A Soft Reset is manifested in this lampoon of Vanity Fair’s article on Tech Giant Orgies in Silicon Valley.
A soft Reset is inadvertently described by the author in this article from Vanity Fair (feat. Emily Chang) “Oh My God, This Is So F—ed Up”: Inside Silicon Valley’s Secretive, Orgiastic Dark Side (January, 2018).
The headline reads,
“Some of the most powerful men in Silicon Valley are regulars at exclusive, drug-fueled, sex-laced parties—gatherings they describe not as scandalous, or even secret, but as a bold, unconventional lifestyle choice. Yet, while the guys get laid, the women get screwed.”
This article reveals the dark side of the uber wealthy, upper class, which we all know about, but when it hits the newspapers, we know it’s gone a few steps beyond profane. As mentioned in the quote, the tech founders who host such parties defend it as a ‘lifestyle’, while also tacitly admitting the viewpoints of the liberal interviewer. As one tech guru says,
“I see a lot of men leading people on, sleeping with a dozen women at the same time. But if each of the dozen women doesn’t care, is there any crime committed? You could say it’s disgusting but not illegal—it just perpetuates a culture that keeps women down.”
However, these women are not walking into a trap designed to ‘keep them down’ on the ‘plush white faux fur and pillows’. They know full well what, and who, is going down there.
“…the guests on the list understand just what kind of party this is. Women too will spread [heh…] the word among their female friends, and the expectations are hardly hidden. They might say, ‘Do you want to come to this really exclusive hot party? The theme is bondage’…”
And the women come!
“No one has been forced to attend, and they’re not hiding anything, not even if they’re married or in a committed relationship.”
…and the women still come!
“…the ratio of women to wealthy men is roughly two to one, so the men have more than enough women to choose from”
Yet, they come, and come… and come!
But the profanity of it all is not the drunken, MDMA fueled orgies which have coined the terms ‘cuddle puddles’ and ‘monogamish’, nor is it the industrial scale open relationships and adulteries. No, the ugliness lies in the wealth, power and attitude of their host tech founders! As the author writes,
“What’s not O.K. about this scene is that it is so money- and power-dominated. It’s a problem because it’s an abuse of power.”
“When I ask Founder X whether these men are taking advantage of women by feeding them inhibition-melting drugs at sex parties, he replies that, on the contrary, it’s women who are taking advantage of him and his tribe, preying on them for their money.”
How dare those tech-god shakers and movers display such indolence in my presence! Don’t they recognize that… I am WOMAN, hear me ROAR!
And another thing that really annoys these ultrahypergamous women is the fact that GEEKS have made them swoon!
“On their way up to a potential multi-million-dollar payout, some younger founders report, more and more women seem to become mysteriously attracted to them no matter how awkward, uncool, or unattractive they may be.”
So these women are discovering the male imperative, to lay as many women as possible, is common even among wealthy brainerds. Like that’s a very shocking surprise!
“According to Ava, who asked me to disguise her real identity and has dated several founders, it’s the men, not the women, who seem obsessed with displays of wealth and privilege. She tells of being flown to exotic locations, put up in fancy hotels, and other ways rich men have used their money to woo her.”
Such displays of wealth are so ugly! And they USED her! A classic case of projection, as evidenced by the fact that she has dated several big wheels in tech, and probably continues to do so.
“In Ava’s experience, however, once men like this land a woman, they are quick to throw her back. After a few extravagant dates, Ava says, she will initiate a conversation about where the tryst is going. The men then end things…”
So dearest sweet Ava is now learning the limits to her hypergamy and sexual bravado. The problem she faces here is that mega-millionaires already know that marriage, and women in general, are poor investments which have increasing costs and decreasing returns. But never mind the fact that all she can bring to the carpet are her delightful conversation skills, the inspiration of her B rack, the passing pleasures of poon, and (theoretically) her reproductive potential. No, her own lacking contribution is not at the forefront of her mind. Instead, she is primarily concerned about the difficulty that the egos of these men present to her imperative to lock them down for their resources.
“What that adds up to is a great deal of ego at play.”
Ego… another case of projection. The author of the article quotes a founder’s honest viewpoints to express disdain over the SMP at these parties. [Emphasis mine.]
“’It’s awesome,’ says Founder X. At work, he explains, ‘You’re well funded. You have relative traction.’ Outside work [he says], ‘Why do I have to compromise? Why do I have to get married? Why do I have to be exclusive? If you’ve got a couple girls interested in you, you can set the terms and say, “This is what I want.” You can say, “I’m happy to date you, but I’m not exclusive.”’ These are becoming table stakes for guys who couldn’t get a girl in high school.”
[Eds. note: Mansplaining ‘table stakes’, yields, ‘carpet steaks’.]
And she is absolutely appalled that these nerds are no different from the PUA’s – focused on their free-wheeling, notch expanding, high efficiency, lifestyle of ease.
“For many women who describe it, however, it’s a new immaturity—sexist behavior dressed up with a lot of highfalutin talk—that reinforces traditional power structures, demeans women, and boosts some of the biggest male egos in history: just another manifestation of Brotopia.”
[Eds. note: ‘a new immaturity!?! ROFL! Immaturity is living in a state of denial, and refusing to acknowledge human nature. Nothing new about that.]
Ohhh! The frustration is tangible! No matter how mainstream or brutally demanding feminists become, they just can’t kill the beast of ‘toxic masculinity’! Next comes the suave reaffirmation of the educated feminist viewpoint.
“When I spoke about Silicon Valley’s sex parties—specifically those where women vastly outnumber men—with Elisabeth Sheff, a Chattanooga-based writer and professor who has spent two decades researching open relationships, her reaction was heated: ‘That’s exploitation. That’s old-school, fucked-up masculine arrogance and borderline prostitution,’ she said. ‘The men don’t have to prostitute themselves, because they have the money. . . . ‘I should be able to have sex with a woman because I’m a rich guy.’ That is not even one particle progressive; that is the same tired bullshit. It’s trying to blend the new and keeping the old attitudes, and those old attitudes are based in patriarchy, so they come at the expense of women.”
Note that she used the phrase, ‘prostitute themselves’, and it’s all about the money (projection again). They know what they’re doing, although they’re in denial about it. Also, the phrase, ‘blend the new and keeping the old attitudes’ sounds like what Red Pillers say about Purple Pillers and Complementarians. If we add these two together, the complementary color of purple is yellow, so I guess Sheff is yellow. This gives new meaning to the phrase, ‘yellow journalism’.
It’s quite apparent here, that the feminist pork fluff about women’s ‘exploitation’ is not based on ‘Patriarchy’ per se, but with the feral nature of men in general. Yet, feminists are quite comfortable with amplifying their own feral nature, and feel fine with exploiting the feral nature of men through various avenues, such as beta orbiters, and ‘consensual rape‘.
One wife of a tech founder who participates in the orgies with her husband admits,
“…for many men these parties aren’t so much about self-expression as they are about simply sport fucking. ‘Some guys will whip out their phones and show off the trophy gallery of girls they’ve hooked up with… Maybe this is behavior that happened on Wall Street all the time, but in a way they owned it. These founders do this, but try not to own it. They talk about diversity on one side of their mouth, but on the other side they say all of this shit.”
So here, these women are seeing the profligate side of masculinity, and then when men politely ‘agree’ with feminist mantras, they call it hypocrisy. They just can’t kill the beast!
Men at least have the courtesy to admit that women have their own views, but it would appear traitorous to the female species for women to do the same for men.
The last section in the Vanity Fair article is titled,
“The New Paradigm for Women Getting Screwed”
Actually, it’s not a new paradigm at all. Prostitution is an ancient profession, you know. But at last, a Reset has nucleated!
“For successful women in Silicon Valley, the drug-and-sex-party scene is a minefield to navigate. This isn’t a matter of Bay Area tech women being more prudish than most; I doubt recent history has ever seen a cohort of women more adventurous or less restrained in exploring sexual boundaries. [No doubt!] The problem is that the culture of sexual adventurism now permeating Silicon Valley tends to be more consequential for women than for men, particularly as it relates to their careers in tech.”
Feeling the heat now, are they? After 50+ years of ‘free love’ feminism and the mass cuckoldrification of God, mankind, and society, is this the first speed bump that has clacked their teeth?
“More recently, Crawford and Messina have started a company together called Molly—perhaps not un-coincidentally the same name as the drug—where they are developing a ‘nonjudgmental (artificially intelligent) friend who will support your path to more self-awareness’. They also chose to become monogamous for a while [Imagine that!]; seeing other people was getting too complicated. ‘The future of relationships is not just with humans but A.I. characters’…”
I’m LMAO!!! Another ploy to anesthetize the brutal exposure to reality! They even named it after a euphoria inducing drug! What will they come up with next?
“What [Crawford] has found is that, for a woman, pushing private sexual boundaries comes with a price.”
It’s against the fundamental law of Matriarchy that women should have to pay for any type of pleasure (or sustenance for that matter). That is man’s responsibility! Also, since it is their duty, we should not be required to display any expression of gratefulness at all!
The real problem here is that feminist women take their own feral nature as the guiding light, but absolutely refuse to accept the male feral nature as anything but destructive and ‘toxic’. Crawford tells the story of how she was offended and humiliated when she was hit on by a benefactor.
“When Crawford was raising funds for her second company, a social-media app called Glmps, she went to dinner with an angel investor at a hip restaurant on San Francisco’s Valencia Street. At the end of the meal, he handed her a check for $20,000, then immediately tried to kiss her. ‘I certainly wasn’t coming on to him,’ she asserts. ‘I kind of leaned back, and he ordered me an Uber, and I was like, “I gotta go home.”’ Crawford thinks it’s likely that this particular investor knew about her sexual openness and found it difficult to think of her simply as an entrepreneur rather than as a potential hookup. This encounter is an example of a unique penalty women face if they choose to participate in the ‘we’re all cool about sex’ scene.”
Establishing a reputation as a slut does have that effect! But she is still using it to shamelessly cash in on the $$$. In days of yore, they called this type of transaction ‘prostitution’. But I guess it would be considered chauvinist to do so now (and we know that word is shamefully reproachful).
Then, Ava tells the story of how she found her boss in a three-way at one of these parties, and then got hit on shortly afterwards. She was absolutely indignant that anyone would think she was that kind of girl! She then had to quit her job at Google to avoid the harassment! Crawfords attitude towards this all too common phenomenon is like this.
“Of all the privileges in the world, that is not the one I would choose,” she says fiercely. “I’d choose equal pay for equal work. I’d choose having better access to capital and power. “I’d choose not being passed over for promotions. I’d choose not having to worry about being in the 23.1 percent of undergraduate college women who get sexually assaulted. I’d choose not being slut-shamed if I do opt to explore my sexuality.”
And would she ever choose to be a chaste, loyal wife and loving mother? But she still goes to those parties… ’nuff said. We know ‘explore my sexuality’ is femtalk for ‘slutting it up’. Sounds like she wants to ‘have her cake and eat it too’, as Manospherians say.
The rest of the article describes how women ‘risk losing credibility and respect’ if they continue to attend the orgies where all the monkey business is going on. However, they are ‘relegated to the uncool kids table’ if they don’t. In other words, men are calling the shots, and that’s just baaad! Anything less than total female dominance is horrible! As another tech giant slut lamented,
“’There is this undercurrent of a feeling like you’re prostituting yourself in order to get ahead because, let’s be real, if you’re dating someone powerful, it can open doors for you. And that’s what women who make the calculation to play the game want, but they don’t know all the risks associated with it,’ she said. ‘If you do participate in these sex parties, don’t ever think about starting a company or having someone invest in you. Those doors get shut. But if you don’t participate, you’re shut out. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’”
They’re just… damned. Period. No surprise, thank you. Just penalties for choices made.
Now we’re starting to face the fact of the matter. Women are women, forever destined to be muses, vixens, helpers, procreators, and sources of ‘inspiration’, even in sex swathing Silicon Valley. The author finally admits,
“The problem is that weekend views of women as sex pawns and founder hounders can’t help but affect weekday views of women as colleagues, entrepreneurs, and peers.”
Quite a satisfying conclusion. The moral of the story is, men can mix business with pleasure, but women can’t (unless it’s that kind of business). So much for ‘equality’. Evolutionary forces win out. Don’t try to fight it, ladies.