The life cycle of the Modern American Romance as told by commenter The Other Anonymous:
I’ve seen it so many times it’s not funny now.
– Beta, has his shit together, but can’t get laid to save his life
– meets a slut
– gets his first blow job after 3rd date
– boom
– drops his friends and hobbies
– before you know it he’s married her
Flash forward a few years – kids, house, divorce – Done.
I disagree with only one thing TOA wrote… it’s still funny.
At which of these dolorous life stages could Game have intervened and saved lives?
Beta, has his shit together, but can’t get laid to save his life
Game teaches betas not to rely on their boring office jobs and steady paychecks to impress girls. Game can help a beta get laid sooner, and with better quality girls, than he otherwise would have under normal game-less operating conditions.
meets a slut
Game gives men choice in the sexual market, reducing the risk of needing to settle for a road-worn slut on the beta bux make.
gets his first blow job after 3rd date
Game, and the increased experience with women, removes some of the mysticism from sex, which has the not-insignificant benefit of protecting beta males from making horrible mistakes on the basis of nothing more than a righteous bj.
boom
Id asplode.
drops his friends and hobbies
Game imbues beta males with the deep, almost spiritual understanding that getting women into bed, and into love, isn’t a miracle that must be canonized, sacralized, and micromanaged to the exclusion of every other nice thing in life. Game also makes a beta male more interesting to his friends, male and female, and thus helps round out his social life.
before you know it he’s married her
Game will help beta males with an eye toward building a family marry from a position of choice, rather than desperation or duty.
Flash forward a few years – kids, house, divorce – Done.
Game will reduce the chances that a beta male will get divorced or, if divorced, get fleeced by a cold-hearted, out-of-love, ex-wife.
Reader PA provided a springboard for a post when he mused about the male archetypes found in the lyrics of love songs by female singers.
Love songs by female artists about each of VoxDay’s [male SMV] ranks.
Alpha – Carly Simon “You’re so Vain.” He’s a legend and a lady killer who always takes what he wants, he never wants it for too long, and she will never forget him.
Beta – Whitney Houston “All the Man that I Need.” The title alone tells you that he is not larger than life. But her physical and emotional satisfaction is total.
Delta – Taylor Swift “You Belong with Me.” He’s literally the boy next door. An attractive girl plays him, but a plain girl wants him.
Gamma – That was a tough one. How many girls sing love songs to John Scalzi? Best I can think of is Dolly Parton’s “Jolene.” A drab woman pleads for mercy to a seductress that wants to toy with her loser husband just because she can.
Omega – Concrete Blonde “Joey.” He is broke. He is drunk. He is laying in a pool of vomit. No, he is not Keith Richards.
Sigma – Heart “Magic Man.” Nobody can make heads or tails of the attraction; it’s like, WTF? But it’s like out of a dream.
Lambda – ?
I’ll assume a lambda is a gay. Have any female singers crooned about a gay man? Here’s one:
It was tough to dig up that video. For all the talk about women routinely falling for gay men unbeknownst, in reality most women have pretty good gaydars. At least the hardened urban slut cynics do.
One thing that’s interesting about female singers is that you can obliquely track changes in the sexual market by the themes of their songs. One big change has been the anhedonic increase in faux tankgrrl posturing by mainstream twat-rockers.
Women used to sing, authentically, about their vulnerability and heartbreak, often at the hands of callous badboys. Their songs reverberated with truth, because they sang with honest self-appraisal instead of posturing feminism. Even the “tough girls” of the past, like Pat Benatar, singing about daring a man to “hit me with your best shot” (i.e., game the living tingles outta her), aimed many of her punches at her own sternum.
Well you’re a real tough cookie with a long history Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
In the 90s, the GineVibe started to oscillate along an anti-human, pro-androgyne wavelength. The first fully-flowered feminist singers made man-hating propaganda a focal point of their songs. Many of these girlpower/girlvictimism songs were based on carefully constructed lies. (Tori Amos was never raped.)
Since then, the trend among female singers has been accelerating to more absurd and ridiculous phony Sandbergian “lean in” power postures. Today, we have the spectacle of fatties like Elle King (Deuce Bigalow’s daughter) singing about all the studs who can’t get enough of her doughgirl rolls and chase her around like puppy dogs.
Older, current female singers are in on the zeitgeist too. Sia boasts of her time on the party circuit and cock carousel as she hides her cracking face under a veil for live performances and calls it a symbolic blow against patriarchal oppression.
Even within female singers’ careers, there’s a trend away from honest self-assessment and feminine vulnerability toward chest-beating theatrics that would challenge the antics of the horniest male rocker. Taylor Swift morphed from a smitten, naive romantic to a fortified fembot “shaking it off”. Katy Perry roars, without a hint of irony. Miley Cyrus milks her femininity-disavowing sexual ambiguity for profit.
Female singers have started aping and co-opting the caricatured masculine themes of promiscuity, emotional distance (implied or revealed), and middle finger majesty, without any of the poetic discordance in feelings or slipped confessions of humility that male singers often drop into their songs.
It’s bizarro world with these aggrochicks, and it sells today. But why?
Maybe as a nation/country/world bazaar declines, its “””people””” need to cling evermore tightly to delusions about the sexes, about the races, about the classes, and about the tribes. And maybe that’s why we have the Elle Kings and neo-Taylor Swifts selling their fake-outs to millions of thirsty femme ears, to both transparently faux-bragging fatties and meekly acquiescing manlets alike.
Or, maybe the modern sexual market has become so alien to women — rife with jerkboys, betas, delayed marriage, childlessness, and Diversity-fueled social disconnection — that the only way they can comprehend it is to pretend to be like men, swinging their clitmores and hewing testicles for sport.
Reader ATC forwards a link to a Christianity Today article about the dark side (heh) of the Christian adoption scene. Apparently, there are lots of white Evangelical Christians who think it is their God-given calling to rescue the world’s orphans from lives of destitution, and race-cuck their own families in the process.
You have to read between the lines in theses stories for the full impact of what’s being discussed, but thankfully the context is so obvious that your inference skills don’t need to be particularly sharp.
At a church-sponsored adoption event, passionate servant-leaders unpack the clear and resounding call from the Holy Scriptures to care for orphans. Whether speaking one-on-one or in front of the larger group, they eloquently raise awareness of the plight of millions of orphans worldwide. They tell stories about the 100,000 kids in U.S. foster care who need permanent families.
Get ready to bend over and take a soul-ramming, Christian Williams’ Syndrome sufferers.
Away from the crowd during a break, these same leaders talk with one another in muted tones about their real lives at home with kids whose backgrounds are filled with suffering, abuse, neglect, abandonment and deprivation.
AKA “normalcy” back in the adopted kids’ homelands.
They recount incidents of violence and hours-long raging.
Lil’ Shitavious slapping his white momma around.
They discuss the anguish of needing out-of-home care and the accompanying emotional agony and guilt. They lament the plight of healthier siblings [ed: white siblings] who aren’t getting the attention they need.
They note the stress that is added to their lives by extended family members who can’t or won’t understand and don’t help.
Here’s a clue: Psychologically normal people don’t like sacrificing their time, energy, and love for unrelated children who don’t look or act anything like themselves.
They nobly attempt to soft-pedal the grief they feel when their church families offer a quick “atta boy” but nothing more practical.
“atta boy” = “lord have mercy on them, that household is a banana republic”.
They talk about the strain in their formerly strong marriages, and the list goes on. Sleep deprivation. Secondary trauma. Hopelessness. Failure. And the feeling of being alone—so very alone.
Not to worry. Christ will reward you in the afterlife for throwing away your present-life on a doomed quest to recreate Mystery Meat Theater 3000 in your living room.
But they try to remain thankful to the One who will never leave them or forsake them.
Even as they are being left and forsaken. Triumph of delusion over stone cold experience.
They are trying to count it all joy.
They are begging God for help, for healing for their children.
And God replied, “I’m spiritual intervention. You want something more practical than that you’ll have to talk to the guy who runs biomechanical intervention. Be careful, though. He likes to cut deals.”
They pray for strength to get up and do it all over again—day after day.
I can sorta understand desperate childless couples putting themselves through this self-imposed hell, but couples with their own children, adding misery to their happiness and to their biological children’s happiness? wtf? That’s child abuse.
They don’t like who they become at times, when the stress and fatigue take their toll—but they see no other way forward.
The cops who patrol inner city ghettos agree with this sentiment.
They want to be filled with the fruit of the Spirit,
Turn your backs for a minute and your daughters might get filled with the fruit of the jungle spirit.
but survival mode is the order of the day, every day, and it can go on for years.
Suicidal Tendencies: When Separation Isn’t Possible.
While their church friends talk about sports and college and music, they talk about individualized education programs, 504s, therapists and psychiatrists.
And sleeping with their guns under the pillow.
All the adoptive families they know have versions of the same story.
The families may change but the dindu remains the same.
They love their children. They choose to love them with everything they’ve got. It would just be so much easier if they didn’t feel like they were doing it alone.
Translation: “You will love my adopted third worldlet with the same fervor as I love him, or you are evil. EVIL!”
But no matter how much they talk about their need for the help of the community around them, the help doesn’t come.
A California assisted-suicide bill was shelved because of opposition from heavily mestizo districts.
Now personally, I’m in favor of assisted suicide at any age for leftoids in whatever physical condition. But one has to laugh at the irony of Diversity Park™ undocumented citizens bitch-slapping their effete white liberal patrons. You asked for it, now you’ll get it, good and hard.
I’m sure SCROTUS will find a Constitutional right to assisted-suicide in the near future, which is spelled out in the Constitution as clearly as the right to gay marriage, but in the meantime enjoy the cognitive dissonance.
Score: Invading aztecs: 1, white California liberals: 0. Shiv of the Week award goes to La Raza, for giving us all a glimpse of the unified, glorious future of America made stronger and happier by all her Diversity.
A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.
1. More sexualized women.
Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?
In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.
2. Less sexual dimorphism.
It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.
Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.
In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.
4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.
A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.
Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.
5. Hatred of beta provider males.
Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.
6. More aggressive sexual signaling.
A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.
Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.
7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.
A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)
A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:
Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).
8. More women acting out like men.
Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.
Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?
9. More men acting out like women.
This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?
The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.
Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.
But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.
Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.
So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?
The ironic misuse of the “creepy” slander by women toward men is in part a case of psychological projection by the unfairer sex. Commenter “Not Thought Police” explains:
Ahh “Creep”
Never attribute to internal failing that which can be explained by a woman’s inherent need to emotionally project.
Do not pass go. Do not validate. Do not entertain her musings until projection is ruled out first.
This holds true for many facets of femininity but i think in no other place does it hold more weight than the concept of male creepiness:
A woman, in vetting a man, will:
Gossip with friends, look through his private stuff, his books, his music, find out his political leanings to the n’th-degree (from his feminist sensibilities right down to how he feels about trade agreements n shit), how he feels toward his mother, how much he earns, is he carrying a mental illness, can he provide?, does he look and act like Gosling? Can he sing like that dude from Coldplay or at least do something notable so she doesn’t look like she’s just dating Dave, the accountant? Is he strong..but not so strong that he cannot be controlled? Is he intelligent..but not so intelligent that he might win in an argument? Is he confident, but not so much that he might attract the attentions of other girls (not that she’d be jealous or anything because women aren’t creepy like that) Is he articulate but not so much that he might outshine her beaming personality? Is he cool but not so cool that he’d make her look uncool. That’d never do!
Contrast this to the creepy, rapey Man: What’s her rack like? Is she kinda half normal?
Tell me who is really the creepy one here?
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: The Surveillance State is women’s natural operating procedure. But we autonomically give women a pass for being precociously creepy toward men within the field of view of the female Eye of Ovum because… well, read about the Fundamental Premise.
Of course, women have good evo-bio reasons for being creepier than men (and equally good reasons for fooling themselves about their own creepster instincts), but that doesn’t mean men have to roll over and play the women’s game the way women want it played. Correction… the way women “””want””” it played; triple-quoted to indicate that women may consciously want obeisance to their rules from men, but subconsciously, where messages are sent direct to the vagina, women want men who don’t do what they “””want”””.
(h/t peterike) At least the fattest one kept her dress down and spared us all an episode of PTSD.
UPDATE
It seems no commenters got the underlying message of this edition of “America, Then and Now”. The 1920s were a high (or low) water mark of sexual licentiousness and decadence in the US. There are those who argue that these decadence periods follow historical cycles. We may be at another peak (or trough) of sexual licentiousness and decadence now, in 2015 America. (The previous being the late 60s-early 70s.) Yet, the contrast between the 1925 photo and the 2014 photo couldn’t be starker. If the former is decadent, the latter is gutter filth.
Clearly, if there’s a poz cycle that operates on say, a forty-year cycle, the long-term trend over the accumulated poz cycles is towards ever-greater vulgarity. When some deep nadir in the poz cycle is achieved, the system will probably break into parts, rather than swing the poz pendulum back into anti-poz.
