One of the unique things about reviewing cigars is that I get to try out cigar’s from brands I have been fond of, but did not delve much deeper into beyond a couple sticks from those particular brands. Last year the gentleman I buy cigars from pushed me to try the very expensive Macanudo Inspirado (upon further research this price point was due to the heavy import price he paid), and while I really enjoyed the Inspirado, I did not try anything beyond that single stick I purchased. Fortunately however, recently I got to revisit this brand when Anthony over at Cigar’s City threw in a couple sticks from the Maduro line for me. Enter the Macanudo Gigante Maduro, not an overly complex cigar, but a light cigar that is complimented by subtle flavours of cocoa and woods that make for a comfortable smoking experience.
The Maduro’s packaging is nothing special. The Maduro has a dark brown wrapper that feels relatively smooth to the lips. In addition, the overall construction of the Maduro is fairly sturdy; both Maduros that I received cut with ease. The cigar sports a classy band, with black and gold comprising the logo over top a white and brown base.
The Maduro is what I would describe as having struck a fine balance between a mild and mid-bodied cigar – the Maduro draws smooth and light like a mild bodied cigar would, but carries the thickness of smoke that I’m more accustomed to from a mid-bodied cigar. The initial flavour of the Maduro is pleasant, with a quality tasting tobacco complimented by light woods and cocoa flavours. About half way through the cigar the flavour stays consistent with the light cocoa flavour becoming slightly more predominant. The only gripe I had with the two I smoked was the poor quality of the ash, which lead me to ashing more then I wanted to. The Maduro is not overly complex, and the flavours never build up like you might expect from the initial puff’s, but with the light flavours the Maduro does carry it provides a consistently comfortable smoking experience.
The Gigante Maduro is not the most complex cigar, but it is a well balanced mild cigar that makes for a pleasurable smoking experience. The Maduro is an excellent cigar for new comers to cigar smoking, or simply for smokers who wants something that is not too overwhelming but delivers excellent taste. The Gigante Maduro has earned it’s place in my humidor, and for that, I recommend this cigar to smokers of all types.
If you want to try this, and other cigars, I suggest you check out Cigars City!
What I’m Smoking
Anthony over at Cigar’s City has kept me fairly occupied with his last shipment of cigars, but I’ll wait to release those reviews individually. In the meantime, I actually tried a new cigar I had never tried before today, the Don Tomas Maduro.
Don Tomas Maduro
I bought this cheap cigar having never tried this brand before, and I have to say, I was surprised. It was only $5 dollars for a single, and while I will not say this cigar was overly complex, it did provide a relatively good smoking experience. The construction of this cigar was quite sturdy, and it burnt relatively well (slightly lop-sided, but nothing extreme). Reiterating, the cigar itself does not do much to separate itself flavour wise, but the flavour itself tastes like a quality tobacco. As far as I’m concerned for the price, you cannot go wrong with this cigar. Definitely a worthwhile experience overall, and I will definitely be buying these more often.
So, What are YOU smoking?
The Diesel line-up of cigars is something I had been meaning to try for awhile. An acquaintance of mine had only positive things to say about Diesel’s line up, and noted that the selection he had tried had some very unique flavours not as common in most cigars he was smoking at the time. Interesting. So when Anthony over at Cigar’s City told me he was throwing in a couple sticks from Diesel I was excited that I would finally get to try out this brand. The good news is that the Wicked is a well constructed, robust cigar that does sport some very unique flavours. The bad news is that unique flavours do not always equate to making a cigar worthwhile, as is the case with the Wicked.
The first thing you will notice with the Diesel Wicked is it’s distinct extended red band that is placed at the tip of the cigar; probably added not only for visual appeal but to foreshadow that it tastes different than most cigars you will try. Additionally, the standard band itself is a weird mesh up of pink font with a charcoal background. The Diesel Wicked itself feels like care was placed into it’s construction, with a weight that feels slightly heavier than most cigars of this size, and a wrapper that feels relatively smooth. Conversely, cutting the cigar was fairly easy and did not damage the wrapper at all. Nice.
I had been told the Diesel Wicked was a full bodied cigar, and the cigar definitely makes you aware of it’s full bodied nature in the first few puffs by overwhelmingly tasting like a harsh charcoal. Fortunately this awful charcoal taste subsides and you are greeted by a more pleasant flavours that I can describe as tasting of wood and leather. Unfortunately there is an after taste that I can best describe as tasting like a sweet meat. While I thought that maybe this weird sweet meat flavour might subside or possibly become less pronounced to make way for the otherwise pleasant wood and leather flavours, it doesn’t. Unfortunately it actually felt like this meaty flavour only became more pronounced as I puffed on this cigar. It was only until the last quarter of the Wicked that it felt like this gross meaty flavour subsided, but for obvious reasons this is not ideal for a full bodied cigar such as the Wicked. Otherwise, if you enjoy nice thick draws of smoke, the Wicked delivers on this front, but it’s a matter of whether or not you want to endure the gross meaty flavour that accompanies those thick draws of smoke.
I had high hopes for the Diesel Wicked, but it mostly failed to deliver. With that being said, I am staying open minded about the rest of Diesel’s line-up, and hoping that maybe the Wicked was simply the black sheep of the bunch. The cigar does have it’s allure by offering nice construction and an appealing extended band design that is sure to entice naive buyers, but that is pretty much where the positives of this cigar stops. To be fair, I might just be the odd man out in disliking the meaty flavour of the Wicked, but unless you want to plop down whatever the cost of your cigar shop might be charging for this stick, I suggest steering clear of the Wicked.
If you are interested in trying the Diesel Wicked cigar, check out Cigar City.
I will attend night clubs when my other options are shot for the night, or because my friends have found themselves attracted to these particular venues for the night, but as a gentleman who does enjoy banging women, I would say that I have probably picked up two women in all my time going to night clubs. The pick up culture has this over-exaggerated view of how powerful it is to learn their tricks and then go into night clubs and use said tricks. I believe most worthwhile men who have built interesting lifestyles usually avoid nightclubs if they are looking to get laid simply because all your life experiences cannot be conveyed in an environment too loud and dark to display them.
As much as a girl might get vagina tingles at your push and pull techniques, those techniques do not work when the music is so loud she is blankly nodding in hopes you’ll fuck off. In addition, a lot of women automatically engage in deflecting anyone who approaches them no matter who they are in a night club; I assume this to be some ego thing for them. At this stage in my life, I do not care any-more to dedicate energy in trying to overcome women’s deflections, and simply disengage all together by keeping my approaches at a minimal in night clubs. I would prefer to talk to women in an environment where they are receptive to stimulation beyond EDM and party favours.
Simply, unless you are high energy as fuck and willing to be over-persistent, night clubs are a poor venue to get dates/bangs from. The issue with pick up is that many guys who go into it are not at their core these superfluous party animals, and those who act this way going into pick up material probably do so to over compensate for their lack of self worth (no research on this, just anecdotal observation). That is not to say that you cannot get laid at a night club, but unless you’re willing to put in an insane amount of energy (that is often hampered by alcohol consumption), your chances of getting laid are slim.
Now, there are gentlemen who excel at club game. As I said above, being high energy and over persistent works quite well in the club arena, and a slew of respect goes out to gentlemen who can pull doing this. My argument however is that clubs make poor venues for the gentlemen who do not want to follow this over-the-top narrative. Keep in mind the principle of contrast, and how standing out equates to status. Clubs assume a lot, it is assumed that men will generally go to these places to pick up women, and women and men come to expect this narrative as being normal. Unless you are playing the numbers game quite closely, chances are most women will assume you are like every other single male going the club, and thus you do not stand out from any other male there; poor contrast. However, when you approach women with more direct appraisals in more casual contexts, even laid back bars or house parties, women are less expecting of this and in turn look at you as standing out from most men; high contrast. You lose a lot of contrast going to night clubs.
My counter-venue to clubs are simple: house parties. House parties are the best venues for getting laid. You can talk, you can effectively work the room, and women are not naturally expecting men to approach them sexually (like they often are at a night club), and If all else fails, you can lay back and have interesting discussions with others on an array of topics. Night clubs lack all of these variables.
The second alternative to house parties are lounge bars. While they do carry some of the preconceived notions that clubs do (you’re just there to get laid), you must keep in mind that the women who stick around at these places are often looking for some level of stimulating conversation, so even if their guard is up about your sexual intentions, you can still prove yourself by conveying your interesting persona.
This was originally a post of mine on another gentleman’s blog, but I thought this was a worthwhile topic to discuss since I see a large portion of the manosphere still dedicated to club game. In addition, I have edited and added to this post as I see fit.
What I’m Smoking
With the holidays coming to an end I have been smoking less. In turn, I only sat down for one cigar this week.
Romeo y Julieta No 2
I had been meaning to try this cigar for awhile, but due to other cigars I had been smoking at the time, this one has been in my humidor for about a two months now. The packaging follows the striking white and red tube that is standard amongst the Romeo y Julieta line. The band also follows the same colour’s as the tube does. The construction of this cigar is nice, and I found it fairly easy to cut this one. The burn is relatively nice, with the ash staying fairly strong throughout. However, with all these pluses, comes the most negative aspect of this cigar: the taste. Unfortunately, unlike the number one, the number two seems to have an unfortunate after taste that I would describe as bitter sweet. The gross after taste did not go away until I was about a quarter done this cigar. The base tobacco itself is fine, but it is brought down by the overwhelming bitter sweet after taste. Overall, I doubt I will buy another one of these, and if I’m feeling like a cigar in this line, I will most certainly stick to the number one.
So, What are YOU smoking?
I like feminine women. I like women who enjoy doing feminine things like taking care of the home, women who laugh with a girly energy, and women who get excited about children. Something about that, to me as a man, excites me. While most of my reports will have you believe that I fuck a lot of women who aren’t the feminine definition that this write up is about, I do spend a considerable amount of time with feminine women, and any level of time I invest in a woman beyond sex is with the feminine ones. Don’t get me wrong, women who challenge the feminine roles fulfil a certain sexual niche for me in that they are usually good one night lays, but unlike feminine women, my time spent courting them beyond sex feels wasted. With the feminine vs. non-feminine dynamic however, comes where most people assume sexual enjoyment is most different. However there is one thing as a budding young gentleman of game that shocked me: women love to fuck. I, like most men, assumed the more feminine the woman the less sexual the woman, which is true on it’s surface, but not at it’s core; women are just as sexual as men are in many ways, but different forces compel them to act a certain way to the outside world.
With feminine women it is usually traditional morals that compel them to appear as wholesome. With non-feminine women, it is usually permissive parenting and feminist ideals that lead them to appear less wholesome. These dynamics serve their own purpose for the up and budding gentleman of game, and that is the more wholesome a woman, the more you will need to invest in having sex with her, and the less wholesome a woman, the less you will need to invest yourself in having sex with her; basic game reiterated. However, beyond investment of time, at their core, both spectrum’s of women share the same traits of what they enjoy sexuality, and that is being desired in a very selfish way.
Now when I say a “very selfish way,” automatically the evil woman narrative takes place in the minds of many gentlemen of game, but I do not believe women to be evil but hard-wired by their emotional compasses and with that compass they make their decisions; that’s why game blogs exist so you can navigate these compasses accordingly. No one (except feminists) call men evil for being hardwired to selfishly seek out certain sexual traits of women, and with that, I do not consider women evil for being controlled by their own selfish sexualities. I believe it was Baumeister who stated that women are the gatekeepers of sex, and therefore hold a lot of power over men in a sexual economy. Men provide women with certain traits (strength, charm, financial stability, etc.), and women respond in turn by giving them sex. I think the most potent of these traits that does not change radically over time for women, is masculinity. A lot of gentlemen of game point to the 50’s as being a time when women took men more seriously and thus “nice guys” could thrive, but I disagree. The men of the 50’s era were still men, and built a system that rewarded women for being good wives and mothers, and punished them for straying from that narrative; this was raw masculinity rewarding raw femininity. Things have obviously changed, and feminine women of today are echoes of their traditional parents, and non-feminine women are loud speakers for a new movement that attempts to redefine femininity (see: feminism). So, masculinity is the trait that women, feminine or not, desire most, and women want to be desired by masculine men.
When women read romantic novels you would be hard pressed to find a novel about a insecure skinny nerd who is the lead male in the novel. Normally these novels include a mysterious lead who displays some level of raw masculinity that she literally cannot resist. Shifting from the romantic novel we can look towards music. The popular songs amongst women is typically about a high status man (see: the rich ass singer singing the song) who desires a girl that he just MUST have. Even on the flipside of things, when a woman is making music, Taylor Swift for example, it is about that man who got away, or the man she loved dearly but is no longer going to speak to, etc. Women make up large demographics who enjoy those styles of music because it appeals to a very selfish part of them, and that is being desired romantically.
When you as a man can be reflective of that desire that a woman feels when she listens to shitty Taylor Swift songs, or when she reads romantic novels, you will unlock something very special in her, and that is her true sexual nature. When a woman is unlocked in this way, you learn something profound: women love to fuck. When I speak to some gentlemen about a wholesome girl I convinced to try anal or pushed to have a threesome, they seem dumbfounded. “She didn’t seem like that type of girl” is the typical response I get. The thing is, this “type of girl” ideology is silly, because I am convinced that once I make a girl feel that lust associated with desire, after a bit of time, sexually, she will be whatever “type of girl” I want her to be. The truth is women find all sorts of sexual fantasies and oddities just as exciting as you do, but the more wholesome the girl the less likely she is going readily express this to you or the outside world.
An old high school crush of mine and I started talking years after I got over my fear of speaking to women. After awhile I had finally bedded her. Sleeping with her was when I really started to understand the true sexual nature of women. She was one of the wildest sexual partners I ever had, and afterwards I asked myself, “who did I just fuck?” I could have never imagined that she was into sex like she was when I was in high school. I used to think that only the less-wholesome women could fuck the way she did. She certainly still seemed wholesome. Obviously I pushed for a lot of crazy shit with her, but I realized after this that no matter what woman you are having sex with, once you have unlocked, she will respond sexually in ways you never imagined. Some men initially respond to women having the same sexual desires as men as being proof that they are all whores; I think that is a brash way of putting it. Instead, this is the secret about women that for me, made them that much more exciting.
The men who enjoyed sexual success in high school with an array of women did so because of their understanding of the true sexual nature of women. They knew that wholesome or not, any girl enjoyed the sexual exploration and perversions that they did. When I talk to my more conservative beta bitch boy friends about my sexual escapades, they respond in shock that a woman who they thought was “so nice” would partake in such a thing. These beta bitch boys have not unlocked their sexual partners, and will forever see women as something they deep down inside are not. Meanwhile guys like me who understand that women truly enjoy sexual experiences beyond missionary will continue to enjoy the sex life I want.
People who oppose affirmative consent are being categorized as patriarchal drones and/or closet rapists by many feminists, and I am aware that by trying to be critical of something the feminist movement is currently championing, I too will be potentially labelled as such. However, I am not writing this for feminism, or to even really challenge proprietors of feminism, but I am writing this for the critical minded gentleman who may or may not agree with the push for affirmative consent. For those who have not heard of the current push for affirmative consent, it is the concept that in order for partners to proceed towards sex, the person engaging in sex (the man presumably) must acquire an explicit yes before the passionate encounter can escalate towards sex. Opposer’s to the affirmative consent movement often cling to the grey area argument, and that is that sexual interactions are not cut and dry, and instances such as ‘heat of the moment’ interactions can lead partners to engaging in sex without much forethought, or mixed signals from both parties can lead to partners engaging in sex without fully verbalizing what is happening and lead to terrible implications (see: rape). Many opponents (see: feminism) of the grey area argument view it as a result of men not understanding women and what women want, and view the grey area argument as an ideology fuelled by rape culture. The issue with the affirmative consent argument is that there are flaws to both sides of the debate. Some men do misconstrue obvious signals when trying to obtain sex and this can lead to devastating consequences for both parties involved, but with that being said, many feminists have a large disconnect between sex and the biological realities that drive it. That is why I cannot support affirmative consent, but I can support some variation of cultural understanding between both parties in regards to sex.
EverydayFeminism.Com has a article entitled Debunking the “Gray Area” Myth, and while there are some valid points to be found within this article, there are also some silly ones that need to be addressed. There are three out of six points I agree with on Everyday Feminism’s write up; I agree with the argument that men should not rape because a woman is dressed a certain way; that is reasonable and certainly should considered rape if a man believes he is entitled to that woman’s sugar walls simply because she is dressed a certain way. In addition, if a woman flirts with you, you are also not entitled to sex based on this factor alone. Lastly, being owed sex simply because you are dating does not entitle you to use your girl’s sugar walls freely, and if done forcefully, it is rape. These three points brought up in Everyday Feminism’s article are all points I can side with. Forcing of sex is not right in any circumstance, and that is infact rape. So, this leaves three points that Everyday Feminism brings up that I do not agree with.
Everyday Feminism’s point that, “They kept saying ‘no’ but eventually said ‘yes'” make sense from a non-critical view of human nature because presumably this could be a product of force and the yes was acquired out of brute deception, but that would be removing ourselves from reality. You see, when I was a budding young gentleman of game I encountered a situation similar to this where the female kept resisting and eventually I stopped, and hoped that we could potentially make sticky at a later date. That date never came. I asked a friend who was closer to this female than I was on why she was no longer interested, and my friend responded, “because you weren’t persistent enough.” Now, we could conclude that this is a small fraction of women that do this and hand Everyday Feminism an award in human enlightenment, but in my experience, and the experience of other men, this is not a small fraction of women. Even more confusing is that these same women, when pushed to eventually have sex, will usually continue to have sex with the same person who pressured them the first time. Now of course, because you need to spell it out for feminists or automatically their minds jump to catastrophe (see: rape), if she is clearly uncomfortable by your advances, – moving away, disgusted when you touch her, pushing you away at the slightest motion towards her, and trying to leave but you won’t let her, etc. – but you still force your dick inside, then you are raping my friend. However, if she continues to stay, and accepts your continuing escalation (by physically responding by appearing aroused) despite verbalizing her disagreement with what is happening, then she is enjoying the escalation. Feminists will instantly pull out the, “you are saying women do not know what they want” card, and well, that is exactly what I am saying. This same scenario has happened to me more times than I can count, and approximately zero times was I accused of rape – the majority of these women actively liked me after.
The second point Everyday Feminism brings up is “They didn’t say ‘no’…” Here is a primer to prevent budding gentlemen from rapism: If you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. The issue with this point is that it does not root itself in reality. I have had several instances where the passion was so high after a night of courtship, and it lead the female and I to making out, and as they say “one thing lead to another,” and we ended up having sex. No where in that process did we communicate active consent, it was just assumed. I guess the intervals where the woman asked me “do you have a condom?” implied that I was a vicious rapist and she was asking me to stop, or maybe I am just socially retarded.
Lastly, Everyday Feminism asserts “We were both wasted, but we both really wanted it.” This is a muddy point because Everyday Feminism half implies that there is a normative process of people engaging in intercourse drunk, but again as my handy little primer states: if you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. If she is passed the fuck out, do not do some scumbag shit and rail her, but if she is drunk but coherent, and you also are drunk but coherent, and passion leads you to potential pussy, then go for it sir. However, the issue here is that feminists have a presumption that men are responsible for sex when drunk and even if equally drunk, he is always the victimizer. So I guess Everyday Feminism believes you can circumvent this issue by giving affirmative consent, but again, refer to points one and two, these ideas have no basis in reality in conjunction with female desire. The logic of making sure you are in the clear to engage in intercourse is sound, but it goes against female desire.
Women want to be desired, and there is a masculine component, that whether or not it is socially conditioned or biologically programmed, that states men lead and women follow. Men asking if they can proceed with the sex that both parties so dearly want is not masculine, that is putting the realm of sexual desire as a power women have control over, and thus this negates their interest in proceeding with sex. The only way I could say that Everyday Feminism is right in their support of affirmative consent is if you as a man are so socially retarded that you cannot decipher a woman being uncomfortable vs. a woman being primed and ready for sex. So, then of course, affirmative consent has a place for a small fraction of socially retarded men, but the majority have a different idea about sex, and the model of affirmative consent does not fit into that idea at all. Alternatively, I should ask Everyday Feminism why the onus is not for women to lead sexual interactions from now on? Why do they not gain male consent? By this logic, I could argue those times a woman pulled my cock out and started riding me, WITH ZERO CONSENT (brb, PTSD), raped me. Such arguments would sound silly, but they fit in line with the eqaulist ideology that affirmative consenters feel is gospel… or maybe feminism has been working towards making women immune to any sort of judgement or punishment when it comes to sexual choices… No, that cannot be it, I’m just crazy.
Safe gaming gentlemen.