Hurting Women

I feel your pain.

One fuckin gay and insalubrious new trend over the past few years has been a certain bloodless managerial contempt for Male Appetite—which in spite of being the reason you’re reading this instead of congealing into a nugget of sabretooth tiger poop has come to be seen by liberal institutions and normie sensibilities as ontologically suspect until either suitably emasculated in an anodyne grammar of therapeutic individuation or morally sanctified by mutualistic and socially legible feminine desire.

By itself it has no narrative dignity—no epistemic standing or legitimate self-interest. Only a threat vector: tail-end risk, potential liability, a procedural nuisance to be rerouted and managed and dissipated in accordance with established standards.

Come back with a full belly?

Dignity starts provisional; transactional; aestheticized—becomes authorial; distortive. Standing begins negotiated; contextual—crystallizes sovereign; opaque; retroactive.
First your interests are strategic; coalitional; prudent—and then they’re syntax.

Now this isn’t Morrowind; most guys stay put thinking however their stripe on the candycane works is thermodynamics—which is obv like “healthier” but also idrc bc I’ve been on Tower of Terror a few too many times now and have some things to say.

The first being I don’t mind epistemically foreclosing incels per se, and if you asked me to come up with a single low resolution variable to predict whether or not we should give a shit about some rando’s opinion it’s hard to think of a better one.

But we really need to make a few fine-combed analytic distinctions here to properly disambiguate baby from bathwater and forest from trees.

1. One can agree that incels should be epistemically foreclosed because they don’t have skin in the game and in general are shitheel low agency cockroachers wholly uninterested in self-improvement—AND ALSO—that it is not female desire which confers epistemic legitimacy but rather the masculine capacity for sexual conquest. One can sneer at incels under the latter standard while acknowledging the former is wholly retarded in light of how female sexuality and consent ackshully work.

2. One can likewise sneer at Man A for being an incel per male sensibilities—so not just no pussy but low agency, unaccountable, can’t handle conflicts correct—and thus support his epistemic foreclosure while simultaneously recognizing Man B—a sexhaver respected by peers yet incel-adjacent per woman standards because his relationships are too asymmetric or he was a late bloomer or he has the wrong politics or he doesn’t have cultural capital commensurate with his institutional or financial power—should NEVER be lumped in the same category. And it’s crucial we take a firm line with chickies on this whenevver they try to conflate such types of guy in this plausibly deniable semiotic voodoo ritual that epistemically forecloses men who DO have skin in the game and are absolutely entitled to a seat at the table—the best example probs being Elon Musk, who Kryptogal (Kate, if you like) recently called an incel. And I don’t like Elon necessarily but I think Kate herself would admit she was being silly here—and also that women as a class probs are smart enough to realize they need Incel to remain a Girardian scapegoat class and you really don’t want guys like Elon and Vance and Hanania and mayhaps Wally B himself getting pulled in on the side of guys we have nothing in common with because you wanted to hurt a billionaire’s feelings for having given you an Ick.

3. It’s possible to at once recognize that incels like Man A above genuinely deserve their scorn (and if we’re honest dehumanization) given it’s horribly dysgenic for society to be too kind to low value men—while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining that women (especially coastal AWFLs) and Fatty Yglesias types have semiotically expanded the window of incel adjacency / coding in a manner which regardless of any attendant plausible deniability games are clearly Mean Gay status sneers aimed at sexually shaming a culture war rival and dishonestly obscured by motte and bailey frame games and tedious moral sanctimony, creating an environment where a spergy guy with a wife and kids who owns a tech company and pays quite a lot in to Uncle Sam each year would be made to feel déclassée for supporting anything seen as prohibitively incel-coded, which now includes boring second and third order shit like fucking TARIFFS.. Guys like that are right to feel aggrieved—straightforwardly and without qualification.

4. It’s possible to recognize that low status male grievance absolutely needs to be epistemically foreclosed due to skin in the game / agency reasons—AND ALSO— that it sure as shit seems women want all male grievance foreclosed ipso facto and are hiding behind literal terrorists to make ever criticizing girls a faux pas—which ladies, I love ya a lot… but this is severely fucking retarded, and I need you to listen to me here because it’s a really good healthy thing for men and women to bitch at each other over annoying shit the other does. it’s cathartic and funny and builds camaraderie and understanding, etc. Moreover you REALLY want to maintain that analytic distinction between the guy outside who sees you in friend enemy distinction terms and the guy inside who’s like rolling his eyes and calling you silly about something. The latter are the ones actually keeping the incel down.

5. Here’s a big one—if I have a girlfriend who loves being Raped and Owned and leaning into sexed asymmetry more generally even in nonsexual contexts or in deep structural facets of the dynamic that are toothy and premodern-coded, and then your own pantsuit amygdala registers a negative response and so decides to pathologize my girl or me or do a faggoty morals schmorals thing then fine we’re schmittian enemies idc but here’s the Upshot: perhaps your neurotype is more modal than hers or you have greater institutional clout or cultural capital and so your preferences are more legible; fine—but you’re not in any objective, universal, or metaphysically binding sense a more legitimate representative of womankind than her.

---

Ever notice TONS of young guys these days will like fake complain about girls they hook up with wanting to be choked and smacked and beaten up and fisted and facefucked and pissed on and shit because these Bitches Be Cwazy?

Compare that to womyn who at least in my experience if they have a dark sense of humor will joke constantly about finding rape hot and sexy and even like talk about it in mixed company and bring it up in your first phone call and it’s Normal.

Whereas outside like super crazy fetish communities most guys won’t EVER talk about doing that shit to a girl of his own volition—it always has to be because SHE wanted it, and even then he’ll very seldom own up to getting turned on by anything extreme or asymmetric himself and instead just sort of narrate it like he got molested.

Then there’s the logical conclusion of that mentality: these rascals who unironically call themselves Pleasure Doms and frame the entire enterprise of domination if we’re even calling it that now under a telos that overtly centers what the chick wants.

Now maybe these Types Of Guy ackshully are 100% genuine in their preferences but nah that’s retarded because they’re clearly attempting to A) reduce their threat signal not even to women they claim to want to dominate but mainstream society (and in a lot of cases I’d imagine also their own egalitarian self-concept); B) insulate against risk legally and reputationally by never departing a register of bloodless elder millennial aspartame maximalism that always foregrounds explicit consent safeword kinksheet poopoopeepee talk to ensure one isn’t Armie Hammer’d by a civilization that doesn’t recognize any risk appetite profile as legit besides sclerotic pencilnecked safetyism and for men at least predicates presumptive innocence on eternally inhabiting that register; and finally C) not come off as WANTING anything too much because unless you already have it that reads to elite women especially as pathetic / predatory / needy.

Kind of a waste of time if you ask me; once you have a Full Belly you’re allowed to be as hungry as you want, and if a chick knows you’re well-liked and sexually active she’s not about to judge you for wanting to fuck her in the way you like. She’ll absolutely judge you for being clingy or getting flustered by her faggoty shit tests—but as a rule?

Women punish men for weakness, and almost never for malfeasance.

Sadly these avocado toast doms are embarrassing themselves and if anything severely increasing reputational risk by approaching girls and mainstream consent grammar in a spirit of credulous chungus exotericism that can’t quite come to terms with the fact that literally no one’s cunt is governed let alone governable by Enlightenment Values and you’re always more likely to get a false accusation / drumming on the gossip apps from a girl feeling vindictive about your impotent weak faggotry than a girl you got physically commanding with who’ll pretty often make a false consent accusation tbh.

And when it comes to impotent weak faggotry there are vanishingly few things I can think of more viscerally pathetic than calling oneself a “Dom” (kind of irredeemable by itself tbh) while simultaneously filing the rough edges off everything you enjoy and ontologically demoting your own appetites into something provisional and contingent that can only ever exist in a self-sealed bubble once the proper forms are filled out.

That is the sexuality of a woman—passive; reflective; compliant; permeable and affective and longing for decisive penetration by phallic external ontologies.

And when you let the outside world decide for you what’s good or bad, acceptable vs. unacceptable, smexy vs. groace that invites feminine contempt like basically nothing else because the main respect in which women need to be Led runs a hell of a lot deeper than red buttcheeks and Provide&Protect LARPing—both of which are fine don’t get me wrong but they’re second order and fetishistic; not monotonically legible.

Meanwhile basically every single woman on earth including and probably especially the tendiesexual girlboss blondies needs a man to 1) stabilize her affective synchronic pusscognition by pinning the bitch under sturdy correspondence-driven epistemology so you can penetrate her soft and yielding ontology with your diachronic phallic telos; as well as 2) be her Moral Trashcan who she can invoke or allude to or blame when she needs to escape moral blackmail from bad actors trying to exploit the womanly fixation on norm compliance and group cohesion and passive reputational risk.

Girls judge a man’s worth primarily in terms of his ability to do those two things, and obv it’s great if you also have muscles or money or fame or w/e but usually it’s more about those things proffering a certain existential stability and respect from male peers that functions a bit like psychic viagra and makes it a lot easier to get inside her.

If you can’t do that? Most will find dykery preferable, and a fair few of them will absolutely devise some plausibly deniable way to make it sting on the way out.

And that, dear reader, is the inexorable confusion upon which Pleasure Dom Thought and Consensual Chungus Reddit BDSM more broadly are predicated. They’re trying to operate under daylight rules in an inherently photonegative register wherein taking mainstream normalfag NPR consent grammar seriously obliterates the actual source of eros which is genuine friction, real stakes, and deep asymmetry.

and if you want unproblematic safetyist NPR sex that’s obv coo you do you boo but you ackshully should internalize for ur own good that the more forms you have a bitch sign before your cock is in her the more likely she’ll decide it was rape in four months.

---

So at the end of the day I’m a normative nihilist, but I absolutely do have pretty strong moral intuitions even if in practice they’re quite a lot different from yours.

Like for one thing I tend to feel like more or less everything that happens is justified just in the shit-eating tautological sense that if something happened nobody could stop it. Though this is less an edgy 13yo Stirnerian take and more my own private heuristic developed to ward away fake and gay shoulds and oughts and victim narratives.

I also pretty often observe that everything is priced in—applying that maxim in equal measure to social, reputational, and sexual markets—and the “market clearing price” of every exchange is basically always a more accurate assessment of the world than the opinion of anyone who has ever said something was Unfair/Unjust, which seem to me PB&J Otter concepts. The actualized price reflects both public and private info and game theoretic calibration and juicing of asymmetries but all of those divisions and designations are all kind of spooks tbh and at the end of the day whatever happened reflects the real-world balance of power in the universe and not just your opinion man.

So with those intuitions as my north star when I look at Rules and Laws and Norms and such I’m not thinking deontologically or on a consequentialist chungus basis because 1) whether Bentham and Kant think something was lovely hasn’t the slightest impact on the world unless you can get Drumpf to subscribe to Bentham’s Bulldog I guess; and 2) neither Bentham and Kant nor any of their followers ackshully believe what they think they do functionally speaking because “beliefs” are almost always kind of facile post hoc rationalizations for amygdalic screechings, and… 3) in practice literally everyone is more protective of women and dehumanizes low status men and is kind of ok letting Michael Jackson stare at a nine year old boy’s asshole and most of the time they don’t even realize what they’re doing is the thing.

And so long story short I find “ethics” as a philosophical project to be an utter waste of time because it turns out my nigga Schmitt called it correct when observing that what really matters is who decides the exception. Add to that a bit of Girard and Strauss and mb even Foucault as a treat and that’s most of what Philosophy is good for imo.

So, circling back to Male Appetite—

Obviously I wouldn’t endorse any kind of abstract programmatic political action to make chicks like it more when we’re thirsty clingy rapey or w/e; that’s hugely gay.

Rather I’m saying you as a man need to have a sovereign sexual ontology and more importantly an accurately calibrated game theoretic model for who decides the exception when it comes to norm enforcement and such—which just in a de jure sense or on an episodic moment-to-moment level is obv always gonna be womyn this day and age but zooming out to more a de facto level there’s literally always a dude pulling the strings the moment life gets patterned or aggregative or diachronic. And if that nigga’s you? Well then congrats, my guy—now you’re the one who’s Sovereign.

Which is fucking fantastic insofar as it liberates you from epistemic foreclosure and the humiliations of modernity, but it also only works if you can keep the frame intact.

Just remember everything has a price—including and especially dignity—and whether that gets paid in tailend risk or status loss or simple logistical friction never forget that life gets shitty for basically all of us to the extent our neurotype diverges from that of Pete Buttigieg. But independence and asymmetry make you a king; just know that once you’re illegible nothing in creation’s not precarious at times, while an exhaustive jihad of schmititan maximalism on not-Me reality realistically oft runs a bit ronery—even and occasionally especially in bed beside a bawling buxom bottom-up BPD bih.

Becoming legible, grammar-compliant, at ease with adversarial normativity—these things are necessary for a stable and secure life with toothy enforcement mechanisms that can be deployed against both you and ur counterparties, however asymmetrically. For some neurotypes these things will also preclude epistemic and narrative dignity, and also meaningful erotic satisfaction. But life is ultimately always and everywhere about tradeoffs, and whatever happens is justified, and everything is always priced in.

Make sense?

If it doesn’t, this isn’t for you—which of course is entirely fine!

Cause if I’m honest there are certain situations where idrgaf if niggas get routed back towards harm avoidance logic—when every tard escapes the kiddie pool it usually just ends up with the one kid who could handle the high jump back in floaties.

---

It doesn’t do for men to complain—ever.

The moment you feel yourself falling into a frame women will see as Whining you need to recalibrate; present it from a new angle that’ll land a little less cockroachily.

So what I’ll do now is explain to my fellow fellers why women are afforded a sort of basal epistemic and narrative dignity that putting it charitably registers to menfolk as correspondence-agnostic at best and obscurantist and inappropriately moralized.

Treat it as an exercise in mythopoesis—my goal being to forge a stable and resonant heuristic that A) provides men explanatory fidelity and predictive closure as regards womanly behavior men often parse as confusing / inconsistent / bad faith; B) helps men maintain a fondness and love and camaraderie with women instead of spiraling in recursive paranoid preemptive poopoopeepee pilpil; C) is legible to at least the sort of chickies who still subscribe to The Walt Right newsletter in spite of all my bullshit this year—and at a minimum Lirpa Strike / Kryptogal (Kate, if you like) / Meghan Bell.

So all that said—let’s talk about the Marian Purity Narrative.

---

The Marian Purity Narrative (MPN) is an oftentimes conscious and often not tendency in Western culture to shrink or shroud or minimize the Dark Feminine—meaning here unselfconscious solipsism and vanity, a certain frothy girlish caprice, unapologetic hypergamous strategery, gleefully vindictive sadism toward weak men especially and you can fill in the rest. All of these are crucial facets of the feminine shadowself that in pagan antiquity was usually afforded a certain gravitas that lent girlypops who were neurodivergent / ugly / low status a broadly legible archetype to contextualize bitchy behavior (think Pandora’s Box or the Medusa story) and likewise let more lovely hot elite women aestheticize their cruelty in exactly the same way e.g. Dasha and Zoomette art hoes do today—which in practice loads of guys ackshully find hugely cathartic btw because at least that approach doesn’t need to make you the bad guy by default or bury all conflict under bloodless gray rock aspartame affect, and if anything kind of gives you a narrative closure that often proves quite invigorating.

Meanwhile the Abrahamic faiths didn’t see all that much value in the Dark Feminine, and in some very real sense tried to destroy her—or at least humiliate and flatten her and generally make her illegible to wider society as anything but a despised Girardian scapegoat class, specifically by promoting a totalistic Manichean understanding of female nature that today reads as chuddish but for a time was a hugely potent social technology that genuinely does appear to facilitate deeper and more sophisticated modes of masculine self-sacrifice by semiotically entwining the normative standard for female purity or virtue with an image of toothless childlike innocence (glancing also at times toward a harder sort of essential ontological blamelessness) that ofc culminated most archetypally in the figure of Mary, who even to this day remains the fulcrum of traditionalist feminine self-concept and masculine reverence thereof.

That said Trads aren’t the only exponents of MPN—simply the most originalist. But if anything it’s less pervasive in Catholicism these days than in the canonical HR dialect or most schools of feminism or for sure the crypto-consequentialist obscurantist harm reduction epistemics that undergird all mainstream institutions and asymmetrically pathologize anything with even the faintest whiff of male-coded tailend risk.

But zooming out a bit basically every culture on the planet has SOME variation on the MPR—which makes sense; you need that to protect women from low status men and in late modernity especially give girls a script for maintaining emotional coherence in a frictionless oral culture that oft demands rapid and disorienting social realignment.

But the Chinese and especially Indian models for dealing with this seem genuinely quite different and tend to have far less of an absolutist / ideological valence compared to what we have in the West (especially WEIRD cishajnal ecologies that historically venerated women) where it’s both a lot more mythically charged and more totalizing in scope, often claiming dominion over clearly amoral matters of desire and power and intractable friend-enemy conflict by gumming up the works with frivolous assertions of universalism or questions of normative “values”—presumably because in a pre-Pill world that approach is what tended to maximize society’s operative capacity for male sacrifice, and now post-Pill still remains practically necessary simply as a sort of Straussian thing to curb stochastic terrorism from surplus males.

But less autistically the MPN has also just been really deeply internalized by women themselves on account of the fairer sex very genuinely having far more of an affective and relational phenomenology than us and being just a lot more permeable overall—which incidentally is why girls are so drawn to social constructivism, which isn’t true for men at all rly but kind of is for girls because they ackshully are just like playdough most of the time and on account of their synchronic cognition absorb more or less any narrative Power throws at them—and not in that cynical manway either where we’re like smirking at the emp’s micropenis; chickies dream his finery into being, and such delusions are a lot more powerful (perhaps even more real?) than our own beloved ackshullies. And yeah it’s clearly super fucking annoying too on like a civilizational and epistemic level but keep in mind this is likewise what lets us groom bitches into getting turned on when we suck they toesies and shit and also why once in love with you foids will constantly backsolve for all the reasons you’re ackshully supercool and based and not a massive piece of shit even when you objectively suck ass and if you don’t adore this thing about them you’re a chode tbh.

Especially given that the downsides of female permeability actually CAN be reliably mitigated over time and eventually rerouted into something sort of approximating phallic diachronic agency if the woman has a capable father and later bf or husband who doesn’t let her get away with stupid retarded foid shit. This helps to pasteurize in her a more mature and longtermist breed of femininity that isn’t just vibes and affect being predicated above all else on discernment i.e. using feminine intuition to fill in male blind spots while staying firmly affixed to that hard diachronic ontologycock.

But even that ideal is kind of a hard sell, frankly—even for men since we all love to see our girlfriend as a Silly Baby usually, with like Paula Jones Hubs in particular globbing onto literally whatever narrative makes him least a cuck. Whereas with lady readers who aren’t a Substack Aunty type or autistic girl that I specifically have dated it will always be a nonstarter since elite women will perceive it as Offensive to ever suggest they’re less than fully agentic whereas low status women will parse it as ontological terrorism against a complex they really do depend on to not all become cumpigs.

Because the MPN is not some patriarchal imposition on women, and never has been.

It’s a mythopoetic hardening of a framework that game theoretically optimizes ambient deployment of feminine leverage—which any broad will tell you collapses rather pitifully the moment any woman actually starts talking about it, or speaks candidly about her hypergamous instincts and competition with other women, or overtly assesses male worth in a manner that seems reductive or strategic with anyone other than the 6’6 sociopath blowing her out in the hotel room, or owns up to any deliberate cruelty.

More broadly than that? If she’s socially careless or clumsy it might result in those two guys she kinda flirts with sometimes mb when she’s bored or wants ~attention becoming enemies for life and then everyone blames her for the collateral damage even though she’s barely given any thought to either of those niggas.

That’s when she becomes a Fallen Woman—Monica in the 90s; Hillary today—after which coming back in full force is kind of just impossible tbh. Slick Willie and Trump get endless mulligans cause they’re basically God when Strong Horse, whereas when women rise in power their life doesn’t really get any better so much as more surveilled.

Still wombs are expensive and cummies quite cheap—hence the MPN ensuring most girls never even come close to Falling by creating lots of guardrails they can lean on to e.g. pawn off bad behavior on The System or low status men (the other scapegoat) be it individually or collectively, or even a man in their life who doesn’t much mind being seen as a dick so long as his competence and gorilla dominance aren’t undermined given high status guys as a rule are kind of just allowed to be evil. Then she can also renarrate shit as necessary to keep her presently felt emotional reality fully coherent, which niggas rly do just have to eat tbh or else you just become a She Led Me On Guy. Whereas whenever a woman’s accused of malevolence by a man basically all of society will sideeye the dude and insist he must be imaging shit and all in all it’s an immensely frustrating sort of epistemic foreclosure that post-Pill is no longer even in the least bit symmetric or “fair”—but that’s also never really the point of this, has it?

See, MPN allows us to direct the anger female agency inevitably produces and always will produce in men by embedding in its basic grammar a reroute logic that ensures that animus is architecturally precluded from ever cohering against a group that by their very nature need protection (because again: wombs are scarce; cummies cheap) and instead gets directed at a broadly hated cadre of men who run unproductive and unagentic already and as a consequence cost nothing to sacrifice. And the same principle, I’d argue, applies just as well to menfolk on matters of narrative / epistemic dignity, since not letting girls off the hook here will just drive more young women out of the hetero dating pool altogether to go be biddies and lesbos and hookers; we see this pretty palpably already in Zoomettes, who are also the first group of girls btw to grow up with Andrew Tate leering down on them like Gary Heidnik.

So I again ask my male readers to consider the game theoretic reality women are in some entirely real sense responding to—because like doesn’t it feel winsome when she narrates her ex as fucking dogshit compared to you in all those ways? Like yeah she’ll also do that with you to the next guy, but also you won’t be there for it, so who cares?

Also it behooves you to ask yourself: do you REALLY want girls to own their sexual agency more, or do you really just want them to Like You? And no I’m not asking you that in a sneering womanway, but rather as a guy who’s used chickie platitudes about not a good match compatibility poopoopeepee as a foot in the door to fuck em later and tend to think that if you’re both pushy and competent feminine opacity functions much less like a smokescreen than as texture on a mountain you can use to find your footing to climb up and fuck em! like the canny rat you are cause all’s fair nigga.

And yeah clearly foids are annoying when they change the story mid-current but also? Let’s have a little empathy for the double bind chicks are in with normie guys and even girlies often thinking they’re a Bitch if they’re ever just overtly strategic a la Hillary or even Kryptogal and THEN they start to see all these chodes like Wally B popping up to act like James Randi if instead of exposing fake wizards he’d Exhausted girls who want to like be nice to their fat friend or not get raped by the janitor they rejected, with the same basic strategy always of backing goldilocks into a corner rhetorically where she has no choice but to admit to Being Mean and meanwhile all her actions past present future are narrated now with the priors and emotional texture of a hyperverbal autistic man with Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

Gaming around this shit all the time really must be Exhausting.

And said exhaustion is itself ackshully quite interesting, as it explains why the most adaptive chickie neurotypes will usually end up being the ones capable of mitigating cognitive load by for instance dehumanizing any guy who aggregates his experiences as a retarded incel not worth engaging or smuggling consequentialist epistemology into correspondence discourse without realizing it bc blurring is and ought is a matter of course for her or moralizing around power dynamics like a paleolithic war bride who knows she’ll get set on fire if she doesn’t really Mean It eating the cum of the guy who a few hours ago bashed her hubby’s brains in and tossed her newborn in a well.

Ultimately we menfolk create the hard and fast structural incentives that reward girls for adopting Binky’s Facts and Opinions epistemics and selectively abrogating agency; that’s been the case since before we had minds. We like when they act like kids and rewrite the past guy and mythologize us and hate it when they do that for other guys and obviously the guys who are Winners are gonna get their way more like duh nigga.

That said I think a lot of times girls really just do need to disappear into a fugue state and spin themselves a pretty little fable about why she blew that stripper in Nash or cheated on the last dude with the now dude and there are tons of ways more reflective women can aestheticize this shit via Zooey / Dasha affect but at the end of the day the best approach for chicks who aren’t like elite art hoes specifically will pretty much always boil down to acting like a Stupid Girl.

And the MPN is what makes being a Stupid Girl halfway dignified for women.

It’s a mythopoetic fairy tale about as truth-apt as a Lana song kept in circulation mostly because while every chickie knows in her nip nips that on some level she’ll always be the Grugette eating cock in a cave that’s likewise a pretty fucking far cry from ALL she is and that’s in no small part due to Lana songs that help women very genuinely believe she’s dating that 6’6 financebro because he has a Nice Smile and yeah, that actually really fucking does facilitate a higher order pair pond that isn’t 100% about power and catharsis and cummies all the time and literally nothing else.

That said Grugette IS still in there—always; in every solitary woman. Never won’t be.

And that’s why you need a model that accounts for that without rubbing it in women’s faces which is what summons Medusa and turns them all into hookers and dykes. And honestly in a vacuum I’d say a lot of this shit shouldn’t even be propositionalized at all and girls ought to be afforded the plausible deniability their self-concept demands—except we’re clearly NOT in a vacuum, and having made low status men a Girardian scapegoat without figuring out a way to get them all killed in war or something we’ve also made inevitable a kind of ambient cultural terrorism where you’ll always get some mischievous dadraped white trash kid showing the horse girl Andrew Tate vids on his iPhone and turning her for the rest of her life kind of functionally pagan.

And at this point it’s all baked in, frankly, because the Zoomettes who aren’t at least a little bit pagan are for sure a minority in their cohort.

For better or worse, the MPN is quite clearly withering away.

---

So I’m a sadist.

Only in a sexual sense, mind; I don’t get any pleasure like hurting or dominating men. That would be pretty gay.

Though ackshully maybe sadist isn’t even the right word since it’s not about inflicting physical pain directly which seems kind of lower order niggery / 17yo boy coded to me.

Rather it’s the dramaturgy of it all—reauthoring chickie’s self-concept in a lasting way (always whilst facefucking her as that’s the best solvent semiotically) that creates a durable epistemic and narrative sovereignty over her cognition that doesn’t immediately vanish into thin air once the next caveman comes along.

Yeah I know I just said girls need to have the right to narrate over men more generally.
Whenever you say something like that you’re pricing in states of exception. I’m one.

In lots of ways, ackshully—like I have a pretty big platform with loads of normie readers but don’t really have to self-censor at all these days, so:

• One thing that sucks ass is tons of women want to be like Owned and Raped and it’s lovely for like the first weeks and then suddenly her fattest friend’s opinion of you becomes something you have to think about and you also get a bit reticent to leave giant purple bite marks on her thighs like you used to or like get chickie wasted and fuck her unconscious body bc if the fat chick texts bae while she’s getting shitfaced she might say something that doesn’t translate contexts well or like fatty will be intractably opposed to the idea of Male Headship and a romance based on asymmetry ipso facto and so try to convince babygirl to get a nail color that ~she wants instead of the one you’re literally paying for and then if you set any boundaries the fatty can say See he’s controlling you which first like Yes Cunt that’s the point and second even by stupid normie standards this isn’t healthy bc girls have that relational and affective phenomenology and especially with super feminine neurotypical Zoomettes born after 9/11 a lot of these girls are pure affect and have a new personality for every person they talk to which means it will often be like her and the fat friend vs. you when they’re together and then you and her against the fat friend when you’re together and realistically it’s just a Schmittian bind all about power assertion that really does require what stupid libtards call isolation and grooming or whatever. Not from all friends that’s psycho but a lot of girls who WANT to be dominated also get sabotaged by these resentful lunch lady types who need to be iced out and yeah you should just make bae block her.

• More generally speaking there are a lot of people who simply aren’t comfy with asymmetry existing at all and will do all these little ambient things to make you feel uncomfortable or flatten your dynamic in various ways or lower its contextual status and it will always be plausibly deniable which means you honestly do just need a Schmittian approach here too. People with shitty fake and gay “values” and “morality” a lot of times think that gives them an excuse to be dishonorable and disloyal and if someone puts retarded propositionalized normativity over a flesh and blood duty bond they very genuinely deserve to be tortured to death simple as.

• You people need to stop taking sociological surveys at face value. Yes at a glance they seem to indicate women are more turned on by the idea of being raped than men are turned on by the idea of raping someone—it’s also trivially obvious those aren’t anywhere near symmetrical positions when it comes to obvious-ass lying incentives. Moreover the pornhub studies are unsound because most of the guys who want to jerk off to like rape videos are gonna be on motherless or xrares whereas women are all normalfags who will always just use the biggest platform

• When I was 26 I ackshully did get groomed by my 21yo Zoomette sugar baby into developing a thing for slapping bitches—who as a rule do indeed be Cwazy, but precious few of them so much as me, and even fewer at the echelon of Little Marie

• As mentioned if a girl ackshully likes you she usually will just internalize most of your fetishes to p hilarious degree tbh. And so I think a lot of guys will initiate something and the girl will like it and then they’ll use that to launder their own appetite when bullshitting with their buddies and shit. So that’s actually a ladder pulling mechanism too because you can always if you’re high status groom your gf into validating your disgusting fetishes but guys who can’t don’t get to talk about it which makes your own sexual neurotype more dominant in The Discourse.

• one time my first girlfriend told me about a time she found Vore porn (like eating niggas) on her Redditor Normalfag high school bf’s laptop and said this really surprised her because he was so normie. However I think it actually is quite a lot more common for the most normalfag guys to be into the most overtly violent stuff even if they’re a lot better at hiding it than spergs. Also chicks have NO idea how huge the Fake Snuff genre is these days, which first of all suggests to me that it’s oftentimes repressed and not made legible to women but sexualized misogyny is 100% skyrocketing fast in an ambient way that in practice will get almost entire absorbed by working class and BIPOC/LatinX women. But about the snuff videos if you’re wondering no they’re not that realistic at all you can def tell it’s fake but it’s kind of really gay tbh bc it’s usually like a perfect rape scene and then he kills her for literally no reason with a macaroni crunch sound and she’s just lying there with a retarded look on her face pretending to be dead as he fucks her and that sort of ruins it for me tbh bc even when I’m in like evil-sexual dehumanize womyn mode I feel a bit like a knight watching some peasant eating a horse and also the fact that these studios are massive and work with mainstream pornstars and it looks like tens of thousands of normgroid men are jerking off to like murder kind of makes me double down on floaties straussianism tbh.