Incentives Matter

There’s a great thread going on over at Libertardian Central you might want to read before Cheap Chalupas™ gets the ethnic hives and decides to mass delete impertinent commenters who tweak his mood affiliation.

btw, [david] brooks is wrong. as john stated, men *are* adapting to the new reality. when women start becoming economically self-sufficient and thus price out larger swaths of lower or equal earning men, men respond by competing for their attention by emphasizing different traits where they still can exert a higher value signal that appeals to women’s hypergamy. charisma, for example, is one such alternative trait that women are drawn to in men.

also, the female obesity epidemic is doubtless skewing the mating market against men’s interests (and ultimately against women’s interests). more fat undesirable (but i repeat myself) women means more men turning away from providing for women in favor of pump and dumps and porn. ya know, incentives matters. and men aren’t very incentivized to provide, materially or emotionally, for unattractive, self-sufficient women.

it would also be remiss of me to forget to mention that mass migration of tens of millions of lower iq lower skilled peasants to gut the wages and the spirit of working class american men has not exactly assisted their ability to attract women the traditional, civilization-building way. but hey, to the libertardian, that’s just collateral damage in the great free labor dream of eradicating national borders.

Hanna Rosin and David Brooks are tag-teaming in their claims that women are more adaptable than men, or are better at adapting to the modern economy and culture.

To that, I say magnificent bullshit. Men are adapting. They’re just not adapting in the way that women, and NYBetaTimes pundits, would like them to adapt. The means to acquire a good wage, and the incentive to leverage a good wage to attract women, have both diminished to the point that caddishness and porn have become better alternatives for many men. If feminists and lefties and rinos and tradcons like BIll Bennett don’t like this turn of events, well… they have only themselves to blame. You should have turned back form the brink when you had a chance.

I’ll say it again: Never before in modern American history has there been a time when game was as effective, or as necessary, as right now. Game is no longer just a matter of getting your weekend jollies at the clubs; now it’s a lifestyle. For some, it’s survival of the soul.

Read Full Post »

Game And HBD: BFFs

Haha. I bet you read the title and thought this post would be a lengthy treatise on the shared philosophical underpinnings of game and human biodiversity (HBD). Psyche!

A reader emails:

Hello. I’d like to add the entry of Game to the HBD Dictionary:

As a rough draft entry, I have:

Game:  Using insights from evolutionary psychology and human biodiversity, game teaches men, especially beta males, how to simulate the attitudes and characteristics of alpha males so as to be more attractive to females.

Again, a rough draft.  Feel free to re-write.

Also, if you can think of any other terms that need to be added or revisions to current terms, please let me know.

I don’t have a major problem with the crux of this reader’s definition of game. I see what he’s getting at. I might rephrase it to: “Using insights from evolutionary psychology and real world experience bedding women…”, but then the peer review panel would get the hives. However, I don’t think a definition should be nested (if that’s the right word); that is, a good definition won’t require the reader to have to look up the definitions of fuzzy words within the main definition (e.g., “beta males” or “alpha males”).

How about this definition instead (and one that avoids using the word game within the definition)?:

Game, noun

A systematized blueprint of male behavior for attracting, courting and seducing women in an efficient and powerful manner based on the practical application of theories of human, and particularly female, sexuality derived from the insights of evolutionary psychology, biology and real world experimentation.

Any alternate suggestions from the peanut gallery?

PS I do think game and HBD greatly overlap, despite the commonly held misconceptions that HBD is a synonym for genetic determinism or that game is a synonym for boundless behavioral plasticity.

Read Full Post »

IQ, Executions And Voting

GLP links to a La Griffe du Lion piece that confirms what I stated about retardation — namely, that the correlation between clinical, biological retardation and IQ varies by race. The subject came up over a discussion about Texas’ execution of a man with an IQ of 61 from a test taken later in his life. (His first IQ test put him at 73.)

In the comments over there, PA astutely notes:

IQ-alone limits on execution do carry implications with regards to other aspects of citizenship.

Liberals who trumpet IQ-based restrictions on the death penalty should be wary of where their invented morality logically leads. (As well as wary of their hypocrisy being exposed over the IQ issue, a metric which liberals claim not to believe in unless and until belief in it suits their agenda.) To wit: if low IQ is sufficient to exempt a murderer from the death penalty because of presumed cognitive impairment of his moral judgment, then low IQ is sufficient to exempt dumb citizens from the voting rolls because of cognitive impairment of their political judgment, which is just a proxy for moral judgment.

I really don’t see a legitimate (i.e., sensible, rational, non-shrieking) argument against this simple logic. If liberals and the various hodge-podge of flaming equalists are going to go down this road, they have to accept the logical conclusions that their beliefs take them in regards to issues they congenitally find personally distasteful. If they don’t, they discredit themselves.

Read Full Post »

Women Gossip To Compete For Men

Feminists are gonna blow an ovary reading this study. Perfect.

Although most researchers acknowledge the speculative nature of evolutionary arguments in this area, social aggression among reproductively viable females is usually interpreted as a form of mate competition. Hess and Hagen, for example, suggest that the sex differences uncovered in their study would likely have been even more pronounced in a younger group of participants. Evolutionarily, historically, and cross-culturally, they point out, girls in the fifteen- to nineteen-year-old range would be most actively competing for mates. Thus, anything that would sabotage another female’s image as a desirable reproductive partner, such as commenting on her promiscuity, physical appearance, or some other aberrant or quirky traits, tends to be the stuff of virile gossip.

File under: Women are the world’s worst misogynists.

So now science has come along to (re)prove what we all knew anecdotally: women, particularly younger women who are most desirable to men, gossip viciously as a means of tearing down the female competition for high quality men. So gossip is analogous to a woman stitching a verbal scarlet S (or F or H) onto the blouses of other women who would compete for the men she likes.

Stay classy, ladies.

You’ll notice as well that the sort of stuff women primarily gossip about — sluttiness, infidelity and fatness — to cut down their female competition, are exactly the character flaws and vices that feminists claim should be free from judginess, and accepted by everyone, especially men. Why do feminists focus on these things? Because they know they matter. Men really are less likely to commit to sluts, whores and fat chicks. And for good evolutionary reasons. (Not to mention good aesthetic and tactile reasons.)

An interesting question is why, if gossip is, presumably, evolutionarily adaptive as a means of reducing the mate value of sexual competitors, men don’t do the same thing? Where are all the male yentas tearing down the competition?

First, men have their own version of gossip; it’s called winning. Men kneecap male competitors by fighting and defeating them, physically, mentally or socially. Second, women are more intuitive than men are about reading subtext in gossip. A man who gossips about another man’s sexual prowess, or social savviness, or whatever, in the hopes of reducing his mate value is likely to be perceived by women as a second tier beta clumsily trying to undermine better men than himself. And gossip just doesn’t sit right on men; women are liable to think you’re gay if you prattle on about other men a lot.

Personally, I think a lot of female gossip is much less effective than believed by women. Men mostly judge women by how they look, so a guy is not going to stop boning out for a hot chick just because some mother hen gossiped about her disloyalty. But gossip is universal and still with us, so it must offer some mating advantage to women. My guess is that gossip which distills to slut smears (“she’s got crabs!”) is probably the most effective at handicapping a woman’s ability to snag a high value man into a long-term relationship. This is why women who aren’t broken losers are so mortified at the thought of being labeled a slut.

Like feminists who claim otherwise, they know it matters.

Read Full Post »

The Allure Of Male Dominance

Men feel powerful lust from dominating attractive women, the same lust women feel from submitting to the domination of powerful men. But most men will never admit to this. Not because they agree with the myths of feminism, but because most will never be in a position to enjoy the sublime pleasures of dominance over women. A complete lack of acquaintance with dominating women, and a dearth of opportunity to do so, psychologically castrates weaker men until they embrace, at least in theory, the opposite of what they truly desire. The embrace of anti-desire, the dark matter of joylessness, offers respite from an otherwise unrelenting daily reminder of their sexual and romantic failure.

Read Full Post »

Beta Males Settle For Fat Chicks

Beta males are more anxious, fidgety, alert and quicker to react to local disturbances than are alpha males. We know this from observing it in the field, and now from various scientific studies examining the phenomenon. The short of it is, if you’re an alpha male, you don’t need as wide a margin of safety as beta males do, for you are less likely than they are to get cold-cocked, challenged or to lose a fight or dominance contest should one erupt. This lower need for safety precautions allows the alpha male to relax in his environment and to assume open, welcoming postures that are alluring to women. It follows that beta males, by practicing and adopting the cool, aloof mannerisms of the alpha male, can attract more and better women. Body language improvement is a fundamental tenet of game, and it works so effectively at heating up interest from women that some men might be tempted to call it magic.

Beta males, then, are in a constant state of heightened anxiety; also known as being stressed out. The world is a dangerous place, especially for beta males. If you feel stressed out all the time, like you’re losing control of your life or your surroundings, odds are good you are a beta male.

Now science comes along, trotting in like a merry prankster, to prove, albeit for those with a keen eye for reading between the lines, that beta males — i.e., stressed males — are more likely than relaxed, confident, self-satisfied alpha males to settle for the losers of womanhood.

Increased stress in men is associated with a preference for heavier women, according to research published Aug. 8 in the open access journal PLOS ONE.

The researchers, led by Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London, compared how stressed versus non-stressed men responded to pictures of female bodies varying from emaciated to obese.

They found that the stressed group gave significantly higher ratings to the normal weight and overweight figures than the non-stressed group did, and that the stressed group generally had a broader range of figures they found attractive than the non-stressed group did.

These results, the authors write, are consistent with the idea that people idealize mature morphological traits like heavier body size when they experience an environmental threat such as stress.

The researchers go on to speculate that stressed men gravitate (heh) to fat chicks because those women are perceived as being better able to survive periodic famines, and to have higher social status that allows them to afford more food.

Tidy speculation that toes the feminist line, but I’ll tell you the powerhouse knockout punch this study really delivers:

Stressed men are beta males with limited mating market options who learn to increase their chances of getting laid by widening their field of view (double-wide heh) to include fatter chicks who themselves have limited options and are thus easier to bed.

Why are stressed men gimped in the sexual market? Women don’t want to be around anxious, stressed men. Women prefer the company of relaxed, self-assured men; these men are signaling that they have the resources, and the ability to get more resources should the need arise, that women value in potential mates. Thin, beautiful women have the highest value, and the most options, of all women, so they are the ones most likely to adhere to very tough standards and to act on their preference for large and in-charge alpha males.

Are beta males *constitutionally* more attracted to fat chicks when they’re stressed? Probably not. What men find attractive in women — which doesn’t deviate much from the universal preference for a 17-23 BMI and a 0.7 waist-hip ratio — is pretty much set by conception, and then later by that first thermonuclear blast of hindbrain hormones that floods our systems at puberty. Recall back to that time you got a surprise “what the hell is this?” boner from staring at the teenage red-headed girl’s tight tush and narrow waist. Was that boner preprogrammed by cultural cues to rise on command? Or did it just happen on its own, intrinsic to your being, immune to external suasion, summoned from the depths of your primordial subconscious to lurch your body into spasms of delight?

Stressed out betas don’t prefer fat chicks to thinner chicks; (as the study showed but the researchers… ahem… chose to paper over in their conclusion, stressed betas actually gave the same high scores as relaxed alphas gave to the thin chicks. The difference is that alpha males did not over-inflate (triple bank shot heh) the attractiveness of the fatter chicks). What stressed beta males prefer is the inclusion of a larger (fourth heh?) pool of lower value women rightly perceived by these betas as being easier for them to get than hotter, thinner chicks.

Once you remove the stressor from the lives of these beta males, they go right back to preferring slender babes. You could say that a happy man is a man who hates the sight of fat chicks. I’m sure fat chicks will be pleased to learn that they can clean up with unhappy, neurotic men.

So that is the brutal truth this study confirms for those of us who have lived a day in our lives and witnessed happening over and over among real human beings instead of the opposite that is claimed to happen by internet shut-ins and cocooned, deluded feminists:

Maxim # 23: Limited options = looser standards.

When life is going well for a man, he demands the best for himself. The best will always be slim, pretty, young women. When life is shitting on a man, he reaches out to fellow losers with whom he can share his lonely love. The losers will always be fat, ugly, and/or older women. His ego then does the job of convincing his higher order brain functions that the fat chick he’s plowing kinda has a cute face in the right light: total darkness.

Read Full Post »

Realtalker Of The Month

A Turkish newspaper columnist with brass balls wrote an article about the unattractive manliness of female athletes.

A Turkish newspaper columnist has been heavily criticised after writing an article which said the Olympic Games is destroying the female figure.

The piece – called Womanhood is dying at the Olympics’ – was written by Yuksel Aytug and was published in the daily newspaper Sabah and on the paper’s website.

However, it soon spread around the world by saying the Games was distorting women’s bodies and that extra points should be given to female athletes based on how feminine they looked.

According to Hurriyet Daily News, he said: ‘Broad-shouldered, flat-chested women with small hips; [they are] totally indistinguishable from men.

‘Their breasts – the symbol of womanhood, motherhood – flattened into stubs as they were seen as mere hindrances to speed.’

Get this man a VIP pass to the Chateau! He speaks the truth no nancyboy or femcunt would ever dare admit, even to themselves. Who with the eyes to see hasn’t noticed the narrow hips, the grotesque six-pack abs (never a good look on women), the chest “stubs”, the linebacker shoulders, and the manjaws of an inordinate number of the female Olympians? (Synchronized swimmers are a welcome exception to the rule. Of course, proficiency in synchronized swimming doesn’t require a chiseled male-like physique.)

A disturbing number of the women athletes have what amounts to ripped, pubescent boys’ bodies. If you cover the faces and crotches of some of them, you could easily mistake them for lean men. But I bet they fuck like champions!

[Aytug] was accused of sexism and reducing the identity of women purely to appearance.

Weren’t the Jizzebelers recently objectifying Ryan Lochte’s appearance? Anyhow, the point is superfluous. Feminists are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that double standards in how the sexes relate to and perceive each other exist, are grounded in immutable biology, and won’t disappear just because a few fat sluts organized a pride parade.

In his column, he also said the Olympic Games forced woman to look more like men so they could become successful.

Aytug is right. It’s NECESSARILY true that women must conform more to the male physique ideal in order to compete successfully in sports, and particularly elite sports, because women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally like men’s bodies are designed to do. Women’s bodies are — and I know this will get under the skin of the right sort of losers — shaped by the relentless laws of nature to fulfill TWO PRIME DIRECTIVES:

Visually please men.

And bear children.

Everything else women do is commentary.

If you are a woman who wants to long jump, or throw a discus, or box, or run the 100 meter race, you will perform better the FURTHER your body gets from the archetypal female physique and the closer it gets to the archetypal male physique. Hips and boobs and upper body weakness undermine all that Olympian kickassery.

This is why unscrupulous countries (which includes just about all the Western and Communist or formerly Communist ones) pump so much money and, when they can get away with it, steroids into their female athletic programs and athletes. They know that they can get more medal bang for their buck by masculinizing their female athletes and pushing them, however unintentionally, to assume male physical forms, (or by recruiting women with inborn male-like physiques), because there are a lot fewer women who are 1) interested in high-level competitive sports and 2) willing to sacrifice their femininity for a rigorous masculinizing regiment.

Someday a real rain will come and wash away this mountain of gender-bending lies. And when it happens, the world’s femininely-renewed women will sway their child-bearing hips and heave their bounteous breasts as their charmingly soft limbs and delicate hands are raised heavenward in thankfulness for being relieved of the pressure to look and act like men.

PS Isn’t it ironic, then, how the feminist-defined pursuit of sex “””equality””” is essentially tantamount to making women more man-like? You’d almost think feminists believe the male form and male psyche are superior to the female form and psyche. Maybe that’s because most dedicated feminists are ugly, masculine robodykes.

Read Full Post »