• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« World’s Biggest Dick Farm Goes Nuts
Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies »

Spinsterhood, Bastard Children Are Our Future

May 13, 2010 by CH

As if the dark worldview illuminated on this blog could not be more validated, here’s an article about rising rates of illegitimacy, spinsterhood, later marriages, and later births (a quadfecta!):

The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births. [editor: america, fuck yeah!]

Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents – up from 28 per cent in 1990. […]

Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say. [society wept.]

The study also found that in America there is a declining number of teenage mothers and rising numbers of older parents. [this is a good thing if you like raging autism and a TFR below replacement.]

By comparison, Britain has the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe with 45 per cent of children born outside of wedlock in 2008. [what, you think mickey d’s would be our only export?]

When Labour came to power in 1997, 36 per cent of children were born outside marriage.

The U.S. research, taken from census reports and health statistics by the Pew Research Centre, also outlines a trend of couples in western societies marrying later in life and delaying parenthood until they can afford it. [or being so poor they don’t care about affording it and having the kids anyway. hooray malthusian-idiocracy-welfare state intersect!]

In 1990 only 9 per cent of births were to women 35 years and older and 13 per cent were to teenagers, but by 2008 10 per cent of births were to teenagers and 14 per cent were to older women. [remember: older mothers = fewer healthy children. so while the birthrate is increasing among older women, that doesn’t mean the total number of children they are having is the same as women who became mothers at a younger age.]

‘The demography of motherhood in the U.S. has shifted strikingly in the past two decades,’ the report said.

The share of births to unmarried mothers had increased most among white and traditionally Catholic Hispanic women. [interestingly, the share of new juvenile detention centers and STD treatment clinics increased the same percentage.]

Mothers are also better educated than they were two decades ago. In 2006 more than half of mothers of newborns had some college education, an increase from 41 per cent in 1990. [maybe the reason we haven’t made contact with advanced alien species is because they opted for the reality-bending virtual pleasuredome iCum existence until the last smart chick standing orgasmed herself to death with the Alphabot 2000 SmoothTalker model 6000, her 0.5 children left to arrange her unattended funeral?]

The percentage was even higher among mothers 35 years and older, with 71 per cent. [it makes a twisted Darwinian sense that the smartest women would fail to adequately reproduce to replacement level, as they are the ones, through their own status- and resource-enhancing actions, cursed with the smallest gene pool of acceptable men to choose from.]

‘The higher share of college-educated mothers stems both from their rising birth rates and from women’s increasing educational attainment,’ the report explained.

Attitudes have also altered in the past 20 years as the stigma of unmarried parenthood has softened and Americans marry later in life. [but she’ll alwaaaays… be an unmarried single mom with bastard spawn… to meeee….]

As one commenter to that article put it:

So women are waiting longer to have fewer kids without dads in an increasing welfare-state world. Anyone see the impending disaster this is fueling?

I do. Which is why I’m sipping a cocktail poolside, unmarried, with my lover beside me. The smart move, if you ask me. You want to put in the hard work turning this ship around, be my guest. The sordid status quo benefits me. It would really cramp my style if the pool of attractive young women suddenly dried up from a rush to the altar and the nursery.

It seems that the steady drumbeat of data continues proving what I wrote about in this post:

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation.

And in this post:

[…] here are the [Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse that explain our cultural lament configuration]:

  1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
  2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
  3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
  4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

It’s all been so predictable, yet our Kommisars of Kultural Korrectness couldn’t see what was happening right before their eyes, or they could but didn’t care. The formula is simple:

Divest sex from pregnancy + financially empower women, thus devaluing men’s mate attracting provider ability + incentivize divorce for women + disincentivize marriage for men + remove the slut and single mom social shaming mechanisms + endless dating + fertility treatment + government and corporate welfare =

More single women in their most attractive fertile years available for plundering.
More divorce court ass rapings for men.
More bastard children.
Less marriage.
Later marriage.
Later births.
Fewer lifetime births.
And an alpha cock carousel that spins relentlessly until society crumbles under the weight of declining productive native population, rising orc horde populations, and wildings by all those fatherless bastard boys raised by empowered single moms.

It’s all so clear as day and yet our so-called smarties continue jabbering about comparative advantage, relationship complementarity, and immigration-fueled cheap chalupas.

It’s funny until the pleasurecrats and statusticians have no gated communities left in which to escape.
And then it’s hilarious.

I have a prediction of my own. Either American society implodes, or the coming generations of Millennials and younger utterly turn their back on the values of their parents and grandparents, giving a big one finger salute to the dying Baby Boomers and their progressivist equalism lies and returning the country back to the cultural configuration that once brought it to majestic heights.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Culture, Girls, Globalization, Goodbye America, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 212 Comments

212 Responses

  1. on May 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm Tyrone

    Goodbye Western World!

    LikeLike


  2. on May 13, 2010 at 12:57 pm sdaedalus

    Two posts in one day, what did we all do to deserve this?

    LikeLike


  3. on May 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm AC

    Yes, yes, yes.

    And yet I don’t get the cries that this is an “unsustainable” state that will result in some sort of backlash. What is to stop the welfare state from expanding to accomodate the detritus of feminism? I have yet to see someone explain a plausible mechanism in which the consequences of the sexual revolution actually feed back upon those who benefit from them. The boot can yet crush much harder.

    LikeLike


  4. on May 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm Advocatus Diaboli

    The real problem is that almost no guys want to tell women the obvious.

    LikeLike


  5. on May 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm PA

    3, 2, 1… “Waaaah… can you get back to blogging about chicks? waaah whiiine”

    but she’ll alwaaaays… be an unmarried single mom with bastard spawn… to meeee….]

    Heh, whassup, Billy Joel!

    LikeLike


  6. on May 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm Tyrone

    Actually, I still hold out hope that we will pull our heads out of our fourth point of contact. America needed some adversity to steel itself again. 20+ years of prosperity made us incredibly soft and danger and nature too abstract. That is a big reason so many SWPLs worship nature so much, they don’t perceive themselves as being at its mercy and romanticize it.

    This has all been deliberate, actually. It is classical Marxist social theory, implemented by COMINTERN and credulous Americans enamored of their own intellects and taking pleasure in sophist political games. I think being made poor will force the Millenials to reconsider their commitments to the welfare state. They will be all the more enraged as a generation of rather spoiled ans soft kids too, who will then be forced to toughen up. I predict baby Boomers will be abused in large numbers in old age homes by angry, embittered Millenials out for revenge. We really only have a small segmet of them to blame, however, the leftists elite element of that generation, the ones who fancied themselves the leaders of their new Utopia and made names for themselves in the 60s. Many are prominent Democrats today. Hollywood is full of these folks too. Many of these people were Soviet agents as well. The USSR cultivated many of the people who became big name radicals in the 60s as agent provocateurs and had been doing so world wide since the early 20s via COMINTERN and the steady and growing influence of the Frankfurt School in US universities during and after WWII. The Verona files exposes all of this stuff.

    LikeLike


  7. on May 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm Tyrone

    AC
    Yes, yes, yes.

    And yet I don’t get the cries that this is an “unsustainable” state that will result in some sort of backlash. What is to stop the welfare state from expanding to accomodate the detritus of feminism? I have yet to see someone explain a plausible mechanism in which the consequences of the sexual revolution actually feed back upon those who benefit from them. The boot can yet crush much harder.

    It’s quite simple, the productive people who create capital and extract resources needed to run the state stop producing and eventually it all grinds to a halt. The USSR postponed the day of reckoning through massive fear and violence, but it came nonetheless. When you have a welfare state, each successive generation has less incentive to be a producer and chooses to become a consumer instead as it is the logical choice in terms of effort to reward. Eventually, the pie keeps gets smaller but more people want a slice, then no more pie.

    LikeLike


  8. on May 13, 2010 at 1:19 pm Tyrone

    Men of course are the productive ones. Everything is invented by men.

    LikeLike


  9. on May 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm crazyshoe

    Tipjar. If you don’t want the proceeds set it up and send them to me. I’ve got shit to do and I need money to do it.

    LikeLike


  10. on May 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm Mike

    I am sure a man such as yourself has already seen the opening sequence of the movie “Idiocracy.” It always floats at the back of my mind when you see such statistics

    http://www.livevideo.com/video/1EFA01743AB2491F99D063C46158820B/idiocracy-intro.aspx

    LikeLike


  11. on May 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm Doug1

    End all mandatory child support except in cases where the man walks out on a marriage for no compelling reason. If the reason is compelling such as her continued infidelity that she won’t stop or her stopping all her traditional obligation of providing sex to a husband as a partial quid pro quo for his marrying her, then no mandatory state ordered child support their either, only what his conscience dictates.

    What effect do you all think that would have on out of wedlock child births, very few of which are truly accidents as opposed to “oops” consciously or sub-consciously on purpose?

    What effect on the divorce rate while children are still young and dependent?

    LikeLike


  12. on May 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm The Truth

    Let’s all diddle while Rome burns…

    LikeLike


  13. on May 13, 2010 at 1:53 pm Greg

    As long as women can get away with doing something like this: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/23533324/detail.html

    …there’s no hope.

    I go to this school, am friends with the guy, and have a class with the girl. Shameful all around. The “incident” was back in November yet the story runs this week and she mentions UVa which was only recently.

    Where’s Kick a Bitch when you need him?

    LikeLike


  14. on May 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm Firepower

    Yes, and the offspring will be: raised by women, crazier, superstitious, non-educated and more violent.

    22nd Century matriarchal Iroquis

    LikeLike


  15. on May 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm KingLouie

    boys need to be stripped from single mom’s and raised as apprentices to support the welfair state, thus creating a generation of real men, pissed off by the very system they’ll overthrow.
    their cocks will also be the bane of the next next generations existence.

    LikeLike


  16. on May 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm GdI

    Tyrone: You mean VENONA, but I’m quibbling.

    The USA jumped the shark pretty much when Fonzie did, ie when most readers here were tiny or not yet born, so we might was well enjoy it, nothing much else to be done.

    However, some trend-lines are obvious:

    1. For anyone willing to bang frustrated, scary-horny cougar-cooch, the supply is basically unlimited. But do NOT knock them up. One they figure out they will NEVER have husbands, they will go insane, and fuck wildly while riding the Crazy Train.

    2. Average Beta Chumps will desperately seek a reordering of basic morals in a retro-way. If Mormonism weren’t so weird and un-fun, and so transparently implausible, it’s a great way to generate order, good governance, clean living, and a ton of healthy white babies. The genius who invents Mormonism for regular people will inherit the earth.

    3. Blacks, plus some nutty whites, will increasingly opt for Islam as an antidote to the chaos. This is not altogether positive, for obvious reasons like Caliphate USA, but Islamized blacks are probably safer to deal with than the current inner-city filth.

    4. The rest of us will bang, booze, and generally debauch till we’re dancin’ in the ruins a la Blue Oyster Cult ca 1986. Every day will be an adventure …

    5. Invest in guns, robotic sex toys, psychotropic drugs, anything involving security or escapism. Cashing in on disaster is the true American way. And you will need money to savor choice Eastern European hookers when you are in the assisted living facility – presuming we aren’t sacrificing the elderly publicly, and roasting them on spits for entertainment. Hope dies last …

    LikeLike


  17. on May 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm Dave

    @advocatus: Here’s a guy who is willing to speak the truth:

    LikeLike


  18. on May 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm The Rookie

    If I could find a job overseas, and not pay taxes both there and here, I’d jump ship to Brazil. Or wherever.

    LikeLike


  19. on May 13, 2010 at 2:18 pm Blessent mon coeur

    “The genius who invents Mormonism for regular people will inherit the earth.” And re Islam.

    Houellebecq’s The Possibility of an Island has a take on this you might find interesting.

    LikeLike


  20. on May 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm Nicole

    GdI says, “5. Invest in guns, robotic sex toys, psychotropic drugs, anything involving security or escapism. Cashing in on disaster is the true American way. And you will need money to savor choice Eastern European hookers when you are in the assisted living facility – presuming we aren’t sacrificing the elderly publicly, and roasting them on spits for entertainment. Hope dies last …”

    Don’t forget products to help men find their inner girl, and anti aging quackery for the “ladies”.

    LikeLike


  21. on May 13, 2010 at 2:38 pm Tyrone

    @GdI:

    Tyrone: You mean VENONA, but I’m quibbling.

    You’re right on both counts, my mistake. Thought I had proofread better.

    LikeLike


  22. on May 13, 2010 at 2:42 pm Tyrone

    @GdI:

    2. Average Beta Chumps will desperately seek a reordering of basic morals in a retro-way. If Mormonism weren’t so weird and un-fun, and so transparently implausible, it’s a great way to generate order, good governance, clean living, and a ton of healthy white babies. The genius who invents Mormonism for regular people will inherit the earth.

    You’re on to something there. How would such a religion look? It would have me as the head and I would insist on harems too for starters. Now I have to think of a good story line, one that appeals to the aging SWPL zeitgeist. Oh SWPL women, bring me your daughters! I must cleanse them!

    LikeLike


  23. on May 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm askjoe

    Those numbers are high enough to show that this sort of behavior has jumped from America’s greatest asset – diversity – to the mainstream.

    I guess there’s no use in trying to argue when the tipping point was reached or who is to blame (was it Ted Kennedy, MTV, the internets, etc.?) and figure out how to salvage things among the like-minded. Maybe we can carve out a nationstate of Arizona, Texas, and Utah and let the coastals fall into the sea.

    LikeLike


  24. on May 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm askjoe

    Tyrone, haremism is bad for most men, except for alphas and rich pukes. Female amoral hypergamy is likewise bad for most men except for alphas, I suppose. A religion needs to establish a simple marriage rule so that one guy and one girl are forced to make things work.

    I think the problem isn’t that a good religion hasn’t been “invented,” it’s that that old-time religion has been replaced with amoral political correctness and dirt worship.

    LikeLike


  25. on May 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm E

    “Maybe we can carve out a nationstate of Arizona, Texas, and Utah and let the coastals fall into the sea.”

    AZ and TX are going to be majority Hispanic no matter what policies they enact.

    Don’t believe me?

    …Then just randomly visit an elementary schools in AZ and TX and tell me the race of the majority of the kids.

    As for Utah, eh…maybe.

    LikeLike


  26. on May 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm anony

    My three children, and their tribes of friends are millennials. Our futures are in steady competent hands.

    LikeLike


  27. on May 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm askjoe

    I said like-minded, E.

    LikeLike


  28. on May 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm E

    “I said like-minded, E.”

    Don’t Hispanics tend to go lefty?

    Doesn’t that mean AZ and TX will trend lefty in the future?

    My prediction: AZ & TX —> see CA

    LikeLike


  29. on May 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm E

    Also, if TX goes lefty, doesn’t that mean a Repub can not be elected prez anymore (not enough electoral college votes)?

    Ah, like I said…I don’t care….since I don’t vote, but it is something to think about.

    LikeLike


  30. on May 13, 2010 at 3:16 pm TG

    It’s like Conservatism leads to….

    Free Market Capitalism
    Sexual Socialism

    Liberalism leads to…

    Market Socialism(really corporatism)
    Free Market Sexuality

    I just wish Conservatism had better minds…..it’s like Liberalism doesn’t work and conservatives are too stupid…

    LikeLike


  31. on May 13, 2010 at 3:24 pm askjoe

    Maybe, E. Another problem with democracy is that the elites can figure out how to fire the voters as well, just start massive immigration drives, legal or otherwise. Apparently, Ted K. and company had it up to here with all these Scots Irish plebes not going commie.

    Who knows, maybe all this leftist stuff works, right? Maybe the last 30 years of prosperity for America were really an illusion and everyone else had it right. I just wish I knew ahead of time to get a cushy government job instead of trying to win a few bucks in the private sector.

    LikeLike


  32. on May 13, 2010 at 3:36 pm E

    “Apparently, Ted K. and company had it up to here with all these Scots Irish plebes not going commie.”

    I wonder how much of the 1965 immigration act was just Irish and Jewish politicians getting back at the WASPs who mistreated their great-grandfathers?

    I was watching “Gangs of New York” a few nights ago and was amazed at what the “Natives” thought of the immigrants.

    …I am not sure how realistic “Gangs of New York” is though.

    LikeLike


  33. on May 13, 2010 at 3:41 pm askjoe

    yeah, well all of our first gen ancestors had to put up with that. The British Labour party admitted as much though that their immigration policies were aimed at changing the game not diversity.

    LikeLike


  34. on May 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm j r

    It’s all been so predictable, yet our Kommisars of Kultural Korrectness couldn’t see what was happening right before their eyes, or they could but didn’t care.

    when you phrase sentences like that you make it seem as if this is all the plan of some secret cabal rather than the result of disparate processes that often have nothing to do with each other.

    for instance, there are indeed those people who view the family as an anachronistic patriarchical institution that would be better destroyed and replaced by some sort of communal arrangement where children could be innoculated from infanthood. those cultural marxists, however, are not the reason why we have fewer functioning families than we used to have. the reason is mostly due to unintended consequences from misguided welfare-state policies. the real reasons things happen are much more mundane than the elaborate conspiracy theories that people hatch, but the truth is often more mundane than pretty lies.

    LikeLike


  35. on May 13, 2010 at 3:45 pm Rant Casey from Brazil

    @ Rookie,

    Dont be so optimistic about Brazil. However we dont live in america’s Orwellian reality, in Brazil the ghettos (with all the usual characters that inhabit these) are much larger.

    Middle class need surveillance standards you’ll only think of in South Africa.

    The fact that we cant afford a big state is a positive side. Its impossible to raise a Leviatan in Brazil.

    But the taxes are crushing, on the other hand.

    I supose any american would like Brazil for the freedom (provided by incompence of the State), but would miss a good structure, competent capitalism, and comfort.

    If you dont mind lowering your life standards in favor of a more pleasure living (most socially and with less control), then you’ll like it.

    Positive traits of Brazil:

    – Social life is more relaxed;
    – Foreigners are easily acepted, and many people speak english;
    – You can actually find a good woman to marry if you avoid all the gringo-hunters, or you can have good bang prospects in case you dont want marriage;
    – Its a stable country, both economically and institutionally (oposed to Chavist latin america);
    – Lots of room for enterpreneurs interested in working with professionalism and making money;

    Negative traits:

    – Growing criminality;
    – 60% of the population are scoundrels/whores;
    – Rationality does not exist: brazilians are hardcore relativists, most are leftists, either illiterate or plain dumb, and 97% of the population subcounsciously finds “intelligence, individuality and having a spine” to be somewhat immoral;
    – The 30% of Whites are perceived as owing something to the rest. The president recently said that the Global Crisis is “blue eyed”;
    – Ghetto Matriarchy is celebrated, and instead of State-Imposed, derives from a failure to civilizate the mores of the people.

    Personally, the freedom aspects are very appealing for me to REMAIN here.

    I would recomend the Southern states, where the social organization is more efficient, and the prevalence of European descendants makes it more “westernized” than the Center and North regions.

    LikeLike


  36. on May 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm Sidewinder

    There are a number of excellent topics raised in the comments:

    1. Feminism is not the driving force of these large-scale societal trends. Ideologies do not dictate nature; ideologies and their assumptions are merely the verbal articulation of how man interacts with nature to exist in a particular historical time period. I’m speaking of real economics, not dollars and cents, but the way humans interact with nature in order to survive and reproduce. Feminism is one of many ideologies that proclaim human individualism and independence. Ultimately, these ideologies attempt to proclaim human beings as independent from, and in command of, their own nature and the nature of existence. There is no ideological bogeyman here. We are experiencing the large-scale alienation of human beings from their nature. Almost all of the ills mentioned in the post are derivative of our current economic reality. Economic incentives can easily explain the motivations of the yuppy white professionals and the minority welfare moms. The actions of neither are being guided by ideology.

    2. Religion – science (as a way of thought and discovering truth) is the religion of the West, if there is one. Traditional religion died the moment it was divorced from rational thought. It worked well when the church was looked to as an actual intellectual authority on questions of the day. Now western religions have fractured into two philosophically bankrupt groups: those that deliberately remain ignorant and make arguments for ignorance and fallacy in order to keep their concept of reason consistent with religious teachings, and those that admit that religion isn’t rational, but that there is somehow value to irrational “faith” in supernatural beliefs. What an earlier poster said about Mormonism is actually applicable to all western religions. Its exactly the same question: would it be nice to shame people into living a blissfully ignorant existence that coerces them to engage in socially beneficial behavior? What other irrational activities could those people be persuaded into following (nuremberg laws)? There is an absolute philosophical vacuum in the West, but its better than the alternative (see Islam).

    I’ve got 3 other points but I’ve got to get back to work.

    LikeLike


  37. on May 13, 2010 at 4:05 pm whiskey

    Greece (and Spain) points out the failure of the Welfare State: you eventually run out of money. Even when you spend nothing on defense (and rely on others to defend you).

    Turkey could (and probably will) conquer Greece without a fight. Morocco the same for Spain. Easy.

    Women love the big shot big man, and love being single mothers. Smart women are among the most subject to hypergamy, and want nothing less than Brad Pitt meets Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in terms of looks and power. Of course, all women find male intelligence HIGHER than average a turn-off (average IQ being the sweet spot) but higher IQ women are among the most notorious for finding High IQ males the most repellent.

    LikeLike


  38. on May 13, 2010 at 4:11 pm lena

    You sound like my grandmother. Each successive generation has decried the values of the younger generation and has predicted doom. They actually thought the US reached the end of the line with the Great Depression which they though was brought about due to the loose morals of the 1920. Little did they know it was rich conservative robber barons that brought the house down not the younger generation. And yet our society was resilient enough to survive and prosper yet again.

    Don’t hold you breath waiting for the end of the world. If it does happen it will be from natural calamities not “moral degeneration”

    LikeLike


  39. on May 13, 2010 at 4:14 pm j r

    Of course, all women find male intelligence HIGHER than average a turn-off (average IQ being the sweet spot) but higher IQ women are among the most notorious for finding High IQ males the most repellent.

    will this argument ever die?

    abnormally high IQ tends to be correlated with some form of social dysfunction. geniueses don’t tend to be the coolest cats around. those men, however, with very high IQs and very good social skills do great with women.

    LikeLike


  40. on May 13, 2010 at 4:22 pm Firepower

    Like The Wise Man said:

    It SHOULD be FUN living in the last days of a decaying empire.

    Party on

    LikeLike


  41. on May 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm Doug1

    Of course, all women find male intelligence HIGHER than average a turn-off … but higher IQ women are among the most notorious for finding High IQ males the most repellent.

    typical whiskey nonsense. (Though your first paragraph wasn’t nonsense at all, which is also typical of you. To mix the two.)

    Women are attracted to male leaders, particularly when they’re also a big roguish. Big men are one version of that; they’re always way smarter than the average IQ of their population. Always. Leaders are almost always smarter than most but not all necessarily of their groups. Leadership requires social smarts and drive as well as intelligence.

    It’s true that IQ without drive or social intelligence doesn’t turn most women on, yes. But the case of the geek is not the case of many with high IQs.

    LikeLike


  42. on May 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm j r

    i made a late comment about strauss and howe generational theory on that “little girls dancing” thread that seems appropriate here. read it here if you want.

    a lot of stuff on this blog seems to be animated by the idea that women, powered by SWPL progressive feminism, are going to get sluttier and sluttier until we end up in some permiscuous, hypergamous, matriarchal hell. maybe, but it just doesn’t seem to match what i observe in real life. SWPL just aren’t that slutty. thet may be hypergamous, but most women are. are they fairly easy to seduce when you have game? sure, but again, so are most women. most SWPLers are so concerned with earning credentials and improving their resume and “saving the world” that they tend to give off a distinctly asexual vibe.

    i just completed a grad program and had some limited exposure to undergrads. i can’t say this for certain, but things seem significantly less debaucherous then they did ten years ago when i was in college. again, girls seem overly concerned with getting good grades and recommendations and getting the right job and buying their first pants suit. here’s one difference that i do notice. if a girl wants you, she’ll make it known. that used to be just the case with the “easy” girls and now most girls seem fairly open when it comes to talking about hooking up. this gives the illusion of being slutty, but i’d be surprised if the average college girl today is having more sex than was the case 20 years ago.

    there’s a lot of sex being packaged and sold at kids young adults these, but that’s mostly being managed by baby boomers. i’m not so sure that generation y is sex-obesssed at all.

    LikeLike


  43. on May 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm askjoe

    They actually thought the US reached the end of the line with the Great Depression which they though was brought about due to the loose morals of the 1920. Little did they know it was rich conservative robber barons that brought the house down not the younger generation.

    You know, the Great Depression lasted until FDR died. Sure WWII helped get all the unemployed men off the streets but it was FDR’s policies, not robber barons or any other bogey man that caused it. Recessions are cyclic. Depressions are the result of policy.

    So, yeah, they may have thought the US hit the end of the line in the Great Depression, it only took 10 years of depression and a world war and a cold war and so on to get us out of it.

    LikeLike


  44. on May 13, 2010 at 4:51 pm Sidewinder

    @ lena, I agree with you that “moral degeneration” will not be the downfall of the country. In fact, I think we will observe the opposite as this sinking ship makes its final plunge into the depths…I think you will see more praying and flag waving…Sarah Palin is not an outlier (and its interesting that her daughter had a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, and Sarah selfishly peacocks around while she has children that obviously need parenting, but I digress).

    But I do believe the well-intentioned welfare state mentality, and the selfish, short-sighted entitlement mentality, will be the effective end of the country. It is the government’s edification of the West’s fear and hatred towards nature.

    As a species, we have been biologically honed by natural selection to have certain physical and mental traits, and behavioral tendencies. Survival, reproduction and the nurturing of our young guided this process of millions of years. We now have undone all this “harsh, unfair, cruel” nature with our misguided social engineering. And based on population projections, it is very clear where we are headed.

    LikeLike


  45. on May 13, 2010 at 4:59 pm whiskey

    JR — A few men with higher than average IQ and strong social skills AND social dominance do well. These men are about as abundant in the above average IQ population as Chinese Men as tall as Yao Ming are in the Chinese male population.

    That is to say, not very many. It is not just super-geniuses but ordinary nerdy engineers and so on that suffer that penalty. A few find Asian wives, most don’t (the supply of the Asian women willing and attractive to marry a White nerdy engineer is limited) and the message is clear.

    Better a posing Bad Boy (the Situation) than nerdy drone. True, if you have social dominance, high IQ, wealth, power, and so, like say Richard Branson or such you clean up with women. How prevalent are the Richard Bransons?

    LikeLike


  46. on May 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm Sidewinder

    IQ alone is neutral at worst. If you have some base level of confidence, looks and social skills, it only helps you. But IQ alone will not seal the deal. I disagree that it is a negative in any way. The nerds don’t get lucky in spite of their IQ because they fail on almost every other criteria of attraction. It only appears to hurt some guys because high IQ is correlated with other omega qualities.

    LikeLike


  47. on May 13, 2010 at 5:21 pm Doug1

    j r–

    SWPL just aren’t that slutty. thet may be hypergamous, but most women are. are they fairly easy to seduce when you have game? sure, but again, so are most women.

    No most women in most times and places aren’t.

    In most times and places having game in not enough to bed most women. When it is they’re slutty by all normal standards, if not not by current us college ones.

    Instead in most civilizations you have to marry them first, and in earlier transitional times in others such as the US until the mid 60s you had at least be their boyfriend first, in a relationship they believed for good reason would last and maybe turn into marriage.

    There were some sluts back before the mid 60s in the US but they were far fewer in number and largely at either the bottom of the social latter, or insulated safely at the top, in some permissive families. But most rich families weren’t permissive about premarital sex.

    LikeLike


  48. on May 13, 2010 at 5:25 pm Professor Woland

    Doug1,

    Thanks for the history lesson. I did now all the historical details but was quite aware of of current mess. Right now, the biggest thing on the horizon is shared equal parenting. It has been enacted in parts of Australia and Canada if I am not mistaken. The feminists are shitting in their pants and trying everything possible to strangle it in the crib before it becomes common place. Basically what shared equal parenting is, is a presumption that both parents should have equal custody of children unless one parent can be considered unfit. The big advantage is that it cuts off alimony for many women because presumably they have to be / should be working half time because they cannot hide behind the children. The second blow is that child support is equalized because if the child is spending equal time in each household then there is no real need for child support. It is a master stroke killing two birds with one stone. It might take a decade or two but eventually it will be as common as water.

    LikeLike


  49. on May 13, 2010 at 5:29 pm j r

    gig & sidewinder,

    i’ve said this before, but these sorts of conversations serve to highlight the difference between men and women. here we are talking about signals like IQ, status, social acuity and trying to link them to their effectiveness at attracting women. for most women, signals are just signals. what they signal does not matter.

    why are women are attracted to tall men? because women are attracted to tall men. women who pass on tall men’s genes have more success than women who pass on short men’s genes, so attraction to tall men becomes dominant among women.

    LikeLike


  50. on May 13, 2010 at 5:31 pm Doug1

    whiskey–

    A few men with higher than average IQ and strong social skills AND social dominance do well.

    The vast majority of alphas have higher than average intelligence for his ethnic group. However high verbal intelligence is much, much more helpful in being an alpha male than high math IQ.

    Nerdiness and high intelligence are not synonymous. The nerd is the guy without much social intelligence, who’s main claim to fame is IQ, usually math IQ.

    Any guy who can successful lead a group that’s not mostly or entirely composed of nerds, is not a nerd.

    LikeLike


  51. on May 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm polymath

    I agree with Sidewinder — for any given man, raising his IQ by 15 points without changing anything else will greatly improve his success with women because he will play the game better.

    Whiskey, you are being misled by a selection effect. Social skills vs IQ in men works the same way as beauty vs brains does in women. Among people in general the traits are positively correlated, and they will remain correlated if you take a random sample such as people you know personally, but if your sample is people who you know ABOUT then you will see a negative correlation because you don’t know anything about the women who have neither brains nor beauty, or most of the men who have neither brains nor social skills (athletes and criminals excepted).

    Among Hollywood actresses, you have the brainy ones like Meryl Streep and Jodie Foster whose beauty is nothing special, and the beauties like (pick one) whose brains are nothing special, but someone who has neither beauty nor acting talent (correlated with brains) will just not make it. So by removing the set of women with neither beauty nor brains from the sample, you are removing a set with a positive correlation so that the correlation among the remainder drops sharply, and in fact goes negative.

    Among smart people, there are plenty of dweebs with no social skills, but there are plenty of dorks in the general population with no social skills. At MIT the smartest men I knew all had good social skills and above-average success with women. But the dweebs would not do well with women, although the nerdy enough ones would eventually achieve enough career success to overcome that.

    By the way, those technical terms are explained
    here
    .

    LikeLike


  52. on May 13, 2010 at 5:43 pm Dave from Hawaii

    You sound like my grandmother. Each successive generation has decried the values of the younger generation and has predicted doom.

    Nah….not every generation. That was only the generations who were founded on Patriarchy who saw the next generation embrace Matriarchy: female promiscuity, no-fault divorce and making children born out of wedlock socially acceptable. More precisely, the Older generations of the 1920’s and the 1960’s.

    And they were right.

    LikeLike


  53. on May 13, 2010 at 5:45 pm charlezz

    >>Turkey could (and probably will) conquer Greece without a fight. Morocco the same for Spain. Easy.<<

    That's completely false. Greece spends HUGE amounts on the military compared to other rich Euro countries. Defense is so important in Greece that they keep the exact military budget secret — but everyone knows it's quite high. The military $$$ is part of why they're going broke.

    Normally I agree with you, Whiskey, but you can't just mold the facts to fit your worldview.

    LikeLike


  54. on May 13, 2010 at 5:48 pm j r

    doug1,

    you’re missing my point. sure, women now have more sex now than women did fifty years ago. and that is mostly due to a generally loosening of social and sexual norms. ok, i agree.

    my point is that SWPL women, those who you would expect to be most affected by feminism and progressive ideas, are not the sluttiest. i am not comparing them to women in other times or in other societies, but to other women here in contemporary america.

    LikeLike


  55. on May 13, 2010 at 5:48 pm J

    Hi All,

    I’ve been reading this blog for sometime, but this debate about whether or not women like smart men is one that I really want to weigh in on.

    In my experience, smart women like smart men, but as Sidewinder says, it “doesn’t seal the deal.” Most bright women want a man who is as bright or a bit brighter than they are. It’s a non-negotiable item, but it’s not the only item. Social skills, leadership ability, sense of humor, accomplishments, talents, etc. all count too. If the woman has some emotional maturity, then goodness, integrity and principles count a lot as well.

    Less bright women tend to be bored, confused or intimidated by high IQ men, but that is just as true in the reverse. In fact, I think that less bright people on general feel that way about brighter people, so it’s no surprise that dumb and gorgeous are attracted to the bright and nerdy.

    It seems to me that a lot of the bright men who contribute to this blog are chronically barking up the wrong tree. Instead of gaming unobtainable 10s, you should be checking out compatible women with high IQs and few suitors. Instead, your Dating Market Value Test for Women gives them negative points for being bright. Are you all bright enough to see the irony there?

    LikeLike


  56. on May 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm Doug1

    polymath–

    Great explanation.

    I’m not sure the positive correlation between beauty and brains in women continues above about 130 though (among whites). It might turn negative above that.

    I’d guess the average IQ of leading Hollywood female stars (not starlets) is about 115, maybe somewhat higher.

    In men I think the correlation between being alpha and IQ peaks certainly no lower than 130, and maybe more like at 145, before it starts going somewhat negative.

    LikeLike


  57. on May 13, 2010 at 5:55 pm charlezz

    Whiskey, high IQ isn’t unattractive to women. Rather, high IQ negatively correlates with the things that *are* attractive to women – like high testosterone and the dominant personality it gives you.

    I’m sure most chick would prefer a guy who has both social and intellectual dominance if they could find him. Alas we live in an imperfect world…

    LikeLike


  58. on May 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm J

    Whoops, typo…I meant to say it’s no surprise that dumb and gorgeous are NOT attracted to the bright and nerdy.

    Also, to change the subject a bit, why this obsession with alimony? I know my share of divorced women and not a one gets alimony. Do the courts still do that? Child support, of course. But it’s been years since I’ve heard of a woman getting alimony.

    LikeLike


  59. on May 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm Comment_Whatever

    The single-mother birth rate in 1980 only began having even marginal effects in 2004… and full effects only in 2008.

    The “outflow” is the oldsters. They have unmarried birth rates in the single digits.

    This means:
    1.You should start learning a foreign language with Pimsleur.

    2.You should be under no illusions that it will take less than hundreds of hours to become proficient. This isn’t “Iron Man 2” where Tony Stark creates a new element in his basement in ten minutes of screen time. This is the real world. And even “merely hard” things are hard. They take time. Lots and lots of time.

    LikeLike


  60. on May 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm polymath

    J,

    Smart men with game can avoid having their IQ hurt them with less smart women by just staying a step or two ahead of them rather than displaying an intimidating level of intelligence. This only fails when your job makes it impossible for you not to be smart (if you are a doctor, lawyer, or professor), but even there any chick even a little bit above average in brains will be OK with it.

    LikeLike


  61. on May 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm Sidewinder

    J,

    There is no irony or contradition. Men value different things in women than women value in men. Only our cerebral-centered culture would place normative values on IQ being somehow superior to having a fit, healthy female body. In reproduction, the quality of the female body is way more important than the fitness of the male body. All the male body has to do is be capable of providing active sperm. However, a male has to select a female with the physical resources to carry a baby to term, and we engage in this selection based upon observing a female’s physical characteristics. Putting the shoe on the other foot, a woman is looking for a number of characteristics other than looks to indicate a male’s ability to survive, provide, create, protect.

    Both sexes share many of the same things they look for, but not all. Distilling those characteristics that women value in men is what this blog is all about.

    LikeLike


  62. on May 13, 2010 at 6:36 pm Sidewinder

    @ polymath, I have found that humor is the key to bridging the IQ gap between professional male (doctor, lawyer, engineer) and average IQ woman. If you don’t take your intelligence seriously and use it to make her laugh, it will disarm her and she won’t be intimidated from engaging in some back and forth with you. But smart guys need to avoid cleverness meant to impress…it only works with the most annoying of women anyway. Be funny…leave the rest of your cleverness for work.

    LikeLike


  63. on May 13, 2010 at 6:36 pm Doug1

    J–

    But it’s been years since I’ve heard of a woman getting alimony.

    In most states the courts won’t award alimony if the two parties earn close enough to the same amount of money but they will if the wife has decided to stay at home (something a husband can do nothing about) or if the income gulf is great and the marriage isn’t very short.

    A substantial number of states have lifetime alimony for long marriages. California and Mass. do for example. They both award alimony when there’s any income disparity at all.

    As well child support includes a substantial alimony component. More than half alimony when it’s one child and the man is a strong earner.

    LikeLike


  64. on May 13, 2010 at 6:40 pm xsplat

    polymath

    J,

    Smart men with game can avoid having their IQ hurt them with less smart women by just staying a step or two ahead of them rather than displaying an intimidating level of intelligenc

    Bingo.

    Being smart helps you to make girls laugh. It helps to intimidate them to a well guaged degree. Being smart helps you to learn social smarts – a fact the Whiskey religiously ignores.

    Whiskey, you seriously need to date some dumb chicks. Get over your need to have them be intellectual peers. You’ll see for yourself that dumb chicks can adore a brilliant mind. They will have no clue how smart you are, won’t be able to engage in meaningful conversation, but they’ll be useful in other ways.

    You are deluded to think you are not capable of learning social skills that are attractive to the stupid.

    Here’s the deal, Whiskey. Smart chicks dribble out their panties over smart guys. You can use smarts game and nothing but smarts game on them. Smart chicks are intensely bored with everyone, and will nearly cry in relief to have someone smarter than them to engage with.

    Dumb chicks are so easy to keep a step ahead of – IF YOU TREAT THEM AS WOMEN, and not a debating partner.

    LikeLike


  65. on May 13, 2010 at 6:43 pm xsplat

    One more thing, Whiskey. Why are you associating yourself with smart nerds?

    You don’t seem smart at all. You can’t think clearly, and your language skills are average at best. It’s obvious you are emotionally underdeveloped – you confuse that with being nerdy smart.

    You’re just wrong, and trying to boost your ego by a false claim.

    LikeLike


  66. on May 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm xsplat

    Whiskey, I’ve gamed women for same night lays using nothing but love of philosophy.

    Pure, brute iQ.

    LikeLike


  67. on May 13, 2010 at 7:00 pm Dalrock

    @GDI
    For anyone willing to bang frustrated, scary-horny cougar-cooch, the supply is basically unlimited. But do NOT knock them up. One they figure out they will NEVER have husbands, they will go insane, and fuck wildly while riding the Crazy Train.

    I wonder if this won’t be the next shoe to drop. Right now most women assume they can delay marriage or divorce without giving up the option of later marriage. My guess is that even with all of the concern over marriage 2.0, plenty of marriageable guys will still be willing to marry women in their 20s. But as time goes on, those in this category will either 1) Marry 2) Learn enough game to get jaded/not want to marry, or 3) Drop out and play world of warcraft in their folks basements (become omegas). As word gets out on marriage 2.0, my guess is 30, 40 & 50 year old divorcees will find themselves without any prospect of remarriage. Being 30 or even early 40s and newly single might seem exciting, but I’m guessing the idea of staying single until death won’t be nearly as, er, empowering.

    How long before we are flooded with sob story articles about how men in their 50s need to “man up” and marry the dried up alpha chasers and untrustworthy divorce thieves?

    LikeLike


  68. on May 13, 2010 at 7:01 pm sdaedalus

    SDaedalus would venture to suggest that possibly the problem with intelligent guys and women is that they over-analyse themselves too much.

    There are great advantages in being stupid generally, the main one being the inability to appreciate when one is making a fool of oneself. This is actually a huge advantage in dealing with the opposite sex, where persistence is key and rushing in where angels fear to tread can actually pay off in the long run.

    Also, stupid people tend to live in continual uncertainty about things, and are quite used to this. Intelligent people are used to much more certainty, and the haphazard nature of relationships can be hard to take. Also, intelligent guys are much more critical of themselves.

    I wouldn’t say that stupid (ahem) low-iq women are put off by intelligent men, quite the contrary in my observation. You guys should just start looking at your intelligence as an asset rather than a liability.

    LikeLike


  69. on May 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm I_Affe

    Let me get this right: America is dying becuase of liberal culture? And if we embrace the culture of the early 20th century things will be set right again? Is that what youse guys are saying?

    I want to make a wager with people who think the U.S. will descend into a hellhole in the somewhat near future. I want to be Julian Simon to your Paul Ehrlich.

    Name your terms or accept this one:

    Since many of you are obsessed with IQ, I bet that the average IQ of the US will stay the same or increase over the next 10 years. If it drops I will pay you $100 per point. I’ll round up of course. If the IQ rises you have to pay me $100 per point.

    E-mail me at: monsieur.hexavalent at yahoo.com

    LikeLike


  70. on May 13, 2010 at 7:13 pm I_Affe

    *I’ll round down of course in any case

    LikeLike


  71. on May 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm xsplat

    I_affe, you’d have to put funds in escrow to have a credible wager, and I can get a much better ROI with my other investments.

    And you obviously have no appreciation for realities such as demographic trends.

    LikeLike


  72. on May 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm omarion

    “What effect do you all think that would have on out of wedlock child births, very few of which are truly accidents as opposed to “oops” consciously or sub-consciously on purpose?”

    Good point. I am so tired of hearing women describe their offspring as a “big ol’ oops” – usually with a shit-eating grin plastered across their faces. Why?

    – There are about a zillion forms of effective birth control out there. If you don’t want a kid, fucking use them. If you can’t be bothered to take a daily pill, then get a doctor to administer Norplant or Depo-Provera injections or even the hormonal IUD (Mirena). With the vast range of BC options available out there, there are precisely zero plausible excuses for dropping the ball in this department.

    – Second, a little-known, obscure 1973 Supreme Court case actually enables women to (gasp) terminate pregnancies!

    You know what that means?

    If your kid was born post-1973 (or even before then, depending on how ballsy you were), he/she was not an “oops”. You had options for taking care of such an “oops”.
    And if all else failed, you could have handed the kid over for adoption if you couldn’t deal with raising it.

    LikeLike


  73. on May 13, 2010 at 7:33 pm xsplat

    A woman who refuses on “moral” grounds to use abortifactants or abortion will suddenly lose her religion when you make it 100% clear that you are leaving the country if she keeps the kid.

    Women see a kid as a divine right to be taken care of. Irrespective of responsibility to the provider.

    LikeLike


  74. on May 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm meeee!!!!

    Which is why I’m sipping a cocktail poolside, unmarried, with my lover beside me.

    ———————————————-

    A single solitary tear full of meaning just made it’s way down my right cheek y’aaaaaaall.

    LikeLike


  75. on May 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm meeee!!!!

    Cannon Canoon bo bannin
    banana fanna fo fannin
    meeeee my mo mamin
    CANNON!!!

    LikeLike


  76. on May 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm meeee!!!!

    Tupac, I’m still thinking of a song for youuuuuuuuuuu!
    It has to be extra special. Cuz you’re extra special.

    LikeLike


  77. on May 13, 2010 at 8:11 pm Thursday

    The Bible is the religious woman’s purple saguaro.

    LikeLike


  78. on May 13, 2010 at 8:26 pm whiskey

    Guys like Philo T. Farnsworth, or the average engineer at Lockheed Skunkworks, were folks who were not particularly high on the verbal side of things and not particularly acute on the whole portion of how people interact.

    However, without them you don’t get technological advance. Inventing something like television, or perfecting something like the SR 72 Blackbird, requires a whole lot of math, and not much social smoothness and social dominance to lure hotties into bed. Still, those guys got married. Because female choice was restricted — women could not chase Alpha cock very long.

    Compare and contrast the social intelligence of David Sarnoff, who exploited Farnsworth’s invention (and basically cheated him out of his royalties) to build RCA/NBC. Sarnoff was the big shot, but created nothing but social/business networks. Essentially what you get is natural selection by particularly, High IQ women for guys smooth with the patter and dominant among their set.

    How many can that be? Like a Highlander, in the end there can be only one. Meanwhile the tinkering gene seems wider, deeper, and more productive society-wide to further. I know, I know, internalized views on White guys by women (“White Men all suck! They’re betas! Except for sparkly vampires and Mr. Big!”) make technology the purview of icky beta Indian and Chinese guys. That’s a recipe for social suicide.

    My sample set is the geeky engineers I’ve worked with over the years (not a single one married to a White woman EXCEPT the Black guy), and the MBA/Lawyer gals I know professionally.

    My larger point is not the men at the top of any hierarchy (who do well) but how well the equivalent of the Lockheed skunkworks engineers do. In order for large, complex, and high-return endeavors like oh, I dunno, deep sea oil drilling not to end in disaster, you need to have lots of very smart and on the ball guys. They don’t have to be geniuses, but they do have to be invested. I don’t see how a society of cougars, single moms, and Facebook strippers and Craigslist escorts and Lawyer chicks achieves that.

    LikeLike


  79. on May 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm PA

    Powerful anectode by blogger Laura Wood, Auster’s correspondent. Worth reading:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/05/how-to-reverse-sexual-liberation/#more-10773

    I used to know a woman who was very beautiful. In fact, she was the most beautiful woman I have ever known, perfect in every way, like a goddess. She had high cheekbones and doe-like eyes and a voice that was unusually deep for a woman but which added to her overall mystery and remarkable beauty. I knew her as a child, she was a few years older, and I have followed her life ever since. For years she had many lovers and one central boyfriend. They were perfecting their intimacy, this man and she, and both hedged about getting married. They went back and forth for years, dissecting their relationship. Finally, when she was in her mid-forties, he decided that the thing he wanted most in life was to have children. Needless to say, it was too late for her. She is still good-looking and has since found another man, incredibly wealthy and recently divorced. He asked her to quit her job and help him raise his young children. She did. He promised marriage but has since decided he’d rather not. He did, however, buy her a new car. For all those years of love, this ravishingly beautiful and self-assured woman, a woman who could have had anything she wanted if she wanted it, has one thing left: a car.

    The older dude who bought her the car instead of a ring — Doug, zzat you?

    LikeLike


  80. on May 13, 2010 at 9:33 pm Trueman

    This is a good read and true to every word.

    LikeLike


  81. on May 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm The Sarlacc

    The pack behaviour of the food is always fascinating to watch, because it is full of contradictions.

    My observation is that the higher life forms tend to evolve towards a smaller amount of progeny, while investing more resources in the protection and upbringing of said progeny. The talking food presents the curious contradiction of having a limited amount of progeny that requires a high amount of investment and protection to mature, yet the progenitor tries to be less and less invested into it.

    It is impossible to have a low-investment strategy on the progeny while simultaneously creating small amounts of them. That path leads to extinction.

    Of course, it is ideal for me, as it is easier to capture prey in situations where they have little guidance from the older, more experienced members of the pack, and are forced to roam the wilderness on their own, ill-prepared and looking for their own way. Until they go extinct, I shall enjoy the fruits of their contradictions.

    LikeLike


  82. on May 13, 2010 at 9:49 pm Gil

    I believe too many people are overromancing the 1800s. The 1800s had men and women getting married and having many children early on but it was also the laissez-faire era where parents didn’t have to do much to raise them and could simply abandon them if they were too much of an effort. Plenty of children left home before the age of ten to become apprentices (unpaid lackeys) and adulthood began at around fifteen.

    On the other hand, why would women want to go back to the era of no birth control? What’s stopping Alpha guys from continue knocking up young gals, getting them pregnant and leaving them high&dry if birth control is banned? If anything there would be more teenage mothers and bastard children. It may be ironic that ideal women don’t make babies or have them too late in life but maybe it’s just humanity’s regression to the mean.

    LikeLike


  83. on May 13, 2010 at 9:55 pm PA

    Video of Lithuanians beating the “French.”

    Good song too.

    LikeLike


  84. on May 13, 2010 at 10:00 pm JB

    “Since many of you are obsessed with IQ, I bet that the average IQ of the US will stay the same or increase over the next 10 years.”

    Haha. The average IQ is always 100, so of course it will stay the same.

    But seriously, the largest growing population is Hispanics, who have an IQ below 100. Exactly by what mechanism do you propose IQ will not drop in the next decade?

    I see two possibilities (assuming we don’t play tricks like altering IQ tests and so forth): nootropics and genetic engineering. The first is possible, but unlikely within that timespan; the second is not possible within that timespan.

    LikeLike


  85. on May 13, 2010 at 10:09 pm JB

    “Either American society implodes, or the coming generations of Millennials and younger utterly turn their back on the values of their parents and grandparents, giving a big one finger salute to the dying Baby Boomers and their progressivist equalism lies and returning the country back to the cultural configuration that once brought it to majestic heights.”

    Well, there’s something more basic here than progressivist equalism, I think (which is one head of the hydra). The question is “can an entitlement society experience a rebirth of values or is it doomed?” In other words, will the electorate ever vote against their own self-interest (pork, entitlements, privileges) if they sense collapse is coming? I’m actually optimistic that Americans will pull back from the brink just in time. This isn’t blind optimism either, political surveys show some rather interesting results.

    All this starts in November. First step is to put the brakes on the Entitlement Society via funding cuts and other means.

    LikeLike


  86. on May 13, 2010 at 10:11 pm Floodmud

    I think the violent implosion is the only way the balance will be restored. Like the democratic vortex of death this country is hurtling down, there is no way that the sexual voters are ever going to give up their free meal tickets of a worry free sexual life. So i can’t see a gradual turning around. Besides that would require that the male masses grow some balls. Right now, individual accountability is forcibly spread thin across the masses. Once this force is gone, the pendulum will rapidly swing in the other direction.

    LikeLike


  87. on May 13, 2010 at 10:48 pm J

    Hi Polymath,

    “Smart men with game can avoid having their IQ hurt them with less smart women by just staying a step or two ahead of them rather than displaying an intimidating level of intelligence. ”

    I’ve lurked along enough to undertand that some of you guys have had some success with that–while others have failed and just decided to work harder at it. But faking, guys, is a lot of work, especially if it gets you something that you really don’t want in the long run–though I also realize that many of you are more concerned with pick-ups than LTRs.

    In the long run, I still would think that most bright men would be happiest with women who shared traits, values and interests. At least that’s been my experience. Then again, my longest LTR has been with a man who wanted a “devastingly intelligent woman with a kick-ass sense of humor.” He’d probably be seen as an outlier or mere beta provider by many of you, but we’ve been married for over twenty years, which is more success with women that some of you have had. And since my quoting him is probably giving a lot of the female readership the “gina tingles,” it would probably behoove some of the guys here to consider an alternative point of view on what women like.

    Anyway, if I were giving advice here, I’d tell men not to pretend be what they are not. Unless you are a complete mess, it’s easier to find someone who will want to be with the real you than it is to pretend to be what you aren’t. And while I do understand that looks tend to be more important to men than to women, most of you would tire of a dumb 10 even if you could obtain the unobtainable. The bottom line is that like attracts like. If you are an average looking guy with a high IQ, odds are you will end up with an average looking girl with a high IQ and probably be fairly happy.

    LikeLike


  88. on May 13, 2010 at 11:04 pm Badger Nation

    Doug,

    Good stuff on modern marriage, but I think it’s a little more complicated than that – specifically, rather than being a single movement, divorce laws changed on a number of parallel tracks, and those tracks were folded back on each other to create the screwjob of today.

    I am very sympathetic to arguments that no-fault divorce simply simplified and streamlined the decline of an already-dying institution. Divorce rates had been going up since WWII. No-fault divorce has no _theoretical_ relationship to alimony, child support. It infuriated family-values conservatives because it was a social message that married couples could just say “oops,” but it gave no intrinsic statement that anybody was entitled to the other’s property.

    Remember, in no-fault divorce, the idea was that a couple that just decided to call it quits (“mutual consent”) did not have to fake a situation of infidelity or somesuch legal fiction. Wikipedia’s no fault divorce page has a good discussion of this. They could petition the court and be dissolved. You correctly note that the alimony game started later.

    The problem we are having is unilateral divorce, without fault as a reason but with punishment as if fault existed – one spouse decides they are going to get out, and asks for the rich man’s money at the same time. Even if we changed the laws so that real damage would have to be shown, white-knighting judges would probably just make up a bad-man hypothesis in their minds, and that’s without considering the biased and wholly non-legal order-of-protection scheme (non-legal in the sense that it is not subject to rigorous legal standards).

    We’ve been at this “free alimony” game for a couple generations, so now like the diamond engagement ring it has become an entitlement to the tittering class.

    LikeLike


  89. on May 13, 2010 at 11:27 pm namae nanka

    “Since many of you are obsessed with IQ, I bet that the average IQ of the US will stay the same or increase over the next 10 years. If it drops I will pay you $100 per point. I’ll round up of course. If the IQ rises you have to pay me $100 per point.”

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Flynn_effect?t=3.#3.

    It’s going down sadly, unless the immigrants have some super brains it won’t go up.

    J

    “Anyway, if I were giving advice here, I’d tell men not to pretend be what they are not.”

    They have too, the cultural indoctrination that they have underwent is much different from your times.

    LikeLike


  90. on May 13, 2010 at 11:47 pm JB

    “And while I do understand that looks tend to be more important to men than to women, most of you would tire of a dumb 10 even if you could obtain the unobtainable.”

    Perhaps in an ironic role reversal we would form platonic friendships with “smart” girls to compensate.

    “Gosh, Miss Smarty Pants, why can’t I have conversations like this with Miss Hottie? All we do is have sex 10 times a week!”

    LikeLike


  91. on May 13, 2010 at 11:55 pm Philosopher

    Doug 1
    Thanks for the alimony lesson.
    I’m going through a divorce and not paying alimony.

    LikeLike


  92. on May 13, 2010 at 11:58 pm xsplat

    J

    And while I do understand that looks tend to be more important to men than to women, most of you would tire of a dumb 10 even if you could obtain the unobtainable. The bottom line is that like attracts like. If you are an average looking guy with a high IQ, odds are you will end up with an average looking girl with a high IQ and probably be fairly happy.

    J, it’s a matter of hierarchy of needs. For some of us men, intelligence is not at the top of the list. It’s on the list, it’s just not on the top of the list.

    I’m really not sure why women find this difficult to grasp, emotionally. Could it be because women put intelligence very high on their list? Rather I think it’s because they don’t put youth and beauty that high on their list of needs in a mate, and can’t imagine how men could be so shallow as to do so.

    Far more important than intelligence is the base level of cheerfulness. Also more important is the sexual chemistry. After that, yes, intelligence is a great bonus and an asset.

    A man can be happy with a dumb bubbly gorgeous girlfriend. A man can’t be happy with an ugly smart chick with control issues. All things being equal, smarter is better. All things not being equal, youth and beauty and baseline emotional state is more important.

    It’s a matter of priorities.

    LikeLike


  93. on May 14, 2010 at 12:05 am J

    Hi Sidewinder,

    Yep, I understand the theory, but it doesn’t jive with my personal experiences or my observations of others. (See my response to Polymath.) I’ll grant you that men like beauty; even my husband’s list included “and beautiful, but not in a plastic Barbie doll way.” I’ll even concede to maintaining my .7 WTH ratio–even though both numerator and denominator are bigger than used to be. Looks are important to men (women too), especially in terms of initial attraction.

    But I’ve also met some real “warpigs” as you call them that have loads of kids and some beauties with few or none.
    People generally regard me as nice-looking. I have two kids; I’ve seen Cigstaches with dozens. While looks may correlate with health, fertility, IQ and general fitness, I’m not so sure that looks are an asolute indicator of fertility.

    I’m also not sure that people are happiest following their instincts when it comes to picking a mate. Whatever evolutionary substrates still exist in our psyches, we are often better off in using our heads and exercising our values than we are in paying sole attention to what causes blood to flow to our genitals.

    You are dead on about humor though.

    LikeLike


  94. on May 14, 2010 at 12:09 am xsplat

    J, I don’t understand your point about the fuglies being attractive enough to breed.

    If your questions and ideas revolve around what makes men happy, you’ll just have to accept is as fact that for some of us men, and I don’t know what percentage, looks are more important than intelligence.

    LikeLike


  95. on May 14, 2010 at 12:11 am xsplat

    Oh, and about happiness, an attractive mate the site of whom gives her man a boner hugely increases quality of life.

    I speak from experience. It’s a world changing, life altering, huge big deal to a man. A very attractive mate makes him much happier than a very smart mate.

    LikeLike


  96. on May 14, 2010 at 12:11 am segment21

    The National Socialist revolution was the last hope of the West.

    LikeLike


  97. on May 14, 2010 at 12:26 am polymath

    J,

    I was not talking about “faking” anything. I was talking about not scaring a girl off by appearing intimidatingly smart too soon. You’re right that smart men will be happier with smart women for LTRs in general (but before xsplat jumps in I stress there are exceptions!). But when you’re genius smart, most of the girls you date will react better if they gradually discover how awesome you are.

    Note that this is different from almost all other positive traits, where you want to make an overwhelming first impression if you can. It is different for 2 reasons: you can’t demonstrate how smart you are instantly unless you have a Nobel Prize, and it’s tricky to show you’re very smart to another person without making them feel dumb. If you do it right, by ramping up the complexity of the conversation while treating her responses seriously, keeping it at a level she can just stay with, you show you’re very smart while making her feel smart.

    Of course, when I met my wife-to-be we were students in an MIT dorm, so none of this applied. MIT girls want you to be brilliant (the quickest indicator of this to them is if you are taking very difficult classes, and everyone knows which classes are hard). But the most beautiful girl I dated was a BU student I picked up when I was on that campus for some reason, and she expressed shock when she found out I was from MIT because she’d found them so hopelessly nerdish (I was nerdish too but the day I picked her up I happened to do everything right, using good game basically by accident).

    LikeLike


  98. on May 14, 2010 at 12:54 am J

    Hi Exsplat,

    Based on my own experience I think that hierarchy of needs does vary from man to man. And I believe, based on your previous posts that intelligence is not at the top of your list. You seem to like bubbly girls who are into your being Daddy. My mileage has varied. I’m a bright woman who attracts bright men. When my looks have drawn in less bright men, my IQ and lack of interest have quickly alienated those guys. Bright guys seem however to enjoy the hell out me. That seems natural to me, especially because its reciprocal. If something happened to my husband, he’d be replaced by someone who is bright, funny and good-looking–in that order. At least that would be the initial atraction. After the gina tingles subsided and my head cleared, I’d look for goodness, integrity, honesty, etc.

    You are correct that women put intelligence very high on their lists, except for less bright women. I think women do value youth and beauty though. I personally would not go for a much older man although I understand that you maintain relationships with much younger women. Honestly, a man more than ten years my senior would disgust me. I joke that Anna Nicole Smith deserved every cent that her 90 year old husband left her; pretending not to be repulsed by a man that old is harder work than going through labor in book. And I say that after 23 and half hours of labor. Different strokes…

    I agree that cheerfulness is far more important than intelligence, probably for both sexes. Sad sack dweebiness repulses women as much as bitchiness repulses men. Some of the posters here should work on being more positive and socially aware before trying to be “alpha.”

    No doubt, some men are happy with “a dumb bubbly gorgeous girlfriend.” My own husband and loads of other men in my social circle could not–at least not in the long run. They all need/enjoy the intellectual stimulation that comes from being with an emotional and intellectual equal. I’ve even seen some really great men tolerate some bitchiness to get it.

    As I said in another post, I think that for the most part, like attracts like. There are some really miserable guys looking for help on this blog. I’m just trying to share a women’s perspective on the problem of being “too bright to be attractive. ” And I do think that pretending to be something you’re not will only make it worse. Why do that to yourself when there are compatible women out there? Why not make those women happy too?

    LikeLike


  99. on May 14, 2010 at 1:06 am xsplat

    J, one my life’s deepest love was with an older woman. We had conversations of a quality unparalelled since. My life would be enriched and improved and more satisfying if I again found those qualities in a mate.

    Since moving to Asia I’ve had to adjust to women not being intellectually stimulating.

    But if I make a direct comparison between being intellectually stimulated but not aesthetically and erotically stimulated, I have to go with a preference for aesthetically stimulated.

    I never would have guessed that about myself before life experiences drove me to see myself that way. It’s not a philosophical choice, its a simple measurement of overall life satisfaction.

    I don’t want to bore with repeating myself, but I’m not saying that being near equal in intelligence is unimportant. I’m saying that it’s not the most important consideration. Your example is perfect for knowing how I feel – no matter how smart the man, you’d not date him if he was too old to be attractive to you.

    That’s the exact correlate of what I’m talking about. No, it’s the exact same thing that I’m talking about.

    I look at each dating value point we have as adding up to a total sum. If my total value is 20, I can spend 12 of that on looks and beauty, and leave 3 for emotional stability, cheerfulness and kindness, and 7 for intelligence. I can’t spend all 20 on looks and expect to get a smart girl as well.

    I have a spending limit. I’m on a tight budget here.

    LikeLike


  100. on May 14, 2010 at 1:09 am xsplat

    Also, I think you misunderstood Polymath about pretending to be something you’re not. As he said, he’s not advocating that.

    I agree with him that intelligence is something you can let on slowly, if the girl could be intimidated. But eventually, when her guard is down, you let her in on your mental prowess.

    LikeLike


  101. on May 14, 2010 at 1:11 am J

    Hi again Exsplat,

    I just realized how long that last post was, so I’ll try to be brief. Hope I don’t sound curt.
    As I understood it, Polymath was attempting to explain to me that men value looks over IQ because good looks in a woman indicate a greater degree of evolutionary fitness. I meant to say that fertile fuglies with a boatload of kids are very successful from an evolutionary point of view. Despite their looks, they carry their genes forth. Someone obviously finds them attractive enough to have sex with them. That sort of disputes beauty as the biggest factor in attraction. Hell, maybe availablity is.

    I see your point about erections and assure you that they increase everyone’s quality of life.

    LikeLike


  102. on May 14, 2010 at 1:14 am xsplat

    J, regardless of whether the reason men prefer looks over IQ may or not be because of evolutionary fitness.

    The observable facts remain. Just because the why doesn’t make sense, does not change the observable facts. Men with choices go for the pretty girls over the smart girls.

    LikeLike


  103. on May 14, 2010 at 1:26 am polymath

    J,

    It must have been some other poster who said men value looks over intelligence. I would not put it that way at all. All other things being equal, better looks are desirable, and all other things being equal, higher intelligence is desirable (up to the point where she is so smart she will dump you for not being able to keep up with her). The tradeoff for most men though is that desirability is more sensitive to looks (most men would prefer a woman whose looks rate 8 and brains rate 7 than the reverse). Not true for everyone though. I married someone who rated 9 for brains and 8 for looks, and would definitely not have preferred these to be reversed.

    LikeLike


  104. on May 14, 2010 at 1:28 am J

    Guys, I’m getting tired. Got to get kids to school and go to work tomorrow morning. Exsplat, thanks for telling me the older woman story; it show a different side of you than what I’ve picked up on while lurking. I agree that we are sort of talking at crosspurposes but saying many of the same things. It is a matter of priorities.

    Polymath, I do get what you’re saying, but the fact that you met your wife at MIT sort of proves my point. 😉

    It’s been nice chatting with you. Look, just don’t advise Whisky to pick imaginary lint off women’s sweaters. It won’t work on the sort of woman he’ll ultimately need.

    The best pick-up line I ever heard was, “Hi, I’m Bill. I couldn’t help but notice you, so I thought I’d say hello.” The rest is history.

    Good night.

    LikeLike


  105. on May 14, 2010 at 1:46 am xsplat

    One reason why I recommend to Whiskey to date a few dumb chicks is that it might set him in a better frame of mind for dealing with women altogether.

    Some of us initially approach women as if they were men with boobs. Getting the cerebral connection totally out of the way makes you work on the other aspects of relationship. Non cerebral aspects are what I suspect Whiskey needs to work on the most. And not just for personal development, but in appreciation. Appreciation of womanhood that is not just about conversation.

    LikeLike


  106. on May 14, 2010 at 1:53 am Anou

    Hey, I’m a bastard. Nothing wrong with being a bastard. My parents married when I was one and are still together and will always be together. Another friend of mine, her parents have never married but are still together.
    Surely these statistics mean marriage is something that is becoming increasingly more irrelevant, as opposed to signaling the downfall of society and condemning our future generations before they are even born.
    This is all progress I believe, you can’t revert women back to the middle ages, unless you’re the Taliban…
    Men and women are staying together for the same amount of time, just choosing to marry later, I think many view it as unnecessary or they can’t be bothered…
    I, personally would much rather live in a country with a high divorce rate (e.g. Iceland) than a country where I had no options (Saudi Arabia). I say this, but I am a very homely kind of girl and I know it would take A LOT for me to ever leave a man I loved, especially if I had children. Most women are like this I believe…but there are selfish people everywhere who would rather follow their short term desires than commit and be loyal.
    How old are you? Why aren’t you married? Why haven’t you found a nice girl and had children by now? You seem to be as bad as the women who you trash and you don’t even realise, which is pretty funny.

    LikeLike


  107. on May 14, 2010 at 1:56 am Avinguda Diagonal

    J R

    but i’d be surprised if the average college girl today is having more sex than was the case 20 years ago

    some are on the inside, some are on the outside.

    you are apparently on the outside.

    LikeLike


  108. on May 14, 2010 at 2:28 am Vincent Ignatius

    For those who still want a chance for their kids to grow up well, LEARN MANDARIN. East Asia will still be doing okay when the West goes to crap. You should be fine if you have marketable skills; China will be more than happy to accept the reverse brain drain that happens when America goes down the toilet.

    LikeLike


  109. on May 14, 2010 at 4:54 am narzheewa

    In a group of nerds we were discussing all these college films and anime with people having wild parties and lots of sex. So one guy says that it’s all rubbish, that shit just can’t be possible. The hottest girl (I guess a 7 normal standards) then just replies: “Well, just because you aren’t having it, doesn’t mean that others can’t.”

    LikeLike


  110. on May 14, 2010 at 7:01 am Steve Johnson

    lena:

    “You sound like my grandmother. Each successive generation has decried the values of the younger generation and has predicted doom. They actually thought the US reached the end of the line with the Great Depression which they though was brought about due to the loose morals of the 1920. …”

    Are you sure it wasn’t the end of the line?

    By their standards we live today in a time of no civilization whatsoever; that doesn’t mean that people who don’t know any differently won’t accept it as normal.

    Who’s happier?

    Compare the bread line game shot to the obama girl shot. Interesting question isn’t it?

    LikeLike


  111. on May 14, 2010 at 7:05 am Truth(er)

    I don’t understand…how do you “turn a woman off” with intelligence? Is this done by starting a topic that she won’t understand? Like physics?

    But that is not demonstrating intelligence. That is simply being rude and starting a conversation on completely one-sided terms.

    LikeLike


  112. on May 14, 2010 at 7:29 am Tyrone

    @Whiskey, Doug1, and Xsplat:

    I’m inclined to agree with Whiskey that high IQ men need to hide their brains around women for the most part. It has been my experience. Most women aren’t that smart to begin with. You will find several men for every woman at IQs above 120 and the higher the IQ the lower the ratio of women to men with that level of intelligence. So its a numbers game. If Whiskey hasn’t met that many women who appreciated his brain, I can understand it. I recall here the line from Morrisey’s brilliant Viva Hate album- of course meant ironically, “complaining bitterly about women only like me for my mind.”

    My wife is the smartest woman I’ve ever met, and still her daily conversations with me are usually about mundane things- like work, political events, family issues, etc. I would estimate her IQ is well into the 130s and probably higher. For the deeper conversations I have tended to find outlets in places like this blog, building models, or reading history. She learns languages and reads Ukrainian celebrity gossip rags for entertainment. Its still more important for her to do such things than to read something I would recommend for her edification.

    Those all night musings together about esoteric subjects just don’t happen so much after you’re married or have been together for a while, and are pretty rare in the first few months as well. We still talk together all the time too. When I’m together with dumber women, you talk about feelings or values perhaps, but its still usually about clothes or Germany’s Next top Model or whatever. The same things I discuss 80% of the time with my wife now.

    The benefit of having a bright wife is that she understands and applies logic in her daily life and can analyze situations, her thoughts and feelings well, which prevents being led around by the nose by malicious friends for instance and filing for divorce because Oprah told her to.

    At this point, its a habit to use less than 100% of my intelligence and it requires no extra effort. Being smarter than a given woman is indeed an advantage, but it has to remain hidden. Compatibility is far more about emotional affinity with someone. It really does boil down to feelings you get in their presence. I have been deeply in love with perhaps three women in my life, and only my wife could compete with me intellectually. However, the interaction and feelings were always the same or very similar. I was at first disappointed that we didn’t have deeper talks all the time, but its simply not interesting for women to do so in the same way men find it important and they don’t.

    As far as admonishing Whiskey is concerned, shame on both of you. You all have good things to say and in spite of the big egos, I can say as an objective, outside observer, Whiskey is both of your equals intellectually. I read his blog as well and wish he posted more. No need to measure our peckers here, they’re all big enough.

    LikeLike


  113. on May 14, 2010 at 8:11 am Vincent Ignatius

    @Tyrone

    I meet a lot of 130 and even 140+ IQ girls. Most of these women are so masculine that you’d find more femininity among trannys.

    LikeLike


  114. on May 14, 2010 at 8:31 am xsplat

    Ya, I can be a bit of a rude dick sometimes, but I’m standing by my call. From what I can see a lot of Whiskeys thought processes are not marked by intelligence, but of disorganized conclusions that jump out of nowhere. Seems to me he is lumping himself together with high iq people, and he thinks the bulk of those are nerds, and therefore his nerdiness is directly related to his IQ.

    Yes, it’s rude, but I question that.

    And Tyrone, you are saying the same thing that Polymath and I are saying – especially the same as I am saying. That when IQ can be intimidating, you don’t intimidate with it. And when it’s not intimidating, it can be a turn on. Sometimes you have to ease into it with girls. But never is IQ itself a turn off. Its misuse of IQ that leads to unwanted and poor communication that is the turn off. IQ itself is a turn on.

    It’s like a fast car. Sure, running people down with it will be considered rude. But applying the gas appropriately will be a turn on.

    I’ve had this conversation with Whiskey many times. I disagree with him to what extent IQ is related to a lack of ability to be social. I think he’s hugely overinflated his case, and if I may be so bold as to offer free armchair psychoanalysis, I think it’s because he wants a reason for his lack of social skills that puts him in a good light.

    Let me tell you all a story. I used to be unspeakably shy. I felt as if my skin were blue, and never felt that I fit in, anywhere. I self medicated with booze for all social situations. To help overcome my deficits I spent many years as a travelling salesman. I forced myself to be social with continuing ed classes. I dated a lot. In any way I could I worked on what was not natural or easy to me.

    Whiskey imagines that IQ makes learning social skills difficult, whereas the opposite is true. Yes, some higher IQ guys are less effective at dealing with lower IQ people, but it’s nowhere close to the degree that Whiskey purports.

    The main part where we agree Tyrone is that after a while you just give up on being brainy with your woman and settle into making each other feel good.

    That’s really what’s most important. My free unsolicited advice was well intentioned to Whiskey – maybe it would be helpful to learn to take a vacation from mental communion sometimes, and just get into a chick for the sake of her other female qualities – and I don’t mean just sex. Warmth, humor, taking care of each other. And sex.

    LikeLike


  115. on May 14, 2010 at 8:50 am PA

    Xsplat is making excellent points with regards to Whiskey and IQ in general.

    I’ll go as far as saying that women WANT men who are smart. With exception of primitive sluts whom I gamed with assholishness and alcohol, pretty much every girl whose panties I got into, from highshool on, was ablaze with lust in large part because she thought I was a genius. This included a girl in high school who was objectively smarter than me (she had higher SATs).

    Of course, I channeled my beeg brains toward their feminine-friendly expression. I’d show a flash of masculine hard-smarts here and there, but I didn’t press on with some nerdy deate or such. It was more about showing off my savoir faire, kinowledge of shit (even if I just made stupff up), and so on.

    Women need to respect teh man they fuck, and they have a hard time respecting one they consider stupid. Even if she’s fucking a charming dumbass, she’ll interpret his dumbass talk for wit.

    LikeLike


  116. on May 14, 2010 at 9:03 am Polymath

    In Whiskey’s defense, there is a distinct personality type that is high in IQ and low in social skills, falling at one end of a spectrum. This personality type has a systematizing type of brain and is prone to obsessive focus. However, the low social skills are usually due to focus on other things and early negative school experiences rather than innate incapacity — such people can normally get to “average” in social skills with a little bit of effort, although they will still have a RELATIVE deficit in social skills compared to other smart people because the normal correlation between intelligence and social skills is positive. I fell into this category although my social deficits were never large, and many years of experience as a business consultant and executive has brought my overall social skills to somewhat above average (though still deficient in a few specific areas).

    At the extreme, you get Asperger’s syndrome (which is considered to be a mild form of autism but autism goes off the end of the scale because the deficits are so severe IQ is damaged). People with Asperger’s, like my older son, have an actual incapacity for interpersonal interaction and cannot handle nonverbal communication without major amounts of training and cognitive effort. They can learn to compensate if they are smart enough.

    However, the existence of this small subpopulation is not enough to render the overall correlation between IQ and social skills negative; it is still generally true that smart people will be more socially adept than average.

    LikeLike


  117. on May 14, 2010 at 9:28 am Dilbert Hole

    TG:

    It’s like Conservatism leads to….

    Free Market Capitalism
    Sexual Socialism

    Liberalism leads to…

    Market Socialism(really corporatism)
    Free Market Sexuality

    Yes, a very astute observation. I wonder whether it hits a bit too close to home for the lot here, and that’s why it’s getting ignored.

    I’m fundamentally bothered by the notion that the society should be ordered in such a way as to, firstly, treat women as a resource, and then strive to “distribute” that resource “fairly.” I’m especially tickled when this notion is advanced by individuals who seem to be otherwise staunchly individualistic and protective of their own right to keep the fruits of their labor.

    They claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces women to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “amoral nature”, is likely to be more civilized, more productive (a chick in every beta’s oven means that he’ll put in far more than the minimal effort required to survive and afford a few base pleasures), and less violent.

    At the same time, they claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces individuals to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “selfish nature”, is likely to be less civilized, less productive (entitlements destroy incentive to work), and more violent.

    They defend a man’s right to amass vastly greater resources materially, but yearn for a time when there were limits on what he could amass sexually, even though both are presumably due to voluntary “transactions” among consenting parties who each saw a benefit.

    This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I do struggle to see how these two notions are reconcilable.

    LikeLike


  118. on May 14, 2010 at 10:38 am namae nanka

    J

    “And I do think that pretending to be something you’re not will only make it worse.”

    Fake it till you make it.Try try until you succeed.

    “Why do that to yourself when there are compatible women out there?”

    You mean to say that not all women are like that?

    ” Why not make those women happy too?”

    An appeal to chivalry.. to make “woman happy”?
    haha lolzlzlz and you say women are different….
    Game does make women happy, for they love being pretentious themselves.

    J with your IQ you should understand that “being something you’re not” is a hackneyed line that assumes that one has a true nature.We all are manipulators and we all get manipulated.
    No one here is a sage who acts in the exact same way to everyone he meets, so why not change the way he deals with women?

    You asking men to not pretend is like asking a fat girl to never shed her weight and wait till her prince comes onto the scene.Sounds goody goody but doesn’t work.

    LikeLike


  119. on May 14, 2010 at 10:38 am Schmoe

    It’s never smart to have a pool.

    LikeLike


  120. on May 14, 2010 at 10:43 am polymath

    Dilbert,

    Good observation, but you are overlooking the key difference which is that there is no call for any restriction on anybody’s sexual freedom or attempt to “distribute” anybody’s sexual access. Nobody posting on this board thinks there should be any laws preventing adults from fucking each other, or living with whomever they like.

    The issue is that the already-existing laws, as implemented by the current system, encourage certain kinds of bad behavior which leads to a less productive society. Changing those laws as has been suggested here would not restrict anyone’s sexual freedom; the changes would probably end up incentivizing monogamous marriage, but people would still be free to make all the voluntary consensual sexual transactions they want to.

    More specifically, men who want to amass many sexual partners will still be free to do so; women who want to leave their partners for more attractive mates will still be free to do so; but they will no longer be encouraged to do so by having a strong legal claim on the wealth and earning power of the man they no longer wish to be with.

    There is nothing comparable here to the state’s power to tax your earnings and redistribute them to others. Only if we became a society where fornication between unmarried unrelated adults was illegal would the situations be analogous.

    LikeLike


  121. on May 14, 2010 at 10:53 am Puma

    LikeLike


  122. on May 14, 2010 at 11:02 am Sidewinder

    J,

    I’m not sure where we disagree, but I think there may be a baseline fact that you are not acknowledging: there is no IQ, humor, or social acumen that will make a woman sexually attractive to a man if he isn’t already attracted to her based on her physical characteristics. That being said, men have a relatively low threshold for sexual attraction. If a girl meets that baseline, than all those other cerebral traits will be positives. When you’re clearly over that threshold, than I think Polymath’s situation is probably true: if your girl is an 8 on looks and a 9 on intelligence, you probably wouldn’t want to switch them up if you are also a high-IQ guy. But if a girl was a 5 on looks, and a 7 on intelligence, she would have to switch them up or she would be “just friends” with the guy.

    But this isn’t the case with women. Their physical-attractiveness threshold is a moving threshold, depending on other non-physical characteristics. I think there is definitely a floor to the threshold, but there is definitely a range where the threshold is flexible.

    I sense that you are very hestitant to acknowledge differences between men and women, and that is probably ideologically-based. I certainly don’t know whether to attribute these differences to innate biology or nurtured socialization, but I think you have to acknowledge their existence to have any credibility on these topics.

    Also, your point about ugly chicks having a lot of babies is a complete red herring that I won’t waste the time to explain. To your credit, I found the attempt at logic to be somewhat sexy, so maybe there is something to female IQ.

    LikeLike


  123. on May 14, 2010 at 11:16 am namae nanka

    Morality is a rational hypocrisy.Why do female athletes get respect that strippers don’t when they both use their bodies for the purpose of entertainment?

    “I’m fundamentally bothered by the notion that the society should be ordered in such a way as to, firstly, treat women as a resource, and then strive to “distribute” that resource “fairly.””

    Sex is the true “resource”, combining a woman to it makes it better because men then head a family and are not customers of a brothel.
    I am bothered that men have had been treated as a resource to be given to support each woman.

    ” I’m especially tickled when this notion is advanced by individuals who seem to be otherwise staunchly individualistic and protective of their own right to keep the fruits of their labor.”

    Daughters are the fruits of labour of their parents? Where does the concept of invidualism end?

    “They claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces women to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “amoral nature”, is likely to be more civilized, more productive (a chick in every beta’s oven means that he’ll put in far more than the minimal effort required to survive and afford a few base pleasures), and less violent.
    At the same time, they claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces individuals to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “selfish nature”, is likely to be less civilized, less productive (entitlements destroy incentive to work), and more violent.”

    Do you have proof that it doesn’t?

    “They defend a man’s right to amass vastly greater resources materially, but yearn for a time when there were limits on what he could amass sexually, even though both are presumably due to voluntary “transactions” among consenting parties who each saw a benefit.

    This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I do struggle to see how these two notions are reconcilable.”

    Primitivism is the answer?

    LikeLike


  124. on May 14, 2010 at 11:24 am JB

    “I meet a lot of 130 and even 140+ IQ girls. Most of these women are so masculine that you’d find more femininity among trannys.”

    This is true, but it also happens at lower levels (120+) frequently enough that it completely cancels out any advantages of mental affinity.

    On dumber girls and intimidation: some girls significantly dumber than you are actually looking for a professor/daddy type figure. They KNOW it’s a straight up youth/beauty – wisdom/intelligence trade and don’t mind.

    On IQ and social skills: one advantage of IQ is in many cases a higher level of general knowledge; if one knows a little bit about everything, one can gain rapport with various types of people much easier. Just talk about what they talk about.

    LikeLike


  125. on May 14, 2010 at 11:29 am Dilbert Hole

    polymath,

    The distinction you make is not that subtle, and I certainly get it. I doubt that that distinction is reflective of the general tenor of this blog, and especially of a plurality of the regular commenters.

    Specifically, I think it’s somewhat common here to go beyond merely saying “women can exercise their prerogative, but their ability to do so at my expense should not be codified in law.” There’s much talk about the decay of civilization under the onslaught of the gina tingle. There’s much talk about the evil of giving women a vote, or allowing them to work. There’s much talk of male entitlement to pussy, lest all hell break loose.

    LikeLike


  126. on May 14, 2010 at 11:39 am JB

    “This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I do struggle to see how these two notions are reconcilable”

    They are easily reconcilable if you pull back a bit.

    As I’ve said before, the current status quo is based on the illusion of ABSENCE OF SCARCITY. It is artificially propped up.

    How should society be arranged? Feminism conflicts with individual rights of men at the expense of women. It is group politics par excellence. Why should alimony, e.g. exist except as acknowledgement of female inferiority (and typical hypergamy) in providing for themselves?

    Feminism (and the fruits of its lobbying) are about special privileges, not individual rights. Removing those special privileges would result in a restoration of individual rights, and rebalance the entire societal gestalt.

    In other words, regardless of women would have the legal right to slut around and act on their base natures to the fullest, there would be no artificial propping up to bail them out from the consequences. This in itself would alter social norms and customs.

    Remove the safety net. Very individual.

    LikeLike


  127. on May 14, 2010 at 11:39 am namae nanka

    Puma

    Watched two of them,
    1)People not men, even though it’s 96% it isn’t a men’s issue like say violence statistics.
    2)Alimony laws are ant-feminist…

    Third one has a woman singing about “males” and talks of”divorced male species”…

    The earlier one you posted had women as victims…it’s surreal, for the lack of a better word.

    LikeLike


  128. on May 14, 2010 at 11:41 am JB

    correction to above:

    “regardless of whether women would have the legal right…”

    LikeLike


  129. on May 14, 2010 at 11:50 am GdI

    One of the best posts in many a moon.

    Easy to point fingers at the Swinging 60s, of course, but in the West generally and the USA specifically the rot goes a lot deeper.

    Impolitic now to say it, but things were going along at a pretty good clip in the first few decades of the 20th century in the US of A. Sure, we stupidly gave women the vote – sign of eventual doom, fer sure – but otherwise it was fine and dandy: men ruled the roost, blacks were kept in their place (segregation, while not nice, was based on inalterable socio-biological truths that we all know but wisely shut up about today), average people had no great difficulty supporting themselves and having plenty of kids, etc. Society was intact, organic, and self-sustaining.

    Then, suddenly, it wasn’t. Within a generation or two it all fell apart, and we are living with, and blogging about, the consequences.

    What went down? The war, man. You know, the allegedly good one. Where the Greatest Generation – that would be gramps – stormed Normandy and Iwo, kicked Axis ass, and shut up about it later, or at least till that Spielberg movie, though he probably drank a lot, especially if he did the stuff that Brokaw left out of his dick-sucking book like, you know, fire-bombing enemy civilians by the millions.

    Face it: before WWII, Americans were perfectly comfortable discussing, and implementing, reality, based on all the taboo subects today: gender (always), race and eugenics (“HBD” is the preferred euphemism today). Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame, was a huge admirer of the Nazis (if you think I’m making it up, girls, check it out). It was widely understood that people, especially if dark, or stupid, or criminal, ought not be reproducing much, that women were different than men and had no place in the work world if they were mommies, etc. I could go on and on …

    The tragedy of the war is that, by defeating Nazism and attacking its ideology head-on, we wrecked outselves. The whole Allied and US agitprop about the war was utter nonsense, easy to see that now. Hitler and the gang were cracked, no doubt about it; they killed a lot more fellow whites than black criminals in the USA ever will, and about the Jews they were just nuts … but they were a perversion of a lot of truths.

    When we beat the crap out of them, we insisted on changing ourselves, and transforming ourselves into the post-modern, gynocentric, multicultural, self-hating nightmare that we have quickly become.

    Thanks, FDR!

    LikeLike


  130. on May 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm Comment_Whatever

    someguy said:

    polymath,

    The distinction you make is not that subtle, and I certainly get it. I doubt that that distinction is reflective of the general tenor of this blog, and especially of a plurality of the regular commenters.

    Specifically, I think it’s somewhat common here to go beyond merely saying “women can exercise their prerogative, but their ability to do so at my expense should not be codified in law.” There’s much talk about the decay of civilization under the onslaught of the gina tingle. There’s much talk about the evil of giving women a vote, or allowing them to work. There’s much talk of male entitlement to pussy, lest all hell break loose.

    You are a liberal right? Perpetually alarmed by things that have no chance of actually happening.

    Why don’t you go read about the oil spill. Cause that actually happened. Chimp.

    LikeLike


  131. on May 14, 2010 at 12:02 pm biktopia

    Ploymath.
    In Whiskey’s defense, there is a distinct personality type that is high in IQ and low in social skills, falling at one end of a spectrum.

    I think some people (nerds) had to study so much, they never had time to develope their personalities, they studied since the age of 6 or 7 throughout they where 25, so no wonder their lifestyle didnt give them experience enough to interact with people. Studying takes time, and one has to take time to live and experience as well.

    LikeLike


  132. on May 14, 2010 at 12:07 pm Puma

    Thanks namae nanka. It is surreal like you said.

    As Doug mentioned the craziest lifetime alimony laws currently are in the most “progressive” place like California, Massachusetts, and Ontario (Canada has some pretty f-ed up horror stories).

    But these places aren’t the past, they are the future. If the American Law Institute has its way, these types of crazy alimony regimes will be spread in all US states. Read this New York Times article on ALI’s Alimony Law Change recommendations made a few years back:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/legal-group-urges-states-to-update-their-family-law.html

    People think Alimony is on its way out. Actually it WAS out in the 60’s/70’s. Now there is a concerted effort by powers that be to bring it back big time. (Read the NYT article).

    LikeLike


  133. on May 14, 2010 at 12:13 pm Steve Johnson

    Dilbert Hole

    “They claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces women to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “amoral nature”, is likely to be more civilized, more productive (a chick in every beta’s oven means that he’ll put in far more than the minimal effort required to survive and afford a few base pleasures), and less violent.”

    This is true; compare Africa to Europe and Asia.

    “At the same time, they claim that a society that indoctrinates, shames or outright forces individuals to act in accordance with the greater good, and contrary to their “selfish nature”, is likely to be less civilized, less productive (entitlements destroy incentive to work), and more violent.”

    This is a distortion. There is no society that “indoctrinates, shames or outright forces individuals to act in accordance with the greater good”, there never has been and there never will be; the people doing the indoctrination and forcing actually use that force and propaganda to have others work for their own benefit.

    Even if they wanted to have people work for “the greater good” they wouldn’t be able to figure out how. To do so you have to produce things using resources; directing enterprises in such a way that you get more value in output than you used in input is extremely difficult (this is called profit and even when people are trying to obtain it, they often fail).

    Empirically, these systems produce more violence; about 90 million murders for the top two (yeah, read that number again, 10x the population of NYC).

    “This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I do struggle to see how these two notions are reconcilable.”

    On a simple level, because the first actually works to make a better society and the second doesn’t.

    “I’m fundamentally bothered by the notion that the society should be ordered in such a way as to, firstly, treat women as a resource, and then strive to “distribute” that resource “fairly.””

    Women are a resource; they’re the only way to grow human babies. How the baby making capabilities of women get used determine the genetic make up of the next generation. Women are emotionally immature and make bad decisions for society when allowed to (and when they can afford to). These bad decisions are permanent in that they can destroy a society by completely degrading the quality of it’s members.

    LikeLike


  134. on May 14, 2010 at 12:13 pm Puma

    From the New York Times article:

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 29— An influential group of lawyers and judges has recommended sweeping changes in family law that would increase alimony and property rights for many divorced women, while extending such rights for the first time to many cohabiting domestic partners, both heterosexual and gay.

    The proposals, from the American Law Institute, seek to update family law to reflect changes in society over the last 30 years. One conclusion, for example, is that if a spouse has committed adultery, it should not affect a judge’s decision about alimony or marital property.

    LikeLike


  135. on May 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm Puma

    … read the second NYT article paragraph above. Such laws only benefit:

    A) Philandering Alpha Males (10% of Men)
    B) Hypergamous Women (100% of Women)

    LikeLike


  136. on May 14, 2010 at 12:18 pm Comment_Whatever

    My larger point is not the men at the top of any hierarchy (who do well) but how well the equivalent of the Lockheed skunkworks engineers do. In order for large, complex, and high-return endeavors like oh, I dunno, deep sea oil drilling not to end in disaster, you need to have lots of very smart and on the ball guys. They don’t have to be geniuses, but they do have to be invested. I don’t see how a society of cougars, single moms, and Facebook strippers and Craigslist escorts and Lawyer chicks achieves that.

    Deep sea oil spill.

    Yeah. The physical manifestation of what everyone where is talking about.

    This means:
    1.You should start learning a foreign language with Pimsleur.

    2.You should be under no illusions that it will take less than hundreds of hours to become proficient. This isn’t “Iron Man 2″ where Tony Stark creates a new element in his basement in ten minutes of screen time. This is the real world. And even “merely hard” things are hard. They take time. Lots and lots of time.

    LikeLike


  137. on May 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm JB

    “Hitler and the gang were cracked, no doubt about it; they killed a lot more fellow whites than black criminals in the USA ever will, and about the Jews they were just nuts … but they were a perversion of a lot of truths.”

    In essence, they were a perversion of Nietzsche. An excellent example of what happens when lesser minds attempt to put into practice the ideas of a great intellect.

    “The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance.” How foreign are these words to the modern ear and yet how needed! We are trying to do the impossible by not allowing nature to do its work: culling the weak from the strong.

    LikeLike


  138. on May 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm Sidewinder

    GdI, there is a lot to what you say that I agree with. However, I disagree with your certainty regarding gender and race questions that are still very much up in the air. And that is exactly what I disagree with the relativistic left about as well. They are the opposite extreme, making unsupported leaps of faith that all men and women of all races and cultures are all innately identical. They try to shut down science from even studying the possibility of innate differences. But it is also a leap to say that the results are in. I think foundationally it isn’t even settled what “intelligence” really is.

    But I do agree with you that it is very tragic, and it will be our undoing, that we don’t even allow discussion of the issue of how the population of people who will be net losses on society are increasing in proportion to those that will contribute. The welfare state has insulated huge numbers of dysfunctional personalities and behaviors from the incentives and consequences provided by nature. Just by looking at the numbers projected by 2050…is there any question where we’re headed?

    LikeLike


  139. on May 14, 2010 at 12:31 pm Anonymous

    Hi Doug 1–

    I couldn’t comment on the alimony laws on a state-by-state basis, but according to a good friend of mine, one of those highly dreaded lawyer chicks, alimony is a rare phenomenon. Among her clientele, only unemployed old ladies abandoned by cheating husbands after decades of marriage have a chance of getting it I do live in a community property state, but that impacts both parties equally. A high earning wife or a wife who inherits during the course of a marriage stands to lose as much as a man in that position. In fact, my friend, who divorced her husband as a result of his cheating and physical abuse, is constantly harassed by her ex for money. He amuses himself by suing her and is years behind in child support.

    LikeLike


  140. on May 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm GdI

    Where we are headed by 2050, and before, is abundantly clear to any who wish to see.

    What we have lost is common sense about gender and race (and a lot of other things). Ever-deeper understanding of HBD tends to bear out traditional views of people, that is clear.

    For example, anyone who has spent time in Africa, and isn’t totally blinkered, quickly sees that they, men and women, are very different than we are, about most things. Physically different, very different social and family values. Not saying that’s good or bad – African blacks in general are much more pleasant to deal with than their cousins in the USA, and their sense of family is impressive – but it simply is.

    Stereotypes exist, about everybody, because they are basically true. You need to have a ‘liberal education’ to get confused.

    LikeLike


  141. on May 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm the realist

    British petroleum should tell you yanks to go fuck yourselves. Let the mexicans clean dat shit urrrrrrp

    LikeLike


  142. on May 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm Puma

    Anonymous –
    Read this Wall Street Journal article on Alimony:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html

    Many divorce agreements provide for alimony or spouse-support payments, which is separate from child-support payments. Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise.

    LikeLike


  143. on May 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm Dilbert Hole

    JB,

    Yes, that’s a way to reconcile it; you, polymath and I are all on the same page that, as long as law does not favor one gender at the expense of the other, there’s no conflict. Is that, then, ALL that the hubbub is all about? It doesn’t seem that way, reading these comments. There seems to be quite a bit of ENTITLEMENT in evidence by those claim to be ideologically against entitlements.

    Comment_Whatever,

    Am I a liberal? I don’t think so, but you be the judge. I’m not sure where you detect alarm in what I wrote. Just head-scratching at all the alarmism by people who, by dint of passing themselves off as not liberals, should (according to you) be above that kind of stuff.

    LikeLike


  144. on May 14, 2010 at 12:39 pm Tepid beta spooge

    Jesus. It’s like a fucking Ron Paul website.

    Talk about pussy

    LikeLike


  145. on May 14, 2010 at 1:00 pm JB

    “WASHINGTON, Nov. 29— An influential group of lawyers and judges has recommended sweeping changes in family law that would increase alimony and property rights for many divorced women, while extending such rights for the first time to many cohabiting domestic partners, both heterosexual and gay. ”

    That’s an article from 2002.

    LikeLike


  146. on May 14, 2010 at 1:07 pm JB

    Of course “influential lawyers” want to expand alimony to gays and cohabitants. Naked self-interest here.

    LikeLike


  147. on May 14, 2010 at 1:14 pm Anonymous

    Hi Sidewinder,

    There probably is a baseline of attractiveness that no amount of IQ, humor, or social acumen will compensate for if a woman is not sexually sexually attractive to a man. That’s also probably true in the reverse as well, though I agree that women are somewhat more flexible. But realistically, we I see a Hollywood starlet with an old man or brilliant Quasimodo, my first assumption is that the woman is golddigger. Many men however don’t seem to mind that trade-off. I personally prefer the company of men who would mind, but that goes to values–which are important to me.

    You said, “I sense that you are very hestitant to acknowledge differences between men and women, and that is probably ideologically-based. ”

    Nope, you’re incorrect. I do acknowledge differences between the sexes, some of which are innate. Back when my husand and I were younger and more SWPL, we had a toy gun ban. When our then three year old snapped together out of Bristle Blocks something that looked liked an Uzi without his ever having seen one, we quickly realized that nature, not nurture was at work. We did however nurture his natural aggression into socially positive directions.

    This is where I’m coming from. As a mom of two hetereosexual teenage boys who are begining to notice girls, I’ve done a lot of thinking as to what’s happy and healthy in male/female relations. My personal observation is that the longest-lasting, most mutually pleasing relationships among tne people that I know seem to be based first on common goals and values, then on common interests, then on looks. My advice to my sons–with which my husband concurs BTW–is to look for women in places where they are likely to encounter ones with similar values and interests, then weed out women who aren’t attractive to them. It does seem to me that quality people are harder to find that nice looking ones.

    “Also, your point about ugly chicks having a lot of babies is a complete red herring”

    I hope I clarified that in a later post. I do see enough ugly women with large families to believe that, while all men fantasize about tens, the number one quality that attracts men is availability. Many will have sex with with whoever they can.

    “To your credit, I found the attempt at logic to be somewhat sexy, so maybe there is something to female IQ.”

    And you have no idea as what I look like!!! I’m getting a kick out of that. Thanks!

    LikeLike


  148. on May 14, 2010 at 1:20 pm JB

    Dilbert Hole,

    I think this testifies to the insidious nature of the entitlement society. But that’s why we need to keep commenting. The best solutions are often the simplest.

    LikeLike


  149. on May 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm namae nanka

    “My personal observation is that the longest-lasting, most mutually pleasing relationships among tne people that I know seem to be based first on common goals and values, then on common interests, then on looks. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

    “My advice to my sons–with which my husband concurs BTW–”

    lool beta hubby.

    “is to look for women in places where they are likely to encounter ones with similar values and interests, then weed out women who aren’t attractive to them. It does seem to me that quality people are harder to find that nice looking ones.”

    You advice should be that your sons should have the character to mold the women they marry into what they like and not to be a concurring help mate.

    LikeLike


  150. on May 14, 2010 at 1:30 pm J

    Hi Biktopia,

    And some of those guys are just plain, old Asberger-y. One of my friends, who is a little socially challenged herself, is marrioed to an Asberger-y genius. She has one autistic son, one son with poor social skills and a normal daughter.

    Not sure what the soluition is to that problem, but I don’t see the husband or boys as ever being able to learn game. None are good enough at reading social cues. (I read that Simon Baron Cohen, Sacha’s cousin, as a protocal for teaching the reading of acial expresions. Maybe that’s a better place to start.)

    LikeLike


  151. on May 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm J

    Hi Exsplat,

    “One reason why I recommend to Whiskey to date a few dumb chicks is that it might set him in a better frame of mind for dealing with women altogether.”

    Yeah maybe, but he also might end up getting really shot down by women who are either turned off by his nerdiness (if that is his problem–I don’t know him well enough to judge) or resentful of being a part of that experiement. It’s a risk that he should understand going in or he will be further embittered.

    “Some of us initially approach women as if they were men with boobs.”

    That’s a problem.

    “Appreciation of womanhood that is not just about conversation.”

    LOL, so true. I do want men to appreciate my mind, but not only mind………..

    LikeLike


  152. on May 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm J

    Doug 1–Anonymous was me.

    LikeLike


  153. on May 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm J

    JB

    “Gosh, Miss Smarty Pants, why can’t I have conversations like this with Miss Hottie? All we do is have sex 10 times a week!”

    Thanks for taking a break from your busy schedule with Miss Hottie to comment on my post.

    By the way, smart and sexy aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

    LikeLike


  154. on May 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm Polymath

    J,

    Sacha Baron Cohen has awesome interpersonal skills. The way he pulls off his impostures and gets people to go along and suspend their disbelief suggests that he would be able to game almost any girl into bed (Russell Brand would still outdo him though).

    Yes, it’s funny how assortative mating leads to the increase in autism and Asperger’s. I’m sure my son got a double dose of whatever it is from his mother and me; and neither of us is naturally good at reading social cues. But I suspect autism and Aspergers are the price our society has to pay in order to generate geniuses.

    Everyone can learn enough game to improve their social performance — in my son’s case, enough that he can function normally in social situations without appearing weird, and engage in ordinary conversations. He’ll never be a pickup artist, but he at least has a chance of getting to know enough women that one of them might appreciate him.

    LikeLike


  155. on May 14, 2010 at 1:59 pm Jabberwocky

    Anonymous-

    “Nope, you’re incorrect. I do acknowledge differences between the sexes, some of which are innate. Back when my husand and I were younger and more SWPL, we had a toy gun ban. When our then three year old snapped together out of Bristle Blocks something that looked liked an Uzi without his ever having seen one, we quickly realized that nature, not nurture was at work.”

    The fact that you banned guns (and probably other really fun stuff) from you house of boys, the fact that you had to “learn” that there are biological/psychological differences to males and females, shows that you are and idiot who does not think for herself, you just regurgitate and parrot back what “authority” figures tell you. Every post you make attempting to appear enlightened, intelligent, or clever sickens me to my core. You remind me of my feminist teachers who refused to accept anything that wasn’t politically correct. If I was you, I’d stop trying to teach your sons anything, and send them to this site and The Spearhead instead.

    LikeLike


  156. on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm J

    “lool beta hubby”

    My “beta husand”is a high earning, handsome and intelligent exective in a complex industry who is alpha enough to command the respect of other men. You shoud be so beta.

    “You advice should be that your sons should have the character to mold the women they marry into what they like and not to be a concurring help mate.”

    Men often complain that women look for the “perfect man” and spend a lifetime trying to change him. No one, of course, ever really changes anyone. Why would we want to set our boys up for failure?
    Better to find a compatible mate then waste time trying to undo years of bad upbringing and experiences. I would want them to have real wives, not therapy cases.

    LikeLike


  157. on May 14, 2010 at 2:09 pm Jabberwocky

    “My “beta husand”is a high earning, handsome and intelligent exective in a complex industry who is alpha enough to command the respect of other men. You shoud be so beta.”

    So are a lot of Betas. But does he walk into a room and make ginas tingle? How’d he do with women in High School and College? Why don’t you bring him here and explain why he wouldn’t let his boys play with guns?

    LikeLike


  158. on May 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm J

    Polymath–Love Sacha! Russell Brand, not so much.

    I agree about assortative mating and the price of genius. I didn’t realize that you had a son on the autism spectrum. I think you are right about both his PUA potential and his chances of finding a compatible woman who will appreciate him for what he is. I wish you and your family well with that, and I am sure you are aware of what resources are out there for him.

    Well, I gotta go. Real life calls.

    Nice talking to you.

    LikeLike


  159. on May 14, 2010 at 2:14 pm namae nanka

    “My “beta husand”is a high earning, handsome and intelligent exective in a complex industry who is alpha enough to command the respect of other men. You shoud be so beta.”

    Commander of men, slave at home, boring in bed.

    “Men often complain that women look for the “perfect man” and spend a lifetime trying to change him. No one, of course, ever really changes anyone. Why would we want to set our boys up for failure?”

    Because men are oaks and women are ivies.
    And women grow bored once the man yields.Who wants to crawl on a broken tree?

    “Better to find a compatible mate then waste time trying to undo years of bad upbringing and experiences. I would want them to have real wives, not therapy cases.”

    Compatible mates change over time, both physically and mentally; in most of the cases then they end up in therapy and counselling anyway.But it’s better for both if man keeps the woman compatible to his tastes than the other way round.
    Finding girls that don’t have years of bad upbringing and experiences is gonna be very difficult, unless of course the limit of “bad” is itself in doubt.Do you like the word “slut”?

    LikeLike


  160. on May 14, 2010 at 2:27 pm J

    Jabberwocky,

    I know I’ll kick myself for rising to the bait, but what the hell…

    But does he walk into a room and make ginas tingle? Other womenb gtell me I’m lucky to have such a handsome guy so i guess he does.

    How’d he do with women in High School and College?

    His policy on that has been don’t ask, don’t tell. When we first got together there were reminders of previous women in his flat, but the details of his past don’t interest me.

    Why don’t you bring him here and explain why he wouldn’t let his boys play with guns?

    As I said, we were both more SWPL then. A friend mine quoted this to me: “If you aren’t a liberal in your youth, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative in your middleuyears, you have no brains.” I’m not going to apologize for the ability to learn from experience.

    BTW, our older son loves war strategy games which he plays with my husband. That’s nurture.

    You said, “Every post you make attempting to appear enlightened, intelligent, or clever sickens me to my core.” Then you should probably ignore my posts.

    As I said to Polymath, real life calls. Gonna go cook a nice dinner for my “beta hubby.” 😉 He likes that I’m smart and can cook too.

    LikeLike


  161. on May 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm Jabberwocky

    J-

    “Well, I gotta go. Real life calls.

    Nice talking to you.”

    Why don’t you answer my questions J? Is it getting a little too uncomfortable for your womanly sensibilities around here? Sucks to not be perched so high up on a pedastal that the serfs and plebs get to express their opinions, huh?

    And BTW, I have/had Aspergers, thought mainly in pictures for much of my life, had poor social skills due to an inability to read body language combined with the fact that much of human behavior isn’t really logical, but rather based on emotion and instinct. In all the back and forth about the IQ/social skills correlation, I believe the truth was reached somewhere in the middle. I’d say there is a weak correlation between IQ and social skills. IQ measures quite a few different areas of intelligence, especially now and days with the modern (feminized) tests, so it depends on which intelligences you specialize in and how much you specialize in them. The saying goes, “God doesn’t give with both hands.”, meaning that when you specialize at something, it normally means you have to sacrifice something else. For nerds, athletic ability and social skills are normally sacrificed, and what little natural ability they might have had in those areas further atrophies. Just remember, you can be a genius at one thing, and an idiot at another, and in a greater variety of divergent cognitive (and physical) skills than just math vs social acumen. I think one of the hardest decisions someone has to make is whether to be a renaisannce man, or a specialist. Do we go for adaptable flexibility or find a niche.

    LikeLike


  162. on May 14, 2010 at 2:38 pm Jabberwocky

    J-

    I thought you were leaving. You juked me.

    “BTW, our older son loves war strategy games which he plays with my husband. That’s nurture.”

    So your hubby’s a geek like me. I may grow to like you if you’re a geek lover. What strategy games?

    LikeLike


  163. on May 14, 2010 at 2:41 pm the realist

    @J

    Nice Churchill quote, but i think you’ll find it actually refers to men only. Something more like like this:
    “A MAN who is not liberal in his youth has no heart. A MAN who isn’t conservative in his older years has no brain.”

    Women? they shouldn’t have political opinions at all and should be married to a conservative older man by age 20.

    LikeLike


  164. on May 14, 2010 at 2:45 pm Jabberwocky

    And don’t mind my hate. It happens when I think I smell a feminist, even an ex-feminist. It sounds like your husband started out as a geek, and if your son plays war strategy games, he passed along those genes. You might be geeky also. My pro-geek side is almost, almost, as strong as my anti-feminist side. If you read a bit of an apology in that, well, language is interesting, isn’t it.

    LikeLike


  165. on May 14, 2010 at 5:32 pm Tyrone

    @Vincent Ignatius

    I meet a lot of 130 and even 140+ IQ girls. Most of these women are so masculine that you’d find more femininity among trannys.

    I bet they’re all American too. Go to Ukraine or Russia. There are a lot of goreous and feminine women who are that smart.

    LikeLike


  166. on May 14, 2010 at 7:58 pm xsplat

    J, your idea of finding a mate with compatible interests is an interesting one. I’m sure most men and women have considered similar notions long and hard.

    Rather than look around you and see which relationships that are prospering also show signs of a compatibility of interests, why not instead query men who have had a large number of relationships, and ask them which ones worked out best for them?

    Naka’s advice for the man to mold the woman has more than flippant cleverness in it. The cause of the happiness you are seeing in couples be an initial compatibility of interests, or the compatibility may lie in other areas, and the interests overlapped in time. It’s so easy to overlook the value of leadership in a man, and the strong effect that can have on relationship happiness.

    Some of the relationships I’ve had started out with the deliberate search for compatiblity in areas I was passionate about.

    Those weren’t the ones that worked.

    Chemistry has very little to do with shared values, shared interests. Values are not what enervates and encourages and enlivens a life. That’s not the reason you roll over in the morning and soak up your morning dose of lovin. Values and goals aren’t what makes us want to give, and revel in the taking, of enjoying the small spaces of silence. Values are just stories we occasionally use as conversation fillers. They don’t matter at all.

    Compatibility is chemical.

    LikeLike


  167. on May 14, 2010 at 9:27 pm xsplat

    More on the line of shared values, J, my vaugue recollection of studies of long term relationships is a series of images of no discernible pattern at all regarding compatibility of interests. People with similar personalities, complementary personalities, and widely different – even discordant – personalities.

    It would be just so obvious if all we had to do was find a girl with similar mental attitudes and abilities in order to have a happy fulfilling long term relationship. But that is not what reality shows us.

    The quality most important factor for relationship is, in my mind, is how much the woman respects her man and how much the man expresses the authority vested in him.

    It doesn’t matter if they like the same music.

    LikeLike


  168. on May 14, 2010 at 9:32 pm xsplat

    Bad habit of lazy dyslexic posting without rereading. Impatient to express.

    The most important factors for relationship are the entwined dynamics of the degree of respect the woman has for her man, and the degree to which the man uses this invested authority to lead.

    LikeLike


  169. on May 14, 2010 at 10:34 pm Anonymous

    xsplat says:
    “Far more important than intelligence is the base level of cheerfulness”

    I agree with that. Guys hate women who walk around with a sour look on their faces. We all do want a woman with a good heart.

    LikeLike


  170. on May 14, 2010 at 11:36 pm irony

    “almost no guys want to tell women the obvious”

    1. they wont hear it
    2. they cant hear it
    3. it is met with a justify-rationalise-deny dribble fest
    4. it intrudes with their la-la-land thinking
    5. after a while a man wakes up and realising all the above stops wasting his energy playing Captain Free Therapist
    6. telling them is lancelot-saving-damsel nonsense and many men didnt read that fairytale or grew out of it
    7. engagement just feeds their beast
    8. they love the attention and it feeds their addiction to themselves
    9. Its obvious therefore there’s nothing to tell, and
    10. who cares about their shyte anyway.

    LikeLike


  171. on May 14, 2010 at 11:46 pm Nicole

    On women and intelligence, I tend to “show my ass” a lot online, but offline, I understood long ago that it’s better for a guy to find out sometime later that you’re intelligent, than to find out right away.

    For the first few weeks of a relationship, a woman should do more listening and less talking anyway.

    Showing off leads to dick sizing that a girl shouldn’t be trying to do anyway. She’s looking for a mate not a fight.

    Too many women behave like they’re looking for a fight.

    LikeLike


  172. on May 15, 2010 at 12:58 am Jesus

    Irony,

    it is, you know, this capacity to see things in structure and be able to understand something about feelings and behavior in a clear systematic way… it is masculine. Do not bother trying to explain it to women, they look at it from a different angle: they already ARE this feelings and behavior, so they cannot analyse it in this way. They can sense that we are onto something and agree, but they don’t see the blueprint we see with the meaning we attach to it.

    LikeLike


  173. on May 15, 2010 at 1:01 am Lora

    (J is falling for Jabberwocky and he can’t tell!)

    LikeLike


  174. on May 15, 2010 at 1:51 am Dalrock

    @xsplat
    Compatibility is chemical.

    You make an excellent case in your larger post to this effect. I do think that some base level of shared values are critical in marriage if not in other forms of LTR though. But what is more important is how this develops over time, not just a snapshot taken at engagement. Also, as you point out the husband must lead and the wife must be fundamentally open to that. Otherwise marital bliss will be hell.

    The other problem I have with J’s very common focus on making the perfect match via compatibility is I think this is at the root of a great deal of divorce. The premise is that a marriage will last if only the couple is compatible enough. So when things inevitably don’t live up to the story book version of marriage, one of them (almost always the wife) decides they must not be compatible after all and goes off looking for the right one.

    So for marriage I would say:
    Compatibility is good, chemistry is better, and commitment to sticking it out is essential.

    I cringe for J’s two sons. After reading her posts, especially the “real wife” comments, I have this image of her pushing her sons towards what she would call “sassy” and “spunky”. Her internal meter on potential wife material will be the degree they evoke her “you go girl!” response. All of this even though she and her husband probably went through no small amount of struggle and pain shedding their mutual feminist shackles and evolving toward the very traditional relationship she describes now being so happy with.

    LikeLike


  175. on May 15, 2010 at 2:47 am xsplat

    Dalrock

    You make an excellent case in your larger post to this effect.

    That’s a high compliment. Some may feel my previous efforts at writing poetry and my fascinations with self expression on my blog are signs of an effeminate fascination with the emotional. On the contrary, rhetoric is a masculine art. It’s an art of persuasion.

    Every minute spent practicing that skill is an investment towards being able to seize a future opportunity.

    LikeLike


  176. on May 15, 2010 at 3:35 am Paul

    I agree somewhat with Xsplat and would add the following 2 things are the most critical in an LTR

    1. Physical Compatibility
    2. Spending habits

    If your girl wants expensive gifts game over no matter how attractive she is. If she values prudent economic planning as much as you, you’ve found a keeper.

    LikeLike


  177. on May 15, 2010 at 9:01 am Single Mothers | Unwed Mothers | Bastard Children | Feminism | Considerations

    […] […]

    LikeLike


  178. on May 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm chic noir

    Whiskey Of course, all women find male intelligence HIGHER than average a turn-off (average IQ being the sweet spot)
    Doug’s reply typical whiskey nonsense

    Cosign Doug, women love smart men. At least, smart men with social acumen. The doctor fantasy isn’t dying anytime soon. FYI, there’s a whole genre of romance novels centered around doctors and surgeons.

    whiskey Women love the big shot big man,
    Yes, this is true. As a group we love power.

    whiskey and love being single mothers

    Maybe those who are wealthy enough to afford nannies and the best help but the average working&middle class single mother struggles. Most are often worn down from working 40+ hours in addition to trying to run a home.

    If they are unlucky enough to have male children, by the time those boys reach 13+ years of age, it’s a wash. Yelling doesn’t work anymore and mother-son physical intimidation is a joke.

    LikeLike


  179. on May 15, 2010 at 8:30 pm sestamibi

    Dalrock 10:49–

    You are so right about women not knowing what they want and no man should ever take their “advice” on how to score.

    I am reminded of Dustin Hoffman in “Tootsie”. When he plays Dorothy Michaels, Jessica Lange confides in “her” that all she wants is one alpha to say he wants to make love to her. As Michael Dorsey he tries that line on her and she responds by throwing her drink in his face.

    LikeLike


  180. on May 16, 2010 at 12:02 am Weekend Link Fest – Nonplussed edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord

    […] Chateau: Contrast Is King, Spinsterhood, Bastard Children Are Our Future […]

    LikeLike


  181. on May 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm yoda

    A friend of mine went to MIT, wears wifebeaters, shaved his head and lifts weights all day. women hit on him constantly. “Contrast is king”

    Single motherhood is the natural consequence of the culture of narcissism. These women are too selfish to share parental responsibility or form lasting relationships without exploiting or betraying their partner. Single motherhood is the logical consequence. Their child is all they can make in their utterly meaningless life… either they cash in through divorce or gov’t benefits.

    LikeLike


  182. on May 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm J

    Hi Thursday,

    Thanks for the compliment!

    You said,”Comfort. You need to work really hard not to say shit that will just intimidate the hell out of her. You’ll find yourself biting your tongue alot.”

    It’s not just intimidating the hell out of women–there’s also boring the hell out of people. I know I’ve listened to some fairly geekish male conversation with some interest and understanding that would have had a less intelligent women rolling her eyes, laughing and calling the guy a Poindexter.

    LikeLike


  183. on May 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm Glengarry

    Dear god, what a harridan: http://jezebel.com/5467630/email-interview-with-lori-gottliebs-ex-tim

    LikeLike


  184. on May 16, 2010 at 8:20 pm J

    Hi Jabberwonky–

    Nope, I didn’t juke you, It’s been a busy weekend. Started out with family fun and ended with a call telling me that my friend’s husband of nearly 50 years keeled over and died. I’m pretty sad and worried for her.

    You asked if my husband is a geek. I honestly don’t know how the answer that. Considering all the emphasis on this blog with categorizing and rating people, I doubt you have the only case of Aspergers around here. There aren’t simple answers to your question. You can try to systematize all you’d like, but people are more complex than that.

    My husband’s job involves pulling financial, sales and IT personnel into a cohesive group. He needs to have knowledge of economic and IT issues–that’s geeky, right? He also needs to lead–that alpha–and to exercise social and political skills–not geeky. Yet, he is fairly introverted and needs a lot of decompression time after “dealing with assholes all today.” Geeky? He is a great dad and a faithful husband. Since I’m not 20 years his junior, I guess that makes him a mere “beta provider.”

    To relax, he goes down into the basement and records music in the home recording studio he built. Is that artistic or geekly? He can play, to one degree or another, at least fifteen different instruments. He’s read the freaking LOTR triology through at least once a year in the over 20 years we’ve been married. That’s nauseatingly geeky, but I can’t criticize because I used to be able to recite the dialogue from all three seasons of the original Star Trek. My husband has the nerve to poke fun at this.

    My older son reads two ancient languages (gets his linguist ability from me). He plays classical piano and rock quitar, making him simultaneously geeky and cool. He’s been bullied, but we coached him in the use of sarcasm. Large high school thugs now fear his rapier tongue! He’s a scrawny little SOB, but he’s strong. He plays Halo, Civilization and War Hammer. My husband is working with him on building his infrastructure BEFORE going out to war. My son won an Army engineering award for a science project and then got a D in science. He is extremely disorganized and over-sensitive to stimuli, but also freaking brilliant. We don’t worry about him in the long run, but the school gives us a pain in the ass.

    Our younger is more of a “regular guy.” Great problem solving skills, but still popular. Like my husband he is extremely self-possessed. Baby alpha? Plays rock bass and stoled the show in a school play. Also reads two ancient languages–geek!

    I work currently as a flex-time employee of a non-profit, and I’m a former helping professional–people oriented? I used to be a stay at home mom–traditional. I’m overeducated and, like my husband, hold a Phi Beta Kappa key–bluestocking. As a kid, I liked dinosaurs more than dolls. Still do. I also like horses–atheletic or sublimated nympho? No one else in the family likes either horses or dinos. I enjoy being a wife and mom a lot more than I would have thought possible before I got married. I’m clumsy and extremely myopic; we all are–that’s pretty geeky.

    So, you tell me what we are.

    LikeLike


  185. on May 16, 2010 at 8:47 pm J

    Dalrock–

    “I cringe for J’s two sons.”

    Nice ad hominem response. I thought that sort of thing was considered femmy on this blog. My kids are the last people in this world you need to cringe for.

    After reading her posts, especially the “real wife” comments, I have this image of her pushing her sons towards what she would call “sassy” and “spunky”.
    Her internal meter on potential wife material will be the degree they evoke her “you go girl!” response.

    You have an interesting fantasy life. I can’t remember the last time I referred to someone as “sassy” or “spunky” or said “you go girl.”

    I do view marriage as a parnership though and feel that my husband and I have built a lot by working together towards a common goal while sharing common values. I’d wish that for my sons–unless of course you think an Eastern European mail order bride looking for an American green card would make a better helpmate.

    All of this even though she and her husband probably went through no small amount of struggle and pain shedding their mutual feminist shackles and evolving toward the very traditional relationship she describes now being so happy with.

    Wow, did you get all that out of a toy gun ban? When we were in college the conventional wisdom was that toy guns and action TV made kids disturbed and violent. Who wants that? Then we had actual kids, stopped reading studies and went with our instincts. We’ve raised two pretty dynamite kids. (See response to Jabberwocky for details).

    What you imagine as coming from “no small amount of struggle and pain” was actually the accumulation of all the sorts of changes that naturally come with maturity, assuming the role of parents as opposed to being double income, no kids professionals and simply becoming more conservative with age. It’s a pretty typical pattern for our age/education demographic. It was traumatic, just growing up and out of the extended adolescence so common among educated Americans.

    As to “mutual feminist shackles,” I doubt even as left-wing as he was in college, that my husband who ever have called himself a feminist. Even at my most careerist, I always assumed that marriage and motherhood would be a part of my future. BTW, I never called myself an ex-feminist on this blog; others called me one.

    LikeLike


  186. on May 16, 2010 at 9:37 pm J

    Hi Exsplat,

    It’s been a long weekend, but I wanted to answer you

    “your idea of finding a mate with compatible interests is an interesting one.”

    You are misreading me. I acknowledged the value of chemistry, but said I would advise my sons to search for chemistry or attractiveness among a group of women who were pre-selected for compatible interests AND VALUES. I said I thought it was easier to find an attractive women from that sort of pre-selected group than it would be find a compatible woman by relying first on chemistry. Please understand what I’m saying before responding and critique-ing.

    “Naka’s advice for the man to mold the woman has more than flippant cleverness in it.”

    Well, I wish him luck with that. As seductive as it might be to think a guy is going to find a young hottie and mold her, I don’t think it’s possible. If she’s of legal age, core personality has already been formed.

    “It’s so easy to overlook the value of leadership in a man, and the strong effect that can have on relationship happiness…”

    That’s bgecause with great leadership comes great responsibilty. The sorts of men who think they can mold another adult are generally not ther sort I’d trust with my daughter if I had one.

    “Some of the relationships I’ve had started out with the deliberate search for compatiblity in areas I was passionate about. Those weren’t the ones that worked. ”

    Sorry…

    “Chemistry has very little to do with shared values, shared interests. Values are not what enervates and encourages and enlivens a life…”

    When I came on this board, I specified that I was talking about LTRs and realized that not everyone here was interested in that. Generally, people who wish to build a life together need compatible values first, then compatible interests. For example, my husband and I hold the same valuies about things life family life and money. Therfore, we rarely fight about the stuff most couple do. Some of our interests overlap, mostly as a function of similar IQs. I will listen to him giving me a book report on whatever he is reading and vice versa. We are entertained by a lot of the same things, so we can do some things together that are mutually enjoyable. We also still have “chemistry,” but after more 20 years, the sex would have dried up, a victim of mutual contempt, long ago without the rest.

    “Chemistry” tends to last between 18 months and three to four years according to most studies. Then the brain beomes accustomed to the PEA and oxytocin rushes, and you need to find someone who can provoke a new rush. If you are in it for the short run that’s fine, but that’s not what I was talking about in my initial post. If you are in it for the long run and there’s not real warmth left after the fires die down, then you’re screwed.

    You are right that I could ask men what works, but my question wouldn’t necessarily be for the guys on this blog. If we are back on about my kids, I’m not interested in how to help them succeed in having a string of short term relationships. Our family’s values are FAMILY values. I’d be better often asking men who’ve been successful at that. This blog caters to who difficulty in relating to women.
    And, I didn’t come on here with a question in the first place.

    LikeLike


  187. on May 16, 2010 at 10:30 pm anonymous22

    “editor: um, ok, but i’m not jewish.]”

    I wish it were so, but your surname and your verbal intelligence say otherwise.

    [editor: do you always go around believing everything you read on the internet?]

    LikeLike


  188. on May 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm xsplat

    J, even though you have a well developed and adult personality, don’t you find that some people bring out different aspects of yourself than others?

    A man plays his woman as an instrument. She may be a trombone, or she may be a violin. It’s still his responsibility what music he gets out of her.

    LikeLike


  189. on May 16, 2010 at 10:44 pm xsplat

    I do understand what you are saying about values being important for a lifelong bonding, and what you are saying about chemistry fading.

    However sexual chemistry is like physical attraction – without a base line of it, it’s no go. And the more of it, the better the chance of staying together.

    I do believe that chemistry itself can be a value system.

    It’s mine.

    LikeLike


  190. on May 17, 2010 at 4:16 am xsplat

    I suppose J, we are saying the same thing. You are saying that values are more important than chemistry, and I’m saying that chemistry is more important than values. Really what we are both saying is that our priority, our values, are very important to us and we’d never want to mate with someone who didn’t feel the same way.

    I’m all about generating and maintaining lust and love and fun and excitement and bonds. Some other people are all about project life. Or maybe project children. A mate to them is someone to help with project life, or with project children. To me the mate is the core of what’s fun, and everything else revolves around that.

    Now you may say that’s not stable. What if it’s no fun – it will all fall apart.

    And that’s why I’m having this discussion with you – to show you that from a man’s perspective, if the wife want’s the man just in order to contribute to project life, even after all the fun is gone, well, that’s just fucked up and no one will be happy.

    A man has to keep his wife excited, and on her toes. And if you don’t start out with strong passion to begin with, then at best you’ll have a companionate relationship. Some people like that. Good god, my requirements are far higher. I burn with fire and intensity and need regular passionate communion, steady doses love, regular injections of strong chemistry.

    I imagine a security minded woman would freak to think a man would want to base his relationship on chemistry. Some women, and even some men, refuse to admit the power and success of this focus.

    Chemistry is very much like a religion. You know how in high school there were a few guys who were way into music? The got off on it so much that it was a drug, a cause, a purpose? I’m still like that about chemistry. My life is always infused with passion and glow and sexual music. I breathe it and burn it. It is my fuel.

    Anything less, and I’d be just like all the walking zombies I see out there on the street, with their so called wives. Good god. They call that a life?

    LikeLike


  191. on May 17, 2010 at 4:49 am xsplat

    One of the great dangers men face, is his wife having the values of mental communion and shared goals for project life. This is deadly for men. After the kids come, she’ll assume that he no longer wants her to wear a miniskirt in public. She’ll assume that it’s no longer about the sex. The it’s just about being together.

    Then they’ll fuck less and less, she’ll focus on the kids more, maybe a small career, and then why are they together?

    Sacrifice for the future? It’s a bogus idea. Sacrifice for the children? Again, bogus. Where does the buck stop? Life isn’t about an end goal, it is about each today. You don’t get to bring your kids or money with you when you die. So that’s why chemistry is essential – it’s impossible to feel alive without it.

    At least it is for men like me with a high requirement for stimulation and with a high sex drive and intense romantic and sexual fire. We’d rather commit suicide than live a dull life.

    For the kids. For the marriage.

    Bleh.

    LikeLike


  192. on May 17, 2010 at 7:06 am anonymous22

    “editor: do you always go around believing everything you read on the internet?]”

    Not always, but in this case there is overwhelming evidence that you have a Jewish-sounding last name. And your own writing is proof of your high verbal intelligence.

    On top of that, you hail from New Jersey.

    I suppose it’s plausible that you have a Jewish father and a Catholic mother and were not raised Jewish.

    [editor: check your priors.

    i repeat my question: do you always go around believing everything you read on the internet? think carefully about alternative explanations. heh.]

    LikeLike


  193. on May 17, 2010 at 8:41 am sdaedalus

    *Ahem* high verbal intelligence is not a prerogative of the Jewish people. There are many Catholics with high verbal intelligence too. It’s all that confessional practice we get.

    LikeLike


  194. on May 17, 2010 at 9:21 am Jabberwocky

    j-

    “You can try to systematize all you’d like, but people are more complex than that.”

    Complex? Sure. Too complex to systemize? Hardly.

    And J, your family is 100% geekizoids. (No offense to them, they are my people.)

    Just admit you used to chase after Alphas, couldn’t snag one, and now don’t want to admit that you married a high achieving Beta geek, the type of guy you used to look at with disdain back in your youth. Your female backward rationlization is in over-drive, isn’t it. Why else would you have married late. Women don’t evolve, you are simply oppurtunistic.

    I label you:

    Hypocritus-Ex-Feminastus

    You will be systemized, resistance is futile.

    LikeLike


  195. on May 17, 2010 at 9:24 am Jabberwocky

    BTW J-

    Playing music is actually geeky. Many rock musicians and such are geeks, even many lead singers.

    LikeLike


  196. on May 17, 2010 at 11:17 am Dalrock

    @J

    What you imagine as coming from “no small amount of struggle and pain” was actually the accumulation of all the sorts of changes that naturally come with maturity, assuming the role of parents as opposed to being double income, no kids professionals and simply becoming more conservative with age. It’s a pretty typical pattern for our age/education demographic.

    I agree that the direction of your shift is very common. But the degree of your shift is really quite large. You went from being part of the PC orthodoxy when first married, to lecturing on this board about family values and explaining how you have to go make your husband dinner.

    Growing up and accepting reality is a good thing, but given your repeated professions of high IQ on this thread you strike me as amazingly lacking in self examination. You have never considered why couples always move from more feminine (liberal) worldviews to more masculine (conservative) ones. You say time and experience, but the data says the same isn’t true for unmarried women. Your husband has molded you a great deal. That is as I said a positive thing. My only point is that your dogmatic denial of the fact could harm your sons in ways you haven’t ever considered.

    And, I didn’t come on here with a question in the first place.

    ah, that is the point isn’t it? You came to teach, not to learn. But you came to teach something you have absolutely no experience with.

    I’m not interested in how to help them succeed in having a string of short term relationships. Our family’s values are FAMILY values. I’d be better often asking men who’ve been successful at that. This blog caters to who difficulty in relating to women.

    Whether for a one night stand or a lifetime of marriage, men need to know how to make a woman fall for them. Just like starting a fire, the basics are the same whether you want to build a bonfire for a week, or a small fire to cook a meal. If you can’t manage the basics of the spark, growth, etc, you will be cold and hungry.

    Anyway, real life intrudes. I have to go tell my wife what to make me for dinner.

    LikeLike


  197. on May 17, 2010 at 11:45 am Anonymous

    Hi Jabberwocky,

    I’ll allow you systemize to your heart’s content because I know that you need to with the Aspergers and all. I’ll even cop to some personal geekiness and raise you my own personal comic book and Mad magazine collection that my idiot mother threw out when I left home because she thought it was trash. I won’t however let insult my husband because he is the most self-possessed guy I’ve ever known, and I really think that’s pretty alpha. At least, it gets him the respect you guys think alphas get.

    I hate to disappoint you, but, if my husband is a geek, then I’ve never been an alpha chaser. (Maybe that’s why I advised Whiskey to find a girl who would like him for himself. I really believe it’s possible.) I’ve never been attracted to football heros, gangstas, muscle boys, thugs or the like. (If that’s alpha, you have nothing to envy.) Always musicians, artists, writers, one biologist/martial arts instructor, and weirdly enough a disproportionate number of left-handed men. (I like those right-brained guys!) I didn’t settle. I got was I was looking for–a guy who was my type, but wanted to have a family. Unfortunately, that was not easy to find.

    Why did I marry late? A number of reasons–skittish child of divorce, too bright to be attracted to average guys, too bright for dumb guys to be more than physically attracted to me (no loss), lots of the artsy guys I was attracted to were crazy or self-destructive, not young during a time when intellectuals valued early marriage, career-oriented, the belief that I had all the time in world. However, if I had met my husband ten years earlier, I’d have married him then.

    Here’s some good news. If the dweebier among you think the cause of your unhappiness is not being alphas, your wrong. If I am a geek-lover, then I’m far from a rarity. There must be a whole subset of women who love geeks. You should go find one.

    Most of the women I know are married to guys like mine. And while I may be speaking of self-selected group, then it seems to me you need to find a similar, self-selected milieu in which you can succeed.

    LikeLike


  198. on May 17, 2010 at 11:48 am J

    Jabberwocky–I just posted something to you, but it’s not appearing.

    Xsplat–Gotta go to work. WIll anwser you later.

    LikeLike


  199. on May 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm Jabberwocky

    “Here’s some good news. If the dweebier among you think the cause of your unhappiness is not being alphas, your wrong. If I am a geek-lover, then I’m far from a rarity. There must be a whole subset of women who love geeks. You should go find one.”

    I’ll allow the naive condescension to slide, as you probably didn’t mean it to come off like that, but asking geeks to buck up at the same time you dance around whether you are even a geek lover to begin with does not sound very sincere.

    A whole subset you say? Well, I guess growing up in the dirty south I was culturally isolated from said subset. Your more of an Artsy chaser anyways, which has significant overlap with Geekdom, but don’t confuse the two.

    “Most of the women I know are married to guys like mine. And while I may be speaking of self-selected group, then it seems to me you need to find a similar, self-selected milieu in which you can succeed.”

    Don’t assume shit about me. My resentment and jaded nature evolved during a sexless youth in a feminized education sytem burdened with dysfunctional family, and even then, by geek standards, I still did pretty, but just because I wasn’t the worst player on the field, doesn’t mean I don’t mind that the game is rigged. I just knew my worth, unlike hypergamous females of my level who only played out of their LTR league for serial polygamous relationships and one night stands with Alphas, instead of being realistic, or as women call it, “settling”. Plus, I was conned by a feminist mother into being a “NiceGuy”, which was my biggest problem, hence my desire to exact revenge against the feminist movement today. I wish it was more noble than that, but revenge can be a source of justice. Cause and effect.

    “However, if I had met my husband ten years earlier, I’d have married him then.”

    You’re telling me no one ever met your standards before your husband? Not one guy was good enough for you? How good looking are you? You sound as if you were truly burdened with an abundance of choices. You had to find that one guy who was just right. Why not, men came easily to you.

    “Always musicians, artists, writers, one biologist/martial arts instructor, and weirdly enough a disproportionate number of left-handed men. (I like those right-brained guys!) I didn’t settle.”

    Those types are often Alphas. It takes balls to try to make it on your own wits. I don’t see many accountants, plumbers, or engineers in there. Are you sure you didn’t ride the cock carousel of Alphaness round and round until you got all dizzy and decided a stable Beta husband provider to spawn your cute little geeklings would be a better bet. Evolved? Or oppurtunisitic? I seriously need to discuss with your hubby and I need to see what he and you look like. Why do I have a funny feeling your the attractive one of the pair?

    And by the way, I’ve yet to be convinced that you have a high IQ. You aren’t stupid, but I havn’t heard one pearl of wisdom, one unique thought. You probably just have a good recall memory. So do computers.

    LikeLike


  200. on May 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm namae nanka

    J

    “Well, I wish him luck with that. As seductive as it might be to think a guy is going to find a young hottie ”

    Thank you, it’s not so much a hottie per se but a girl with a specific face.

    “and mold her, I don’t think it’s possible. If she’s of legal age, core personality has already been formed.””

    Most women don’t have a core, they just feel they do.The older they get the more “mature” they feel.Especially when comparing themselves to boys of their own age.

    “I also like horses–atheletic or sublimated nympho?”

    Horse rider.

    “Our family’s values are FAMILY values. I’d be better often asking men who’ve been successful at that.”

    From whom?Men over 60?
    “Family values” are a sense of duty, the love and compatibility talk is schmaltz.
    If your sons have a concept of duty: in that case it’s better that they marry girls who don’t have the same values as they do, so that they may have some years to discover each other and have a sense of mystery.
    With the warning that they don’t confuse duty with devotion.
    From an old school believer, of the belief that opposites attract the hardest.

    “This blog caters to who difficulty in relating to women.”

    lol and so do the marriage conuselling sessions.

    It’s been fun.

    LikeLike


  201. on May 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm J

    Well, I knew that trying to explain how and where we fit into categories was going to be a problem. The criteria keep switching. Fit us into whatever slot you want to. I really don’t care.

    I’m sorry that you’ve had the experiences that you’ve had, and I understand that they could make you bitter.

    As to my husband, I’ve said over and over that “like attracts like.” I think that my husband and I are pretty equally matched in things like looks, IQ, education, values, tastes, etc. Most married couples are.

    As to my abundance of choices, please read more carefully. I listed the sort of men I’d been attracted to, not necessarily been involved with. Perhaps I shot down a few guys, but I got shot down a lot too. People generally don’t get to be with everyone they find attractive. You get the feeling that I broke hearts and settled for a beta because that’s the usual narrative on this site.

    I had a couple of close brushes with marriage, both with guys pretty similar to my husband, but things didn’t work out. In both cases, the guys did some pretty problematic things. You all can feel free to laugh, but my husband offered the whole soulmate thing that blew up in my face with the other two. I wasn’t settling for some beta provider, as he din’t have much when we met. He was working in a meaningful but not lucrative field. That he later turned out to be a good provider was a lucky extra, but I worked full-time until the kids came so I feel I carried my end of the load.

    As to pictures or other identifying info, we don’t do that on the net. (Safety first!) Take my word for it, or don’t.

    LikeLike


  202. on May 17, 2010 at 7:18 pm Anonymous

    We R fukd!

    LikeLike


  203. on May 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm Thor

    @j r:
    “Why are women are attracted to tall men? because women
    are attracted to tall men. Women who pass on tall
    men’s genes have more success than women who pass
    on short men’s genes, so attraction to tall
    men becomes dominant among women.”

    Ah, that’s the problem with using sexual selection to explain
    various phenomena. The problem is, the method has TOO MUCH
    power, almost any observable trait can be explained as
    being caused by sexual selection. This, absent additional
    evidence, makes the argument highly suspect.

    @polymath
    long explanation around “So by removing the set of women
    with neither beauty nor brains from the sample,
    you are removing a set with a positive correlation
    so that the correlation among the remainder drops sharply,
    and in fact goes negative. ”

    Yup. I observed this in my – highly selective – high school.
    To get in, you needed serious grade point average. This
    produced the curious effect that among the selectees
    (unlike in the population in general) language and math
    talents were observably either uncorrelated or even
    negatively correlated.

    @dilbert hole:
    “They claim that a society that indoctrinates,
    shames or outright forces women to act in
    accordance with the greater good,
    and contrary to their “amoral nature”,
    is likely to be more civilized, more productive
    (a chick in every beta’s oven means that he’ll put
    in far more than the minimal effort required
    to survive and afford a few base pleasures),
    and less violent.”

    Maybe some do. But bear in mind, the hypergamous
    female lifestyle is NOT based on freedom from state intervention. On the contrary, it REQUIRES massive
    state subsidies, including facilitating divorce
    theft, alimony etc. A society does not have to
    “force” women to act contrary to their nature.
    It just has to let women – and men – take the full consequences of their actions.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  204. on May 17, 2010 at 10:06 pm xsplat

    Mike

    A high IQ guy who puts his brains to work learning game and who is able to learn to live in the moment is a poster child PUA.

    High IQ guys should consider it an important aspect of personal development to spend some regular portion of their time in non-conceptual activities. Sports is OK, but zen is ideal – especially during the window of delepment that is the teen and early twenties years.

    Resting in non-conceptual awareness is a boon to PU artistry. And just enjoying life.

    LikeLike


  205. on May 18, 2010 at 2:10 pm Jabberwocky

    “You get the feeling that I broke hearts and settled for a beta because that’s the usual narrative on this site.”

    Sure J. You’re perfect then. I can’t find a single chink in your feminine armor. You’ve lived a noble and honest existence, never used or betrayed men in any form, are the perfect wife and working mother with a high IQ and probably a great body too. Queer however, how you dance around certain questions of mine…almost….like I’m zeroing in on some truths you’d rather not face….or maybe, you ARE just perfect. You have a high IQ allegedly, so which one is more statistically likely? What should I believe? That you are perfect, or just full of bullshit gilded in calm obsfucating rhetoric?

    “I’m sorry that you’ve had the experiences that you’ve had, and I understand that they could make you bitter.”

    Seriously, do you try to sound so condescending or is it just a natural gift. I bet you’ve got your husbands ball’s in a verbal vise and he doesn’t even realize it.

    And FYI, I don’t get bitter. I getting fucking enraged. And then I take that rage and I push it all the way down to my gut where I let if ferment, and then, when it is ripe and stinky, I regurgitate it like a demonic cow and then proceed to get lifted by the toxic, noxious brew by main-lining it straight into my veins. Then I drunkenly go forth into a world full of fabricated realities and false beliefs to rape babies and torture virgins, all the while listening to Beethoven on my IPod of course, I’m not uncultured, and thats just for breakfast. You really don’t want to know what I do for lunch. But you see, I’m not bitter at all because I’m at peace with all that. You could say I’m Zen with my diet of hate. So bitter? No, no, J, I’m having way too much fun to be bitter. I’m way beyond bitter. I’m more of a force of nature at this point. I just am.

    And J, I’m not nearly as impressed with you as you are with yourself. Your ability to self reflect is restricted by an emotionally driven female rationlization system boosted by a high IQ. I think you’re so clever you’ve managed to trick yourself, but I’m not fooled. Tell me your dark secrets, tell me you failings, and don’t spin them, and then maybe I might put some stock in the other things you say. If not, you’re wasting everyone’s time here who wants to debate things honestly and openly, rather than be lectured by a women hiding behind a veil of unblemished purity.

    LikeLike


  206. on May 18, 2010 at 7:53 pm J

    Jabberwocky–

    Wow, this has escalated to a place where I really didn’t want it go. I really am sorry that things have gone badly for you, and I’m sorry our conversation has upset you. I’m also sorry if that comes off condescending, but when you insult people’s families and ask someone if they’ve ridden the “cock carousel,” you put them on the defensive and you really are lucky if a little condescension is all you get.

    Am I what I claim to be ? Yeah, I think I am, but this is the last place I’d expose “chinks in my feminine armor.” Hell, if people here hate women for their virtues, what would they do with their failings?

    I don’t feel that I’m perfect, but I am bright and I am a good wife and mother. How good-looking I am is purely subjective. I have my failings and my share of people who don’t like me. Over the years, I’ve learned to work on some of those failings and find people who can accept the stuff I can’t fix. I’m sure I’ve hurt some people, but I’ve also been hurt. I’m sure I’ve hurt my husband at times but it goes both ways. That happens in a marriage. You learn to forgive. If I strike you as someone who can put my husband’s balls in a verbal vise, I assure that he can give as good as he gets. However, we both know where the line is drawn, and neither one of us will destroy the relationship by crossing it.

    As to using and betraying, no, I don’t think so. Never cheated, never was a golddigger. Don’t even have good “womanly wiles”–lot of men find me too direct. Somewhere, I’m sure there’s a guy or two or ten that thinks I’m a bitch, but there are several men on my bastard list as well. Shit happens. You take your lumps, and you get over it.

    Or you let it poison you.

    LikeLike


  207. on May 18, 2010 at 8:02 pm J

    Namae,

    I thought most of your post was BS, but this cracked me up:

    “I also like horses–atheletic or sublimated nympho?”

    Horse rider.

    LikeLike


  208. on May 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm Anonymous

    Paternity testing in the pre-nup!

    LikeLike


  209. on May 19, 2010 at 11:48 am J

    Hi Exsplat,

    Sorry I’ve taken so long to respond to you. A friend of the family lost her husband of 48 years a few days ago, and I’ve been involved with trying to help take care of her. It’s a devastating situation.

    ‘J, even though you have a well developed and adult personality,

    Thanks, some here would say that’s impossible because, as a woman, I have no core.” 😉

    “don’t you find that some people bring out different aspects of yourself than others?”

    Sure.

    “A man plays his woman as an instrument. She may be a trombone, or she may be a violin. It’s still his responsibility what music he gets out of her.”

    That’s only true in one room of our house, at least when thre kids are home. 😉 Otherwise, I’m pretty autonomous. My husband values that BTW; he wouldn’t enjoy directing me and loses patience with people who need a lot of direction. He directs people for a living and doesn’t want to do that at home.

    “I do understand what you are saying about values…Chemistry is like physical attraction …the more of it, the better the chance of staying together.”

    Yeah, I concur that you and I really value a lot of the same things but rank them differently. It’s interesting to hear your perspective on that.

    ‘”m all about generating and maintaining lust and love and fun and excitement and bonds.”

    OK, sometimes doing that in a serial fashion is about being addicted to one own PEA and oxytocin, but if you say it’s a value in your case, I’m going to believe you.

    “Some other people are all about project life. Or maybe project children. A mate to them is someone to help with project life, or with project children.”

    I know people like that, but I think you are wrong to dismiss family life in that fashion. Even if a man is helping with what you call “project life” that doesn’t mean that is all he is or does. There are also men who really do love/want their kids. Not every family man is an unhappy “Herb.” Take my word on this one as I am taking yours.

    It kills me BTW that there is so much fear of the “Idiocracy” scenario of bright people not reproducing, but so much contempt for those who do.

    “To me the mate is the core of what’s fun, and everything else revolves around that. Now you may say that’s not stable. What if it’s no fun – it will all fall apart.”

    If you want to have fun, have fun. But why is there so much contempt on this blog for the guys who are doing the heavy lifting of keeping society alive?

    “if the wife want’s the man just in order to contribute to project life, even after all the fun is gone, well, that’s just fucked up and no one will be happy.”

    Yeah, I know. Despite Jabberwocky’s desire to label my husband a “beta provider,” I assure you I needed more than that and that my husband needed more than a Strepford wife.

    “A man has to keep his wife excited,”

    Yep!

    “And if you don’t start out with strong passion to begin with, then at best you’ll have a companionate relationship”

    I’m all for passion, but it’s not enough. I’ve seen passionate couples with no values in common rip the hell out each other and sometimes sadly their kids. The luckiest people get both passion and compatibility. I do hear what your saying though.

    “Some people like that. Good god, my requirements are far higher. … My life is always infused with passion and glow and sexual music. I breathe it and burn it. It is my fuel.”

    This is all very poetic and moving, very powerful. One could easily get swept away. My one reservation is the women you are with. Is this what they ultimately want?

    I don’t want to second guess your life personally, but the scenario of an older man in Asia with a bunch of young babes suggests a couple of things to me, just as my life seems to suggest certain things to you. There’s the obvious idea that while you want passion, they want marriage, security and American citizenship. I’m not suggesting that you give in to golddiggers, but I think that people really need be honest with each other about their limits.

    Alternatively, some of these women may really be taken with you. There are women, who for various reaons, have a strong need to be with an older man. My oldest and dearest friend lost her father when she was 12. She dated a number of men her own age, but they didn’t fill that hole in her personality. She found a “daddy” who did. While he verbally told her that he’d never marry again, he managed to somehow keep her in his thrall romanitically for years. She wasted her reproductive years on him. There was a bitter break up when she hit middle age and he needed a new babe. Then he had a major stroke and now lives a nursing home. Ugly, sad situation.

    I’ll believe if you if say this isn’t you and that you really believe the woman want, need and enjoy the ride, but I think a man who is playing daddy needs to play fair. My friend should have taken her lover at his word, but most good women don’t believe it. The golddiggers are of course smarter and more realistic. You gotta know that going in.

    “Anything less, and I’d be just like all the walking zombies I see out there on the street, with their so called wives. Good god. They call that a life?”

    I’ll believe that your relatinships defy the common pattern if you do the same for me.

    “After the kids come, she’ll assume that he no longer wants her to wear a miniskirt in public.”

    I think you are overgeneralizing here. I’ve always been a fairly modest dresser; my husband actually likes that. It was part of the initial attraction; a modestly dressed woman with curves that couldn’t quite be hidden. I don’t “assume” that he wants me to dress modestly; I’ve been told to.

    I once dated a guy who would urge me to wear more revealing clothes. I felt like he needed to display me in order to boost his credibility with other guys, so I dumped him. OTOH, I respect my husband’s wishes and feel valued by them.

    “She’ll assume that it’s no longer about the sex. The it’s just about being together.”

    Sex is part of being together. Women have needs too; even married women. Maybe more than single women because they are depending on one guy to satisfy them.

    “Sacrifice for the future? It’s a bogus idea. Sacrifice for the children? … We’d rather commit suicide than live a dull life.”

    I’m the last person to sell someone who doesn’t want kids on having some. It’s bad for all concerned. But I don’t think you should overgeneralize from your situation to others. I will try not to as well.

    I am trying to listen to you with understanding and have enjoyed hearing your perspective. Thanks for writing.

    Gotta go.

    LikeLike


  210. on May 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm Jabberwocky

    J, You are so full of shit.

    You have been the most challenging personality for me to connect with on any level, of anyone I have encountered on the web yet. Keep in mind, one shares a connection with their enemies. You are neither my enemy or friend, because I don’t know who you are. You are not an acquaintence, or even a face in the crowd, but rather a vague illusion on the horizon. You talk a lot, but say nothing. I don’t know any belief systems you have or philosophical convictions you believe in. Your overriding philosophy seems to be, “Don’t rock the boat.”, and you seem to hold this up as an ideal. As a vassel of knowledge, you appear either empty or full to me, neither of which is healthy. Its ironic that you continue to condescend to me, yet can’t even read when I am being hyperbolic and flip, which shows your true lack of understanding of who I am. J, everyone in my life, everyone, either loves me, or loves to hate me. You seem ambivalent to me, ambivalent to yourself, and only mildly curious about everything, and passionate only where it is expected of you. I have/had Asperger’s, but you seem far more Autistic than I.

    “I’m also sorry if that comes off condescending, but when you insult people’s families and ask someone if they’ve ridden the “cock carousel,” you put them on the defensive and you really are lucky if a little condescension is all you get.”

    How did I insult your family. If anything, I wanted to understand them and you, but you offer up nothing but homonginized drivel that paints a picture of a family that could only exist in a made for TV movie. You don’t paint it to be bland, but its just another generic landscape painting by a hack starving artist, and it hurts my eyes to try to see it as beauty.

    You do not see the beauty in decay and deformity, or the goodness in rage or hate, and your family appears to lack these things.

    “I have my failings and my share of people who don’t like me. Over the years, I’ve learned to work on some of those failings and find people who can accept the stuff I can’t fix.”

    God Damnnit J! Tell me specifics! Tell me why some people haven’t liked you! Did you emotionally stone wall them like me! Show some fucking anger at least! Have you ever felt an innapropriate emotion or had an grotesque idea? You cannot become sublime with out reaching into the void of darkness. You are not complete. You are holding back. Make me like you. I like everyone, even my enemies, but they are complete people. And don’t tell me that you are complete, show me. Instead, you only bore me, and by that I am paradoxically motivated to understand you that much more. Stop thinking of what to say, and say the things you don’t want to say. Be normal.

    “you really are lucky if a little condescension is all you get.”

    Attack me please! Do you not see how this would do us both a favor! I can’t figure out how you think when you are on your pedastal looking down on me, I need you to wrestle with your mind in the mud, where my mind is, in the dirt and earth that sustenence arises from, not the clouds where your head is!

    “Hell, if people here hate women for their virtues, what would they do with their failings?”

    We would accept you.

    Your turn.

    LikeLike


  211. on August 16, 2010 at 11:08 am Anonymous

    “it makes a twisted Darwinian sense that the smartest women would fail to adequately reproduce to replacement level.”

    Unless something has happened to make this true today but not true in the past, it was true in the past. It was true all along. Which would mean that in the past, humanity was a race of super-geniuses. The smartest women in the past failed to adequately reproduce to replacement level. An unimaginable amount of smarts was bred out of us long ago.

    But obviously that is not true about the past, is it? Then you have to agree that it’s not true about today either. Intelligence is related to amount of children born, but that’s not where the idiocracy comes from. Keep searching. It isn’t a nice answer.

    LikeLike


  212. on September 15, 2010 at 6:48 am Rarfy

    You have an odd split-personality. On one hand you wring your hands about how terrible this ‘brave new world’ is, and on the other hand you talk about how it benefits you because you like to casually bang broads by the boatload.

    I don’t understand. I love the way society is right now… I think men specifically are the freest they’ve ever been in history. I’m dating a few women right and loving it. No pressure to marry or have kids, and no desire for either. I would never write in a blog how the US is going to “implode” or anything like that. How you can endlessly complain about something that’s so allegedly beneficial to you.. I just don’t get it.

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    trav777 on Fantasy: Homeric Obama. Realit…
    trav777 on Natural Conservatives!
    trav777 on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    markgm28 on Sweden Vs Norway
    trav777 on Sweden Vs Norway
    Tatless & Beardl… on Betrayal Is A Woman’s…
    trav777 on Betrayal Is A Woman’s…
    Thor on Fantasy: Homeric Obama. Realit…
    FastEddie on Demography Is Destiny
    chuck norris on Fantasy: Homeric Obama. Realit…
  • Top Posts

    • Betrayal Is A Woman's Heart
    • Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Oddly Acquainted With Western Feminist Propaganda
    • Sweden Vs Norway
    • NPC Culture, In One Meme
    • Battlebrows As Portent Of Sociopath America
    • The Three Abrahamic Religions, Abbreviated
    • Don't Help The Leftoid Media Sway Elections
    • Natural Conservatives!
    • Oy, There It Is
    • Women's Sports Will Be Killed Off By Invasive Trannies
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: