Is Blanket Opposition to PUA and Game a Form of Male Sexual Trade Unionism?

I’ve recently been having a rather unfruitful discussion with Emma the Emo over the extent to which men’s rights supporters should avoid ‘being just like feminists’.  She sees my belief that female sexuality is ‘mal-adaptive’ as akin to radical feminists describing all men as rapists.

Anyway, to be fair, the discussion did get me thinking a little over what would count as men’s rights supporters being ‘as bad as feminists’.  Primarily, given that I consider feminism to be a (female) sexual trade union, what would count as a men’s rights movment becoming  nothing more than a ‘sexual trade union’ for men.

First of all, I have no objection in itself to men forming amongst themselves a ‘sexual trade union’ to combat the feminist version that is responsible for the current rape of male sexuality, and the criminalization and destruction of untold thousands of men around the world.

Another of my readers – Ian – recently remarked that if it comes down to a battle between organized men and organized women, ‘the vagina will win’.

Actually, that’s not true.  If men did organize themselves in the way that women have, and actually took on women, it wouldn’t even be a battle.  It would be a massacre.  A bloodbath.  As we all know, the problem is getting men to form a male union that can defend itself and ‘fight’ women, and whether we are even psychologically or genetically capable of doing so.  The fact also remains, that women HAVE organised themselves into a political army that seeks to crush men, and men have not even shown up on the battlefield (hopefully, we are starting to finally do that with the MRM).

Does male opposition to PUA and Game count as a form of sexual trade unionism?

I am inclined to say yes, and a not very effective, moral, or intelligent trade union at that.

The feminist sexual trade union seeks to further female sexual power, in particular female sexual market value.  This applies to the vast majority of women.  Even young attractive females arguably have their sexual power and choices diminished by the presence, for example, of ubiquitous free internet porn that serves as a substitute or alternative for a relationship with her, or at least distracts male attention away from her.  The fact that most active members of the Sexual Trade Union (i.e. feminists) are middle-aged ugly crones, might be in large part due to the fact that political power invariably resides in the hands of older people, male or female.  In fact, young women vote or economically franchise these feminists into power, as do middle-aged females.

However, no doubt a middle-aged feminist telling a young prostitute or porn actress, earning an upper middle-class salary for work she enjoys and freely chooses, that she is being ‘exploited’, is transparently an example of a (large) subset of females retaining sexual power at the expense of other (a much smaller subset of) females.

PUA allegedly gives men increased sexual choice and hence power over attractive women.  On the surface, men, and certainly men’s rights activists, should welcome this.  However, this is not the case.  The reasons given of course will be that ‘PUAs are frauds’, ‘PUAs teach men to be pussy beggers’ etc.  This sounds suspiciously like the older feminists telling the young porn star that she is being taking advantage of.

And the demographic of the ‘PUA hater’ does indeed appear to have a vested interest in limiting sexual choice for the ‘PUA’.  Namely, the male opponents of Game appear to be largely older men and/or wealthy men who are no longer in the market (at least not without paying or without committing long term), and also young men who suffer from a lack of looks, status, or personality, who have ‘tried pua’ and found it didn’t help them to overcome those natural disadvantages.

No doubt the power of PUA and Game to change any man’s sex life has been massively exaggerated, not least by the PUA gurus hoping to sell bootcamps and e-books.  However, for a young man with average or better looks, but non optimal social skills, general PUA advice can certainly help him get laid more often than he otherwise would (PUA detractors will still say that the advice that works is just ‘common sense’).

PUA allows average young men to take more of the pussy pie.  And of course, it is young men who already enjoy a greater share of that pie.  PUA essentially teaches young men not to stay in a committed relationship, that having sex with lots of decent looking women is possible.

Obviously, if you are autistic or below average height, or ginger haired, even being 25 wont help you walk up to attractive girls and get them into bed after a ‘neg opener’, or even to get a flakey phone number from them.  If you are 60 years old, you will still have to pay for the premium pussy in some form – no amount of Game is likely to help you.  In fact, you are more likely to have to pay given that the young attractive females have more young men chasing them with the knowledge and ability to get them into bed for free.

Thus PUA is good for ordinary young men with average or above average looks, not so good for everybody else.

Now most of my regular commentators are, like me, past 40.  Most of them appear to be quite strongly opposed to PUA.   Similarly throughout the men’s rights movement – it is older guys like Paul Elam who are most vehemently opposed to PUA, while it is the younger MRAs who support it.

Is this a form of sexual trade unionism, and what is my opinion of this?

As I said, I do not object to sexual trade unionism in terms of men finally banding together to stand their ground against the gynocratic privileging of female sexual needs, even if it means ‘being as bad as feminists’.  However, if opposition to PUA is a form of male sexual trade unionism, it’s likely to be a short-sighted and unproductive form of it.  This is because it is primarily seeking to diminish the sexual choices of younger men so that older men may benefit.  It is men with low sexual market value trying to raise their own sexual market value at the expense of other men.  In particular, other men who are likely to form the bedrock of any sex positive men’s rights movement that has the capability to take on feminism.

The question ought to be asked by men’s rights opponents of PUA : Is my sexual power threatened more by feminism or by Game?


The limits of war booty ideology

pluto the dog says:

If you check the US rape statistics yoy will discover the hispanomuds are bigger offenders than the negroids, its like theyre competing with each other to take the main prize – which is White women. When the muslim numbers grow a bit more you will get them competing with the negroids and the hispanomuds – there wont be enough White women to satisfy all three groups, dont forget the Indians either, those hindoos know how to rape White women too lol.

Comment: Too much war booty ideology can lead to competition and internecine warfare. It is no surprise Salafists are now starting to KILL Shi’ite women and children.

Eis to gynaikon

White Nationalism has two axioms: Greeks are White and all Whites are equally White. Most, like Kievsky of Mindweapons in Ragnarok, are comfortable with the idea of taking wives from other White territories. He himself has taken a Russian wife. Given the admiration WNs have for Golden Dawn, this means male members of Golden Dawn should have access to women of all White nations, Sweden in particular, if necessary in polygynous relationships. After all, shouldn’t the best men get the women? Either the Swedes accept masculine Aryans, like Nikolaos Michaloliakos, as fathers of their children, or they accept feminine Jewesses, like Caroline Szyber, as mothers of their children.

Tradcons Let Feminists Define Their Reality

If a feminist says X, doesn’t that mean that someone saying not X or anti-X is an anti-feminist?  Your initial impulse might be to say yes, but the answer is not necessarily.  It depends on what X is and what feminists mean by X.  It also depends on whether feminists actually want X or are just saying it.  If a feminist says X, picking the opposite position of X without analyzing what the feminists actually mean and whether feminists are being honest when they say X is letting feminists define your reality.  Increasingly, this is what tradcons are doing.

A good example of this is the word, “equality”.  When a MRA like Paul Elam says the word, “equality”, he is talking about things like equality before the law (fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.).  In other words, Paul Elam is speaking in standard English.  When a feminist says “equality” they are completely redefining the term to be something else, namely men and women being completely the same (with enforcement by a large oppressive government).  This is not standard English, but that isn’t the worst problem.  Even by “feministese”, feminists are lying because what they really want is female supremacism.

What tradcons do in this case is blur the standard English definition of the word, “equality” and the “feministese” definition.  They then use this as a platform to say that there’s no difference between MRAs like Paul Elam and actual feminists.  Then the tradcons take the position of being “anti-equality” so that they’re “anti-feminist”. What has happened here is that the tradcons have completely failed to actually analyze the situation.  If you look at the context in which a MRA talks about equality vs. a feminist talking about equality, it’s obvious that the MRA and the feminist mean two completely different things.  Plus, the MRA is honest while the feminist is dishonest.  To say otherwise like the tradcons do, only helps the feminists because tradcons are implicitly saying that feminists are honest and speaking standard English.  Both of those are wrong, and a big part of the anti-feminist argument is to show that feminists are redefining language when it suits them and that feminists are dishonest.  Tradcons are sabotaging actual anti-feminist efforts.

“Equality” isn’t the only example of tradcons doing this.  You can see the same thing with Mark Richardson’s (Oz Conservative) “autonomy theory”.  It’s a long philosophical treatise that uses common English terms (like “autonomy”) are completely redefines them.  In many cases, it redefines them into the “feministese” version of those terms.

Trying to confront tradcons about this is useless.  They just hide behind “philosophy” when you confront them.  The problem is tradcon thinking and language has been completely taken over by feminism.  Saying the opposite of what the feminists say when your ideas and language is completely controlled by them, does not make you an anti-feminist.  All it means is that you have let feminists define and control your reality.

Comment: Never adopt the frame of your enemy.

Should Pinoy men contact Western women?

Masters at peddling the paradise-romance concoction, the Kuta Cowboys have made Bali the world’s leading destination for female sex tourists. In this one-of-a-kind documentary we reveal the secrets of the trade.

“If my son were to become a cowboy like my husband, I would be proud”, says Ne Neyong. Just a stone’s throw from the straw hut where she raises her children, Bali’s postcard-perfect beaches stretch out for miles. It’s here that bronzed beach ambassadors like her husband look for foreign tourists. Selling ‘i love you’ in six different languages and accepting a drink or a gift in return. “We don’t take money for sex”, says Rudi, with a michievous smile, “we just love women..”.

“Women in the West don’t want to be women anymore. They come here searching for something, and they let their inhibitions go”. Young, sexy, and full of laughter, the Kuta Cowboys seem to be having the time of their lives. There’s a surprising amount of calculation behind the women they choose to seduce –“the older one means more money for me”. Yet playing guitar, and surfing on the beach all day, they exude a genuine enthusiasm for meeting people, which women from Europe in particular find hard to resist. “They push the right buttons”, says Linnea from Sweden, “and they really like to have sex”.

Yet poverty lies behind every chat-up line. Wayan “wanted to be a policeman”, but a poor education and an ailing father led him to the beach. Both his father and his wife are proud that he provides for his family – because the aim of every good cowboy is to get a motorbike and a house. “I lived in Germany, Paris, Belgium..”, Rudi says of the opportunities women have given him. But the lure of his simple life on the beach is always too strong. Because so long as they’re young, there’s always another woman, and another sunny day.

“I will be thirty soon, I probably only have two years more I can do this”. It’s a story Bobby knows all too well. Now pushing 60, he wanders around the beach all day, regaling the younger boys with stories of his former glory. They think of him as a legend, but he admits “people only see the good side of beach boy life”. Yet in this sun-soaked paradise, where illiteracy and poverty are rife, boys as young as twelve dream of following in his footsteps. “When I’m eighteen I’ll find a foreign woman”, says Alex. Surprising, entertaining, and informative.

carl 06.02.2012 23:49

Just like men who go to Thailand or some other third world country for sex with women, the only difference being its the women who go to Bali for sex with men. Tit for tat then.

Comment: But male sex tourism is stigmatized. Pinoy men have the same looks of  Bali men, and have the same circumcized cock non-Muslim European women seem to like in Muslim men. So those Pinoys should contact Western(i.e. non-Muslim European) women. Or shouldn’t they?

Why the Population Controllers prefer abortion over porn

There is a very easy reason why the Population Controllers prefer feminism/abortion over MRM/porn. Suppose you have 100 women and 100 men. If you turn 80 women into aborting career feminists, only 20 women can be impregnated, regardless of the number of men. If you turn 80 men into pornography viewers, the remaining 20 men can still impregnate all the 100 women.
It also explains the paradox that the same “feminists” allow gendercide in China and India, as well as sterilization targetting women.

It all boils down to elimination of fertile wombs.

Swedish Matriarchy

What about matrilinear Swedish Nationalism? That is, Swedishness runs along the mother. This means Swedish women can screw around with other ethnicities, but Swedish men can’t. Of course, women can have several husbands, and captured toyboys, but men are limited to one wife.

By treating children as Swedish, they gain Swedish Privilege. This will pose serious ideological problems for Cultural “Marxists”.