“Game” as postmodern feminism; or why women like bad boys

September 17, 2012 § 56 Comments

The usual narrative is that anti-intellectual postmodernity is radically different from the naturalistic/scientistic positivism it opposes. My own view is that the war between scientistic positivism and nominalistic postmodernism is a sibling rivalry: postmodernism is what happens when a modern naturalistically-oriented positivist realizes that positivism is false, but refuses to take the logical step and give up on atheistic naturalism. Richard Dawkins and Jacques Derrida have much more in common with each other than either one has in common with St. Thomas Aquinas.

As with many of modernity’s isms, hatred of those closest to you serves two purposes. First of all it fires us up for battle, and you can’t win without motivating the troops; but of course any hated enemy would serve that purpose. Second, though, a vicious sibling rivalry ends up sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, leaving genuinely competing world views outside the purview of respectable thought. Paradoxically, then, having a hated nemesis is what sustains towers of Babel built on lies. Liberals see Nazis as the ultimate transcendent evil (rather than, say, seeing Communism or Feminism, which have each murdered orders of magnitude more innocent victims, as the ultimate transcendent evil) because Nazism, despite being a modern ideology very similar to liberalism – built on its own conception of freedom and equality among those considered fully human, on the triumph of will over an objective deontology, etc – is the point farthest away in thought-space from liberalism which the liberal is willing to admit actually exists.

Thus the analogy of the Red Pill in the manosphere world of Game: the idea is that feminism (and feminism-influenced Christianity, a.k.a. Churchianity) aren’t in touch with reality, while by embracing “Game” the manosphere faces reality head on.

The problem though is that Game appears to be a postmodern concept. I won’t go link hunting, partly out of laziness and partly because most of the links would be NSFW. But as I understand it Game is a rather slippery thing, a bucket into which various folks pour their various preferred meanings. There is North American Game, and Eastern European Game, Day Game, Christian Game, Pickup Artist Game … if you browse around a bit you’ll find all sorts of contentions about what Game is and is not. But you will also find a general consensus that the nominalist conception of Game is the right one: it is just a bunch of tools and insights cobbled together that you can pick from, cafeteria style, in order to do what works for you.

Some try to avoid the problems associated with a nominalistic view of Game by appointing a few High Priests from the pickup artist community as a kind of Game magisterium. I don’t think appointing a nominalist-in-chief works, though, and when an ostensible field manual on how to be a man ends up celebrating having yourself castrated you can color me skeptical that it reflects an underlying world view capable of apprehending what is and is not objectively manly.

Don’t get me wrong: the feminist/misandrist legal and cultural structures we live under are a horror show, with millions of innocent victims and with more actual cold-blooded murders to its name than National Socialism. Plenty of true and important anti-feminist insights are coming from the manosphere, etc, and its criticisms of the feminist order are frequently trenchant. (I could say the same thing about Republican criticisms of Democrats). But so-called Game isn’t a genuine red pill: it is just another section of the Matrix within the Matrix, where “taking the red pill” was just another illusory act. The manosphere is to feminism what postmodernity is to positivism.

So why do modern women find themselves, often against their own will, attracted to bad boys? Simple, really. Female attraction is much more socially conditioned than male attraction: women are natural followers, men natural leaders. Women are very good at figuring out the difference between the appearance of social status and its reality. You can’t snooker them – they can’t snooker themselves – by putting a nerd in a position of power. A nerd in an artificial position of power is still a nerd, and most women are going to find powerful nerds about as attractive as most men are going to find an obese woman in a bikini. Young women are always going to find themselves unwittingly attracted to men who have actual social status as accorded by our actual society, those who are seen as independent and “cool” in context (which is not the same thing as money, position, etc); just as men are always going to find themselves attracted to women who have physical characteristics that make for good childbearing.

Of course (actual not faux) social status is just one factor in the mystery of attraction, and this post isn’t intended to explore what is right and what is wrong with everything discussed in the “manosphere”. But anyone interested in a genuine red pill, a genuine embrace of reality rather than a trip through some other section of the Matrix, is going to have to start by giving up on the social impulse to admire peacocking cads and self-inflicted castrati as the model of a real man.

§ 56 Responses to “Game” as postmodern feminism; or why women like bad boys

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Just read this. My post “Cypher’s Problem” made this same contention.

    Although, the more I think about it, Game is “a Red Pill”–and there are a lot of Red Pills. The problems with Red Pills are 1) the more potent the Red Pill, the worse the outcome 2) they don’t help. As you say: a nerd in a position of power is still a nerd, and women will sniff this out. Knowledge is not the answer, and thank God for that!

  • Cane Caldo:
    I do think our views are pretty close, from what I’ve read of yours.

    My own understanding is that Game can be considered “red pill” by stretching the analogy, in the sense that it can reveal certain truths to contemporary people who are ignorant of those truths. But it isn’t “red pill” in the sense of wrenching someone out of the illusory constructed world of modernity and into the real world.

    To the extent “red pill” signals a profound re-orientation of a deceived person’s false perceptions of reality, forcing him to see the world as it really is, Game is no red pill.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Manospheric speculations are like a sociology of a Gulag camp–of very limited application to the wider normal society outside the devastated pocket.

    If one belives that human nature has a biological core and culture only overlies that, than perhaps it can be argued that the Game uncovers the bare biological facts about man.

    But if one belives that it is culture all the way in, than all Game shows what happens when a particular culture is wrecked in a particular manner.

  • vishmehr24:
    … –of very limited application to the wider normal society outside the devastated pocket.

    Well, I do think the devastation is pretty pervasive: at least in my world there are very few (I actually can’t think of any, off the top of my head, of which I have definite knowledge) three- or four-generation families with no branches wrecked by feminism, divorce, cohabitation, etc, with just the sort of statistical distribution of particulars documented by Dalrock and company. Extrapolation from personal observation to all of society is a dangerous business of course, but offhand I expect the reality overall is if anything worse than my personal observations.

    Other than that though the comment is spot on.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    But it isn’t “red pill” in the sense of wrenching someone out of the illusory constructed world of modernity and into the real world.

    Exactly. I do think it means to do the opposite, in fact.

    I’m fairly certain that the fruit of the TotKoGaE was the first “Red Pill”.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Your point about men being attracted to good child-rearers skirts close to biological reductionism. CS Lewis somewhere writes about man being haunted by two Vensuses: one celestial and another infernal.

    “Status” I never understood in the Game sense so I can not make out
    “who have actual social status as accorded by our actual society,”
    Could you give some examples? Politicians, sportsmen, pop stars?

    The “wider society” I mean includes
    1) Previous generation of American society
    2) Normal human societies present perhaps in Third World.

  • vishmehr24:
    Your point about men being attracted to good child-rearers skirts close to biological reductionism.

    I thought I qualified away any hint of reductionism in the last paragraph of the post.

    “Status” I never understood in the Game sense so I can not make out
    “who have actual social status as accorded by our actual society,”
    Could you give some examples? Politicians, sportsmen, pop stars?

    For my entire life (I was born in the sixties), many women – particularly a large percentage of the most attractive women – have been attracted to narcissistic thugs as a noticeable phenomenon.

    The manosphere treats this as though it were some biologically wired fact, citing “evolutionary biology” fables as backup. It never seems to occur to them that the reason women find thugs attractive is that we (that is, everyone who comes into contact with Western culture) have been teaching women for generations that thugs are high status (think James Dean, Grease, Jim Morrison, etc). Sure, young women are often taught explicitly that thugs are bad news; but who are they supposed to believe, their parents or their lying eyes?

    I think money in itself is not nearly as pervasively attractive to young Western women as narcissistic thuggishness. As I mentioned in the post, money and explicit social status are like a bikini on a woman: it may amplify the attractiveness of what is already there in certain contexts, but it can’t substitute and in many cases it can actually detract. Our culture doesn’t value money deep down in its entrails the way it values rebellious thuggishness deep down in its entrails.

    The “wider society” I mean includes
    1) Previous generation of American society
    2) Normal human societies present perhaps in Third World.

    Fair enough, as long as we understand that pretty much everyone living in America right now is not your referent for the term “the wider society”.

  • Cane Caldo:
    I’m fairly certain that the fruit of the TotKoGaE was the first “Red Pill”.

    Indeed. Take this red pill and ye shall become like God.

  • Scott W. says:

    Our culture doesn’t value money deep down in its entrails the way it values rebellious thuggishness deep down in its entrails.

    Michael Medved touched on this in his book Hollywood vs. America where studios would constantly throw money at films they knew would be box-office losers as long it insulted middle-class values and traditional religion.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    I think there is a flaw in your analysis about the attraction to thugs, and that is that thugs in their own perverse way are big on the traits which have raw sexual appeal to many women. This is really no different to how a drop-dead gorgeous, incredibly busty slut/bad girl has intense sexual appeal to most men. It just talks to the hindbrain in a way that is too powerful for those who aren’t accustomed to overriding their baser impulses.

    Often, the problem is that “good men” feel like being tough, assertive, independent, etc. are inherently dangerous if not outright bad traits to have.

    As you said, who are they going to believe: their parents or their lying eyes? This is also true of young men. Who are young men going to want to emulate most of the time, the “good man” whose wife openly displays minimal respect and attraction or the thug who has women getting aroused by mere proximity to him?

  • Mike T says:

    ** I think you are mostly correct when you say that the particularly acute attraction many women feel toward thugs is socially constructed. However, many of the traits they have in spades are inherently attractive to women. Our major failing as a society is the wussification of ordinary men which has led to most decent men being minimally or rather unattractive to women.

  • I appreciate the attempt to disagree with me, Mike, but I’m pretty sure we aren’t disagreeing.

    I think part of the dynamic is that men tend to respond to the formal aspects of things while women tend to respond to the de-facto and implicit. (As always we are discussing general tendencies, not hard rules that apply to everyone all the time). It is just the way we are wired.

    Because men tend to respond to the explicit creeds, and liberalism/feminism has been our explicit creed for generations now, men who are not sociopaths tend to become wussified. Men who are sociopaths are somewhat immune to this indoctrination because they are unteachable in general; so they share some of the non-wussified traits of men who are immune to wussification for other reasons.

  • Mike T says:

    In general, on this topic, I don’t think we are. It’s more of a matter of degree than kind. I probably lean a bit more toward the biological side. I think thuggish traits in men serve a biological stimulus role for women roughly equivalent to really great curves on a woman serve for men. The hind brain attraction is often enough to overpower the better judgement.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    “Men who are sociopaths are somewhat immune to this indoctrination because they are unteachable in general”

    I often ruminate that my daughters are unteachable. They are intelligent, and they certainly learn, but they are often fairly unteachable.

    My son is not.

  • JoeS says:

    Zippy, do you even know what the “red pill” means? The “red pill” is realizing what women value and how they really behave. It’s not just recognizing that the most obnoxious guys in high school tended to be popular with girls. That’s something we all knew. It’s realizing that the typical “good girl” is anything but, and is often a “ruined woman” no longer capable of honesty, loyalty, and genuine empathy. That is, the typical “good girl” is vicious, in the classic sense of the word. To tell you the truth, the “red pill” is very hard to swallow, and understanding it intellectually is not the same as internalizing it emotionally. If a man has ever gone from being ignored by women to having married women looking at you in ways they shouldn’t – teenage girls going gaga, etc. If he’s had that experience, he’s seen both sides. He starts to understand the hard REALITY of how women, even the churchiest girls you’d ever laid eyes on – really behave and how today they are not all that interested in committed marriage.

    As for “game” – game is just mimicry of the behavior, attitudes and mental state of what you call “the high status male.” It’s a form of acting. Does it require some prerequisites? Yes I would imagine so, without a certain degree of physical charm it’s apt to be not very effective. Some say it works. I’m guessing it does, because once a man really takes the red pill, he understands how incredibly SUPERFICIAL the judgments of most women are.

  • JoeS says:

    St. Thomas Aquinas asserted that women are more subject to concupiscence than men. That’s classic, fundamental “red pill.”

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @JoeS

    If knowledge is the answer, and the Red Pill is good knowledge, then why are so few men reconciled to the women who divorced them? Who has better knowledge of a woman’s failings than the man she left? Why doesn’t this help him? I mean, the divorced man not only has a working knowledge of the sins of women, but of that particular woman’s particular failings. He ought to be able to play her like a violin, if the Red Pill is helpful.

    Instead, she casts him out, gives his children to other men, and economically rapes him in court. Why?

  • Mike T says:

    JoeS,

    What you are saying is really not news to someone who has a Christian (read: non-Churchian) view of humanity. Churchianity may deny that women are equally fallen, Christianity does not.

  • CL says:

    Female attraction is much more socially conditioned than male attraction […] You can’t snooker them – they can’t snooker themselves – by putting a nerd in a position of power.

    This seems contradictory to me. Am I missing something?

    when an ostensible field manual on how to be a man ends up celebrating having yourself castrated

    Who was celebrating? Mentu himself wasn’t celebrating; he was regretful but couldn’t see an alternative. Putting it the way you have here is disingenuous.

  • Scott W. says:

    CL, reading that again, I suppose a more accurate way to put it would be, “rationalizing an objectively evil act and trying to cleanse it with regret.” We see the same thing with women and abortions. That is, as long as you go through a period of agonizing, then deliberately killing an innocent human being is acceptable.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @CL & Scott W.

    I think the disingenuousness is built into the narrative. It starts out as a story of regret, but the ending is mocking of that same regret; triumphant, even.

    If convenient castrations–all pleasure, no power–are no big deal, then it’s no concern whether anyone is regretful, mocking, or triumphant. Though the last would seem strange, since victory over no big deals is…no big deal.

    If convenient castrations are a problem though, then we have a very different perspective of a person’s display, or discussion, of their self-mutilation.

  • I don’t see anything inaccurate in my characterization. The fact that triumphant self-castration is accompanied by Oprahrriffic angst reinforces my point rather than undermining it.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @ZC

    Yes.

    In general, from the manosphere’s perspective, I don’t understand the supportive response. One man wants to be gently neutered. To do so he performs a charade with another man’s woman and kids, to trick/coerce another man to do perform the convenient castration against his wishes. How is this not misandric from top to bottom?

  • […] actually respond to men is different from what they say they want: I’ve already discussed the appeal of badboys in a previous […]

  • […] reliable men than the Alpha himisphere.   This sets up a kind of paradox: the men that young women find themselves the most attracted to are men who are not likely to make good providers for the long term, and who most likely would […]

  • […] is necessary in order to take the subject seriously, and that is what the last few posts (here, here, here, here, and here) have been […]

  • […] in concrete particulars to) a man’s involuntary attraction to the opposite sex – finds herself attracted to the men who are higher up in the de-facto (not de jure) […]

  • […] as there are postmodern tendencies in the manosphere there are also, I would suggest not coincidentally, tendencies which mirror […]

  • fidelbogen says:

    Why do you conflate PUA/Game with the “manosphere”?

    Or more to the point, are you aware that the red pill/blue pill metaphor did NOT originate with PUAs?

  • Zippy says:

    Simple experiment:

    Go to any manosphere blog of your choice. Write a comment criticizing Game and PUA. Observe the results.

  • Svar says:

    “Go to any manosphere blog of your choice. Write a comment criticizing Game and PUA. Observe the results.”

    LOL.

  • fidelbogen says:

    The results would vary, but from my experience the blogmaster and commenters would agree with you more often than otherwise.

    That is what you meant, yes?

  • fidelbogen says:

    Seriously, though, I can testify that anti-PUA attitude runs mighty thick among MRA/MGTOW/Masculinist types — sometimes to the point of fanaticism.

    PUAs are widely and cordially despised. Why, just recently I posted an anti-PUA video on YouTube, and the “you rock” comments massively overwhelmed the few and pitiful pro-PUA voices.

    A landslide of “likes”, as well, and not more than four “dislikes”.

    But of course, I’m sure this is all old news to you, since it is undoubtedly the projected “results” you were referring to. . . yes?

  • Zippy says:

    fidelbogen:

    I appreciate your comments, but I’m trying to figure out what point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could state it plainly.

  • fidelbogen says:

    And also, Zippy Catholic, you ought to check out what Barbarosssaa says about PUAs. He considers them the scum of the earth. He pulls NO punches…believe me!

  • fidelbogen says:

    Whereabouts is my point not plain?

  • Zippy says:

    fidelbogen:
    Best as I can tell, you think I shouldn’t see Game/PUA as a significant thread in the manosphere. But it is a significant thread in the manosphere.

    Suppose I suggested that sexual libertinism was a significant thread within liberalism. This is observably true, and pointing out that NALALT doesn’t refute the empirical observation.

    You may also be suggesting that I’m a noob to the manosphere and haven’t grokked all the different factions. That is almost certainly true.

    But I may be reading more into your comment than you intended. And thanks for the name Barbarosssaa — I’ll Google it some time.

  • fidelbogen says:

    PUA is a significant thread in . . . . whatever it’s a significant thread in.

    And that’s ALL it’s a significant thread in.

    It is not the defining thread in the so-called “manosphere”. No. Effing. Way.

    I myself am not a noob. I’ve been around this stuff for ten years, and I have closely monitored the growth of it (and contributed to said growth myself) for that entire time.

    I am also plugged in to what’s happening behind the scenes — which is not what the casual web surfer could know about. 😉

    (The iceberg below the waterline, as it were.)

    Anyhow, the PUAs are a group with mercantile origins, a high opinion of themselves and a penchant for shit-stirring and backstabbing which has made them a lot of enemies. Whether they are part of the so-called “manosphere” depends on how you define manosphere.

    It is questionable whether the manosphere itself is part of the “manosphere” any more — i.e. it has broken up into more than one “sphere”.

    (Paul Elam at AVfM recently disavowed connection with what HE calls the manosphere, and certain troglo-conservatives, e.g. Jack Donovan, seem to to think that the whole AVfM posse is really just left-wing and . . . uh. . feminist, if you can believe that!)

    This Barbarosssaaa whom I mentioned has a huge following at YouTube, and he and I recently had a difference of opinion on such topics as hypergamy and Briffault’s law. (When I was on AVfM radio some months ago, I made a casual remark which set that controversy in motion. )

    Anyhow, Barb and I do at least agree, vigorously, on the subject of PUAs.

    Also, there is a chap by the name of Alex Novy, an EX-PUA, who is one of the most rabid anti-PUA people on all of planet earth. He’s a meaner than a junkyard dog on that subject — don’t EVEN get him started!! (And I do thank him for sharing his considerable knowledge with me.)

    And I could go on and on, regaling you with marvellous tales of the “manosphere”, which would make your eyes grow wide with wonder. . . .

  • ybm says:

    Alek still maintains his private blog where he and the rest of the junkyard dogs (like me) discuss. But he also has a public one on wordpress that is easy to find and discusses game as a guy who has been involved in PUA for a decade.

    Most of us (Alek, Aaron Sleazy, myself, etc.) “anti-gamers” are former PUA or RSD guys who have stuck around to expose what a scam “Game” is, I guess its a form of penance.

  • fidelbogen says:

    I am sure that Zippy Catholic, being a Catholic and all, will be intrigued by your usage of the word “penance”. 😉

  • ybm says:

    So am I, I lapsed for a few years but I’m getting better every day. Can’t take back the past but you can move forward.

    I went to a Jesuit school growing up. I still remember some of the exercises. Deformata Reformare and all that.

    Zippy: Barb might be a little vulgar for you so be aware that he is quite crass.

  • Zippy says:

    Thanks ybm. I’m not shocked by vulgarity, even the most effervescent sort. I just don’t allow it to run rampant in my house.

    fidelbogen:
    I’m just commenting on public blog stuff I happen to have read, not icebergs and conspiracies.

  • Zippy says:

    It is also quite possible that I’ve personally noticed the manosphere just around the time of a phase change.

    So don’t mistake me as flippantly dismissing what you are saying, fidelbogen. Each comment or interaction is one more chunk of data in the overall picture.

  • fidelbogen says:

    You don’t know about the icebergs and conspiracies, but I do because I get around backstage. 😉

    And yes, I do have my share of those “chunks”.

    Anyhow, check out the Agent Orange files, if you’ve never heard of them:

    http://agentorangefiles.com/

  • […] don’t yet have a well-formed opinion of Game, and it can be difficult to pin down just what Game is supposed to be.   Game partisans themselves, however, seem to believe that it is approximately as effective as a […]

  • […] That is all wrong. It misses the fundamental point, as Brother Zippy points out. […]

  • […] The relation between libertarian and leftist is similar to (and likely a modality of) the relation between modern and postmodern.  In each case the idealogue realizes a fundamental problem with his philosophy.  But rather than […]

  • Killjoy says:

    Hello I’ve recently discovered this blog and have found it very interesting, the subject of relations between the sexes is paramount.
    The level of discussion here is high so I’m surely not offering much that hasn’t already been considered regarding ‘hypergamy’ (the term is new to me).

    I’ll quote Theodore Dalrymple from his essay on J.G. Ballard:

    “The internment camp in which Jim eventually finds himself fosters a horrifying loss of moral compunction, but it has its compensations. He forms an alliance of convenience with a young American, Basie, a small-time crook and wheeler-dealer of the kind that tends to do well in such situations. Ballard contrasts Basie with Jim’s father, a stern and upright, if distant, figure. “At home, if he did anything wrong, the consequences seemed to overlay everything for days,” Ballard writes. “With Basie they vanished instantly. For the first time in his life Jim felt free to do what he wanted.”

    Most women/girls (people indeed) know when their behaviour is wrong (I hope that’s an understatement) if they live in bad faith they’ll have a bad conscience, however easy it may be to suppress it in the short to medium term. I’m not sure what SMV stands for but I assume it is awareness of one’s ability to get what they want sexually… That is a very corrupting thing, power corrupts, I mean I’d liken the discovery of orgasm as akin to the tooth fairy leaving MDMA under the pillow, moral guidance from adults is paramount.

    That so called ‘MDMA’ effect is multiplied many times when lived out with someone sexually desirable (especially someone who approximates a Movie/Rockstar). Woe betide the person who comes between the teenage girl and the chance to be ‘on the arm’ of Jimmy Page (in his prime) or the local approximation.

    Sorry, I’m being a bit tedious, you know all this (though you may not appreciate talk of MDMA etc) bear with me but here’s a digression. I’m not recommending Jane Campion’s recent sexual dystopia Top of the Lake (I’ve not watched it all) but I pretty much guarantee that Peter Mullan’s character Matt Mitcham (Mr Pornos, I call him) would appeal to a lot of women. A little like Basie in the TD quote, being with Mr Pornos would likely make any bad conscience… The notion of the fear of God, feel little more than a trivial folk tale invented for the sake of simple mediaeval peasants and the like.

    To hook up with someone like that, is no mere ‘two fingers’ to the establishment, it is a wilful pernicious act of vandalism against repressive killjoy standards of decency and it is sadly too, way too common. You’ll find men like that in prison, were you to get their n count (but of course you wouldn’t be able to because that would mean not being a ‘gentleman’ in the perverse order of things) it would probably include not a few ‘nice middle class girls’.

  • Zippy says:

    Killjoy:
    I’m new to the discussion too, relatively speaking. My posts on it should be (and consistently would be, if I were better organized) under the Game category. Newest comes first, so you have to start from the end and work your way forward if it is of interest.

  • Kiljoy says:

    Okay, thanks Zippy. Small thing but my user name was suppose to have one l. My tablet tends to think it knows best and auto corrects… I suppose it’s right most of the time, know it all! Gives me the urge to vandalise! ; )

  • […] it is just inherent to the fallen female nature to find bad boys attractive.  Some time ago I proposed an alternative theory that has taken the world by storm: that women, as natural followers, love whomever it is that men love.  And in our modern liberal […]

  • […] it is just inherent to the fallen female nature to find bad boys attractive.  Some time ago I proposed an alternative theory that has taken the world by storm: that women, as natural followers, love whomever it is that men love.  And in our modern liberal […]

  • […] time ago I proposed an alternative theory that has taken the world by storm: that women, as natural followers, love whomever it is that men love.  And in our modern liberal […]

  • GoldRushApple says:

    “Game” just makes me sad.

  • […] reason and will, subject to no man.  Islam appeals to effeminate moderns for the same reason that dark triad bad boys appeal to modern women. She becomes the bad boy’s harem whore despite being a feminist because she ultimately cannot […]

  • Kiljoy says:

    Kiljoy
    There’s a rather disturbing New Zealand TV series called Top Of The Lake, I only watched two episodes, quite enough. I think it’s fair to say it’s a sexual dystopia, everyone seems to have their sexual demons, in this it’s very prescient. Matt Mitchum is an extremely odious man, look here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U28mfDZc-AY at 18:00 and 24:00. I’m pretty convinced a lot of women would quite happily jump into bed with him, that’s a terrible, terrible indictment. It is, I believe, what Sharia is essentially premised on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading “Game” as postmodern feminism; or why women like bad boys at Zippy Catholic.

meta