Category Archives: Life is stranger than fiction

Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says ‘animal rights come before religion’

This is another of those instances where I am unsympathetic to all sides; ugh. (oogenhand, this one’s for you.)

Denmark’s government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of campaigning from welfare activists.

The change to the law, announced last week and effective as of yesterday, has been called “anti-Semitism” by Jewish leaders and “a clear interference in religious freedom” by the non-profit group Danish Halal.

European regulations require animals to be stunned before they are slaughtered, but grants exemptions on religious grounds. For meat to be considered kosher under Jewish law or halal under Islamic law, the animal must be conscious when killed.

Yet defending his government’s decision to remove this exemption, the minister for agriculture and food Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion”.

Commenting on the change, Israel’s deputy minister of religious services Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan told the Jewish Daily Forward: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colours across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.”

Al Jazeera quoted the monitoring group Danish Halal, which launched a petition against the ban, as saying it was “a clear interference in religious freedom limiting the rights of Muslims and Jews to practice their religion in Denmark”.

The ban has divided opinions in the country, particularly after it recently made headlines for animal welfare policy after Copenhagen Zoo slaughtered the “surplus” young male giraffe Marius.

On Twitter, David Krikler (@davekriks) wrote: “In Denmark butchering a healthy giraffe in front of kids is cool but a kosher/halal chicken is illegal.”

Byakuya Ali-Hassan (@SirOthello) said it was “disgusting” that “the same country that slaughtered a giraffe in public to be fed to lions… is banning halal meat because of the procedures”.

Mogens Larsen (@Moq72), from Aalborg in Denmark, tweeted: “Denmark bans the religious slaughter of animals. Not even zoo lions are allowed a taste of halal giraffe.”

Last year politicians in Britain said they would not be outlawing religious slaughter despite “strong pressure” from the RSPCA, the National Secular Society and other activists.

Danish government: they’re just animals; who cares? Ban the hijab if it’s the Muslims you’re after.

Jews: It’s not always about you, don’t be paranoid; this is just either pandering to sentimental animal-rights types and/or anti-Islamic-immigration types – I hope the latter, because animals have no rights, that’s crazy. As for y’all, you’re just caught in the cross-fire. But you can go live in Israel if you want to live somewhere where you can live in line with your Jewish law – or perhaps Brooklyn. ;)

Muslims: You don’t belong in Europe, get the hell out if you don’t like their laws, and go back to your own countries: there are many of them, where you can follow Sharia. Or Britain, or Dearborn. ;)

Animal rights activists, vegetarians, vegans: Real men eat meat, don’t care about fur, nor how animals are slaughtered; besides, aren’t y’all against all slaughter of animals, anyway? Why care about how it’s done?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


The man who married a corpse

There was no kiss for the bride. No honeymoon away. And no chance of a happy-ever-after. Just a woe-heavy wedding service that segued neatly into a funeral.

In Florida in 1881, a love-struck man by the name of Bradley married a corpse.

He was a salesman from Utah, who had met the woman of his dreams on his travels. Alas, she was dying of consumption.

Undeterred, he proposed and she accepted. Plans were made for a speedy union. But the poor bride-to-be died before the date they had set.

“Now comes the most remarkable, and what has been, with justice, termed the most unpleasant and discreditable part of the tale,” sniffed the Illustrated Police News.

Bradley had solemnly promised he wouldn’t let his sweetheart go to the grave unmarried.

And so her coffin was taken into the church – bridesmaids rubbing shoulders with pallbearers – where a clergyman pronounced them husband and wife, before burying the bride.

So even in 1881, Florida was known for being a place where weird stuff always happened


A cautionary tale of going back to an old love

You’d have to have a heart of stone to read the following (from here) and not laugh.

Life hadn’t been kind to Jack McKenna. His wife ran off with his best friend and left for America. His daughter was dying of influenza. He, too, was struck down with the flu. Only a few shillings stood between him and starvation.

Even when fate finally smiled on him, it was more of a mischievous grin.

In January 1892, a well-dressed woman breezed up to the workhouse in Deptford, London and asked for Jack by name. When shown to his room, the Leeds Mercury reported, she fell to her knees and begged his forgiveness. It was his estranged wife, back from California, where his ex-best friend had made a fortune in the gold-fields. He was now dead, and his wife wanted to pick up where they’d left off.

But in a plot twist worthy of Thomas Hardy, she, herself, caught influenza while nursing her husband back to health. She died of pneumonia, leaving him £62,000 in her will.


For sale, by auction: One wife

Not exactly kosher, but funny.

Sometimes, it just doesn’t work out. The spark goes, the flame flickers, the fire dies – whichever combustible cliche you favour, love has a regrettable habit of fizzling out.

But for everyone bar the wealthiest men in Victorian Britain, divorce was out of the question. That may explain, if not excuse, why a navvy in Stacksteads, Lancashire who’d grown tired of married life, reverted to an old English custom.

He offered up his wife for auction to the highest bidder, staging the sale – as an additional insult – at the home they’d shared together.

“Despite Solomon’s testimony as to a woman being more precious than rubies, and notwithstanding that the spectators were numerous, the highest offer was only 4d,” said the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent in 1879.

“The seller wanted to ‘throw in’ three children, but the buyer objected, and the bairns were left on hand. The wife, however, went joyfully to the home of her new owner, and seemed to be quite glad to get away from her late liege lord as he was to part with her.”

And the buyer? His next-door neighbour.

Surely Ms. Cohen would not object. ;)


25 More Tweets from a once-again ex-Twit

As I’d mentioned I’d be doing, I have, as I did last time I quit Twitter, compiled 25 more of my tweets.

There may be more to come, though; after all, I tweeted for twice as long as under my previous account!


I hate when you respond ‘Good, thanks’ to ‘How is your meal?’, and the waitperson says, ‘Perfect!’ No, it’s not, else I’d have said so, idiot.

Vin Diesel talks like a retard, like he’s taken one too many blows to the head. He can’t act, either. and the FandF series is BS PC agitprop…

When did teenagers start clapping in movie theatres? They can’t hear you, you idiots; it’s not the theatre! Shut the hell up! Kids today…

A woman who likes to say she’s a ‘daughter of the King’ means she thinks she’s a princess. There’s no other way to interpret that mentality.

“They died so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today” sounds too much like an echo of “He died for our sins”.

Somebody oughta organize hobo wine tours for hipsters: trips to Thunderbird and Gallo (Nighttrain) vineyards, among others. Why not? :)

Women in combat? Why not? Let the Empire start losing wars, and kill off as many combat-volunteer women as possible! Fuck ‘em! #winwin

Rob Ford is an elected version of Don Cherry: a politically incorrect guy hated by the chattering classes, liked by ordinary Canucks anyway.

The only way to tell apart a clubgoing skank from a streetwalker at night in the city is that the clubber is busy looking down at her iPhone.

I loathe rich guys who go to a craft beer place and order shit domestic swill. Try something new, for Pete’s sake! Won’t kill you…

Grandmothers, stop dying your hair to try to look young, unless prepared to have all your wrinkles / stretch-marks straightened out, too.

“Sex is a traditionally a taboo topic in China, leaving some adults w. no idea how procreation works.” 1.4 billion Chinese suggests otherwise…

Why is flatulence called ‘breaking wind’, yet a ‘windbreaker’ is a name of a type of jacket?

There are no well-known songs about bacon. I suppose people are too busy simply enjoying it to bother writing about it. :)

‘Controversy’ is just a way of saying that Leftists / liberals don’t like something someone said/did; doesn’t mean anything other than that.

It’s called ‘the friend zone’, but those who come to see they’re in it, realize the other isn’t really that much of a friend, if one at all.

Why do single women in cyberspace tout their being ‘crazy’ as if it were a virtue? ‘Crazy, sexy’, blablablah…

Opposition to trans fats is fat-phobic and cis-normative!

Iceland is ethnically and racially homogeneous; the people are generally Christian, and mostly middle class; thus, crime is rare.

Why do men, esp. young guys, refer to their equipment as ‘junk’? Stop it. Unless it’s not working properly; in that case seek medical help.

One great thing about growing older, is one feels less of a need to aggressively overassert; no more need for pissing / dick-waving contests.

Only in America do people get as weird names as ‘Chase Rice’ and ‘Dutch Sheets’.

Vegan cheese is an oxymoron. Either you have a cultured milk product or you don’t. End of story. Ground cashews do not constitute cheese.

If, as per the website above, vegans think dairy is rape, then ‘vegan cheese’ is ‘simulated rape’, or ‘rape fantasy’. 50 Shades of Veganism?

If, as vegetarians say, “Meat is murder”, then veggie hot dogs, Quorn, Tofurkey, are ‘simulated murder’ or ‘murder fantasies’.



Canadian Blood Services lifts lifetime ban on blood donations from homos, who still complain about remaining restrictions

You really can’t make this shit up.

Canadian Blood Services has announced that they’re lifting their lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men, provided they’ve been abstinent from homosexual relations for five years.

Their reasoning is thus:

The change announced Wednesday will open the door to men who may have had an experimental sexual encounter with another male when they were young, as well as men who were raped when they were boys, Devine said. The lifetime ban applied to any man who had had a sexual encounter with another man, encompassing as a result some men who did not live as gay men, she noted.

But that major concession isn’t good enough for Canada’s gay activists.

A gay-rights lobbyist:

“But it certainly doesn’t go far enough. It should still be behaviour based,” said Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada.

And a similar note from a gay activist in Canada’s socialist party:

NDP health critic Libby Davies called the policy change a step in the right direction.

“I think they should have gone that little bit further and really based their policy on behaviour rather than sexual orientation,” Davies said.

Ah, actually, Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Davies, the new policy IS ‘behaviour-based'; what else would you call a requirement that requires them to be abstinent for a lengthy period of time? (Not long enough, IMO; I think the lifetime ban was sound, and in the public interest, and that only social pressures have forced CBS to cave in this matter, unfortunately. I couldn’t care less about queers’ feelings; I want to know, if I have to receive blood, that it’s going to be safe; I don’t trust even a five-years abstinent gay man, or even a man who was raped, to be necessarily safe. But PC trumps all, today…)

Of course, what Kennedy and Davies really mean, is that they object to ANY restrictions based on behaviour, whatsoever…

The various articles on this news story all quote various supposed ‘experts’ who think Canada should follow the route of some other countries and reduce the required abstinence period to only one year, saying that there’s no justification for making it five instead of one.

They’re no doubt right, but not in the sense they intend; a lifetime ban was, and remains, a sensible idea; unfortunately one which is too unPC to stand, in our ever-more ‘progressive’ times, alas…


Guest Post by Will S.: 25 Tweets from an ex-Twit

Some of you may know that during recent months, I had been living in Toronto, doing a post-grad program as a ‘mature student'; and during this time, for about two and a half months or so, I had a Twitter account, and was quite an active poster, until one day when my account became compromised – somebody got in and sent porn links under my name – and I decided, not only for that reason but also others (after giving it some thought), to shut down my account (for one thing, it proved to be too much of a time suck for someone trying to do a course of study with an intense workload, just like regular blogging would have been, and I couldn’t justify to myself the time being spent). Naturally, I archived all my tweets before doing so, of course.

While I don’t regret my decision to quit tweeting, I thought it would be a shame for everything I wrote there to be gone forever (offline), so I’ve decided to compile together 25 of my tweets, in order of posting: those I liked best, all of which (unlike most of the rest) had no links or pics, and were just observations / musings, some connected with my life as a student, back in a school environment with other and younger students, after 14 years away; others on various subjects. Some have been slightly edited; the rest are as posted.


Saw some pathetic guy walk out “I MISS YOU” in big letters in the snow today, at school. Was tempted to add “R…”.

If natural law alone were sufficient for us to derive moral principles from, then why would we have been given Biblical law and doctrines?

The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a confused movie; doesn’t know what it wants to say. Still, lots of great scenes; worth watching on TV…

Almonds contain cyanide. Isn’t that messed up? Make sure they’re roasted, though, and don’t overeat them, and you’ll be fine. Probably…

Recently, the CBC had a documentary on why men cheat. I’d like to see a similar doc on why women cheat, though I ain’t holding my breath.

‘YOLO’ denies the resurrection. Seriously, what’s with kids today and their ‘YOLO’-ing…

BTW, why is it that all the Popeye’s Chicken & Biscuits outlets in the Greater Toronto Area are owned by East Indian families? Funny, that.

Hate going thru airport security, being treated like I’m a suspect; damned if I’ll ever again put up with that kinda thing at a school ‘pub night’.

Got off an elevator with two other guys before two women, one of whom called out ‘Ladies first!'; I yelled back ‘Chivalry is dead!’ Too bad.

Why do many young women today bother giving guys their phone # if not interested? Are they simply validation whores wanting egos stroked?

Saw a woman in an African dress while doing laundry. Her sleeves were very large; gave me quite a, er, ‘sideshow’ in lifting her arms. Oops!

Parents should always aim for really big families, so that it matters less what happens with any single one of their brood. Yes, I’m cold…

High-maintenance wives make daughters just like themselves. Heaven help the man foolish enough to fall for one…

Discovered a chick I know won’t buy a book by Orson Scott Card ‘because he’s a homophobe & I love my gays'; never knew they belonged to her.

Saw a rainbow-flag decal in an office window, with a slogan about ‘this is a welcoming space’ or something such. Somehow, I didn’t feel so.

A female student related in a school newspaper how her ONS partner snuck out of her place, stealing her laptop and cellphone. I LOLed.

Never thought I’d see the phrase “hoodie vigil”, much less “million hoodie vigil”. Strange days, indeed.

A smartphone effectively doubles the thickness of a woman’s bitch shield.

How to respond to someone who says “I don’t believe in organized religion”: “Ah, so you believe in unorganized or disorganized religion.”

Seems that if a window blind has a gap or panel missing/damaged, it’s always one which lets light in your eyes if you’re standing/sitting nearby.

Twitter, why the hell do you think I might want to follow Lena Dunham? Sheesh!

Ugogirl! While you’re up, mind fixing me a sandwich? #internationalwomensday

Given the day, I decided to have ‘Ides of March’ chicken wings at a wings place tonight; were extremely hot. They are come, but not gone.

Political ‘neo-‘s suck, whether neo-cons, neo-libertarians, neo-Nazis; I can’t think of a single political case where ‘neo-‘ is a good thing.

At school here, I see several students, mostly gals, toting wheeled suitcases around, i.e. luggage, in place of carrying bookbags. Lazy!


*Update: P.S. I’m tweeting once again, here:


The perfect bachelor pad? Only one metre wide, between two apartment buildings.

Not for the claustrophobic…

A house only a metre wide in Warsaw, Poland has just gotten its first tenant, an Israeli writer, Etgar Keret, for whom it has been named ‘Keret House’.

It wasn’t up to Polish building codes, so it’s been classified as an ‘art installation’, and thus far, its other tenants when Keret isn’t there (he only plans to live there a couple times a year for short stays) will be various artists.

I couldn’t live in it, but I think it’s kinda neat.

*Update: From here, some views inside the house:

A man with a bicycle visits the house on Oct. 22. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

A view of the house’s kitchen and living room taken on Oct. 22. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

Note the covering board in the above pic that goes over the exterior stairs.

A man sits at the house’s table on Oct. 22. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

A view of the house’s kitchen and bathroom taken on Oct. 22. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

A view of the house’s bedroom taken on Oct. 22. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

Not for the claustrophobic! :)


They’re here, they’re queer, they can’t hear…

I just learned about ‘Deaf Queers’.  Sometimes one word (‘DeafQueer’), sometimes two (‘Deaf Queer’); they are people who are both homosexuals and deaf, and feel the need to come together as their own separate group, rather than be part of the respective deaf and gay ‘communities’…

But wait; isn’t that too inclusive?  (Remember, it’s only us who are to be criticized for lack of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness’, while it’s okay for them to divide themselves up into ever smaller niche groups.)

Fortunately, there’s DQMO – Deaf Queer Men Only, and Deaf Queer Women Against Violence (to be distinguished, presumably, from Deaf Queer Women In Favour Of Violence).

But what about Deaf Queer Blacks?  Or Deaf Queer Latinos In Wheelchairs?  Or Deaf Queer Muslims?

Aren’t there groups for them?

This is an outrage, and must be corrected immediately!


A Gedankenexperiment to Disprove the Existence of the Rationalization Hamster

The 19th century saw a debate about the nature of light. It had wave-like features and particle-like features. The particle-favoring people pointed out a major failing of the wave people: all known waves propagated in a medium, like waves moving on the surface of a pond. What was the medium in which light would vibrate to cross space? Theorists postulated the existence of a substance, luminiferous ether, that was pervasive, and formed the medium through which light propagated. The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that no such substance existed, and is one of the hallmarks of 19th century physics.

The Rationalization Hamster is Roissy’s magnificent creation, as Dalrock showed in his hilarious Rationalization Hamster 500 post (Another great exposition of the concept is Mentu on Hamsterbating). I prefer Solomon II’s description:

If you’re a woman reading this, please note I’m talking about every woman but you, so no worries. Let’s start with the Rationalization Hamster, Whorus justifyus.
Whorus justifyus is believed to be the single most powerful creature on earth.

Scientists theorize the creature evolved from the cells of a busted hymen approximately 200 million years ago when a meteor crashed into the planet bringing with it radiation that increased estrogen levels in unborn fetuses. Over time, the rationalization hamster grew stronger until it completely took over the left side of the female brain, rendering women unable to be reasonable or logical regarding anything that goes against their wants, wishes or desires regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Now, there is a problem with this description: men make rationalizations, too. Men will typically rationalize any number of things that they do. Consider the classic lines from The Big Chill:

Michael: I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

Women might make more rationalizations of bad choices than men do. There is a reason for this. As Roissy writes: When a woman has an incentive to lie, she will choose dishonesty over truth EVERY SINGLE TIME. There is no lie worse than the lie to the self.

The objection to the concept of the rationalization hamster has to do with this: it is a form of pedestalization of women. Implicit in this concept is the idea that women would make the good choice, but a rationalization hamster leads them astray. But the truth of the matter is…

Women are perverse

We take this insight from the paper that Roissy calls the NY Beta Times. Oh, in the months before I found Roissy, I was reading stories like this one, bits of examination of the female psych in the mainstream media. Titled “What Do Women Want?”, it’s an article that traces the work of Meredith Chivers, “a highly regarded scientist and a member of the editorial board of the world’s leading journal of sexual research, Archives of Sexual Behavior.”

Chivers created what author Daniel Bergner called “Bonobo Pornography.”

“The bonobo film was part of a series of related experiments she has carried out over the past several years. She found footage of bonobos, a species of ape, as they mated… She showed the short movie to men and women, straight and gay. To the same subjects, she also showed clips of heterosexual sex, male and female homosexual sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a chiseled man walking naked on a beach and a well-toned woman doing calisthenics in the nude.
While the subjects watched on a computer screen, Chivers… measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively. …The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the penis and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.”

Literally, she was testing for what it is that makes women wet. What were the findings? Well, men…

“on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms ‘category specific’ ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.”

I would think this is categorically true about men. If they are not into fatty porn, it will not excite them. What about the women?

“All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes.”

So the human female is turned on by a wide range of stimuli, and she often does not KNOW what turns her on, or cannot admit it. The article continues:

“(W)ith the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.”

It would seem that women rationalize away their arousal, even when it is objectively measured and present. In other words, they do not rationalize a reason to BE aroused, they rationalize a reason NOT to be aroused. In the clinical environment of a researcher’s lab, they knew better than to admit that hot monkey sex had turned them on. The reason for this is clear:

You don’t have Free Will

What is going on in the female brain is the same process that goes on in the male brain. Women think they are making a conscious decision FOR something, while in fact the motivation to do something has bubbled up from the hindbrain. As this article in Psychology Today tells us:

“There is an interesting and hotly debated line of research focused on the neuroscience of conscious choice. This research explores the relation between brain activity and voluntary motion. The most prominent of this work was a series of experiments in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s by Benjamin Libet (1916-2007).

The paradigm involves research participants flexing their wrists or fingers (at a moment that they choose) while the researchers measured the timing of three things:

  1. the moment of conscious awareness of an urge to flex the wrist (noted by the participant on a special clock),
  2. the moment that electrical activity is recorded in the brain (EEG of the motor cortex) indicating the brain’s initiation of action (known as a “readiness potential”), and
  3. the moment that electrical activity is recorded in the muscles of the wrist (Electromyogram, EMG), indicating that the voluntary flex was being enacted.

Given our common sense notion of how our actions work, we might expect that we first have a conscious awareness of an intention or urge to act, then the brain activates the motor area that sends a signal to the muscles of the wrist or fingers. The surprising thing is this is not what Libet found.

The not-too-surprising finding was that when averaged across participants the results revealed that activity in the motor area of the brain preceded the electrical activity in the muscle by 550 ms (milliseconds). Our brain activity precedes our muscle activity. Surprisingly, the participants’ reports of their conscious awareness of the urge to move were only 200 ms prior to the electrical activity recorded in the muscle. Brain activity preceded conscious awareness by about a third of a second! What does this imply?

The brain unconsciously initiates the process of “voluntary” action. Subsequently we become aware of this. On the basis of these results, some researchers concluded that free will is an illusion.” (emphasis in original)

It seems, then, like we are naught but automata, obeying the programming of our deep hindbrains. However, there is some bright light. We might not possess the ability to consciously decide to DO something, but we do have the capability to suppress the urge to do something: Free Won’t. The article continues:

“Libet had participants in the same basic paradigm, but he instructed the participants that once you become aware of your urge to flex, then stop it. Don’t flex your fingers or wrist. Libet believed that there was a window of about 150 ms in which the participant could do this (note that the whole 200 ms between conscious awareness and muscle movement is not available, because once the spinal nerves are activated, somewhere around 50 ms before the muscle movement, this can not be stopped). The results indicated that the cortical readiness potential did develop (even earlier than in the past experiments), but this brain activity flattened out just before the muscle action, which indicated the vetoing effects of conscious choice. Libet concluded that participants were using conscious choice to veto the muscle flex at the last moment.

We have free will to abort an action. So, we may better think of volitional action in this case not as free will, but as “free won’t.” We can stop an action initiated by our brain nonconsciously.

This capacity of “free won’t” is generated by free choice. This is our conscious will at work.” (emphasis in original)

What the experimental psychologists are discovering here is empirical support for a Victorian concept,


The book of that same title was reviewed by Free Northerner on this site. It is an overview of recent work in experimental psychology by Roy Baumeister and John Tierney, a popularizer of science in the New York Times. There are a few takeaways from the book, and one of them is that the Freudian concept of willpower is, in fact, well-grounded. Without referencing the idea of “free won’t,” they talk about “decision fatigue” in the actions of an Israeli parole board considering parole for two Arabs and one Jew, only one of whom, we are told, received parole:

“There was a pattern to the parole board’s decisions, but it wasn’t related to the men’s ethnic backgrounds, crimes or sentences. It was all about timing, as researchers discovered by analyzing more than 1,100 decisions over the course of a year. Judges, who would hear the prisoners’ appeals and then get advice from the other members of the board, approved parole in about a third of the cases, but the probability of being paroled fluctuated wildly throughout the day. Prisoners who appeared early in the morning received parole about 70 percent of the time, while those who appeared late in the day were paroled less than 10 percent of the time.

The odds favored the prisoner who appeared at 8:50 a.m. — and he did in fact receive parole. But even though the other Arab Israeli prisoner was serving the same sentence for the same crime — fraud — the odds were against him when he appeared (on a different day) at 4:25 in the afternoon. He was denied parole, as was the Jewish Israeli prisoner at 3:10 p.m, whose sentence was shorter than that of the man who was released. They were just asking for parole at the wrong time of day.

There was nothing malicious or even unusual about the judges’ behavior… The judges’ erratic judgment was due to the occupational hazard of being, as George W. Bush once put it, ‘the decider.’ The mental work of ruling on case after case, whatever the individual merits, wore them down. …

It’s different from ordinary physical fatigue — you’re not consciously aware of being tired — but you’re low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing.”

What causes this lowered mental power? It is as simple as this: lowered blood glucose.

“(R)esearchers set out to test something called the Mardi Gras theory — the notion that you could build up willpower by first indulging yourself in pleasure, the way Mardi Gras feasters do just before the rigors of Lent. In place of a Fat Tuesday breakfast, the chefs in the lab at Florida State whipped up lusciously thick milkshakes for a group of subjects who were resting in between two laboratory tasks requiring willpower. Sure enough, the delicious shakes seemed to strengthen willpower by helping people perform better than expected on the next task. So far, so good. But the experiment also included a control group of people who were fed a tasteless concoction of low-fat dairy glop. It provided them with no pleasure, yet it produced similar improvements in self-control.”

Where did the improved willpower from the tasteless, non-reward drinks come from?

“Even the tasteless glop had done the job, but how? If it wasn’t the pleasure, could it be the calories? …For decades, psychologists … liked to envision the human mind as a computer, focusing on the way it processed information. In their eagerness to chart the human equivalent of the computer’s chips and circuits, most psychologists neglected one mundane but essential part of the machine: the power supply. The brain, like the rest of the body, derived energy from glucose, the simple sugar manufactured from all kinds of foods. To establish cause and effect, researchers at Baumeister’s lab tried refueling the brain in a series of experiments involving lemonade mixed either with sugar or with a diet sweetener. The sugary lemonade provided a burst of glucose, the effects of which could be observed right away in the lab; the sugarless variety tasted quite similar without providing the same burst of glucose. Again and again, the sugar restored willpower, but the artificial sweetener had no effect.” (emphasis added)

So it would seem unfair to characterize female “choices” as due to rationalizations. What is happening is exactly OPPOSITE, and helps explain…

Why Game Works

As evidenced from the above, women are turned on by pretty much anything. Yes, even that neck-bearded cretin might spur a fantasy in the female brain. She literally has NO control over these ideas bubbling up from the hindbrain; they are always present. What she can decide to do is NOT act on her impulses, which requires an assertion of willpower.

Now, this is where game comes in. Roissy describes one element of game, as derived from Mystery, as “flipping the script.” In a sense, women stereotype men who approach them for the same reason WE ALL stereotype: it is a way to avoid making a conscious decision (or to suppress an unconscious desire), and thus conserve the blood glucose that helps preserve willpower. By running the script of male pursuer, woman denier, they can save the mental effort that it requires to evaluate their many offers.

Flipping the script now forces them to think, to decide, to become the pursuer. As this is NOT a subroutine they can easily run, they need to dedicate mental energy to it. This effort depletes their supply of brain glucose, and so they are less able to control their urges. This, I believe, is the ultimate science behind game, exploiting neurochemical energy pathways.

When Women are Most Vulnerable

Much of the PUA scene focuses on getting girls in bars. The “drunk slut” has a basis in willpower. There is the direct effect of alcohol on the brain, but there is another effect, more subtle, but perhaps more important. Diabetics are discouraged from drinking heavily because the liver is the main site of alcohol processing in the body. The liver is also the source of glucagon, a chemical that can be used in times of stress (like a low-blood-sugar incident caused by too much insulin) to raise blood sugar rapidly. A liver stressed by processing alcohol cannot also produce as much glucagon, and so heavy drinking can be literally life-threatening in the diabetic.

In a woman in a bar, the alcohol has a similar effect on the liver. They are less able to generate the blood glucose that would strengthen their willpower, and more susceptible to pickup.

There is another time when this applies. It has been noted that “women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating.” We need not wonder why. Women are constantly aroused by things they cannot explain, but ones with self-discipline keep it under control through an exertion of willpower. However, the effort to prepare an internal bassinet for a fertilized egg to grow in, on a monthly basis, requires a TREMENDOUS investment of energy. This energy investment naturally lowers blood glucose levels, making women less likely to resist the temptation to cheat when ovulating, and more unable to resist the grouchy, nasty, bitchy impulses the hindbrain throws up during PMS.


Posted by on September 28, 2012 in Game, Life is stranger than fiction, Sex


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 279 other followers