New Word Needed

Morgan likes inventing new words.  I’ve taken a few cracks at it myself.  But I’m stumped by this one.  What’s a good word for the idea that difference is a problem?

Maybe it’s a subspecies of solipsism.  You know the kind of thing I mean:

What does it mean for a man to be truly feminist? Is that even possible, or is a man only ever, at best, a feminist ally and a recovering misogynist? . . .
For feminist women, dating men can feel like a lose-lose proposition. Either you settle for someone who invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood, or you gamble on a man who claims to support your cause but may or may not actually give a s–t.

Admittedly, we’re so used to hearing marxoids talk like this that it’s just word salad — a pathetic mix of buzzwords lying limply there under a sneeze guard at the end of the intellectual buffet line.  But let’s take Ms. Sloan far more seriously than xyr deserves and actually analyze some of this verbiage.

Is it even possible for a man to be truly feminist?  Judging by feminists’ behavior I’d have to say no, but their dogma says yes.  Gender, like everything else, is just a “social construction,” which means people are completely malleable.  Arrange society just right — and shoot everyone who disagrees — and you’ll have the New Soviet Woman in no time.  It is, as Lenin assures us, science.  There is no difference; only apparent antitheses that have not yet been resolved into the glorious Marxist synthesis.

Which leads to

invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood

which is a fascinating equivalence, implying as it does that either A) politics are immutable, or B) one’s personhood can change at a moment’s notice if the mass line requires it.  In practice, of course, there’s no problem, since they all believe A but do B.  But think about how weird it must be to write a line like that.  Whatever “feminism” is today — and not even Ms. Sloan would, I think, argue that it came down complete from heaven like the Koran — then that’s what I am today.  It could be completely different tomorrow, and therefore so will I.

When you look at it that way, it’s clear that what these people really want is no distinctions whatsoever.  No difference at all.  Everything is what it is, and it always will be, and nothing can ever be different.  The True Believer is finally personality-less, merged into the all-consuming whole.

Is that just pathological solipsism?  Or something else — Acquired Marxoid Narcissism, maybe?  What do y’all think, Four Regular Readers?

Always Fighting the Last War

Funny how liberals say this to denigrate the military, when their entire thing is as retro as it gets.  It’s been that way since Karl Marx — that whole “capitalists own the means of production, peasants have nothing to sell but their labor, alienation, etc. etc.” deal is actually a spot-on description of feudalism, not industrial capitalism.  In the same way, they’ve been fighting the Civil Rights Movement for the last 50 years, as if tranny-free bathrooms were in any way equivalent to colored-only water fountains.

The last Liberal Great Awakening ended when their policies produced enough crime, stagflation, and international humiliation that their footsoldiers couldn’t stand it anymore.  But there’s not going to be any Reagan prosperity this time around….

It’s the end of an era, y’all.  Just to stick with a theme, let’s look at what happened at the end of the Middle Ages. We see the same things happening now.  For instance, a vast doubling-down on the outward trappings of the old order by the Elite.  Most of the stuff we think of as quintessentially “medieval” was a fabrication, of course, but it was a fabrication of the very last days, when the world it pretended to describe was almost totally gone.  The things that weren’t fabrications were elaborately useless — the expansion of the peerage while Parliament increasingly held all the real power; vast, days-long tournaments in 100 lb armor when firearms and pikemen made cavalry charges gaudy suicide.  Vastly expanded sumptuary laws to keep the nouveau riche from outshining the impoverished aristocracy; tighter and tighter guild monopolies to throttle international trade.  (Our Elite are the globalists now, but the principle is the same).  The most elaborate and sweeping declaration of papal supremacy was written in 1302, just as the Church was about to plunge into 200 years of schism and turmoil and, ultimately, Reformation.  And, of course, the Inquisition….

We — alt right and cuckservative and liberal and moonbat — are mostly still trying to process events under the old paradigms. The alt-right doesn’t understand economics much better than the moonbat left, so they try to shoehorn everything into “race realism” (and, of course, Teh Jooooos!).  The moonbats, meanwhile, cling to a notion of economics that was garbage in 1909, and a view of humanity that should’ve been decisively disproved in 1793.  The cucks still think we can definitively prove, with the postulates of Aristotelian dialectic, just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Meanwhile the tectonic plates keep shifting, and the earth rumbles….

It’s gonna be bad.  Hopefully just Reformation-in-England bad, not 30 Years’ War bad or World War I bad.  My money is on barbarians-crossing-the-Rhine bad….

If You Were Serious….

Co-Blogger Philmon has a category called Stop an Echo — challenging those moldy, rotten chestnuts that everyone “knows” but that ain’t so.  One of my favorite techniques for doing this is to take liberal claims seriously, and extrapolate the implications.  If they don’t have an answer to even the most incandescently obvious consequences of their statements, they’re just parroting talking points.  Like so:

imagesIf you really believe in Global Warming, why are you still driving a car?  Heck, why haven’t you shorted oil company stocks, and gone long in green tech?  You’ll make zillions!  Even if you don’t want to grubby up your hands with capitalism, have you done anything — anything at all — to modify your own personal lifestyle?  Or are you just getting off on telling other people what to do?

If you’re convinced there is no God, why do you keep picking fights with believers?  I don’t go out picking fights with liberals, because Reality’s gonna do that for me.  More to the point, has that ever worked?  Has the ol’ smirk-n-snark ever changed one single mind?  Doesn’t it bother you that, argument-wise, you’re the Washington Generals?  If you’re so wedded to facts and reason, shouldn’t your 0-and-whatever lifetime record be the slightest cause for concern?

If “reason” is so “heavily masculine-coded” that it’s just a buzzword, how do you expect to change any male minds?  We’re reasoners, after all — heck, according to you, that’s our main problem!  And if you don’t expect to change any male minds, how do you expect to break free of the shackles of Patriarchy that, according to you, is “the system which operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women‘s subordination, and to uphold male dominance”?  Poor benighted male that I am, you’re going to have to give me some step-by-step instructions on how to “smash patriarchy.”  Do you have a manual I can read?

I’d love to learn some “Game.”  Problem is, I don’t have the time or the money to hit the clubs every night.  And I can’t really do “Day Game,” because I have a “day job.”  And I don’t live in a ginormous city, so there are a limited number of clubs to hit… and since I’m not already an expert, and since those clubs have regulars, I’m now well known as that creepy guy who keeps “stacking routines” to “initiate kino.”  I’ll keep plugging away — practice makes perfect! — but I have to assume I’m not the only guy with these problems.  If y’all are really out there “sarging” every night — and I totes believe you — there should be lots of resources on “how to get laid on $15 a night,” “how to keep bouncers from throwing you out because you keep bugging all their regular customers,” “how to look good in work clothes after hitting the clubs until 3am and waking up in a stranger’s bed on the other side of town,” and so forth.  Can y’all point me to some of those sites?

How do laws against murder fail to prevent murder?  Y’all keep telling me that mass shootings are the result of our pathetically inadequate gun control laws.  I’m all for passing the most draconian gun laws… as soon as you explain to me how those laws will work when the laws against murder don’t.  Jihad Johnny is heading out to shoot up a nightclub.  He’s got murder in his heart.  He knows it’s illegal — in fact, is a death penalty offense in a lot of jurisdictions– but he’s willing to sacrifice it all for Allah.  But then he sees a sign that says “no firearms permitted on premises” and calls it off…. right?  That’s really how it’s supposed to work, right?

Come to think of it, I have a similar question about drugs.  Y’all are all about pot legalization, because cannabis has all those medical benefits.  But… how do you know?  Pot possession has been illegal in every jurisdiction in the land for almost your entire lives.  Since passing gun control laws will — according to y’all — make sure nobody has access to guns, I have to assume that “pot control” laws have completely eliminated access to pot.  So how do you know how great getting high is?  Or is this all theoretical?

How much money is “enough?”  I really thought we’d get the answer to that one when Obama said “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”  As the press loves to hold Obama’s feet to the fire — according to y’all, the media has a conservative bias — I was certain they’d get Him to put a precise dollar figure on that… but no.  So it’s up to y’all.  Heck, round it off to the nearest thousand dollars; just give me a ballpark figure.

Speaking of, can you give me a similar figure for “fair share”?  Y’all keep insisting that all our financial woes would be solved if only “the rich” would pay their “fair share.”  What amount is that, to the nearest thousand?  How about the nearest percentage point?  And while you’re at it, could you give me a quick definition of “the rich”?  I’ll need to see the criteria on this one, not just the dollar figure, since there are so many ways to define “rich.”  Are we talking AGI, net worth, investable assets, what?  (Since you’re so deeply informed on financial matters, I assume you know what those are and how to calculate them).

And while we’re talking money, y’all assure me that so much of our current predicament stems from “deregulation.”  Well, there’s an easy fix for that!  Let’s re-pass all those old regulations.  But I’ll need you to remind me: which specific regulations were they?

Last money question, I promise:  How much should “health care” cost?  I know, I know, it’s waaaay too high now, and single payer will fix it.  I totes believe you about that, too.  But since some of my nearest and dearest work in the field, getting those health care costs where they should be is going to cause some big changes in their standard of living.  Doctors have student loans too, you know.  Am I going to have to put my heart surgeon nephew up on my couch for a few weeks while he finds a second job at the local Walmart?  How do they manage it up in Canada?

I’ve got lots more, but that’ll do for now.  Please leave your answers in the comments.  Thanks!

Propaganda Fail

I don’t care about Chickbusters, or whatever clever name we patriarchal troglodytes are supposed to be calling it.  (Honestly, I didn’t think the original was all that great anyway).  But I’m happy it’s flopping so hard.

Theodore Dalrymple has already written the epitaph of art in the West:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Chickbusters is overt propaganda.  It was designed to fail.  The original movie was funny (in the parts where it actually was funny) because of the chemistry between the four male leads — and everyone knows that.  Cast anyone other than Murray and Ackroyd as Venkman and Stantz, and the original would’ve bombed, too.  So… we’re supposed to laugh at the same “jokes” that wouldn’t have been funny delivered by any other two men on the planet, now that they’re being delivered by two women?

Riiight.

We’re supposed to say “Chickbusters isn’t funny,” to which the scripted reply is: “But it was funny when a man said it!”  No, it was two particular men who made it funny, but whatever.  Propaganda is as propaganda does.  I’m just glad that the public at large still recognizes it as such.  Not all is yet lost….

Dumb Guy’s Revenge

Provided we survive it, the Trump phenomenon has the potential to finally kill one of the worst mental pathogens of our age: being Smart.

First, check this.  I know, I know, it’s Rod Dreher quoting Ross Douthat, which is nearly enough to form a supermassive black hole of Cuck.  But stopped clocks and all that.

And here is why it’s tribalism: [the Globalists] see anyone outside the tribe as barbarian. The fact that they see themselves as sophisticated and advanced instead of mere partisans of a different tribe, with their own prejudices and limitations, is what makes them so hard to take. Technocratic liberalism is their religion, and its god is a jealous god.

I further know the fact Cucky McCuckerson wrote this piece should also create a supermassive black hole of self-unawareness.  But evidently time itself does survive past the event horizon, because this stopped clock is still right.

The reason the Globalists don’t see themselves as a tribe, of course, is the same reason Liberals insist that facts have a liberal bias — they’re Smarter Than You.  That’s it.  Being Smart, they have access to a level of cognition that’s simply beyond us.  Facts don’t matter when you’re Smart.  Put a blue-haired bicurious vegan slam poet in a debate about astrophysics with Einstein, and within a minute she’ll be telling him his so-called “facts” don’t count, because math is racist.

Trump’s platform thumps all this.  Not because Trump is Dumb — though, of course, he is; he’s Not Our Class, Dear — but because in attacking Trump, the Smart people have finally made it obvious what Smart means.

Smart people have no nation, no culture.  In fact, they have no identity whatsoever, other than being Smart.  And being Smart consists of….?

Since we’re rending holes in the fabric of space-time already, let me recommend a book by the cuckiest cuck of them all, David “Pants Crease” Brooks.  Bobos in Paradise perfectly describes what it’s like being Smart.  Or, at least, what it was like in 2001, when the stock market was up and social mobility was still upward.  It’s all fashion — limousine liberalism as a substitute for old-school conspicuous consumption.  If it’s vulgar to flaunt one’s wealth on bling and Bentleys like a rapper, it’s nonetheless perfectly acceptable to flaunt it by serving only locally-sourced, shade-grown, free-trade tofu at your daughter’s pre-preschool (did you know there’s a 6-year waiting list?  And a top quintile score on the Stanford-Binet is the minimum qualification?).

The problem with this is: There’s no there there.  It’s nice to pretend one is a transnational cosmopolitan sophisticate when one can afford to shift with the wind.  In 2001, for instance, when the Bobos were still in paradise, Cloud Person opinion on gay “marriage” was largely what it was in 1999 — a horrible patriarchal imposition by the breeders.  How dare they force monogamy down gays’ throats?  But by 2004 it was a fundamental human right, and by 2015, of course, it was enshrined in the Constitution.

So with any and all Smart fashions.  So long as one has the money, one can still play make-believe.  So long as the stock market is up, then, one can aspire to make enough money to pretend, and you can fake it til you make it — parrot all the fashionable make-believe, and people will think you’re rich enough to be Smart.

Dumb guys, by contrast, have real identities.  They know what they like, and they know why they like it.  It might not rise above the level of “I like NASCAR because of the crashes,” but hey, it’s something.  A redneck knows who he is, in the way a faux hipster sophisticate simply can’t.

But both can feel which way the wind is blowing.  In this economy, you will be proletarianized.  The question is, how do you make your peace with it?  Personally, I’d much rather be a redneck than whatever you call a barista who’s forever chasing the Bobo life on $8.75 an hour.  And that’s really what the choice between the candidates boils down to.  Vote Hillary, and you’re voting to let people like Hillary maintain her lifestyle at your expense.  She can shift with whatever wind, because she can always sell a few more national security secrets to the Chinese if she’s low on ready cash.  Vote Trump, and maybe you tell the world you’re a redneck… but at least you don’t have to pretend anymore.  When you don’t have two nickels to rub together, being forced to play make-believe by some shrieking harpy who obviously considers you a dupe and a rube is the final indignity.

If being Smart is letting Hillary et al force me to work my fingers to the bone buying her a fourth yacht, then fucking forget it.  Sign me up for the NASCAR channel.  I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Mission Civilisatrice

The bad news is that lots of The Current Year’s problems could have easily been foreseen if people read history (not “took history classes,” read.  History profs are among the ditziest leftoids in captivity.  Learn to seamlessly combine a few basic buzzwords — CisHetPat etc. — and you can ace any history class at any college in America).

The good news, though, is that history provides the solution, too.

By the French Revolution, it was generally taken for granted that the whole of the non-Western world was in need of French civilization. The idea of the mission civilisatrice did not originate in 1870 with the Third Republic, but it acquired a particularly strong resonance after the return of democratic institutions to France. The French colonizers were attempting overseas what French republican administrators and teachers were trying to accomplish in the rural areas of metropolitan France. A zeal to modernize and cast out the perceived demons of ignorance and superstition was as characteristic of domestic republicans as it was of their colonial counterparts. The mission civilisatrice ensured support for the imperial enterprise from otherwise democratic elements in the French population.

We tend to think of the French as the runners-up in the Great Game, but some of their colonies were wonders to behold.  I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that the main reasons they rate #2 behind the British are: 1) No India-equivalent (despite their best efforts, Vietnam et al just don’t cut it), and 2) greater proximity to Germany (Japan had to take Britain’s Far Eastern colonies by force), and 3) the MS seemed more Catholic than the white man’s burden was Protestant*.

And as a coherent program, the MS beats the British “system” cold.  With the admittedly huge exception of India, the Limeys didn’t much care about the natives under their rule.  As long as they didn’t have to pay to put down insurrections, they could care less what Rhodes, Lugard, and the rest got up to south of the Sahara.  Much more cost-effective, but see Decolonization, problems of, for some of the more obvious consequences.

Were I a betting man, I’d wager that the MS is going to come back in a big way here in the next few decades.  Effectively re-colonizing Africa is an easy solution to a lot of the world’s more intractable problems (as Jonah Goldberg, of all people, noted at the turn of the century).  As the epic Olympic clusterfuck in Brazil is illustrating for us every day, modern civilization requires a certain skillset that our darker brethren seem to lack.**  Once realism about IQ comes back in vogue — and Our Betters are working 24/7 to set up the mass muggings, beatings, and rapes it’ll take — starry-eyed world-savers will start wanting to treat the problem at its source.  (Plus, this will let them self-righteously torment people without nearly as much danger of someone shooting back, as Evil Whites are wont to do).

Alas, this wouldn’t be my post without some gloom-n-doom, so here goes: I doubt it will be Westerners bringing back the MS.  We’re too far gone.  It’ll be the Russians and Chinese, who tend to interact with The Other with AK rounds.  As I keep telling all my liberal dimwit acquaintances in academia, if you thought European colonialism was the axis of evil, you’re gonna just looooove the Chinese version.

 

*Not necessarily true, of course — the British were as keen on spreading Churchianity in their domains as the French were to spread Catholicism in theirs.  Cf. Brian Stanley’s The Bible and the Flag, which paints British imperialism as an almost entirely missionary effort.

** I read somewhere that foreign policy wonks used to joke that Brazil is the up-and-coming country of the next century, and always will be.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings: Profit Motive

I know, I know: Capitalism is eeevil.  Alas, in the real world filled with actual humans, science fiction novels are luxury goods.  The “pink SF” crowd seems determined to learn this the hard way.

I did that with my WIP, swapped the male lead to female, then had the same people read what I had so far. The women loved it, the men hated it, whereas before the men loved it, and the women were just sorta meh about it. Made me decide to leave it as a female lead. I figured, if it was making the men so uncomfortable, then I was doing something right.

Emphasis mine.  This is what the CisHetPat philosophy crowd calls a “category error.”  The point of writing science fiction novels is not to make men uncomfortable.  The point is to GET PAID (a.k.a. the Tao of Larry Correia).  If you’re not writing to reach your audience — and you can tell if you are, because you’re GETTING PAID — then you’re not really a novelist.  You’re a preacher.

Which is fine; the world needs preachers, too, and there are millions of street corners on which to rant.  But don’t expect to be taken seriously as an author of science fiction.  (Same deal with the preacher — a minister whose every homily is about Ringo Rocket’s battle with the Robo-Men of Planet X-22 is going to be minus a congregation).

Settled Science Update

On the many, many problems with “peer review.”

The thing is, most people have no idea how academia works (this is, of course, deliberate).  Most folks who hear that this or that is “peer reviewed” think that other professors have scrupulously followed all the references, and/or actually sat down at the lab bench and replicated the experiments.  I can’t personally vouch for the labwork part of it, but knowing what everyone knows about scientific research — that it costs an insane amount of money, using hugely expensive machines that need to be tightly scheduled — does that assumption pass the smell test?  Can Joe Schmoe the peer reviewer at Flyover State really get some time with the Large Hadron Collider to check some data?

I do have some experience with peer review in the humanities, though.  Everyone who has ever taken a graduate course does.  Here’s how it works: You’re doing some reading for a project and you come across an interesting tidbit.  So you check the footnote.  It says Jones, Marxoblather, page 22.  Hey, so maybe there’s a whole book on this!  Jones probably has much, much more.  So you check Jones out from the library and flip to page 22.  He’s got the same fact, footnoted to Smith, Capitalism is Evil, vol. 2., p. 158.  So you hit the stacks again, pull the copy of Smith, check his reference, and… Williams, Ass-Pulled Assertions, p. 45.

….and quite often, that’s where the trail goes cold: With an ass-pulled assertion in an old book, that gets cited in so many places and in so many ways that the original just kinda disappears.  But here’s the kicker: Even if Williams gives you a beautifully detailed citation to a primary source, you’re still out of luck.  Because, of course, Williams found his evidence in an obscure archive on the other side of the world.  Unless you’ve got the free time and spare change to jet off to the Turkmenistan National Archives (and read Zambezi or whatever language it’s in), you’re SOL.

This is how you end up with things like the Bellesiles Affair.  He simply made up his key evidence, because he knew nobody would check — he was, after all, a member of the Guild, telling other Guild members exactly what they wanted to hear (that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, basically, because the Founders didn’t really have too many guns and thought guns were icky anyway).  It took an amateur — a software engineer — to point out that hey, the sources don’t say what the professional says they say, in part because there’s no way some of the stuff he cites actually exists.

In effect, “peer review” means “I, who have some kind of degree in a vaguely related area, can’t see any glaring errors in this article I’m skimming in my free time.”

But yeah, we should definitely enact global socialism posthaste, because science.

From the “Cognitive Dissonance is BS” Files

Ace of Spades, on last night’s overnight thread:

When you try to delegitimize somebody’s vote, you don’t change his mind, only his willingness to talk about it.

Ace of Spades, all day every day:

Trump is behind in the polls!  Hillary is inevitable! Doooooom!!!!

How’s that old song from Sesame Street go?  One of these things is not like the others… one of these things just isn’t the same….

The Rules

The college mating game is a great illustration of Leftist ideology’s toxicity.

First: Denial of basic biological reality.  I don’t mean how profs constantly celebrate the whole panoply of deviance (though there’s plenty of that).  I mean basic, Darwin-level stuff.  “Males display, females choose” is the rule throughout the animal kingdom.  Human males, then, are just following their programming when they try to figure out what women want, in order to display it to them.

Problem is, human males are hardwired to think in straight lines and hard rules.  The easiest way to receive information from other humans is to ask for it, so that’s what most guys do.  But women don’t want what they say they want.  They’ve been trained all their lives, by the entire cultural apparatus, to say precisely the opposite of what they mean.*

Oversimplifying a bit for clarity, they say they want pajamaboys.  So guys pajamafy themselves.  When that doesn’t work, most guys assume that they’re improperly executing the program, not that the program itself is faulty.  Nate Winchester nailed it in a previous discussion:

Let’s face it, these guys are engineers! Their entire life is built on instruction and following said instructions (because failure to do so will lead to a very bad time) so it’s only natural that they engage in social interactions according to the instructions they have available.

We can swap in “all men” for “engineers,” as STEM guys have stereotypically male brains.  Rule-governed behavior makes instinctive sense to us — I’m as un-STEM as you’ll find, but I naturally grasp the point (if not necessarily all the mathematical arcana) of batting average, quarterback rating, leveling up in video games, tabletop gaming, poker… give a guy, any guy, a set of rules and an objective, and he’ll immediately sit down and start doping out strategies.

Moreover, they’ll keep following the rules well past the point of pointlessness.  Back in the days, for instance, my buddies and I used to play these tabletop strategy games based on World War II.  It was possible to win the whole war with the Axis — if you were really good, really lucky, and your opponent(s) screwed up — but individual campaigns were usually exercises in futility for one side or the other.  Germany vs. Poland, for example.  The Polish army isn’t going to beat the Wehrmacht.  “Winning,” for the Polish player, was to stave off defeat for a little longer than the real Poles did.  Talk about futile! And yet, we passed hours and hours and hours this way.

invasion-of-poland-1939-9dd5ce-h900Now… imagine what would happen if you suddenly took those rules away.  If the Poland player could simply declare, “this unit right here is Sardaukar.  And they’ve got a Voltron suit.  We’re landing in Berlin.”  Or the German player could deploy mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D. Nobody would play, right?

Such is the situation on most every college campus in America today.  What few rules there are don’t work, because they’re self-contradictory… and meanwhile the egghead brigade is constantly denouncing the very concept of rules as so much CisHetPat evil.

What’s a guy to do?  Well, read ’em and weep (trigger warning: HuffPo):

I am 22 and a pioneer in the early age of internet dating. I’ve trawled the online profiles of Lavalife over the previous weeks, occasionally setting up dates with various eligible women. I remember Katherine’s profile picture vividly: long dark hair, a mysterious Mona Lisa smirk, and the cleverness of her username: WHATSADATE. Answer, written below in first line of her dating profile: A date is a small dried fruit.

(additional trigger warning: the whole goddamn thing is in present tense, because that’s this season’s fashionable literary pretension).

A date is a small dried fruit.  There’s your first problem right there, Chief.  Take it from the old married guy, youngsters — beware the superficially clever girl.  You probably think you want a snarky, quick-witted “gamer” girl, because she’s “into” all the same stuff you’re into, which considerably simplifies the interaction process.  Wrong on all counts.  Geek girls are girls first, and — trust me — “geek” is about 257th on her priority list, even if she looks, talks, and acts like Zoe Quinn (of course, if you’re going after that particular profile, fellas, you really ought to consider the cloister).  You’re far better off going for the hottest sorority sister you can find — you’ll approach her as if she’s an extraterrestrial, which of course from your perspective she is.

Much overwrought, purple-prosed noodling follows, then:

These interactions weighed heavy on my soul. I could not make sense of them. On the one hand, each felt appropriate, life-affirming and needed. Surely these could not be considered “cheating.” What was a kiss anyway? On the other hand, such interactions were beyond the boundaries of our monogamous partnership to which Katherine and I had vowed. In my uncertainty, I waited, hoping somehow the situation would resolve itself.

Dude kisses several stereotypically granola girls at uber-SWPL events like Burning Man.  Feels guilty, because he’s “monogamous.”  And here’s the important part:

“I think we should try an open relationship.” I can’t quite believe the words are tumbling from my mouth. Within the paradigm of the dominant culture, the sanctity of monogamous marriage is supreme.

And yet I feel compelled to reconcile the deeper longings of my desire, haunted by the alternative: the vision of a pleasant but passionless coupledom, like so many marriages that choose the facade of stability instead of the fire of truth.

We’re both good little liberals.  Rules are for squares!  “The paradigm of the dominant culture” is, of course, CisHetPat.  Which is evil.  By staying monogamous, we’re perpetuating the cycle of violence.  We’re guilty guilty guilty (hooray!!!).  We can’t afford not to open up our relationship.

The dam has broken and the next few months are a blur. I begin using words like polyamorous (meaning “many loves”) and non-monogamy in conversation.

Of course you do. That’s your identity now.  If you’d had a stronger sense of self in the first place, you wouldn’t be here.

You don’t need the rest, because the obvious happens: She boffs some other guy; gets pregnant by him; Pajamaboy of course tries to do the “right” thing by being “supportive” and offering to “co-parent.”  Just as obviously, Pajamaboy is not ok with their “open” relationship; feels guilty for not being open about it; blames society and “the myth of The One” for the utterly predictable consequences of his boringly obvious choices.

The rules are for squares, right?  Riiiiight.  There’s no escaping The Rules — they’re hardwired.  Pajamaboy wasn’t rebelling against The Rules when he “decided” he wanted an open relationship; he was following them perfectly.  Guys will always follow the rules (small -r) of conduct they’ve been taught, to achieve the objective they’ve been assigned.  If the rules don’t work, or contradict themselves, a guy will do almost anything to square the circle.

The trick is to make sure that the rules of conduct we transmit to the young square with reality as much as possible.  Monogamy works for lots of reasons, and it’s a key ingredient in society’s glue (name an advanced society, for any reasonable definition of “advanced,” that is polygamous).  Now that our society has been eroded to atoms by half a century of Cultural Marxism, we’re going to have to think about how to reinstall certain basic notions like monogamy.  You’ll never convince our modern pajamaboys to embrace Christianity, so it’ll have to be by other means….

They — we — want hard-and-fast rules.  Someone’s going to give them to us.  Whoever figures that out first is going to go far…. probably much further than we’d like.  Let’s think it over before it’s too late (if it isn’t already).

 

*Whether or not they do this consciously is, I imagine, much debated among the more reflective PUAs.  Personally, I think “consciousness” is too broad a concept — like most human things, one-size-fits-all obscures more than it illuminates.  From what I’ve seen, women are quite capable of fervently holding two contradictory opinions simultaneously.  I think they actually believe — in their heads — that they want pajamaboys, while just as fervently knowing in their hearts that they want badboys.  If any aspiring PUAs among the Four Regular Readers wants to field test this by gaming hardcore feminists, please leave detailed reports in the comments.