A new psychological disorder called heterophobia is infecting America. Promoting a heterosexual or traditional family lifestyle is becoming increasingly shamed while criticism of homosexual lifestyle is no longer allowed. Our culture is making it clear that when it comes to sex, only heterosexuality can be ridiculed, especially when it is practiced by men.
I believe we’re only 10-15 years away from when homosexuality or bisexuality will be seen as a superior lifestyle to heterosexuality. We’re already at the stage where homosexual couples are seen as more virtuous than male players (mainstream media criticizes game incessantly, but no such effort has been done on homosexual couples). Any lifestyle choice that involves men wanting to sleep with beautiful, thin women will be linked to misogyny and hate, while lifestyle choices involving men wanting to sleep with other men is seen as progressive and open-minded. Even the annual Thanksgiving Day Parade, an American family institution since 1927, is promoting a gay lifestyle by featuring singing and dancing homosexual men dressed up as women:
Heterophobia will be devastating on boys. Impressionable children will be bombarded with messages that guide them into adopting a lifestyle that has no genetic basis within them. And yes, I am saying that gayness is not 100% biological—there is absolutely an environmental component, as there is for all other human behavioral traits. A genetically straight man could be turned gay if raised in an environment that nurtures and encourages his slightest homosexual tendencies, which is what America is doing today. Gender re-education will ensure that even normal heterosexual boys will be softened. Masculinity and staunch heterosexuality will be seen as a nostalgic throwback, unsuitable for modern times.
Evidence of heterophobia can be found in the immense support network that gays can depend on. If you’re a gay boy and are teased in school, the administration will rush to action. There are web sites and toll free numbers to call if you need help. Unless you live in a rural town, you won’t have to go far to receive compassionate support. But how about if you’re a teenage boy who wants to have sex? Tough luck, you privileged freak. You will be brainwashed that consensual sex is possibly rape and flirting is sexual harrasment. They are telling boys now that you can’t touch a girl without her “permission.” The only support you got are guys like me, who are being put on hate lists. If you are growing up gay today, people trip over themselves to help you deal with your issues, but if you’re a straight boy, they’ll teach you harmful propaganda to prevent you from even getting laid. The culture is being successfully changed so that deviant homosexual behavior is accepted and embraced.
I pity young males in America today. Unless they become gay and decide to sleep with truckloads of random men, they will be attacked for being masculine, using techniques to achieve heterosexual sex, and making even mild criticisms against women or homosexual culture. They will fall prey to a system that wants to make them feel ashamed and privileged for being straight, and I’m afraid that as a result, many will succumb to this brainwashing and become—if not outright homosexual—unhappy beta males who have no idea how to pursue women without shame or guilt.
At Return of Kings we have often been accused of promoting slut-shaming. But what if, as we here have long known, the lion’s share of distaste for easy women rests not among males, but within the seedy underbelly of the female psyche? Recent research suggests that female animosity toward promiscuous women is not due to any “oppressive patriarchy,” but rather an ingrained competition mechanism that has developed over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
The New York Times reports on a study at McMaster University that was designed to test female reaction to perceived sexual competition. The experimenters had a hot blonde lab assistant enter a room and ask for directions, and then filmed female reactions to the confederate after she left. When the girl (who was highly attractive in either case) was wearing conservative clothing, she received almost no negative reaction. When she was dressed in a short skirt and low-cut top, however, the female hater parade ran strong with subjects making comments about her clothing, chastity, etc. From the article:
“Now that researchers have been looking more closely, they say that this “intrasexual competition” is the most important factor explaining the pressures that young women feel to meet standards of sexual conduct and physical appearance.”
ROK readers yawned, but society at large recoiled in horror. Though we often hear the tired canards of “male chauvinism” or “media emphasizing unrealistic body image or sexual expectations” as explanation for slut-shaming, behind closed doors this impulse exists independent of any male influence. Despite the shrieking of feminists to the contrary, it is the female’s innate drive to compete with her peers for high value males. There is delicious irony in the fact that women were enraged at Tuthmosis’s slut tell list and invented any reason to dismiss his points, but in private they are adept at recognizing and reacting to the very same cues he simply pointed out.
Anyone who has observed the backstabbing and subtle aggression in female social groups has seen this scenario unfold firsthand, but this study provides evidence that, in a microeconomic sense, women are predisposed to undermine other women who allow easy access to their sexuality.
“Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”
This is a perfect example of a Prisoner’s Dilemma, the classic behavioral economics paradigm. The fictional parameters of this game are as follows: two gang members are accused of a crime, arrested, and put into solitary confinement. To gather evidence, the police attempt to get each suspect to betray the other and offer evidence against his partner. If both suspects cooperate with each other and stay silent, they both get reduced sentences. If both betray each other, they both receive a moderate prison sentence. If one cooperates and one betrays, the cooperator gets a full prison sentence and the defector goes free. They cannot communicate with each other. How should each suspect behave?
The fascinating thing is that, even if they can communicate, in both cases each suspect’s best move is to betray his compatriot. If he knows the friend is going to betray him, he gets a lesser sentence by also betraying. If he knows the friend is staying silent, he goes free if he betrays him.
In the case of female social groups, the “betraying” is offering one’s sexuality at little cost (sluttiness), and “cooperating” is remaining chaste and limiting the supply of easy sex. Female sexuality is undeniably valuable in any society—if women limit its supply, they maximize the gender’s overall ability to keep male behavior in check and promote their reproductive aims of finding high-value men. If an individual woman defects from this tacit agreement, though, she has access to more high-value males because of her willingness to engage in quicker sex. If they all defect, you witness a free-for-all of devalued sex and emotional backstabbing. Enter modern western culture.
Women innately understand that their compatriots are going to outcompete them if they offer quicker sex. Despite society’s macro message supporting unrestricted female sexuality via slut walks, easily available contraception, and the “You can have it all” Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks dichotomy, at a micro level women will still punish defection with non-violent measures like passive aggressive pressure, withholding of approval, and exclusion from social groups. This happens regardless of the closeness of their relationship. The interesting part is that it is in a female’s rational self-interest to enforce cooperation in other women while they themselves secretly defect. We see this played out when girls will call their friends sluts for actions that they themselves have participated in in the recent past.
We live in a society where the male contribution to slut-shaming is light in comparison, and only in the context of the increasingly poor choice of long-term commitment. The male role in slut-shaming is further muted by a media and culture that has imbued them with the sense of learned helplessness at assessing the meaning of a female’s sexual past. After all, it doesn’t matter how many partners she had before you! Evaluate her on her actions now and forgive her follies of youth! The majority of men have taken this rubbish to heart.
Make no mistake — the true reason for outrage at Tuthmosis’s slut tells list is that identifying the defectors punches holes in the “You cooperate, I defect” best-fit strategy of modern women. The existence and identifiability of promiscuous women makes the cooperation they strive to enforce in others more difficult to achieve and reduces the mate-getting value of their individual sexual availability. Despite modernist teeth-gnashing to the contrary, science often shows us that we ultimately remain subject to the innate psychological schemas of our evolutionary biology.
The world today is facing many problems: financial, political, and environmental. Many people in the manosphere are suggesting that we learn to Enjoy The Decline. However, there are some within and outside of the manosphere who believe that these problems have solutions and have not yet given up on civilization. One must admit, while progress has come with quite a few problems there are some things that I would not be willing to give up.
One of the problems that the world faces is energy. Whether to power our houses, run our businesses, or move our cars the world needs energy. This problem covers all of the three categories mentioned above and our ability or inability to solve it will be a major factor in what the future of our species will hold. Many people are working on it from every angle imaginable. I am going to focus on two people, one man and one woman, and compare how they approached this problem and what it says about them.
The woman is Jennifer Granholm. According to Wikipedia she is the former Governor of Michigan, a beauty pageant winner, unsuccessful Hollywood actress, and graduated with a B. A. in political science and French. This is her speech at TedTalk about her plan to fix the energy problem.
The first five minutes is a sad story about a factory that closed in a small town in her state. After that at about 6:45 she gets to her plan, which is to put a $4.5 billion dollar reward from taxpayers to states that succeed at making 80% of their electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar, or biofuels. At 10:50 she mentions that it would be hard to get Congress to agree to this so she suggests that the rich people in the audience voluntarily pony up the money to pay for it.
There are three things to take from this video.
1) She doesn’t actually come up with an idea. She just came up with a way of spending other people’s money to pay for other people to solve the problem.
2) She is unbelievably happy with herself for her ability to come up with this idea of getting other people to solve a problem. Although I must point out that sometimes men do this too.
3) She is missing the point that the reason people are not moving to renewable energy is because at the moment it is more expensive.Moving to having 80% of a state’s energy from renewable energy at this time would increase the cost to companies that hire people. Blue collar manufacturing plants that use a lot of energy would be even more likely to outsource to other countries just like the refrigerator company in the beginning of her video that she seemed so sad about. Thumbs up for government interference in the free market.
Now compare her “solution” to a solution made by a real scientist, not a political scientist (in her own words).
Introducing Kirk Sorensen. According to Wikipedia he has a master’s degree in aerospace engineering. He worked as an engineer at NASA for ten years followed by a year at Teledyne Brown Engineering as Chief Nuclear Technologist before leaving to start his own company, Flibe Energy. Those are real credentials. His solution is an improved nuclear reactor called Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which are explained in the video below. This video is much longer, but at least view the first five minutes and I will outline the other important points below. The point I believe are most important are inbold.
0:00-5:00 Short attention grabbing Intro to Thorium power
6:00 – 6:10 Gender demographic on Facebook
6:15-7:40, 9:50-11:50, 1:25:00-1:27:10, 1:32:10-1:35:20 Kirk talks respectfully with a hippie couple
16:35 – 19:00, 36:50-40:15, 56:00-57:20, History of Thorium energy
19:10-21:40, 24:50-29:30, 31:20-34:20, 40:20-45:30,1:10:00-1:11:30 Technical talk about nuclear power
21:40-23:00, 52:25-52:55, 1:25:30-1:29:30Explanation of dangers of radioactivity in easy to understand terms
29:00 – 31:20 Explanation of nuclear weapons and thorium
34:30-35:00, 1:37:30-1:39:30, 1:53:00-1:54:00 Why we didn’t use Thorium before
45:30-48:30, 1:51:00-1:52:00 Safety in nuclear reactors
49:15-52:20 Explanation of accident in Japan’s nuclear reactor, Fukushima
1:00:15-1:03:50 Kirk disses other nuclear reactor ideas
1:07:30-1:08:50 People talk about LFTR’s use in military and third world countries
1:12:30-1:15:35 Using LFTR waste for NASA’s projects and medical isotopes for cancer
1:15:35-1:18:15 Cost of developing the technology
1:19:00-1:25:00,1:37:00-1:37:30 Kirk disses on the MSM for fearmongering over nuclear power
1:30:30-1:31:00 Kirk gives a neat trick for confusing ignorant environmentalists
1:41:10-1:42:00 China is doing it
1:42:30-1:46:30 Thorium and rare earth elements
1:50:00-1:50:30- Using waste heat to make ammonia or desalinate seawater
35:20-35:45 Kirk complains about being in a basement
I included the last one because it shows how Kirk who has already done orders of magnitude more than Jennifer is able to remain orders of magnitude more humble about it.
I will break down Jennifer and Kirk’s solutions by the three categories I mentioned in the beginning.
Jennifer’s solution would obviously cost taxpayers or TED’s rich and gullible audience members 4.5 billion with little chance of seeing a return on investment. It would create jobs in clean energy production, but the jobs made in wind farms and solar would be at the expense of taxes that could be used elsewhere and would also raise the cost of electricity on both businesses and consumers hurting the economy much more.
Kirk’s solution would lower the cost of energy dramatically for both consumers and businesses which would help the economy. There would also a very good chance of getting a substantial ROI for investors. Kirk does admit that since it is a new technology there would be some risk for investors and he can not put down an exact percentage on the investor’s ROI, but it is better than Jennifer’s “just give 4.5 B because it is the right thing to do.”
Thorium energy adoption would hurt the coal and gas industries which do create jobs, but there would be new jobs in the rare earth mining as thorium regulations disappeared. I would imagine rare earth mining is nicer than coal mining (although I have never worked at either). Having a guaranteed source for rare earths would also prevent manufacturing jobs from outsourcing to China and perhaps bring a few back. No company will spend billions on a manufacturing plant in the US if there is a chance that US/China relations will go down to the point that China embargoes the US and they have to close their factory because they can not get their necessary raw materials.
Jennifer’s proposal would cause more bipartisanship as electricity costs went up. Kirk’s idea would get rid of the global warming and environment debate because the most environmentally friendly option would also be the most cost-effective.
We could also sell this technology to other countries to pay off our debt. Not to China anymore, that ship has sailed because we gave this tech to them for free already. However, we owe lots of money to other countries who probably aren’t expecting anything more than hyperinflated fiat currency by now anyway so they would love to trade debt for a few hundred thorium reactors.
As companies moved out of China because they weren’t the only source of rare earth metals then manufacturing in China would drop and they wouldn’t have to trade with North Korea for materials anymore and North Korea would have to stop their nuclear program.
We could offer this cost-effective proliferation resistant nuclear technology to Iran in return for them stopping their uranium enrichment program and they would have to say yes.
Jennifer’s proposal would involve building massive number of wind farms, solar panel farms, all over the country with high voltage power lines connecting all of them. That wouldn’t be environmentally damaging at all (/sarcasm). Also the amount of energy needed to build, transport, and set up this renewable energy infrastructure would take many years to pay off the carbon credit anyway.
Kirk’s idea would replace 5 billion tonnes of coal, 31 billion barrels of oil, 5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, and 65,000 tonnes of uranium with only 5,000 tonnes of thorium because of thorium reactors high efficiency. However, I am personally very doubtful about his claims of creating carbon neutral gasoline from atmospheric CO2 even with nearly free electricity, but I would love to be wrong on that.
Even discounting the coal and natural gas the 5000 tonnes of thorium to 65000 tonnes of uranium difference would already reduce nuclear waste produced. Also the isotopes made from the decay of U233 created in the thorium reactor (Bismuth 213) can be used in cancer radiotherapy for leukemia so it would actually save lives.
So, which person would you choose to lead the country in solving the energy crisis?
The article states several facts about women with eating disorders:
A girl who spends inordinate mental and physical energy on her looks is rarely fat.
You can go out to nice restaurants and order take-out with the confidence that your expense on her will be minimal.
An eating disorder often translates into the direct opposite: a girl who’s modest, fragile, and vulnerable.
They aren’t too many poor girls with eating disorders.
The delivery of ideas like these may make some people uncomfortable, but they are based on our experiences and views of the world. We speak the truths that politically correct outlets are too afraid to share because of sensitive mainstream readers who lose their composure at anything they disagree with.
Eating disorders are bad
I want to make it clear that we at ROK are not promoting eating disorders. These are devastating illnesses on those whom they afflict, and we wish sufferers are able to receive the treatment they need. It is unfortunate that sufferers continue to be stigmatized by society, so it surprises me that Tuthmosis’ article has been angrily received when it attempts to reduce stigma by encouraging our male readership to give women with anorexia and bulimia an opportunity for real intimacy. This is far better than merely giving patronizing e-support by outlets like Huffington Post.
We are educating our masculine readers not to pass on eating disorder victims just because they have an illness, yet instead of receiving thanks, we’re receiving hate instead. If we all had cancer, and someone wrote an article titled “5 Reasons To Fornicate With A Man Who Has Cancer,” we would spread it far and wide to make fornicating with us a better proposition for women. We would not send death threats or calls for censorship like is happening to us now. I think a bit more graciousness is in order for our unorthodox method of outreach.
The Tuthmosis case
Upon closely reviewing Tuthmosis’ article, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in it that endorses eating disorders or slanders those who have them. He has simply shared knowledge and insights that can aid single men in their pursuit of sexual happiness without hurting women. While some of his statements may be subjectively interpreted, we’re not a scientific journal, and so should not be judged in that manner.
Was Tuthmosis’ article offensive? Was it tasteless? Not to me and not to the bulk of our male readership. It is not our job as a men’s publication to ensure everything we write does not offend 7 billion human beings on this planet, so there is no legitimate reason to remove the article, and those who are calling for it to be removed should instead visit the graves of America’s great founders and speak into the ground about why they don’t believe in free speech simply because their feelings have been hurt by mere words. As a staunch believer in free speech, I will do all I can to make sure ROK contributors like Tuthmosis can share their opinions and experiences freely, especially when it does not advocate for violence or breaking the law.
Therefore, the article will stay and Tuthmosis will stay. We respect your freedom of expression, even if they include death threats and calls for mutilation on our genitals, but I sincerely hope you can gather the strength to handle one article on the internet that you don’t like. If you want to engage us in a sane dialogue about this matter, feel free to reach out via the comments below or through email. God bless.
Watch the video below. It is a TED talk about porn and masturbation.
It offers a lot of insight into an area that most guy don’t stop to think about. Something that has become a normal, expected behavior.
Rather than summarizing the video I will offer what I can from my personal thoughts and experiences.
Men are sexual creatures. This is undeniable.
And at some moments there is a primal drive that kicks in. We need sex.
Maybe you’re at the gym and a super fit girl walks by you. Or maybe you’re perusing the internet and see an ad featuring a big titty model. Some hormones are released and then you can’t think about anything but having sex. And hot bitches.
There are two ways to fix this problem. At least that I know of.
Sex and masturbation.
I think all guys can agree that sex is preferable. If you don’t, then this article will fall on deaf ears.
However, masturbation offers immediate relief. An instant release of all the pent up sexual energy that arises in these situations.
And watching porn to facilitate this urge is only natural in today’s digital age. It offers the stimulation you crave. In all of a matter of minutes. It’s like magic.
But to what end?
Watching porn is so fundamentally different from real sex. Watching people get after it does not equal making explosion yourself.
Like most habits, its effects take place over the long term. You fundamentally train yourself to release your sexual energy while staring at a screen.
Our brains are plastic, and the neural pathways that control these interactions can physically change. And so what happens when you see an attractive girl you want to approach? What happens when you’re knee deep in some real sugar walls?
Your brain can get rewired to become aroused based off of looking at pixels. And things like touch, emotion, and the actual feelings of real sex can be dissociated from your arousal state. Symptoms like erectile dysfunction and social anxiety are common according to the research in the above video. Some people subconsciously lose their ability to talk confidently to, or get hard for – a real life girl.
Is that really what you want? Is the momentary satisfaction you get from busting a nut looking at your laptop worth it?
The short answer: stop watching porn.
Give it up for a few weeks and feel your testosterone pumping through your veins. Seek out a woman to give you the release you crave.
Fighting against the impulse to jerk it can be tough at times. Remind yourself that the pleasure derived from porn is short lived. That it’s nothing special. That you’re altering your brain – for the worse.
Think of fighting against the desire as masculine energy building up in your body. Building up until you find a suitable girl to release the tension. Something very different than looking at your computer screen.
If you absolutely cannot hold back the urge, I think fapping without porn is a better alternative. But why settle for your hand?