Monthly Archives: April 2013

Pleasures of the Flesh

I’ve been noting in my Lightning Rounds that a few experienced players have been reaching the end of their run on the hedonic treadmill and are finding the whole experience unfulfilling. Last week, I wrote of how neither hedonism nor meaningless LTR’s will leave a man fulfilled. Now it seems Frost is suffering from player burn-out as well.

Except for a few men, playerdom will never be fulfilling in the end. Shallow pleasure does not bring contentment, only momentary happiness. Meaningless sex is simply the same effect as drugs, except one step removed (or more accurately, drugs are simply artificial inducements of effects similar to that which meaningless sex will bring). As with drugs, it will not satisfy, but it will become increasingly consuming as it becomes increasingly less pleasurable.

You will have sex, feel pleasure, then have but feel slightly less pleasure, and each time you will require more sex, more kinkiness, hotter women, and yet still feel slightly less pleasure each time. Meanwhile, you never feel the contentment you seek. The hedonic treadmill continues to roll until you either die or get off.

So, why not just ride for a while and get off at the right time?

The treadmill takes its toll even after you get off. Just as a carousel rider suffers as an alpha widow, so to does the ex-player suffer from the player’s curse.

A man who limits himself to one sexual partner has, by definition, the best sexual partner of his life with whom he is having the best sex of his life. The player, not so much. Any long-term relationship he may try will always be haunted by the ghosts of better sex and more beautiful partners of time past. The more partners he had prior, the more likely and stronger the hauntings.

There is no purpose to be found in hedonism, only emptiness.

I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:7-11, ESV)

Other men go make a different, but no less mistaken, extreme. Rather than pursuing meaningless sex from multiple women, they pursue meaning in a single woman. They find their identity and purpose in loving and serving another fallen person. This is as almost as empty as the meaningless sex, and will leave a man almost as hollow in the end. How is her value more than your own?

A man’s purpose of life can not be found in women or a singular woman.

If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life’s good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he. Even though he should live a thousand years twice over, yet enjoy no good—do not all go to the one place? (Ecclesiastes 6:3-6, ESV)

So, where can purpose be in life be found?

For this, we can turn to Genesis:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This is the first commandment; this is for what God made man.

Man’s purpose is to be found in filling and subduing the earth. Work was what man was created and/or evolved for. Man is meant to tame the land and to build from that which he needs and desires and to fill his tamed land with his own.

Man’s purpose is in building something greater than himself and then to create future generations to enjoy it.

Yet, there is a problem:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19, ESV)

I have read this verse many times in my life, but only recently did I realize the full measure of agony contained within these words.

It is only in his work that man can find meaning, yet rather than something pleasurable, work is something difficult, bitter, and wearying.

How bitter this cup, that man’s purpose is to toil, yet his toil is naught but pain to him. To his even greater agony, when his toil is through and he surveys the work gained by through the sweat of his brow, he always knows that from dust it came and to dust it will return.

To find purpose, a man must always be working, always in bitter toil, yet know that all his work will eventually crumble in ruin.

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 2:18-23, ESV)

What is a man to do when all is vanity? How can man continue on, when all about his is rust and decay

Here is all for man to do:

Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.

Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, ESV)

A man accepts that life is vanity; he accepts that life is toil, but he continues. He finds what joy he can, knowing joy is illusionary, while working to build, knowing that his works will fade and decay.

A man’s purpose is to continue to build and enjoy the fruits of his labour even when he can not find meaning in the building or its fruits.

The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.

Lightning Round – 2013/04/24

Remember the fundamentals.
Related: The basic goal should be the self-improvement of the comprehensive man.

A new blog’s come to my attention: Vigilante R. He seems to be more in the Reactionary camp than the manosphere proper and has embarked on a reading project, which I support. As with many of us, he’s asking what is to be done?

Black Knighting.

The red pill quiz. I scored a 7; I’m a nihilistic, reactionary, Christian, it seems.

The pain of watching the dream die.
Related: Ian with a look at the future.
Related: The end of paternal investment.
Related: For men, it gets better.
Related: Danny pulls out some good comments by deti.
Related: The original thread.

Probably my favourite Mentu piece, reposted.

Judge harshly.
Related: Reasons to marry a non-virgin.

Men are not victims.

Christian’s perverted view of marriage.
Related: “Christians” arguing for the morality of fornication. How the church has fallen.

The “good man store” does not exist.

Feminist realizes the reality of “women’s rights”, but only when it affects her.

The evolution of game.
Related: This made me chuckle.

Have sex.

Edward Thatch hits the end of the hedonic treadmill.
Related: Do not chase happiness.

Seems Matt Forney was Ferd. I didn’t know; it never even occurred to me to try to guess if Ferd had a new site. Not too surprising though.

Civil war among the rabbits.

White men are scary. With interesting comments.
Related: Gun control is male control.
Related: Woman want to disarm America.

Let’s face it, if you found yourself living amongst the sort of moronic liberal pseudo-intellectuals that live in Cambridge, MA, you’d probably be more than a little tempted to turn indiscriminately homicidal too.”
Related: “Empathy without preference is psychopathy.”
Related: A bomb goes off in Boston and shows why America needs men.
Related: Let’s hope the Boston bomber is white.

The difference between love and supplication.

“The era when you could just show up to church for your weekly dose of sacraments and a sermon, then return to your ordinary, humdrum life of basic virtue and decency is over. Cultural Marxism has declared all-out war on basic virtue and decency, and it is winning.”

Neoreaction for dummies.

Praise is not pay. As for why I do it, it’s a combination of #1 & 3. As well, it gives me a place to rant and a place to think out loud: I found I was wasting time commenting elsewhere to no avail; I actually spend less time on the blog, while having more coherent and effective thoughts.

It rapes a village to take a child.

“The psychology of the looter and that of the hard core Leftist, the sort who were eager to dance on Mrs Thatcher’s grave, both share this common point: To them wealth is not created, it simply exists and should therefore be shared out. “

Orwell vs. Huxley.
Related: Chris pulls some good comments.

The myopia of the leftist.

Destroying the moderate middle.

Two perfect pictures of the zeitgeist.

Women converting to radical Islam at an alarming rate. Yet modern churches should water down the message to bring converts.

Rejoice in their tears.
Related: Keeping guns from “crazy” people. Who decides who’s crazy?
Related: Leftists explains the idiocy of gun control to other leftists.
Related: Good for them.

I’m beginning to like this minister.
Related: Should a Christian man be single or get married?

Where’s the feminist self-improvement counterpart?
Related: The uglification of modern women.
Related: Feminist commenters are fun.

Why you never attempt to appease the feminists.

Seems China has similar marriage market problems to us.

Divorce math.

Women with elite educations drop out of the workforce at high rates.
Related: The end of women.
Related: Agree and amplify: in labour market policy.
Related: Bring more women in to STEM by dumbing it down.

The double-standard of sexual harassment.

Why Tolstoy rejected the church.

Jesus loves you; God, probably not so much.

Denmark may reduce their welfare state.

White dudes need not apply. I was going to write on this but EW did first, so I won’t.
Related: University discrimination against males and cover-up.

I revel in showing my son that I could have slaughtered him before birth.
Related: Generation Death.

On Gosnell and the banality of evil.

Remembering through visualization.

Canadian politics are like high school.

Good news on the climate front.

This is what a feminist looks like. I survived 5 minutes, how about you:

(H/T: Althouse, Borepatch, SDA, the Captain, Patriactionary, Frost, Foseti, Instapundit)

A Leap Forward

I’ve been occasionally approaching when conditions are right over time, but today I probably pulled the most alpha approach I ever have, and I felt like sharing with somebody who wasn’t there, so here it is. The experienced alphas may not find it all that impressive, but for a former omega like me, this is amazing.

Anyhow, I was out for coffee with a friend and we were discussing my life mission and my general apathy. We were discussing how I should start to ‘just do it’ to meet girls so I can find my wife. He told me to overcome my apathy. So I hesitated, took a drink, hesitated, took a drink, then I overcome my apathy.

There were a few girls sitting together nearby, one of whom was really cute. Earlier I had overheard them talk about something related to church, so I moved.

I walked over cool as ice and just sat down with them. After sitting, began with absolute self-confidence, “Hi, I’m Free Northerner. What’re your names?”

Firm handshakes and each introduces themselves to me.

“I think you’re cute and wanted to meet you.”

Girl: “Thank you.” [smiles].

Girl’s friend: “She gets that a lot. She’s always telling us how she’s always cute, never hot.

“That’s good. Cute’s better than hot. Take it from me.”

“I overheard you discussing [denomination]? Are you a Christian?”

Friend: “You heard that. I could tell; I keep track of things like that.

“Sound tends to travel in this place.”

Girl: “Yes. I go to [church].”

Friend: “Where do you go?


Friend: “Where’s that?

“Near [school].”

“Can I get your phone number?” Take out phone; hand it to her.

Sure.” She puts it in phone. “Your phone’s old I got it wrong and put it in twice. I can’t find the back button.”

Take phone. “Yeah, I I don’t really keep up on phone technology. Your number was ####? You name was [girl], right?”

Yeah.” Finish adding number.

“I’m phoning you. Now you have my number.”

She checks phone. [Not a fake #.]

“I’ll phone you in a while and set up coffee. Good to meet y’all.”

Handshakes to all. Girl occasionally giggling and smiling throughout. Walk back to my friend. Get on jacket, leave shop. Friend is amazed at how alpha I was.

There was a bit more to it, and she talked a bit more, but that’s the jist of it.

About 5 minutes from start to finish. All done the half-smirk/half-smile I often wear; full-tilt, absolute confidence. No hesitation, no stumbling, no hemming and hawing; straightforward and to the point. Controlled the conversation, controlled the frame, never veered off. Direct game, no manipulative BS.

I feel alpha.

Go Big or Go Home

In my last post, I gave my thoughts on long-term relationships and came down against them. I started writing the piece last week, then left it for a few days, and because of this it became somewhat disorganized, and I couldn’t get it quite right before I posted it. Since posting and reading some of the responses, I realized that this was because I was only writing about the end conclusions of my reflections, while glossing over the premises.

So, I’m going to expand a bit on the post here. The purpose of the post was not to dismiss long-term relationships, in and of themselves. It was to dismiss purposelessness and mediocrity in relationships, which are exemplified by the trends of increased shacking-up and LTR’s.

I’ve noted on here before that a man should have a mission to live for (vaguely hypocritical, in that I am kinda lacking a mission myself, but this blog is somewhat aspirational). Relationships with women should be an augmentation in your life to best help you reach your purpose in life.

Therefore, when pursuing relationships, you should have a clear goal of what you want out of the relationship and how it will help you achieve your mission. Plan out what you want.

If your goal is a family and a committed relationship, then find the right girl, seal the deal, and get married. Do it purposefully; do it right. Don’t fall into a long-term relationship half accidently, then move in together and/or get married after a few years because that’s how things go. Plan it out.

If your goal is hedonism and avoiding commitment, do it right; be a player, start gaming, and have the wildest ride you can. Don’t limit your hedonism to a “safe”, mediocre LTR.

My problem with LTR’s is that they are not succeeding at serving any particular mission all that well. It is a mediocre half-solution that seems to simply try to fill a gap in life without any particular greater purpose behind it.

Essentially go big or go home.


Smoothreentry also commented on this piece.

I would accept most of his qualifications, with the following caveats.

He is right that the sex for the PUA is not about fulfillment, it’s about hedonism; pleasure. It will often leave a man unfulfilled, as anybody who’s been reading Roosh these last few months can easily see for themselves. It looks like he’s about to try something new, but I doubt he will find the fulfilment he seeks in this new plan.

For fulfillment though, the LTR would not be an answer either. It may feel somewhat more fulfilling in the moment, but tt builds nothing of long-term value. Only the stability of a marriage provides the leverage necessary to build a meaningful home and family. A meaningful life can be built outside of sexual relationships, but in that case it will be apart from sexual relationships, which will be a distraction or at best a simple sideshow.

In today’s modern sexual marketplace, the LTR as a transitional phase towards that of wife is almost always necessary. It should not be the end goal though. As well, it should be carefully watched that these transitions do not “just happen”. You should be transitioning purposefully with a plan. If you start walking without a map you may find yourself in a place you don’t want to be and don’t know how to leave.

Sarah’s Daughter asked:

I understand you’re saying (as a Christian) you aren’t advocating for one situation or another. I wonder, however, if you would agree that it is equivalent to an analysis on which abortion clinic/procedure is the most appropriate for the non Christian.

It would be equivalent to saying that an abortion by a doctor would be less painful than doing it yourself with a vacuum cleaner. Which I would not hesitate to say, as it is simple reasoned conclusion that does nothing to further an abortion.

I would avoid, say, actively researching which clinics were the best price, or what doctor had the best bedside manner, as these are all actively helping further someone along the path to an abortion. In the same vein, I wouldn’t actively give out tips on which club was the best to find easy chicks or who’s the best value hooker in the area, as these are actively furthering someone along the path to sexual sin.

It can be  a fine line at times, I know, but I think there’s a difference between a simple reasoned observation and an analysis which pushes a person farther towards sin.


As a final note: The primary purpose of this blog is for me to work out my thoughts on life in relation to finding my purpose in life. I try to keep the blog either analytical or positive and aspirational. I try to with Christian charity. I do try to avoid being overly negative, bitter, or unChristian. Despite this, I am but fallen man, my thoughts are not always Christian or charitable.

I’m naturally cynical and pessimistic. In addition, I am struggling with being unsuccessful in finding a wife while still trying to maintain Christian sexual standards. For a man in his late 20’s, this can, at times, lead to loneliness and sexual frustration. Finally, I have always been a rather pro-civilization type and seeing the civilization I love crumbling around me can be frustrating.

The combination of these factors can sometimes lead to bitterness and unrighteous anger welling-up in my soul, to my discredit, which may occasionally creep into this blog. On top of this, the temptations of nihilistic hedonism are very enticing; thoughts of simply embracing apathy and going poolside while it all burns are not uncommon. This flirtation with nihilism may also creep into my writings.

So, forgive me if occasionally I give into temptation and be somewhat unChristian in word or tone.

Thoughts on Avoiding LTRs

At the end of my recent post, Dating and Verbalization, I left this little bit:

If you’re looking for an LTR or a girlfriend. Just don’t; it’s stupid. If you want sex, get sex through an STR, FWB, or ONS. If you want companionship, get a male friend or a dog. If you want a family and life-partner, get a wife. Getting a girlfriend is the worst of all three worlds while minimizing the benefits of any of them.

I was asked to talk more about it in the comments. Given that I was already planning to write more on it and would have had the post not already been at the 2000+ word mark and had I not run out of time, I will do so here.

Before I begin, I should note that my use of a girlfriend in this case denotes a women with which a man has a long-term relationship (in this case, more than a year) that may or may not include a live-in relationship. It does not include a girlfriend from a short-term relationship or a potential wife you are currently spending time with testing for marriage-potential that you would label a girlfriend. Now, onto my previous assertion.

There are three primary reasons a man pursues a woman romantically: sex, companionship, and for a life-partner/family. Given the vagaries of human interaction, they are probably others, but those are the main ones.

If you are looking for just sex, use short-term relationships of under half a year or friends with benefits. Previous calculations I have done, calculated the economic cost of sex was less the longer your relationship lasted. For the most part though, there was declining marginal utility as the relationship extended. After the first few months, the cost of sex stopped going down significantly.

Also, this was a simplified, assume-a-can-opener calculation. It mostly assumed that the immaterial costs and benefits of a relationship, such as time invested, emotional investment, commitment, and companionship, evened themselves out over time.

Obviously, that is not the case. As the relationship increases in length, it increases in “seriousness” or, at least, the demand for “seriousness” and more commitment from the other half of the relationship. This increases the costs of the relationship, ie. investments in the relationship that don’t lead to sex. For example, going to her mother’s birthday party or picking her up when her car breaks down.

In other words, the longer a relationship continues, the rate of depreciation of the cost of sex in material investment decreases, but the cost of sex in non-material investment increases. Of course, if you choose to live together, both material and non-material investment explodes, bad move.

If sex is what you want, the longer the relationship goes, the more you are investing to receive it. As well, due to the level of commitment a girlfriend requires, you are not allowed to seek out other sexual outlets in which to invest, limiting your options. A relationship of longer than a half-year or so is a bad investment for sex.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for having a sexual partner you can love and trust implicitly, but in that case, get married. Otherwise, there is always that edge of uncertainty eating at that trust.

Next companionship. If you want someone to talk to and hang out with get a male friend. If you want someone to meet you happily when you get home and snuggle up beside you while you watch TV get a dog.

The problem with companionship within a long-term relationship is that it comes with so much other baggage. You can (and should) have a male friendship be the end in itself, but you can not have a long-term relationship and have the companionship be an end in itself. The addition of romance changes the nature of the relationship. It makes the companionship a means rather than an end, limiting the depth of the companionship. (For more on male/female friendship see here).

For this reasons, any companionship within a relationship is contingent on the other aspects of the relationship. If the other parts of the relationship fails, the companionship ends as well. In addition, a relationship without life-long, will almost inevitably end and it is known it will inevitably end (otherwise, the couple would have married). Because of the contingency and purposefully limited time-frame of the relationship, the companionship can never be as deep or as true as that in a male friendship which has no such contingencies or time frames.

Onto life-partner/family.

A marriage (at least prior to no-fault divorce) provides stability in which to raise a family. It provides an commitment and guarantee of someone you can rely on when needed. It provides a high level of trust and reliability. A marriage is something you can build a mutual life and family together around.

On the other hand, while a long-term relationship has a certain level of commitment, it can be ended at any time. There are no legal or cultural bonds holding the relationship together. There is simply not enough stability and commitment in which to create a family or fully build your lives together.

Now some would say a no-fault marriage could be ended at any time and, to some extent, this is true. But even in these degenerate times marriage still holds a certain cultural value. All but the most morally bankrupt people will put some effort into preserving their marriage and there is a certain level of cultural pressure to work on a marriage that is not their for a LTR. There are also legal commitments that work to support a marriage. While marriage is not as ironclad as it used to be, there are still some moderately strong cultural, moral, and legal forces working to preserve people’s marriages.

So as you can see, the long-term relationship offers only a weakened version of the benefits of marriage, short-term relationships, and/or friendship, while simultaneously having the costs of all. You get sex, but it’s neither the hedonic pleasure-high of STR’s, ONS’, and FWB’s nor the all-consuming, spiritually-fulfilling, trusting love of marriage. You have too much commitment to go outside the relationship and have to invest a lot in the relationship, but you do not have enough commitment and stability to build a mutual life and family together. You have a certain level of companionship, but its always limited by its nature. As I said, you have all the disadvantages of all three worlds, while minimizing the benefits of any of them. It’s a very lukewarm type of relationship.

Of course, the long-term girlfriend is rational in one scenario. Where you are looking for a moderate amount of commitment, but not too much, a moderate, but limited, level of companionship, and regular sexual access with a singular partner at a not too high cost. But I don’t see the point in pursuing such a lukewarm strategy. It lacks both the hedonic thrills of being a player and the meaningfulness of a strong marriage and family. Don’t settle for mediocrity.


To conclude, some talk on morality.

Some might wonder, why I, a Christian, am advocating one night stands and am opposed to long-term relationships. Isn’t a loving relationship what Christians should support?

The answer is I am not advocating either. In fact, I hereby warn all my readers, on the penalty of eternal judgment, to avoid any sexual relationship outside marriage and any romantic relationship outside of marriage and the pursuit thereof, and to repent of their immorality and give their hearts to Jesus.

But confusion on this might come from the fact that long-term relationships are often seen as being “morally superior” in some way to random hook-ups.  This is wrong. Christians should be opposed to any romantic relationship other than marriage. Romantic love is not the basis of sex or marriage in the Christian view, marriage is the basis of both sex and romantic love. Anything else is sin. If you are a Christian advocating long-term romantic relationships, your view of Christian sexual morality is fundamentally flawed.

I repeat, there is absolutely NO moral difference between friends with benefits, a living-together relationship, a one-night stand, prostitution, and a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. There is not the tiniest bit of moral difference between Roissy’s pump’n’dump strategy, dissention’s advocacy of escorts, and Susan Walsh’s advocacy of “meaningful” relationships.

Marriage is the only relationship in which sexuality can morally be expressed. The marriage and the pursuit thereof is the only one in which romantic expressions are not sinful.

Sex is made for marriage, romance is made for marriage and the lead-up in marriage.

Seeking to sate your lust in an ONS is sin, seeking to sate your passion in a long-term relationship is sin.

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own kbody2 in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, ESV)

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 8:4, ESV)

That being said, I do not judge non-Christians for their moral choices. The condition of their souls is between them and God. My duty is to warn them of their sin and its consequences out of love and let the Holy Spirit work. If they do not heed my warnings, their blood is on their own head.

So morally, do not engage in sex outside marriage.

But as a purely practical matter, if a male sinner is planning to fornicate, obtaining temporal pleasure through low-level commitment relationships is likely the materially preferable option.

Lightning Round – 2013/04/17

Why the manosphere exists.
Related: More on why the manosphere exists.
Related: 8 ways the manosphere changed my views.
Related: Hawaiian Libertarian with some blogging advice and some links.
Related: Professional blogging advice.
Related: How rabbits go to war.
Related: When rabbits react.

In line with HL’s post, if anyone new to the sphere has a blog or site they want to promote, e-mail me some links to a couple of your posts. If I like what I see, I’ll put it up in a Lightning Round . If I like what I read enough to want to check it daily, I’ll put it on my ‘roll.

It seems Fearsome Pirate has started blogging regularly again and he’s discovered Moldbug and the manosphere. He was one of my favourite bloggers before I entered the manosphere, but also stopped posting regularly about that time as well. It’s good to to see him back and peeking into our little corner of the internet.

Sunshine Mary has also returned.
Related:How much game should a Christian wife require? None.

Also added some aggregators to the ‘roll that I’ve been meaning to add for a while: Articles for Men, Delusion Damage, and Viva la Manosphere.

Remain positive.
Related: You are not insane.
Related: Don’t get too caught up in other people’s problems.

Human sexual behaviour 101.

Game is essentially developing fearlessness.
Counterpoint: The failings of the PUA.

It’s never the right time.

The unchristian supremacy of romantic love over marriage.
Related: The cowardly pastor.

Make sure you have The Plan.
Related: Vett your potential wife: make sure she’s not batshit crazy.
Related: If a lady cares so much about how you propose that you have to see a proposal expert, don’t marry her. Also, if a man goes to a proposal expert, don’t marry him.

GBFM’s Reading List.
Related: da professional womenz ode.

“Just be yourself” is horrible advice.

Don’t be an emotional tampon.

Control your frame.

Do modern women resent being mothers?
Related: My precious feminism.
Related: What a women means by “I don’t cook”.
Related: Why fat women should be sent to prison.
Science: Angry women are less feminine.
Related: Hamsters in action.

A crack in the narrative: SWUGs.
Related: The narrative is being affected.
Comment of the week: “It takes an expensive education to make living like a wino and prostitute sound like an empowering lifestyle choice.”

The underrated life of the stay-at-home husband.

Don’t go where women are plentiful; go where men are weak.

A series of controversial posts concerning entitlement, shaming, and MGTOW.

It’s not easy being mean. This post saddened me.
Related: Challenge her compliments.

How to get revenge on the left. Have good sex.

Porn kills your dick’s soul.

Looks like I was wrong. Hehe.

Why the 2nd amendment really exists.
Related: Missouri shares entire CCW list with Feds against regulations.

Rad-fem abstinence teachings.

More of the same: another Christian man-up rant.

Could someone possibly demonstrate more clearly they are a natural slave.

Feed your children to the state. Have the state feed your children to Moloch.
Related: The wolves are coming for your children.
Related: All your children are belong to us.

“I assure you, I guarantee you, that future history is going to remember feminists and everyone else who supported the 20th-21st century Holocaust of the Unborn with every bit as much disgust and horror as today’s progressives regard 18th-19th century slavers and 20th century Nazis.”
Related: EW responds.
Related: Kermit Goswell: Best abortionist ever.
Related: Even the Atlantic realizes the horror of this story, as does Slate.
Related: Nothing to see here. The murder apologists argue that there is a difference between a 24-week-old child in the womb and one that has momentarily expelled from the womb.
Related: The courtroom’s media section.
Related: 41 minutes for Basketball scandal, 0 for baby murder scandal.
Related: There is no media cover-up. Who doesn’t read the Grio regularly?
Related: Apostates team up with murder apologists.
Related: Where are the calls for a national conversation on abortion?
Related: “If #Gosnell had been murdering puppies in that fashion, my stop-cruelty-to-animals Facebook friends would all know & be filled with outrage.”

Rome and America: the decline.

What’s one more condom in the landfill?

Communism never died.

The world has changed; prepare your children.

Psychopaths can tell your vulnerability from your gait.

Why default is inevitable.
Related: A rush on gold?
Related: The astounding changes in banking.
Related: The EU is taking Cyprus’ gold.
Related: I made my first silver investments this week. $350 in rounds from these guys. Also, 3 $20 for 20 from the Canadian mint. The silver is overpriced, but it’s a straight trade in fiat currency, so I figured getting a few couldn’t hurt.
Related: 11 economic crashes happening right now.
Related: Australia taxes retirement savings.

it’s better to be tyrannized by the greedy than by the selfless.

I’m becoming increasingly fond of the Orthodox Church.

Why is a conservative group opposing spending cuts?

How the left stays in power.

This is one more reason to hate democracy.

Only immigrants and plutocrats benefit from immigration.

“They [drugs] kill because they break the chains that bind us to this life.”

How traditional medical “science” got it exactly wrong on food allergies.

Avoid clubs.

The attack on critical thinking.

The ideological war in SF/F.

Obama is whipped.
Related: Putin vs. Obama.

Elizabeth Warren, advocate for the $22 minimum wage, pays her workers $0.

Two of the big four TV channels may go off the air. Good riddance.

(H/T: Hawaiian Libertarian, Staged Reality, SDA, Instapundit, The Captain)

From the Mailbox

Today, two things from the mailbox.

From Europia, one of my readers who wishes to remain anonymous believes that the tide will turn, but not in his lifetime:

You may find the following gem of some interest. The Anti-Family/Child Abuse PONZI Scheme Agenda will eventually cause TOTAL Social Collapse as some people have predicted. This will mean the END of the Cradle-to-Grave Western Social Welfare system. In the LONG-TERM Total Social Breakdown, which will make the Economic Mess TODAY look like a toddlers’ playschool tiff, will benefit Society, especially children. This will mean that a GOOD man of 40 – 50 years of age can marry a lady half his age and father 9 children. The young lady of 23 will have NO PROBLEM marrying a man of 35 years of age and having 8 children as HE will have a house & an income to make a family lifestyle practical. On the other hand a woman older than 35 will have great difficulties becoming a mother. We will see a return of LARGE families of 6 – 10 children as people will NEED the children to support the parents in old age. To a certain extent this return of LARGE families has started in Europe. In Portugal a new Pensions’ Law has linked a person’s pension to the number of children that a person had. So the BIGGER the family, the BIGGER the pension you get. I have NO ILLUSIONS that I might see this day. I reckon that Victory is about 40 years away of not firther away. But WHEN Victory comes and come it will, all the TOXIC PARASITES the “Family Court” judges, Legal Aid lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers, etc WILL have to get a job as opposed to profiting from child abuse. We will also see, possibly QUITE soon, people grow their own food as people will be hungry as opposed to any sentimental reasons.

I found the part about the Pension’s Law interesting. I asked the reader about it, but he had only seen it on TV with no other information. If anyone else has more information or a link, that’d be great.

Second, comes a video sent courtesy of former manosphere blogger Will. It’s a video on how conservatism is a myth and a delusion. It’s pretty good:

Everything he say, more or less applies to Canadian conservatism as well.

Dating and Verbalization

I have received a request to write on a topic. I’m always willing to entertain ideas for discussion on this blog, and if I believe I have time and anything of value to write concerning the issue, I’ll put something up. So, if any of my readers have something they’d like to be addressed, feel free to drop me a line or leave a comment.

I was asked by smoothreentry:

I am interested in articles that discuss women acting one way, and freaking out if the obvious is verbalized. If you have written on the subject, or read a good article on it, I would appreciate being pointing in the right direction.

But I am talking about the phenomenon of women acting one way, and being okay with it as long as the elephant in the room isn’t verbalized. This characteristic is causing me much grief as I continue to date.

First, I would direct you to Rollo’s two pieces, Female Dating Advice and Just Get It. Essentially, what both argue is that women want you to know how to approach dating and relationships, to “just get it”, without having to be told. By being told what she desires, you kill the “naturalness” of the relationship.

Having read that, we can continue.

The modern woman (at least until she’s hit the wall and is desperate) does not choose a mate for such practical reasons as reliability, provision, protection, fatherhood potential, etc. She has a surrogate husband, the state, to take care of all those things for her.

Instead, what she is looking for is “chemistry.” By chemistry, she means she is sexually and emotionally excited by you. But the modern woman can’t call “chemistry” by its real name, sexual attraction, because sexual attraction is what shallow guys who are only after immature, big-titted sluts rather than mature, ‘real women’ feel. She’s not shallow, she’s looking for “chemistry”, which is much deeper than looking for some young, perky slut.*

That little mind game aside, she wants to feel chemistry; she desires you to sexually and emotionally excite her. To be sexually and emotionally excited, your romance has to feel “natural” to her. Deliberate romance feels “artificial”, and artificial love can’t be “true love”. If you have to work at it or verbalize, it kills the “chemistry”. You need to “just get it”.

Essentially, the modern women wants spontaneity, to be “swept off her feet”. She wants it to “just happen.” As soon as you start verbalizing things, then it is no longer just happening, it is planned; it has become artificial. Verbalized romance is no longer “true love” (under this warped definition of love) because it is no longer “natural”.

As per one of the original examples from smoothreentry, by calling a date, “a date”, you are robbing the date of all sponteneity. It has become planned and no longer feels natural.

I’m going to guess the same with the example of sleeping over at her house. The times you slept over at her place, it probably “just happened”. It felt natural. When you assumed you were sleeping over, you killed the spontaneity of the sleeping over at her house. It became planned, and was no longer romantic. She didn’t feel excited about it.


“Chemistry” is not the only possible reason, there’s also the issue of dating scripts. Back before contraception and feminism destroyed modern relationships, there were accepted dating scripts for society. While the details might differ between people, there was a general, socially accepted way of doing things. You’d go on a date: dinner, a movie, a walk in the park. You’d kiss on the third date, then you’d start going steady a date or two after. After dating for a year or two, you’d ask her hand in marriage, then get married, have kids, etc. Physical intimacy would escalate in conjunction with both emotional intimacy and commitment. Before this script other, more patriarchal, scripts existed, but there was usually a script of some sort.

There is no longer any generally accepted dating script, or societally accepted ways of doing things. Commitment, emotional intimacy, and physical intimacy have all be completely delinked. Depending on the individual, sex might occur on the first date, the third date, without a date at all, in a relationship, or not until marriage. Dating has been replaced by hook-ups, at least for some people at some times. Marriage has been replaced with common-law relationships, at least for some people. FWB has both physical intimacy and (maybe) emotional intimacy, but no commitment. The increased acceptance of close inter-sexual friendships creates emotional intimacy without physical intimacy or commitment. There is no accepted script; just chaos.

Everybody, including you and the girls acting weird, are all making it up as they go along. When do we first have sex? When do we get engaged (if we do)? When is a date a date? Are we friends, friends with benefits, or dating? At what point is sleeping over ok? How many dates until we are dating? Does going on a date imply anything? What does “it’s complicated” mean?

Who the hell knows?

I don’t, you don’t, and neither do the girls you are with. Dating has devolved from its earlier purpose of spousal selection and preparation for marriage into who the hell knows what.

Even apart the larger issues, there’s the more practical issues. Is holding a door open chivalry, good manners, or sexism? Is chivalry appreciated or insulting? Is this drunken sex going to be a good time or rape? Who pays for the meal? Is a kiss appropriate on the first date? Is sex?

Who the hell knows? It all depends on who you ask.

And nobody knows how to handle it; few people know what they are doing. The only two groups that really know what they are doing are the players/sluts who are just looking to score and the extreme traditionalists who are still following an even older script. The vast majority of people don’t really have a goal or a path to get there. They vaguely want a relationship (of some kind), vaguely want sex (in some manner), and maybe want to get married (at some point, for some reason) but don’t know the when, what, or how. Everybody is trying to navigate chaos without a map.

The girls you are with are trying to do this as well. Is that time with that guy really a date or are they just friends? Is getting together for coffee really a date? Does going on a date imply we are dating? Does going on a lot of dates imply I’m easy? Does him assuming he’s sleeping over mean we’ve advanced to a higher level of commitment? Am I ready for that? Is this a lead up to moving in together? Am I being taken advantage of?

She doesn’t know because she does not have a social script of what normal, appropriate relationship behaviour is. Just like you don’t know what’s up with her because you do not have a script.


Another reason could be a form of cognitive dissonance. There is who she thinks she is and what she thinks she’s doing, and how it interacts with what she is actually doing, which may not be the same. So she engages in cognitive dissonance.

For example, only desperate and/or slutty women go on lots of dates. I’m neither desperate nor a slut. I go on lots of dates.

Obviously, at least one of these statements must be logically false, but there’s a problem: she can’t stop going on dates because she wants a man (probably desperately, even if she won’t admit it to herself), her “self-esteem” would be ruined if she thought she was either a slut or desperate, and she still wants to be able to judge Jenny, that desperate slut at the office, so they all have to be true.

The easiest, most psychologically appealing way to get around this contradiction between logic and emotion is to simply change the definition of “a date”.

I go out with men a lot, but I’m not a desperate slut (like Jenny), so it’s only a date if we know each other. Therefore, I’m not going on lots of dates, therefore, I’m not a slut and I’m not desperate.

Or it could be: I’m a nice person. Rejecting men you have dated is not nice. I’ve rejected many men I’ve dated. Therefore, they weren’t dates, we were just friends. no one was rejected.

This kind of cognitive dissonance could also works its way in as a cover for straightforward manipulation.

She’s simply embarrassed. She thinks going on a lot of dates makes her look slutty, desperate, easy, etc. to you, so she tries to manipulate you/herself into not thinking she’s been on a lot of dates by simply maintaining that she has not been. This works often enough, because most men find it too much of a bother to call women on this kind of silliness.

Or she wants a free meal/drink without feeling guilty about taking advantage of guys, so she’s not going on dates, she’s going out with “friends”.

If this is unconscious on her part, it’s cognitive dissonance and/or self-delusion, if it’s conscious on her part, she’s lying, a hypocrite, and/or engaging in self-justification.


As for smoothreentry’s other example:

Calling an obese women “fat”, or a women that sleeps with many men a “slut”, are more extreme examples.

That is something else. A modern woman does not like being judged, she does not like being held to standards. By calling a fat woman fat or a slut a slut, you are holding that woman to a standard and judging her by it. If you are holding another women to a standard, that implies you are also holding her to that standard, and *horror* you are judging her by that standard.

By thinking you might be judging her, you might cause her to feel shame or guilt about things she may be doing that are shameful. She doesn’t want to feel shame, therefore, you can’t judge her, therefore, you can’t judge other women either. Therefore, being judgmental is wrong, it says so in the Bible. Therefore calling a fat person fat or a slut a slut is wrong.

Read my post Fat Acceptance for some more of my thoughts on this.


The actionable take-away (oh, corpo-babble, how you have ruined my writing):

If you are simply looking to fuck random sluts and have short-term relationships, do not verbalize things. Act. Let things “just happen”. This does not mean you don’t have a plan; you need to plan, you need to run game, but don’t let her see it, make it seem natural. Let her see the finished sausage, but not the killing floor.

As well, do not fight her hamsterizations, she’ll just get angry and block you on FB. Ignore them without buying into them like a dupe.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a wife, don’t date a modern woman. Find a nice traditional gal who’s hamster is mostly in check and who’s more rational in her expectations for a relationship.

If you’re looking for an LTR or a girlfriend. Just don’t; it’s stupid. If you want sex, get sex through an STR, FWB, or ONS. If you want companionship, get a male friend or a dog. If you want a family and life-partner, get a wife. Getting a girlfriend is the worst of all three worlds while minimizing the benefits of any of them.


* As an aside, note the feminine imperative at work here. “Chemistry”, ie: that which sexually excites a woman, is something promoted as being important and is a perfectly acceptable reason on which to accept or reject a relationship. “Looks”, ie: that which sexually excites a man, is shallow and derided and any man who accepts or rejects a relationship because of looks is a shallow jerk. Society is trying to normalize female sexual attraction while marginalizing male sexual attraction.

Lightning Round – 2013/04/10

3MM on Huffpo.
Related: Rollo on the interview.

The path to dark enlightenment.

Vox Day: Christ is Risen.

Advice on choosing a marriage partner.

Your spouse is not your friend.

Modern marriage is rent-seeking hell.
Related: Your life under matriarchy.

Vox on chasing sigmas. Ian on the same. After reading these I think trying to become a sigma would be much more in line with my natural personality than trying for alpha.

66 things on men, women, and game.

A classic from Mentu.

Guns, homes, and spouses.

Life is not a fairy tale. There is no one thing that will save it.

Five minutes of alpha gloriously illustrated.
Related: CH with a few must read links.

What women find attractive, men find sickening.

The collective terms for the socio-sexual hierarchy. Hehe.

Susan Walsh desires for manosphere men to out themselves so they can be crushed.

The dates feminism triumphed.

How real life change happens.
Related: Do 80% of life’s defining moments happen by age 35.

Entry level nootropics.

It is by not thinking that we cease to wonder. It is by an inundation an inculcation of mere words that the blue pill is poured in as an assumption of certainty.”

“If a compliment about your looks makes you question your professionalism and seriousness, then you have neither.”

Is the US economy weaker than the official numbers indicate?
Related: 101 million working age Americans do not have a job.
Related: More work needs to be done. Hehe.
Related: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Administration encourages lending to those with weaker credit.

Does doing the right thing even matter anymore, or does it just make you a doofus?
Related: Here comes the raid on your retirement.
Related: Portugal considering paying public servants in treasury bills instead of cash.
Related: Last week it was 60%, seems it gone up to 80% taken form depositors in Cyprus.
Related: Cyprus president withdrew millions before the deposits were taken.

Time to get out.
Related: Advice to get out now.
Related: You are a terrible investor. Advice on how to save for retirement.

From a Bosnian survivalist.
Related: 25 prepping tips.

Update: Krugman still an idiot.

The collapse in New Zealand.

Bill with links to disquieting news.
Related: The awful truth about SSI redux. The original.

Work under the table.

Remember, never try to please leftists. They will just spit it in your face, unless you grovel and supplicate in just the right way.
Related: Remember, feminists don’t like being called attractive. Make sure to call them ugly so as not to upset them.

How many years until this woman writes an unhappy article about how her boyfriend left her and she can’t find a man?

Sometimes it seems the gender equalists hate the feminine as much as they hate the masculine.
Related: This one’s great just for the feminist ideal list.
Related: Why do feminists denigrate domestic work?

“Talented young women who aspire to be rich and powerful would be advised to major in economics or electrical engineering… [and] work 60 hours a week at the office rather than combining shorter hours with home, family, and other pursuits they find fulfilling.”
Related: Maternal benefits limit women’s career prospects.

“What is the point of supporting a right that you don’t actually get to use on any substantial issues?”

The majority of police officers reject the claims of gun control advocates.

Margaret Thatcher died. RIP.
Related: A libertarian retrospective.
Related: Another view.
Related: Thatcher doing a Yes, Minister sketch.

Are the left beginning to notice the Cathedral?

The almost unbelievable case of censorship in Colorado.

The miseducation of America.
Related: Study finds university colleges are ideologically non-diverse. The study.
Related: Ryerson University student’s union disallows MRA club.
Related: Catholic university disallows Catholic group for being Catholic.

Don’t get a Ph.D.

The Ron Paul curriculum.

1 in 5 boys diagnosed with ADHD.

The reason why women are now allowed into combat is not because feminism has won, but because military contractors need a reason to produce more stuff to sell to the military.”

The Protestant Work Ethic vindicated.

Planned Parenthood argues for the right to post-birth abortion.

The death of freedom in Canada.

Something the current Canadian government gets right.

Silence of the Sheep: Canada and Abortion.

British “conservatives” give in to the Jacobins.

Gay marriage: a non-issue made into an issue for political purposes.

Piracy and the Vatican.

Penis size does matter, a little.

The poor do not lack access to good food.

Journalist may be going to jail for protecting sources. Unimportant because the journalist works for Fox.

(H/T: BoingBoing, Instapundit, Borepatch, Dr. Helen, Vox Day, SDA, Maggie’s Farm, GCBH, GLP)