Nothing Makes a Gina Tingle Like a Killa

Post image for Nothing Makes a Gina Tingle Like a Killa

by Paul Elam on September 7, 2010

From A Voice for Men

Authors note: I have to offer a public thank you to Tom Golden, LCSW, whose regular, sterling insights helps to shape a good bit of the work I do. Had he not provided me with the research information in this article, I would not have obsessed on writing it over the past 24 hours. Also, Tom will be using some of this information in his next Youtube video, due out soon, and it will be featured here as well. Thanks, Tom.

“That’s not opinion, it’s science.
And science is one cold hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on.”
-From the television show, “Dexter”

On July 24th of this year, I posted “Patriarchy for Dummies,” on this site. In it, I proffered that there was an element to the normal female psyche that gravitated toward violent, dangerous- murderous men. I used Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, and the numbers of women sending them marriage proposals in prison as prima facie evidence that supported my contentions. I also pointed to the fact that van der Sloot went on a sexual rampage, attracting scores of attractive young women after he skated on the Holloway murder.

It turned out to be one of the more read and commented on pieces on this site. And not just here. One of the other places was over at reddit.com/mensrights, which has a few actual MRA’s, including a couple of really insightful ones, and a slew of feminist trolls that down vote anything pro male or that hints of fairly criticizing females or feminism. Let me digress further to add that most of them down vote MRA articles without commenting, which I suppose is their version of drive-by-activism, but some actually speak up, reminding us of why we oppose feminism- and why we see its practitioners as such insufferable dullards.

At reddit, even the most thoughtful comments dissenting from the ideas I suggested boiled down to a regurgitated load of NAWALT vomitus.

Oh, noooooo, women can’t be like that! Women choose men based on qualities like sensitivity and whether they like Teddy Bears and snuggling up on the couch to watch The Bachelorette. Those other women who are like that? They are just sicko’s, sad exceptions to the rule And they probably got that way because of some abusive, violent man.

Of course, that’s the PC line, and we all know that women are only what the political correctness police tell us they are, which is basically sugar and spice and all things superior. There is no way that women in general get the ‘gina tingle for gangsters, thugs and killers.

Just ask any feminist over at reddit.

But just in case you are interested in answers that aren’t screened by gender ideologues, there is some actual research available to consider.

From a study done on the Yanomamö, a large Amerindian hunter-gatherer people that reside in the Amazon Basin, some very telling observations were made regarding sexual competition and violence among men by Chagnon (1988, 1997).

First, in Yanomamö culture, like most all hunter-gatherer (and agricultural and pastoral) societies, violence occurs either continuously or frequently. It is the men who are more aggressive and violent. And it is the most violent men that are successful at being selected for sex.

Yanomamö who are fierce warriors, and “fierce warrior” is defined by those who have participated in the killing of at least one member of a rival village, have 2.5 times as many wives and 3 times as many children as men who don’t kill.

It is also noted that the status of material wealth was not connected at all to being a fierce warrior. Indeed, there was no other difference identified between killers and non killers except that the former were much higher up on the ladder of sexual selection.

The same elevated status, and lack of other corollaries, also held true for men who were politically powerful. (It should be noted that political power frequently translates to power over life and death, though the killing is often done by decree, and executed by men who specialize in violence.)

So it can be legitimately deduced that in hunter-gatherer societies, those with the power -and the tendency- to kill are at a sexual premium with women in those cultures.

Now, it must be asked, from which type of society did our modern, post agrarian life emerge?

Ah, yes, that would be hunter-gatherer, the base template for all of modern human existence- and the mode in which most human evolutionary development occurred.

Now, I am sure that the average PC ideologue would insist that since the invention of internal combustion engines, non fat latte’s and women’s studies programs that we have unwritten three million years of sexual selection programming and now women really prefer those soft little puppy dog guys; that the women who go for thugs and killers are just freaks; rare, unenlightened throw backs to the African Savanna.

But of course, like with most everything else, they are dead wrong.

While it is true that women’s selections have shifted somewhat in keeping with modern realities, it only demonstrates that growing numbers of them will select the guy who controls, and sometimes kills, other men, than settle for the guy of lesser status. How many people is President Obama getting killed right now? How much trouble would he have getting laid? How many women would jump his bones if Michelle herself were in the same room screaming bloody murder?

Plenty. And you have to being in complete denial of human nature to blind yourself to that reality.

Politicians have the favorable characteristics of political savvy and the power to kill, even if with just the simple stroke of a pen. Is it any wonder why for most all of them that a quick blow job is just a snap of the fingers away?

This is the power that most, if not all, women respond to. From Al Capone to John Dillinger, Genghis and Kublai Khan, Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, Adolph Hitler and Alexander, and Ronald Regan to Barack Obama, men who kill, and men who have the power to have men killed cause a ‘gina tingle in many, many women that would register on the Richter Scale.

And there is one more bit of information in basic biology to help us understand this.

For a half century now we have made a half assed study of men’s violent tendencies as though they happen in a vacuum. We have mostly put that study in the hands of women with so many neurotic self image and Daddy Issues, and a political agenda to act them out, that anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that their efforts were not headed for a scientific end.

As a result, their conclusions about men’s violence falters after they demonstrate the obvious, that men are naturally more violent than women.

They reach conclusions that are something like this:

“Men are violent because, well, let’s see, yeah, it’s because they are fucking pigs, that‘s why! Now where’s my Nobel?”

What these Einsteinettes, and their supportive male sycophants have failed to notice -as do many people who allow a degree in women’s studies pass for an education- is that throughout the animal kingdom, two things are universal.

Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to compete for sexual selection, develops more aggressive and violent traits, among other things.

AND

Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to choose among those competing for sexual selection, chooses those that are the biggest, strongest, most aggressive and violent.

It doesn’t matter if we are talking about human beings, hedgehogs or house cats, it has nothing to do with what sex the animal is, and everything to do with whether or not the animal is competing to be selected for sex, or doing the selecting.

With seahorses and sandpipers, whose males gestate and tend to the young, we find -you guessed it- females that are more aggressive. Interestingly enough, we also find in those species that the females are larger, slower to develop, and die younger.

Sound familiar? It should. It is the same across the animal kingdom.

And this is where feminists, with their myopic and ideologically twisted use of research have done little more than reduce understanding of human behavior to “Man Bad-Woman Good.”

I suppose that is far as you need to go when staying locked in a cyclical pattern of man hating is your primary goal in life. But for people who want to understand this sometimes crazy, mixed up thing we call the human condition, a little more perspective is in order.

Men are violent largely because being violent, or having the capacity for it, gets them a few significant rungs up on that sexual selection ladder- because those are the men that women select. Those are the men that turn them on.

This isn’t going to change any time soon. Maybe never- it took millions of years to get where we are, although that should not stop people who claim enlightenment on the sexes from viewing it objectively and understanding where it comes from.

But since our culture still recognizes feminists as the authority on that subject, that isn’t going to change any time soon, either.

{ 103 comments… read them below or add one }

Herbal Essence September 7, 2010 at 08:38

This line of argumentation is one of my favorites when trying to help a man or a receptive woman see through the Matrix. Surprisingly, I very rarely get emotional and reactionary responses like “men bad, women good.” I do get lots of NAWALT or “Oh, she must have been abused by a man in the past” by women.

A couple of very bright men I regularly talk to agree with the entire line of reasoning but conclude “But…but…both men and women have dark sides.” Well, yes they do friend. But our society is punishing good men for the actions of bad men and letting women do whatever the hell they want.

When the ovaries are the decider within a particular woman, Van Der Sloot has 10,000 times more chance to get laid than a Nobel Prize winner. And most women being without any moral compass or understanding of cause and effect, let the ovaries run the show.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 1
Troll king September 7, 2010 at 08:51

Before I continue reading, I had to comment on this:

Those other women who are like that? They are just sicko’s, sad exceptions to the rule And they probably got that way because of some abusive, violent man.

Pure projection. it should read:

Those other Men are just sicko’s, sad exceptions to the rule. And they probably got that way because of some abusive, violent woman…or many, and probably their mom too.

And ofcourse I am not saying all men abused by women become violent, it should be obvious feminazis

Just look at ted bundy and other notorious serial killers, I read about them alot in HS cause I thought about persuing abnormal psych, but alot of serial killers target a specific kind of woman, like white blonde women who are 5’11″ with specific facial features. It’s almost like their targets represent an actual person who hurt them in a way it fucked their mind into pretzels, and they personify or amplify that rage to all women who fit that profile. Just a thought, but even non serial killer guys that are fucked in the head mostly come from single mother households, and the ones that don’t have step dads or fucked up mothers anyways.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1
Troll King September 7, 2010 at 08:54

Oh and Im on Twitter now, bwahahaha
http://twitter.com/TrollKingdom

Alot of intersting links I posted but don’t have time to write about, check out the one on suicide prevention day and the huge, billion dollar loss, suffered in japan from suicide during the depression. Human capital get’s headlines but they still couldn’t bring themselves to talk about men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
woggy September 7, 2010 at 08:58

NAWALT??!!!

They most certainly are “like that”. The very first woman who appears in the Bible was “like that”, so it’s something that humanity had always known…until 1970.

That’s not to say that a woman cannot have been instructed/convinced ( by her FATHER no less) that her self-imagined ability to nurture, tame, and then control the powerful beast is loaded with delusion. Better to settle for a horse and a guy who uses his brawn to shovel…

Those women who actually fall for the dangerously bad man are the ones who’ve been tutored by a feminist mother; the feminist media only adds to the deadly nonsense.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Keyster September 7, 2010 at 09:13

Reminds me of my high school years. During football season the jocks on the team would always wear their jerseys on game day. They’d parade the hallways while the prettiest girls fawned over them. They were considered the highest echelon among us. The confidently imposing boys, wide if not tall, and the most physically mature girls, well appointed in the latest fashion trends, typically on the varsity cheerleading squad.

The teachers themselves adored this “higher social class” of students, usually favoring them with a grade higher than they deserved. Those of us watching all this take place from the outside in found it all perplexing and a bit unfair. But what could we do? Nobody told us girls prefer big, mean, dark, muscular, athletic guys revered for “killing” the opposing team on the football field. It all just kind of happened before our eyes. You could be chosen, but if you discover the “secret” too late you’ll be left in the lurch, among the losers. It’s been set. You’ve been catagorized by your peer group. Girls become wicked when you’re unwanted.

And if you were on the football team AND had a car, you lost your virginity that year, guaranteed. High School is where the social experiment develops, where you’re put on a life track. It’s a wonder so many survive it into adulthood. Why didn’t my parents explain all this to me? Why were there boys better prepared to be men, and others just left to flounder?

The Golden Bears went 1 and 9 my senior year.
I didn’t lose my virginity either.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 0
Zammo September 7, 2010 at 09:16

Young feminist activist murdered by her boyfriend (a guy with a previous criminal record for domestic violence)…

http://classic.feministing.com/archives/009606.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
misterb September 7, 2010 at 09:24

Naturally women will go for a thug, rather than someone who is decent. It’s safe to say that they’re hardwired in that way.

The whole PC crap is just plain fictitious. In truth women don’t want men who are fluffs. Women are attracted to dangerous qualities in a man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 7, 2010 at 09:29

Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to choose among those competing for sexual selection, chooses those that are the biggest, strongest, most aggressive and violent.

While this is true across animal species, can we really say it’s true for humans? Women aren’t picking slobs over buff men, they may marry the bill gates types but tend to try and cuckold them with the pool guy.

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made, and that is of the mammalian, and more specifically the primate, species and other such as lizards and insects and fish and what not. Mammals being larger over the last millions of years have always had to fight off other mammals, whether a gorilla fighting of a cougar, or a lion killing a gazelle. You see one thing, and that is herd dynamics. The females congregate around the center, while the stronger males defend the perimeter. This is where male disposability comes into play, in humans we have nation states and conscription to fight for the female herd.

I think a major part is how mammals require additional growth time, unlike fish or snakes, we don’t come out of the shell ready to hunt. Especially primates, this allows for greater development oppurtunities, in evo talk, like bigger brains and thumbs, but it also means we need protection, humans need about 7-10 yr’s worth[hence the seven year itch and divorce stats] before we can protect ourselves to a reasonable degree. This means that females, or the herd or pack really, needs to be protected from predators.

In these more primitive(meaning lack of resources and a stable environment) this breeds a evo violent based arms race betweens males, and the females breed it. In modern times, women still need protection but they might fair better with the bill gates of the world instead of the meth head thug down the road.

Great article, Im going to tweet it now..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Augusto Croppo September 7, 2010 at 09:59

And if you were on the football team AND had a car, you lost your virginity that year, guaranteed. High School is where the social experiment develops, where you’re put on a life track. It’s a wonder so many survive it into adulthood. Why didn’t my parents explain all this to me? Why were there boys better prepared to be men, and others just left to flounder?

—————————————————————

Your story remember my young times. Quite similar, but in Brazil.

Indeed, very true.

Like you, me and many others were just watching until discover the “secret”.

Well, at least I can answer you last question:

Our parents had very different social developing than us, just because technology of communication.

Just watch the old films before the 80′s and get a grasp the lack of devices to transmit information.

This is crucial when you are speaking about Relation-Ships.

So the final answer is: they did not have devices to help them just to “watch all this take place from the outside”.

Just look at the screen now and notice the HUGE level of information behind the browser that you can access, plus a HUGE level of peoples ideas in virtual forums.

Your parents did not have any of this before they late life if you are at least 20 years old.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Augusto Croppo September 7, 2010 at 10:21

This isn’t going to change any time soon. Maybe never- it took millions of years to get where we are, although that should not stop people who claim enlightenment on the sexes from viewing it objectively and understanding where it comes from.

I just disagree with this last part.

I think is already changing.

You and me are good evidences.

Of course, if you are not a violent man and you have a relationship right now (or you do not have and this not stress you), this present us with a interesting question: why your girlfriend is doing (or not) with you anyway?

I had angry moments in my life which ended in violence, but I had never to resort to violence or offensive actions to wet the lovely ‘ginas’!

If you look at me, you will recognize a tall skeleton with dark hair. I do not pose any treat with my anatomy…

So, the “killing machine” trigger was impossible to me represent.

When you do not have muscles, you have to resort to your bones and brains!

What I did was learn was how to use my body (bones) and language (brains) to attract the women mind.

Like the old shamans throwing finger bones to predict the future, I was using my finger bones to predict the female response…

So, in your theory I am exception.

That’s why I always say: watch me out “bad boys”, your muscles never will speak what they (women) want to hear…

Anyway, I like this articles about savage tribes. I come from Brazil and I do not know the Amazon, but grammy told me that are native in the ancestors family.

Perhaps I am evolved version…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
SingleDad September 7, 2010 at 10:39

I know I sound like an ad from Salon sometimes but here is a link to todays Salon, I say today because this is what feminists think about every day:

http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked/2010/09/06/trophy_wife/index.html

Basically it’s about an elementary school teacher who has some poor shmuck doctor who is foolish enough to want to marry her.

She, of course, shoulda woulda coulda been a great Washington DC something or other, but put that on hold to be his “Trophy Wife”.

Check out the comments. This is exactly what women think of “beta’s” and how, probably the most sought after professional is thought of by women. A profession many men work long and hard to acheive so they can be attractive, find a wife and raise a family. What fools.

I hope this guy reads how his girlfriend feels about him and jumps. He’s in for a world of hurt is 4 years. He’ll have alimony, child support and children he will never see.

That is the state of things in the US, 2010.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 7, 2010 at 10:50

Just look at the screen now and notice the HUGE level of information behind the browser that you can access, plus a HUGE level of peoples ideas in virtual forums.

Yes, and from people all over the world too.
That’s why it’s so important that young guys are reached with this information. They need to understand the innate mating characteristics prevelant among females. The mystery or “mystique” needs to be shattered and exposed. Nice, sweet, delicate guys are NOT a sexual turn on. Gruff, brutish, he-men who will thrash them in bed is what moistens the panties. Gloria Steinem herself preferred athletic black men in her youth.

There is an awakening to this from “The Pick-up Artist” to blogs, that serve to validate what most guys already are learning is true. It’s going mainstream.

Know thy woman….Know thy self.
She ain’t all that complicated.
And don’t give her the power of letting her think, that you think, she is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Anathas10 September 7, 2010 at 10:59

Sorry – like a lot of your stuff but not this one.

Men are violent largely because being violent, or having the capacity for it, gets them a few significant rungs up on that sexual selection ladder- because those are the men that women select. Those are the men that turn them on.

This isn’t going to change any time soon. Maybe never- it took millions of years to get where we are, although that should not stop people who claim enlightenment on the sexes from viewing it objectively and understanding where it comes from.

Really? I’m not violent at all, and neither are the vast majority of my male friends. Do I have the capacity for it? What human doesn’t? In fact assertions that men are intrinsically violent (whether its through core mating behaviour or because it just is) is one of the things that I so detest about the feminist message.

I mean one minute your talking about how women think with their ovaries so while a man is sizing up her tits she is sizing up what his assetts can do for him. The next minute your citing a study which clearly shows that women are not interested in differences in assetts but that violence is the single largest predictor of female selection. Which one is it? Assetts or Violence? Violence or Assetts?

If it really is that simple then how come “Game” doesn’t basically say: “Get big muscles, have fights, prefereably waste a few guys and maybe even bitches and then sit back and watch the pussy roll in”?

Oh and please – don’t give me the “everywhere in the animal kingdom its like this and people are no different” bullshit. Humans are not the same as animals – period! Generalising animal behaviour to humans is about the biggest fallacy you can get. You might as well say “Hey, my arguments have no credibility, stop reading now”

Humans have consciousness, language, abstract thought and imagination. A human is capable of picturing a place they have never seen in their head simply by having someone else say a few words to to them. Capable of turning a rotting old chair into an artistic masterpiece with some paper, paint and a few strokes of a brush. Capable of incredible insight simply by sitting and thinking, by handling multiple abstract concepts in their heads while to all outward appearances they are doing nothing.

You or I can visualise what a relationship with someone might be like, we can think about things like whether or not we have anything in common, whether we have the same sense of humour, whether they pick their nose, whether they eat with their mouth open etc…. and yes some very basic ones like whether they have big tits, a great body and a beautiful face, and for women weather they have high status, are performers, are rich etc…

Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying that plenty of women don’t like “bad boys” many of whom are violent but that is really no surprise is it? And as game points out there are very basic reasons for why this is and none of it is violence. It’s all to do with the establishment and mainatenance of status in your dealings with women.

I wonder whether your study took a good look at the other aspects of behaviour of the men who were most violent. Did they look at whether they acted more self important and confident as a result of their success at killing neighbouring tribes? Did they give less deference to women for the same reason? Did they gain social status in ways that didn’t effect their material wealth? Did the women get more status from other women or in other social ways in the tribe by being linked to such a man?

Come on Paul – Men are more intrinsically violent because women choose them if they are and if you don’t believe me look at seahorses, look they do it too, look, look! Really? Come on!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 17
Thag Jones September 7, 2010 at 11:09

The confidently imposing boys, wide if not tall, and the most physically mature girls, well appointed in the latest fashion trends, typically on the varsity cheerleading squad.

God I hated all that shit in high school. Ugh! The posturing of the “jocks” (even if it could be amusing at times, I admit it) and fawning they received from the “pretty girls” could get a bit sickening. I couldn’t bring myself to try to compete on that field – not fashionable enough anyway.

Nice, sweet, delicate guys are NOT a sexual turn on. Gruff, brutish, he-men who will thrash them in bed is what moistens the panties.

This is true, but one inevitably ends up getting hurt (not by the thrashing, but emotionally, lol). The trouble is that the “nice” guys didn’t ask, the “bad boys” didn’t either, if you know what I mean. And if I asked them, they backed away (probably for good reason, lol). Ah, awkward interactions between the lower ranks….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Anonymous September 7, 2010 at 11:30

Great article, Paul, as always.

I got married the week after graduating from a well-known business school. In a major WTF moment, my mother-in-law grabbed my arm and half-whispered to me “power is the greatest aphrodisiac.” A surrealistic experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 7, 2010 at 11:32

As far back as I can go into my youth, human females have always displayed the same behavior.

The same thing is also told in all History books.

It’s just that today, women have obtained full license to behave in the way of their chosing.

It’s up to us men to adapt to the “new” woman..

Make the best of what’s available. Use your smarts and draw full benefits. There are always two sides to a coin.

For many men, equipped with this “new” knowledge, the challenge is to find “new” ways to benefit from a situation that was always there.

Take what’s good and throw away what’s bad.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
slwerner September 7, 2010 at 11:38

I must first apologize because I am about to go completely off-topic here; but, I need to vent about something.

On Laura Wood’s (The Thinking Housewife) site, there is a frequent poster, one Jesse Powell – the same guy who sometime back commented that he was “okay” with innocent men being imprisoned via false rape allegations, so that (as he surmised) women would be protected from being raped (by the non-rapists in jail) – who’s back at it again. This one really burned me up. I mailed my response to Laura, but I anticipate that, as she has done in the past, she will simply refuse to post any harsh comments directed at this guy. Anyway, here’s what Jesse Powell has to say about the MRM:

“The goal is for male domestic violence to be excused, to be minimized, for allegations to not be believed, etc. That is the agenda of the MRM in regards to domestic violence. It exactly parallels the MRM agenda in regards to rape. The MRM wants rape accusations to not be believed, for rape to be minimized, for prosecution to be more difficult, etc.”

With chivalrous white-knighting manginas out spreading the lies, who needs avowed man-hating gender-feminist radicals. These A-holes are (willfully) ignorant of the fact that they walk lock-step with the feminists they claim to be against. Much as they claim to be against the evils and excesses of feminism, they sure seem to consider the men who are actually willing to try to do something about those evils and excesses to be their “enemies”. WTF!?!? (I thought the saying went, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, not, ‘The enemy of my enemy is an even greater enemy to me”. Or, did I get that wrong somewhere?)[/rant]

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
slwerner September 7, 2010 at 11:56

To get back to the topic at hand, I have a more personal anecdote which demonstrates the ‘gina tingle for a killer idea.

Some time back, my wife prosecuted a guy for murdering his friends father – with seemly no motive for having done so.

During the course of the on-going investigation, she began listening to his jail-house calls to a girl that had dumped him for another guy shortly before he murdered his friends father.

From listening to the calls that she was making to him, it was apparent that she’d rethought her relationship to him, and wanted him back (big time). She told him, in one of the calls that she had dumped because he hadn’t been very exciting, and that the guy she had hooked-up with was in the army, scheduled to be deployed to the Middle-East (I don’t remember which theater, but one where he might well be expected to be in some danger), and that his family had a $500,000 life insurance policy.

She went on to explain that she was really just hoping to get him to marry her before he shipped out so that she could be the beneficiary of that insurance in the even that he were to be killed. And, that id he didn’t die, she be divorcing him as soon as he got back .

But the real telling thing about this gal was that, since learning of his arrest for murder, she had started keeping a scrap-book on him.

Eventually, another call revealed that the now ‘gina-tingling murderer had written her a letter detailing his darkest thoughts and basically confessing to the murder. In that call he told her, “Don’t let anyone see that letter, or I’m f*cked”. She replied that she had put it in her secret scrap-book about him.

Not surprisingly, thanks to the knowledge she provided in her gushing to him about that scrap-book, a search warrant let police get a hold of that “smoking gun”, which help to get him convicted.

This was rather cold, heartless bitch, that would have happily deceived another man – in the hopes that he would die and financially enrich her – who was gushing like a star struck little girl about the dud she’d dumped, simply because, after he’d killed someone, she found him completely exciting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 0
Dave September 7, 2010 at 12:35

Why is this all a mystery? Shakespeare wrote a play about female attitudes toward murder and murderers – Macbeth. Macbeth’s wife pushed him to murder Duncan. Women are status conscious. In tribes, having a psychopathic mate could very well be the ticket to advancement in the tribe for a status- conscious female. With better status comes greater access to resources for her offspring. One of the reasons for marriage for males is to regularize males as a group sexual dealings with females as a group. If you leave it up to status conscious women, all male-female relationships would be contingent on the male satisfying a female need for status advancement at all times. If left up to women this would lead to male-on-male violence as a woman would require her mate to kill for status advancement. Christian marriage and divorce taboos served to keep this vicarious murderous streak of women at bay. Now, most of this is submerged as there is no need necessarily to kill someone for status advancement – all one need do is sabotage the career of a fellow male and this would lead to “existential murder” of a rival male.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 7, 2010 at 13:41

Croppo: you’d have to go back a lot earlier than the 1980′s to find a time when information was unavailable . Like in hunter societies where you saw the same 50 people your entire life lol
Communication is faster today but this doesn’t mean that people actually know more or are smarter. The Internet is used the same way the TV or telephone was, mostly for entertainment. People are just being bombarded with a lot of propaganda and misinformation today and they’re not smart enough to sort it all out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
trashed September 7, 2010 at 13:49

Blessied is the male who has little or no need to fuck, fight, or fend for others in any way, shape, or form…the needless pain you guys go thru, in pursuit of these things is at the least entertaining though..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Paul Elam September 7, 2010 at 14:16

@Anathas10

Really? I’m not violent at all, and neither are the vast majority of my male friends. Do I have the capacity for it? What human doesn’t? In fact assertions that men are intrinsically violent (whether its through core mating behaviour or because it just is) is one of the things that I so detest about the feminist message.

I am not violent either, but that isn’t really the point. And the point is certainly, at least not for me, whether any feminist has ever said anything similar. The point is whether human males are more violent than females and whether this is factors favorably into sexual selection.

If you are trying to argue that men are no more innately violent than women, then you better go get some research to back it up. and quick. I mean, when you were in high school were there just as many physical fighter between girls as there was between boys?

Did the girls gravitate toward rough play and violent sports?

Please.

Detest the feminists all you want, the fact that men are more violent than women is a no brainer. The thing the feminists got wrong about it is that it is men who are the ones suffering for that violence, not women. I didn’t mention it in the article but the research I cited also pointed out the fact that in Yanomamö culture, roughly 25% of males, compared to a much smaller percentage of females, died directly from violence at the hands of other men.

Crime stats across the globe would point to similar conclusions about the incidence of overall violence as it relates to sex. I am as opposed to feminist dogma as much as anyone, but I don’t think we should emulate them by ignoring glaring realities just to take the position that we see things differently.

Human males are more physically aggressive and violent than human females hands down. The only exception is where it concerns intersexual violence, and it is about even, even with men much more prone to restrain their aggressions with women than the other way around.

For the rest of the article, you are missing some key points, or rather you are reducing everything to only the lines that address direct violence and ignoring everything else.

That’s exactly what you did regarding seahorses. I invited you not just to look at them, but to look at sexual characteristics and the propensity for violence throughout all cultures and indeed throughout the animal kingdom- all of which 100% supports the thesis that animals that compete for sexual selection are more aggressive and violent than those that do the selecting.

You reduced it to the one line about seahorses and tried to mockingly paint that as my whole argument, ignoring everything else. Is this where I am supposed to say that this is one of the things I so detest about the feminist message?

Eric September 7, 2010 at 14:26

I get the fact that males who kill other males, or have the power to, have always ranked higher on women’s desirability meters.
But Van Der Sloot and Peterson killed females. Big difference. Or at least one would think it would be. That makes me wonder what other factors are involved with this phenomenon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Keyster September 7, 2010 at 14:28

“People are just being bombarded with a lot of propaganda and misinformation today and they’re not smart enough to sort it all out.”

Right.
Rather than have the information selectively chosen by the elite for us to digest from our door step each morning or TV each night, we have the opportunity to hear a vast amount of opinion and news from common people everywhere at will. Where otherwise disparate groups of like thinkers unite and exchange ideas. This, the only medium to allow the MRM a voice in the mainstream. The internet is God.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur September 7, 2010 at 14:39

“all of which 100% supports the thesis that animals that compete for sexual selection are more aggressive and violent than those that do the selecting.”

Even spotted hyenas? From Citizen Renegade- the International Symbol of Feminism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icx5TucPZpw&feature=player_embedded

To be fair, these female hyenas are more attractive and have better manners than many feminists I’ve met, so I apologize if I’ve offended any hyenas by the comparison.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur September 7, 2010 at 14:46

Opps- forgot to back link to this, too:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/13/animals-of-the-manosphere/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence September 7, 2010 at 14:55

Eric-”But Van Der Sloot and Peterson killed females. Big difference. Or at least one would think it would be.”

Interesting observation. But women are only opposed to violence when it is perpetrated by a male they find creepy. Violent males who are also somewhat attractive get an A+ in the eyes of women.
To recap –
Unattractive man kills another man. Women think “Now they’ll both get what they deserve.”
Unattractive man kills a woman. Women think “OMG men are violent brutes, they should all be thrown in prison.”
Attractive man kills a man or a woman. Women think “How can I get his sperm in me?”

Sad but true.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Snark September 7, 2010 at 15:04

With chivalrous white-knighting manginas out spreading the lies, who needs avowed man-hating gender-feminist radicals. These A-holes are (willfully) ignorant of the fact that they walk lock-step with the feminists they claim to be against. Much as they claim to be against the evils and excesses of feminism, they sure seem to consider the men who are actually willing to try to do something about those evils and excesses to be their “enemies”.

Feminists and social conservatives are peas in a pod. You didn’t know?

Jesse Powell is just trying to get into Laura Wood’s e-panties. It’s usually the case with these submissive male types.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Gunn September 7, 2010 at 15:19

Copy of the response I posted on MND (perhaps it might be a good idea to disable commenting on either that site or this one for a shared article like this one if you want to pool feedback?):

Not to piss on your parade, but this is a poor article that rehashes material thats already been discussed in various other places, and even worse, fails to draw the appropriate conclusion.

Namely: there has been one institution that has spread ‘non-violence’ through cultures, and its called monogamous patriarchy. If one reviews crime statistics over time in western european countries for example, one sees violent crime and murder rates in particular generally fall as we became more ‘civilised’ (America doesn’t have a long enough history to do this full justice yet, but even there one will see a similar trend).

What would therefore be interesting in this context is to look at the short term trend for violent crime, and test the hypothesis that womens’ empowerment / feminism correlates with an uptick in violence. This is certainly plausible based on the facts outlined in your blog article here, and would (if found to be statistically significant) provide ammunition to the idea that one of the prices of feminism and full sexual liberation for women is the reversion to a pre-civilisational environment of violence.

It would also send the harpies into screeching fits of rage as they tried to paint themselves out of the corner that laid blame for societal violence at the door of the poor sexual choices unrestrained women seem fond of making.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Gunn September 7, 2010 at 15:20

Oops, the comment above should have read ‘Voice for Men’, not MND

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Paul Elam September 7, 2010 at 15:30

@ Paradoxataur

LOL! I concede the exception. Great find, I am sending this one on to Golden.

namae nanka September 7, 2010 at 16:21
Höllenhund September 7, 2010 at 16:38

“She told him, in one of the calls that she had dumped because he hadn’t been very exciting, and that the guy she had hooked-up with was in the army, scheduled to be deployed to the Middle-East (I don’t remember which theater, but one where he might well be expected to be in some danger), and that his family had a $500,000 life insurance policy.

She went on to explain that she was really just hoping to get him to marry her before he shipped out so that she could be the beneficiary of that insurance in the even that he were to be killed. And, that id he didn’t die, she be divorcing him as soon as he got back .”

The more I hear of such cases the more sympathy I have for the Taliban.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Connie Chastain September 7, 2010 at 17:15

I must have grown up in a cultural bubble, and a pretty big one. There was no admiration for violent men there. As teenagers, my friends and I were warned about, and steered away from, bad boys by our parents and other adult authority figures. We developed the understanding that such boys (and, later, men) were malevolent and potentially posed a danger to us.

Fortunately, bad boys were a tiny minority in our culture. Most males were raised to be good boys, and good, productive men. (I married one and I appreciate him more the longer we’ve been together, which is about 36 years now.)

In HS and college, we admired boys who could be tough (football players), leaders (class and club officers), smart (honor rollers) and who could fight effectively if defense required it. But if it wasn’t in defense of self or others, it was bullying, which is something we recoiled from.

I think women who get the tingles from evil have not been taught properly to distinguish between good and evil. I guess that would include the majority of people in our culture today.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 16
Paul Elam September 7, 2010 at 17:50

Namely: there has been one institution that has spread ‘non-violence’ through cultures, and its called monogamous patriarchy.

I don’t see how this is in conflict with the thesis at all, unless you are asserting that monogamous patriarchy is an extension of biological masculinity, which I think is clearly in error.

Your problem here seems to be that you are confusing base instinctive behavior with some of the traditions we have developed that ultimately curtailed some of the worst of it.

It is no secret in general that human society is getting less violent as we go along, and I have no doubt that post agrarian culture, including patriarchy, has something to do with it.

Does this refute anything I wrote?

Nope.

codebuster September 7, 2010 at 18:02

Paul Elam

Human males are more physically aggressive and violent than human females hands down. The only exception is where it concerns intersexual violence, and it is about even, even with men much more prone to restrain their aggressions with women than the other way around.

Paul, for the most part, I agree with the position you take with respect to Anathas10. But there is one thing that you overlook, and that is the violence perpetrated by mothers, as primary nurturer, against children. Women are the primary abusers of children, with the tendency to abuse boys more, and as you would know, this is backed up by numbers from the various “clearing houses” for child abuse. It therefore follows that children carry on the culture of violence into adulthood. That is to say, boys learn violence first from their primary nurturer. This is an important, not-trivial point. But we overlook it because we are all stuck in this assumption that behavior is programmed into the genes. It’s not.

Women can be extremely violent in their imaginings, in their fantasies of retribution – I believe, more violent than men. There are some vicious bitches out their indulging in bloody fantasies – and they can come across as so sweet and appeasing. But you see, reality kicks in to limit women’s actualization of violence. The contexts in which women live discourages them from actualizing it, and so they live their violence vicariously, actualizing it through their sons. Men first learn violence from their primary nurturer, and the tendency is to then have that violence reaffirmed through male traditions and initiations as boys progress through adolescence into adulthood – all of course with the fawning approval of doting moms.

Female sexuality, rape and retribution fantasies and all the rest are expressions of violence that play into the psychologies of young boys and girls growing into adulthood and ultimately, what goes around comes around, manifesting differently depending on your sex. It’s about culture.

We need to understand that not only child abuse perpetrated by women, but also women’s vicarious indulgence in violence, in all its forms, is every bit as important as the violence actualized by men.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
Gunn September 7, 2010 at 18:11

Does this refute anything I wrote?

Nope.

My point is that your article is not a ‘thesis’ its more an observation and a fairly trite one at that. What makes this interesting (imo) is noting how civilisation redirected this basic instinct in a more productive manner, and how the benefits of that mitigation are being lost in the drive for feminist empowerment.

The biggest irony of this is that we arrive at the conclusion that the reason for violence in society is not in fact men’s individual penchant for it but instead female empowerment in general.

This is doubly ironic when one considers that feminist sponsored studies, in looking for the causes of male violence, steadfastly refuse to follow the trail which leads directly back to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
Gunn September 7, 2010 at 18:21

interesting link that ties into this article. In this case, it seems that the girl (15 at the time!) wasn’t just content to let the menfolk have all the fun:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11218238

“She was spending all her time with middle-aged alcoholics to whom violence had become normal,” the judge said.

“It had become part of their way of life. The alcoholics fought with each other.

“To describe her upbringing as not being a proper upbringing would be an understatement”

End Quote Mr Justice Saunders

“They stole in order to get the drink they craved.”

I do think that the UK is not as bad yet as the US with cases like this. My read is that if this girl was in the US, its unlikely she would have been given a life sentence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
codebuster September 7, 2010 at 18:34

Eric

I get the fact that males who kill other males, or have the power to, have always ranked higher on women’s desirability meters.
But Van Der Sloot and Peterson killed females. Big difference. Or at least one would think it would be. That makes me wonder what other factors are involved with this phenomenon.

One word, Eric. Violation. It’s why women have rape fantasies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam September 7, 2010 at 18:36

My point is that your article is not a ‘thesis’ its more an observation and a fairly trite one at that.

I knew there was a point in there somewhere.

Still, it would be more clear, whether you call it an observation or a thesis, if you were actually making a point that responded to the original content.

What you did was a nice pitch for traditionalism and patriarchy. Unfortunately, I wasn’t writing about either.

Augenblick September 7, 2010 at 18:56

Augusto Croppo
Talvez devessemos falar em português, mas não nos entenderiam.

Sure beeing a skinny guy myself too, we developed other ways to get women, but here in Brazil we sure do not have the same difficulties that they have.

Here even don’t owning a car I can get a lot of pussy, crazy, hipergamous, full of shit pussy, but very pretty ones.
I see the ratio in their country of pretty pussy x men in general, is very low at least from what we see on tv, all those fatties… and the ways that feminism crush them it doesn’t help either.
Here we don’t have to use game and beeing a average handsome well dressed guy cut for it, you don’t even have to do the talk, not rarely women come to me and I don’t think at all that I’m the one, au contraire I see that they would come to anyone with the same status as mine which is based only on the image that I project, sure we have a lot of disrupted guys that even with a girl coming to them, they could fail at her.

The question resides in, would you marry any of those girls you said you got? I’m not asking if you fill that they really want you, but ho much you can thrust them in a LTR with your own self aquired properties?

By that optics I see that we are not much different from them, sure we pop the cherry much earlier than they, but that by itself is the cause of much more trouble later as a invariable trend to not have any (pretty) “family” (not wore out) girls to marry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 7, 2010 at 20:00

HOLY SHIT!!!! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Guys, don’t laugh, but I was watching the new episode of Teen Mom[http://www.mtv.com/shows/teen_mom/season_2/series.jhtml] and Ive watched a few episodes on demand and every single female on the show is crazy as hell. But more importantly, teen mom is the spin off of 16 and pregnant, both air on MTV and have a huge female audience. Here’s the thing, on episode “Senior Prom”, the couple Maci and Ryan, where maci is trying to move to Nashville and take Ryans kid away from him to be raised by a beta(but slightly alpha dude who has never had a GF) and how ryan is fighting to get partial custody. The thing is that it’s really upfront, not what I expected from MTV, considering every episode has teen girls being abused by their fucked up mother or guys being abused by their fucked up baby mommas, and it shows him talking to a lawyer and finding out that she can take his kid(a boy) far away without him being able to do anything about it but take her to court. There is also a scene where maci talks about how if she moves then she will get more child support because child support is based(in TN) on the number of hours the dad spends with the child. SO by limiting the number of days available, he has to pay more.

My point is that we in the MRM need to make a concerted and strategic and UNIFIED effort to bring this to attention, especially the attention of every 16 yr old boy. VIVA MARRIAGE STRIKE!!! NOW COMES BABY STRIKE!!!

I was impressed, and saddened, how Ryan coward infront of his baby momma and then after asking if she was moving, he literally said, “I have no Rights, and this really sucks….well, Ill see you in court then!”

This would be a great teaching lesson, and might get some points across to younger guys and maybe even some wimminz

Im about to crash, but Ill try to have something up by tomorrow when the shit hits the fan, or the internet tabloids. Pass it on! Troll King Commands it!

http://trollkingdom.blogspot.com

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Nemo September 7, 2010 at 20:37

It’s clear that men have evolved significantly during the past 10,000 years but women have not.

Men are constantly building up civilization and women are constantly trying to tear down civilization. It’s as if some demented person was sneaking around in the middle of the night and trashing everything that men had built during the day.

The real kick in the hindquarters that men have received in the past fifty years is that women have managed to turn the courts and the police force into the *protectors* of the worst thugs.

A hundred years ago, if a bad guy was sniffing around the local teenage girls, all of the men had the unspoken yet very real right to shoot him on sight. A jury of twelve men (not women!) wouldn’t convict a man of murder if he was defending his womenfolk. Heck, it wasn’t unheard of for a group of men to literally tar and feather a thug before he was able to cause serious trouble.

Today, the court system and the police actually *help* these thugs live long enough to reproduce. It takes lots of time and some luck to actually convict a thug. That van Sloot fellow had to kill TWO girls before they got him. He might have gotten off a second time if he had had the brains to avoid Latin America, where there is still a residue of old fashioned patriarchy.

If the court system and police disappear, I guarantee you that dads and uncles and brothers with shotguns [or other firearms] would start to dispatch any thugs who started sniffing around their female relatives. It would be open season on any guy who didn’t make the grade and impress ither men as a worthy suitor before he made his move.

I can’t overemphasize the fact that we have shifted from men having a veto over the dating and mating partners of their daughters to men often being completely excluded from the lives of their daughters under penalty of imprisonment. The good guys are handcuffed by respect for the law, and the thugs are allowed to run loose with young women.

Our legal system is so fracked up that it often punishes the good guys more swiftly and surely than the evil ones.

Is it not incredibly stupid to allow the whims of teenage girls to completely control the breeding patterns of our entire civilization?

This has never happened before, not even in tribal societies. Even in the most wild tribes in the very back of the backwoods, marriage is considered to be more important than it is in modern America.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Augenblick September 7, 2010 at 21:12

Troll King, since the start of your blog I’m reading your texts, and I prayse you for doing the sewer job one more time. Godspeed Toxic Avenger!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Shawn September 7, 2010 at 21:28

@ Eric
“But Van Der Sloot and Peterson killed females. Big difference. Or at least one would think it would be. That makes me wonder what other factors are involved with this phenomenon.”

Bitches be crazy!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Traveller September 7, 2010 at 23:38

This article remarks the informations we all have already about the females.

They go for status and power men. They are not attracted by the person in self, because they do not have any deep psychological capability, but just only by the power the surrounding society gives those men.

I would not concentrate on killing. Sure, this can be an effect report, specially today in the soft and cotton society, but killing is just another expression of power.

In primitive societies, where there is not tech and science evolution, and there is not a lot of material goods to show status, the sole thing defining power is territory owned by a tribe or men inside that tribe. The war is the first activity they use for getting that (just for notice, war done by rocks and “spears”). Killing is so the most important wat to show status.

Today, power is shown in a lot of way other than killing. Already mentioned the football players, and the politicians who do not kil directly or if they have not done anything similar, they have a lot of females around.

So, I repeat, females go for power, and only incidentally killing, but only when killing is a power manifestation.

Think too to businessmen, they do not kill anyone physically but they have the power to fire thousands of workers and employess. This power over other men is the turn on for females, even if no blood is involved.

Besides, I would not concentrate on killing just because females’ mind is too simple and emotive, and it can not grasp the real meaning of terminating a life. For them is just another game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 8, 2010 at 01:08

I knew there was a point in there somewhere.

Still, it would be more clear, whether you call it an observation or a thesis, if you were actually making a point that responded to the original content.

What you did was a nice pitch for traditionalism and patriarchy. Unfortunately, I wasn’t writing about either.

I think you’re being extremely defensive. Your article stopped just short of connecting these dots (one can in fact infer the conclusion I’ve outlined directly from your article) and I’m not sure why.

Perhaps its because you think that the idea that women are attracted to violent men is contentious, but I would disagree with this. There have been many many articles written in the ‘manosphere’ about women being attracted to murderers etc; I seen this kind of thing written on Roissy, on the Spearhead in the past, and on various other blogs.

If anything, what this does demonstrate is the desirability of having a site that holds reference articles on this kind of common theme (part of the ‘think tank’ idea that has been bounced around on other threads maybe), so we don’t keep seeing articles every 2-3 months rehashing tired points that have been discussed before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
greyghost September 8, 2010 at 03:24

@Gunn
Lets not forget who your audience is. As a commenter on a blog you have decided to take on a position as a leader in the MRM. I get the web site out to people I meet fairly regularly and so do many others so there is always a new person on the site. Some subjects may be tired to you. But are new and enlightening for someone reading on an MRA blog for the first time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Anathas10 September 8, 2010 at 03:31

@ Paul Elam

Blimey, you can talk about picking up specific parts of someones message and ignoring others. On your point of me missing your point – I have read your article again a few times now and I am sorry but I don’t really see much more of a point. Its pretty clear!

– but to address your rebuttal.

I am not arguing that men are not more violent than women. I agree with your stats and analysis on this point. Although just as an aside rough play is NOT violence and there are many other developmental attributes for rough play other than the development of a capability for violence against your fellow man. I saw probably just as many cat fights when growing up as I did guys going for it but maybe that was just me and where I grew up.

Men being “more” violent than women is neither here nor there. The level of female violence is irrelevant. Women selecting men on the basis of male violence need not say ANYTHING about how violent women are. Women could be more violent than men but still want to get with violent guys. You start point is therefore a fallacy in of itself as your only reference for saying that men are “violent” is that they are more violent than women – but what does that really mean?

See my point is that you are not simply arguing that men are MORE violent than women. You are arguing that the attraction of women to violence is a core part of human mating behaviour. That women are pretty much universally turned on by violent men and so men are violent because of this.

This is the power that most, if not all, women respond to. From Al Capone to John Dillinger, Genghis and Kublai Khan, Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, Adolph Hitler and Alexander, and Ronald Regan to Barack Obama, men who kill, and men who have the power to have men killed cause a ‘gina tingle in many, many women that would register on the Richter Scale.

Lets repeat that part again “This is the power that most, if not all, women respond to“.

So did I get that wrong Paul? Did I miss the core message there. The rest of your article is just supporting text for this message is it not?

If this were the case then there would be a general trend of men towards violence – but there aint. At least in my mind in order to be considered violent you need to be perpetrating violence.

According to the British Crime Survey 2009 roughly 2 million violent crime incidents happened in that year. Of these about 300k were Dom violence (we are agreed this is about equal so lets leave those out) about 300k were mugging / robbery which are largely perpetrated by repeat offenders for economic reasons. Of the remaining 1.4 about half didn’t result in any injury – so they weren’t that violent. I don’t have a breakdown of the rest but anyway – the population of England and Wales is about 52 million people of which about 25 million are men. Lets assume that the remaining 700k were ALL perpetrated by men (which they aint) and each perpetrated by a different man (laughable) that means that there are 700k violent men in the UK and 24.3 million who aren’t being violent in that year.

Conclusion – men are NOT violent as a rule. Surely that is the point. Not whether men are more violent than women? As if I needed this stat to show this anyway, just go out on a night out and see how many men perpetrate acts of violence. I can’t remember the last time I witnessed an act of violence not on the telly.

On the seahorses point I hold my hands up. I got very sarcastic towards the end which was uncalled for and for which I apologise. However, you know what I am saying and it is equally applicable to all animal comparisons, I just chose seahorses because they were the most ridiculous and best represented the point that generalising from behaviour in the animal kingdom to Humans has no validity at all.

But back to the main thrust of your rebuttal – You post an article entitled:

Nothing Makes a Gina Tingle Like a Killa

And make a load of arguments in an attempt to demonstrate that men who kill get loads of pussy, even going so far as to say:

Politicians have the favorable characteristics of political savvy and the power to kill, even if with just the simple stroke of a pen. Is it any wonder why for most all of them that a quick blow job is just a snap of the fingers away?

and

men who kill, and men who have the power to have men killed cause a ‘gina tingle in many, many women that would register on the Richter Scale.

And then you call me for missing the message and focussing just on the violence elements! Yeah OK – what was the other message then Paul? Contrary to what you believe I didn’t miss you message at all – I got it loud and clear –

Men are violent because women love violence or actually killers

Or to put it your way

Men are violent largely because being violent, or having the capacity for it, gets them a few significant rungs up on that sexual selection ladder- because those are the men that women select. Those are the men that turn them on.

Well Fuck that. Some men are violent, some women love men who are violent (perhaps because they are violent) but as for indiscriminate generalisation on the basis of largely ungeneralisable research data- I’ll leave that thank you very much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Thag Jones September 8, 2010 at 06:27

I’m not sure about all this. I think this is just the “bad boy” thing run amok. It’s one thing to date someone who is a little rough around the edges, but these “killaz” are just a whole other category. The women who throw themselves at these guys are, in a word, fucked (like the killers themselves). I just can’t fathom it – I wouldn’t touch any of these guys with a 10-foot pole.

It may seem like there are a lot of women who would date these assholes, but I just can’t believe that the majority are like this. We all have the same seeds, some just water the bad ones (or the bad ones are watered by their upbringing and so forth) and become more or less irredeemable. While there may be some truth that this is a female thing (attraction to violent men), it’s no different really than any other fantasy, where most people know that’s all it is and aren’t actually interested in living it out.

Same goes for the less murderous “bad boy” rebel who makes a better fantasy than reality. Some men fantasize about blowing shit up, some women fantasize about screwing the men who blow shit up. Those who live out destructive fantasies are probably just nuts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Herbal Essence September 8, 2010 at 07:45

Thag Jones- “It may seem like there are a lot of women who would date these assholes, but I just can’t believe that the majority are like this.”

I appreciate your perspective, but I think you’re a little pollyanna-ish on this issue.

Nobody on here, as far as I can tell, is saying the majority of women want to DATE violent thugs. We are saying they want to get fucked by violent thugs. Dominant Alpha Males don’t date. They dominate and fuck. And they can count on a line of women around the block, eagerly hoping for some bruises and some baby batter.
The women may rationalize their behavior by thinking they’re going to tame the beast and make him fall in love. But that is just surface self-delusion. Deep down women know that they’re just going to get their rape fantasies fulfilled and then the thug will move onto some other wet hole.
Remember that the average urban female has slept with over 30 guys by the time she’s in her 30′s. “Dating” has nothing to do with it. Dating is the word a woman uses when referring to the deluded sap she is taking advantage of for resources.
Again, I don’t mean to jump on you Thag, but I’m getting a little tired of the “innocent” women who get on The Spearhead and claim to be so shocked at how depraved their gender has become. What are you going to do about it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
intp September 8, 2010 at 07:48

Wasn’t WW2 a battle of monogamous patriarchies?

Patriarchy does not, in my opinion, so much lessen violence. Rather the Patriarchy replaces low-intensity, random, pedestrian violence (e.g., ghettos, the jungle) with industrial-scale, highly-organized, mega-violence (U.S. Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
slwerner September 8, 2010 at 07:52

Nemo –
” Our legal system is so fracked up that it often punishes the good guys more swiftly and surely than the evil ones.”

Nemo, I don’t know if you’ve seen this yet, or not; but it illustrates perfectly what you are say:
Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47
Says Many Gang Members Were Coming After His Family”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
intp September 8, 2010 at 08:05

Women are violent via proxy. They pull the strings and work the system to get men (brothers, fathers, boyfriends, husbands, police) to fight for them and over them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Thag Jones September 8, 2010 at 08:34

Herbal Essence,

I’m not disagreeing with you (and I don’t feel jumped on), but I don’t think I’ve claimed to be shocked. I suppose what I am saying is that although the majority of women might want to get screwed by violent thugs, if that is indeed true (forgive me for having trouble here – I’m still getting my head around this idea), I’m not sure the majority act out the fantasy – and it is surely a minority who actually pursue jailbirds. Maybe I am a bit out of touch being 38 and not of this seemingly endlessly slutty younger generation?

I’m not saying I’m innocent either, but I do find that average number you site pretty gross – and if that’s the average…. I’m really trying to avoid the NAWALT argument here, which seems to be a bit of a Godwin’s Law of the manosphere, because I do know women who are nasty bitches like you all describe, but I also know better women who are NOT like that.

Anyway, much as I don’t like to admit it, I’ve had a couple of those tag and release (or pump and dump, if you prefer – one I was dumped, the other I did the dumping) type experiences and it was a very empty feeling I was left with, so I don’t do that – the last of those was 14 years ago. Again, fantasy and reality are two different things. It’s not bad to fantasize necessarily, so long as you know that’s all it is and don’t delude yourself into thinking you can tame a wild beast and still find the sex as hot as it was before you domesticated him. Maybe there are women who realize this and so they just give in to their fantasies and wind up being raving (and often hypocritical) sluts because they can’t stand the idea of a “nice guy.”

What am I going to do about it? I have some ideas, but first and foremost I have to try to raise my daughters to not be like that. I think about that every day and it’s not going to be easy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
codebuster September 8, 2010 at 08:57

Herbal Essence

Nobody on here, as far as I can tell, is saying the majority of women want to DATE violent thugs. We are saying they want to get fucked by violent thugs. Dominant Alpha Males don’t date. They dominate and fuck. And they can count on a line of women around the block, eagerly hoping for some bruises and some baby batter.

Putting this contention as simply as I can, here’s how I see it.

Female sexuality is principally about two types of desire, existing along a continuum:
- Type 1 – Intimacy;
- Type 2 – Violation.

Women desire formidable men, men whom they can respect – or fear. Formidable men come in two flavours along said continuum:
- Type 1 – Successful men (confident, charming, etc);
- Type 2 – Thugs.

There are shades of grey of course, along the continuum, with betas hovering around the middle, but let’s keep this ultra-simple.

Neither type 1 nor type 2 women want to save men. Saving a man is utterly alien to a woman’s nature. For all their blather, women do not want “companions”. Type 1s want to be saved by men, and in return they will offer nurturance and support. Type 2s enjoy the thrill and excitement of being violated by formidable men – much like a parachutist enjoys leaping out of a plane. That’s why women have rape fantasies.

Central to all of this is the thrill of the forbidden.

Bottom line? The casual sex that we’ve been “enjoying” since the sexual revolution is about as divorced from intimacy as one can get. Half-way decent girls who experiment with the casual sex of peer pressure do not have their intimacy needs resolved. They therefore have two options open to them:
1) Pull out of the casual sex roundabout and find a “nice”, compliant beta;
2) Submit to the casual sex roundabout, and enjoy the thrill of throwing it away.

“Nice” guys without the courage of their convictions fall down on the formidable. Without respect, a man has little else going for him in a woman’s eyes, and the essence of his masculine sexuality is neutered. Though as a predictable provider who won’t rock the boat, he can make a reliable marriage partner. In the absence of courage and respect, a man’s only utility is as provider.

Because there is ZERO intimacy in casual sex, the ONLY way that the second option is enjoyable for a woman is the rough stuff. Thugs and sluts go together. What we are dealing with here is the fundamental nature of casual sex and female sexuality’s interpretation of it.

As the provided-for sex, women have it easy. They have it so easy that casual sex is mundane for them. They only have to turn up. It’s just turning the handle, going through the motions. There is no thrill, no challenge, no nothing. Only a thug, who can provide the spice of danger, can make sex exciting again. Anything less is dullsville.

Otto Weininger’s take on this is worth exploring.

That’s my 2 cents worth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 8, 2010 at 09:11

I’ll try and bring Paul’s theory back into perspective.
Women are sexually attracted to men of power. Some are attracted to violent killers, some to atheletes, some to entertainers, some to politicians, some to corporate VP’s. They find his aura of confidence and self-assurance very alluring and stimulating. Male power is a woman’s “pièce de résistance”, in whatever form her particular proclivities for the fantasy of it may take. If he holds sway over other men and women, he’s a man of power.

Men are attracted to women with delicate, almost “childlike” features, round curves and with a pleasant disposition. These traits can be as varied as power in men. Suffice to say the power a man has is equal to the beauty in the women he attracts. NEVER the inverse opposite; as in Oprah, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina. Yet some of the least attractive men humanity has to offer, have their choice of beautiful women, IF they have power.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
mgtow September 8, 2010 at 09:14

@Connie Chastain

Fortunately, bad boys were a tiny minority in our culture. Most males were raised to be good boys, and good, productive men. (I married one and I appreciate him more the longer we’ve been together, which is about 36 years now.)

1) Marriage 1.0(your time) is not the same as Marriage 2.0(now). Men are better off not marrying under the rules of Marriage 2.0.

2) Good, wholesome productive men, eh? I’m sure they exist now too. Only I’d advise them not to marry. Do not be the sucker-provider to slog and provide for some bitch who holds the reins of asymmetric state-sanctioned power.

Marriage has nothing to do with love, but business. And Marriage 2.0 is a piss poor business deal for men.

Summary:
Decent, wholesome guys: avoid women like the plague.
Not-so-decent, hedonistic guys: pump and dump women.
Monogamy is not an option.

P.S: Your typically female ‘me/my situation is the exception to the norm’ retort bores me, but since you are probably an old ma’am who is not cognizant of the differences of Marriage 1.0 vs 2.0, I’ll overlook it just this once.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
Kinetic September 8, 2010 at 09:14

Are BETA males just looking for mother figures?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Dave September 8, 2010 at 09:22

Although this is slightly off topic, most of feminism, race consciousness and gay rights is right out of the cultural marxism playbook. Educate yourself about the Frankfurt school, Gramsci, Lucaks, Marcuse, etc. and a lot of what is going on will make sense. Essentially, following WW1 marxists didn’t get the revolution they wanted in western Europe because men were satisfied with the standard of living capitalism provided. Marxist intellectuals in the west who for the most part were ethnic outsiders decided for everyone else that western civilization left a lot to be desired (outgroup ethnic envy/hatred masquerading as objective critique) and took it upon themselves to destroy western civilization. Since men in the west wouldn’t go along with the revolution, the Frankfurt school recruited women, minorities and gays to help in the destruction of western civilization. If all this sounds insane when stated so plainly it isn’t – look it up. If you are a white male you have been identified as the enemy by cultural marxists and every effort of theirs has been to make you a second class citizen. If you still think in PC terms you need to get over it – those are the concepts your enemy is using to enslave/destroy you, your family, your race and your civilization. Cultural marxism explains affirmative action, feminism, ridiculous divorce/family laws, lax immigration enforcement, and even the inability of a man to defend his family as witnessed in the recent incident reported in Long Island. Cultural marxists have done as much as they possibly could to undercut natural male leadership in the family and society because men are more resistant to their utopian siren song.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Anathas10 September 8, 2010 at 09:25

@ Keyster

Women are sexually attracted to men of power. Some are attracted to violent killers, some to atheletes, some to entertainers, some to politicians, some to corporate VP’s. They find his aura of confidence and self-assurance very alluring and stimulating. Male power is a woman’s “pièce de résistance”, in whatever form her particular proclivities for the fantasy of it may take. If he holds sway over other men and women, he’s a man of power.

Now that I agree with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
CashingOut September 8, 2010 at 09:56

@ Anathas10

The problem with your rebuttal is that you assume that violence is only violence if the police are called, and that this is the only kind of violence that registers with women. It would be like rebutting the argument that “men as a rule are generally attreacted to wide hips, full breasts, and clear skin” by pointing out the dearth of women in beauty pagents as compared to women in relationships in the regular population.

Many a fight, argument, or fit goes unreported to the police, especially between men. Unless some irreparable damage has been caused, everyone knows that calling the police is generally a waste of time: you’ll waste hours waiting for the cop, they’ll come, take a statement, and you’ll never hear about it again. Besides, most of the time it’s overkill. If you and a friend get drunk, get into an argument and shoving match watching football at your house, does that really merit bringing the cops into it and dragging everyone off to court for who knows how long and how many dollars? Especially when you’ll probably both have forgotten about it by tomorrow?

As I understood the article, the point of it was that women tend toward violent men, some evidence of it being the slew of women that fawn over serial killers and such. This does not mean that every woman is going to demand Charles Manson and nothing but, nor that every guy is going to compete to become the most violent person that they can be. Women do tend toward violent men, but that is not the only thing women tend toward, and as such, not the only thing influencing men to attract women. Women tend toward money, power, and social status as well, things that are hard to get if you’re the Texas Chainsaw Massacrer.

Given the choice between the average build guy who causes no drama at all, and the guy who is in a bar fight every other week or so, looks big, gruff, and mean, and curses like a sailor, all other things being equal, a woman is probably going to go for the second one, as women love drama. This guy might not even be that extremely violent in comparison to other violent people at the bar he goes to, might not even do that much (if any) damage outside the bar, and have no criminal record whatsoever, but as compared to the average guy, he’s a better catch in her eyes. Compare him to Bill Gates however, and he loses flat out: the power that he has more than compensates for the the violent tendencies of the bar brawler just mentioned. You don’t even have to compare him to Bill Gates: compare him to Mr. Engineer with his own job, house, and 200K a year income. If said bar brawler is completely broke, and without means, the engineer has a better shot. Not a guaranteed shot, but a far better one than you would think.

What women ultimately want doesn’t mean that they are always going to choose that and nothing but. Men have their idea of a perfect looking woman or women. By definition, only a handful of women (if any) on the entire planet fit that description. Let’s say that any given man gets the choice between fucking his perfect 10, and a woman who’s an 8.5. Perfect 10 is a perfect 10, however she’s violent, angry, decietful, and she just might stab you in your sleep after sex. 8.5 is obviously not 10, but she is actually pretty affable, can cook, is more sexually adventurous, and won’t stab you in your sleep after sex. Given the choice between dealing girl 1, who is in all things besides looks, a bitch, and , girl 2, who looks a little less attractive but is better to get along with, even if you are going the pump and dump route, I would suspect that most men would deal with the latter woman: the tradeoff between attitude and looks is worth it in small increments (emphasis on small…there’s a limit where it isn’t worth it either way).

I don’t think women are nearly so logical in their choices, but I think the same tradeoff logic applies, even if it’s a more fucked up metric that they use: every woman may get wet over perfectly insane killer X with no remorse, no compunction, and no regrets, however as most of the time, IKX is in jail, she’ll generally settle for the guy who is just violent enough to get her wet without actually going to jail for it. This might be the soldier, the boxer, the guy who has bouts of road rage, whatever gets her off while letting her stay in her house and keep her trinkets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 8, 2010 at 10:35

mgtow September 8, 2010 at 09:14, my post wasn’t about marriage, except incidently. It was about how girls used to be steered away from attraction to bad boys; and how the attraction of women to bad men these days is probably because most people, male and female, are no longer properly taught right from wrong when they’re kids.

What you’re characterizing as my typically female ‘me/my situation is the exception to the norm’ was actually widespread then; that’s why I said my “cultural bubble” was pretty big. It was what most girls of my generation experienced.

My point was that if women today aren’t being taught to steer clear of bad boys and bad men, it’s because nobody is being taught to distinguish between good and evil. Look. People don’t go to church as much; those that do go to churches that are more like social clubs. TV gave up the Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters in the early 1970s. Motion Picture Production Codes have deteriorated as well, which accounts for so much of the filth coming out of Hollywood. Feminism, the sexual revolution, the generation gap — all these things have warred against the concept of right and wrong.

Humanity is fallen. Evil will always hold a certain attraction for us, if we aren’t taught to avoid and defeat it. People today aren’t being taught that like they once were.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Connie Chastain September 8, 2010 at 11:05

mgtow September 8, 2010 at 09:14

My subject wasn’t marriage, except incidently. You are free to advise men whatever you wish.

What you’re characterizing as my “typically female ‘me/my situation is the exception to the norm’” is a mischaracterization. It wasn’t my situation — that’s why I said the “cultural bubble” was so big. It encompassed nearly everybody. It was accepted for girls to be taught to avoid bad boys, and accepted for boys to be taught to be good, productive men. That there are more bad boys/men now and more girls/women attracted to them is because people are no longer properly taught right from wrong.

Certainly I’m cognizant of the difference between marriage today and marriage of the past; I’m cognizant of the difference between the whole freaking culture today and culture in the past. The things that used to influence life to the good have disappeared, or are weakened. For the dwindling numbers who still attend church, it’s more like going to a social club. There used to be The Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters — gave that up in the 1970s; ditto the codes for motion pictures, which is why we have such filth coming out of Hollywood these days. Feminism, the sexual revolution, the generation gap, all of the cataclysmic social change of the 60s and 70s combined to weaken or hamstring the forces of good in society.

Humanity is fallen. That is our natural state. We are drawn to evil unless there is an influence for good in life to help us combat the attraction. The influence for good in our culture is considerably smaller and weaker than in times past. That’s not my situation. That’s the human condition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Connie Chastain September 8, 2010 at 11:08

Sorry about the double post. I didn’t see the first one under Anonymous until I posted the second. Welmer, you can delete one of them, whichever you wish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Keyster September 8, 2010 at 12:34

Are BETA males just looking for mother figures?

Yes, but it’s been made extremely unfashionable for women to become mothers. Instead they’re being encouraged to be prostitutes. Not the street walking/escort type necessarily, but rather a woman who uses her power to attract and have sex with alpha men.

Motherhood and being a wife to a man is a patriarchal construct. They would now prefer to be defined by how well they compete with men, while striving for their attention. They have no interest in children, only themselves and their “empowerment” as psuedo-men by day, and seducers of men by night. Even if they do become mothers, they’ll be bad at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Dave September 8, 2010 at 12:46

Back to my post about cultural marxism. My post about CM is in a sense related to the general theme of this post – female fascination with male violence. In a sense, the state has become the ideal, desired thug for many amoral women in a marriage. As all men should know on this blog, there is a certain type of woman that tires of commitment and gets bored. She projects this boredom onto her husband as his inadequacy. When a woman voices her lack of contentment to you as a third party you should take it with a grain of salt unless you share a thin interior wall with her living space. This type of woman often triangulates the relationship by introducing the state into the relationship. The state functions as an idealized thug. The state as thug kicks you out of your house, steals your livelihood and gives it to your ex, and generally makes your life miserable. Many women view this as existential murder of a husband through the agency of the state functioning as an idealized thug. The best part of the state-as-thug is the woman doesn’t even have to put out for it or pay for its services. As can be seen in this scenario, the state acting as thug achieves the ideal for a woman – she has co-opted male violence and can use it at her whim to achieve her own selfish ends. This is woman-as-lion-tamer. Where the state functions as the lion, the vast majority of violence is visited upon the husband and to a lesser degree the children of the relationship. Where real, live flesh-and-blood thug functions as the lion, the woman sometimes gets eaten by the lion. In any case, it was cultural marxism and its influence that corrupted divorce and family law and placed state violence almost exclusively in the hands of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence September 8, 2010 at 13:31

Thag Jones- “I do know women who are nasty bitches like you all describe, but I also know better women who are NOT like that.”

Well, I may be a little younger than you but I’m not sure your generation is much more pure than mine. Other men who are your age tell me they think their female contemporaries were WORSE when they were younger than my generation. I think you may want to keep in mind that women may choose not to tell you of their wild past (or present) because they know you wouldn’t approve of such things. We see how women kiss ‘n tell but we forget they are also VERY good at obfuscating the truth, especially if they think they’ll lose social standing if the truth be known.

Here’s my perspective-Almost every woman will say they want a nice, intelligent, considerate man, but almost every nice man is dating his hand, his pillow, and perhaps some Web porn. On the other hand, women deny & obfuscate at the slightest mention they love dominant and violent men. But every dominant and violent man that I know literally trips over women (from all walks of life) wanting to have sex with him the minute he walks out the door. Clearly our forks and spoons are not in the right order here, when it comes to people’s words & deeds.

I appreciate you are trying to teach your daughters better. I have a dear friend with two teenage daughters and she told them flat-out after they went through puberty that if they choose to date bad boys, they will for sure get used and thrown away. And they’re very likely to get beaten up and/or raped. Both of her daughters are nearing college and actually crush on nerds and artsy types now so clearly she did something right ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 8, 2010 at 13:39

@Dave
If you’re trying to produce the most generic and maleable human you possibly can, you will need state intervention. Women as mothers and housewives are a wasted resource to the state. They consume much and give little back in return.

So what can be done to best equalize a man’s natural superiority over a woman? Enact laws. And make women believe its actually for their benefit because they’re inferior, not naturally, but because of the oppression of patriarchy. If the state tries hard enough to socially engineer women into being equal to men, eventually a world will exist where there no longer is any natural harmony between men and women, but one single note, played by the state.

The root of Marxism as it applies to women is that wives and mothers don’t contribute to the greater good by working. Or as in our case, working and paying taxes. And women have been scammed into believing this is all good for them, while to hell with everyone else.

In order for the state envisioned nice and compliant prolatariat to exist equanimity MUST be established. This means reducing the best of us to the lowest common denominator, so as not to offend the lesser members. This is why Affirmative Action, Title IX, DV and family law, sexual harrasement policy, rape accusor protection, etc. MUST exist. Women MUST be equalized to men by mandate, to destroy the family and subjugate us all to the state as one obediant force of worker bees.

This why men like us get a little pissy at times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Thag Jones September 8, 2010 at 14:10

Well, HE, you’ll have to (or not I suppose) take my word for it that I do know better women – granted, they are all about 7 years or so younger than I and from an educated, more upper class British background and intact families. Make of that what you will. Either way, it’s a mess out there and the cultural influences are generally pretty bad – just look at the clothes you can buy for little girls! No thanks.

I read that piece that codebuster posted the link to about mothers and prostitutes and found it pretty interesting. Step one here I suppose is attempting to educate myself and undo a lot of social brainwashing I’ve had myself – if I’d have come across this site 10 years ago, I would have been pretty indignant at it all, I can pretty much guarantee it. And I’m certainly not above admitting to having been less than perfect myself – although not nearly as slutty and hard as others, more clueless than anything.

Some of this reading is helping me put into words how my bad attitude contributed to a lot of my own misery where relationships have been concerned. This is probably why I had little success when trying to get with some of the “nicer” guys I’ve known; no doubt they sensed I’d be a complete pain in the ass and wasn’t really good wife material, and so rejected me. Hopefully by realizing that, I can help my daughters navigate the terrain a bit. If I had sons, I’d advise them not to get married at all in the current climate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Anathas10 September 8, 2010 at 14:13

@ Cashing Out

I hear what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it but there are a few points worthy of note.

Firstly, the British crime survey is not actual police reported crime statistics. It’s the results of large swathes of the population being interviewed about what crime they have experinced. It picks up way more numbers than actual reported crimes and is considerd to be the closest thing we have to actual crime stats – not perfect or anywhere near it but the closest available.

Secondly, the numbers are so hugely persuasive that even if I doubled or quadrupled or multiplied by 10 the amount of violent crimes then the numbers of men not being violent is still overwhelming.

Thirdly, my own life experience tells me that the the vast majority of men are not violent. Most guys will go a mile out of their way to avoid a fight.

I definately agree with the whole “Male power attraction” syndrome thing as highlighted by Keyster above and am can certainly accept that violence is a form of power and so some women get into that. No argument there.

My whole problem is that none of this is what the origonal article says. The origonal article as I understand it is very much saying that in general, as a rule, its the standard and norm that women dig violence, select men on the basis of it and so therefore that is what makes men violent. It takes quite a bit of salt pinching to water it down to the ” power is attractive” statement and if there is one thing I have picked up about Mr Elam over the last few months is that he generally calls it as he sees it and doesn’t expect people to water down his messages.

Some women – OK, most or all – maybe its true – I don’t pretend to know the minds of the entire female populous. But the evidence presented here for that proposition is, at least to me, woefully lacking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Dave September 8, 2010 at 14:45

@keyster: Although this as a mrm blog likes to focus on women as the root of all evil I don’t believe it. Women experience life as defined by men (or men substitutes, e.g., the state). Women only have the choices that men provide them. White males allowed the state to arrogate to itself enough power to interfere with their liberty both in the workplace and in the family. Males allowed the state to give women family-, society- and culture-negative choices. If the state got out of the business of propping up women and men self-policed and ostracized society-negative males women would quickly change their behavior. In other words, the current tattooed, trampy, pole-dancing, progeny-and-culture aborting state of white women is a reflection of the failure of white males to protect their women from the influence of hateful ethnic outsiders, the white elite and from the worst instincts of white women themselves. In other words, it is a failure of white male masculinity. The first step in changing the status quo is to realize that we have failed. Then it is to identify exactly who your enemies are. Those agents that are alternatively cheapening our women and then propping them up are our enemies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
greyghost September 8, 2010 at 15:12

Herbal Essence you hit it out of the park on that last cooment. I remember back in my marine corp days watching day time TV and seeing these women all talk about Mr right. But as we all knew it was not the guy they described penis that was in their mouth night before. It is a running joke I use and have used for the last 20 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Eincrou September 8, 2010 at 15:48

@Dave:
Absolutely fucking agreed, Dave. Though the MRM puts a lot of emphasis is put on understanding women’s behavior, I think there is a general undercurrent of agreement with what you’re saying about men’s complicity in all of this. Some people think feminism has been a natural, organic social movement rather than a Marxist ploy, but even if it has, your point still stands. At a foundational level, it’s men who determine the nature of society, whether that be for better or for worse. Currently, a distinct inaction is responsible for the many government-created problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Eincrou September 8, 2010 at 15:50

My second sentence should read:

“Though the MRM puts a lot of emphasis on understanding women’s behavior, [...]“

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence September 8, 2010 at 16:05

Eincrou-”At a foundational level, it’s men who determine the nature of society, whether that be for better or for worse.”

I agree, to a point. Men build societies. And men have really dropped the ball when it comes to challenging feminism.

But…I believe that society builds in the direction of the vagina.

This is why the Ruling Class and the State went to work reprogramming women first – Western men, given their hardwired chivalrous mentality, were unquestioning and obedient to women demanding their unholy “empowerment” because he thought that would maintain his access to vagina.

Obviously it’s only worked out that way for the top men, and has deprived lots of Betas the decent woman they would have gotten in the past.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 8, 2010 at 16:22

@Dave

In other words, it is a failure of white male masculinity.

Yes. And to give women as a group solely that much credit for social decay is hypocritical. We were ALL sold a bill of goods that women were oppressed and needed liberation from something we did or were doing, and because we loved them we supported it without question.

Hopefully by realizing that, I can help my daughters navigate the terrain a bit. If I had sons, I’d advise them not to get married at all in the current climate.

Which begs the question, “Who will your daughters marry?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence September 8, 2010 at 16:38

Keyster-Which begs the question, “Who will your daughters marry?”

My hope is that someday every decent man will percieve living with a woman as a worse fate than living in a leper colony.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
CashingOut September 8, 2010 at 17:54

@ Dave:

In other words, the current tattooed, trampy, pole-dancing, progeny-and-culture aborting state of white women is a reflection of the failure of white males to protect their women from the influence of hateful ethnic outsiders, the white elite and from the worst instincts of white women themselves.

Who are these outsiders? Most nonwestern culltures that I’m familiar with, that aren’t flat out living in trees, are pretty patriarchical. Islam: patriarchial. China: patriarchial. India: patriarchial. Even many African countries are mostly patriarchial. To be 100% honest, beating the shit out of various cultures of men in the name of protecting White Womanhood and cramming chilvarly down their throats, has always been a white man thing. If it isn’t name one culture that has ever gone to war with the west, and had anything resembling “pedstalizing our women” as one of their demands? We openly admit we’re going to bring “wimmens rights” to foreign countries in the Middle East, whether they like it or not, whether any women like it or not. Name one country that has ever made a similar demand against any western nation.

You talk about knowing your enemy: in all seriousness, no flaming or anything, all the white people talking about the ethnic scum don’t have much further to look than their own mirrors, and the pictures of their parents. You want to talk culture blame, every other culture pretty much had their women in check until westerners came in and told everyone what rights their women had, and what the savages need to do to respect women and such and such. If this isn’t the case, why is it that you hear people talking about expating to places like Brazil, Chile, Japan, and such. I don’t hear anyone talking about fleeing to Greece, Iceland, Ireland, England, or any other powerhouse of Western culture.

What we see now is just the dog getting out of the fence and attacking anyone in sight. Just like handing out diseased blankets, forcing cultures to pedstalize women collapses them from the inside. I really believe that the original people who promoted this, knew this instinctively. What they forgot to mention was to tell their decendants not to buy into the bullshit they were selling. Well they did, and now here we all are.

Only thing I can really agree with is the end of the PC BS. With that I agree, that a whole lot of excuse making, euphmisim making, and blame laying among US minority culture needs to stop yesterday. It most certainly isn’t helping the people it’s supposed to be helping, and only making them scapegoats and allowing them to continue living in delusion. That aside though, I can’t really buy into this whole conspiracy theory where Every Solid Color Other Than White has conspired to destroy White Men by using White Womanhood against them, and no one has even one example of a race or culture of people who has avovowed to do that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Dave September 8, 2010 at 18:31

@Cashingout: Did you google the Frankfurt school and some of its “luminaries”? They cooked up feminism as one front to destroy western civilization. This is a fact – not a paranoid delusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu-9-OhHog

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
crella September 8, 2010 at 18:38

I think that any woman who corresponds with/marries/has interest in a serial killer is sick. What kind of women are these? I will see if any kind of profile has been done on serial killer groupies.

Is liking a tough guy on a motorcycle really the same as swooning over a murderer? Is admiring an athlete the same as swooning over Scott Peterson? I think that’s too broad a generalization, myself.

In my age bracket (I’m 51) the vast majority of women had fathers in the picture. We had males to interact with non-sexually ; our fathers, uncles, grandfathers. We learned about men by interacting with these men. Fathers had a say in who their daughters dated, and any father with sense warned his daughter away from thugs.

It’s been reported time and time again that women look for their fathers in prospective mates, looking for those qualities they respected in him. Women brought up in single mother households where there is hostility towards the father and men in general have little or no chance to get to know a man in the father/grandfather capacity,have no male mentors, and grow up feeling a great deal of condescension for men. They don’t see their fathers or other extended family. They have no pattern to go by in choosing a decent mate. Mother says all men are scum….what a start line for these daughters…

Then there is also the lack of discipline rather common to single-mother households.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
gwallan September 8, 2010 at 19:52

crella said…

Is liking a tough guy on a motorcycle really the same as swooning over a murderer? Is admiring an athlete the same as swooning over Scott Peterson? I think that’s too broad a generalization, myself.

Allow me to generalise even further then. Women extend this adulation for beastial behaviour to their own as well. Consider Lorena Bobbit or Elin Nordegren. Adored by many for acts that would be viewed as barbarism if perpetrated by a man. I’ve been treated to the sight of thousands of women standing to applaud women whose only claim to fame is raping little boys. Prime time free to air entertainment!

You go gyrl.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brandon September 8, 2010 at 19:57

Herbal Essence-
Your comments are spot-on. Know there is somebody out there nodding in agreement.

Is there any hope? I dont know. I dont think so.

I have a small group of friends, young men who went to the same big university I did in a large southeast US city. When we hang out, go out, shoot the shit, whatever, I’m put in a weird place with regards to so many of my understandings. I want to point out gross gender and race hypocrisies, magical thinking, and PC propaganda in the dumb shit MSM tv shows and movies they/we watch, and, sadly, like so many of my generation, parrot.

But I fucking CANT. I think I would lose my friends. I think to them I would become the bitter, bigoted guy with all kinds of ugly shit swirling through his head. It bothers me because, for the first time in my life, this group of friends is kind of “above” me on the coolness scale. I mean, I really like these people, and they introduce me to cute girls I would otherwise never meet. Yet, in so many ways they are unconsciously married to the sickness and destruction that is bringing us all down in slow motion. Well…I guess I’m married to it too, honestly. The difference is, I’m conscious of it…I fucking hate the bitch.

It’s all just so depressing. To be so intensely aware of what is wrong with the world around me, and unable to speak it to anyone. Not sure what the point is here, but FUCK. I’m 26, and over the course of my adulthood I’ve discovered that every important thing I was told about the world around me – about women, about my place in the world (as a “nice” *cringe*, good-looking, moral and intelligent white guy-that is, a celibate slave to this thug/whore worshipping civilization-in-decline), about the bright, shiny future (look up peak oil…) – is a lie. The worst kind of lies, too. The kind that are believed by the liars themselves.

I’ve been depressed for a long time, and I see no point in making it to 30.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence September 8, 2010 at 20:38

Brandon-

I guarantee you, every man on this site has felt exactly the way you are feeling. I know I have. In fact I was 26 when I woke up. I’ve given up on the women a long time ago, but there is still plenty of hope for us men. It is absolutely worth keeping going. There is still beauty, enjoyment, glory, and inspiration in the world. And the minute we stop moving forward and making the best of it, they win.

Now that we see the sick and false social constructs tied together by vicious lies, we don’t have to follow their value system anymore. We can build our own value system, and we don’t have to follow their definition of what we are. We have the words of hundreds of wise and noble men in past generations we can look upon for inspiration. And we can look to men of honor and dignity that walk the earth today.

Thanks for sharing your story Brandon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
CashingOut September 8, 2010 at 21:16

@ Dave:

You said:

Marxist intellectuals in the west who for the most part were ethnic outsiders decided for everyone else that western civilization left a lot to be desired (outgroup ethnic envy/hatred masquerading as objective critique) and took it upon themselves to destroy western civilization.

If you are a white male you have been identified as the enemy by cultural marxists and every effort of theirs has been to make you a second class citizen. If you still think in PC terms you need to get over it – those are the concepts your enemy is using to enslave/destroy you, your family, your race and your civilization.

The first step in changing the status quo is to realize that we have failed. Then it is to identify exactly who your enemies are.

I don’t deny the Frankfurt School actually exists. I don’t even deny that feminism is being used as a tool to further socialism. The things I’ve seen people go for in the past few years, in the name of the children, the women, starving this, that, and the other, I would not have believed 10 years ago. There are people far more versed than me in the links between socialist thought and feminism.

My point of contention is your thrust that this is a foreign ethnic originated conspiracy directed solely toward white males. The implication being that the people who came up with this plan were something other than white. You go on about how minorities have been conscripted into the movement, ethnic outsiders were behind this in the first place, and we need to “know our enemy.” Considering that a lot of the Frankfurt School’s activities were based in pre WWII Frankfurt Germany, and a lot of the thinkers they studied were white, from my perspective, your assertion sounds kind of ridiculous. The school was founded by white people, studied ideas developed by white people, and its ideas were disseminated by white people. Knowing that, the rest of your statements make no sense: it wouldn’t make sense for a bunch of white people to come up with a philosophy that specifically targets white people JUST FOR BEING WHITE. Not with the broad brush you’re painting with. You could argue that this was a Jewish thing, and Jews were targeting non Jews who happened to be white, but then that doesn’t really make sense, as everyone involved with the Frankurt school was not a jew, and Nazism, that thing that killed over 6 million Jews, that was a socialist thing. If the mission was to create an ideology to destroy non- Jew whites for being non-Jewish, the mission failed there as well.

The argument that feminism is a tool designed by the makers of communism in a master plan to subjugate and oppress the White Man just doesn’t hold water. That white men are being subjugated and oppressed is a side effect of what happens when this program is let loose upon every man indiscriminately. Hearing you say it makes it sound like the usual suspects (the blacks and hispanics) teamed up with women and gays to design and execute this plot. In truth, black and hispanic leadership is corrupt as all hell, and it’s gotten to the point where you have much of both communities trying to pass off flat out illegal crap as intristic to their “rights,” blacks with affirmative action, and social programs, hispanics with illegal immigration, and aforementioned social programs. You have members of both of these groups, who have never even seen a white man, trying to pass off all their problems onto them. This is undoubtedly foul, and there is a lot of room to discuss the crookedness inherent in these beliefs and claims. A great argument can be made about the lack of accountability, and the failure to teach responsibility, in many minority communities. I won’t deny that for a second.

But couching it in terms of some plot to destroy white males? Most of the bad behavior that these minorities are exhibiting are doing more harm to their own than to any white person. If getting drunk, knocking up some skank, and having 3 babies out of wedlock is supposed to directly harm any white man, it’s not a very good plan to do so. Same with OD’ing on crack, killing another minority in a drive by, and numerous other things that go on in the ghetto that never reach the suburbs.

It’s why I find it ironic that in your rants about knowing who the enemy is, you call for getting over PCism. Getting over PCism, not being politically correct or anything, feminism was a plan to pedestalize white women that backfired on white men. Regardless of any other good or bad stuff that white men have done, this was a plan concocted solely by white men, for the benefit of white men, and it backfired on them. As I said in my previous posting, the idea that an outside ethnic group would be oppressing white men by putting women on pedestals doesn’t make sense when no influential ethnic group outside of whites put women on pedestals. If you’re looking for the specter of some group or organization trying to use women as a back door for some nefarious plot to destroy western civilization, pick out 2 or 3 white people and follow their family trees…you’re more likely to find your plot there than in the ghetto or barrio.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
crella September 8, 2010 at 21:29

‘Consider Lorena Bobbit or Elin Nordegren. ‘

Are they normal? Do they represent the average woman? A girl in high school thinking the captain of the football team = fans of Scott Peterson? That’s what I’m asking….along with those who chase serial killers, football players and jocks always seem to get a mention. Is it the same? That’s my question.

‘I’ve been treated to the sight of thousands of women standing to applaud women whose only claim to fame is raping little boys. ‘

Elaborate, please.
‘You go gyrl.’

Thank you for so thoroughly missing my point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Sean MacCloud September 8, 2010 at 22:30

FYI…

Female humans did not select the males in the past. Just like female bears don’t select their mates; just like female lions and female elephants don’t.

In species like lions, bears and elephants too, oh my –including the early humans– the most violent males are simply pushing the other males out of breeding. The female is not “selecting” the most violent.

females being the catalyst for competition (“fem sex value”) and being the selectors of the winners are two different things.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES.

Then you go “why am the female still be to picking the violence, thenba?”

To understand, think about gambling over teams or horses. The bet-er is not selecting the winner; he is PREDICTING a winner. Same with females in species where there is male violence (eg mammals): the females who know how to spot a winner have done better, but they aren’t necessarily deciding who the winner is. The females still posses those “jimmy the greek” (predictor) powers.
——
The sea horse males are not selecting for more violent females. The males, simply being vectors of reproduction (through previous evolution quirk), are a bottle neck/catalyst that causes females to have to compete to breed in zero sum games. Given other prereqs of the sea horse environment (namely that violence-side-effects are not detrimental like they are for say flying birds), that competition is `femano a `femano–violence. The winner female psychically pushes the loser females off the territory that the male was eating on. Ie the seahorse are just like mammal social sexual dynamic (except for the gender flip quirk — an exception that proves the rule).

In species where the females do select directly –eg flying birds (as opposed to re-terrestrial-ized/grounded birds[where in battle damage is tolerable again])– there is usually less direct male violence. In those female-select-species, the females who desired males who have harder lives in non sexual-combat arenas have out bred their sisters who had different desires(modules).
————-

Now that the spreading cancer sore called civilization has gelded the male human –the new “peaceful man” (new for about 4000 years)– we are finding that the “jimmy the greek” modules the females have are throwing a monkey wrench into the jew /wasp utopia by compelling the fems to still liking the the old-way fashioned brute male (however nature/ nurture doth form him).

The only way for the profiteers of this “utopia” to deny that is to ignore/censors/ or otherwise muddy up the evidence. (Evidence like the fact that female humans like male ‘thuggery’ on reflex desire –and therefore promote it– the same way males like sexy things finger fucking themselves on the vidjyo. (Ie even if other conditionings tell you “that person is no damn good”, you still are enamored anyway.)

————
This BELIEF that females do the picking is a political narrative meant to “flip the script” and make maleness across nature passive in the narrative and females the first person point of view character. Whether this political script flipping is self aware-purposeful or accidental-subconscious conformity t the zeitgeist is irrelevant to the fact that female as selector is a political contrivance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Thag Jones September 9, 2010 at 06:17

Which begs the question, “Who will your daughters marry?”

I obviously don’t have their whole lives planned; all I can do is raise them the best I can and send them out into the world to make their way in it. Too many variables over which I have no control for me to be able to answer that – it’s out of my hands. Just because I said I’d advise my sons, had I any, not to marry, doesn’t mean others are doing the same and that there will be no one for my daughters, should that be their path. All I can do is hope someone is raising sons right, but again, I try to limit what I worry about to things I can actually do something about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Dave September 9, 2010 at 06:48

@cashingout: The history of cultural marxism started out with working class western european males (one group of white males) rejecting the call of marxists to revolution. Another group of european males then recast marxism into cultural marxism. Because white working class western european males didn’t go along with the revolution, cultural marxists had to find other foot soldiers. The cultural marxists settled upon women, minorities and gays as their foot soldiers. They effectively bribed these foot soldiers with resources, opportunities and benefits that would be taken from white western european males and redistributed to them. Taking resources and opportunities from one group and redistributing them to another is a good working definition of “war” and its aims. Feminism gave special treatment to women. Affirmative action gave special treatment to minorities. Who was left out of this scheme of benefits? Who has suffered most from the schemes and predations of cultural marxists? Who has been positively cast as the enemy by cultural marxists? Does “patriarchy” ring a bell?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Keyster September 9, 2010 at 09:12

@Thag Jones
I didn’t mean you literally, but everyone who has a young daughter today. If women are attending/graduating from college at a 3:2 ratio, they certianly aren’t going to “marry down” once out in the world. There simply won’t be enough young men worthy of their hand in marriage to go around. And those few young men that do excel, will choose a wife that’s a mother; not a ball busting career wench or prostitute.

Thanks to the “gender war” caused my feminism, the caucasian race is breeding itself into extinction. This is also indicated by the negroes who are dying young, if not being aborted first at inner city Planned Parenthoods.

The Progressive World View is that people of all races and cultures become one multi-homogeneous group, where one cannot dominate or “oppress” the other in anyway through shear numbers or financial superiority. This group will be over-lorded by a benevolent world council government, that will keep peace and harmony throughout the world by assuring equal distribution of individual worth.

How is this ultimately done? By mitigating the populations of the supposed oppressors. Again, how? By dividing men and women socially and economically; essentially keep them from breeding. And if they do, allow the woman to take her child’s life with impunity.

It’s about power and control over the masses. The Progressives believe people must be controlled by the government, as they’re incapable of doing it themselves. One can only hope that as a Progressive/academic/politician/et al you’ll be invited to help oversee the minions, because you share this great wisdom with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
SingleDad September 9, 2010 at 11:40

@ Sean MacCloud

As a scientist I have to agree with you.

I am going to give this alot of thought, it really changes the way I look at things.

Thanks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gwallan September 9, 2010 at 20:23

@crella
re Bobbit and Nordegren.
Do they represent the average woman?

Moot. It was millions of average women who cheered and supported the vicious brutality of those two women and many others like them.

It’s Oprah Winfrey who presents rapists of little boys to celebrity treatment and huge standing ovations after which it’s beamed to hundreds of millions of women for their “entertainment”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
crella September 9, 2010 at 21:42

Gwallan, I am not in the US. Who did Oprah have on her show that was a rapist of little boys?

Again, any woman who cheers on someone like Bobbit or chases serial killers is mentally damaged.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Kathy September 9, 2010 at 22:27

“It’s Oprah Winfrey who presents rapists of little boys to celebrity treatment and huge standing ovations after which it’s beamed to hundreds of millions of women for their “entertainment”.”

No… I don’t think you are in the ballpark at all Gwallan.

Less people are interested in Oprah and her opinions than what you may think. (Thank goodness)

Oprah is a ” nothing” in Australia, and I have never heard her name mentioned in conversation here.

“Oprah’s audience is predominantly female, white, and over the age of 55. Nationally 7.4 million people watch Oprah daily — about 2.6% of American households. Four percent of American women (about 5.7 million) watch her daily, compared with 1.2% of men (1.7 million people). Overall, 2% of all 18- to 49-year-olds watch Oprah. ”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/07/4425062-breaking-down-oprahs-numbers

It would seem that Oprah is more popular with older women than the younger ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
slwerner September 10, 2010 at 07:59

Kathy – “No… I don’t think you are in the ballpark at all Gwallan.”

While “hundreds of millions of women” might be an exaggeration (like that never happens in these threads…), the basic point holds true – a significant number of women saw nothing wrong in a woman having her (sexual) way with under-aged boys (IIRC, that show was about how badly that rapist was treated by the Australian government – Oprah flew her in for one of her standard a whine-a-thons (see Mary Winkler and her fancy shoes – the poor oppressed dear [some horror those shoes must have been for her, as once she saw a picture of them, my wife was on-line trying to find a pair for herself], who got to trash the husband she had murdered, again, to the cheers of the women in the audience).

The broader point also holds – a significant portion of modern women enjoy seeing men brutalized or killed. Nothing particularly new about the blood-lust of women. In the Roman Coliseum, they were half the audience enthralled with the brutal deaths of men. One would have to wonder if ever any women ever gave a thumbs-up to the life of a vanquished combatant therein.

And, outside of the entertainment value it provides for women, I find that we are seeing a distinct up-tick in the rate of women committing violence. I believe that this is in no small part due to the general tone of “you go grrl” that violent women have come to find instead of condemnation of their actions by other women.

True, NAWALT, but somewhere, at sometime, western society reached a critical-mass of women who are just like that. And, given the ample protections that women as a class enjoy, shielding them from not only from fitting punishments, but even from having to endure “shame”, it seems highly unlikely that it will be possible to “turn the ship around” any time soon (short of some catastrophic societal crash/recreation).

I like you Kathy. I think your a straight-shooter. But while Gwallan might have been out of the ballpark in his numbers, I’m going to have to say that you were “off-base” in trying to call him out (on his exaggeration) rather than addressing the main point he was making.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
john halder September 10, 2010 at 16:14

i didn’t read all the comments on here so someone might have mentioned the popularity of the other peterson, drew peterson.
young hotties LOVE this guy and he’s not even a famous killer, like o.j, just a former pig.er, ‘cop’
i also posted on my blog this about this phenomenon.
yep, if van der sloot got out tomorrow, hed have NO problem hooking up fast.
meanwhile, i’m watching tv alone again, great. well, as i mentioned in another thread, last time i went out, some beeatch told me i must have a small penis because i have small hands.
thats why theres laws in this country, to prevent me from killing whores like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
john halder September 10, 2010 at 16:24

i STILL see, unfortunately, on here ,a blaming of ‘progressives’ for this feminist shit which flourished in the eighties and blossomed under bush.

better wake up, stop blaming ‘liberals’ for this shit.
for the trillionth time,-CORPORATIONS RUN THIS COUNTRY.

women are the majority, you have the govt you deserve, and if you DONT want a female president, ya best vote for obama, yknow, the muslim spy who takes orders from the pentagon and gladly orders the deaths of muslims 24/7/365.
me? i won’t be voting, until that day, centuries from now, when a 3rd party candidate is allowed to be in the debates.
try to remember now, the gop and the dems are identical on all policy, foreign and domestic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
intp September 10, 2010 at 17:27

Reacting to women is being lead astray, likely by purposeful misdirection.

Identify and target the elite and powerful men running things then things will change. I’d invite men to stop thinking about the girl, and to start thinking about the guerilla. As in evolve into one. Overthrow the elite through a campaign of national strikes, sabotage, bribery, and blackmail then you will win your country back.

Lamposts are for Marxists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Kathy September 10, 2010 at 18:06

“While “hundreds of millions of women” might be an exaggeration (like that never happens in these threads…), the basic point holds true – a significant number of women saw nothing wrong in a woman having her (sexual) way with under-aged boys (IIRC, that show was about how badly that rapist was treated by the Australian government ”

I am not disputing the basic point slwerner, only the extent of the Oprah “effect” on women.

It was Gwallan who brought her up in his argument.

What she did was clearly despicable,( and so were the actions of her sycophantic cheerleaders) however it irks me that so many people believe that Oprah REALLY is that influential.

Clearly she is not.

” While “hundreds of millions of women” might be an exaggeration ”

You’re darn tooting it is, mate.

Especially when the figures say only 5.7 million American women tune in daily, to that sort of tripe. (and a damn sight less in Oz!)

It is a gross misrepresentation..

The fact IS that Oprah was not beamed into the homes of hundreds of millions of women for their “entertainment”

I guess saying Oprah was beamed into the homes of a few million American women just doesn’t have the same effect, though, does it? ;)

” like that never happens in these threads…”
Of course it happens, but it adds nothing to the debate and may lessen one’s credibility and the impact of one’s argument in the process.

If I said to you that most women were great homemakers, wouldn’t you take me to task for such an absurd statement?

If I said that very few women were great homemakers ???

Puts a completely different slant on it, doesn’t it?

Numbers matter..

As for that drongo Oprah, her opinion is not worth a” brass razoo,” nor are the opinions of the cretins that tune in to that kind of mindless drivel..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Anonymous September 10, 2010 at 18:06

I spend an inordinate amount of time surfing the wankernet looking for serial and spree killer articles and its all the same sort of stuff really.

Women get a dab on for a bloke who has a bit more going on about himself than just some compliance trip and doing what he is told by the man.. (or the woman..)..

A man who can “provide for and protect” them has some good dna to pass on and men who get stuck in and are willing to fight are always more popular than cowards with most women..

The fact that some of these men end up on the wrong side of the legal aggressive fence doesnt make a great deal of difference to some women, but lets face it, women have always operated under their own version of emotionally tempered logic when it comes to mate selection.

If the “aggressive” men they desire (policemen, lawyers, soldiers) don’t seem to want to come to them, they will perhaps seek out what looks like an easier target who wont be getting as much opportunity to choose his females as he would have if he was free..

Many women want a man who has some aggression and balls and they don’t really want a compliant poodle boy and I think most of us know this.

But to make it seem that MOST women are turned on by the fact that Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez were killers is missing the fact that they were handsome chaps with nice hairstyles and a bit of charisma perhaps?

A mans physical sexual attractiveness does not dissapear just because he is labelled “Psycho Killer”..

Theyd both of got more pussy had they become singers of love songs or writers of romantic novels Id wager..

Im not a Psycho Killer, but I get plenty of pussy by acting like one..

As long as you dont kill the woman you are targetting, and you give em a nice smile and some whacky chat, they love it!

I guess this article you have posted is trying to teach men how they need to behave in order to get access to axewound?

Or maybe not..

But perhaps it would come across as being a bit less misogynist if it was along such lines rather than “women are no good at picking a good man”..

Most men wouldnt know a good man if they heard tell of one..

Anyway, your still missing the crucial point..

Women go for losers.. (if they cant control of the alpha men.. which most of them cant!)

Thats why they want “pseudo-alpha” men who are ALREADY locked up by the state!

Its ok though, when it comes to the shagging, the beta boys will have their turn.. Lets face it, she’s not going to be spending much time with him.. Sneaker fuckers always find a way of sliding in their eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
evalson September 10, 2010 at 18:17

Could be more to do with the fact that men with good looks and charisma are popular with the ladies and these ladies prefer a man who is not going too have much opportunity to stray behind bars eh?

Im sure Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez would have got more pussy if they had wrote love songs and performed them well..

But I guess we were not so lucky..

Believe it or not, most women dont want to live with a killer.. I know none of my ex’s did.. Well, they did for a while.. (Live, that is..)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
M. Simon August 10, 2011 at 16:58

I’m new here. It might be a good idea to have a dictionary page for newbies.

For instance what is a NAWALT? Not always wanting a little tit?

Tit – as in bird (English English) .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HeartlessBastard August 5, 2012 at 22:55

Very good read i have seen this first hand in my own life and you can even see it at combat sporting events like boxing or UFC about half of the crowds are female and yet UFC does not have a female divison and female boxing never rates very well why? well for one women like watching men be violent not other women and second of all most men don’t like watching two women really fighting one another.
OH and Evalson your dead wrong,Manson got plenty of pussy well before his arrest anyway as for Richard Ramirez was a attractive guy but he got alot more love letters after his arrest. In Australia Mark “Chopper” Reed when he was in jail got love letters and naked photo’s from AMERICANS! who had never even been to Australia and didn’t even know what his crimes were.You could do a search on google and find too many other examples to name.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: