The Pastetaster Cometh

Print This Post

218 Responses

  1. Michael K. says:

    You can turn off the Google? That's some serious power you wield there, Kenneth.

  2. Will says:

    Dialup? Seriously?

    Easy way to keep him off the blog, make a 1MB captcha image that expires in 90 seconds. You'd need at least a dual-channel ISDN (128Kbit) connection to get it.

  3. grouch says:

    Wait… You mean that avatar thingy that appears by your comments is not a photo of you?

    My world is upheaved.
    Might have been tonight's chili.

  4. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh brave new world that makes one pine for an extinction level asteroid

  5. Michael K. says:

    Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women. They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest.

    He forgot to add the universal escape hatch of all creepers everywhere: "…unless she's a bitch or a lesbian."

  6. Allen says:

    One of the comments in the one link used the term Feral Women. I shudder to think what that might mean.

    No I do not want to know.

  7. Holy schneikies. Comedy gold here. Womanish performance, indeed.

  8. Qitaana says:

    I was about to be annoyed that he lumped Ken in with us women, but then decided that he's a Good Egg and I'll be okay with that.

  9. James Pollock says:

    "Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women. They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest"

    I'm sure this news will come as a shock to former Senator Bob Packwood. If U.S. Senator isn't high enough "socio-sexual status"…

  10. Ken White says:

    decided that he's a Good Egg

    Gamma. The term they would use is gamma.

  11. Ryan says:

    I read a few posts on that idiot's blog and rapidly came to the conclusion that – although we all have the right to freedom of speech generally – some people really shouldn't exercise their right to free speech. To paraphrase a popular quote: "sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a paste-eater than to speak up and remove all doubt."

    What a waste of bandwidth.

  12. Joe Pullen says:

    Looks like we need the supersized tube of butt hurt cream. Can't believe this guy is obsessing over this almost an entire year later.

  13. Lizard says:

    Isn't it pretty self-evident that anyone who complains that women submit to "alphas" but don't give "gammas" the time of day is somewhere around, oh, omega?

    I mean, if your argument is "Sexual harassment discriminates against inferior guys!", and you're obviously speaking from a position of having been discriminated against… your own thesis proves you must be one of the inferior, because, if you were superior, you wouldn't be bitching about "sexual harassment", as women would just be falling over for you, and you'd be too busy "getting some" to write blog posts about how you can't get some.

    Likewise, those of us who don't see "sexual harassment" as some sort of threat, again following the logic (and I use the term loosely) of Captain Pastetaster, must be among those "alpha" males who have learned the deep, dark, secret of talking to a woman without her slapping our face and kicking us in the nuts. (Hint: It involves recognizing that she's a person, very much like you except for a few minor differences in genitalia — not a self-propelled fleshlight. A strange and alien thought to the pastetasters of the world, I know.)

  14. Ken White says:

    As far as I can tell he's Vox of Vox Day fame, a notable nutter.

    If you want to understand how Vox and his twitching ilk view women, consider how they refer to any who don't look like Malibu Barbie. The pathological hatred shines through.

  15. grouch says:

    Ok, I've managed to follow the Gordian knot of links back to The Things People Will Say To Your Face, but there I'm stuck. I can't find where, or if, Mr. White ever answered the questions, especially and particularly, "Is there a catalog or something?"

    I've wiped the monitor and the keyboard, dried my eyes and even tried using both hands on the mouse. No luck. Was there a follow-up post somewhere with all the answers?

    I'm sending the above link to my sister-in-law and her adorable adopted daughter. No warning will be sent with the link.

  16. azteclady says:

    Lizard, would it be harassment if I admit my deeply felt admiration of you?

    And I'm refusing to follow that link to Vox–I don't think my blood pressure could take it.

  17. Digi says:

    In the course of following around the various links/backlinks to previous blog posts, and exploring the site that these latest comments have originated from…I am just…

    What is even the hell. This exists. This is a thing. I've heard of this alpha/beta male thing before, but this is…beyond my wildest, most nightmarish imaginings. Its like if the social hierarchy of highschool and the hive-mind stupidity of fratboys has met the internet, crack, and dial-up internet.

    And I haven't even touched the adoption issue yet.

  18. Grifter says:

    Vox Day came up in my searches about a recent contentious issue, and I mentioned him obliquely. I thought I'd heard the name before somewhere…

    Anyway, the point is that while paste IS delicious, it, like all things, should only be eaten in moderation.

  19. Digi says:

    *Notes that in retrospect, her comment sound have read "…met the internet, crack, and dial-up."

    Oh well.

  20. G Thompson says:

    You know if you take his monologue and replace every sentence with the pronoun "I" in it with "and I eat paste. You eat paste, we all eat past" it makes more sense…

    also it's easier to send on a Dial up connection that's probably running at around 1200/75bps using xmodem.

  21. flip says:

    Nice to see that his outdated ideas are matched by his outdated technology.

  22. Kevin says:

    Holy shit…. Capt Pastetaster == Vox Day?

    Mind = blown

  23. Xenocles says:

    If you assume arguendo that there's something to the "alpha" hierarchy, it stands to reason that obsessing over your own ranking is perhaps the strongest possible indicator that you aren't an alpha. Alphas just are, and the world order moves around them. Playing catch-up is the mark of a non-alpha, if I'm reading this right.

    So all those people who critique the behavior of others with respect to its alphaness are revealing themselves to be losers in their own worldview.

    (I once saw a brand of wine that was advertised with the slogan "You CAN be bad-ass and drink rose`." True enough. You know what you can't do? Worry about being seen as bad-ass.)

  24. Tali McPike says:

    Captain Pastetaster's abuse arguments sounded familiar to me, but when I went back to the original blog post I realized I wasn't a Popehat reader when this whole thing went down. Then I figured it out. A similar nutter (with a different screenname) was on a How To Be A Dad post on breastfeeding (prompted by the Time magazine cover) last year arguing that if breastfeeding is pleasurable to the mother in any way, then it must be child abuse because we all know that breasts are meant first & foremost to be a sexual thing, not a means of feeding infants.
    As a woman & a mother with an Irish temper, I would love nothing more than to give guys like this a good kick in the nuts.

  25. bkd69 says:

    I gotta give Vox credit, though – he's managed to create a community that even Gor players find too repugnantly misogynist to participate in.

  26. Typenschild Delete says:

    Holy hell, those websites (alpha male and vox) hurt my brain. At first I though maybe I was witnessing some elevated level of satire never before achieved by humankind.

    Then I realized the author(s) and commenters were serious.

    Ugh. I need a mental cleansing, or at least a good distraction.

  27. Michael K. says:

    Ohhhhh, the fact that this is Theodore Beale (aka Vox Day) you're dealing with makes so much more sense.

    So not only did you get a sixth-rate mortal enemy…you have to share him with John Scalzi?

  28. azteclady says:

    With Scalzi and many, many other people–a vast majority of which are women. Repugnant excuse for a human being, that.

  29. tr says:

    argh! i read some of the links/posts from the pasteman guy – actually found them slightly depressing :( how do people arrive at such erroneous and unfounded and just plain mean spirited attitudes, as regards other human beings? sigh

  30. MattM says:

    DIAL UP!

  31. Allen says:

    It strikes me that many of these people might have attended the Richard Ramirez School of Speed Dating.

  32. Andrew says:

    I know that dial-ups were live savers back in the day, but I think having them around poses a great threat to one's sanity in the modern world.

  33. Seiuchi says:

    I know this makes me a bad person, but sites like his are my secret vice. They're these horrible people who can't get laid due to their extreme horribleness. It's a beautiful demonstration that sometimes our social systems are just and beautiful.

    If you chucklingly enjoyed this content, there's miles more of it out there on the web.

  34. a_random_guy says:

    How disillusioning…

    Many years ago I bought the book "Old Man's War", and really enjoyed it. Not too long after I ran across Scalzi's blog and found him to be, well, let's just say "lacking". Not that his personal politics really have anything at all to do with the quality of his writing, but it was somehow disappointing.

    And here again: just last week I bought, read and enjoyed a book by Vox Day. And now Ken posts a link to his blog. What a…pastetaster.

  35. wanfuforever says:

    Is Dazzler still looking for an arch? If the bidding is still open, I'll take her. I live in Arizona, so arching Aquaman would be a one-sided affair.

  36. jaduncan says:

    More than anything else, this reminds me never to work in customer service again.

  37. jaduncan says:

    From the comments: "But yes, gammas are nasty bullies when given any kind of authority. Unfortunately, they usually end up in family courts where they'll buy anything a wife says about her soon to be ex-husband. Or they are the sexual harassment police at scifi conventions."

    …it's like all of the worst scifi fan stereotypes made flesh.

  38. Stephen says:

    That blog is painful to read, especially the comment section. It's a bizarre melange of Greek letters used as some sort of secret man code, misogyny bordering on mental illness, and Bible verse citations I don't feel like looking up but are no doubt analogous to the KKK's religious defense of slavery.

    I keep thinking that we're heading toward a glorious Star Trek type society, and then people like this and Paula Deen come along to remind me that this sort of vile sub-humanity is still doing quite well and infesting our otherwise excellent gene pool.

  39. Kat says:

    if breastfeeding is pleasurable to the mother in any way, then it must be child abuse because we all know that breasts are meant first & foremost to be a sexual thing, not a means of feeding infants.

    O_o The more I think about the mindset that must produce that kind of thinking, the more squicked I get!

    So not only did you get a sixth-rate mortal enemy…you have to share him with John Scalzi?

    And Pharyngula too, apparently. I feel like I should be making an anti-list whereby I go through Vox Day's archives and follow every person he hates. Unfortunately, I think that trawling through that mess would be beyond my capacity to endure.

  40. Clark says:

    I just hung up the modem and re-dialled.

    I'd like to think that this is really really really epic performance art.

  41. Kerwin White says:

    This is too much for my brain to comprehend.

    I'm just going to sit here and say repeatedly "I eat paste."

  42. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    When faced with this kind of convoluted non-comprehension of women what can one do but hark back to the wisdom of Pournelle and Niven "Think of it as evolution in action"

  43. Aaron says:

    Guys, you misunderstand. Paste Eater isn't Vox Day; he just reads one of Vox Day's blogs.

    Also, wtf: "But rational assessments are something only civilized women are capable of. Barbarian wenches, or feral ones, think with their tingles."

    So much hatred.

  44. Ken Mencher says:

    Now I know what happens when you eat too much paste…

    And, yes, Ken, you have managed to fail at nemesises..(nemesi?)

    I think I lost IQ reading his post…at the very least, I know I managed to grow more chest hair….

  45. jackn says:

    "…known dangers of non-kin adoption"

    For some reason, I hear dueling banjos when I read this.

    I think these kind of people are compensating for a lack of self-esteem.

    I need to stop reading popehat because some posts make me want to take action and correct the wrong, but I know it is pointless to engage them. Perhaps some sort of IRL honeypot is in order.

  46. Phe0n1x says:

    If he's going all Brave New World on us, will he mimic the end (the last page) of the book? That would be kind of him.

  47. mcinsand says:

    Schofield,

    >>"Think of it as evolution in action"

    I try to comfort myself with that thought. After all, with this level of intelligence, guys like this have to have trouble finding the right orifice when they get any shot at reproduction. On the other hand, memories of the movie 'Idiocracy' take away that comfort.

  48. JT says:

    @Stephen

    Was Kirk a man "of sufficiently high socio-sexual status"?

  49. @Fasolt says:

    Hmm. "…known dangers of non-kin adoption." My white friend with the two adopted black kids will be quite surprised to know she is dangerous to them.

    Translation of the quoted phrase? Don't mingle with other races. That's a bad idea. In their universe.

  50. Dan Weber says:

    Aquaman was largely redeemed during the course of "Batman: The Brave And The Bold." I seriously wasn't expecting that.

  51. JWH says:

    He declared himself my mortal enemy.

    I thought that was Captain Hammer.

  52. Basil Forthrightly says:

    "…it's like all of the worst scifi fan stereotypes made flesh."

    I couldn't help but think of it as a really really bad knockoff of Magic, the card game.

  53. @Fasolt says:

    @Basil: Or they're in a particularly nasty variant of the Gorean universe.

  54. anonymous drive by commenter says:

    "Millions of women don't read 50 Shades of Grey because they so perfectly hate the idea of men ordering them around."

    Hah. HAHAAHAHAAHA. Ha! Best false equivalence ever.

  55. nlp says:

    In regard to the breast-feeding equalling sexual abuse, there was someone wandering through the internet "advice to the lovelorn" columns a while back whose wife had an appointment with a gynecologist. He was very upset, because he felt that this was exactly the same thing as having an affair.

    I wonder if they're the same person, or if they just get their ideas from the same site.

  56. N. Easton says:

    I can't even find that stuff funny. Misogyny is still too mainstream for me to find the humor in it. I'm not sure which was worse, the vaguely racist sense I get from his complaints that Mr. White adopted "Oriental" children (holy shit who says that?) or his use of "womanish" as an insult.

    I help moderate a pretty major gaming forum, and I would have instantly permabanned someone for making posts like those quoted above. Wouldn't even keep him around as an object of mockery.

  57. jtf says:

    Some people just continually insist on being living, breathing arguments for eugenics. /s

    I eat paste.

  58. DS Ullman says:

    "

    Oh come on. POOPHAT! for god's sake.

  59. Ken White says:

    the vaguely racist sense

    There's no vaguely about it, as you'll see if you read Captain Patetaster's blog, which has gems like this:

    Oh, everybody in the band and in the audience was White, most of us with gray hair.

    I miss the country I grew up in.

  60. dsullman says:

    err, meant:
    "Shithat or popehead"

    Oh come on. POOPHAT! for god's sake.

  61. R R Clark says:

    @a_random_guy:

    I have read about half of Scalzi's work. He's an engaging author, although he has a tendency to get preachy and let the story drag.

    When I was introduced to "Vox Day" and the Alpha Game blog I grew morbidly curious and had to read one of his books. I was not disappointed, which is to say that I found it to be a literary trainwreck.

    In short, neither of them is making my top five list (or top twenty list for that matter), but Scalzi will at least get some positive words out of me if inquired about.

    As near as I can figure by their accounting, I'm a beta. Disinterested in being at the top of the heap, capable of getting second dates, financially comfortable. Which is where their whole "socio-sexual" schema falls apart for me. I played sports in high school and college, slept with cheerleaders, the whole nine, but I've never been inclined to bullying nor do I perceive sexual assault to be a good opening gambit for a pick-up. When you have good conversational ability in person, there's little need to sit around whining about sexual harasssment laws. They simply never come up in the course of your day-to-day and night-to-night.

    I also can't help wondering how much of this is werewolf fantasizing, simply because of which subset of geeks is involved.

  62. NS says:

    Reading that crap makes my head hurt…

    Some men "get away" with ordering women around not because a certain class of men can just order women around, but because they have judged that a given woman, in a given situation, in a given place and time, will respond positively to being ordered around.

    Bondage is not rape if the bound party consents, no matter the genders of people playing each role.

    These guys are son concerned that women only respond to "alpha" males, who are good looking and have power. What they don't understand is that these men they idolize only have one power they lack, the power to judge how another human being will respond to them if they act a certain way. They believe that they should be able to act in any way that they please, and have everyone else around them fall in line, be it an attractive woman they would like to sleep with, or the general populous around them, that they'd rather not have criticize them. This inability to judge how others around them will react in a social situation, and their self-assurance that an unfavorable reaction is the fault of the offended party sort of sounds like sociopathy to me…

    And don't feel too bad, Ken. My arch nemesis still lives with his dad, and got stopped by the cops for stealing his own car… You must have been WAY ahead of me in line…

  63. JP says:

    Ken, Captain Pastetaster is really Doctor Horrible to your Captain Hammer. Watch out for his Freeze Ray though!

  64. JT says:

    Thinking about how one steals one's own car . . .

  65. Derrick says:

    Does anyone else thing the moniker "Pastetaster" is a euphemism for "Male Reproductive Juice Slurper?" Mind you, I have nothing against people who do that, not in any fashion whatsoever since… .

  66. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    Reading this tripe makes my sinuses close up. These are the kind of alpha male wannabe pathetnoids that, under Islam, end up as martyr-bombers. No idea how the world works … or rather, lots of ideas, none of them creditable. Miserable. Hostile. Self-defeaters who must attract the very worst sort of human manipulators from a tri-state area.

    Excuse me. I must go wash.

  67. Doctor Railgun says:

    Poor little guy. "Mens'rights" morons are so adorable when they get riled up.

  68. Doctor Railgun says:

    And don't did Dazzler, Ken!

  69. Colin says:

    Ken, surely there's a way you can level up in something in order to get a better nemesis.

  70. Linsider says:

    The disturbing thing for me is not the idiotic content, but the amount of idiots that actually believe it.

  71. Ken White says:

    @Linsider:

    The disturbing thing for me is not the idiotic content, but the amount of idiots that actually believe it.

    The narrative "follow me, and I will explain why you are downtrodden because of these evil and subhuman groups that you already hate" is familiar because it is too often effective.

  72. John Cain says:

    Ken, you really need to put in a complaint with the Guild of Calamitous Intent. David Bowie should be able to hook you up with a new arch.

  73. mcinsand says:

    @Fasolt

    For three decades now, I have not thought of Norman's Gor series, which is a shame, since my oldest son recently asked me what I would call the worst book series I have read. Then again, I would rather have kept my experience with the first two Gor books. The second one was out of belief that the rest of the series could not be as bad as the first, since the books kept coming out. After that, though, I couldn't stand any more.

    On the other hand, I would rather have let those memories fade.

  74. Renee Jones says:

    You know, even James Bond's villians just are't the cat-loving, world-domination types they used to be. They just don't make villians like they used to!

  75. Anonymous Coward says:

    These ignorant half-wits make my jaw drop. It's not often that I come across something on the internet that I didn't know existed, but I had no idea that these cro-magnons were lurking around patting themselves on the back for being dickheads.

    Considering that men like Ken are the only reason they aren't made to eat a giant bowl of shut-the-hell-up every morning, I think they should afford him some of that "status" they covet so jealously.

  76. Merissa says:

    This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I've been in Texas and on the Internet for a very long time.

  77. Janet C says:

    Megan McCardle pointed out years ago in response to one of these moronic game/MRA blogs that their natterings and their categorizing most reminded her of how thirteen year old girls are.

  78. rmd says:

    @JP,

    Ken, Captain Pastetaster is really Doctor Horrible to your Captain Hammer.

    "This is not the popehat…"

  79. Bill says:

    The PasteEater links to Dr Helen – man that's causing cognitive dissonance. I've heard the whole Beta thing, but when did it get down to Omega?

  80. I was Anonymous says:

    I bet that Captain Pastetaster rides a PONY

  81. Tim McNeil says:

    Could be worse. In Russia I was told that some people believed that we were adopting children from a foreign country so that we could spirit them back to the U. S. and sell their vital organs for money.

  82. Larry says:

    Who can turn off Google with his smile? Its Marty Tyler Popehat!

  83. manybellsdown says:

    Hey, shut up, I like Aquaman.

    @mcinsand – I got "Dancer of Gor" some years ago, because I thought it'd be a nice naughty bondagey read. It was over halfway through the book before the man character even got any sexing, and 80% of it was various rants about how the slave women were "choosing" their path, but the non-slave women were just repressed.

  84. Bill says:

    I couldn't help but read through the referenced blog. This whole Beta/Omega thing – it reminds me of Scientology's Tone scale – if I don't like you – you're a beta, if I really really don't like you, gamma, then if you're my arch nemesis, you're an Omega. What's it take to be a Zeta?

  85. JT says:

    @Janet C

    Or how thirteen year olds are in general. Seriously, the walking-around version of this worldview is:

    Sex, dating, and love = zero sum game

    or

    "If you ain't first, you're last."

  86. Sam says:

    Clearly, Captain Pastetaster is not fomenting dissension for his own selfish goals, but FOR THE CHILDREN!

    It reminds me of a chilling, animated documentary I once saw. It took place in a small mountain town in Colorado, really the idyllic refuge of pure Americana. The parents of the town, upon the revelation that children are most likely to be kidnapped by a relative or someone else they know, took the only reasonable action possible and sent their kids away. I think there may also have been marauding Mongolians and a (not so great) wall. Really eye-opening.

  87. En Passant says:

    I blame anthropomorphic global swarming. Or something. That's the scientific consensus.

    Liberals' computer models show gradually tightening internet cafe standards can postpone epidemic runaway intracranial implosion in the at-risk population until about 2050. But that's too optimistic. Conservatives say the only way to be sure is to nuke them from orbit.

    I favor a wide Laissez-faire stance on the issue. Individual states can decide to let them eat paste with a doctor's prescription. Just stand aside when they get too enthusiastic, and let Adam Smith's invisible hand conduct Heimlich maneuvers on them. Standing in front can get messy.

  88. StephenH says:

    @Bill: Omega is the last letter in the greek alphabet, akin to "Z" in the English alphabet. A Zeta would therefore be somewhere very close to but below a Gamma, and well above an Omega.

  89. JusticeChimp says:

    @StephenH, and you didn't even go greek to find that out :)

    A first, someone I know (albiet vaguely, and from long ago) who reads (and comments to) Popehat!

  90. AlphaCentauri says:

    Uggh — in light of his view of how "alpha" males act (clearly, his definition of "alpha" refers to some character in his imagination, not any actual person he's ever met, or he would know better), his comments about non-kin adoption are very, very creepy. Some pedophiles believe it's okay to have sex with children so long as they aren't relatives, because sex with "lolitas" is okay, or "man-boy love" is okay, but "incest" is wrong. They also find adult sexual partners intimidating, and so they prefer children who lack equal power in a relationship.

    It makes me wonder if he's got a pedophilic urge himself that he's trying to suppress, and that this is Freudian projection.

  91. grouch says:

    When doth the pastetaster cometh? I expected shakey camera, fireballs, strobocuts, screechy noises, crashing cars and exploding vegetable stands by now.

    Is it possible there are 'phone lines extending to Lyrane II? Is Captain Pastetaster really the alpha of the omegas there, conspiring with the Boskonians against the Chief Person and the matriarchs? Could it be that "Ken" is just an oh-so-clever obfuscation/contraction of "Kinnison"? When do we get to read Chapter 3?

  92. jb says:


    These…(Ken holds up his fists)…are not the Popehat.

    The Popehat is my taint.

  93. Kerwin White says:

    I tried to read this guy's page this morning over coffee.

    I stopped reading any form of sentences after about the first post and quickly kept reading the same phrase over and over again.

    "I eat paste." That's all I saw. On every sentence and every page.

    Thanks, Ken.

  94. Blah says:

    What an enormous douchenozzle. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

    …Okay, it's still a little hilarious.

    (Side note: don't hate on Aquaman, he is legitimately cool and has been for like a decade at least. How many superheros are there that are also royalty AND fight with a trident? Admit it. Tridents are awesome.)

  95. Bob says:

    "I tried to be nice; I left a coupla helpful, innocuous on-topic comments at a post of Sting's at Atomic Nerds. Nonetheless, they were deleted within 24 hours, because, I think, he dislikes me, and not because of anything wrong in the comments themselves. That is pretty damn womanish behavior. I correspond on the 'net with an actual woman or two, and they are manly enough to let my comments stand, no matter how silly they are, no matter how much they disagree with them (Thanks, Tam!), but Sting still seems to be suffering from Hurt Feeeewings, or is channelling Zydeco, or something. I swear before God, I don't know what's wrong with that boy, or how to fix him."

    Just wow.

  96. Tam says:

    Running around behind people's backs and complaining to uninvolved parties is "manly" now?

    *scribbles furiously*

    This is hard to keep up with. :s

  97. Luke G says:

    @Bill, @StephenH

    I'd be careful about what parts of the country you go around referring to people as "Zetas" in… especially in a derogatory way.

  98. perlhaqr says:

    Sexual Harrassment laws are literally the attempt to outlaw unattractive males.

    I have got to stop reading internet blogs. My head is going to explode one of these days.

  99. mcinsand says:

    More often than not… many times more often than not… I have failed to have a response or simply had an inadequate response to something that rubbed me the wrong way. My advisor in graduate school believed in the Gor/Southern-Baptist female role model, and he was going on and on about how a woman's place is to be subordinate to the man. He stopped when I said, 'if a woman isn't good enough to be my equal, then she isn't good enough for me.' The men or women that want a weaker partner are the true wimps.

  100. wgering says:

    @jb: Nearly sprayed tea all over my screen with that.

    I'm seriously afraid to follow any of the links in this post. I don't have nearly enough Brain Bleach on hand.

  101. Lizard says:

    He stopped when I said, 'if a woman isn't good enough to be my equal, then she isn't good enough for me.' The men or women that want a weaker partner are the true wimps.

    Ay-frikken'-men to that. Every time I accidentally find myself in one of the sewers of the Internet where the local vermin say things like "I can't find any women I'm willing to date, because they all think they have a right to their own life, instead of being my personal housekeeper and sex toy. What's up with that, huh?", I just roll my eyes and wonder how much of a total loser someone has to be to openly state "I want a woman who is weak and dependent on me, because women who are actually my equal terrify me"… and be applauded, as it were, by his fellow losers because he's "a real man". Uhm… no. Real men are not afraid of, or intimidated by, women who are their equals.

  102. perlhaqr says:

    Oh, and just because I like the shape of it, I'm declaring myself a xi-male, right now. Go xi! It's squiggly!

  103. All the talk of alphas, betas, status, etc. can be traced back to studies done on wolf pack behavior, most notably "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" by L. David Mech (based on studies done by Rudolph Schenkel in the 30's and 40's). Here's the trouble: that theory has been invalidated and repudiated by no less than Mech himself, as far back as 1999 and possibly farther.

    The initial studies, and most of the follow-up studies, were done on wolf packs in captivity; the animals weren't related and they were all stuck in an unfamiliar, unnatural situation. The dynamics that developed were inevitably very different from the behavior that wolves normally display in their preferred setting of out in the wild among their own kin.

    When in their element, wolves don't form "packs" so much as they form families. The "alphas" are mom and dad, and they provide their offspring with love, protection and discipline until it's time to kick the kids out the door so they can form their own families (in this respect, Ken is most certainly an "alpha male").

    It seems to me that humans, like wolves, tend to form families much more naturally than any other kind of organization. It also seems to me that humans often get dumped into strange living arrangements with people they don't know, much as the captive wolves did, so we shouldn't be surprised at seeing "alpha/beta"-style social dynamics arise. The mistake that Vox and his cohorts make is in thinking that this kind of social dynamic is the natural, healthy, normal state of being and that attempts to resist it are foolish and destructive. In other words, they've got it completely backwards.

    More info here:
    http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

  104. SPQR says:

    If Tam can't keep up with it, I certainly can't keep up with it.

  105. granny weatherwax says:

    And I thought the Omega Man was Charlton Heston.

  106. ULTRAGOTHA says:

    Ken! Ken!! You need a Gamma Rabbit T-shirt! Just for YOU!

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/28/gamma-rabbit-t-shirts-now-available/

  107. AE says:

    Ken, I have to be THAT GUY, but it doesn't look like anybody has pointed out your blatant spelling mistake yet. It is properly Pathetathter! Enunciation is hard with a mouthful of Elmer's.

  108. Dictatortot says:

    Guys like Capt. Pastetaster and Day are a disgrace to us awkward, unattractive men who don't blame women, or other types of men, for our calamitous awkwardness and inability to … … Actually, I'm not sure where I was going with this.

  109. Bill says:

    @Ken – Realizing this might not be something you want to go into here, I totally understand if you don't want to mention it. I remember you talking about the issue several times but what is the Paste Eater position on why 'non-kin' adoption is bad? Having kids in orphanages when there's loving parents who can adopt them has to be pretty much universally bad. Having kids grow up in poverty or in terrible conditions when they otherwise wouldn't have to is universally bad. If someone wants to make the 'there's molestation or abuse probability' in 'non-kin' situations, I guess it's an argument, but it'd have to be backed up by a lot of stats before it could ever broach anything other than insanity. Is the Paste Eater position that it's bad b/c the kids will grow up scarred? Or is it b/c it's bad for the parents? Any notion of bad would have to be balanced again the alternative so I for the life of me can't see why anyone would be against adoption in any form – nitpicking on race, country of origin or non-kin whatever seems so shallow and cold hearted I can't believe anyone would make such an argument. the PUA crowd at least tries to legitimize their beliefs based on biological arguments – however weak such points may be, I can't even fathom what argument could be made against adoption. Hell I'm going to be 42 in a week and I've been trying to get you to adopt me for a while now. I"m going to go out on a limb here, but if I had to bet on your kids growing up healthy, happy and well-adjusted I'd take the bet any day of the week. but if I had to bet on your kids vs paste eaters 'kin' – I'd actually almost feel guilty about taking the bet it'd be such a sure thing – the Paste Eater won't like it in a few years when he's calling the Son of the Omega Male "Boss" .

  110. SKT says:

    He lost me at "oriental". One tiny little slip up like that and the gloves come off. He is officially my archenemy.

    Also, I like eating paste. Isn't that why they invented Milk of Magnesia?

  111. Ken White says:

    Bill: Captain Pastetaster showed up abruptly in a thread about odd and rude and off-putting things people without filters say to adoptive parents, and started talking about how adoptive parents are statistically more likely to molest their children, and then became petulant when it was pointed out he embodied the thread. He wouldn't stop, so I pasted him.

    It's possible that Captain Pastetaster's issues with women that led him to the altar of Vox are not entirely woman-side.

  112. Basil Forthrightly says:

    I'm looking foward to the epic cinematic version of this battle, wherein our hero, Captain Pastetaster, having just witnessed the untimely demise of his faithful sidekick from snorting too much taint, will unleash his wrothful righteous rage in an epic scream:

    KEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

  113. Jim says:

    His name isn't Phillip,is it? He sounds frighteningly like my younger brother.

  114. Bill says:

    @Ken – Pasting him was awesome – the really sad part is that he's using some insincere concern for kids as his justification (I'm guessing he had his opinion wayyyy before he scrupulously researched the 'statistics'). But even if the stats did show such a thing, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is pretty sick. I figured he was a pretty awful person but your comments confirms it. Nothing like sacrificing someone else's welfare in the name of a philosophy (or whatever one calls his worldview)

  115. Michael K. says:

    And Pharyngula too, apparently.

    Ah, yes. I forgot the whole "throwing acid in a few women's faces benefits all women" angle. That was classic Beale. (For anyone who wants yet another link, here's an example of what Kat was talking about.)

  116. Michael K. says:

    HOLY SHITBALLS. I just realized that CAPTAIN PASTETASTER is an anagram for CATS PATENT PARASITE. The implications are clear. Ken's in on it. With the parasite-wielding cats. Zero day is upon us. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

    (Also: PACT: SEPARATE TAINTS)

  117. Matthew Cline says:

    Ah, yes. I forgot the whole "throwing acid in a few women's faces benefits all women" angle. That was classic Beale.

    This isn't quite defending Vox day, but for anyone who follows that link (which should be this), you should hate him for what he actually said, rather than what people thought he said. Vox Day was attempting to make an reductio ad absurdum argument against utilitarianism by claiming that utilitarians should support the "honor" motivated throwing-of-acid-in-women's-faces. Thus,

    1) He thinks that the acid-in-the-face acts were immoral and shouldn't have been done.

    2) He thinks that the acid-in-the-face acts helped to make the world a better place.

    So, hate him for #2, not for the erroneous belief that he thinks the acid-in-the-face acts were moral.

  118. Anthea Brainhooke says:

    I _love_ the guys who go on about "alpha males" and all that bullshit for two reasons:

    1. They're ALL Alphas (natch)
    2. The whole alpha/beta/gamma/etc thing is a bit of a myth. Wolves don't have rigid pack hierarchy the way we used to think they did — that study was done on one pack that was living under stressful conditions. It would be like observing a rat colony in an animal testing lab and extrapolating the results to all rats, wild or domesticated, no matter where in the world they lived.

  119. Manatee says:

    I'm confounded by the fact that he uses terms such as "omega" like a 20 year old from Jersey but also describes people as "Oriental" like a 60 year old woman from rural Georgia.

  120. Manatee says:

    [blockquote cite="C. S. P. Schofield"]Reading this tripe makes my sinuses close up. These are the kind of alpha male wannabe pathetnoids that, under Islam, end up as martyr-bombers. No idea how the world works … or rather, lots of ideas, none of them creditable. [/blockquote]

    This made my day. I never really gave it much thought, but I suppose nothing says alpha like 72 virgins (other than maybe 72 girls who still want you even after trying some alternatives.) Let's not give Captain shitpaste, or mr. pastehead any ideas though.

  121. Tam says:

    Anthea Brainhooke,

    "1. They're ALL Alphas (natch)"

    Perusing the Monster Manual he wrote over there, and inferring from his purported INT and CHA rolls, I'm assuming he sees himself as a loftily-detached Sigma, who confounds even the mighty Alphas with his aloof refusal to play their monkey games, and thus has wimmenfolk flinging themselves at him. (It's unclear whether or not he denies them his essence, Mandrake…)

    I am inferring that this is a man who spent much of his scholastic career with his head in a toilet.

  122. Lizard says:

    re: 72 Virgins

  123. Blah says:

    In my worldview, if you're going to seriously base your understanding of human social interactions on wild dogs, you'd better be introducing yourself to new people by sniffing their assholes. Otherwise it just seems a bit hypocritical.

  124. Michael K. says:

    I just figured out that all of the PUA blogs are much more tolerable if you assume the software lifecycle meaning of "alpha" (incomplete, likely unstable, not to be trusted with critical work).

    (Heh. That's good. I think I'mma tweet it.)

  125. azteclady says:

    Blah: Beverage warning!!!!

  126. Ken says:

    Paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
    Pastity paste, pastity paste!
    Pastity paste, pastity paste!

  127. barry says:

    I was doing fine with this thread, having read stuff by many whacky internet nutters before (come back John Titor!), and the challenge of trying to find any point of view from which their ideas might contain a grain of sense or logic. But then I got to Tali McPike's post about the guy who thought breast feeding was child abuse. That was just mind-scrambiling! I had to log off and take a long walk till words began to reattach to their meanings again. I don't know which possibility is more disturbing: If it's the same guy, he is really odd, and if it's not, it means there are two of them.

    I did notice one of the Vox Popoli rules is "don't mention evolution", which might explain how ideas like that might survive.

    but what is the Paste Eater position on why 'non-kin' adoption is bad?

    I just assumed it was because he could never have that; "Son, you know how them-all folk in the other valleys round-abouts here don't quite look like us?.." talk, so essential to maintaining the social fabric of the world/valley as he grows into manhood and gets his first shotgun.

  128. I was Anonymous says:

    @barry,

    At least John Titor was funny…

  129. AlphaCentauri says:

    The "breastfeeding=child molestation" idea isn't unique to him:
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19920209&id=1pAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DOcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6603,2857140

    The percentage of mothers in the US who breastfed got very low for a while for a number of reasons, and even before that women of high status in Europe had wet nurses to do it for them. At this point, mothers who want to breastfeed their children are often the first to do so successfully in their families for several generations. Mothers and grandmothers are the usual resources for what is normal, and they can't help here.

  130. wgering says:

    @Tam: every part of that comment is excellent

  131. Anony Mouse says:

    Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women

    I've got Bob Filner on line one…

  132. Jennifer says:

    It's funny how he uses all the correct facts to come to the entirely wrong conclusion. Powerful rich men don't avoid charges because they can afford good lawyers and threaten to fire their victims. No, it's because women hate poor uggos! We should do away with sexual harassment laws rather than enforce them equally!

    If he thinks breaking off all contact with him is "womanish" behavior, I can see why he has such a hard time with the ladies…

    Also, eww, this comment.

    Of course, this also demonstrates some of the problem with female rationale. The difference between no consequences whatsoever for groping or prison time for looking (shitdidnthappen.txt) is a woman's feelings.

    Yes, you fucking idiot. Women are different people with different desires and tolerance for sexual acts/conversations. The problem isn't the "female" rationale. The problem is you for believing women all think the same and their determination of harassment is random.

  133. Matt says:

    @Lizard:

    (Couldn't find it on youtube, you'll have to settle for the text form, sorry:)
    "Seventy-two virgins? Why not 72 slutty broads who know what the hell they're doing?"

  134. Bill says:

    @StephenH, @Luke – Ok, I admittedly forgot my greek alphabet (mainly b/c I was drunk off my a55 every time I recited it back in the day) but in any case, I just came upon this Socio-Sexual Pyramid WTF. Is he claiming that Alphas have 4+ sexual encounters or 4x the average? The whole Lambda thing has my brain fried, I thought Alpha was always the top of the list in the PUA book – so Alphas have lower status than two other categories? I also get the whole Zeta thing , i was going ot make a joke about it earlier – calling a Zeta in the gang sense a Zeta in the PUA sense wouldn't end well I would think.

  135. ~A says:

    Gentlemen,

    As an avid reader of both Popehat and Manosphere blogs (not Vox per se, although I skimmed through it), it's interesting for me to see this little "clash" from a rather neutral standpoint.

    So, I've read linked Vox Day post, and I no matter how much I enjoy Popehat, I believe Vox came out above.

    Vox day – uses Popehat as example, where the content from this blog is used to explain certain, let's say, truths or theories that are prevalent somewhere. The post actually tried to explain the reasons "why men get so angry when people complain about creepers", a (rhetorical?) question formulated by a previous Popehat post.

    This post – fair enough, it was not a rebuttal to the linked post, it was meant to mock "captain Pastetaster". However, the underlying tone – "which turns out not to be a World of Warcraft term" or "The thread is also fun for comments like this:", isn't this an "Appeal to ridicule" fallacy? Sure, it has different views than expressed here on this blog, and I would not be surprised to find some sort of argumentative rebutal (I'd love it, actually!). But this…

    If a commenter on Vox day is taken as a sample that the blog is , then what can be said about blog that advocates free speech and liberty, with comments such as:

    "although we all have the right to freedom of speech generally – some people really shouldn't exercise their right to free speech."

    How.. hypocritical.

    Just some food for thought.

  136. AlphaCentauri says:

    You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to be laughed at when other people find your speech unintentionally hilarious, especially when your speech was trying to belittle half the human race by saying that any one of them will always sexually submit to any man of high enough status.

  137. AlphaCentauri says:

    argh, "not to be laughed at"

  138. Bill says:

    ~A What's hypocritical about it? First off, the person is confirming their right ot free speech- But just b/c you should be allowed to do something doesn't mean you should do it. I should be allowed to ignore my wife on our anniversary just to be mean (should meaning there shouldn't be a law mandating otherwise) but it's something many believe I shouldn't do (I figured I'd come up with a WhiteKnight esque example in the spirit of fun). So aforementioned people should have the right to say what they want, but on a personal level, some here think they shouldn't say it. Big difference and no hypocrisy from what I can see.

    As far as Appeal to Ridicule – where do you see such a fallacy? Unless I'm missing something, Ken at no point attempted to refute a given point based on ridicule – he was engaging in ridicule for it's own sake. Humor, Satire and a little snark for good measure – not sure that's the same thing as a Appeal to Ridicule as there is a difference. If this was about logic, Ken could walk through the PasteEater arguments pretty easily although it would be a waste of his time – PasteEater isn't going to change his views based on being corrected in a debate, at least i see no sign of it.

    Help me out though – what's the Average he speaks of on the Socio-Sexual Heirarchy thingy? I thought Alpha was always the highest – but he notes 4x average – so what's the current average? And why do the two bottom groups do as well or better than Alphas?

  139. Tam says:

    "…isn't this an "Appeal to ridicule" fallacy?"

    I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was a formal debate; I thought we were just mocking the risible.

  140. Xenocles says:

    ~A-

    Surely you can think of situations where even though you would be within your rights to say a particular thing it would not be appropriate to do so. To wit: I have the right to walk up to a new mother and say "I hope your baby dies tomorrow," but I certainly should not even if I felt like it.

    Freedom of speech is reciprocal; the rest of us have the right to yell "Shut up!" back at the obnoxious – provided of course there's no other enforcement measure implied.

  141. perlhaqr says:

    SKT: Ok, I may just be showing my ass here, but (serious question) what's wrong with "Oriental"? Does it have some pejorative implication? I figured it just meant "people from the Orient". Much like how the official designation for white people is generally "Caucasian", despite most white people not having any ancestors from the Caucasas within the last 5,000 years.

  142. ~A says:

    AlphaCentauri – I've used the same phrase quite a few times, and I wholeheartedly agree. I admit, I even laughed myself at the opinions of some.

    Riskink sounding hypocritical myself, I guess I am slightly disappointed of Popehat for the method of delivery.

    Say, for an example, someone wrote "I don't understand how some people think that moon is a emits light"

    Then some blogger, answers:

    "When you look at the moon at night, it usually glows, brighter than the stars around it, which ARE definitely a light source. So, the moon must emit light as well."

    Which of the following rebuttals is more likely to create a positive effect for all parties in the discussion?

    a) "Wow, you're an idiot. Get back to your cave!"
    b) "Actually, Moon simply reflects light from the Sun, which you cannot see because at "night", the side of the Earth you are on is facing away from the sun and is in the shadow. Read on here "

    Now imagine if the first answer came from a some teacher on his blog, where he is discussing how to implement better teaching methods in schools.

    Where I'm getting at, is that I'm just tad disappointed that Popehat and it's readers chose to simply dismiss an argument without giving it some thought, choosing to sidestep and attack the writer/content – an impression I was left with after skimming the post and comments.

    I do agree that you have all rights to criticize and hold different opinions, as well as think and say that someone is stupid. I also admit that my personal ego-investment in validity of certain ideas of the Manosphere (I'm not stating that I agree with everything that is written there) pushed me to start this argument.

    However, what was the outcome of this post, if not to secure a belief within a group, while dismissing any opposing views and causing additional friction between parties involved? Did anyone actually win? Was any information exchanged, or was it just used to further entrench current positions so that any further information from opposing parties get dismissed quicker in the future?

    I think that ignorance I just saw on display here (or am I wrong to think that it is ignorance? I admit, I did not read all the comments throughly) is one of the reasons why we see so many misconceptions about free speech? I always thought that the main reason behind market of free ideas was to stifle ignorance and create discussion that would lead to a betterment of both individuals and the society as a whole, not so that someone could make fun of opponents with impunity. Forest through trees?

    I apologize for the rhetoric, but I'd love to discuss about this.

  143. Tam says:

    "…or am I wrong to think that it is ignorance?"

    Yes.

  144. Tam says:

    perlhaqr,

    I'd say it goes to intent. He started off warning about the dangers of "non-kin adoption" and suddenly seemed to veer into the ditch of non-cracker adoption. (Although he's quick to point out that some of his best friends are not crackers.)

  145. ~A says:

    Ah, by the time it took me write my reply, a discussion sprawled!

    As for the socio-hierarchy and averages, I'm not entirely sure. Median number of female sexual partners in lifetime, for men 25-44 years of age is 6.7 , according to 2002 data, so that would mean an "Alpha" would/could sleep with 25 women or so throughout lifetime, according to Vox day.

    As for appeal for ridicule – I may have miss-constructed my argument, as well as miss-understood the post somewhat. I was hoping for a discussion, and I mistook the satire for ignorance.

    "If this was about logic, Ken could walk through the PasteEater arguments pretty easily although it would be a waste of his time – PasteEater isn't going to change his views based on being corrected in a debate"

    You assume that PasteEater/Vox is wrong, and that you are right. Vox believes that he is right, and you are wrong. My idea is that by refuting the arguments, one would find it is not that easy to do once some digging is done, and your own opinion would widen and change (I focused on the "Why men get angry when talking about creeps" article). To put it shortly – I wouldn't say it exactly same as it is said in Vox Day, but some underlying themes have been confirmed by research. I was hoping that by entering a debate, certain themes could have been uncovered by Ken/someone else. By entering debate without a goal to "prove them wrong no matter what", one could achieve a succesfull exchange of information. Vox readers could potentially soften their views towards women/Popehat/white knights whatever that is wrong in your opinion, while Popehat readers could widen their opinions and get answers to why people operate in certain ways in regards to the "creeper" article

    I guess what I fail to see, is the actual offense in Vox Days post – I understand it might be somewhat offensive or in poort taste, but I can't see what caused such uproar and disagreement here. Mind you, I am from somewhat different culture, so could someone explain to me, before I visit US and dig my own grave, what exactly is the reason for offense in the post? (I'm actually serious on this one)

  146. Tam says:

    (IOW, if all we're talking about is non-kin kids, the fact that they are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, or Haploid is entirely non-germane, unless someone is one of Those People that thinks it does.)

  147. Tam says:

    "Ah, by the time it took me write my reply, a discussion sprawled!"

    Nope, it's still just mockery.

    BTW, attempting to use stilted and formal language when one is not actually good at it is terribly grating. You could start by throttling back on the gratuitous comma abuse.

  148. Ken White says:

    I guess what I fail to see, is the actual offense in Vox Days post – I understand it might be somewhat offensive or in poort taste, but I can't see what caused such uproar and disagreement here.

    You are mistaking ridicule and contempt for "uproar and disagreement."

    Mind you, I am from somewhat different culture, so could someone explain to me, before I visit US and dig my own grave, what exactly is the reason for offense in the post? (I'm actually serious on this one)

    There is a near-infinite number of morons, bigots, and freaks gibbering about their elaborate social theories on the internet. It would be both pointless and impossible to pretend that they are anything but freaks. I don't go around step-by-step fisking the people who think Obama is a lizard person, or the people who think the moon landing is faked, or people who think that Jews are conspiring to destroy America, or that gays should be put in camps. They wouldn't listen, and it would be a pointless exercise, and nobody whose views I care about is on the fence.

    If you're sympathetic to Vox's worldview – a view premised on women being evil caricatures — I'm not going to persuade you, any more than I'm going to persuade you if you think that fire never melted steel. Why should I try?

    Why shouldn't I ridicule the ridiculous?

  149. Ken White says:

    I mean, seriously. Tell me that it is worth my time to have a debate with this.

  150. Bill says:

    ~A – The averages make no sense to me though – from personal observation among other things. Don't PUA's typically talk about Alpha being the top of the chain? If so, how to do categories 'down' the scale get as much or more? Anyway though, I appreciate you explaining that but don't want to get caught up on it.

    Ken can and does take things apart all the time. Logically flawed arguments are a pet peeve of mine and from what I've seen, he may have done it a few times but Ken is not one to engage in flawed arguments. That aside though – the real issue here isn't about a logical debate. Ken/Vox have history and Vox mentioned Ken in a post. Ken responded in the way that Ken does (which I should say, is a lot more diplomatic than I would have in Ken's shoes. Remember how this started after all – Ken was talking about Adoption and Vox came into the discussion throwing flames while not knowing a single thing about Ken, his wife or the children's situation. If you want to defend that – go ahead – I don't and wouldn't and presume you don't either). If you're honestly wondering about the offense with this particular vox post, well, there's a lot. It's snotty and contemptuous among other things. He's the one making the assertion, not Ken. He's asserting Ken is an Omega or whatever, a White Knight or whatever, that Sexual Harassment isn't possible for an Alpha etc etc etc. Prove Ken's an Omega – he has no evidence and even by his own scale, it'd be hard to determine anythng on that note assuming there's even such a thing as an Omega. Prove Ken is white knighting? He can't – and even in the context of Vox's post is off – Ken was talking about the phenomenon (well noted here on Popehat) about how creeper threads get so much volume. Does Vox posit any explanation there? I don't think so – he resorts to Ad Hominem attacks (if we're going to cite logical fallacies) calling Ken an Omega and talking about White Knighting. Assume that you're the most alpha dude on Earth, I mean as Alpha as one can get. And you have two daughters. They come home crying for the xth time about being groped somewhere in some situation. I think most men, White Knight or other would get pretty pissed off about it. You might think "Well, that's life and I'll just teach them to not let it get to them." Or you might think "That's inexcusable, I'm going to defend their honor using any means necessary". But you'd likely respond. Vox implies that any such sentiment is White Knighting. Getting a firsthand taste of how harmful such behavior can be is a far cry from sucking up and pretending to be a women's issues advocate to endear yourself to them – which is what Vox is implying. If this is a debate, he's the one making the propositions that he hasn't supported, not Ken.

    Certainly ken could go on and explain the issues over and over again, or he could learn from history. Is ANYTHING said here really going to change the Vox crowd? Do you see anything Vox says really changing the minds of people here? Both groups read the respective sites in large part b/c they validate their world views. Since the creepers thread referenced was simply about how Creeper posts bring out so many people each time, I'm not sure what there could even be an argument about – it's an objective fact (unless you want to claim that the comments are all sockpuppets or spam bots which no one has claimed to the best of my knowledge).

    Tell adopting parents that what they're doing is bad b/c your pet theory of life is in conflict with it and expect to get a negative response. Tell a man and woman who are trying to build a family in a healthy and positive way that they aren't entitled to do so, b/c some statistics you site indicate they'll be molesters and you'll get a negative response. Speaking of which – do you think Vox actually read through the studies he references, particularly about adoption? Do you think he could have a serious discussion about the design of the experiments, the statistical validity, the sample creation etc? I don't know for sure but I'd bet the house the answer is NO. He found some study that supports his pre-concieved notions of the world and ran with it. Running around telling adoptive parents that they're bad b/c not being 'kin' they're more likely to molest the kids is pretty disgusting (sure, let's leave the little SOBS in orphanages and deprive them of opportunity – all b/c doing otherwise refutes another one of Vox's pet theories). Make anyone that disagrees with Vox an Omega, White Knight or whatever else all you want, but don't be surprised people respond negatively. Getting called a Paste Eater is pretty mild and testimony to the restraint Ken consistently shows here (although from what I've heard, he doesn't show Prosecutors or other attys that same restraint sometimes, but that's why we love Ken)

  151. Tam says:

    Bill,

    "Ken was talking about Adoption and Vox…"

    FWIW, Vox is not CPT Pasteeater.

  152. Bill says:

    @Tam – Indeed -I conflated the two but they are different individuals.

  153. ~A says:

    Thanks for the input Tam. I will try to control my love for those commas.

    I don't view women as evil caricatures.

    I looked at the link – I didn't watch the whole stand-up since I didn't find it entertaining, and I'm not even sure about text entry. Like I mentioned, I haven't read much of Vox blog before entering this argument. The few entries I've read had some interesting information, but it didn't really catch my eye, so I just left it at that and assumed that most of the blog will be similar. I'll come back to this in a second.

    Thank you for the detailed answer Bill.
    I hope I am not going completely off-topic here for a second. I'm not a "PUA", and I don't agree with the categorization as it is explained there. There are different views, but the general consensus in Manosphere is that amount of women one has slept with tends to correlate with certain traits of a man. Alpha became the namesake for men who exhibit high amount of those traits, and Beta for men who lack those traits. Over time, the meanings changed somewhat, hence the categorization by various writers. Different blogs usually have somewhat different "definitions".

    I also understood Vox post a bit differently. Manosphere does contain quite a lot of mysogyny/finger pointing, so after awhile you just filter it out. There's a reason why I'm writing this here and not on Vox's blog.

    The basis of my argument was that Vox touched on reasons why some men get sexual harassment suits, while others did not. Everything else was rather irrelevant for me.

    To put it shortly, I would paraphrase the post found on Vox as follows:

    If men learned when their approaches are welcomed, there would be a lot less harassment suits.
    Men described as "High-value" or "Alpha" are men who exhibit either very good social skills/charisma (therefore, knowing when their advances are welcomed and how to proceed), are in a position of power (Think a president inviting you for a coffee), have certain manipulative traits (so women they advance on refrain from reporting their harassment due to fear or other emotions) or a mixture of all. I'm not saying what is morally right or wrong, I am just stating the observed dynamics.
    Social skills and ego play the most important roles in harassment. Men who most often get reported for sexual harassment are men who do not realize their advances are not welcome, approach women on wrong circumstances or in wrong ways. Their ego also prevents from admitting a rejection, as well as learning from their mistakes.
    When explaining harassment by saying "Don't say that, don't do that", one will not fix the underlying problem, since "Don't comment on a girls ass" will not prevent a socially awkward person to comment on something else.
    I'm not sure how that talk/consultation about harassment goes, but if you have not considered, I would suggest adding something along the lines of:
    "How to know if your actions might be perceived as sexual harassment? Try to imagine what would you do, if the most unattractive woman you know did to you what you were contemplating to/did to some woman. How would you react? Then, how did the woman of interest react? If it's how you would react towards someone unattractive, that's when you take it as a rejection and don't repeat it unless you want to be sued".

    So, why the comments on "creep" topic then? Well, because most of the people commenting are frustrated and lack the mentioned social skills. Since they have been told "They can't do a, b, c or d", they vent their frustration in comments simply because they don't know what they *should* do.

    I don't have anything against adoption, and I don't point at someone calling them "Beta" or "Omega", although I do tend to observe people to see certain social cues they give out, and see their social interactions since I find it fascinating and looking for certain correlations.

    "White-knight" originally meant someone who would go out of his way to "defend" a woman in hopes of sex as a return. I don't see defending daughter or someone who was sexually harassed as "white knighting".

    I guess the reason why I started this was a knee-jerk action for seeing the ridicule and contempt for someone who is considered to be in Manosphere, however jaded their view might be.

    My mistake.

    Manosphere, in it's core, is where men gather for personal growth and make themselves and women in their life happier. I hope this cleared a few things up.

  154. azteclady says:

    ~A

    Manosphere, in it's core, is where men gather for personal growth and make themselves and women in their life happier.

    Really? They need a space that excludes the women in their lives to make said women happier?

    This makes sense only if said women are brainless/non-sentient beings who can be made happy without their own input.

    Thank you for the clarification.

  155. Tali McPike says:

    ~A
    To be quite honest, though your comments (specifically your most recent one) do not sound completely irrational/crazy, they still smack of misogyny (even if it is unintentional) Despite your claims that you filter it out, misogyny truly is at the core of the "manosphere" and permiates (even subtly) all thoughts/theory/discussion that comes out of it.
    That is why it is so hard for so many here to take what you have to say seriously, because it still sounds misogynist.

  156. Xenocles says:

    @azteclady-

    I think your comments imply a rather prejudicial reading of A's comment. It doesn't seem implausible to me that men would benefit from time reserved for association with other men and could then, by way of self-improvement, improve the lives of their loved ones. You could plausibly make the same claim for women. Acknowledging differences between the genders is not the same as hating the other gender. Further, a lot of people experience better lives through their relationships. In fact, I suspect that only the extreme misanthropes do not. Saying "I can improve your life" is not saying "You are incapable of improving your own life." I've experienced great personal growth and happiness through my relationship with my wife and the emotional and intellectual value she brings to it. Does saying that make me a "brainless/non-sentient being who can be made happy without [my] own input?"

    I don't know the second thing about the "manosphere" writ large, so I can't say which reading is more accurate. I suppose which is more accurate depends on each individual member's interpretation of his experience there and on what he takes from it. Nothing I've seen from A on this thread indicates to me that he deserves such an uncharitable reading as the one you gave him. I dunno, maybe we can have some of that humanizing we talked about a few posts ago.

  157. ~A says:

    If Ken doesn't mind, I would like to continue providing entertainment on the topic of Manosphere underneath this post – this might get interesting and slightly innapropriate. If this is against blog policies, apologies in advance, I'll happily go back to lurking;

    I should probably change that last sentence.
    "Manosphere, in it's core, is where men gather for personal growth and make themselves and people in their life happier."

    Azteclady:
    "Really? They need a space that excludes the women in their lives to make said women happier?"

    Naturally. How else will I miss you?

    "This makes sense only if said women are brainless/non-sentient beings who can be made happy without their own input."

    Could you please elaborate how it led you to these conclusions?

    Tali McPike:
    Thank you, I will take that as a compliment.

    I just like to view women as women, and men as men. "Equal, but different". If it makes me a better person and people in my life happier at the expense of someones ego at the other side of the planet… is it that bad of a trade-off?

    On the other hand, this is teh internets. Who needs to be taken seriously?

    Why is it so wrong to have a man-only club, in your opinion, ladies?

  158. Ken White says:

    If Ken doesn't mind, I would like to continue providing entertainment on the topic of Manosphere underneath this post –

    It's not really entertaining. It's somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle of sad, repulsive, and disturbing.

  159. AlphaCentauri says:

    From the blog post Ken linked to in his post above:

    You see, here is the observable fact of the matter. Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women. They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest.

    … It's all about sexual dominance. The gamma can offend a woman by simply looking at her. The alpha not only won't offend that same woman by ordering her to lift her skirt and turn around, but the chances are very high that she will obey him even if she hasn't actually met him. Even if she won't obey on the spot, she will still laugh, slap his shoulder, and tell him "you're so bad!"

    If you think you need some type of explanation to understand why people find this offensive, you need help your manosphere isn't going to provide.

    Do you really think there is any man alive who is so "high status" that he can rape women and they will welcome it? Do you not see how offensive it is to women to say that every single one of them would be happy to be raped by a stranger so long as he is rich, powerful and attractive enough?

  160. Tali McPike says:

    ~A
    I don't have a problem with "men only" organizations, and I also agree that women are "different but equal" but that is not misogyny. Misogyny is a belief that men are (even slightly) superior to women and/or Women must depend on men to be truly happy/fulfilled in life.
    When I was in college my university had two men's households (basically a Catholic school's version of fraternities/sororities with the group's concentrations being spiritual growth in certain areas (chastity, womanhood/manhood) or specific devotions (Devine Mercy, etc) that had a mission statement of helping males "embrace manhood" and become "real men". One of them, Esto Vir taught its members that you were a "real man" by being genuinely Chivalrous, respectful of strong leaders, and men of faith. They were always there to help people when needed (moving furniture, being extra hands/bodies in places, offering to drive/accompany women into town), never expecting repayment or even thanks. And by no means were they all "alphas". Many (but not all) were geeky and socially awkward. But there were very few members I didn't feel comfortable around or distrusted, to the point where I trusted members I didn't personally know just because they were a part of Esto Vir. They were one of the most respected households on campus.
    The Lawless Heirs of God the Father on the other hand seemed to think being manly was all about doing "manly" things like drinking & smoking pipes, playing with fire, and being "fearless" and in positions of power. Although this was not part of their mission statement (as it would have gotten them disbanded, and almost did on a few occasions) everyone knew that the sole purpose of doing these manly things was to woo/win women. These guys always claimed that they were the "'real men" and accused Esto Vir of things very similar to Captian Pastetaster calling Ken a "White-Knight Gamma" without using that hierarchy. They were not very well liked or trusted by most women
    Most of the Manosphere people I have encountered are more like the Lawless Heirs.
    So I guess it depends what type of things you are told makes you and the women in your life happier? If it is like most manosphere people I've encountered, the ultimate answer to that question is "sex" and everything else is just suggestions how to get women to do it with you (pay them complements, buy them things, clean the house for them, etc.) With as much as you mention sex in your previous posts, to me it feels that this might be the theme. But if, however the advice to make you & the women in your life happy are things like find a hobby that gives you pleasure & a sense of accomplishment (fishing, woodwork, art, restorations), be attentive to your woman & her non-sexual needs (without the expectation of sex because of it), etc, etc, then yes you have been unfairly judged and might just be in a very rare non misogynist "manosphere" group, but it still doesn't help you that the "manosphere" has a general reputation for being a bastion of misogynist assholes.

  161. Tali McPike says:

    in response to/agreement with Alpha Centauri's post.
    As a woman I think its worse to be hit on (on the mild side) by Alphas. Many of them think that because of their status/money/etc that whatever women they they take a fancy to should be honored that they caught his eye, since he could have any woman he wanted (Think Gaston from Beauty & the Beast) So if she tell him to buzz off (because he is being a creep…which doesn't necessarily require him to mention or touch her boobs/butt/etc just not taking no for an answer or hanging around too much constitutes a creep) he gets indignant, and in the worst of cases violent/rapey.
    Those are the real scary encounters.
    But that's not to trivialize being inappropriately touched or talked to or oogled by "socially akward" people either, they just don't tend to get as indignant/violent as Mr. Suave Dude.
    The point is, women are not prizes to be won or wooed, and we do not appreciate being viewed as such. If you want to approach a women you've never met, start up some casual conversation, but be aware of any signs/social cues that she wants you to leave her alone. And never assume/hope that it will go beyond that when you make that initial contact. You know nothing about her. For all you know she just went through a bad break up, suffered a loss, is a victim of domestic abuse, or is days away from being engaged to her significant other.
    That is part of what treating women with respect is all about

  162. Kat says:

    As a woman I think its worse to be hit on (on the mild side) by Alphas.

    Delurking to agree. I don't like being hit on, period, and didn't like it when I was on the dating market either. I much preferred dating friends.

    And it was always so much worse when somebody popular/powerful got too pushy. It's true that I was probably much more polite to them, but that is because they held (primarily social) power and I was frightened of the consequences of pissing them off.

    Personal story time. My husband was terribly socially awkward when I met him, and his mother was the crazy cat lady (self-identified! At the time I met him, his mother kept over 20 indoor cats–we met and started dating in high school, so this is actually relevant). He smelled like cats, which I happen to be allergic to, and his stuff was constantly covered in pet yuck.

    We also met at a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) school we were both attending–geek central–and he played D&D, read comic books, watched anime, and wrote his own stories. The geekery did not turn me off, nor did his social awkwardness (which improved as he got more friends and found an environment that accepted him more than the 'mainstream' if you know what I mean). These things did not, in fact, stop me from falling madly in love with him and marrying him six years ago.

    My husband was literally the cat piss man, bless his heart. But he has yet to be accused of sexual harassment, and he got married and had kids.

    Shouldn't this be impossible by Vox Day's theory?

  163. Kat says:

    Noooooooo, the blockquote fail! (wails)

  164. Tali McPike says:

    @Kat
    I am (or so I've been told by many guys, including those who had/have no real interest in me) that I am a reasonably attractive female.
    Like you I hate being hit on, and hated it even more when I was in my late teens & early 20s.
    And yet most of my boyfriends were the "socially awkward"/geek type. And the one who wasn't sexually abused me pretty much the entirety of our relationship & threatened to kill himself when I broke it off.
    My husband of two years tomorrow wasn't necessarily socially awkward when we met, but he was a total nerd & lots of people thought he was gay (and because we were friends for a whole semester before we started dating many people thought I was just his beard…until he popped the question a year later). So like you I must be an anomaly!

  165. A~ wrote:

    If Ken doesn't mind, I would like to continue providing entertainment on the topic of Manosphere underneath this post ….

    This is Ken's blog, not mine. That said, conversations like this are not what I read Popehat for. There are plenty of other venues for such and with a far higher percentage of interested readers. IMHO such a conversation should go there.

  166. barry says:

    but the general consensus in Manosphere is that amount of women one has slept with tends to correlate with certain traits of a man

    Their sluttiness ? Why not just call it that rather than some pseudo scientific greek scale?

  167. Bill says:

    @~A – thanks for the response and now I get where you're coming from. I think from the hitting on perspective, if the most 'unattractive' woman hit on me, I would respond differently than if she were the hottest woman – but in either case *I* personally find it flattering. I know quite a few guys who get offended by such things,or get crazy if a gay guy hits on them – even if I'm not interested I find it hard to get upset that someone thinks I'm attractive, male, female or any combination thereof. I certainly know woman that are way too sensitive about the subject but I've seen plenty of guys that won't take a hint so I'm pretty sympathetic to their discomfort. Anyway, after reading your response I get where you're coming from – thx man.

  168. ~A says:

    Bill:
    And thanks for explaining where you came from. I agree, and myself often find it flattering to get hit on, but I can assume that what is flattering when done once, will only get annoying quickly if repeated indefinitely, hence the harassment.

    AlphaCentauri/Tali/Kat:
    High-status or Alpha means something else in the context of manosphere. It becomes sort of a catchall term – when talking about women, an Alpha is not someone who rapes them, who flaunts his status to hit on them (such Gaston), not a man who tries to "buy his way into bed", nor a man who gets flustered by rejection (quite the opposite. Most agree that "alpha" is someone who can take a rejection very well). It is a man that does everything *right*, however fallacious it may sound.

    So yes, if a man does something "wrong" and refuses to learn from mistakes, he is not "alpha" or "high-status", as mentioned in Vox's article.
    I guess that is why it is often regarded as the pinnacle of manhood, and as with other abstract ideas, why it is so difficult to pinpoint objectively, with so many different interpretations to fit some sort of agenda. It expands a lot further than just "how to treat women", but I will touch on this in a second.

    I don't know, there's probably people in manosphere who DO think that "Alpha" gets a free pass to do everything and anything without repercussions, but that's really not how life works. When broken down, you could phrase that statement as following:

    "A can do what B can't.
    A is someone who knows what they can do, because he knows why, how and when. B only thinks he knows he can". In this context, it meant "A" will not get sued for harassment, because he knows exactly what to do; how, why, and whether it is welcomed.

    Take it out as something else, if you want.
    "A can cook exquisite dishes that everyone will like, while B will get laughed at when he tries to cook a cheese toast and burn it."

    That was the message I read there, whilst just ignoring any insults or agendas. And by definition, rape is exactly the opposite of doing something another person would welcome, so no, I really don't think that you can "Rape someone and be welcomed for it".

    ..and Tali:
    I guess everyone comes to manosphere for different reasons, and everyone chooses differently in what to take away. Weirdly enough, if you had a chance to look past the surface and what most of the "Pick-up artists" "how to sleep with women" "what to do when x" say, you would find that the underlying message IS pretty much exactly what you mentioned in the second part of your post. I guess simply because a lot of men come to/find manosphere because they have issues with women, it is the most pronounced part of it that acts as a delivery method for the underlying message – something in the form of "The focus should be on you. Become a better man, find your passions, live a fullfilling, interesting life, and the women will come". Think of it as a motivation for the frustration. I suggest looking up "The Book of Pook", it might be an interesting read, where you will find exactly what I mentioned.
    As an experiment, I'd suggest signing up to one of the manosphere forums pretending to be one of the men you rejected, describing the situations you experienced. I'd bet that most of the answers, take away some trolls, would be along the lines of "You're not who you think you are. Improve yourself. The girl clearly rejected you, learn to take a rejection and move on". Ask "what should you buy for a girl on the first date", and you will find that most of the answers will be "Nothing. What, you think you can just buy your way into womans bed?". There's more equality there than you can imagine.

    You don't change someone by saying they're "wrong wrong wrong". You change someone by agreeing with them, and then pointing the ways they can change themselves for better. I guess that is why you can find misogynistic themes behind most of the manosphere, and my words.

    And why it's called after Greek alphabet? Beats me. I mentioned that I don't categorize people as "Alpha/Beta/Omega", however, I guess it serves as a good reference when explaining something rather abstract.

    As closing, my initial argument was not very well thought through. It was not meant to lead to discussion of manosphere, but I guess one of the reasons for starting it was my need to defend manosphere, whereas I failed to see why someone would find statements on Vox blog so offensive and resort to ridicule. It was not my intention to offend anyone, so I apologize if I had done so, and I do realize that this is not a Popehat topic. I have not really discussed this much 'outside' of manosphere, where prevailing opinions would just get validated without any criticism, so this proved me as valuable insight. Whether it was sad, repulsing or disturbing to you, it did help me see some opposing opinions and figure out why manosphere is looked down at so much. I understand that you still may think that I am a scum, delirious or whatever tickles your pickle, and that you are entitled to that opinion. I'll happily leave it at that. Thank you, and I will see if I can find a similar discussion somewhere else, whilst returning to lurking position here.

  169. Anony Mouse says:

    The averages make no sense to me though – from personal observation among other things. Don't PUA's typically talk about Alpha being the top of the chain? If so, how to do categories 'down' the scale get as much or more?

    That's easy. Sigmas get as much because they're Alpha who just don't care. They get all the tail without being haughty jerks. Everyone wants to be a Sigma, but since Sigmas don't give a shit about this nonsense, they are necessarily disqualified.

    As for Lamdas… notice how it's "sexual partners" and not "women"? I'm pretty sure Lamdas are supposed to be gay guys. And since gay dudes are, like, total manwhores who fuck anything and everything, they get 20x the normal number of partners.

  170. Bill says:

    @Anony – Ok, this is my last question as I feel terrible for asking – but look at a guy like Charlie Manson (ignoring his evil nuttiness if possible). Unattractive physically, broke, not into hygiene, yet got a lot of tail. Many rock stars fall into the same category (again, minus the psycho part). I would think Rock Stars would generally be "Alphas" but from this it sounds like most would be Sigmas? I thought Alphaness was determined mostly by genetics but I guess I flunked PUA 101. Sadly I don't have time to D/F repeat the course so I'm just going ot have to take the terrible ding to my GPA

  171. Kat says:

    @A: I can see where you are coming from. But, you do seem to actually geniuinely think differently than many people in the "manosphere" do.

    Contrast this:

    [An Alpha] is a man that does everything *right*, however fallacious it may sound.

    with this:

    I was debating with some women about Anthony Weiner and what he did wrong. As one woman put it, "nothing if he had looked like George Clooney." It's true. Women only revoke consent against lower ranking males.

    Sexual Harrassment laws are literally the attempt to outlaw unattractive males.

    I've heard monogamy described as a deal between Rich men and Poor men (aka Alphas and Betas/Deltas) where the Alphas agree not to monopolize all the women and the Betas/Deltas agree not to stage a revolution and kill the Alphas.

    I'm not trying to gotcha, just trying to point out where I think your point of view differs here from the standard most people in the manosphere hold; the comments I'm quoting are seconded, reinforced, and confirmed by others in the blog comments section as fitting their view of the world. It's not just about being able to read people–if it was, we would not be talking about attractiveness or rich vs. poor.

    Also:

    I have long suspected, without any data backing me up that 90% of all sexual harassment claims are total BS. Mainly because it allows land whales to where form fitting cloths mind raping every male that fails to avert their eyes, yet comments overheard by a third party somehow qualify.

    Overall, it's a pretty good deal, but I suppose the 'losers' end up being Tier 2 women – those attractive enough to have been a concubine or secondary wife to an Alpha, but not quite able to make it into the primary slot. Under polygamy, they share an Alpha, while under monogamy they have a Beta all to themselves. Feral women would prefer sharing an Alpha.

    But there's a caveat to that – they want to share a filthy rich Alpha. In barbarian cultures, the Alphas are indeed filthy rich as they monopolize the women, the money, and the power. Of course their cultures are poor and crapsack, but relative wealth is fine for the average golddigger.

    Our transitional culture is difficult and unsatisfying for these Feral Sevens. They can get the Alphas in their pants alright, but wealth is still reasonably well spread and not very many of those Alphas can financially support a harem and mutliple litters of kids.

    But rational assessments are something only civilized women are capable of. Barbarian wenches, or feral ones, think with their tingles. They do strategically stupid things because they have poor impulse control and that bad boy over there is soooooooo charming…

    With that in mind, I stand by my belief that nearly elite women – uncivilized ones mind you – lose the most in monogamy.

    [ . . . ]

    But monogamy or polygamy, a smoking hot 9/10 will have her Alpha either way.

    It's the mid-range women, 6's and 7's, who lose out with monogamy.

    Monogamy was imposed on women so they couldn't wander off after a roaming alpha without severe consequences.

    I suspect that if I say "I find this type of thinking offensive" you would not try to argue that there is nothing there to take offense at. Talking about women as "whales" who have "litters of kids" like a dog. Saying they're "feral" and that they belong in a "harem." Conflating attractiveness with ability to think rationally and engage in self-control. Comments like this are where women get the idea that people in the manosphere have serious problems with women.

    I'm not interested in having an argument here about that particular topic, I'm just saying that looking at statements like that, which pass completely unchallenged and are even agreed with and called "interesting points," no caveats given for language used, would seem to confirm that the culture of the manosphere supports and encourages problematic thinking.

    Again not interested in arguing whether or not it is indicative of problematic thinking, just pointing out where people like me get the idea that it is.

    . . . Blech. I feel I need a shower after reading through all that.

  172. James Pollock says:

    "I was debating with some women about Anthony Weiner and what he did wrong. As one woman put it, "nothing if he had looked like George Clooney." It's true. Women only revoke consent against lower ranking males."

    I'm struggling to see the objectionable part of this quote, beyond the poor reasoning demonstrated. It is certainly true that more attrractive people (both men and women) get a "free pass" on behaviors and attitudes much more frequently than do their less attractive fellow humans. Taller men are more likely to receive promotions. Pretty girls are less likely to receive traffic tickets. In the criminal justice world, sentences levied upon less-attractive convicts are far more severe.
    Now, it's poor reasoning to extrapolate from a general trend a specific outcome, and to ascribe opinions and traits from a substantial number of people onto the entirety.
    I would tend to argue that we (the public) tend to only hear about incidents where people go over the line. Weiner and Brett Favre got notoriety for dickpics. Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. But we've no idea how often they chatted up women who were not their wives successfully and without objection. I have no trouble imagining that any of these could be a substantial number.
    I think success in this arena is a combination of the physical attractiveness that increases the likelihood of any particular woman being interested, as well as skill in reading women in general to sort out the ones who are interested from the ones who are Not Impressed, and the skill in "managing negotiations". A person does not have to be great at all three to get wtih the ladies, but A) the people who have the most success will be strong in all the required attributes, and B) people who are severely deficient in any of them will see limited success, no matter how strong the others are, and C) people who are deficient in all areas will complain about how Unfair it all is, and they'll be right… it isn't fair (newsflash… life isn't fair). Of course, not one bit of this matters if you find the ONE person you'd be happy to spend the rest of your life with (polyamorous not eligible for this offer. Void where prohibited).

  173. Xenocles says:

    @James-

    There's also the fact that the proposition "any woman will go with a man of high enough status" is unfalsifiable*. Any counter-example could be countered with "She just hasn't met a high enough status man yet." Even rejection of the highest-status man alive isn't enough, since the proponent could simply dream up a theoretical man of enough status. This makes it a hard idea to stamp out.

    *This does not mean true.

  174. AlphaCentauri says:

    There's also the fact that the proposition "any woman will go with a man of high enough status" is unfalsifiable*. Any counter-example could be countered with "She just hasn't met a high enough status man yet." Even rejection of the highest-status man alive isn't enough, since the proponent could simply dream up a theoretical man of enough status. This makes it a hard idea to stamp out.

    Not to mention the fact that this assumes women ultimately do not have any opinion in the matter. They aren't humans; they are females waiting for the right signal to mate. The fact that these women might be committed to men and that they might be unwilling to consider being unfaithful regardless of how attractive, charming, wealthy and powerful someone might be is completely discounted. It's immensely offensive to people who consider marriage (straight or gay) to be a meaningful institution. It's as if "I do" means nothing more than "I'll settle for you until I can get something better."

    No wonder those guys know so little about women; they've probably had very little actual contact with any.

  175. James Pollock says:

    "They aren't humans; they are females waiting for the right signal to mate."
    What's your evidence that these are mutually exclusive?

  176. azteclady says:

    Oh my good lord, James Pollock, you just didn't ask that, did you?

  177. Kat says:

    James, just to be clear, do you disagree with the sentiment that AlphaCentauri is expressing or just the way it was expressed?

  178. Xenocles says:

    If I may answer for James, it seems clear that for all of what we call our higher characteristics like reason and free will, we do share some of the tendencies of our common animal ancestors. The differences are important, but that similarities exist is undeniable. An assessment of humanity that ignores its base animal nature is as doomed as one that considers it exclusively, or one that assigns only the base characteristics to one gender and only the higher ones to the other (as we see from some of the excerpts).

    I make no claims as to what our animal nature contributes to our mating habits or even to what that nature comprises. All I'm saying is that it's there, and that may be what James was getting at.

  179. Kat says:

    @Xenocles: I guess all I'm wondering is if he disagreed with that one small point but generally agreed with AC was saying or if he disagreed with that point and generally disagreed with AC's sentiment at the same time. Since there have been large derails in the past based on just these kinds of misunderstandings, I figured I would ask for clarification. :)

  180. PsychoDan says:

    If a commenter on Vox day is taken as a sample that the blog is , then what can be said about blog that advocates free speech and liberty, with comments such as:

    "although we all have the right to freedom of speech generally – some people really shouldn't exercise their right to free speech."

    The manosphere in general talks a lot about free speech, but it's not the kind of free speech issue that Ken's actually going to be concerned about. With possibly a couple exceptions, they're not talking about being told to take down content under threat of a lawsuit or actually facing legal actions for what they post. When manosphere bloggers/commenters complain about free speech, they are almost always talking about one of two things: Either more speech remedies that are mean to them, or pretty much exactly what Ken did to Cpt Pastetaster, being kicked out of someone's private internet clubhouse for being nasty and/or disruptive. Those are both pretty reasonable reactions to speech you disagree with, and I somehow doubt Ken is going to get up in arms over them.

  181. Bill C says:

    It's tough seeing two bloggers you respect fight. It's tough being a libertarian in the manosphere at times and vice versa. Just so people know the characteristic that most men in the manosphere attribute to women, and which Xenocles hints at, is hypergamy. We believe it is the evolutionary driven psychological trait that causes women to seek men who will provide the best offspring. In a nutshell, Alpha males produce children most likely to be attractive to the opposite sex but because they are attractive will have other opportunities to mate. Beta males will more reliably provide for a family but will have less attractive children. The solution is cuckolding the Beta. The trait in males that corresponds to hypergamy is the male deserve for women who display fertility.

    The end of monogamy has brought out these ancient behaviors. And is responsible for the increase in single parent families and, many of us believe, a decaying culture. Some men chose to fight this. Some men chose to enjoy the decline. I hope this primer was helpful, I will now go back to lurking.

  182. Xenocles says:

    @Bill-

    "…Some men chose to fight this. Some men chose to enjoy the decline…"

    To the extent that this is true – and I don't have an answer there – where you are going wrong in explaining it is in choosing words that imply that men are making a choice but women are just falling into old habits or defaulting to instincts. In my experience it's not so one-sided. We all think with our stomachs – or other applicable organs – from time to time.

    Also, the prefix "hyper" generally connotes an improper excess. I suggest you examine the root cause of that word choice – is there such a thing as "male hypergamy" in that ethos, or is that just guys being guys? Perhaps the lack of etymological parity there, if it exists, might shed some light on why the manosphere folks rub so many people the wrong way.

  183. Bill C says:

    "…where you are going wrong in explaining it is in choosing words that imply that men are making a choice but women are just falling into old habits or defaulting to instincts." Let me be clear. Neither men or women have a choice about their base attractions. Men are attracted to young, fertile women. Women are attracted to confident, virile men. (A little over-simplified in the case of women.) Very few people don't understand this about men but very few understand women's attractions. What the PUA/Game community has done for the world is reveal the previous inscrutable world of female desire. It answers the eternal question, "What do women want?"

    "Also, the prefix "hyper" generally connotes an improper excess." Not in this case. Hypergamy simple means women desire the man with the most Alpha characteristics. Hyper = greater, gamy = marriage.

    "I suggest you examine the root cause of that word choice – is there such a thing as "male hypergamy" in that ethos, or is that just guys being guys?" It is the male attraction to youthful, fertile women. Men and women have different mating priorities because of our roles in reproduction. Science is just starting to uncover the evolutionary psychology of female reproductive strategies.

    I think the manosphere might rub some people the wrong way because western culture has embedded the concept of female purity. That women are loyal and less lustful; victims of male predation. Now we are discovering that women like sex as much as men. That given the opportunity, women will act on their base instincts. The NYTs just had an article about the college hook-up culture that finally looked at women's role in perpetuating the situation. That, in fact, women were the ones driving the change in mating habits of college age adults. All the manosphere did was first point out that women were not the docile creatures of the romantic era and for destroying that pretty, little lie we are called repulsive.

    I think these are ideas worth discussing. Everybody just needs to cool it with the name calling.

  184. James Pollock says:

    "Also, the prefix "hyper" generally connotes an improper excess. I suggest you examine the root cause of that word choice – is there such a thing as "male hypergamy""

    It turns out that hypergamy is a word with a dictionary meaning. It does not mean an "improper excess" of anything, but rather refers to marriage beyond one's social status.
    (I would argue that ithe prefix hyper- typically implies an excess of something in a medical context, as in hypertension and hyperlipidosity, a couple of words I have recently become more acquainted with, but not generally, where it means "over" or "beyond", as in hyperspace or hyperbole.)

  185. PsychoDan says:

    "Also, the prefix "hyper" generally connotes an improper excess." Not in this case. Hypergamy simple means women desire the man with the most Alpha characteristics. Hyper = greater, gamy = marriage.

    This definition is basically meaningless, because 'alpha' has become this vague term you apply to whatever you believe women are attracted to. So your definition boils down to, "women are most attracted to men who are most attractive to women," which of course is a tautology and thus contains no actual information.

    All the manosphere did was first point out that women were not the docile creatures of the romantic era and for destroying that pretty, little lie we are called repulsive.

    The manosphere is hardly the first place that acknowledged that women like sex. The problem is that most of the manosphere thinks this is terrible. And when you talk about 'fighting' a 'declining culture' like you do in your previous comment, you're almost always talking about curtailing women's rights so they can't be so terrible.

  186. Bill C says:

    "This definition is basically meaningless, because 'alpha' has become this vague term you apply to whatever you believe women are attracted to." You are right that Alphaness is vague and that various people have attached different meanings. But it isn't meaningless. To some simple being wealthy and/or famous makes you alpha. In the PUA/Game community alphaness is a personality trait that can be mimicked; which is the purpose of game. The several personality traits most often attached to alphaness are known as the Dark Triad- narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

    "The problem is that most of the manosphere thinks this is terrible." Not really. We think that the break down of the marriage contract is terrible and that marriage is the social glue that keeps societies from returning to polygamy in which a few men monopolize the majority of women. There is plenty of evidence of this in homo sapiens past as well as our closest primate species. Like I said, some men are happy to live in this new state. Others, like me, fear for the future of western society if the nuclear family is destroyed. The future belongs to those who show up and so far we are not showing up. Now don't take this as i think women should live their lives according to what is best for society. I personally believe that the best way to save marriage, and society, is by giving men the same equal treatment within the family that we have given women in the workplace. In case of divorce, shared 50/50 custody should be the default position of family courts. Some of us even believe that men should have reproductive rights; i.e., unmarried men should be able to determine if they want to be a father to a child just as women have the right to chose to be a mother. Not all of the manosphere agrees with these ideas but they are gaining currency.

  187. PsychoDan says:

    I wasn't saying that your definition of 'alpha' was meaningless, though being so vague does make it less useful as a term. I was saying that, as long as you define hypergamy in terms of attraction to alphas, and define alpha in terms of being attractive in any way, your definition of hypergamy is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

    I don't disagree with everything the manosphere talks about. Custody issues certainly aren't perfect the way they are now. But I can't understand, even if those issues are hugely important to you, being able to tune out the nastiness from every single major voice in the manosphere just so you can talk about them.

  188. Xenocles says:

    "Hypergamy simple means women desire the man with the most Alpha characteristics. Hyper = greater, gamy = marriage."

    The problem with "greater" is that there are rarely things that are better with no qualifications. If we say that a Corvette is better than a Civic, we assume that our values are understood. Actually, that statement reveals a lot about your values – you value power and the sports car aesthetic over other things like cost and fuel economy – if this were not true you would prefer the Civic, which is clearly superior in those latter two categories. To find something that is superior in all possible categories is difficult – I hesitate to say impossible, but if you throw in totally subjective categories it may well be.

    So it's hard to say what more attractive means, especially since attractiveness is not constant. The ripped, confident all-state quarterback in high school might wind up as the pudgy balding bag boy at the local grocery store twenty years later. How is a woman supposed to know which is better if she judges by attractiveness alone? We're talking about the same man, and his genes haven't changed. In the mean time, maybe he got married and maybe he married someone who never really loved him but instead loved the bundle of attractive qualities he lost, and as a result she's cheating on him. Or maybe her initial attraction led her to dig deeper and find lovable qualities that have survived his downturn. Or maybe she found those qualities despite not being initially attracted at all. There's more to our bonding decisions than attractiveness; there is also love.

    What's more, the idea that "women" prefer more "alphaness" is demonstrably false unless we define alphaness tautologically. We have seen on this board, and many of know personally, women who are repulsed by many of the primary qualities of the mainline alpha. We know that a certain set of women is attracted to those qualities, because PUAs are generally able to accomplish their goal of inducing a woman to desire sex with them. (We can infer this by the fact that the community is growing and that they keep using their general strategies.) But there's a difference between playing the odds to attract "a" woman and attracting a particular woman. We have seen enough from experience that even if all women find all the same things attractive (unlikely, if for no other reason that men don't find all the same things attractive) they weight those qualities with a wide variety of coefficients.

    So I suppose the problem I have with both sides of this discussion is that they oversimplify it. One side overemphasizes the Darwinian pressures on each individual and the other almost denies them. They exist. They provide real and sometimes dominant input into our decision making process. But they aren't the last word.

  189. Bill C says:

    "But I can't understand, even if those issues are hugely important to you, being able to tune out the nastiness from every single major voice in the manosphere just so you can talk about them."

    The manosphere has been around for maybe 15 years, the vast majority of the writers/bloggers have only started in the past 5 years. As such, we are a very young, decentralized movement. There is a lot of anger and, I think, much of it is justified. You might not think so but you might not have the experience of family court or being falsely accused of harassment or rape. I read about how our government has overstepped its constitutional role on this blog all the time and it makes me angry. If someone I know had been the victim of overzealous policing I might be even more angry. Don't dismiss our ideas because there is some heat behind them. Every movement tends to move towards its extremes if not guided away by calmer members. Looked at what feminism has become. I would hope that you could find something within men's rights to support. There is a wonderful website called Fathers and Families that advocates for Father's rights. Go check them out.

  190. Bill C says:

    "The problem with "greater" is that there are rarely things that are better with no qualifications." Think of it in terms of how a woman would chose the best father for her children. They don't have it easy. As i said before, they want attractive, confident kids but those potential fathers have lots of options and women need(ed) help raising kids. Women have it tough. They have to determine a lot more about men than we have to determine about them. You really can't tell if someone is smart by looking at them, for example. Here is a small list of things that go into the female mate choice decision engine:
    Tall>short
    Fit>fat
    Smart>stupid
    Wealthy>poor
    Healthy>sick
    Charismatic>dull.

    So what happens when a woman has a choice between a dull, rich, balding guy and a witty, poor, athlete? Tough one. I don't envy them. (The Eagles wrote a song about this choice and how it tore up a girl.)

    "So it's hard to say what more attractive means, especially since attractiveness is not constant." You are right about that. Here is the rub. Women's attractiveness decreases with age, men's tends to increase. A various points over the course of a marriage both partners will be more or less attractive to the other. What marriage used to do is make divorce costly for the person leaving the marriage. That has changed. I think it is a shame.

    "We have seen on this board, and many of know personally, women who are repulsed by many of the primary qualities of the mainline alpha." I don't take a few comments to be worthy of making generalizations. For one thing, women often do not even realize what turns them on. In fact, women's sexuality is much more complex than men's. http://www.salon.com/2013/06/02/the_truth_about_female_desire_its_base_animalistic_and_ravenous/

  191. Xenocles says:

    "Think of it in terms of how a woman would chose the best father for her children. "

    You're back to giving too much weight to Darwin. We are the products of our genes, but we are not our genes. Selection of a father is in the genes' "interest" (if we can anthropomorphize them), and our decision hardware is set up to serve those interests. But there are also other thoughts going on in people's heads alongside those instincts. It's also possible to rationalize all of those thoughts via a retroactively created Darwinian explanation. That it makes sense doesn't mean that explanation is correct any more than it was correct that the sun orbits the earth despite that making sense. It is critical to avoid the hammer problem when applying this awesome idea of natural selection. Like I said, it's a very complicated system with lots of factors in play and some of them fluctuating from day to day.

    "For one thing, women often do not even realize what turns them on."

    People are very good at fooling themselves. People can fool themselves into thinking they have some socially acceptable reason for what they do, and people can fool themselves into forcing a small sample set into a crude best-fit line. We love sorting and homogenizing. But while those processes make for a handy way of dealing with our localities most of the time, they do not help us if our goal is to find the truth. So all of this is to say that no, women do not likely know what turns them on. But neither do men. It's likely the best people can do is correlate "I'm turned on" with "Here's what I can sense about this person who is turning me on." Likewise a person might be able to correlate "I seem to have turned that person on" with "Here's what I think she can sense about me." In either situation we have interference: the person feeling turned on can't be sure whether her reasons are rationalizations or if she is even perceiving them all; the object of her attraction can only guess why he's attractive, and his guesses are subject to personal bias.

  192. James Pollock says:

    "women do not likely know what turns them on. But neither do men."

    Without laboring THAT point, the trick is not "how can I personally turn on at will all of the women I'm interested in", as this is a difficult, if not impossible challenge, even in a sample size of 1. The exact same man likely does things that turn on and alternately turn off several times during the day. The "trick" is actually a combination of "how do I recognize on it if she is turned on" and "how can I use this recognition to my advantage". Being able to read both the subtle and the not-quite-as-subtle cues is the skill which allows some menfolk to "get away with" stuff that some other menfolk cannot. Yes, being tall, good-looking, wealthy and charming will all help, but timing trumps all of those.

  193. Bill C says:

    I don't know if you read the article I linked. You should, it's fascinating. I don't want to keep going over old material, I think I have made my points. If you have alternative theories please add them. There is one thing you said that I disagree with completely.

    "So all of this is to say that no, women do not likely know what turns them on. But neither do men." All men are visually oriented and heterosexual men have very similar ideas about female beauty across cultures. We like pretty much the same thing. Certain ratios keep appearing. 0.7 hips to waste. Distance between eyes. Distance between eyes and lips. Google the beauty ratio. Men know this and women know this. That is the advantage they have. They know how to push our buttons. Game is just learning about how to push women's buttons. IMHO, there is nothing immoral about that.

  194. azteclady says:

    Bill C

    What the PUA/Game community has done for the world is reveal the previous inscrutable world of female desire. It answers the eternal question, "What do women want?"

    a) because all women are the same, of course
    and
    b) because you discover what women want without asking them directly.

    Makes all the sense in the world
    /sarcasm

  195. James Pollock says:

    "All men are visually oriented"
    No, they're not. Most obviously, some of them are blind.

    "heterosexual men have very similar ideas about female beauty across cultures. We like pretty much the same thing."
    I believe Sir Mix-a-lot sold quite a few records espousing a substantially different theory on this subject.

    "IMHO, there is nothing immoral about that."
    Hmmm. That's a subject ripe for exploring. On the one hand, there is a multi-billion-dollar industry targeting women's desires to appear "beautiful" via cosmetics, another one that offers surgical solutions, and yet another that offers garments that alter the shape of the underlying body. All of these are complicit in the attempts by women to present themselves to men as something they are not. To the extent that you find deception to be "immoral", these would seem to qualify. So the claim that the PUA crowd are just being equally deceptive in portraying themselves as something they are not has a distinct flavor of "they did it first!" or "other people are doing it, too!", neither of which, as anyone who had a mother when they were approximately ten years of age should have learned, is an excuse for wrongdoing.
    Using deception to get what you want is fraud. The fact that it's rampant amongst nearly all parties in the marketplace doesn't make it less wrong.

  196. princessartemis says:

    @Bill C, haven't been following the convo, just noticed the link you dropped. I had read it recently and thought it was pretty interesting. Most of it was just reiterating things I've known for decades though. Basically, that this society is so wrapped up in the idea of Male = Aggressor that anything to the contrary, including scientific evidence, so blows the mind that it is ignored.

  197. Kat says:

    women often do not even realize what turns them on.

    The problem with this kind of thinking is that if we assume that it is true, we must also assume that honest communication in a sexual relationship is often impossible–that is to say, impossible in the case where a woman does not know what turns her on, which is "often." You can't communicate a fact that you don't know.

    Which is what makes it a creepy assumption.

    Not to get TMI here–if you're offended or grossed out by frank talk about sex, then you probably don't want to read the rest of my comment. Chance to leave is now. Going once, going twice. Anyway, moving on.

    The best sexual encounters I've had have come with my honestly communicating things I want to try to my partner. And what I want out of sex is not the same from day to day. There are some days where I want a rough encounter and some days where I want to take it slow and spend some time in bed for a while.

    So, let's say I'm having sex with someone who has this idea in his head that in order to be a good lover he absolutely must ravish me because women want that. He says, "I'm going to ravish you" because he thinks I'll find that hot, I say, "I'd rather not, really. Can we take it slow?" Maybe I'm just nervous right now, or maybe I'm not in the mood for that kind of sex today.

    He has three choices at this point. He can decide I'm wrong and that I'll change my mind after he shows me the way, and go on doing what he was planning to do; he can trust me to know what I want and that I will communicate that fact honestly, and go forward on what my stated preferences are; or he can seek clarification, which will lead back to choices one and two. IMO, he should pick #2 or pick #3 and then go to #2.

    The usual objection to this line of thinking is "what about women who play hard to get? Some women" (or even a large number of women) "do that!" Louis C. K. has a great joke that explains why relying on this is a bad idea:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

    Women who play hard to get and don't communicate their desires are not doing the right thing. I agree with that. Again, there are three main options: you can ask for clarification, you can decide that what she's communicating is wrong and go forward on what you think is on her mind (bearing in mind the risk that you could be wrong and that could lead to a bad situation), or you can decide that you will trust her to communicate honestly with you and do what she requests.

    If you decide that women often just don't know their own minds, then you've decided that the things they communicate about what they want are often non-trustworthy/potentially suspect and that sexual encounters should be approached with this possibility in mind.

    That is creepy and could very easily lead to a bad situation. An example of this is here, which may be upsetting for some people to read (so be warned): http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1h1o62/i_am_ken_hoinsky_ive_been_accused_of_promoting/capyph6

  198. Bill C says:

    No. Some of them are blind.

    I did not say that I find the little lies of attempted attraction performed by men and women immoral. I said the opposite. It is part of the great game between the sexes. Flirting is fun. Make up, push up bras, learned lines, practiced posters, it's all the same to me. A part of courtship. Just remember, women set the rules when it comes to behavior.

  199. Bill C says:

    Well that is the last time I attempt to use tags.

    "Basically, that this society is so wrapped up in the idea of Male = Aggressor that anything to the contrary, including scientific evidence, so blows the mind that it is ignored." Isn't it insulting to think of women as passive. If anything women are masters at pulling our strings. The get what they want with such subtlety that you have to admire the ability.

  200. Kat says:

    So women can be aggressive but only in a stereotypically conniving/manipulative kind of way?

    And they always get their way, calling the shots and setting the rules in relationships with men, leaving the men helpless in the face of their superior powers?

    Awesome! Wait until I tell my husband that I don't have to ask him for input or clearly communicate my desires! I'm sure this will be great for our marriage.

  201. Xenocles says:

    "The problem with this kind of thinking is that if we assume that it is true, we must also assume that honest communication in a sexual relationship is often impossible–that is to say, impossible in the case where a woman does not know what turns her on, which is "often." You can't communicate a fact that you don't know."

    Honest communication is possible if the person communicating believes he is being truthful, but it is possible to be honestly wrong. We often mislead ourselves by rationalizing after the fact the choices we make. My contention is that attraction, while perhaps not an explicit choice, is in that class of feelings subject to rationalizations. (You didn't miss the part where I said it was a human condition and not a female one, right?) If the knowledge is even possible, it surely requires a lot of deep introspection – and how many people do you think actually take the time and effort? I don't think I'm even there yet.

    You may be right about what you think attracts you, but you may be picking an attribute that is present when you are attracted but is not the actual attractor. You may understand what attracts you but are aware that it's socially unacceptable so you deceive yourself so well that you aren't even lying when you deny it later.

    We see this in focus groups all the time. A focus group might unanimously agree that they want to buy a product, but if you offer to sell them one on the spot they could just as easily unanimously decline.
    The best indicator of attractiveness is the ability to actually close. Unfortunately, all that really gets us for sure is the statement that attractive people are attractive. We can identify traits in the successful group and see which ones are the most common, but all that gets us is an odds table. If you want to pick a person to attract at random this can help, but if you have a specific individual in mind you may as well cast a horoscope because guessing the wrong approach could easily backfire and make it impossible to subsequently attract the person.

    "Which is what makes it a creepy assumption."

    Creepy is a word with so many meanings these days that I can't comment except to say that insofar as this is true your problem is with reality, not with me. I really don't see what's so bad about admitting that there are limits to knowledge. I don't like the idea, but nature never made me any promises.

  202. James Pollock says:

    "The problem with this kind of thinking is that if we assume that it is true, we must also assume that honest communication in a sexual relationship is often impossible–that is to say, impossible in the case where a woman does not know what turns her on, which is "often." You can't communicate a fact that you don't know."

    You've badly confused two different things. 1) there are things that are unknown and 2) and they must forever remain unknown. Assuming the first does not imply anything at all about the second.
    I would argue that intimacy allows proper examination of the self as well as of the other, in all human communication, and not just the sexual ones.
    If you insist on categorizing, I would say that for any person, there are things that they know turn them on, things that they know turn them off, and a whole bunch of things which do neither… and some things they don't know about. (Of course, the whole thing is a system in motion, not a static structure… but have you NEVER been surprised to learn that something turns you on? Can you prepare a list of everything that turns you on and be certain that you've left nothing off the list?)

    I only have extensive research data on only one subject, but STILL feel comfortable extrapolating to the general case… people don't know exactly what turns them on (and off) We go through life exploring and learning. The fact that we cannot communicate what we do not know (yet?) doesn't mean that we cannot communicate the part that we do.

    Need evidence? Look at the people who do not realize that they are gay until they reach midlife. Many of them had functional marriages prior.

    "If you decide that women often just don't know their own minds, then you've decided that the things they communicate about what they want are often non-trustworthy/potentially suspect and that sexual encounters should be approached with this possibility in mind."

    I think that people often don't fully understand their own motivations. But this isn't a binary option (people either know all of their motivations or they know none of them) but rather an analog one. As for whether or not communications are trustworthy or not, this is easily handled with a process called "feedback", wherein the receiver verifies the message received.
    To show this process in action in a totally gender-bias-free context, look at how computer operating systems handle potentially damaging commands from the user (such as, for example, attempting to delete all the files in a directory). Microsoft operating systems will ask "are you sure?" before it actually deletes any files, because sometimes people issue this command mistakenly and it isn't sure that you really WANT to delete all those files. Unix variants, on the other hand, always assume that the user knows what they want, and typed in the command they wanted correctly, so if you say to delete all the files, it deletes all the files. In this case, the Unix OSes always trust the user to type in the exact command that they want executed, while the Microsoft OS assumes that people do NOT always type in the exact command they want executed, so it provides feedback when the command you enter is particularly dangerous. I'm with Reagan on this one… trust, but verify.

    So… to sum up.
    If you tell me what you like and what you don't like, I won't assume that either list is fixed in stone, and I won't assume that either list is exhaustive. Which of these failures to assume is the creepy one?

    The real problem, I think, is an assumption that *I* know what you like better than *you* do. But that assumption does not inherently follow from assuming "women often do not even realize what turns them on." (which I would generalize to "people" rather than "women".)

  203. James Pollock says:

    "I did not say that I find the little lies of attempted attraction performed by men and women immoral. I said the opposite."
    Yeah, I can read. I disagreed with you.
    I posited that it would depend on whether you think using deception to get what you want is "immoral" or not. I think it is, and you think it is not.

    My real objection isn't one of morality, though, but one of endgame. What's the point of attracting someone who isn't attracted to what you are, but rather to what you pretend to be?

  204. princessartemis says:

    Isn't it insulting to think of women as passive. If anything women are masters at pulling our strings. The get what they want with such subtlety that you have to admire the ability.

    It is insulting. It is also horrible to women having to live in a culture where the only outlet for our natural aggressiveness is in the form of manipulation, because anything else would just be unacceptable and beyond the pale. If many women are master string-pullers, it's because they have been denied the chance to be anything more overt by a society which is pathologically incapable of dealing with the idea that Male Does Not Always = Aggressor. That this is the best thing you can come up with for an example of non-passive women just shows how incredible is that cultural blindness.

    Now go out and find the women who are actually aggressive. You'll find some. Remember, the US does not have a monopoly on dating.

  205. AlphaCentauri says:

    I'm not claiming that no women will be seduced by a man who is attractive to them. But I completely disagree with the claim that if a man is "alpha" enough, all women will accept sexual assault and like it … that he "can't" sexually harass women.

    A large number of women value the ability to be monogamous over any superficial qualities like physical appearance, money, or power. They find flirtaceous men to be amusing, but they have no interest in actually having sex with them. And a man who is sexually aggressive with a woman who isn't interested will come off as truly repulsive.

  206. Kat says:

    @James I suspect you're right to at least some extent; I should have been clearer. I have no problem with suspecting that one's sexual partner could have his/her horizons broadened. What I have a problem with is deciding that this is the case and then, with no communication, engaging in covert behaviors designed to get around boundaries (e.g. negging, freezouts). Since pickup culture by definition involves two people who do not know each other, there needs to be communication and honesty; but "the game" seems to discourage the notion of trying to understand one's partner's mind before charging ahead. The amount of pushback I see to the sentiment of being certain of consent before moving ahead is disturbing to me.

  207. James Pollock says:

    "The amount of pushback I see to the sentiment of being certain of consent before moving ahead is disturbing to me."

    I think you're seeing pushback to what constitutes "certain" and what constitutes "consent" rather than on the desired combination of them.

    In other words, dithering over just how certain you are is likely to be perceived as weakness and therefore defeats the point of putting up a strong front, combined with the idea that anything short of "get the hell off me, dammit!" means "maybe".

    I see some valid pushback, in the sense that fully eliminating ambiguity produces side effects; obtaining explicit consent before every (potentially) sexual touch is a bit of a mood killer.

    I think there will continue to be problems for as long as the levels of sexual response in human beings remain highly variable. (By which I mean, some people are white hot supernovae and some are liquid nitrogen, and every level in between, and rules that work for one probably don't work for the other, so it doesn't matter which level you choose; someone is not served well by the rules and will chafe.)

  208. James Pollock says:

    ""the game" seems to discourage the notion of trying to understand one's partner's mind before charging ahead."

    I don't think this is the case, though I certainly haven't made a thorough review of the field, or even a survey, but I thought the idea was to use a superior knowledge (the "secret insider knowledge" to be shared by the masters for a low, low introductory price) of one's partner's mind.
    In this model, it would be similar to the way a mentalist reads subconscious cues from the subject to learn information the subject isn't aware of sharing and didn't intend to share, along with other tricks to guide thinking (mentalists call it "forcing", which is unfortunate terminology in this context.)

    It seems, though, that you've spent more time researching the topic than I have. Isn't the genre mostly "this is how to appear to be what women want", i.e., marketing?

  209. James Pollock says:

    "It is also horrible to women having to live in a culture where the only outlet for our natural aggressiveness is in the form of manipulation, because anything else would just be unacceptable and beyond the pale."
    Unacceptable to who, exactly?

  210. Bill C says:

    Kat wrote, "So women can be aggressive but only in a stereotypically conniving/manipulative kind of way?"

    No, but that is the way they tend to be.

    AC wrote, "A large number of women value the ability to be monogamous over any superficial qualities like physical appearance, money, or power. They find flirtaceous men to be amusing, but they have no interest in actually having sex with them. And a man who is sexually aggressive with a woman who isn't interested will come off as truly repulsive." Women's mating selection does tend to change as they age. That is one complaint of the manosphere. Us beta providers were not good enough for them in their 20s when they chased bad boys so now you expect us to marry you in your 30s?

  211. grouch says:

    So, the "manosphere" is this imaginary cave where the inhabitants arrogantly believe they invented sex, and invent lots of noise to rationalize this belief?

    Guess I should go tell my wife of 40 years that we been doin' it wrong.

  212. Kat says:

    @Bill: It's evident to me at least that you resent the feeling that you have that you have to wait until women start thinking you're attractive later on in life to get married. ("Us beta providers were not good enough for them in their 20s when they chased bad boys so now you expect us to marry you in your 30s?" In other words, women expect betas, who you identify as, to wait around–you say "now you expect us to marry you[?]" which indicates a tone of indignation or an implication of unacceptability.)

    Maybe think about the possibility of the cause not being your supposed "betaness" but rather the repulsiveness of this assumption being put on display for those women that you date. I married a "beta" (by the definitions I could find: someone who didn't have money, didn't have status, was attractive but not super "omg Brad Pitt" attractive) before I was 20, and I would never want to date someone who had this kind of attitude or touch them with a 10-foot pole. I would not even want to be friends with them. It is that unpleasant of a belief.

    @James:

    It seems, though, that you've spent more time researching the topic than I have. Isn't the genre mostly "this is how to appear to be what women want", i.e., marketing?

    This is going to be something that is going to take some time to put together, so I wanted to comment here and let you know that I'm working on it and will post later.

  213. James Pollock says:

    "This is going to be something that is going to take some time to put together"
    Never mind. It's almost definitely not worth the effort.

  214. Bill C says:

    "It's evident to me at least that you resent the feeling that you have that you have to wait until women start thinking you're attractive later on in life to get married." To be honest, I really wish I had understood the nature of women instead of buying into the sugar and spice BS. Like many men, I thought women wanted nice guys who treated them well and when i was in a relationship that was going south i turned on the nice and it drove away several women. I didn't learn this stuff until I was in my mid-30s. Better late than never.

    "I married a "beta" (by the definitions I could find: someone who didn't have money, didn't have status, was attractive but not super "omg Brad Pitt" attractive) before I was 20, and I would never want to date someone who had this kind of attitude or touch them with a 10-foot pole." The PUA community believes that the happiness people have in their relationship is related to how closely they rank in terms of looks, personality, income, social status. Women want a man who is a little smarter than them. Men want a woman who is better looking than them. You see this often in society. Younger women married to wealthier, accomplished men make for a happy couple. Each sex emphasizes different traits.

  215. James Pollock says:

    "Men want a woman who is better looking than them."
    The alternative version of this is that men are looking for someone about the same attractiveness as they are, but delude themselves about their own desirability.

    If you look at a broad enough sample size, successful couples of significantly mis-matched (objective) attractiveness are unusual; approximately equal attractiveness is the norm. Where a spouse is highly attractive (of either gender), they may be more likely to cheat not because of any innate character trait but simply because they have more opportunities to cheat. (Ref. Popular songs "If you wanna be happy"/Jimmy Soul and "When you're in love with a beautiful woman"/Dr. Hook)

  1. August 4, 2013

    […] Here, Ken White responds to an accusation from Vox that he is a bully of other, slightly less creepy men and a "white-knighting gamma." In this context, gamma is one of the letter designations used by "game" bloggers to shoehorn men (and, rarely, women) into fixed categories dictating their sexual attractiveness. To these bloggers, anyone below an alpha, or more charitably, anyone below a greater beta, is a loser who will never bed a woman unless she has run out of options and is forced to grudgingly settle for a member of the supplicating dregs of manhood. It's a crude, paranoid worldview, and one that, judging from comment traffic on these blogs, is disturbingly resonant for a lot of people. It's a nice pat explanation for why they're losing out sexually, although the viciousness and crudity of the prevailing jargon on these sites can't help socialize these guys to the point that women will start finding them attractive. Actually, I know for a fact that it is pernicious: one of the people I follow on Facebook is a dweeb who routinely alienates others by using the same kind of language because he finds it amusing and is too clueless and puffed-up to know when to hold his damn peace. […]