alpha males beta males evo psych fairy tales MGTOW misogyny

To win over the ladies, act like a haughty donkey, incredibly long-winded MGTOW explains

Brace yourself. The post I’m writing about today (which can also be found here) is kind of a doozy. Mostly because of its length; it’s 3500 words but seems even longer. I doubt that even one of the regulars on the MGTOW2 subreddit read it all through the end. But I did, so you’re going to have to suffer with me as we make our way through the thick underbrush of very bad prose.

The author of the post, a fellow calling himself Mind-Front’s , lures his readers in with a bland title (“Thoughts on woman’s desire”) that in no way prepares one for the onslaught of words to come.

The post starts out unpromisingly:

This post refers to unconscious desires but which are painfully felt in the consciousness of man by its concrete effects.


Again, we should not generalize. The conclusions described here are limited to one more perspective of the reality to be considered. I must remind the reader that the unconscious, in both sexes, is the source where the nightmares of hell and the wonderful dreams of heaven sprout.

Okey dokey then. If you’re feeling a tad confused, about where this is going, don’t worry. He does have some actual points to make. They’re wrong and bad points, but points nonetheless,

The feminine desire is something very controversial and disconcerting. Lots of confusion reigns over it. These are mainly due to the opposition between what is conscious and unconscious. Such opposition leads women to say the opposite of what they feel and what they are (Freud himself confessed his impotence to this problem). … Learn that almost everything we hear the smart ones saying about what they are looking for in a relationship is a lie and, moreover, it is just the opposite of what they really want. I am going to expose what they try to hide and never admit

The post then takes an unexpected turn.

The human sexuality is similar to that of horses, zebras, and wild donkeys.

Apparently women really are into horses.

The females spontaneously go to the territory of a stallion, which is installed near the best sources of food and water (material resources), and offer their sex at ease.

At ease?

The other secondary males, are forced to walk in packs made only of males, running out of mating for years, until they can replace some stallion that is old. The females do not rival each other and accept the stallion’s infidelity naturally (as it happens with the fans of any famous artist, mafioso, billionaire or politician). The stallion can relate to any mare in his harem without the slightest problem as long as he is able to keep beasts and secondary males stalkers away.

So how does this relate to those of us who aren’t horses or donkeys?

In other words: the men considered “alpha males” act like the wild stallioOn the other hand, the men excluded from the selective criterion of women are like the rejected horses who never mate. Something very similar happens between lions, among gorillas and other animals.

And some things that are totally different happen with most animals.

For being the complement and the opposite pole of the man, the woman has an inverse psychic structure.

We want the maximum of sex and we try to have sex while we have strength until the last moment. For us, sex comes in first place and love comes second.

Meanwhile women be shopping … for love.

For them, the opposite occurs: the love comes in first place. But understand it well: most of the time, they do not want to give love, they just want to receive it by giving in return only the minimum necessary to keep us trapped by the desire, the feeling and the passion.

What are women supposed to be “giving in return” here? Sex? Love? Who the hell knows.

They have a double desire. They desire the servitude of the weak and the protection of the strong. They want to dominate the weak and needy to exploit them as husbands that raise their offspring while dreaming on getting the affection of the insensitive ones who possess harems and stand out in the hierarchy of the males. The weak, when imprisoned, receive sex, affection and love in minimal quantities, just enough to be kept in the jail of its owner.

I guess this is just a very long-winded explanation of the Red Pill notion of “Alpha fucks, beta bucks.”

They do not love us in simple automatic retribution to our love, that is, by simply loving or desiring them.


They want our attractive features and not our person itself.

Can you really blame them?

This is explained by the fact that their needs are far beyond mating: they need to raise and protect the offspring. So they do not miss the males themselves anymore but only their attitudes in utilitarian contexts.

I’ve gotten lost again.

We, on the other hand, love them, that is, directly because our existential goal is to mate.

We love them because we want to have sex with them? That’s not quite how it works.

We want to pass our genes against the genes of others. We love them in body, in a directly form. We are loved indirectly, in terms of function and utility. Our lack is not felt outside the utilitarian context.

What “utilitarian context?”

The masculine existential goal is to mate, fertilize and ensure the transmission of genetic inheritance against rival males. The feminine existential goal is raising the offspring, which goes directly to the formation of the family. For us, sex is an end and for them it is the means because the end is the creation of puppies.

Uh, puppies? Is Mind-Front secretly a dog?

In other words: the feminine love is meant to the children and not to the males. Nietzsche says that the goal of women is pregnancy:

“In the woman everything is a riddle and everything has only one solution: it is called pregnancy.

To be fair, Nietzsche said all sorts of bullshit,

For the woman, the man is nothing but the means. The end is always the child. But what is woman to man?

The man, truly man, wants two things: danger and game. That is why he wants the woman who is the most dangerous toy.

Wait, I thought the “truly man” wanted the most fertile woman.

The man must be educated for war and the woman for the warrior’s pleasure. Everything else is crazy.

The warrior does not like very sweet fruit. That is why he loves the woman. The sweetest woman is always bitter.”
(NIETZSCHE, 1884-1885/1985)

Yeah, the Nietzsche references aren’t really helping your argument here.

They want the best male of the pack, the best breeder and protector: the winner, the rich, the famous, the prominent in relation to the other males. In this aspect, they do not differ from monkeys, wild mares and other females.

Yes, wild mares love celebrities. Every mare longs for the attentions of Mr. Ed.

As with certain herds of mammals and birds the leading males are preferred by females for the mating and third-rate males are rejected, the most prominent among human groups are the most desired. The movie heartthrob, artists, idols, etc, are persecuted and worshiped for being prominent and not by what they are in themselves.

I guess we should all become celebrities then?

So, if you want to get the attention of someone who ignores you, you must be different from the others imbeciles. In the first place, you should not do what everyone else does: chase them, try to get attention, talk a lot, talk loud, make fun, hasten to please, harass, put pressure, etc.

So the quiet bird gets the worm?

Learn to impress without making any noise or effort, as if you did not want to do it. Be more fearsome than kind … Impress her with no fanfare … Approach her without fear but with indifference, stare into the eyes to frighten


and then give some protective order, ignore interesting body parts on display, disagree, attack her mistaken perspectives, scare her, “horrify her” with your solid arguments, scandalizes her, leave her emotionally defenseless …. and surprise by protecting her with indifference.

I’m beginning to worry that this guy has bodies buried in his crawlspace.

Do not fear the approach nor the loss. Take your chances. Learn to measure the exposure to loss with mastery. Tie her up (by the feelings, making her like you. ” . … Live in her thoughts and memories like a ghost (obviously, it is a metaphor), as she does to you.

Glad to hear that the whole ghost thing was just a metaphor.

Do not try to cross the barriers by the paths that everyone tries, you must penetrate the fortress by the passages that are unguarded because they are not noticed by the idiots. Know how to perceive the moment of approach and move away, of showing disinterest and interest, to repudiate and to welcome. Do not mechanize yourself as if you were a robot. Above all, be safe and love yourself.

Love yourself; terrify the ladies.

The feminine madness is the superiority of the male in every way and on all possible fields. They are attracted by signs of superiority: height, intelligence, money, etc, but mainly by indifference, determination and security.

There’s “playing hard to get” and then there’s this.

They reject signs of inferiority and weakness: short stature, … poverty, flattery, stupidity sentimentality, adoration, doubt, romanticism, hesitation, submission, insecurity, harassment, etc. They love superiority: the workers want the owner of the company, the patients want the doctor, the students want the teacher, the fans want the artist, the short want the talls and the talls want the tallest ones yet!

I guess it’s all over for short dudes.

The german women wanted Hitler and the russians, Stalin.

Well, some of them did. Then there were these gals.

The greater the distance, the greater the desire, which explains the hysterical cries and fainting of women at shows.

I guess you could call this the “just be a Beatle” method.

They only surrender their treasures in extreme situations.

What, like that Lucky Charms leprechaun?

The feminine betrayals almost always begins by the feeling like something “without wickedness” and not for the carnal desire, which is for them complement and not the central ingredient of love.

Fucking gobbletygook.

For this reason, it is very easy for them to defend themselves when we caught them in suspicious behavior saying things like, “You are evil, evil only exists in your head”, etc.

What are you talking about?

They usually camouflage their affairs or flirtations in friendships and even unite both, which is why we should be alert and distrustful of courtesies, admirations, cares and attentions that they give to certain men that they choose.

The Evo Psych-ers call this “mate guarding,,” while the rest of us know it simply as “acting like a jealous asshole.”

There is a specific personality, a special type of man who women harass: the sleaze, … The sleaze does not fall in love and at the same time embodies feminine fantasy. It conveys the false impression of being comprehensive for not caring what his partner does or who she walks with, since he has many others and does not want commitment.


I’m going to use Google translate to turn that last sentence into German and then back again to see if it makes any more sense that way,

It gives the wrong impression of being comprehensive because he doesn’t care what his partner is doing or who he is with as he has many others and doesn’t want any commitment.

That reads better than the original!

All right, back o work:

He seeks her only for sex and forgets her for a long time, then causing in her to oscillate between hope and despair. He does not flatter her, it is not sticky.

He;s “not sticky?” What, is he a stale donut?

He is distant and mysterious, since he must hide his life, his intentions and what he does. It has all the ingredients of a perfect lover and bad character, unfortunately.

Much more the latter than the former.

Now, the rich men are preferred because they are few and not exactly because they are rich. There are wealthy wives who have poor lovers. In addition to power, the females want the prominence and the emotional force of the lover. They want to talk from the bottom up, looking up This is why you will be despised if you are less than your partner in some sense. Be greater and protective, but distant.

The material possessions, physical superiority, or any other attribute which society has agreed to be an indicator of high status confer safety and makes the male attractive. …

I really can’t take much more of this.

A common feature to superior males, who dominate their females, is the ability to lead the relationship and the decision-making with success. The inferior males usually transmits weakness when they consult their females excessively. They are guided by the misconception that love will come in the form of acknowledgment for being good, helpful, submissive, etc. They believe that love is recognition, retribution. Poor bastards…

Yeah, women just hate helpful men.

The feminine desire is twofold: for the burning and wild sex are chosen the insensitive, promiscuous, evil and cruel sleazes; for marriage are sought out the good, faithful, honest and hard worker. Therefore, the best part is often aimed at those who are a real crook and the worst is intended to the politically correct.

Moved by the unconscious desire to keep as many as possible males wishing them, to create a matriarchal clan, the females elaborates sophisticated psychological strategies to expose themselves to masculine desire without being held accountable.

A matriarchal clan?

Roughly, we can divide males that are sought in two types: the provider and the lover. … Those who submit serve to be providers, husbands, and those who do not submit serve to be lovers, receiving affection, love and sex of good quality.

Love that good quality affection.

The self-esteem of many women is defined by the amount of males who desire and pursue them. They need to feel wanted, which is why they incessantly create mechanisms to expose themselves to desire and dodge the fury of the males that they have already conquered.

All women are secret Machiavellians. I guess.

They wish to be chased so that they may repudiate the chaser and tell everyone, drawing to attention her power to fascinate and attract. They are violently hit in the feelings when they discover unequivocally that their sexual and affective favors are rejected. They need to continually assume that they will be chased. The inaccessible male becomes a problem and, at the same time, object of greater efforts in the sense of seduce to submit. The inaccessibility triggers seduction attempts.

Yeah, I think you said that alread.

The rejected female leaves the inertia and mobilizes to turn the tables to take revenge because she was violently attained in self-love.

Once again, what?

Normally, the majority of heterosexual females who, for some reason, are explicitly avoided by a man and perceive it, try next an approximation motivated by the desire of revenge, by the need to raise self-esteem and not stay “underneath” the others who have received the attention and kindness of this one. They get infuriate and terribly angry because of the unsatisfied desire to reject and, at the same time, not be rejected bring them alive inside (

At this point I’m feeling a bit dead inside.

The feminine affection is not a retribution or an automatic reflex of masculine love but a strategy for conquest and imprisonment. That is why it is directed to those who do not love them. It is also, diverted from the passionate and submissive. The affection, love and dedication are tools for imprisonment. … Our mistake consists to believe in the lie that affection and love are reflections of our most sublime feelings. The more we please them, the less love we will receive from them.

Yeah, I think we got your point the first six times you mentioned it.

To keep your wife or girlfriend faithful, she needs to feel you almost trapped but continuously inaccessible, in addition to seeing you as unique and different from the others. If in fact she trapped you, she will go on to conquer another male superior to you. The inacessible male is an obstacle to the constant cumulative impulse that aims to expand the amount of possible protectors and providers in stock. This is why the female detain herself at him, trying to defeat him and remaining faithful while she is not able to submit him.

I’m actually starting to get mad at myself for even trying to fisk this unending post, which honestly feels like something that’s gone through Google Translate for real.

The reason for the desire to accumulate protectors/providers is an unconscious need for security against possible future abandonment. In this sense, they do not feel the slightest scruple in using the feelings of others because they do it unconsciously, vehemently denying to themselves or to any person such ruses.

Just wind it up now, guy.

It may seem strange, but the combination of fear with admiration and protection form a mixture that ignites the feminine desire. Be fearsome, admirable and protective. Do not misunderstand me: the fear I am referring to is the fear of loss, of being abandoned and changed; it is also the fear of weight in your decisions; it is not the fear of your physical strength, although this also counts. Do not think that I am suggesting violence against women or something like that.

Yeah, just emotional violence.

Despite of all the bullshit that is said on the contrary, our friends, deep down, desire man that exercise dominion. The dominant ones are the destined to receive their treasures, the erotic delights. I refer to the domain of leadership, convergent with the desires and needs of the woman and not to the physical or psychological coercion that opposes them. It is about a leading and consensual domain, that makes her feel protected and safe as a child. To be clearer: a form of authorized mastery in which man orders exactly what a woman needs and she does it for her own well-being. The attempt of coercive domination on the part of man legitimizes emotional infernizations by the woman as a form of defense. The


not consented or selfish exercise of masculine power intensifies emotional dramas and worsens the relationship. As for the successful exercise of power, it is what consecrates every democratic society (the couple is a form of society). The opposite would be chaos. It is known that all democratic human societies adopt the consensual exercise of power, have hierarchies and authorities, which exercises their dominion. The authorities refusal to exercise this dominance would be an omission that would provoke protests and even social chaos. It is in this sense that the Bible commands women to be subject to their husbands (and not in an oppressive sense as the enemies of christianity interpret) and provides punishments for the abuse of power of the latter. The power must be exercised correctly, aiming at the common good (of society as a whole, of the family or the couple) by the one who leads. It is well known that, in popular slang, the women label as “wimps” those who refuse to exercise their power in the relation to two, preferring to submit to and obey their partner.


So, they say, “So-and-so is a wimp, because he let that I order and disorder on him!” This qualification of the submissives as “wimps” proves the solicitation of a dominant masculine stance. It is in this mode of domination that I am referring to, not coercive or oppressive. It is a domain exercised over the woman, by her effects, but before that, it is exercised over the psyche of the man.

My eyes are literally starting to glaze over.

The women are unanimous in stating that they detest being led, but contradict themselves when they take actions that pester the submissive man, requesting for dominance and leadership, and when they are violently draw to the leaders and, in general, to all men who stands out as the center of the social circle in which they are inserted. It is much more comfortable and safe to be led than to lead. The risks and dangers of responsibility weighs much more on leaders than on those who are led, and this is one of the reasons why the women demand masculine dominance and feel contempt for the doormats. However, if leadership is disastrous, the one who had exercised will be disturbed to the brink of madness. It is a double burden: in addition to coping with the nuisance of leadership, the one who leads can not make mistakes in dominating and leading.

Wait, wait. Is he done? Oh thank god.

That ws painful. I’m going to go lie down for a bit.

If you’ve stuck with me the length of this post ,congratulations but WHY

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

50 replies on “To win over the ladies, act like a haughty donkey, incredibly long-winded MGTOW explains”

LOL, I wonder if it would break these men’s brains to know that some of us like show ponies rather than wild stallions, so to speak.

“But a show pony man can’t protect you!”

Uh yeah, y’all do realize the biggest threat to women are the men we live with, right? And that the “protection” of men is always fickle, and nothing can 100% protect us under patriarchy?

Any man can be dangerous, but if I had to marry a guy, I’d rather marry one who was cute and nerdy and gentle and knew how to do housework – even if it meant less disposable income, and higher risk from male strangers. Contrary to media bullshit, hetero relationships are not universally a daddy dom kink thing. The desires of real women range far and wide – patriarchy just forbids many of us from following them.

“The post starts out unpromisingly”

I disagree David, the start is the best part. It sounds almost as deep and thoughtful as the author believes themselves to be.

“They only surrender their treasures in extreme situations.”

Wait, I thought they were all cock riding hoes who throw themselves at any Alpha in sight? Does this mean any time a Chad says “Hey babe, let’s get drunk and fool around”, it is an extreme situation?

It’s ironic to see one of these guys complaining that women only want them for their attractive features considering they only want women who are very attractive and who will be submissive to them. I’m also irked at the alpha/bets bs. Alphas aren’t a thing and there is no small group of men who get all the women while most other men never have sex. God they’re dumb.

It’d be really cool if these mgtows would live up to their and leave women alone.

Also, Jesus Christ this asshole thinks women core value in terms is men wanting to fuck them for being attractive yet still has the nerve to cry about women being shallow.

the fucker literally describes women’s as men’s toys.
And his screed reads “no means yes.” and I can easily seem him ignoring the complaints of any woman he’s attracted and then coldly trying to rationalize why she wanted him to force himself on her.

They only surrender their treasures in extreme situations.

What I took from this whole post is that women are like Smaug

Sorry, David, I couldn’t. Although I enjoyed how it makes more sense when Google Translated out and back. Maybe that’s how he wrote it, with a couple more loops.

Miggies don’t understand either wolf packs or how equine herds work, either. Protip: both are led by the senior female. HTH.

Is it a coincidence that “donkey” and “jackass” are synonyms?

I think, if you have to act like a donkey around women, try acting like Donkey from Shrek. He’s funny, loyal, and he got a woman way above his level.

@jsrtheta: “Truly horrible.”

That was a lot of words to say “I know nothing about women and I don’t like them at all”. Pretentious, misogynistic windbag.

@ gas ex noob

Is it a coincidence that “donkey” and “jackass” are synonyms?

Just to be donkey nerd, whilst all jackasses are donkeys, not all donkeys are jackasses.

Some are Jennies (or Jennets in some places.)

Related, donkeys eating cake.

@ .45

Does this mean any time a Chad says “Hey babe, let’s get drunk and fool around”, it is an extreme situation?

Well, in the OP of this load of tripe’s experience it’s extremely unlikely. Would that count? 😛

Jesus, 3500 words to say “Women are golddiggers.” How long do you reckon it takes him to order a sandwich?

Why in the world would Men Going Their Own Way care about the psychology of women. Is it because…could it be that…is it even possible that they’re still, after all these years and despite the very promising name of their group, fantasizing about, stalking, harassing, and doxxing women?

@Alan Robertshaw, @wwth
Those are some sweet donkeys!

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
You missed quite a bit of pompous bloviating. I gave up halfway through.

Out of respect for your suffering, I tried, David, I really did, but it was too much.

Alas, he missed the main lesson he should have learned from Nietzsche- brevity.

Don’t be too hard on him. I, too, had these same dumb thoughts when I was thirteen, mostly caused by the frustration and randiness of adolescence, but thank God I had the sense never to put them down on paper. (I started to grow out of it at fourteen, when I mustered the courage to actually talk to (gulp) real live girls.)

Yet another attempt at a summary:
“I am desperately insecure and so genuine intimacy terrifies me. Here’s my elaborate fantasy about being able to fill my emotional* needs without ever revealing my shameful human neediness.”

*although these guys of course refuse to admit that sexual needs are also emotional needs, let alone intensified to their desperate loneliness

I haven’t read the entire thing. Just wanted to point out that Miggies should look up Schopenhauer as opposed to Nietzsche. His thinking is a lot more compatible with their general resentful attitudes.

Learn to impress without making any noise or effort, as if you did not want to do it.

Sun Tzu’s Art of War Dubious Relationship Advice?

David, I respect your tenacity. I skimmed past huge chunks of this garbled nonsense.

If we’re on a cute donkey jag; here’s some donks paying with wellies.

It’s interesting that, when they pick up a welly, they find another donkey. So it’s clearly wanting to play and not just owning a welly.

Of course the real horror sets in when you think “Wait, how did they get the wellies?”

I’m sorry, David, but I had to stop reading. I don’t know how you got through the whole thing.

This jumped out at me though: “…ignore interesting body parts on display…”

Just say “don’t stare at her boobs”, you pretentious prick.

So, they say, “So-and-so is a wimp, because he let that I order and disorder on him!”

Most of this is nonsense justifications for emotional abuse, but he’s sure got us here. We say this all the time, don’t we, ladies?

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
Shush, we must not let the menfolk know we are all dragons in disguise.

and then give some protective order, ignore interesting body parts on display, disagree, attack her mistaken perspectives, scare her, “horrify her” with your solid arguments, scandalizes her, leave her emotionally defenseless …. and surprise by protecting her with indifference.

Was this written by Dennis Reynolds?

@ Battering Lamb

But Nietzsche is more famous than Schopenhauer, and most MGTOW have probably never heard of him. Looking at what is presented about Miggies on this site, it would seem they have no real knowledge of philosophy and their Google Fu is weak.

Besides, Nietzsche advocates exercising one’s will to power and breaking away from the herd, which is totally what the they keep saying they are doing as they refuse to do anything unique and all group together on their little forums…

I really tried to make it through, I gave up after a while. One thing that jumped out at me is his use of the word retribution – “I don’t think it means what you think it means.” I realize this is saying this particular piece of shit is different than this other piece of shit – but it struck me as an odd choice of words the times he used it.

Not that any of this word salad made any sense to me.

I did get through that, but mostly because I was reading at work while doing stuff that didn’t require thinking, and the frequent interruptions meant that I could read in short snippets. David’s comments helped too. I’m sure I would not have been able to read it all in one go.

What stood out to me was this:

The self-esteem of many women is defined by the amount of males who desire and pursue them. They need to feel wanted, which is why they incessantly create mechanisms to expose themselves to desire and dodge the fury of the males that they have already conquered.

… because it seems like such obvious projection. Aren’t the manosphere types the ones who think everything in a man’s life is defined by how many women they can or can’t attract? And women are supposed to be eternally mad when these guy dump them and go on to the next one.

— because he let that I order and disorder on him!

This bit was entertaining, though, since it’s one of those things where my language skills fail me and I can’t be sure if it’s wrong or if it’s a really old-timey or something.

@Viscaria I don’t know why the guy has kink-shame on top of everything else. Maybe I like it when my partner orders and/or disorders on me.

@ full metal ox

I am completely with the pony on that one.

The council here have taken to putting ponies along the cliff paths. They apparently eat something that allows something else to grow. Apart from making the cliffs pretty, it slows down erosion somehow because of plant roots.

And it’s nice to see someone from the council not just putting out a load of cones then disappearing for three months.

It’s lovely to meet them on walks. Also I assume they know not to stand where the cliff is about to collapse; so I only go on the bits they do.

Why why why why why why ooohhhh whyyyyy

I just couldn’t finish this

Congrats to forcing yourself to read all this drivel but whyyyy

Despite the physical similarities zebras don’t behave much at all like horses or donkeys, which is one reason they’re not domesticated like those others. Zebras hate each other only marginally less than they hate everything else. They appear to travel in groups not to be sociable but to maximise the chance that the lions and hyenas will eat someone else.

The inferior males … believe that love is recognition, retribution. Poor bastards…

True. Abusive men believe that love involves retribution for every wound or slight — imagined or real — they have received from other people, not to mention life. Somehow these bad things become the fault of the woman they “love,” and this woman will feel the abuser’s wrath. If she’s lucky, she’s not permanently injured. If she’s lucky, she gets to live.

Do not mechanize yourself as if you were a robot.

No, just write like a robot. Seriously, the original post is the most painful, incomprehensible screeds I’ve ever seen at WHTM, or anywhere else. The things David endures for our sake…


Learn to impress without making any noise or effort, as if you did not want to do it.

So… impress by simply sitting still and refusing to move or speak? How?


Zebras hate each other only marginally less than they hate everything else. 

Just like miggies!

So… impress by simply sitting still and refusing to move or speak?

GSS, I’d be impressed if the MRA trolls we sometimes get here would just sit quietly and not speak! It would be very out of character for them. However, I’m sure they wouldn’t be able to resist the urge to post nonsense for very long….🤣

Learn to impress without making any noise or effort, as if you did not want to do it.

If you translate that as something like “make your accomplishments look easy and don’t brag,” it *is* pretty classic how-to-impress-people advice, whether you call it “cool” or “sprezzatura.”

@ moon custafer


That’s weird. In the last fortnight that word has cropped up twice for me. Once in a lecture on paintings, and again in a chat about waistcoat buttons. But before then I’d never heard of it. Has it just been invented or something?


Apparently women really are into horses.

Exhibit A.

Those sparkly Day-Glo gals have made Googling ponies—as in plain old animals—a royal pain in the kazoo; I had to refine my search terms considerably.

@Alan Robertshaw:

I thought it was centuries old, but perhaps it’s made a comeback recently?

@Full Metal Ox

Those sparkly Day-Glo gals have made Googling ponies—as in plain old animals—a royal pain in the kazoo; I had to refine my search terms considerably

On the plus side, it’s always good to find even slightly topical examples for whenever you need to explain to anyone why they shouldn’t be sloppy with their search terms. Helps to avoid situations where your “you wouldn’t want to see X if looking for Y” is met with “why would I look for Y and what on earth is X?”


On the plus side, it’s always good to find even slightly topical examples for whenever you need to explain to anyone why they shouldn’t be sloppy with their search terms. Helps to avoid situations where your “you wouldn’t want to see X if looking for Y” is met with “why would I look for Y and what on earth is X?”

Oh, indeed. There’s a Japanese rock star whose schtick is dressing as a stereotypical European king; in the fall of 2001, he suddenly became exponentially difficult to Google:Ōsama

(The topical noise level has since subsided, and “O-sama”—meaning approximately, “Royal Majesty”—plus “J-Rock” was enough to bring him up.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.