Notable Quotable:

Notable Quotable:

Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."

Saturday, March 17, 2012

I've Been Solicited!

Twice this week!
And I said "yes" both times.
The site "Taken in Hand" asked if they could publish a comment I made on Dalrock's blog, so I went for it.  It's an interesting blog; it's not "kinky" enough to be a fetishist site, but clearly some fetishists contribute and follow.  It seems a number of folks there are OK with spanking outside the bedroom.  I'm not among them.  Male dominance is natural, but spanking is an arbitrary and unnatural  "punishment," not appropriate among adults except in fun.  If a spouse screws up, the consequences should be real, and  not contrived by the other spouse.  That said, I received some pretty interesting responses to my "article."  I'm publishing the article itself, but feel free to follow the link and read the conversation:

These are among the comments that Complementarian Loners also published a few weeks ago:

Methinks I must have struck a nerve.

Do women really want to defeat men?

We think we want to defeat men, because that’s what we’ve been taught, yet we’re miserable when we succeed. This is why we go for “alphas” and end up with jerks. THEY DISPLAY POWER. In jerks, that power is a false front; they don’t dominate, they domineer. Because that’s all they’ve got. We’re looking for strong benevolent domination (a man who will sacrifice to preserve and protect what he possesses) and at first glance domination and domineering look similar. We see a power display and it blows our circuits. We tolerate any degradation for it, deluding ourselves and hoping that it might be the real deal. We’d rather die than admit that we need to be “owned,” because that’s not permitted by feminism, but we can’t stop ourselves from trawling for domineering assholes and hoping to pick up a “real man” among them. Our need for a dominant mate runs far deeper than cultural norms and social engineering.
Feminism, combined with the low-risk lifestyle afforded by surplus resources, has neutered men and taught them to be weak. In this environment women CAN “defeat” men, and we’re taught that we are supposed to, so we do. We consciously devote ourselves to dominating men, yet on a visceral level we despise men who can be dominated. Since the option of acting like real women is socially unacceptable, we try to achieve satisfaction by being the best damn non-women we can be. It never occurs to most of us that we’d be happy if we turned our backs on society and lived as we were designed to. We just keep forging ahead in the wrong direction—the hamster on speed. Women are frequently domineering (we rarely have what it takes to dominate much of anything) but this is almost always a matter of shit testing. Again, we can’t admit this, so we say we’re just acting like strong modern women, but what would really satisfy us (unbeknownst to us) is a man who can override our attempts at dominance, and dominate US.
And what “real man” has the opportunity to display his masculinity in the modern world? There are no dragons to slay, and sensible men don’t waste their energy posturing. Deeply “male” prowess has become recreational (except in the acquisition of money.) Hunting, fighting and competition are leisure activities, and we deride them as frivolous. The exception here is among military, cops and firefighters. Women absolutely drool over professional he-men because like assholes, those men act powerful. We fall for false (or real) displays of power EVERY TIME, because we need powerful men. PUAs know this and use it to their advantage, easily dazzling us. We’re stupid that way. The fact that we chase posturing pricks is all the proof you need that we’re lying through our teeth when we say we want “subservient” men. What we really want is strong men who have the courage to whip out their dicks and show us they’ve got what it takes to keep us safe. Honorable men who actually do have “what it takes” usually obey the rules though, so they hesitate and lose out. “Bad boys” never hesitate; they don’t care about having what it takes because they have no desire to protect or preserve anything but themselves. They just want to get laid. They don’t even have to me misogynistic; they want what they want and we’re giving it away. No harm, no foul.
“Whipping it out” is the only time-tested way to win a woman’s devotion. And yes, we are as capable of devotion as men are. That devotion will last a lifetime if the man is genuinely dominant, not just domineering. Social engineering cannot override biology.
We want the fairy tale; we were raised to believe we deserve it. We need strong men. We are unhappy with men we perceive as weak. We beat them down and discard them. If we wanted weak men, we’d keep them once we had them under our thumbs. Instead we dump them to chase “strong” men. We’ve been demanding more power for decades, yet the more power we get the unhappier we become. And since we Grrrlz can’t possibly be mistaken, we blame men.
When the feminists decided that “equality” wasn’t enough, they needed ways to control men; one of their tools was to demand that men stop acting powerful. Men, long in the habit of accommodating female foolishness, acquiesced. Most men didn’t see the long term harm in it, and “it’s barbaric,” or “it’s no longer necessary because we’re so civilized,” sounded rational. Because of this, displays of genuine masculine power are rare. Since women are desperate for powerful, high status men, we’ll take anything that remotely resembles male power, even when we know it’s probably fake. We’re drawn to it instinctively. This is why Game works consistently. Game is a display of power, whether that power is real or fake. It’s a useful tool that good men dropped when they were ordered to, figuring they could rely on their “goodness” to attract women. Assholes didn’t drop it, and for the most part, they’re the only ones still using it. And they’re getting the women.
Men have three choices: continue on as victims, go their own way until society implodes, or manipulate individual women, one on one, into embracing our natural role and rejecting our indoctrination. That last one is difficult and uncommon, but it’s possible, for a man who wants a family. Men, women and children, like dogs, can usually be trained. Ask any happily married man who uses Game to keep his wife in line, er, happy.


  1. Very wise words and good insight. I learned from the train wreck of my 22 year marriage to stay away from all women with the "men are to blame" attitude".

    A developing relationship ended after I called her on her male bashing bullshit. She said, "But I didn't mean you". Yeah, either I'm sexless or you did mean me.

    I don't like players of any kind. I may tolerate them in the context of a common society but none are among my close friends.

  2. I saw that at TiH and recognised it. Nice work!

  3. @Suz

    Is it OK to spank in the livingroom on the way to the bedroom?

  4. @Suz:

    Outstanding, brilliant sentiment. These words of yours are pure wisdom.

    Heh, you really should read up on Greek mythology, specifically "Cassandra". She was a woman of great wisdom who was able to predict the future. She was cursed, however, in that nobody listened to her.

    So she knew the approaching calamity but could do nought about it. Does this sound familiar? :)

  5. Reading the comments at TiH, I think you disturbed a nest of feminists posing as submissive women. There appears to be a undercurrent of "topping from the bottom" sentiments.

    Three of them are enough to change the entire focus of that site.

  6. At Dalrock, Joshua said:

    ”I say everything i have as someone who has read the site quite a bit a while back. The sites whole premise is a woman can do whatever she wants UNTIL she decides to submit. This is really a smoke screen for act like a modern day american woman. Then it puts all of the onus on the man to make her want to commit by being uber super duper alpha (lol).

    Read all of the articles and comments. it teaches woman to top from the bottom but subtlety. It absolves the woman of any of the responsibility they have in a relationship. i know about BDSM, im into D/s style relationships and am very familiar with the “community” any relationship i have with a woman will be at least DD, if not full on BDSM.

    if you think the site taken in hand is good i implore you to read all of the articles from the beginning. It teaches woman to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, kinda like Susan Walsh wants to help reformed sluts snag betas. Same theory different group of people.

    I think Joshua may have been on to something.

    1. After reading the comments at TiH, I'm inclined to agree. And the "The Editor" came in with a heavy hand and quashed a civil discussion - wtf?

      The more times I see something like that, especially on a site that is supposed to be about female submission, it makes me shake me head and think perhaps we really should all shut up and let the men handle things.

    2. Yeah, I noticed that heavy hand. And I haven't seen a lot of genuine "submission" over there, just a pretty show of it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.