Helicopter Parents

One reason why helicopter parenting is on the rise may have to do with the general post-industrial trend toward smaller families (fewer children, and fewer parents in each home). If you only have one kid, you’ll be more careful about shielding your kid from uncertainties and dangers. If there’s only one parent to guide that kid through the thickets of life, it’ll be easier to simply keep the kid away from unscheduled adventures that could mean more stress for the single mom.

Agnostic writes a lot about helicopter parenting, so I wonder if he’s already touched on the role of small families in driving the obsessive-compulsive parenting trend. Big families used to mean you could let one or two buggers slip through the cracks without freaking out about the possibility of total loss of your genetic heritage.

Comment Of The Week: A Limited Loveability Company

COTW winner is artistoftheslightlyshadydeal, who writes about the devolution of marriage:

“some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

To survive as only a plaything of the legal profession.

It will also encourage women to scheme of ways to rework the marriage contract when they feel like to get 50 shades of dick on the side and bail out of their responsibilities in the partnership.

“I married him, but I never agreed to the reverse cowgirl or to be monogamous”

“I married him but I never agreed to wash the stains out of his children’s underwear”

Marriage will evolve all right, into a dicey proposition at best unless you have money to pay for the right contract to protect yourself from evolution or change you do not want.

Pre-nuptial agreements almost become mandatory to record promises made at the beginning. But it’s a band aid on gaping wound. As soon as marriages have porous boundaries then you may as well each just retain lawyers and start a limited liability company.

“50 shades of dick” lol

I’ve used this analogy before, and I’ll use it again, because I think it’s pertinent: A wife getting fat is reneging on her end of the marital deal just as assuredly as a husband lounging on the sofa all the time doing nothing is reneging on his. Both of them have turned their backs on what the other spouse desires from them.

Gay marriage has cracked open the door to the legalistic flim-flam divorce sham machine that much wider. This commenter is correct. Enlarging the purview of marriage to include all sorts of “arrangements” and “agreements” and “evolutions” and “fluid expectations” will essentially turn the institution into a loveless business partnership, and all that requires. May as well jump to the next step and avoid the wait: Contractual, time-limited marriages that can be renewed every few years based on client satisfaction.

******

COTW runner-up is Ras al Ghul, who spells out the final solution for the institution of marriage.

The real social danger, is what they’re [ed: gay marriage advocates] pushing, acceptance of open marriage.

Getting the betas to accept their women sleeping around (because they’re beta they’re not going to have the opportunity the women have).

The problem, and its a very real on is that the only incentive left for beta men to get married is the illusion that they are locking the girl down.

You take that illusion away and what possible reason do they have to get married and work hard?

None. Your married, hard working married slave boys are your revenue generators for your tax base and economy, Dalrock has that delineated out clearly. Single men, single women and married women have a small percentage of individuals that make a high income.

Married men are more likely to make more, work more.

They’ve erode marriage so far, I’m sure they think this won’t matter, but in the places where gay marriage is legalized the marriage rate drops faster for this very reason.

There will always be men that think they’re special snowflakes and that they’re relationship will be different, but that number of fools is already getting smaller.

Social acceptance and legal codification of open marriage will be the killing shiv twist in the black heart of the West. There will be no turning back from that paradigm shift. Hello, Afrimerica.

What A Butthurt Feminist Sounds Like

A commenter going by the handle Desdinova Superstar (she bright long time) was a little piqued about the crass CH insinuation that makeup is a try-hard, penis-pedestaling beautification routine women religiously perform according to the precepts of an ancient genetic algorithm that subconsciously compels them to attract the highest quality men possible. Her ham-headed feminist gogrrl delusion is the sort of fresh meat I love to tear from the bone.

– “Women should, and will, continue to put the penis on a pedestal and try-hard to please men by using makeup to increase their attractiveness”

I personally do not believe that women use makeup to attract men.

You may not believe in sublimated sexual displays, but sexual displays believe in you.

I believe that women use makeup and clothing to compete with the attractiveness of other women.

Same difference. Women compete with other women to be the one woman men can’t help but notice.

The thought of attracting men hardly crosses their mind.

This is what all girls say. I recall a girlfriend once indignantly proclaiming, when I teased her on the matter, that she dolls herself up for no one but herself. It is to guffaw.

Girlwords carry about as much weight as John Scalzi’s jockstrap. It doesn’t matter that girls say they never think about attracting men when they slip into high heels and a slinky dress. That no-good, horrible, very bad thought doesn’t have to cross a woman’s mind for the underlying function to be the same: Namely, the enhancement of her beauty to attract men from among whom she can choose as her best option mate. Her gene puppeteer has made sure she does the right things to maximize her chances of scoring Mr. Right. Paradoxically, her genes have also made sure she is only dimly aware, if at all, of the procreatively devious machinations of her helical overlord. The transmission signal is strengthened when the electrochemical vessel doesn’t poke around too much in the circuitry.

They want to look better, more attractive, and get the attention of the women they’re competing against.

Look better… for men. Be more attractive… for men. Get the attention of women… to remind them not to poach their men.

Attracting men is just a side effect.

Dear adorably deluded Desdinova, you have it backwards. Attracting a suitable man is the prime directive. Makeup is the side effect.

The only time women think about attracting a man is when they’re competing against each other for a man who has high social value.

Or anytime a charming man enters the room, with or without other women present. Do you think women can only have feelings of lust or love for a man when other women are loitering nearby?

The only time women put on makeup for a man is when they’re self-conscious about their imperfections which usually occurs at the beginning of a relationship.

Or, you know, which occurs every other time a woman wants to feel attractive, including all that time as a single lady bemoaning her singleness.

After she gets “comfortable”, she’s no longer self-conscious and quits wearing makeup.

Clarification: After her boyfriend turns beta, she no longer worries about pleasing him. Which should be a lesson for men who choose the ball and chain. And, fyi, most women deep in relationships continue wearing makeup outside the home and on romantic nights out.

I swear, the argumentative style and peculiar mental contortions that feminists exhibit when reminded of their ultimate purpose here on earth share amazing similarities with the semantic effluvium of game-hating betas angrily whining against “putting the pussy on a pedestal”. Two peabrains in a pod. They belong together.

Forked-Tongue Leftoid Poopytalk

European natives are grappling with the issue of free speech. Reader Cortesar writes,

“European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” [is] a model law which defines the limits of tolerance”

It is safe to say that Orwell is turning in [his] grave overwhelmed by jealousy. How in the hell he could not come up with such a brilliant concept as “a framework for promotion of tolerance which defines the limit of tolerance”

——————————————————————————————————
“We need practical solutions and so we have prioritised the adoption of the European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.”

This Model Law, drafted by leading European experts and legislators, and supported by the EJC, defines the limits of tolerance, which is the demand for security. This is intended to be a pan-European law that for the first time deals with not only the general commitment to tolerance, but defines the values that needs preserving and the limitation of tolerance towards
minority groups who risk the security of other minorities and of their host countries.
——————————————————————————————————-

Behold the universally beneficial uses of high IQ.

It comes down to this: Free speech, small government, community trust, and, among other virtues, a public sphere blessedly unpolluted by leftoid newspeak, are incompatible with a massive, multiracial, legalistic conglomerate of spineless cowards, pacified matrix pods, and malicious parasites. America and the EU will have to break apart if they are to survive united.

UPDATE

Related: Commenter Flip notices the belching of the Hivemind Hatemachine:

I went to one of the Ivy League colleges and flip through the alumni magazine, and every page is dripping with hostility to straight, white, Gentile males.

That’s the alpha and omega of 21st century America right there. Underneath all the stürm und drang it’s just white hot hatred for flyover straight white gentile men. Time to throw a wrench in the machine.

Women HATE HATE HATE Ingratiating Beta Males

What men are subconsciously thinking when they litter their texts and chats to women with smilies:

this will show her how happy and upbeat i am! i’m so enthused to be talking to her. so enthused! she will like me more when she sees how enthused i am that an electronic blip on a screen is making me horny big time.

What women are subconsciously thinking when they receive texts and chats littered with smilies from men:

ugh gross. that’s his fourth smiley. why is he trying so hard? he must not get laid much. if no other women want him, why would i want him? next.

CH once admonished men against the self-defeating compulsion to send women tons of smilies in an effort to build a romantic connection.

1. Too many smilies and question marks. A good rule of thumb when texting or emailing a girl is simply to refrain from using emoticons or question marks at all. Following this rule will help rewire your brain into mimicking the brain of an alpha.

Some emojis are useful as a pickup tool. But smilies — lots of ingratiating smilies — are the kiss-off of death to any budding ASCII courtship. Women are contemptuous of ingratiating betas, and a surfeit of smilies is a leading indicator of an appeasing man with the character of a chew toy. The smilies are weak.

Now, as it so happens, ♂SCIENCE♂ affirms this CH dictum.

It turns out that men who insert this little guy “:)” in their dating profiles or messages don’t get a good response from the ladies (on a personal note, I’ve heard some women say that the only thing they look forward to less than a smiley or, God forbid, winky face is an unsolicited picture of a dude’s junk… but that’s another story).

After studying a sample of 4,000 members, Zoosk found that men with a “:)” in their profile get 6% less incoming messages and 12% fewer responses to outgoing messages. Using a “:)” in an actual message decreased response rates by a whopping 66%.

You can get your hard truths later, after the party’s over, by waiting for social science studies to percolate through the genderqueersphere, or you can get them now, before the plebes have roused from slumber, as an honored guest of Le Chateau.

Men, on the other hand, love a good emoticon. So much so that women with a “:)” in their profile get 60% more messages.

To a man’s brain, an emotionally open woman is a contender to be a sexually open woman.

But wait!

Zoosk found that using the slightly longer “:-)” emoticon in a message actually increases responses by 13%.

I bet the men using the full “:-)” used it less frequently than the men sending the desperate “:)” configuration used their smiley choice. “:)” lends itself to mass beta spamming.

Ya know, forget all this smiley crap. Just stick with the tried-and-true, matchmaking basics.

“8==========D”

Alpha Male Of The Month: How Did Ric Ocasek Get Paulina Porizkova?

The enduring romance of ’80s icons –  Cars rockstar Ric Ocasek and supermodel Paulina Porizkova — is one of history’s greatest lessons in the power of fame and game to help a man overcome his ugly looks and snag a real beauty.

Reader JCclimber provides background,

following the links back to 2011, I read again your post on Paulina Porizkova being the elusive 10 by voting.

10s do exists, rare though they are. Because of a few freak contrarians wedged in the id gears, there will never be uniform agreement about female 10s among men, but you will find that large majorities of men agree strongly with which women embody physical perfection, or come closest to it.

Bing images of Paulina from her prime. She was a hard softnlovely 10, with a killer body to match her heavenly face. (I believe she was an SI Swimsuit model, ostensibly during a time when SI wasn’t squeezing fat chicks in fatkinis between its pages.) The radiant beauty of 10s is so magnificent that these women can still look bangable 20-30 years after their prime nubility.

As with many others, she was my favorite hot model then, throughout the 80’s. She was in a couple movies. Took me years to track down the foreign magazine where she posed topless. blah blah blah. let me cut to the chase.

Ya want to know how Ric Okasec of the Cars rock band got her? His fame and fortune wasn’t enough to bag THE top supermodel of that time. Nope. He had to overcome that face of his. He needed a little something called “game”.

They met filming the music video “Drive”. The director Timothy Hutton wanted to show the various aspects of a relationship and breakup. To get the scene of her crying, he had Ric and her yelling and cursing and screaming at each other, over and over to get the take correct. Interspersed with the happier scenes.

Years later, after they were married, she still gushes about those few days of filming during interviews. Does this remind you of any particular seduction technique? Anyone? Bueller?

You think a red hot supermodel who showed up for her first major modeling gig at age 14, while wearing a t-shirt that read “Too drunk to fuck” hadn’t encountered some alphas? Some fame and fortune? You think she emotionally bonded to any of those alphas?

Ric should send a thank you card every year to Timothy Hutton.

Very interesting backstory, JC. Push-pull, hot-cold, asshole-niceguy, ftw. Ric didn’t just snag Paulina; he owned her. And every woman secretly dreams of falling in love with a man psychologically strong enough to own her.

That’s the beauty of… game! Even when a man’s display of game is artificially stimulated by a third party it still exerts an arousing influence on a woman’s high and low love lobes. Think of game as the equivalent of good lighting, makeup, and a skin-tight cocktail dress. A woman has to work hard to get all those beauty-enhancing cues working for her, but when she does (and given she exceeds a natural cuteness threshold), men respond like dogs to the sound of a clattering dinner bowl.

Likewise, a man who practices the crimson arts to enhance his sexiness will trigger autonomic lust in the women blessed with his company. If he has concomitant fame, emotional range, and game-less competition that pales in contrast, the most beautiful women in the world will do more than give their sex… they’ll give their hearts, a much more precious commodity women guard like Fort Knockers.

A comment by PA pulled from that archived post linked by JC:

Ocasek has a total of six sons, two from each of his three marriages.

Even more proof that he’s alpha. When the girl loves you, her body chemistry favors XY sperm because she want to have a child that is a replica of her man.

But when she’s ‘meh’ about you, the chemistry is biased toward XX sperm, just so she can get a girl, or a copy of herself.

I know the ¡SCIENCE! for my supposition about to follow is lacking, but I’ll assert it anyway. It’s been my observation that more masculine looking or acting fathers have more sons. (And vice versa. The most beautiful girl I loved growing up had a father who was a Betamax Prime.) Maybe the reason is super sperm. Maybe it’s what PA says. Whatever it is, there’s something to the idea that women’s congenital solipsism flourishes alongside the feeble tutelage of beta males and happily retreats under the psychological leadership of alpha males. And that this id-shaped process may even extend down deep, beneath subconsciousness, to the chromosomal level.

False Domestic Abuse Accusations: Another Avenue For Women To Exploit White Knights

False Rape Accusations made by women are a systemic problem, and deserve scrutiny in the interest of justice. False Domestic Abuse Accusations are a slightly less malign version of FRAs, and for this reason perhaps occur more frequently. This video and story are an interesting insider look at the mechanics of an FDAA, how it unfolds, and how it speaks to a particularly vile part of female nature few people are willing to confront: The part that trips into action when a woman wants to hurt a man and chooses the expedient of enlisting white knights to serve as her violence and punishment proxies.

It’s time to fight the false rape accusation and false domestic abuse accusation cultures. Empowered women and dopey, gullible white knights conspire to put innocent men in jail. Active and persistent shaming of the women who lie about being victimized by rape and domestic abuse (and lie about both being a bigger problem than they are), and active and persistent shaming of the white knights who mindlessly rush to the defense of these wicked women, will help put an end to the twisted judicial and corrupt family court systems that have slowly and inexorably morphed over decades into an anonymous, gluttonous, anti-male woodchipper.

It’s time to have a national dialogue about FRAs and FDAAs.

Do women really want men to secretly videotape every moment of every day spent together as a means of self-preservation in the event of an emotional female outburst? Because that’s the world women and their feminist leaders are creating, whether they know it or not.