Role models

When Han Solo hits on princess Leia in “The Empire Strikes Back”, he does it right. She shit tests him to hell and back, and he plows on. Similarly, in “Gone with the wind” Rhett Butler proposes to Scarlett O’Hara, she rejects him, and he forcibly kisses her.

When I look at old movies, the hero always does it right. When I watch newer movies, the hero never does it right. It seems forced, artificial, and gratingly unnatural. Looks like robots carrying out a script to move the plot along. In real life, would never work, the hero would never score dealing with a woman in the way that men deal with women in modern movies.

And modern men just do not score approaching women in real life. In modern movies, action girl saves the lad in distress, and then for no apparent reason starts to like him. So it is like, “how do you meet a girl except you wait for action girl to rescue you?”

Boy meets girl remains a major plot thread, but boy and girl just never get romantic in a natural normal manner. I don’t mind if boy meets girl because of time travel, elves, space ships, dragons, and space aliens. For that I can suspend disbelief. But I just cannot suspend disbelief when they get romantic without going through the normal mating dance. In the Lord of the Rings movie, Arwen goes in for a kiss with Aragorn. The dialog explains that they already have a sexual relationship. The film maker has to depict them as already somehow having a long established off screen romance, because he is just not allowed to depict a man and a women getting together in the way that men and women actually do.  He just cannot depict Aragorn going in for a kiss with an as yet unkissed Arwen.

44 Responses to “Role models”

  1. Mickey says:

    Well according the most up-to-date interpretations of Han Solo you are wrong!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI&t=36s

    Lord help us.

  2. Garr says:

    Jim, please explain the distinction between the behavior that you recommend and Harvey W’s behavior. (I know that there’s a clear and sharp one but I’m too stupid to immediately grasp it, although I suspect that it may have something to do with the 6 to 9 hour “warming her up” rituals [including beach walks] that you’ve mentioned.)
    Also — I find myself resistant to the “sexual relations are fucked up now so act like a cruel domineering guy and fuck a series of women” formula that you seem to advocate; I understand that you’re in favor of restoring smart-beta-brotherhood rule, but why not simply advocate this now, as opposed to recommending behavior of the sort that will result in the capital punishment of men who behave in this way when smart-beta-brotherhood-rule is restored?

    • Glenfilthie says:

      Indeed. In these days men can and have been charged with sexual harassment for the sin of asking a lady out.

      Jim gets bogged down with evo-psych bullshit. For example, yes, some women will shit test their men. The shit test though, is meant to be passed; and allow the interested woman to establish her boundaries in the relationship. When women give their men impossible shit tests it is because they want to get rid of them. Some women, like my wife, never do shit tests at all.

      • Garr says:

        What I mean is more along the lines of: even if you (Jim) can get away with alpha-badguy-behavior and it works for you, why not choose instead to promote the better ethic of male-dominant monogamy that will include the hanging of alpha-badguys?
        (I suppose Jim’s answer would be: “Because I sympathize with you boys and want you to have sex.” Also, I note that Jim has never indicated that he’s taken another man’s woman — but I found his apparent approval or at least non-condemnation of Stringsofcoins’s backdoorman-behavior disconcerting.)
        (Good comment at Zman, by the way, Glenfilthie — I upvoted it.)

        • Stripes Duncan says:

          The answer:

          People are really good at finding excuses for themselves to engage in behavior they condemn in others. Jim doesn’t think everyone should be an alpha, but if someone does it should be him. Works out pretty well when you can swing this.

          • jim says:

            Everyone that society relies on to work or fight, everyone that pays taxes and owns substantial property, and everyone in the fighting arms of the military, police, and private security, should be socially required to behave in ways that will cause women to see him as alpha.

            Bums and suchlike who behave in this way should get the stuffing beaten out of them with a sjambok until they learn to walk with a cringe and a stoop.

            Right now we have the opposite system. Only the man with nothing to lose acts alpha, so all the hot, high IQ, high socioeconomic status chicks are spending their hottest and most fertile years having sex with low IQ petty criminals who live on a bit of welfare, a bit of burglary, a bit of drug dealing, and a lot of sponging off their harem of hot high IQ high socioeconomic status girlfriends.

      • Cavalier says:

        >and allow the interested woman to establish her boundaries in the relationship

        Wrong.

    • jim says:

      Part of it is that Harvey Weinstein sounds like he is making an offer of benefits, which sounds needy, therefore creepy.

      Another big part of it is that he is fat. When I was fat, I to some extent had the same problems as he did. Charisma can compensate for age and fatness to some extent, but there are limits. At my fattest, I never had a double chin as bad as his. Looks to me that he was getting away with it until he got too fat to get away with it any more.

      So:

      1. Don’t sound needy.
      2. Be charismatic.
      3. Lose weight.
      4. Lift iron.
      5. Grab them by the pussy.
      • Glenfilthie says:

        And yet our pal, Jian Ghomeshi (The Pied Pakie Of PUA) … who isn’t fat, and is fashionably vibrant, and obviously charismatic to some – went through the same wringer Harvey’s about to go through.

        This is the trap of evo-psych: you end up trying to reduce women to a common denominator. It may work in the trailer park, or on the nightclub bubble gummers and tire biters – but it most assuredly will not work on the intelligent woman that respects herself and her man.

        The law protects women that act badly – it is absolutely BRUTAL on men that act badly too. You’re playing with fire, Jim.

        • jim says:

          You will notice that the women complaining about Harvey Weinstein are discards who are past it. Even though he is fat and all that, the complaint is not really that he harassed them, but that he lost interest in harassing them.

          People who claim that good women are unresponsive to this treatment conspicuously fail to possess good women.

        • Will says:

          >It may work in the trailer park… but it most assuredly will not work on the intelligent woman that respects herself

          Jian Ghomeshi slept with attractive celebrities with master’s degrees, hardly ‘tire biters’. Game works on all girls regardless of class, education, race, wealth and intelligence.

          Watch Good Will Hunting. High IQ high status Harvard student prefers to hang out with low class townies with game rather than her fellow ivy students.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            I suppose it depends on how you define the term ‘possess’ with regards to women. If all you want to be is a bad memory for her of a ‘pump-n-dump’ I suppose it’ll do for the chad/chav. Ghomeshi is radioactive now, and I’m not sure his conquests were all that much to brag about. I suppose, given our stances – we could also argue about what constitutes a ‘quality woman’. I wouldn’t fuck a hollywierd celeb with your dink, never mind mine – and university women pursuing degrees in kitten studies are certainly not women of quality.

            If you’re so inclined, Kim du Toit takes a decent shot at defining the quality woman:

            http://www.kimdutoit.com/2017/10/11/easy-peasy/

            • jim says:

              Ghomeshi’s troubles consist of numerous movie stars unsuccessfully complaining that he raped them, and he is still up to his armpits in fresh pussy.

          • jim says:

            The only way to score is the way Han Solo and Rhet Butler do it. That is just the inherent nature of women. Anything else is gratingly unreal, and anyone who is unaware of this has little contact with real women.

    • jim says:

      I understand that you’re in favor of restoring smart-beta-brotherhood rule, but why not simply advocate this now, as opposed to recommending behavior of the sort that will result in the capital punishment of men who behave in this way when smart-beta-brotherhood-rule is restored?

      We are not going to get to a patriarchal society via a moral code that renders men weak, powerless, and afraid while letting women run wild.

      We are not going to get to a patriarchal society via a moral code that blames men for the bad behavior of women.

      We could get to a patriarchal society, and probably will get to a patriarchal society, by a moral code that allows men to abduct women provided the abduction does not infringe on another man’s property rights, but forbids him to let her go after abducting her, and protects his property rights in her, though I fear that in the transition, the abducted women will be white, and the abductors middle eastern Mohammedans.

      • Cavalier says:

        There are no unowned women, because their de facto guardianship falls back upon the state. What the state does and should do, simply out of universal moral principle, with that de facto guardianship (and ideally, de jure guardianship) is a different conversation. An auction block might work; abduction wouldn’t.

        If the distributed polygyny model has any validity, then really the state is their owner at all times, and individual men are merely title-holding retainers in much the same way as Asian real estate “leases” work. Again, no abduction. Down that way lies anarchy and dysgenesis; there’s a reason that the Chechens are the nogs of white people.

        • jim says:

          There are no unowned women, because their de facto guardianship falls back upon the state.

          The state should never have a direct relationship with any women or child, nor with any member of a household except the man of the house, the male head of household.

          If it attempts to have a direct relationship with every single individual, the king and pope with find the ensuing bureaucracy even more difficult to control.

          An auction block might work; abduction wouldn’t.

          We have known past and actually existent present day societies where marriage by abduction works. Where the state puts them on the auction block, as for example Islamic state, seems dysfunctional.

          It looks like abduction works better, perhaps because it impresses the hell out of the chick.

          • Cavalier says:

            >The state should never have a direct relationship with any women or child, nor with any member of a household except the man of the house, the male head of household.

            Unless it is giving a wayward woman a choice between marriage and children, and the slammer.

            >If it attempts to have a direct relationship with every single individual, the king and pope with find the ensuing bureaucracy even more difficult to control.

            With modern communications technology, I don’t think that this is a problem anymore.

            >We have known past and actually existent present day societies where marriage by abduction works.

            I cannot think of a single place in the civilized world…

            >Where the state puts them on the auction block, as for example Islamic state, seems dysfunctional.

            Who does IS put on the auction block, exactly? I’ve never been totally clear on this. Sluts? Captured slaves? Hypothetically, no reputable woman with reputable family would ever come into contact with the auction system; it seems like it would be useful for hot foreigners, sluts, and tertiary wives.

          • Cavalier says:

            >The state should never have a direct relationship with any women or child, nor with any member of a household except the man of the house, the male head of household.

            Also, your much-loved Australia shotgun example.

      • Cavalier says:

        And if the distributed polygyny model is correct, then there is no self-interested incentive for a superhegemonic and externally unthreatened state to enfranchise increasingly economically and militarily irrelevant men, so universal moral principle really is necessary, and I’m not sure that it’s enough.

        We might just be fucked.

        Good old Ted might just be right.

      • Garr says:

        “We are not going to get to a patriarchal society via a moral code that renders men weak, powerless, and afraid while letting women run wild.” — But it seems to me that we’re also not going to get there via sexual-badboy behavior. An austere, almost monastic organization seems more likely to succeed.

        I take it that your promotion of a patriarchal-monogamist restoration and your advice to the kids on how to get laid and keep girlfriends for a while are two separate themes — that you don’t see the latter as a means to the general social goal but are just being personally helpful.

        • jim says:

          I take it that your promotion of a patriarchal-monogamist restoration and your advice to the kids on how to get laid and keep girlfriends for a while are two separate themes

          Not at all. I am trying to replace my wife, and this is the best way.

          As a civilization, and as individuals, we need to control women, and for the civilization to control women, it has to allow individual men to control women. And such control is not “austere, almost monastic”.

          If we want prosocial men to get pussy, and antisocial men to not get pussy, we have to allow, indeed require, that prosocial men be dominating and sexually aggressive. Otherwise even if women are commanded to marry prosocial men, they just will not be in the mood, and will resist in their usual passive aggressive fashion.

  3. Rape says:

    Baby’s first redpill in the comments of that star wars clip.

    Maggie Klein
    1 year ago
    Why dont guys do this anymore like come on

  4. Zach says:

    Someone please post the Han slap. I don’t recall that at all.

    However, this was a classic that Roissy pointed out once:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0d1zTAFKA

    • Zach says:

      Oh shit, I read the post wrong. I read it as hit, not hitting on. Nevermind. So the last ten minutes of me trying to locate this scene was a total waste heh

  5. Cavalier says:

    Contemporary movies are crap, but old movies persevere. Some greats:

    Dollars Trilogy:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_7br_3y54
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=M-k_BW8iLkk
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ryo8RtIYBnU

    (And all other early Clint Eastwood westerns.)

    Lawrence of Arabia:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=il-CWVHDnvU

    Zulu:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=raBNUUj1-fY

    Once Upon a Time in the West:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=QML28YQBvyc

    Cool Hand Luke:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=hEvbUTWKLMc

    The Great Escape:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=H3KbLBwQFW4

    2001: A Space Odyssey:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=ypEaGQb6dJk

    Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=w9KBOhPXhds

    Here’s an interesting contrast:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=NssX5AqvLGw
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=4O-6WE8flyg

    The latter is from 1994, so just don’t watch anything made after Reagan’s presidency.

    • Zach says:

      I disagree. Granted, our culture of shit seeps its way into a lot of media, but there are always good movies coming out every year. I also tend to think people are way too emotional about these things. If such a movie doesn’t exactly mirror ones impression of the world, then they discard the entire movie as terrible.

      Maybe in a movie such as Troy, that made Jim turn it off immediately, the extremes of the situation (war) especially being a history-based film, may warrant such a drastic action. But I thought that movie was shit either way, With a bitch, or without a bitch.

      • jim says:

        Have you seen any modern movie that depicts boy meets girl in a fashion that is not gratingly unreal, or just skips over the part where she gets into him?

        • Zach says:

          I avoid those movies like the plague. Is Leaving Las Vegas modern enough?

        • Zach says:

          As an aside I find traditional romance unwatchable because it is utterly boring. So I like it when fuckupery is added to the mix.

          Sex, Lies and Videotape
          Blue Valentine
          The Shining
          Drive

          Best current example of a relationship Tree of Life maybe?

          • Zach says:

            Watch Sicario Jim. Not a boy meets girl movie, but that rare movie that reflects more realistically on a females ability in a male domain.

            But yeah… the current movie relationship trends are stupid.

  6. Nationalist Perspective says:

    Jim, I quote one of your articles talking about the leftist singularity in my post on Weinstein today:

    https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/weinstein/

    • jim says:

      Yes, that the left devours the left for behavior that was fine yesterday is a predictable manifestation of the left singularity.

      • BomberCommand says:

        I’ve been trying to understand who would benefit from starting sexual harassment jihad in Hollywood. I can’t think of anyone who would. Leftist singularity confirmed.

        • Will says:

          Feminist groups are getting tons of donations. Urbanite catlady NGOs are benefiting.

          • BomberCommand says:

            >Feminist groups are getting tons of donations. Urbanite catlady NGOs are benefiting.

            They are? I haven’t heard of it. Hollywood is a money making propaganda machine from the left. Killing the goose that’s laying the golden eggs won’t benefit the left.

  7. Ah now that HTTPS works, a question, please, Jim. Arwen in the LOTR movie seems like a perfect example of a certain kind of nerd fantasy: the pure virginial woman who is to be loved only in a Platonic way, not sexually. And this is a very interesting combination because it combines some very healthy instincts, namely the kind of modesty how an unmarried virgin girl should look and behave. And it also combines some very weird instincts: you should still want to fuck her, just understand it is not allowed. But feeling like you would be soiling her perfect purity which is a frequent element of nerd fantasy is not healthy.

    I tried to think hard about where could this come from. Finally my model is that it comes from nerdy young men having had imperfect puberty and retained some element from childhood. This attitude of loving women in a chaste way is very appropriate between pre-puberty children. The reason there are these conservative element as well because plain simply in modern society pre-puberty children are the last ones where girls still dress modestly, albeit it maybe be quickly changing too. So basically in a healthy society a long skirt, little make-up, long but simple hair are good ways for a girl to look good yet not be sexually challenging but today only children dress like that so men who in a way stuck in childhood still want that?

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      “Virgin Worship” is the male protective instinct spiralling out of control. Unsurprisingly, K-selected nerds (generally I hate the K/r theory, but here it is apt) are especially prone to it. The solution is kidnapping nerds and injecting them with testosterone against their will.

Leave a Reply