That didn’t explain monogamy

I watched another trash show that cloaks itself as “science” yesterday. This one, a new Netflix show called Explained: Monogamy, set out to explain how we are not meant to be monogamous and that culture instituted monogamy to suppress people’s sexual desires. 

The show goes further. They take this fact and draw the conclusion that because sex with lots of people is natural because it feels good, we should therefore do it.

The documentary is right – it is unnatural to suppress our sexual appetites. And yes, that’s exactly why marriage and monogamy came about. That’s the point of marriage and monogamy.  And that’s not a bad thing. 

Monogamy gives us meaning. It’s good for culture. This isn’t because of arbitrary rules. It’s healthy when men at the bottom have a chance of receiving intimacy. Women don’t have this problem. Dudes at the top will have sex and share intimacy with many women.

Men at the bottom aren’t afforded that luxury. Men at the bottom do things like shoot up schools and commit crimes when they have no value and don’t receive intimacy.

We don’t just have sex because it feels good. If we did we would be much more eager to fuck the new sex robots and we would be content masturbating. There wouldn’t be angry kids shooting up schools because they have an outlet of their hand and a video. But that’s not what we want. We want intimacy.

Monogamy is a recent invention. That was cited as a reason it shouldn’t exist. You know what else is a recent invention?

Democracy. Modern infrastructure. Transportation.

Society civilized when it became monogamous. No longer were people physically fighting each other to maintain a dominance hierarchy and access to the harem.

With monogamy, the average man had a chance to be with women they didn’t previously have access to. This allowed him to focus on actually being productive instead of fighting for access to pussy.

The documentary says monogamy started for property rights and alliances between families. That’s not true at all. We’ve seen kings and queens marry but kings maintain their harems. Marriage and monogamy did not start to help the one percent. It started to help the 90% that did not have access to women and resources.

90%? Yes. It was, and still is that large of gap between the attractive and unattractive. This is evident in the modern dating world. There’s published data from all the dating apps, but it’s also observable in bars – men find more women attractive than women find men attractive. We don’t date people we don’t find attractive.

Without monogamy, women wouldn’t date 90% of men. It’s because of this phenomenon there aren’t a lot of attractive men. “There’s someone for everyone.” No, there’s not. Not in a society where we go for what’s attractive.

It’s not a bad thing to have freedom and choices. It is a bad thing when there are consequences to those freedoms and choices that women aren’t told about. I want women to have freedom. I want them to be aware of the consequences to those freedoms.

When women chase what’s attractive and don’t enter a monogamous relationship when they are at their peak attractive level, they remove the option to be with a very attractive man (because they too have options). When women settle, they get unhappy because they’ve had “more attractive”. When women are unhappy in a relationship, they leave. Cue divorce rates, split families.

“If marriage wasn’t a thing we wouldn’t have divorce rates.” Sure, but it’s not just men who are unhappy following divorce (which are predominantly initiated by women). Women have been getting less happy for decades (by every measurable measure). This is despite all the freedoms women have been given.

Monogamy should be in place to restrict the options of attractive men – more so than restricting women.

Marriage for love is an even more recent idea. It’s only a few hundred years ago. There were critics. The documentary says there shouldn’t have been – that love is noble. There should have been critics.

Love is largely defined today as the feelings of attraction, which is aimed at those top 10% of men. That leaves scraps for the bottom of men, and started this long journey toward nonmonogamy. Love is to blame for today’s rampant divorce.

Darwin says man surpassed women in cognitive ability because of sex. The documentary says this is sexist. It is. There are differences between men and women and they exist because of sex. Men need to develop our socioeconomic status, intelligence, and social skill in order to receive intimacy. Women don’t. It is sexist. It’s not misogynist.

Are people jealous? Yes. It’s a natural emotion that surfaces when we want something we can’t have but feel entitled to. How about when a woman is monogamous with you (manifests entitlement) and cheats on you? Cue jealousy.

Commitment to monogamy and not the person is a good thing, contrary to the movie. Before love people were committed to monogamy for monogamy’s sake. You could call in and out of love, but you honored he relationship. This goes counter to the modern “do what feels good” mantra.

Relationships based on love don’t hurt the 10% that are attractive. Even relationships with multiple people can work well for these people at the top. These are the people that were interviewed for the film – people with active sex lives, including those with multiple partners.

But this doesn’t apply for the bottom 90% of men – none of whom were interviewed in the making of this documentary. It would have been an entirely different movie, with a different meaning, if it were lonely unattractive outcasts that were interviewed for the film.

Pleasure is natural. We evolved to feel it, and to want to give into it.

Honor is a virtue.

Virtue doesn’t become less attractive, addictive, and with diminishing returns. Pleasure does.

Enter relationships built in something that will last forever.

The real reason for school shootings

There were two school shootings yesterday. There’s been a comparatively large amount of mass shootings in the news over the last five years. These have been cases where young men have taken guns to public places to shoot and kill fellow citizens. Many of these high profile cases have been at schools where gunmen have brought death and destruction to children – usually fellow children.

The response from liberals and conservatives has been inappropriate. The left says ban guns and this won’t happen. Conservatives say keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and this won’t happen. They are both wrong.

We can’t ban guns in America. They have been a part of our culture since the nation’s founding. They are a right in our constitution to protect from tyranny and other people with guns. As a result, there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country. Hundreds of millions of guns don’t just go away. Nor should they. Also, we won’t be able to identify shooters using mental health tests. While mental illness is linked to higher rates of suicide, it does not correlate to higher instances of violence inflicted on others. Dismissing the rise in shootings as a result of mental illness is lazy, but it’s an important concept to understand.

The mentally ill live worse lives than the rest of us. Depending on the illness, there can be physical problems or mental. Either way, life’s better healthy. It’s harder for the mentally ill to find their role in society. In a sexual marketplace that rewards value (good emotions, money), the mentally ill don’t have access to things like sex and intimacy and friendship because they have a difficult time relating to other people. It’s a struggle to find a way to give value when they are at such a physical and mental disadvantage from their illness.

This – the decreased perceived value of men, is what I believe to explain the increase in mass shootings. The increase in mass shootings is caused by a decreased perceived role of men in society.

Not all killers are schizophrenic loonies that “just snap”. Elliot Rodger, the college student that shot and ran over students at UC Santa Barbara, wrote a manifesto that detailed his anger at the world and at women, and he intended to bring harm to others.

While Rodgers did go in and out of counselors and medications, which does point to mental illness, his frustrations are not unique to the mentally ill, and they are becoming more common frustrations among Western men.

There are several reasons men are perceived as less valuable and less needed in society.


  • Decreased perceived utility of fathers.


Men are not seen as a necessity in the home. There are more single mothers in the United States than anytime in history. Any psychotherapist worth her salt will tell you how terrifying that is. Children raised without a dad in the house are far more likely to commit crimes, end up in poverty, and be removed from socialization due to early developed narcissism instilled by the single parent.

There are a couple reasons we see the decrease in perceived need. Mothers are incentivized to leave and take the kids. Modern child protection and divorce laws actually give money to mothers that leave their husbands. These laws have the right intention – that families aren’t destroyed financially when a parent leaves, but they have the opposite effect in many cases. Mothers see a means of independence funded by child support court.

Related, there is an increase in divorces, and marriage is way down. Kids aren’t being raised by their fathers. Divorce is incentivized by moving half of a man’s assets to the woman after a breakup. This incentivizes women to get married, even without honoring the marriage, because they have an out that pays if they decide they no longer want to work on the relationship.

Relationships are hard work. Bouncing from person to person is easy. It’s even easier when it’s funded by an ex.

Elementary and middle school teachers are more than 80% women (US). Not only are children being raised without a father figure at home, but they are being raised without a father figure at school. I’m not saying teachers should play a role in parenting, but they do play a role in shaping the future and acting as role models for children.


  • Decreased opportunities for the average man to experience intimacy.


Only the top few percent of men are the ones having all the sex. The top percent are the ones women find attractive enough to have sex with. Women find, generally, the same traits and therefore the same men attractive. Attractive men are strong, socially savvy, (generally) good looking, and have no insecurities – looks, financial, or otherwise. Also, attractive men spend time with attractive women. That’s a reinforcing loop – men are perceived more attractive when they are with beautiful women.

This benefits the top few percent of men in the modern dating marketplace. The United States has a strong hookup culture, spearheaded by feminism and attractive men. The hookup culture dictates that you should “have fun while you’re young” and bang attractive men, then “get serious when you’re older” which basically means marry a guy that can pay for you and your children. She can leave this less attractive man any time, which, when she’s had multiple sexual partners, greatly increases her chances of not staying in the relationship. It also increases the likelihood that she will settle with an attractive man, because attractive men that have options will opt for a woman that’s less “worldly”.

Whether it’s Tinder or bars or the office, it’s the cool, sexy guy that’s likely to make his move and be confident and attractive to women he comes into contact with. Once she is attracted to him, he can do anything he wants and she will find it intriguing. HR departments and hashtags the likes of Metoo will never hear of cases involving the attractive man.

This is dangerous for men that don’t have the sexual charisma to behave confidently and attract women. These men see the attractive men doing something and try to emulate it. They go out and say the same things and get turned down, and reported for sexual harassment and tweeted to the world. This greatly discourages men from trying to flirt with women. When you don’t try to flirt, you don’t get better at flirting. When you don’t get better at flirting, you remain a virgin that still wants to have sex. The man without social skills is discouraged from building the social skills required to be sexy.

One of the recent trends is for parents to raise their children to not be masculine or feminine. This means gender-neutral toys or toys that do not align with one gender (the GI Joes and the Barbie). The point of this is that men and women can be more free to be gay if they realize heterosexuality isn’t for them. The problem with this is that boys and girls aren’t raised to develop masculine and feminine traits that the other sex finds attractive. This is fine for five year olds at play time (maybe), but it is not fine when those boys grow up thinking it’s fine to express feminine qualities when they do want to attract women. It’s the boys and girls that grow up straight (95% of the population) that lose during this style of parenting. Masculine qualities are attractive to women. Feminine qualities are attractive to men.

Social media magnifies the attractive men getting all the sex – it is sexy to have a large following and command attention. So women find them more attractive, but other men who are still becoming attractive have that to compare to. While some may be motivated to work harder or learn from the social media heroes, it’s also possible to be rejected by the pressure of social media. Also, social media sexualizes everything. Women get “likes” by sexualizing themselves. Porn has made its way into social media. Leggings and sexual clothing are advertised on the different platforms. Not only are men not getting sex, but they are seeing sex everywhere, which leads to the feeling that they are missing out, and that they are the only few individuals missing out, when really it’s over 90% of men missing out.


  • Decreased perceived need in the workplace.


The rise of women in workplace has done wonders for our economy. We moved way beyond countries that don’t have women working. Output is high. We are productive. But, it’s not all roses and sunshine, as you may be starting to see.

The increased numbers of women in the workplace removes man’s need to provide finances. There is nothing wrong with this in itself. Everyone is free to compete in a capitalist marketplace, which I’m a fan of. However, financial provisioning was historically a way for men to exhibit sexual market value. Without this, a man has to come up with new ways to provide value, if value is what women are looking for.

In relationships, people either look for value or virtue. And we aren’t going to start having virtuous relationships any time soon.

The problem with women in the workplace is that even if we wanted to – which we don’t, the economy may is not reversible for people that want to maintain a standard of living. The Western world is expensive, largely because we have twice as many people producing than other countries. The expensive urban cities in America do not offer the luxury for a woman to just stop working if she wants to and be supported by her man. Two incomes are required in many places to meet rent or mortgage.

Women better educated getting good jobs.


  • Decreased success in education.


Boys that cause trouble are “disruptive”, not boys that are different from their female classmates.

More than 80 percent of teachers in America are women. These teachers will teach to feminine because it’s what they know. It’s the role of the feminine to keep children safe and away from danger. But experiencing danger and chaos and learning how to deal with it is how children grow.

We aren’t teaching boys to develop their ability to deal with chaos and to deal with their anxieties and to deal with women. We teach them to behave like girls. This goes against every instinct in them, it’s not rewarded in the sexual market, and it limits their ability to deal with their true feelings.

What about guns?

The left says take their guns away. What will guns do to this? One argument is that men without perceived value should not have a gun. That without access to a firearm they will not kill many people.

That’s not unreasonable, except for the fact that it violates the constitutional rights of those individuals that otherwise aren’t mentally unhinged.

In addition, a perceived role of men, and a biological impulse, is to protect himself and his family and his tribe.

By removing guns and a man’s ability to protect, you remove one more instance of a man’s ability to be valuable to his loved ones.

I argue that removing guns would actually increase the number of men that carry out violent attacks to others as a backlash for their removed value.

I explained why men have a decreased perceived sense of value. How does decreased value jump to violence?

These pained individuals want to cause the most pain and destruction possible. Elliot Rodger saw the smart, handsome, fun person be evil. It wouldn’t have mattered as much if some nerd punched him. He would have been mad, but he wouldn’t have experienced evil. Rodger experienced evil when the jocks at the parties bullied and hit him, and were then rewarded with sex from the pretty ladies.

Not only did Rodger see evil in the world in the bullies, he saw that evil being encouraged by women. The jocks were evil. The women were evil. We all have evil in us. When people understand that there is the possibility of evil in all of us, we can do one of two things: act on it and bring destruction, or choose virtue despite of a proclivity to evil.

Another incentive for someone in this situation to bring destruction is the lack of attention they experienced. The Isla Vista shooter in 2014 articulated this quite nicely (hah). He wasn’t even seen by hot girls walking down the street. He wanted them and they didn’t even know he existed. That’s not the hot women’s fault, but it is a let down that the man doesn’t know how to go about getting their attention in a healthy way.

Elliot Rodgers knew one way to get attention. He knew his actions would end up all over Facebook. He knew the blonde hottie would notice him. He had an opportunity to become famous on Facebook, noticed by the people he always wanted attention from. And he took it.

So. Men have no perceived value and that perception is harmful to both themselves and innocent people.

  1. Family and parental values. Glorify the father and the mother.  Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
  2. Actually accept diversity between the sexes. Value it. Men and women are different. Allow men to be their strong, masculine selves. Allow them to manifest their sexual identities just as women have. And allow them to try. Allow men to build social skills. We have given resources to women to allow them to be confident and successful, but it’s men who are now left without perceived meaning. We need to give men the skills to succeed in a world that no longer values their old skillset.
  3. Get off Instagram and Facebook. Instagram and Facebook create mass negative emotion do to our proclivity to compare and to seek validation from others, that can never be fulfilled by more “likes”. It gives a platform for horrible people, and silences the majority of moderates who “aren’t interesting”. Life is lived by the average but we compare ourselves to the outliers that rise in popularity because of their wild ideas and actions. Sometimes, like in professional sports, that is inspiring. Sometimes, like the 17 year old with fake tits or Elliot Rodgers, it’s damaging and sad.
  4. Value the individual. We are all unique and all have our contributions. Allow the individual to try and fail. Again, don’t stop him before he can try, without giving him a chance to see what doesn’t work.

Incels are becoming more common, they are violent, and that will continue

A new article came out claiming that involuntary celibacy (incel) in on the rise among unmarried men. This is dangerous because this has been quoted as a reason for some of the high-profile mass shootings in the recent news.

The problem with involuntary celibacy is it is a result of a man failing in the sexual market, where so much of our value is determined, and where so much of our psychology is dependent. We are programmed to reproduce. If we fail at that, or are incapable of that, we are genetic failures. Plus, it feels good, and we don’t get those good feelings we don’t get when we want. Plus, sex with beautiful people is associated with status. So, if you’re not having sex with beautiful people, you are both low-status because you can’t have sex, and you are low status because you aren’t and aren’t seen having sex with beautiful women.

When people have no value, and that lack of value manifests in the the sexual market, and these individuals see others as having no value, then we get the mindset conducive for a killing spree. It’s dark. And it’s becoming more common.

Sex is everywhere. When someone can’t have sex when they want to (this is a male problem), seeing sex around them reinforces that others are having sex and they aren’t. It’s a constant reminder. They see this in marketing with sexual ads, with women wearing provocative outfits (leggings), and on TV, movies, and social media. It’s the girls with the least clothing getting the most likes.

Social media has made it much harder for the average man to get sex. By showing some skin and acting slutty a girl can quickly rack up followers and “likes”. Women get an ego boost out of this and become dependent on social media for attention and good feelings. So they continue to publish more content in less fabric.

When a woman increases the amount of attention she receives, her perceived sense of her sexual market value increases. 6s think they’re 9s because so many men “like” their picture. When 6s think they’re 9s, they don’t have sex with 6s. Nor do they have sex with 7s or 8s. It takes a man who’s a 9 to have sex with the 6.

Guys that are 9s are absolutely crushing pussy. They have their pick of the litter, and the sexualization of women has made it easier for 9s to have sex with more women, rather than settling down with one good one. While it was never hard for a 9 to have sex with a beautiful woman, now they have more women actively looking to have sex with them, and no one else.

Guys that are nines are becoming more rare and its becoming harder to become a nine as a man. For one, a lot of men’s sexual market value used to be tied to how much money he makes. These days, that’s not the case. Women are in the workplace, especially young women out of college, and they are making just as much money as men. They aren’t financially dependent on a man, and they aren’t looking to start. That’s actually another way men have less perceived value than they used to. Not only do men risk the increasing chance that their actions or words will qualify as sexual assault of some kind, but they are not rewarded by the sexual market for their efforts in the workplace. Which, again, reinforces negative perceived value of the individual.

Men have to be sexy. They have to be charismatic, bold, confident, and have advanced social skills to manage any social situation. Throw in good looking if they are going to have a chance with online dating.

The problem with being attractive by building social skills is that this is becoming more and more difficult for men. #metoo, which has great intentions of stopping abuse and harassment, if it grows too encompassing of behaviors and actions of innocent-intentioned men, can have dire consequences. In addition to getting people fired from their job or industry, strict harassment rules can decrease the opportunities for men to try to develop the social skills that are needed to have sex in the modern world.

Anti-harassment rules and laws discourage men from trying to flirt with women. That’s great – it means women won’t be uncomfortable because they won’t be hit on by uncomfortable (creepy) men. This doesn’t apply to men that are attractive (not just physically) – they will always be able to flirt and converse and touch as they please – as long as they are still seen as attractive.

Men who aren’t skilled socially are just as uncomfortable approaching women as the women being “creeped out”. It’s scary for these guys. They are taking a chance. They are trying. When guys are told not to try because they are creepy, or will be fired, or will be shamed on social media, they won’t develop experiences to become better and more socially equipped.

What is the result? Men will stop. They will back out of the workforce because their efforts aren’t recognized, and their lack of value will continue to be magnified for their failures in the economic and sexual markets.

How do we turn this around? Few things.

  1. Honor the man. It’s important that we recognize the efforts of men in both the workplace and the sexual market. We are all sexual beings, even men who only work and play video games and don’t venture outside. Let’s accept that and celebrate that. Don’t go have sex with a dude that’s nerdy and unattractive, but don’t shoot him down hard for being creepy.
  2. Glorify marriage and parenting. Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
  3. Get off social media. You’re a six.

False Empowerment

This article first appeared on Return of Kings here: link to article

The big myth of modern feminism is that its teachings lead to female empowerment—that women are more free in this system than in a patriarchal system where she is expected to honor her man.

Not so.

Women have not become more free. Women are enslaved to the government, corporations, and to pleasure in the matriarchal world they created.

Even if you argue women were enslaved to their man in patriarchal systems, which is debatable, women still have far more masters to serve in the modern feminist world they created than the one husband and with that, far few freedoms.

The repression associated with the patriarchy is also debatable because women in patriarchal systems were expected to honor the relationship through mutual sacrifice. Men had sacrifices they were expected to make (monogamy, commitment to family). There are no sacrifices governments, corporations, and simple pleasure have to make during their enslavement if women.

Except maybe an HR department.


The government has grown and replaced honor of her man with a dependence on the government. The government has grown in power and size and has more freedom to exert power to do what it wants, and feminism is largely to blame.

Feminism grows the government by growing debt. Money is created when money is borrowed. When money is created, the entity that creates the money grows more powerful, as it controls that asset.

Feminism creates debt with the college degree. Degrees with limited job opportunities are granted to those who take out government loans to pay for them.

Feminism is to blame for these unpractical degrees because feminists preach that women must go to college to be equals to men. The result is not the same though. Women enter college not because they are attracted to building the skills to make money as engineers or businessmen, but because they are supposed to get a degree which shows they are equals to men.

Women borrow for college and then become slaves to their student debt. It must be paid back, and they cannot be free until it is. Women enter careers to pay off the student debt, spending their prime years (young and hottest) not marrying a great man with an engineering or business degree but instead working to pay off loans. This disincentives marriage for men, because they aren’t getting commitment from women in their prime. 

Men also become slaves to their debt, but are more likely to take a practical degree in engineering or computer science that teaches a profitable skill. Skills are profitable because society pays for them because society is benefited by the skills. Sociology of ethnic relations, while neat, is not profitable because it doesn’t teach a skill that benefits others.

Yes, it is selfish to major in sociology of ethnic relations.

Feminism teaches us that women were slaves to the patriarchy. There were great sacrifices by both the man and woman in the patriarchal world.

Men used to find honor in marriage by marrying a woman in her prime beauty years. In return for her giving him her best years, he was expected to be faithful with her in her later years, when his value is up and hers down. The two had a commitment to each other, and society praised those that could maintain this commitment. She was investing in the future of the man—hopefully one that showed promise. 

Now, the feminist asks him to give up his best years for her worst, after she fucks other men during those prime years. The fucking being encouraged by feminism. And that’s not all.

We further incentivize her to leave the man who puts up with her worst years by throwing alimony payments and child support to transfer his wealth to her. This forces him to be enslaved to the corporation and government tax schemes to make his payments.

Governments and corporations grow. Individual liberty is reduced. The growth of governments necessarily depends on decreased liberty for the individual because it takes more resources (tax dollars) to fund a larger government.

Feminism preaches an empowerment that’s a false empowerment. By encouraging women to work to pay down debt, men and (mostly) women become more enslaved to the growing governments instead of a mutual sacrifice from both the man and woman to commit and support each other.

It’s the greatest bait and switch ever pulled. It’s bait and switch on a macroeconomic level. Global in scope.

Women are not just slaves to the government.


Women become enslaved to corporations for the same reason they are enslaved to the government. They owe money. They went to school and racked up student loans that must be paid off. Companies are where people to go pay off those loans.

Women are more likely to choose a college major that results in careers that pay less than the masculine business and engineering degrees. Because these college graduates do not build the skills to succeed in high-paying professions, women are more likely to work in a job that pays less than recent business and engineering graduates.

Companies are extremely incentivized to keep women working. It’s simply more money for them. Companies can create more when they have more workers.

Despite claims by feminists that companies don’t want to pay women for equal work, companies are happy to pay women for creating more profits for them. The more profits the merrier.

Obviously there are some additional expenses to companies for hiring women—healthcare costs and human resource departments, but generally companies are happy to have workers making them more money, or companies would not hire women.

The glass ceiling isn’t real. Companies are amoral, not immoral. They will maximize profits and if women are creating profit, those women will be paid, and economists have proven they are, justly. Of course, women are less likely to be the creators and the decision makers because they didn’t learn the skills in college, but the opportunity is there.

Corporations keep women enslave by promoting the next big debt purchase. As women pay off their college debt, they are encouraged to buy cars and houses and vacations to Tahiti and graduate degrees. Women remain enslaved to the companies that allow them to pay off debt.

Women are not just slaves to the government and corporations.


The modern empowered woman is a slave to pleasure. She is a slave to the feeling of attraction she has towards a given man.

This has always been the case psychologically, but not in execution. In the evil patriarchy, women were told to honor their man above all and to honor meant to support and stay committed to him.

An empowered woman under modern feminist doctrine is told to honor the pleasure she receives over honoring commitment. She is told to chase pleasure instead of honor.

We see examples of this everywhere, although the vices are cloaked in virtuous buzzwords. Women are empowered when they are promiscuous. They are careful when they date around before choosing one man. They are successful when they reach director level at her company.

What is more virtuous—these buzzwords or the rejection of chasing the status and pleasure to provide for a man and a family?

Feminism says the former. Christianity, the Bible, classical books, and Buddhism all say the latter. Basically, everything that has ever been called wisdom

It is this pursuit of pleasure that is enslavement. If you crave pleasure, you are enslaved to the feeling of that pressure, and a suffering takes place in its absence. See: drug addicts. See also: the modern woman.

Through Buddhist meditation or following Biblical teaching we learn to drop our ego and our dependence on pleasure. We can choose not to seek pleasure and therefore the need to chase it. The chase can lead in disappointment and the acquiring of pleasure can lead to diminished returns, but receiving pleasure also increases the likelihood to return for more.

Pleasure necessarily feels good. When pleasure is received, it reinforces the activity and encourages the chase. There’s nothing inherently wrong with feeling good.

The problem is in the chase. There is an inherent suffering involved in chasing pleasure, and modern women suffer in spades. The suffering is in not living in the present. We want the present to be better, so we look forward to feeling better. Not only are women told to have sex with multiple people, but they are told that in conjunction with chasing a career—which they need to pay down debt. Each of these discourages men from honoring them, and the modern woman does both.

Modern feminism enslaves women to short-term pleasure seeking, careers, and growing government.

True empowerment is the ability to say “no”. In the world women created, women must pay back their loans, and they must follow what’s attractive instead of valuing commitment because a dependence has been developed to both. 

The Real Inequality Gap

Milo Yiannopoulos said on the Anthony Cumia Show the other day that the country is divided, and that the division is between the good looking and the ugly. Everyone laughed.

The comment struck a nerve with me.

I’m a good looking dude. But I like to attribute all my successes, and even my looks, to hard work.

I worked my ass off in the gym and ate the right things for years in order to be good looking. I bought clothes that don’t suck. I earned it. I think anyone can be good looking.

That will be the slogan if I ever open a gym: “Anyone can be a six”.

But that’s not where the divide is. It’s not necessarily good looking versus lazy. I’m not going to get into why some people are good looking. I’m going to talk about how they are better than ugly people.

It really starts with the development of social skills.

We call someone “good looking” when they are sexually attractive. Meaning, we want to have sex with them. There is more to being sexually attractive than just good looks, for men, but that’s why we use the term good looking. It refers to good genes, which is a positive reproductive characteristic.

That more is multiplied by being good looking. Again, they develop the social skills, which is most of what women find attractive.

Social skills not only provide the ability to charm her, but also the status that comes with being able to deal with social pressure. Again – good reproductive traits.

Good looking people develop social skills because people want to have sex with them.

Because more people want to have sex with them, the good looking are put in more social situations than ugly people.

Because they are put in more social situations, they can be more selective about the social situations they end up in.

Because they are both choosy and the raw numbers are higher, good looking people will be in more difficult social situations.

Because they are put in more social situations, and more difficult social situations, good looking people will develop social skills at a faster rate than ugly people.

These social skills provide an advantage in the dating market, the job market, and community leadership positions (politics) where sharp social skill is a requisite.

Because the good looking have them leadership positions, they will make more money, as there is more money in leadership.

Because they have the same jobs and the same friend circles that were found by filtering out less fun people with worse social skills, good looking people will tend to hang out together.

This concentrates the wealth, the beauty, and the charisma.

If you’re still not sold that beauty is better than the alternative, there are still more pros.

People that grow up good looking are constantly told they are good looking.

When you are constantly told something, you start to believe it. When that thing is a good thing, you start to be confident about it, because it’s something you can enjoy and rely on to bring positive results.

Good looking people can feel good about looks, and develop a confidence about this. Not only are they not insecure about looks, but they will gain confidence faster than ugly people because their confidence is reinforced by the sexual market, compliments, and, soon social scenes.

In the world of social media, where looks and money are visible for all, the good looking rule. Confidence rooted in looks, perceived value, and perceived status are all reinforced with “likes” on different social platforms.

Perceived status can be backed up when you actually are in exclusive social circles and have the charisma to show for it.

Not “you”, but good looking people.

There is an inequality gap in America and in the world.

There is inequality with income. There is inequality with perceived status (“likes”), and there is inequality with real status (jobs and dating market options).

All this inequality exists because of the divide between the good and the ugly.

Well. Some of it.

Buddhism and Christianity

Buddhism and Christianity are closely linked. Deep Eastern philosophy and classic Western philosophy agree on the same core values.

So, too, do many great books. Those of Homer and Virgil and Shakespeare. Apparently. I haven’t read them yet.

The primary thing they agree on – do not give in to pleasure. Pleasure is the root of all evil. All suffering.

From pleasure we see the deadly sins emerge. Lust of the pleasure of women. Gluttony of the pleasure of food and drink. And five other sins.

Pleasure is at the root of the commandments. Thou shalt not seek pleasure in thy neighbor’s wife. Thou shalt not seek pleasure in killing someone, even if your life would be more enjoyable. More pleasurable.

In fact the devil, the tempter, represents the temptation to simple pleasure. The forbidden fruit, the mana in the desert.

In Buddhism, we learn pleasure is the root of all suffering, and that this suffering is inherent in all humans. In psychology, Buddhism is validated.

All disciplines are connected. Even different philosophies.

In psychology, we learn that the brain evolved to seek pleasure in order to fulfill two animalistic functions: survival and replication.

The modern world feeds on this evolution. It takes advantage of the evolution of the brain. It takes advantage of natural selection. Of our base nature.

We are sold candy which appeals for the same reason fruit of a tree appealed – its sweetness was once a sign of nutrition. Today that sweetness is replicated with processed sugars to give us pleasure.

Sex is awesome and has more obvious survival and replication implications. You either had sex or your genes didn’t replicate and your bloodline thinned and your tribe became smaller and weaker and more threatened by other tribes.

Sex, even the natural act that precedes replication, can be abused.

It is in the search of these pleasures that we find ourselves removed from the moment and we, according to the Buddha, suffer. We are living in the future. Being hopeful of things to change.

Buddhism says to eliminate the need to want pleasure. Buddhism teaches us that this can be reached by meditating. When we meditate, we learn to focus. We focus our thoughts and eliminate being subject to feelings, thoughts, and behaviors we don’t want.

The Bible also teaches us to not seek pleasure. Not just in the commandments, but in the imitation of Jesus. Jesus was repeatedly tempted with pleasure by the devil, which he rejected.

Eve ate the apple god forbid because it was the most attractive. She gave in to pleasure and lived her life in shame.

Now, one doesn’t have to live in shame because they chose pleasure once in their life. But it is shameful to always be needing a high – whether drugs, alcohol, food, or sex.

This chase of pleasure is shameful because it’s enslaving. Needing pleasure is voluntarily submitting to that pleasure and the need of that pleasure.

To be free, one must reject pleasure.

Pleasure is a powerful force with powerful bounds. Those bounds become stronger when pleasure is given into.

Psychology tells us the brain rewards pleasure. We are likely to repeat what is pleasurable, since it feels better than not pleasure.

If a caveman ate a fruit and didn’t die of poison, he was likely to return and eat that fruit. He was rewarded with nutrients which reinforce that he should be eating the fruit.

So, too, the pleasures today encourage us to return. Only now there are billboards and TV commercials and lingerie stores that throw pleasure at you.

If one follows the Buddha and Jesus’ example, he will see that the billboards and TV commercials and lingerie stores are only offering to tighten your own shackles.

At least, according to the Bible, Buddha, psychology, and me.

The Western World Validates the East

This is my second essay from my Psychology of Modern Buddhism course. It’s a less fun read, but I’m proud of it and it has some relevance to the discussion I post.


  1. Does modern science lend support to the logic behind Buddhist meditation practice?
  2. Does modern science lend support to the moral validity of Buddhism?

The Western World Validates the East

Modern science supports both the logical and moral validity of Buddhism and its mediation practice. Scientific support comes from the modular theory of the mind, and the moral validity comes from the Buddhist meditative ability to affect these modules.

An element of Buddhism that supports general morality is the idea that we are formless. There is no self that ends with the physical body that houses our thoughts and biases. If we are connected to all things, we will not want to inflict harm on other things. This is supported by science.

Psychologist Paul Bloom wrote in his book, How Pleasure Works, “Pleasure is affected by deeper factors, including what the person thinks about the true essence of what he is getting pleasure from.” We give essence to things to differentiate them. We give essence to groups, people, and things. Buddhism promotes morality by removing this essence, this judgement, to be more objective and to eliminate expectations.

When we assign an essence to a person or thing we attribute, at best, a pleasure to it (at worst, a hatred or displeasure). When we assign qualities, we set ourselves up for either disappointment if our expectations are not met or diminished pleasure if our expectations are met.

We heard in the lecture that temptation becomes harder and harder to reject with consumption, as gratification is a reward for success. These pleasure-seeking modules evolved to be a part of our psychology, and they are rewarded and are then more likely to be chosen next time – unless we do something about it. If we refuse to give essence to a person or group or thing, we can be objective about it, or her, or them, and we can simply enjoy the world as it is. There are no expectations that can lead to disappointment, and there are no pleasures we will attach ourselves to for diminished experience.

When we reject the self, we see harm to others as harm to “me” because there is no more me, there is just everything. Rejecting this self goes against natural selection because natural selection is out for our self-interest (survival and replication, not happiness). This rejection of the self is congruent with experiences of “enlightenment” which brings individuals closer to the reality of mind and closer to moral truth because there is a distance from feelings that contain self-serving judgments about the world. This distance eliminates bias and brings us closer to objective truth.

We can reject the self and refuse to give essence to ourselves or others through meditation.

One of the core elements of Buddhism is mindfulness, which is use of the mind for ulterior needs – not selfish. We practice mindfulness through meditation. If we are mindful of our feelings, we can control our thoughts. If we can control our thoughts, we can control our behavior by choosing to empower modules that we want, not just modules that would otherwise naturally appeal to us in our former emotional state. Science supports this, and we see evidence in the modular theory of the mind and the implications of the modular theory.

In Rational Animal, Douglas Kendrick claims we are under influence of seven modules – sub-selves. These are sub-selves because the different modules compete for attention. The winning module is awarded based on its ability to convince the brain that the module has made the best decision. The winning module becomes our sense of self. The problem is the winning module can be biased by previous victories (being selected) or other biases inherent with natural selection (such as tribal feelings to an in-group).

By focusing on something, you overcome modules competing for different views. If we focus on mindfulness, we can control our feelings because we are controlling the self that dictates our behavior. In the lecture, Robert Wright said that meditation is used to become mindful of our behavior, so that we can act in ways that are against natural selection. From this mindfulness, we can choose to reject the self, and to behave morally.

A possible issue with this explanation is that few people have achieved the enlightened state sought after. In the cases of people that claim to have achieved enlightenment, there is no technology to prove they have, and data points are largely experiential.

In conclusion, modern science lends support to both the moral validity of Buddhism and to its meditation practice. By being mindful of feelings, thoughts can be controlled. By controlling thoughts, behavior can be controlled. When behavior is controlled, happiness is controlled, and more power can be exerted in our world – hopefully for good. While much of the results that support this are experiential, modern science does support the theory that supports the results.

Everyone’s Wrong But Me

I got off the train yesterday on my way to my girlfriend’s house. I’ve made this commute hundreds of times. I would get off the train, walk three blocks to the bus stop, and catch the bus straight to her place. It’s the first bus stop on the route, so I’m guaranteed a seat.

Not yesterday. Yesterday there was a “Women’s March” and there were tens of thousands of people walking around after, well, whatever they did that day, and there were one hundred people waiting for my bus.

I went into a bar down the street, got a scotch, and caught an Uber.

I’m writing this post to outline why I think I’m right and why I stand my ground and stick to my definition of right even in the face of the millions of protesters that filled out in the streets yesterday across the United States.

1. They aren’t happy.

This is by far the most important reason. There wasn’t a united effort keeping these women and “men” together. I know this from the signs they were carrying.

Some wanted “more rights” for trans people. Some wanted to let the world know they were drugged and raped by horrible people one time in their life. Some wanted to signal to women that they aren’t like the rest of men that drug and rape women to fulfill their sexual urges.

The only thing in common with all these people is that they aren’t happy – there is something keeping them from being happy.

That something is men. Donald Trump more than other men.

I don’t agree that anyone holds your happiness hostage. Only you can choose to be happy. No one will make you be happy, and no one will make you be unhappy.

The mindset of the people gathered yesterday was one of victimhood. They are being oppressed by someone or something. Men, Donald Trump, corporate greed, the patriarchy.

This mindset, spread by others at the rally and fear-mongering media (remember, fear is the most powerful psychological trigger, so it’s what we choose to watch which creates the demand that the media fills so we pay them for it) is unhealthy because it removes personal accountability for individual happiness.

This doctrines spreads the message that we can’t be happy because someone or something is preventing us. There were tens of thousands of people wearing pink hats reinforcing that belief.

Everyone there attended because they are unhappy and unwilling to take responsibility for their own happiness. Happiness is a choice and a mindset, and all marchers choose not to. It’s lazy to play the victim and contradictory to the whole theme that women are “empowered”.

2. They don’t represent the truth.

The protesters do not spread truths. They even shame truths when they collide with their feelings.

There are two genders, no matter if someone wants to be called a third. 

Women are getting less and less happy the more they get in the way of feminist policies and social media gathering. 

I had a coworker ask me recently, “Ian, why are you always smiling? You always seem like you’re in a good mood.”

I said, “Because I am in a good mood. I accept the world how it is. Once you accept it how it is, and not how it should be, you can choose to find beauty in it. There is so much beauty in the world that is often missed.”

Feminists don’t accept the world as it is. They have a vision that’s purely emotional, and that vision is not productive and not utilitarian.

Feminism builds grand expectations that an “empowered” woman must reach success in a career, have sex with great men, and raise a great family with a great man when she decides to settle down.  

This isn’t honest because there are no consequences in this feminine picture. Not only is there a decreasing window to physically have children, but if a woman spends her younger years fucking dudes and building a career, a great man with options can choose to go younger and hotter.

You can’t have a beautiful, genetically-gifted cake that others want and fuck a lot of cakes too.

3. They don’t value beauty and strength.

This one is more of a personal vendetta because, like I mentioned under truth, I enjoy looking for beauty in the world. There is nothing more beautiful than a pretty woman.

There is nothing more masculine than a male warrior. No lion, bear, or wild horse can hold a candle to the human warrior when it comes to a sign of strength.

Beauty is a feminine quality. It is one that men find attractive and one that women should value, if not for personal esteem than for the men that find it attractive.

In a competitive market place, and there is none more competitive than the sexual marketplace, you must do the utmost to find a quality mate. Be beautiful, or you limit your options to men with no options. Attractive people have options. Don’t limit yourself to unattractive people.

Everyone I was with yesterday stood in opposition of me. They stood confidently together against truth, beauty, and personal accountability.

It brought a tear to my eye to see people brought to tears of joy at the sight of tens of thousands of people in no control of their emotions or happiness.

People brought their children to preach their doctrine of how men are the root of all problems.

How is a person supposed to think critically if they are raised in a pink hat being told by parents and teachers and people with signs that they cannot be happy if one individual remains an elected official?

This march, this movement – our current sociological state is unhealthy because it discourages happiness, discourages the search for truth and reason, and it’s visually unattractive.

March all you want and join others in your sorrow. But for the love of God and science and beauty, please leave your children at home.

Allow them the choice to be happy.


This was originally posted at Return of Kings here: (link to article).

Bitcoin is further evidence that the “glass ceiling,” the idea that women are kept from reaching the ranks in corporations and in financial success because of a nebulous “patriarchy,” is nonsense.

Economists have disproved the glass ceiling on more than one occasion in the past, so the more well-read will not be shocked by this. Yet, the existence of the glass ceiling has remained a major talking point for feminists. The silence of feminists during the rise of Bitcoin has been deafening.

Bitcoin is an interesting case study because it is modern and doesn’t have the excuses that you hear when the glass ceiling argument breaks out. There is no Bitcoin establishment or “old boys’ club,” because Bitcoin has no establishment. Bitcoin is hardly established, and there is no one central authority.

Feminists claim that “institutions have always had biases” and “it’s a man’s game,” but Bitcoin didn’t come with any biases. It didn’t come with anything. It was nothing ten years ago, and its meteoric growth is well-known.

Bitcoin was created in 2009, a time where women had established themselves in various industries, most notably tech (see: Meg Whitman, Sheryl Sandberg). Nine years later, only three percent (at most) of Bitcoin use (suggested through Bitcoin community engagement) is by women.

Is this the patriarchy keeping women from investing? No. There is nothing that stops women from investing in Bitcoin. Women don’t even need to go to banks to introduce an intermediary which could discriminate against them.

So why aren’t more women investing in Bitcoin? There are a number of reasons for this.

1. Bitcoin is Boring

There are no emotions involved in cryptocurrency investing. Women are more likely to get involved in areas that stir their emotions, from the social sciences to humanitarian work to political rallies.

Bitcoin is mathematical. It was created with a white paper and some computer programming. Since more women take up studies in the arts or humanities than math, it is more difficult to understand the concept and takes more work.

Also, because women prefer soft subjects to hard ones, women end up in jobs related to the arts and humanities versus the hard sciences. They will be more likely surrounded by men and mostly women that also did not study math and computer science and will not be interested in—or understand—Bitcoin.

In addition, Bitcoin isn’t tangible. You can’t feel it in your hands, so you cannot wave it around to boost or lower your status without hopping on a male-centric Reddit page (HODL!!). This reduces the emotional connection to it because there is no physical thing to attach a feeling to. Where money can be a sign of prosperity or options, the numbers in a bit wallet are less tangible.

2. There Is A Lot Of Risk

Women generally value security and strength, which we have seen in relationship dynamics and the number of careers chosen as opposed to entrepreneurs. Men are more willing to take chances.

One of Bitcoin’s tenets is that it is less risky than fiat dollars because it is not subject to inflation and to crumbling governments, so it should be more stable. However, Bitcoin is still young and has a wildly fluctuating value. It is this perceived value that people see as risky, not the idea. It is these wild fluctuations in value that appeal to men.

Bitcoin is also a long-term investment. Bitcoin believers believe the cryptocurrency will be more durable than fiat and will be a superior currency. Women are much more likely to spend and distribute wealth than to build it through investing.

3. Bitcoin Is Competitive

Men eat what we kill. We evolved to eat the animals we hunted, and we still do that in the modern economy. In a tribal setting, the man that hunted the most for his tribe was rewarded with more power and more women to bang. We evolved to be competitive and to fight for the top spot.

These days, men are more likely to participate in sports and more likely to try new things to get ahead (see here). Bitcoin is competitive with other cryptocurrencies as people (men) race to market and grow their currency of choice. Bitcoin is also competitive as a store of wealth. The more men own, the more men can use our primal brains to associate with power and sex.

These are the reasons why only three percent of Bitcoin users—a completely decentralized, open world without bias—are women. These are the same reasons that men make more money than women in the workplace. It isn’t the patriarchy. It’s the evolutionary and behavioral differences in men and women that decide the numbers.

Men are competitive, find freedom in long-term wealth, and are more excited about new ideas and a new, selfish way to increase wealth. At least, more than women.

Bill Nye the Liberal Entertainer

Bill Nye is anything but a science guy in his episode about genders during his Netflix show, Bill Nye Saves The World.

He talks about gender, but he also discusses sexuality, of which gender is a part of. Bill gives four qualities that comprise sexuality: sex, gender, attraction, and expression. He doesn’t argue, but instead regurgitates what we hear from “politically correct” sociology majors (about the furthest thing from science possible).

I argue he is wrong on all four accounts, and that all four of these are not a choice, but a function of masculine/feminine behavior, which is a function of evolutionary biology. 

1. Sex

Sex is male or female. We have a penis or vagina, and that determines our sex. You can cut off your dick or strap one on (I don’t know how transgender works) but you start off with one or the other. Bill gives statistical outliers to prove his point that people have different genitalia. They don’t. The exception makes the rule. 

2. Gender

Bill Nye says gender is “How you identify?” Not, “Do you have a penis?”

I don’t disagree with his definition. I disagree with his conclusion that you choose your gender.

Thing is, having a penis has a massive influence on how people identify. This is because a penis (being a boy) is massively correlated with higher testosterone. 

Not just higher testosterone in a “patriarchal world that encourages men to eat red meat and lift weights and women to eat cheese and do yoga.” Higher pre-natal testosterone. Boys form ball sacks and begin producing testosterone in far superior quantities than women before they pop out of the estrogen hole and can even utter the word “patriarchy.” It’s not a problem. It’s how we are.

Not every man will be masculine and not every female feminine. This can be influenced heavily by the quantities of pre-natal sex hormones the child develops. This is also influenced by post-birth influences that are both hormonal and other, such as the values from your parents.

Higher testosterone effects our brain and bodily development. This sex hormone leads to brain development that will assume “masculine” qualities such as strength and an attraction to danger.

That’s the physical. the mental and emotional differences are also clear.

The mental and emotional correlation is most proven by rules of attraction. Masculine attracts feminine. And vice-versa. We see this in behavior and evolutionary study of animals and humans. There are qualities that fall under masculine and feminine. This is Bill’s third criteria. 

3. Attraction 

Attraction is not a choice. Genuine desire is not a choice.

If it was, the nice guy would always win. But he doesn’t. The nice guy struggles to finally luck into a relationship that is likely to end in divorce because he isn’t attractive. He assumes a feminine persona, which doesn’t appeal to the feminine. 

A man acting feminine, coming from a man that wants to attract a woman, is seen as dishonest because it’s not his primal instinct. He’s going against his biology and lying about it.

And, if he is being honest (because of what he sees in movies and TV), those qualities are less attractive to a woman that wants a more masculine man. Why? Because it goes against her animal instinct.

4. Expression

Expression is cultural but attraction triggers aren’t and expression is often to signal attraction triggers. Attraction triggers aren’t cultural. They are psychological, which is driven from biology. Expression is used to attract the other sex, so that one can attract a high-quality mate. Science.

There are other evolutionary attraction triggers. Confidence is attractive to women. Strength. These are universal, because we evolved to be attracted to things things hundreds of thousands of years ago.

One claim from the show is that Korean men use makeup. Only two dudes were interviewed about men having makeup, and they are obviously gay. These gays could identify as female and have more female psychology. They are attracted to, and signal masculine (gay) men. This again proves that gender is only male or female – not the opposite.  

Then Bill gets emotional, which is the appeal of this show and the foundation of his “argument”. He says, “What’s the big deal? Just get over it. What do you care? Those people are not going to try to have sex with you. Move on.”

I agree. It’s not a big deal for people to choose to be goofy and do what they want. But the term “gender”, which describes the psychological differences of the sexes, is a big deal. Words mean something. Without words representing something, there is no meaning. We have a definition for gender. Don’t stretch that definition.

From American Gangster:

What you want, Frank? You want me to change the name on it?
Frank: I would have to insist that you change the name.
Frank’s cousin: Fine by me, Frank. I’ll call it Red Magic, even though that don’t sound as good.
Frank: I don’t give a fuck what you call it. Put a chokehold on the motherfucker and call it Blue Dog Shit.

Don’t call what’s not a gender a gender.

Nye uses ice cream as a comparison. Saying chocolate and strawberry ice cream are their own flavors and uses vanilla to signify heterosexual male and female, which says all flavors should just be vanilla.

This is so obviously an invalid comparison because ice cream is man-made and does not have an evolutionary makeup. There is no DNA, there is no brain built and developed over millions of years of evolution. Ice cream is simple. Malleable. So are social trends. Sort of. Psychology is not.

Humans have evolutionary beginnings and cannot just change. We don’t choose attraction; we don’t choose our gender. We may not have the same gender as our genitalia, but we don’t choose.

The show concludes with a sexual trash song voiced by a lesbian whore that just shoves the lack of femininity and anti-Christianity and anti-evolutionary psychology in our face.

Nye says culture is providing more ways of expressing this gender spectrum, and that is progress that should be celebrated. Really, culture is getting us further away from the truth of the way people are. To find happiness, it does no favors to reject the truths of evolved male and female dynamics.

Science is the mathematical and statistical method of determining the truth. In this episode of Bill Nye there was no experimenting other than asking people their opinions. Opinions are highly biased and therefore are not controllable in an experiment setting. Further, his panel consisted of a gay black comedian, a black sociology professor, and a chick sociology professor. Hardly the diverse authorities on the subject. This doesn’t count as an experiment. This isn’t science.

Bill Nye is an entertainer. To call him the “science guy” is a misnomer. He did little but follow popular liberal outcry, and followed it up with, not numbers but, the opinions of sociology professors that are also likely to buy into liberal outcry.

The whole point of science is to reduce outcry – liberal or otherwise, so that we may continue to be productive and seek further truth. To that end, Bill Nye the Liberal Entertainer did the world a disservice. This is the only episode I watched because I wanted to see if a proclaimed science guy did address the “gender issue” from a biological, evolutionary, or behavioral angle of problem solving. He did not.