image, etc., so are just easier to seduce, then the average healthy woman. After all, with most humans, like attracts like.
Overweight women are the most promiscuous. Underweight and normal weight women are the most desirable, and therefore the most selective. Men don’t really care about fertility anymore.
Didn’t have time to finish my thought earlier. I wanted to clarify that I wasn’t even questioning whether these men are approaching pretty women, but whether they are approaching each and every pretty woman on the planet, and therefore performing some sort of randomized trial.
The fact that they even have any access to these women, or that they find themselves in the same public or private places as these women, denotes a form of selection, and from the women in those places — even from among the prettiest ones — they’re selecting further by the order in which they approach them. Most will end up not being approached at all.
If they go to a beach and there are, let’s say, 10 attractive women there, which one do they approach first? And why that one? Are they looking for IOI? Are they sorting by clothing, makeup, and hairstyle? Are they approaching women who are alone more often than those with company? Women of the same SEC, race, religion, etc.? Are the women all of similar age and intelligence?
There’s various criteria being used there, which would tend to push their success rates up to the placebo level (which is higher than random chance, by the way, for all of the PUA fans who are incredulous about the comparison — placebos can be surprisingly effective), and gives them the false sense that “all women are alike”. Well, yes. If you only select for the same sort of women, then they will all be the same, and you will eventually become better and better at dealing with that particular subset of women.
And before someone gets on me about the intelligence criteria, it’s been proven over and over again that humans can tell roughly how intelligent you are by looking at your face. They can also tell, with some confidence, how healthy you are and whether or not you engage in homosexual activities, and many other things. So, yes, it’s most likely that men are selecting for these things, among many others, just by looking around the room.
Alte:
Yes, when I suggest that Game appears roughly equivalent to placebo many people hear “Game doesn’t work at all”. (Or “Game only works if the person doing it doesn’t know that it doesn’t work”).
But that is because they don’t understand placebos.
As I understand it, you’re not saying that Game doesn’t work at all, but that it hasn’t been proven to be more effective at raising a man’s attractiveness to the opposite sex than other forms of self-improvement (classical rhetorical techniques, ethics and prayer, meditation and fasting, sports and nutrition, self-education and academic pursuits, and etc.), and that it’s probably not the sort of thing that Christians should be spending significant amount of time studying anyway because the people peddling it are bad company and it indicates an unhealthy preoccupation with sex.
Or something like that.
I’m always been interested in psychology and rhetoric, I’m a statistics junkie, and I have a rather morbid fascination with the modern dating scene, so I have to admit that the topic of Game has some attraction for me. I’ve tried some of the more reputable techniques out on the people around me IRL, as almost none of them are sex-specific, and I did get the impression that they were at least mildly effective and that they did not become less effective when someone knew that they were being used.
The thing I find most off-putting about Game (other than the way it inevitably reeks of fornication, which I actually find unfortunate, as cultivating charm seems like a generally positive endeavor) is that it seems to give the more feeble-minded proponents of it the idea that they have acquired the knowledge to understand everything about every woman everywhere. Any woman who denies something they say gets hit with the NAWALT meme, which is incredibly tiresome. Sort of the way men get irritated when women claim that they’re all dogs or that they all only think about “one thing”.
TL;DR
I’m neutral on the effectiveness of Game, but I got your point about the placebo and the garbage collecting.
[…] Liberal hierarchy destroys true hierarchy and makes it sociopathic. […]
[…] In How consent of the governed makes everybody gay, Zippy explains: […]
[…] and since society is being deliberately (though futilely) reconstructed by liberalism to be ever more androgynous this traditionally difficult area for women has become more difficult for men also, as one of the […]
[…] UPDATE: The objection that things are the other way around — that men love bad boys because women love bad boys — was previously discussed in this post. […]
[…] Other kinds of liberals want to see liberalism “down in the streets”, with the superman exercising his free and equal Voice at the ballot box, tempered by a judiciary that insures equality and protects the sheep from the culinary choices of a majority of wolves: that is, insuring that the democratic process can only result in liberal outcomes. […]
[…] you are someone who has taken the red pill and realized that feminism is false and women are not attracted to obsequious nice guys. Or you’ve realized that there are differences between the races that cannot be managed out […]
[…] tolerates and even encourages them. It is in this sense (and only this sense) that government by consent of the governed is true: not that legitimate authority derives from consent, but that the things which happen in a […]
[…] morally obliged to obey flawed human beings (unless they agree with the command; that is, unless it isn’t a command). The wife’s commitment to satisfy the marriage debt is rape. Taxation is theft, because the […]
[…] feel entitled to the benefits of living under authority without actually having to live under real authority; as a result they are ungovernable and get the lousy leadership they […]
[…] as the union can be dissolved at any time and for any reason. More generally, commitment means carefully remaining uncommitted to anything in particular. Except sodomy. Oh and contraception, if you are cisgender. For the […]