Vibrators and Blow-Up Dolls

I think it's safe to say that mainstream media systematically ridicule men. Or can you, off the top of your head, tell me about a movie or TV show that portrays a woman as emotionally unstable, unreliable, or incompetent? Those traits are nowadays apparently the sole domain of men. Man-bashing of that kind is so common that you may not even notice it any more.

If you need a reminder, check out this video:

(That guy has created a series of over a dozen videos that collect and discuss depictions of misandry in the media. Check it out if you've got the time.)


Think of stereotypical masturbation devices for men and women for a second!

You probably associate "woman" with "vibrator" and "man" with "blow-up doll". Nowadays, the Flesh Light may be a more appropriate analogue, and blow up dolls evolved into Real Dolls, but those details are beside the point. What does matter, though, is that vibrators are commonly portrayed as tools for female empowerment, and quite possibly you've come across lists like, "Reasons why a Vibrator is Better than a Boyfriend" You won't find answer like "Because it doesn't care about the fact that no guy wants me" on there, though.

However, blow-up dolls serve the same purpose as vibrators. But instead of being tools for male empowerment, they are used to belittle guys. The message a guy gets regarding those sex toys is that he's a loser. Isn't this an absurd double standard? You're supposed to be a loser or a creep, and of course automatically an "incel" if you use a sex toy. A cursory search on the Internet will reveal plenty of posts by women who share this opinion. Yet, once the conversation switches to vibrators, they are all about independence, and their old empowerment shtick.

I know, logic isn't held in high regards in feminist circles. Still, I can't help but think that if it's supposed to be pathetic to use a Flesh Light, it's certainly equally pathetic to use a vibrator. Of course, if you're a woman and used to getting away with having double standards, you may hold a different view. This then leads to the conclusion that the negative portrayal of sex toys that are designed for men is yet another example of a questionable double standard. I'll discuss more of those in future posts.


What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!

An Encouraging Message from a Reader

This was recently posted in the comments section of the post So, how healthy is the PUA Scene? I thought it deserved to be seen by a greater number of people.


I am so happy to have found the idiocy of this scene early on. The straw that broke my back is when I started hanging out with someone who wanted me to be their wing and assured me that he was having epic nights going out and that he had slept with 100+ girls in his life. This idiot had internalized almost every single PUA material out there that he could quote things verbatim. Being that he was my height (5"8) and bald and was getting as many women as he claimed to be getting excited me. I was hopeful at the prospect of hanging out with him and learning and benefiting.


Well it didn't take long to see a pattern. Every time we would hit the clubs, my "wing" (and I use that term loosely as he would just go at it alone as soon as we hit any scene) would consistently hit on the most unattractive girls in the club. Consistently. And he would later brag about his conquests. He would tell me that he got that "cute" girls number and I would be thinking what cute girl? That beast with the thinning hair?

One particular time when we went out I approached a girl and apparently leaned in while talking to her. Well my wing vehemently instilled the notion in me that I should not lean in while talking to a girl. Because by golly leaning in is the death knell when talking to a girl, lovedrop said so so it must be true! And his advice was solid because of all the, and I quote "abundance" he was enjoying. And abundance of what? Heavy unattractive women that were just happy that someone was talking to them?

All of my success with women has come from just looking as good as I possibly can, and being as normal and fun as possible and letting the chips fall where they may.

The PUA scene is a joke and I'm glad people are starting to realize it.

Feminist Power Fantasies

Have you ever been in a situation in which people were expected to make small talk, and you were asked in which historic epoch you would have liked to live in? I think it's an absurd question, but it's one that enjoys some popularity. Especially women seem fond of that kind of daydreaming. However, as soon as people explore this topic, they make one serious mistake: they refer to the elites, the aristocracy.

Don't get me wrong, this kind of comparison is of course perfectly legitimate if you happen to be the Queen of England and ask yourself whether any of your ancestors might have been a happier parasite than you are. However, the vast majority of people aren't quite so lucky. So, the next time a girl asks you a question like that, before blabbering about how fabulous it must have been to have lived in the baroque era, tell her to think about the fate of the common man. Suddenly, this comparison isn't quite so sexy anymore.

Yes, Virginia, of course you would have lived in Versailles!

But where am I going with this? Well, in my last post I discussed the topic of alleged female power, in short, the hypothesis that women hold all sexual power, and can have sex with whom they want, when they want. As I thought more about this, it struck me that the feminists who came up with this must have made the same mistake as your typical ditzy teenage airhead who wonders what being a courtesan of Louis XIV was like. Likewise, instead of wondering how the average woman might fare in a typical club or bar, feminists, seem to have pictured supermodels and actresses instead --- but in a regular club, so that they'd really stand out. As Fifth Season pointed out in the comment section of my last article, Leonardo DiCaprio got tired of Bar Refaeli, a woman surely plenty of men fantasize about. But if you're Leonardo DiCaprio, you can have plenty of other hot women, which again renders the concept of female sexual power invalid.

Feminist ideology is full of absurd comparisons, ignoring the fate of the average man or woman in typical situations, and instead focusing on extreme outliers, and possibly even in unrealistic situations. Just think of all this talk about the alleged subjugation of women. Men always had it so much better in history and all that.. You know, men were kings, generals, authors, scientists, tycoons and whatnot. But what was the fate of the common man? I once asked a feminist how many women she believed have lost their lives fighting in World War II. She threw a fit and accused me of not taking the plight of women seriously. I don't care what your bullshit feminist theory textbook says. Compared to the risk of dying on the battle field or returning home with a missing limb, it's not so bad to be subjugated. If it isn't a privilege not to have to fight in a war, then I wouldn't know what is. But why bother with those pesky little details when you can focus on the "big picture" instead?


What's your opinion? Let me know in the comment section below!

Do women really hold all sexual power?

There is a lot of bullshit in the mainstream media. I find it especially irritating when clearly subjective opinions are presented in an allegedly objective manner by people who have a hidden agenda. One such example is the claim that women have all the sexual power in the world. Of course they don't. (Hint: it's mutual).

There is a longer backstory behind this post, and it seems worthwhile discussing it openly. I recently took an online course in Behavioral Economics on Coursera. The teacher, Dan Ariely, is knowledgeable and also lovingly flippant at times. For instance, he started every lecture with an inappropriate joke, and plenty of the examples he used might have easily offended some people's sensibilities. As a bonus, there were guest lectures at the end of each week, given by professors teaching in behavioral economics or related disciplines like psychology.

In week 2, though, I saw some giddy woman in front of the camera, telling about her "research". She was making some rather daring statements, such as "women have all the sexual power", "women decide how soon in a relationship sex happens", or, my favorite, "men's sexuality has no worth". Of course, she referred to the mainstream media model of dating, according to which a guy has to wait three weeks before some chick will spread her legs for you. Needless to say, in her little world, this applies to "all women", and we as men are at their complete mercy.


I had a hearty laugh because I assumed Dan Ariely had put an actress on stage to drive the point home that sloppy reasoning quickly leads to absurd conclusions. I just didn't want to believe that a middle-aged woman with teenager-like antics and absurdly sloppy reasoning would really be a professor. The course was on irrational behavior in the context of economics or, more generally, decision-making, so it wouldn't have surprised me if she had been a mere actress, having had the purpose of cheering us up a little bit.

As it turned out, that woman was not an actress. Her name is Kathleen Vohs, and she's a professor of marketing at University of Minnesota. Here is the video, in case you are interested. Within the first few minutes you'll hear zingers like, "sex is a female resource", "men trade resources with women in exchange for sex", or the aforementioned "male sexuality has no value or worth". The video is about 20 minutes long. I nearly made it to the six-minute mark.

Even if you don't have the time to expose yourself to her drivel, the idea that we men are at the complete mercy of women when it comes to sex is probably familiar to you. In the video, one of the examples of the alleged sexual value of women was that some retail store offered women a 40 Euro voucher (real worth: close to zero) and a glass of champagne if they showed up topless. In my book, this is a case of complete lack of dignity if not of outright stupidity, though.

But let's get back to dating. In the course forum, one woman wrote what could have been taken from some feminist blog, Jezebel, or that disgraceful Manboobz blog:

To put it pretty crudely, a woman can get sex whenever she wants. There will nearly always be a man willing to (gosh, what is the right way to say it...) fulfill that need. However, a man can't always find a willing female partner. Again, this points to women holding most of the value of sex.

To my surprise, one woman replied to that, writing that she, "listened to that lecture and I thought my head was going to pop off.  [Kathleen Vohs] made so many generalizations about women and so many giant leaps in her conclusion". She also punched a hole in Vohs' argument by asking, "What happens to the theory of sexual economics when it is a homosexual couple?" But let's not get critical thinking get in the way of some feminist fantasy!

Does the theory of unlimited female sexual power make any sense to you, like the first commenter expressed it?

Sure, put some woman into a bar, and there will be some dude hitting on her. But will it be the kind of guy that makes her gina tingle? Women might have the perception that they have all the power because the social reality is such that the guy has to make a move and women can then lean back and make their pick. Expressed in more abstract terms, women trade activity for a restricted range of choices since they can only select from their actual suitors. However, put that woman in a bar and tell her to exert her "sexual power" by getting the hottest guy in the place, and her confidence will quickly falter.

Of course, if a woman stoops low enough, she might find some guy who is willing to have sex with her. Yet, it's the same with men. If you forget about your standards and are willing to go for the bottom of the barrel, you should find it pretty easy to get laid. Maybe start hanging out at "fat acceptance" meetings if you're really desperate. However, what you desire is not always what you can realistically expect to get. Millions of girls want to fuck Justin Bieber, but how many really get the chance?

If you are in the unfortunate position that you don't enjoy a reasonably high sexual market value, you can either force yourself to fuck some woman that only grosses you out (let know how it was!), or you do the sensible thing and remain involuntarily celibate. Either that, or you pay for sex. Now imagine you are a woman who holds "all sexual power". She's in a club, wanting to get laid. She's a bit on the short side, her chin is far from feminine, and she's fat in all the wrong places. Now she's doing her best to attract some guy. Sadly, she notices that all the hot guys don't even notice her, and the average ones, well, they all look so average to her. So what's she going to do? Having some more beers is one possible solution, since she knows that it will make her feel attracted to guys she's otherwise be repelled by. Or turning lesbian. Or simply avoid going to nightclubs. All three are common strategies.


Please comment below if you've got something to add or ask.

Sex, Porn, and Voluntary Celibacy

In the comments section to my recent post on Google search trends regarding the main figures in the seduction industry there was an interesting debate. A PUA believer (shill?) claimed that because interest in search terms like "picking up girls" was high, the seduction industry must be in great shape. You can probably quickly find out what the problem with this line of reasoning is. If not, then feel free to refer to my response to that comment.

An anonymous commenter chimed in, ridiculing that position by referring to the ever-rising interest in sex and porn to further illustrate the absurdity of that argument. Here's the graph, taken straight from Google Trends. It shows interest in the keywords "sex" and "porn" over time, and look at the success story "porn" has become:

"sex" (red) vs. "porn" (blue)

So, why would you prefer porn over sex? I don't want to read too much into this data, but I couldn't help but think of the rise of the MGTOW community. A relatively prominent position in this scene is to choose voluntarily celibacy, or simply pay for sex, instead of following some made-up social conventions. You know, nonsense like that the wedding ring is supposed to cost the equivalent of half your annual income, or that fat women have a "great personality" and all that jazz.


My perception is that it has become more common that men openly question societal institutions. Let's be honest: there aren't so many women around who are worth spending time with, let alone date or marry. Given contemporary obesity rates and absurd levels of entitlement, which are present in many Western women, I can perfectly well understand when someone says that he doesn't want to participate in that kind of game. The MGTOW community is growing, and Western society itself does a pretty good job discouraging men from getting involved with women. There are risks everywhere. Heck, in some countries you would get into serious trouble if, say, you doubted that the kid of your wife is yours, did a paternity test (that then confirms that it's some other man's kid). In France, you'll risk a fine of 15,000 Euros and a year in prison, and would still have to pay alimony.

So, is it any surprise that some men prefer porn over sex, as the chart above seems to imply?

I know, I know, I'm making quite a few assumptions here, but if you look at the general tendencies, you'd have to admit that it's no longer unusual that men not only don't marry, but refuse to enter any kind of relationship with women. We were discussing this and related issues in a thread on the forum some time ago, in "The End of Dating". Johnny wrote:

I feel another reason which is causing this is that the entertainment value benchmark which a "date" has to meet has gone up to a ridiculous amount. There is HD porn at your fingertips, online tv shows and movies, you have a super duper highly customized playlist of music on your phone, an exact schedule of upcoming events and classes and whatever, great food can arrive at your doorstep if need be, you can read your favorite books on your kindle etc. I mean after all this for you to spend a lot of time in a girl - she better be really special.

I couldn't agree more. Sure, there are a few very special girls out there (I'm married to one), but there is no reason your life can't be complete without a girl, and it seems that more and more men are realizing that. It can take time to find someone to spend time or your life with, and that's a choice you shouldn't take lightly. In general, though, I think that your typical average girl has very little to offer. It seems that this is an insight more and more men are making, which might explain the data of Google Trends above.

So, how healthy is the PUA Scene?

It's been a while since I actively looked into the mainstream seduction community online. My perception certainly is that while there are new fads like currently Simple Pickup and Roosh, the main players have been on the way out. The other day I researched traffic patterns via Google, and look what I found:

Neil Strauss

This is celebrated author Neil Strauss, on a slow but steady downward slope. The other players --- no pun intended --- in this business didn't fare quite so well. On the other hand, Neil Strauss is quite prominent due to his other books, which helps him keep his popularity up.

Can you guess what the following graph represents?

Mystery Method

It's public interest in Mystery Method. Mystery represents mainstream (idiotic) PUA game more than anyone, given that he was the most prominent character. Thus, this graph is presumably more indicative of the scene than any other. Note the sudden spike in 2007, followed by a continuous slide.

Up next: Real Social Dynamics.

Real Social Dynamics

Things don't look so good either. It was quite obvious that business can't be as good as it used to be, given that they stopped releasing DVD-sets with PUA advice, and heavily censor their forum to keep their members in the dark. On a side note, the graph for "RSD" looks much different, but this is because RSD is more commonly used as an acronym for "repetitive stress disorder". That's what you get if you spend all your evenings writing fake reviews for RSD bootcamps and make up "lay reports". Oh, wait...

When I looked up "Real Social Dynamics", I remembered that Mystery's company was actually called "Venusian Arts". The development is even more dramatic than with "Mystery Method":

Venusian Arts

One of my favorite bullshitter was virgin-turned-PUA Mehow. I haven't looked at his websites for years, but the last time I checked it, it had a picture of him and a Bentley or Maybach, or some other car worthy of a man of his stature. I wonder what kind of car he is leasing nowadays.

Mehow

Do you remember Love Systems? They occupy a special place in my heart. I had the opportunity of witnessing their incompetent coaches "in field". This made me immediately doubt everything related to PUA. It seems that this graph is lacking some "emotional spikes":

LoveSystems

Who's missing? Well, there is Ross Jeffries' "speed seduction", but if you overlay that graph with any of the others, you realize that he never profited from the media hype around PUA. In fact, the graph starts with a downward slope:

Speed Seduction

However, based on Google's data, Jeffries only received a fraction of the interest Mystery managed to gather. Wasn't there once some big fake drama surrounding Ross and Mystery? Well, according to the data, the reality looked more like that:

Speed Seduction vs Mystery Method

"Speed Seduction" is in blue, "Mystery Method" in red.

I'll conclude this post with the other old timer of the scene, David DeAngelo. When he moved on to fake business coaching and rebranded himself as "Eben Pagan", it was an indication that the well had run dry. David D. allegedly makes 40 millions a year. You wouldn't quite guess this is you look at this:

David DeAngelo

He began mentioning those multi-million figures during a time when his popularity was already nosediving. It seems that Google supports a suspicion I occasionally stated, namely that Eben Pagan merely claimed to have made "X amount of money" to give himself some fake credentials and justify his business teaching, just like David D. claimed he was good with girls in order to justify his seduction products. But if you get laid yourself and then look at David D.'s stuff, you wonder whether he counts every time he rubs one out as a notch on his bedpost.

Here's some bonus content, in case you are a PUA shill and want to claim that "Eben Pagan" now surely makes dozens of millions teaching Internet marketing:

Battle of the Gurus: David DeAngelo vs Eben Pagan

"David DeAngelo" is on the red team, while "Eben Pagan" is dressed in blue and trying to catch up.