Saturday, December 20, 2014

From farce to Dada

You may recall that I immediately, and correctly, identified the UVA rape story to be a hoax on the basis of its ludicrous and obviously fictional dialogue. But it turns out that some of the deeper dialogue that has subsequently come to light was not only indubitably fictional, it had some unexpected sources:
More of a love letter purportedly written by Jackie — the University of Virginia student who claimed she was gang-raped by a group of fraternity members — appears to have been plagiarized than previously believed.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller published an email which Jackie purportedly sent to a man named Haven Monahan, who the co-ed claimed to have gone on a date with on Sept. 28, 2012, the night she also says she was sexually assaulted at a fraternity house.

A person claiming to be Monahan then forwarded the email to Ryan Duffin, a friend and love interest of Jackie’s. It has come to light that Monahan most likely never existed — a development which, among other pieces of evidence, strongly suggests that Jackie fabricated the claim she was sexually assaulted.

After publication of the email on Thursday, TheDC followed up with a report that the first paragraph of Jackie’s letter was cribbed from an episode of the popular TV show Dawson’s Creek.

Now, a deeper look reveals that even more of the letter was copied from other sources. Let us count the ways. In her email, Jackie wrote of Duffin:

    He’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see him because you notice something new in a Where’s Waldo sort of way. More like you can’t stop writing third grade run on sentences because you can’t even remotely begin to describe something, someone, so inherently amazing. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at him too long, you’ll prove your grandparents right that, yes, your face will get stuck that way…but you don’t mind.

Jackie appears to have taken most of that from a University of Massachusetts student named Matt Brochu who, in an article for the school paper, which was quoted in a 2004 Washington Post article titled “Boyfriend” by Libby Copeland, wrote:

    She’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see her because you notice something new in a “Where’s Waldo” sort of way. More like you can’t stop writing third grade run-on sentences because you can’t remotely begin to describe something . someone . so inherently amazing. But you’re a writer. You can describe anything. That’s what you do: pictures to words, events to words, words to even better words. But nothing seems right. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at her for too long, you’ll prove your parents right: that yes, your face will stick that way. But you wouldn’t mind.

Another sappy sentence Jackie’s email appears to have been taken from an episode of the TV show Scrubs. Jackie wrote:
I mean, if I had the chance of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or just sitting in my dorm with him talking about music and watching a crappy TV show…I‘d choose him everytime.
The Scrubs scene was similar. In it, one of the characters said to another:
If I had the choice of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or sitting at home with you eating pizza, watching a crappy TV show, I’d choose you every time.
The good news is that Jackie is an attention-seeking little neurotic who is now getting more attention that she'd ever imagined. The bad news is that half the country is not only paying attention to her, but is also laughing at her. And these various plagiarizations raises an obvious question: from what source did Jackie crib her absurd rape scene dialogue?

I, for one, find it absolutely hilarious that these days, a college woman can't even fake a nonexistent boyfriend without copying his fictional words from bad television shows.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Rape is the new black

White American men simply don't rape these days. At this point, unless a womann claims it was committed by a black or Hispanic man she didn't previously know, all claims of rape, especially by a college woman, have to be considered intrinsically suspect:
The latest feminist obsession with rape has reached the point where false accusations are now being thrown around loosely. It has resulted in a negative stigma toward men on college campuses, and destroyed the lives of those falsely accused. Fortunately, one man videotaped his entire encounter with a woman who wrongly accused him, proving her wrong and probably saving him from arrest and prosecution.

Fly Height posted the video, showing a disheveled looking woman who appears to be high and trespassing in a man’s room. She cries out, “Don’t touch me, rape, he wants to rape me! Help me!” The startled man responds back, “stop hitting me lady.”  With the door wide open and her boyfriend standing next to her, she continues, “I promise I won’t squeal on you anymore … I’ll do anything you want!” She then bangs on his door, yelling, “I was trying to get out of your room, you won’t let me.” The victim asks her repeatedly, “Please call the cops and get out of my room.”

Another man, possibly a landlord, approaches her as she finally leaves the man’s place, sympathetically taking her side. But it won’t matter, all the evidence is preserved on video.
No one believes that women don't lie about rape anymore. Even the average feminist is now rolling her eyes when a college woman comes forward and cries rape. This was the inevitable result of creating St. Rape Victim, now every attention-seeking young woman wants to have been raped.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

The truth of the friendzone

Most young women aren't anywhere nearly as oblivious as they pretend to be:
Guys who wind up in the friendzone weren’t looking for some kind of one night stand. If they’re going through the trouble to get to know the girl closely, they’re hoping to get her to like him enough to consider being a steady boyfriend. Who the hell befriends someone for months, if not years on end, for the hope of one session of sex?

And that’s considering that these girls really don’t suspect that the guy is interested in her which is usually bullshit. Girls like this are pretty sure the guy is interested and that’s why he is so supportive and giving of his time and energy to her. Why he’ll selflessly do all kinds of favors and listen to all her drunken stories and pretty much be the perfect companion.

What pisses these girls off about the friendzone is when the term comes up, it’s when the guy realizes that their relationship isn’t going to lead to something deeper and the gravy train stops. Because he’s not going to just keep giving freely for no reason. Friendship is a two-way street where both sides support each other. Not just one side which gives and gives like a happy servant.

The reason these girls get mad isn’t because he hasn’t been thinking of her as a friend all this time. It’s because he’s only going to think of her as a friend for now on.
A girl who keeps a boy who wishes to be a boyfriend in the friendzone is a user. It's that simple. Don't permit yourself to be used in such a manner. It's fine to be friends with a woman if you don't treat her any better than you would your male friends and you don't harbor any more ambitions of bedding her than you do of them. Otherwise, you're much better off, and much more likely to get somewhere with her too, by flat-out refusing to be relegated to orbit.

I'm not saying to make a scene or present an ultimatum or create drama. That's only going to feed her sense of entitlement. Just be friendly, civil, and totally unresponsive to her overtures.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Porn IS better than the average woman

I don't see what is so surprising about this study, let alone shocking. Women, on average, have gotten worse since 1970 in almost every possible way. Porn has gotten considerably better. Throw in the relative costs involved, and frankly, it's pretty damn hard to make any sort of rational secular case for women, let alone marriage, over porn, video games, and sports.
Pornography is replacing the desire among young men for marriage, according to a new study that finds males are chasing “low-cost sexual gratification” on the web over a wife and family. “Traditionally, one of the reasons to enter into a marriage was sexual gratification. But as options for sexual gratification outside of marriage have grown, the need for a marriage to serve this function is diminishing,” said the report....

Researchers analyzed data from 1,512 surveys completed by American men aged 18-35 between 2000-2004. What they found is that porn use makes marriage unappealing. The study is titled: “Are Pornography and Marriage Substitutes for Young Men?”

The researchers were interested in how declining marriage rates impact society and the economy. They said that “stable marriages create substantial welfare improvements for society, especially to the degree that marital stability produces high-quality children.”

Porn use, they said, can be credited with cutting the marriage rate. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.
Women still have a tendency to think they're the only game in town and behave accordingly. But they're not. Men have always felt the call of the wild, but the combination of a good woman and societal pressure tended to overwhelm that. But when marriage increasingly looks like not having sex with an obese bitch who can rob you at any time, it's little wonder that more young men are opting for doing whatever they hell they want all the time for the rest of their lives instead.

It's idiotic to claim that porn is the problem. It's not the problem, it is the suboptimal solution to the real problem. The problem is that far too many women have been raised in a manner that renders them unattractive to the opposite sex and essentially unmarriageable. The boys always go where the attractive girls are. If they can't be bothered, that means the girls are insufficiently attractive.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Alpha Mail: to white knight or not?

MT has a question about his sister:
I have a White Knight concept that I would like you address or clarify at AlphaGame.

In regards to women in physically abusive, or controlling relationships, there will be men who will want to "rescue" them or bring them to the knowledge of their errors by speech or force.  This is a continuum.  On one end is the sycophantic pedestalizer (we will generously call him Suitor) who may or may not seek justification for romance in his, uhh...noble and selfless efforts.  On the other end is the concerned father who wants to protect his daughter from those who would use her.  The goal of the men for the woman to be out of the situation is the same, but there are non-trivial differences between Suitor and Father.

1) Suitor comes from a position of relative weakness; Father from relative Strength
2) Suitor approaches for possible personal gain, but may view his actions as dutiful; Father from Duty and Responsibility
3) Suitor has a romantic interest; Father has none*
*2 and 3 may be the same

Possibly you could chart three axes:
1) relative strength (pedestal or parent)
2) romantic interest (present or platonic)
3) responsibility for girl (none/self-imposted or absolute)

If it is true that that the preexisting nature of the relationship between a man and another person (wife, daughter, sister, son, stranger...) has bearing on his responsibility to that person, then by charting the case on the axes, you could guess the necessity of action and tactics.

The Suitor cannot ground the woman. The Father can DHSMV, but more as a way to make a fool of the romantic interest, than to set himself up as an alternative mate.  Either could attempt violence, ill-advised as it may be, but the perception would change as a function of relative strength and responsibility.     

Maybe I hit something here, but certainly, a man's true duty to the safety of another is according to the nature of the relationship. Can you give insight on this situation?  My sister-in-law (19, out of state) is sweet, naive and shacked up with a guy with tight game who is controlling and physically abusing her.  She isn't under the parents' roof any longer.  I'll probably see the happy couple at Christmas.  I'd like to see them apart, but I have no binding responsibility to her, or even a great relationship with her.  Are there any tactics to address this or is this something to leave lie?
This is a good question. My feeling is that one's involvement in such situations totally depends upon the nature of the relationship. Fathers should speak out forthrightly about what they see. They should not hesitate to use their daughters' reliance upon them, particularly financially, as a counterweight, even in the knowledge that it may cause his daughter to turn against him in the short term. He should, of course, make it clear that he will be there for her when - not if - the unworthy love interest eventually shows his colors.

A brother has no similar leverage. However, he has social power that the father does not. He should relentlessly mock and belittle the unworthy man around his sister, planting the seeds of doubt that will one day blossom once the suitor fertilizes them with his inevitably bad behavior. And he should also make it clear that he will be there for her when the time comes.

A brother-in-law, on the other hand, should stay completely out of it. To be honest, in this sort of situation, I see a brother-in-law who is probably rather attracted to his sister-in-law and is likely to see unsuitability where none exists, and to exaggerate it where it does. In any case, there is no responsibility to intervene here, and indeed, to do so would rightly raise a few eyebrows, especially with the man's wife.

I'm also very suspicious when I hear about a "sweet, naive" girl who is nevertheless "shacked up". This indicates that she is almost certainly neither as naive or sweet as she portrays herself to be to her brother-in-law, in fact, this raises the question as to precisely who is the player in her relationship with the supposedly "controlling and physically abusive" gentleman in question. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she had a convincing "rape" story she could produce on demand with a catch in her voice and a tear in her eye.

MT is correct. There is a continuum of sorts. But nevertheless, there is a hard and bright line between "family business" and "not family business" that should always be respected, and that line falls somewhere in between "cousin" and "brother-in-law". In most cases, if you find yourself asking "should I polish my armor and mount my steed", the mere fact that you need to ask the question is sufficient reason to say "no". Women have free will, agency, and they are legal adults in the eyes of the law. If they insist on swimming in the deep end despite not being equipped to do so, you have a solemn duty to civilization and the rule of law to let them drown.

Monday, December 15, 2014

PJ O'Rourke on the Dunham Horror

PJ watches Girls so you don't have to:
Ms. Dunham is 28. I was under the impression that “girls” is a demeaning term for adult women. The title must have something to do with this hipster “Irony” thing, which I confess I don’t understand. The root of the word irony is in the Greek eironeia, “liar.”

I had my 14-year-old daughter, Poppet, instruct me in how to watch an episode of Girls on my computer. (Turns out “content” is not completely “free.”)

Two seconds into the opening credits I was trying to get my daughter out of the room by any means possible. “Poppet! Look in the yard! The puppy’s on fire! Quick! Quick! Run outside and roll him in the snow!”

It turns out Girls is a serialized horror movie—more gruesome, frightening, grim, dark, and disturbing than anything that’s ever occurred to Stephen King.

I have two daughters, Poppet and her 17-year-old sister Muffin. “Girls” is about young people who are only a few years older than my daughters. These young people, portrayed as being representative of typical young people, reside in a dumpy, grubby, woeful part of New York called Brooklyn, where Ms. Dunham should put her clothes back on.

I lived in New York for fifteen years. No one had been to Brooklyn since the Dodgers left in 1957.

The young people in Girls are miserable, peevish, depressed, hate their bodies, themselves, their life, and each other. They occupy apartments with the size and charm of the janitor’s closet, shared by The Abominable Roommate. They dress in clothing from the flophouse lost-and-found and are groomed with a hacksaw and gravel rake. They are tattooed all over with things that don’t even look like things the way a anchor or a mermaid or a heart inscribed “Mom” does, and they’re only a few years older than my daughters.

The characters in Girls take drugs. They “hook up” in a manner that makes the casual sex of the 1960s seem like an arranged marriage in Oman. And they drink and they vomit and they drink and they vomit and they drink and they vomit.

It’s every parent’s nightmare.
Correction: it's the nightmare of every father who actually gives a damn about his daughter. The Dunham Horror's parents obviously couldn't have cared less about her.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Signifiers of femininity

Science and the art of women's high heels:
Scientists from the Universite de Bretagne-Sud conducted experiments that showed that men behave very differently toward high-heeled women. The results, published online in the journal "Archives of Sexual Behaviour," may please the purveyors of Christian Louboutin or Jimmy Choo shoes -- yet frustrate those who think stilettos encourage sexism.

The study found if a woman drops a glove on the street while wearing heels, she's almost 50 percent more likely to have a man fetch it for her than if she's wearing flats. Another finding: A woman wearing heels is twice as likely to persuade men to stop and answer survey questions on the street. And a high-heeled woman in a bar waits half the time to get picked up by a man, compared to when her heel is nearer to the ground.

"Women's shoe heel size exerts a powerful effect on men's behavior," says the study's author, Nicolas Gueguen, a behavioral science researcher. "Simply put, they make women more beautiful."

...On women as "signifiers of femininity," raised shoes initially appeared in Ancient Greece and Rome, according to Elizabeth Semmelhack of The Bata Shoe Museum.
High heels do make women more attractive. They make women look more slender and less stumpy, and they give a woman a slightly more sexual posture. But the woman at the museum understands the true nature of the appeal better than the male scientist - unsurprisingly, most male scientists being gammas - as she understands that it is what the high heels signify - I am a feminine woman, not a feminist who will behave in a nasty and unpleasant manner - that causes men to behave more gallantly.