Evolution Toward Immortality?

This is not my thought. It’s a transcribed comment from a science group I follow.

Evolution isn’t done with us yet…and the latest innovations may well be still in their ‘Beta’ phase i.e. unreliable and not yet fully functional.

One of the major components of cellular aging is the shortening of telomeres: the protective ends of chromosomes. But there is a cure for this shortening problem.  It is called telomerase, the enzyme that can lengthen telomeres and so, in many cases around the human body, restore youth or halt aging.

Why doesn’t telomerase reactivate?  Every cell in the body has the formula for telomerase written into its DNA, so transcription is possible.

But the only cellular population that switches telomerase back on (apart from during our period of maturation) is cancer.  And cancer tends to prefer damaged or old tissue.

Is it possible that evolution is trying to figure out a way to switch telomerase back on for old or damaged tissue, but the process, far from perfection, screws up each time and we end up with cancer instead?

It is an intriguing thought ~ that when evolution finally gets it right then some of the most prominent manifestations of aging will gradually disappear, perhaps leaving the majority of the population to age gracefully into their early 100s and, perhaps, beyond!!

A dizzyingly pregnant hypothesis. Seems to me the key to unlocking the human potential for almost infinitely youthful lifespans lies in a full understanding of cancer — that most mysterious of afflictions — and how to corral its cruel destructiveness into something beneficial.

A lifespan measured in the hundreds of years, the great majority of those years lived in prime time vigor, a world of 80-year-old rock hard boners saluting at full mast and breasts pointing skyward joyously defiant of gravity, would so radically alter humanity’s relationship with just about every social, political and religious institution I can think of that predictions on the matter are futile. But you’re free to try.

Read Full Post »

Drive-By Teases

An often unremarked (partly because it goes against the reigning feminist narrative) structural unfairness between the sexes is the amount of effort the average man has to put into dating and relationships to keep them going, compared to the feeble efforts women usually expend on dating momentum and relationship management. The fact is that men (without game) *do* have to commit more energy to courtship and relationships because young, fertile women are the sex in higher demand. Women have to do all of not messing up their looks. (The effort to apply make-up and buy stylish, sexy clothes is nothing compared to the psychological, provisioning and logistical efforts men bring to the table.)

But as we here at the Chateau are fond of saying: life is unfair. Get used to it. Double standards exist and aren’t going anywhere because many of them are emergent properties of fixed, innate sex-based characteristics. Men have no more moral basis to bitch about dating energy expenditure than do women about slut shaming.

But thanks to the wonders of game, men can limit their relationship energy requirements while maximizing the impact each unit of spent energy has on women’s interest levels. In layman’s terms, men can easily spice up relationships (and dates) with almost no effort by employing the drive-by tease. Examples:

• Flush the toilet when she’s in the shower.
• Snap wet towel at her butt. (Should just barely cross line of genuine pain.)
• “Happy Valentine’s Day!” [give her a wrapped box of condoms]
• Put a “pinch my butt” post-it note on her back as she’s heading out for work.
• Slip her car into neutral when she’s driving. (Note: not recommended on women with exceptionally bad driving skills.)
• Turn the light off or unplug her dryer when she’s doing her hair.
• Pretend to throw her cat out the window. (A full throwing motion accompanied by frantic mewing will boost dramatic effect.)
• Never miss a chance to turn a serious question into a glib answer.
• Pretend to accidentally cut off your finger in the kitchen. (Use gobs of ketchup.)
• Replace her cosmetics with crayons.
• Put her panties on her cat (Don’t put them on the dog if the dog is yours. There are some lines not meant to be crossed.)
• Draw smiley faces or penises on her tampons.
• Paint a picture of her. With great fanfare, unveil a stick figure drawing.
• Pull weeds from the yard. Put them in a vase with a sincere love note attached. (Act offended if she doesn’t swoon for your weeds. Keep up the pretense for weeks.)
• Place a giant stuffed animal or clown doll in bed, facing her. When she wakes up, she’ll freak.
• Walk around casually at home with your dick hanging out of your jeans crotch. Call her a perv for noticing.
• Turn her shirts inside out.
• Put a Baby Ruth in her shoe. “Omg, I think the cat pooped in your shoe.”
• Dutch oven. Shower oven. Car oven.
• Honk her tits. Make loud honking noise. Bonus points if you use an air horn.

The drive-by tease is, typically, the non-verbal equivalent of the cocky/funny neg. More elaborate forms qualify as pranks. The DBT subliminally asserts male dominance as well as creativity, both of which are catnip to women. Dominance assertion is telegraphed in any act where the subtext is “I don’t care if you’re offended by this.” Girls like men who don’t walk on eggshells around them. But why?, you ask. Well, because men like that are interpreted by women to have options, that is, a take it or leave it attitude toward women. And a man who can walk away without much fuss is a desirable man. That doesn’t sound very romantic, but in practice when you act like this type of man your life will feel romantic as you are showered with women’s loving romantic love bombs.

Read Full Post »

Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming

Charles Murray addresses critics of his book “Coming Apart: The State of a Politically Acceptable Bell Curve” who complain that he didn’t focus enough on economic factors driving the disintegration of lower class whites. He presents data in this Open Borders Journal article that shows working class men have been dropping out of the job market even during good times.

It is true that unionized jobs at the major manufacturers provided generous wages in 1960. But they didn’t drive the overall wage level in the working class. In the 1960 census, the mean annual earnings of white males ages 30 to 49 who were in working-class occupations (expressed in 2010 dollars) was $33,302. In 2010, the parallel figure from the Current Population Survey was $36,966—more than $3,000 higher than the 1960 mean, using the identical definition of working-class occupations.

This occurred despite the decline of private-sector unions, globalization, and all the other changes in the labor market. What’s more, this figure doesn’t include additional income from the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit now enjoyed by those making the low end of working-class wages.

If the pay level in 1960 represented a family wage, there was still a family wage in 2010. And yet, just 48% of working-class whites ages 30 to 49 were married in 2010, down from 84% in 1960.

I don’t have an argument with his economic numbers, although I think he probably understates the role automation, immigration and skill prerequisite inflation have had in the gutting of working class men’s job prospects and ability to merge seamlessly into functional family formation.

Murray is closer to the truth than a lot of his critics are when he blames cultural factors and bad policy for the dysfunction of the left side of the bell curve. Here he is on that:

If changes in the labor market don’t explain the development of the new lower class, what does? My own explanation is no secret. In my 1984 book “Losing Ground,” I put the blame on our growing welfare state and the perverse incentives that it created. I also have argued that the increasing economic independence of women, who flooded into the labor market in the 1970s and 1980s, played an important role.

Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear. The sexual revolution exacerbated the situation, making it easy for [ed: alpha] men to get sex without bothering to get married. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that male fecklessness bloomed, especially in the working class.

Right-o! The Chateau has been beating a similar drum for quite a while now, so it’s nice to hear a quasi-mainstream pundit embrace the same sordid maxims bolted to the oaken doors, Luther-like, at Chez Heartiste. But then, just when you think the ugly truth has seeped into every corpuscle of the respectable class, a huge backpedal slams the brakes on enlightenment.

The prerequisite for any eventual policy solution consists of a simple cultural change: It must once again be taken for granted that a male in the prime of life who isn’t even looking for work is behaving badly. There can be exceptions for those who are genuinely unable to work or are house husbands. But reasonably healthy working-age males who aren’t working or even looking for work, who live off their girlfriends, families or the state, must once again be openly regarded by their fellow citizens as lazy, irresponsible and unmanly. Whatever their social class, they are, for want of a better word, bums.

To bring about this cultural change, we must change the language that we use whenever the topic of feckless men comes up. Don’t call them “demoralized.” Call them whatever derogatory word you prefer. Equally important: Start treating the men who aren’t feckless with respect. Recognize that the guy who works on your lawn every week is morally superior in this regard to your neighbor’s college-educated son who won’t take a “demeaning” job. Be willing to say so.

This sounds like a familiar refrain. Say it with me, folks. It’s time for men to…. wait for it…. hold…. hoooooold….. HOOOOOOOOLLD…..

Man up!

Bill Bennett would be proud.

How absolutely brave… brave, I say!… of Murray to apportion most of the blame for the current state of affairs to men. Or, in this case, white men. This will surely win him lots of enemies amongst the feminists and social elites whose cocktail party invitations he haughtily throws in the trash in righteous, principled fury.

Look, I have no problem with shaming men who don’t want to work, or who can’t muster the motivation to at least try to find work. It’s not like the existence of self-destructive male bums is unheard of. But Murray DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his proposed shaming solution with his explanation for the bleak male employment scenario just a few paragraphs above in the very same article! Once more:

Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.

Where, pray tell, in that explanation does it follow that men are primarily to blame for their poor employment numbers? Doesn’t the exact opposite conclusion — that women’s mate choices are to blame for men dropping out — seem more obvious? Shouldn’t it be the case then, that single working women on the fast track to single motherhood and alpha cock carouseling are the ones deserving of shame?

Murray, like most pundits, is deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy. For to confront it in full, with all the consequences that entails, would mean arousing the ire of every dim-witted, aggressively stupid feminist, mangina and talk show snarktard with a sympathetic media at its instant disposal. To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.

I have spent time in SWPL-land and in proleville, and I can tell you the forces shaping our ongoing dysgenia are spearheaded by women’s sexual market choices. It isn’t a conscious campaign of male disenfranchisement; it’s an emergent one. Men, like men always do, are simply reacting to the conditions set on the ground by women.

Murray sees this, but doesn’t run with it. Women’s improved employment numbers, education and earning power (some of it contributed by government largesse) has had the effect of SHRINKING their acceptable dating pool. Material resources and occupational status are one way women judge men’s mate worthiness (not the only way, but the one way that viscerally matters to most beta males), and the innate female sexual disposition to be attracted — ANIMALISTICALLY ATTRACTED — to men with higher status and more resources than themselves necessarily means that financially independent women and government-assisted women are going to find fewer men in their social milieu attractive.

Result? Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market. The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.

And make no mistake, the jerks are exactly to whom women, particularly lower class women, are dispensing their favors. When earning power and employment as a male attractiveness criteria has been subconsciously debased by women who don’t need male provisions, then women will shift their sexual adaptation algorithm to sexy cads for their thrills and romantic chills.

Knowing this, it makes more sense to shame women equally as vigorously as one shames men for social and family breakdown. In fact, as I have argued, if a prosperous, civilized, self-reliant society is your goal it actually makes sense to shame women MORE than men, because women are the gatekeepers of sex, and as such their combined sexual marketplace decisions carry more import in the direction the culture takes.

So to Murray, I would say this: rewrite your program of shaming so that it better reflects reality, the VERY REALITY you yourself identified. In descending order of lethality, your death star powered shaming ray should designate the following targets:

Shame women who actively try to have bastard hellion spawn out of wedlock. “Oh, the child won’t have a father around?” BACKTURN

Shame women with kids from multiple fathers. “Half sister?” BACKTURN

Shame women who get fat and thus make themselves unattractive to men and artificially tighten the dating market. “Those jeans are a little small on you.” BACKTURN

Shame women who date jerks. “Oh, so the guy you’re seeing has no job and gave you Skittles for your birthday?” BACKTURN

Shame sluts. “Nice tramp stamp. Just the thing to make a guy want to marry you.” BACKTURN

Shame eat, pray, love SWPL divorcees. “Was it worth destroying your kids’ emotional health for a romp with Alfonso?” BACKTURN

Shame Samantha types whose weekly highlight is Sunday brunch mimosas. “In real life, Samantha dies alone with her cats nibbling on her flesh for sustenance.” BACKTURN

Shame aging single cougars. “You should really consider settling for a nice, reliable man. You’re not getting any younger, you know.” BACKTURN

Shame “empowered”, overeducated women who wave their degrees around men like it matters. “You’ve just made it harder on yourself to find love.” BACKTURN

Only after you’ve shamed the above basket cases should you move on to shaming jobless, video gaming and porn watching men.

Although it would go a long way toward fixing the problem with lower class men and women’s reluctance to marry them, I don’t see women being persuaded out of the job market any time soon. Never mind the feminists, the whole consumerist regime depends on women working and spending their discretionary cash on useless baubles. The culture will sooner devolve into a dystopian hellscape than women will quit their HR jobs en masse and give up a portion of their frivolous spendthrift ways.

Not to say something can’t be done. We can start with stopping the encouragement and advocacy of women’s economic advancement. There’s no need to kick women out of the cubicle. Just stop affirmative action for women, stop special programs for women (Title IX), stop pushing them down career paths, and stop making them feel like victims of an imaginary patriarchy. Little steps like this will add up in a big way.

Oh, and ruthlessly mock feminist ideology whenever you get the chance. Bonus: it’s fun for the whole family!

Murray ends on this note:

It is condescending to treat people who have less education or money as less morally accountable than we are. We should stop making excuses for them that we wouldn’t make for ourselves. Respect those who deserve respect, and look down on those who deserve looking down on.

I’m a big proponent of non-judgmentalism, but as a metaphysical riddle, isn’t disrespect going to necessarily disproportionately fall on the losers in life? Do these losers really “deserve” their disrespect? There is plenty of evidence that positive character traits like ambition, conscientiousness, diligence, future time orientation, lawfulness and yes, even morality, are genetically influenced and that some people have more of these beneficial genes than other people. The working class likely has a higher concentration of deleterious genes (deleterious in the context of a modern economy) than does the SWPL class.

As a practical matter, though, Murray is right. You can’t have a well-oiled, functioning, K-selected society if you’re not willing to call out the losers for their dumb choices because you think they can’t help themselves, they were born that way. This is really the grand bargain that the fortunate have to make with their moral worldview. “Do as I say, even if you can’t do it as easily as I do.”

Read Full Post »

The Reality Of Male Choice

Satoshi Kanazawa, a popularizer of evolutionary psychology before Psychology Today canned him for insufficiently footnoted and massaged crimethink, has frequently been fond of asserting that women exercise ALL the choice in the mating market. Men are just along for the ride, hoping to be one of the chosen. (Kanazawa’s absolutism on this matter is particularly galling, since he should know better. His claim is easily refuted. For example, I’ve had chubby chicks come onto me, and I’ve turned them down. Direct, stone cold rejection must feel a hundred times worse for women than it does for men.)

A certain breed of slutty tankgrrl feminist likes to claim the same thing; that women can have all the sex they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want, and men have no say in the matter. A willful ignorance — or, more accurately, a clinical self-delusion — about the wall and men’s attractiveness standards is required to hold this position.

Then there are the beta and omega male trolls, a truly abhorrent species who occasionally squirt their tepid loserjizz in the comments of this blog when they announce — almost gleefully — that women rule, and men are hopeless horndogs who happily fuck fat and ugly chicks, making life difficult for the betas who have to deal with ego-pumped fatties.

They’re all wrong. Men do exercise choice in the dating market, and men with options — the men most desired by women — exercise the most choice of all, usually with extreme prejudice.

A simple program of getting out of the house and mingling in a social context should suffice as all the proof of male choice that you’ll need, but since a significant percentage of internet theorizers appear to be shut-ins or trollish cranks, it sometimes helps these wayward souls if a scientific study or two is posted to clear their muddled musings. In this study, evidence is given that men with more resources raise their mating standards.

Resources are a cardinal component of male mate value in the sexual exchange between men and women. Inspired by theories and research suggesting a link between mating and resource constructs as well as studies linking money and valuations of others, the current study tests the hypothesis that cues to resource availability may lead to higher mating standards for men, but not women. Participants were exposed to either stacks of paper, a small sum of money (104 Singapore dollars ∼USD$84), or a large sum of money (2600 Singapore dollars ∼USD$2100). Consistent with the hypothesis, after male – but not female – participants handled a large sum of money, they raised their minimum requirements for a date. [Physical attractiveness requirements drove this effect most significantly.] We discuss how the results are consistent with an evolutionary perspective on mating and how future research can further investigate environmentally contingent self-assessments and strategies.

The short and sweet of it: when men get more money, they start to screen for hotter chicks. That is, men with cash CHOOSE better looking girls.

I’ve no doubt similar studies that examined the relationship between social status, fame and game would find that men who acquired more of these positive traits would also begin raising their standards in what they will tolerate in a sex and love (but I repeat myself) partner.

It should be noted that studies like this demonstrating the reality of male mate choice do not imply that men exercise as much choice as women. That is false. Women are, by virtue of their more expensive and scarce reproductive life source, the more discriminating sex. It is absolutely true that a lot more men are willing to dump a lazy fuck in a fat chick than there are women willing to spread for a degenerate omega male.

But it’s simply a mistake to then extrapolate this relative leniency of male standards into evidence for a total lack of any male mating standards. Girls do experience rejection by men. The rejection may be more often indirect than direct (i.e. girls rarely approach, so when you don’t return their eye-play, or when you ignore their flirting, it subconsciously registers as the equivalent of a direct rejection to them), but it’s rejection nonetheless. Men with a thing or two going on will reject plenty of less attractive, older, sluttier and fatter women in their lifetimes.

The men having sex with all those fatties, fugs, sluts, single moms and cougars are not the high value, in-demand alphas that whiny beta trolls like to claim they are. It’s the loser males and the expedience cads — the men either most desperate for sexual intimacy or most uninterested in long-term commitment and a woman’s “special qualities” — who drop their standards to roll with a hippo for a night.

So the common trope that fat chicks are getting laid with no trouble is misleading; they’re getting laid, but it’s not with quality. And for women, quality is job one. Few women except the most deluded freaks feel good about themselves or confident in their sexual market value after enduring years of excessively short-term hookups with losers, or repeatedly failing to extract long-term commitment from the occasional dumpster diving winner. This is why it’s more common for ugly women to go years without sex; women, far more than men, prefer the life of celibacy to the life of being reminded of their low value by loser lovers.

For men, standards rise and fall with one’s relative status, social savvy, charisma, looks and resources. When any or all go up (looks being somewhat age-dependent), men tend to filter out less attractive women more aggressively, and pursue hotter chicks. When any or all go down, the opposite happens. A man’s options will dictate how ruthlessly he weeds out unacceptable women.

For women, standards are mostly set by conception, and cemented by birth after the hormonal chaos in the womb has been integrated. The looks a woman is born with will, with minor exceptions (for instance, sex ratios), determine her mating standards later in life, up until the age when her appearance begins to abandon her.

This is the one, intrinsic advantage that men have over women in the eternal and escalating reproductive arms race: a man has the opportunity to improve his lot in life, or improve his attributes, and mate up the attractiveness ladder. With this opportunity comes risk; a man can also find himself mating down the ladder. Women, by contrast, have no such opportunity. They are issued a short list of achievable standards at birth, and this list cannot be altered; it is only revoked at such time that she has exhausted the mate capital she was bequeathed before she even gained consciousness.

Read Full Post »

Linkage Disequilibrium

Paging Bryan “Fuck the rest of the country who wasn’t born with my genetically superior IQ, good taste, and exquisitely manicured principles” Caplan: Switzerland is not a diversity utopia.

Research group finds creating boundaries key to reducing ethnic violence

History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Libertardians: so smart ensconced in their fantasy bubbles aka homogeneous fiefdoms. Outside of them… eh, not so much. (I think at this point given the evidence of their own words it’s safe to say a significant proportion of mainstream libertarians are just sophisticated liberal anti-white bigots.)

***

Since I’m in a charitable mood, here’s a post by Caplan that pretty much nails the truth dead center. A reader writes:

I’d also note that lower class men can be pretty ornery and don’t necessarily make good employees in today’s economy, while lower class women tend to be comparatively docile and co-operative, so they are more able to get and keep jobs.

Yes. Female economic independence pushing their hypergamy into hyperdrive isn’t the only factor leading to the enervation of the working man. The modern economy is filled with jobs that are feminized in nature, and often require navigation of labyrinthine office politics that working class men with neither the inclination nor the social savvy find appealing. Men are built for focused single-tasking, and women for superficial multi-tasking. The West is currently tilted in the direction of a multi-tasking economy, for which remuneration flows disproportionately to those with the best social, political and client/customer juggling skills.

For those who scoff “adapt or die”, well, ok. But just remember that sometimes there’s a LOT of dying to go along with the adapting. Government policy can ameliorate or worsen the dying. Lately, it seems government is more interested in accomplishing the latter… for the target designated group.

***

Excellent post at the blog ‘Just Be a Man About It’, which documents evidence of female hypergamy, hookup culture, beta male supplication, alpha male aloofness, women’s love for alpha males and loathing of beta males, and sexual and relationship dynamics in a modern hunter-gatherer !Kung tribe. If you see parallels between the !Kung sexual market and your own, you are not mistaken. Just a friendly reminder that the concepts behind game and female desire, as discussed extensively here at the Chateau, are rooted in ancient biological forces that continue to shape who we are today. Take it in, and be enlightened.

(Note: Broad racial differences in mating predilection have probably evolved in the last 10,000 years. These differences do not rest on a presupposition that universal preferences don’t exist.)

***

As if sugar, refined carbs, cheaper junk food, prolonged cubicle farm sitting, and lack of walkable communities due to vibrancy weren’t enough, now there’s evidence that CO2 may be responsible for the explosion (heh) of obesity in the world over the last fifty years (via Mangan’s).

Coinciding with the sharp increase in the prevalence of human obesity over the last 50 years, weight gain has also been observed in animals. A recent study found that 24 populations of 8 different species, including laboratory animals that had been fed the same diets for decades, all displayed significant weight gain.3 This suggests that a shared environmental factor, favouring weight gain, may be involved in the regulation of energy balance. Such a factor has yet to be identified.

Even our pets are getting fatter. If pet food hasn’t changed, then something in the environment is causing Fifi to bloat up. Lack of exercise? Maybe. But cats are usually pretty good at self-regulating their weight, and they’re getting fatter too. Infectious parasite? A guy like Greg Cochrane, who has argued that homosexuality may be the result of a parasite in the mother, would be open to this argument. Proof would be if wild animals are getting fatter, too. Whatever it is, the cause(s) of the obesity epidemic is clearly environmental. Fifty years is simply not enough time for an obesity gene or genes to trickle through the general population and produce the rate of change in fatness that we observe.

The good news is that CO2-influenced levels of blood acidity can be mediated by spending less time indoors (where CO2 levels are higher) and getting more outdoors exercise. Also, you might want to limit your intake of beer. The carbonation may be responsible for the localized effect of the famed beer gut.

You know what’s the worst consequence of obesity? All those fat chicks skew the dating market. In fat America, thin chicks have bunker hardened egos because they know they’re in demand. In regions of the world were thinness is the rule and not the exception, the women have more manageable, i.e. feminine, egos. If it takes curbing global warming (a phenomenon I am not yet convinced is mostly human-caused or amenable to fixing) to make women more pleasant to be around, then sign me up for a fusion-powered DeLorean.

***

The commenter Severn delivers some righteous subversion at the Atlantic in a McArdle article about Europe’s demographic and financial woes.

Every aspiring economist should learn this on day 1 of Econ 101: Humans are not fungible. Repeat after me: humans are not fungible. Once more for the cheap seats: humans are not fungible.

Really, it would save so much energy spent bloviating in sophistic tantrums with no purpose other than to avoid confronting the goddamned obvious if the elite stopped being afraid of their own shadows. And it’d save us all a lot of money and psychic distress, too.

***

Facial symmetry experiment. Left sides and right sides of people’s faces were combined to show how different we would look if we were facially symmetrical on either our right or left sides. Below, the true portrait of a man(?) (L), his face adjusted for left side symmetry (C), and his face adjusted for right side symmetry (R).

A cursory glance at all the mock-up photos reveals something peculiar. The faces made symmetrical with one side are decidedly masculine-looking, and the faces made symmetrical with the other side are feminine. Could it be that a battle royale occurs in the womb where the masculine and feminine essences are locked in struggle for control of the destiny of the face and, presumably, the associated personality and character of the adult-to-be? Groovy, man.

***

Compare and contrast: Japan vs Haiti. Photos of Japan’s progress six months after its devastating earthquake and tsunami. Photo gallery of Haiti two years after its killer earthquake. Earthquake aid to Japan far less than aid to Haiti. A report on progress in Haiti.

Word of the day: fungible.

Related, Japan’s so-called lost decades of economic stagnation may be a myth.

***

More evidence that the modern, grain-centric diet is bad for us: white rice linked with type 2 diabetes. I’m not ready to go all-in on the paleolithic diet. Although the epidemiological momentum seems to be against grains and sugar, I’ve been reading too many conflicting studies recently for me to take a strong stand either way. For instance, here’s a study showing that red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of death (rebuttal here). Furthermore, some races may be better disposed to certain diets than other races. The bottom line is that calorie amount still matters, and calorie *type* matters as well. I split the difference by minimizing my consumption of refined grains, vegetable oils, red meat, sweets, carbonated drinks and fatty cheese and maximizing my intake of omega-3 heavy fish, (occasional) grass-fed lean beef, olive oil, dark green veggies, bitter tasting foods, nuts and whole grains.

***

Even educated chicks dig jerks. A female prison psychologist had a secret long-term relationship with a gang rapist. Yes, feminists, one of your own fell in love with a dude who rapes women for a living.

She also allegedly visited the prisoner – known as “H” – more than 20 times using her new identity, and wore an Islamic head scarf and sunglasses during her visits.

The Department of Corrective Services has been investigating the precise status of the pair’s relationship, including the possibility they have married, which remains unconfirmed.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the forensic psychologist first met “H” when she began counselling the long-term inmate during a sex rehab program at Parklea Prison.

He is serving 14 years and six months for the horrific and systematic pack rapes of young women in Sydney’s southwest in August 2000, lead by the depraved brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf.

Aren’t you gals the least bit embarrassed by your sex’s notorious sexual preferences? Of course you are. That’s why you never hear a feminist confront this female behavior without first resorting to some lame, contrived “patriarchy” boogeyman.

When the day comes that feminists decide to wrestle with female sexual nature honestly and openly is the day that feminism dies as an expedient ideology. It’s already dead as a coherent ideology.

Read Full Post »

How To Make A Girl Catatonic

Vodka! No, just kidding. Sorta.

Approach anxiety is a common problem for men, and now a scientific study has found that it has probably bedeviled men since the dawn of time, leaving them in a temporarily quasi-retarded state when in the company of beautiful women.

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about.

Another game concept confirmed by science (not like it needed to be). Evolutionarily speaking, I can’t think of a clear reason why it’s advantageous to men to become tongue-tied around pretty girls, but the study authors offer a hypothesis.

Although the studies on their own don’t offer any concrete explanations, Nauts and her colleagues think that the reason may have something to do with men being more strongly attuned to potential mating opportunities. Since all of their participants were both heterosexual and young, they might have been thinking about whether the woman might be a potential date. […]

Overall, it seems clear that whenever we face situations where we’re particularly concerned about the impression that we’re making, we may literally have difficulty thinking clearly. In the case of men, thinking about interacting with a woman is enough to make their brains go a bit fuzzy.

Sounds plausible, but it still doesn’t explain why such “male impairment” around women would evolve — or avoid being selected against — in the first place. It’s pretty well obvious from observing naturals in action that the men with the least anxiety and the nimblest tongues have the most success with women.

Nonetheless, we must abide the reality that for a lot of men, hurdling that first obstacle — approach anxiety — is half the battle to becoming a master seducer. All I can tell you is that it gets easier with practice and especially with success, for each bedding instills an unshakeable confidence that exists separate from the confidence won by success in reproductively proxy male endeavors like sports, career and physique. In the end, it simply comes down to willpower. You either will yourself to approach, or you take the easy route of making excuses for not approaching.

A number of readers have asked if there is something men can do to instill a similar state of catatonia in women. A reasonable request, since it’s easier to seduce a woman in thrall to your very presence. Being famous would certainly do the trick, but that’s out of reach for nearly everyone. Having noticeably higher value than the woman you are approaching is another way to “reverse lobotomize” her. For example, if she’s at an art gallery and you are one of the artists holding court with a small group of local aficionados. Or simple preselection — being seen enjoying the company of other girls — can induce a female version of male mate fright.

But commenter YaReally hits the nail on the head:

Confidently cutting the space between the two of you (ie – get in her face) while locking eye contact.

Very few women can form a coherent sentence in that situation.

When she meets a guy who can approach and stare her down without being nervous? Because his sense of entitlement tells him that he shouldn’t be nervous around her? He’s the guy who fucks her.

Steady, unbreakable eye contact and smooth, slow, controlled strides toward her so that she has a moment to savor her anticipation — these are the simplest and quickest ways for a man to rattle a woman with his intoxicating presence. It works because, as real life observation and science both prove, women are viscerally sexually excited by dominant and overconfident men. And nothing projects both those masculine traits better or faster than alpha body language and direct eye contact. Staring a woman down until she lowers her eyes or looks askance will trigger the submissiveness reflex, and that is a place where she secretly yearns to be.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Try holding eye contact as long as possible with random men and women. Assume a relaxed or smiling expression so that you aren’t mistaken for an angry commuter having a bad day. Start by doing it with people passing you on the sidewalk going the opposite direction, so you know an end to the discomfort is not long off. Even in those walk-by sidewalk situations, where a mere few seconds of eye lock is all that’s required of you, you’ll find it difficult to hold a stranger’s eyes for longer than a split second. The difficulty level will go up if your eye partner is a hot girl or a dominant man meeting you pupil a pupil.

After a few days of this, something almost magical happens. You notice that men break eye contact before you do, and look to the ground. Forced to look up at you (most will be shorter than you), women return your gaze hungrily, uneasily, wonderment gripping their facial expressions, and if your vision is sharp enough you can make out a nearly imperceptible parting of their lips. You begin to feel dominant. And that feeling translates into real dominance and an attitudinal shift, for above all the thing that is attractive about alpha males is their attitude.

Read Full Post »

Game, Obesity And Men Dropping Out

Over at Cheap Chalupas Central, asdf comments on an assertion by Charles Murray, regarding conclusions from his book “Coming Apart”, that falling marriage rates and rising single mom rates are due solely or mostly to men dropping out and eschewing marital responsibility:

Murray: “If you are arguing that 22-year-old men are saying to their girlfriends, ‘I just need a job and then I’ll behave responsibly…’ Well, that’s just bullshit.”

There are a lot of men this is probably true for. Men know, instinctively, that unless they make more money than their spouse the relationships can never be serious or a family formed. So if they consider their chances of getting a good job slim they will likely not try to do the other things necessary to become a family man.

asdf is spot on. I like Charles Murray. I consider him a leading light in the anti-lie movement. But like a lot of sociologists examining trends in the functioning of the sexual market, he misses or glosses over the relevance of female hypergamy. I understand why feminists would want to avoid confronting the deepest, darkest desires of the female id (aka My Secret Vagina Tingle!), but I can’t see a reason why putative iconoclasts like Murray would ignore it except as a reflection of an instinctive white knight complex that so many beta males harbor.

If women are offering men — well, really, just coolbreeze alpha males — the sex for free, then those men will revert to taking the path of least resistance. They won’t “man up”, because they won’t need to. This reading of market forces implicates women more than it does men. Women are making sexual choices, and men are responding to those choices.

It’s not entirely a female-driven decision tree. Women, particularly women in lower socioeconomic strata, are refusing marriage to jobless layabouts. Men could choose to raise their mate value by getting jobs, however undignified the work. In the past, this “manning up” brought the desired result: those jobless men would improve their marital prospects by taking on work. But the overarching change in the current culture is a one-two punch to the guts of men, especially lower SES men, that damages their ability to raise their status (i.e., their sexual market value, or SMV) via employment:

1. More jobs require advanced skills that left side of the bell curve men don’t have the innate mental capacity to learn, and more jobs require female-oriented dispositions that most working class men don’t care to learn.

2. Women have priced themselves out of their dating pool of men by becoming economically independent. A woman’s entirely natural and reasonable hypergamous instinct (hey, she’s only got so many eggs to spare) to mate with higher status men than herself dooms her to limited prospects if her own status has gone up relative to the men in her dating milieu.

Men are intuitive creatures, as well, even if not as holistically intuitive as women. Men will respond to depressed status enhancement from work by retreating from the employment field. Men will respond to women’s sexual choices by adopting the behavior of those men whom women lavish with their discounted derrieres. In some mating circles, this means men will learn game (i.e. the charismatic arts) and try to catch spillover from the maglev pussy express that roars along during women’s contraceptively-abetted prime years from the late teens to late 20s.

A feedback loop of alpha cock carouseling, single mommery, video gaming and porn watching results which will, in time, begin to infiltrate the upper classes. You can only insulate yourself from dystopian trends for so long before the uruk-hai batter down your private school walls.

In short, no sociological theory into sex, marriage and family trends is complete without a long, hard look at female hypergamy, the one biomechanical force to rule them all, and its intersection with economic realities. The science is out there; when women become financially empowered, they begin to choose men based on criteria other than their ability to provide.

But that’s not all that Murray, et al are missing. I’m here to tell Murray and others perusing his findings that there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.

Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.

This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.

So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?

You see where this is heading. It’s entirely reasonable, and expected, that a lot of men would drop out of the intensified competition for the few remaining childless slender babes in a world full of fat asses, single moms, and fat assed single moms. And even among the small contingent of sexually appealing women, they make enough in government and HR paychecks to cover expenses plus gifts for their Skittles Men. What working stiff beta provider can compete on those terms?

Men aren’t refusing to man up; they’re doing exactly what women do, and what both sexes have done since time immemorial: they’re acting in their self-interests. Incentives matter. You’d think Murray, of all people, would know this.

Women are as complicit in the current deterioration of family structure as are men; and, in fact, because of women’s natural roles as sexual gatekeepers, I’d argue that women are more complicit than men. In the arena of sexual choice and fulfillment, men are, on average, followers, and women are leaders. This is not to say that men exercise no choice; only that they exercise less choice in sexual partners than do women. A double whammy of women’s financial independence restricting their mate choices, coupled with a female SMV-destroying obesity scourge restricting men’s mate choices, has compounded to help usher forth the dysgenic shitfest we as a nation find ourselves in today.

If the reigning paradigm is unsustainable but also immune to rectification, as I suspect it is, then perhaps the only solution now is to wait out a total collapse of elite authority. Tick tock…

ps this post hate-list approved.

Read Full Post »