The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Smashing Happiness
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As the kids might say, we’ll just leave this right here:

For contemporary relevance and to avoid racial and sexual orientation confounding, responses are restricted to non-Hispanic whites from 2000 onward who have not engaged in same-sex relations.

Incels don’t do too well. Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better. Riding the cock carousel isn’t associated with female happiness no matter how good the women become at it.

For men, on the other hand, the Heartisian poon slayers (over 50 partners) report being markedly happier than do the aspiring alphas who aren’t particularly proficient purveyors of Game (11-50 partners).

Outside of the sexless and sexful tails, the inverse relationship between number of partners and happiness scarcely varies at all among men and women.

The most content are those who from the outset climb on two by two to be sure these days continue, followed by those who ended up doing so after a few false starts.

In a previous post, Twinkie outlines a mechanism for the results presented above:

If there is love – genuine love – before the surrender to lust, there will be love after that lust fades as it inevitably does with familiarity and age (and that’s human nature) while relationships built on lust will have long crumbled.

And when a woman has known no other man but you, she will love you, honor you, comfort you, and make certain that you know there is always one person in this world who will make you feel at home. She will give you her all.

In order to win a virtuous woman like that, you have to practice virtue yourself. You have to earn that trust and sacrifice from her by giving your all without falling into the easy temptations of the world. And that is in my experience how you have a marriage that gets stronger as time goes on and all the while irritations, difficulties, and complications of life pile up.

Mileage will vary. The implied causality could actually be a just-so or even backwards. That said, it resonates with my personal experience.

GSS variables used: SEX, NUMMEN, NUMWOMEN, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), HAPPY

 
Hide 165 CommentsLeave a Comment
165 Comments to "Smashing Happiness"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is a very important message. 100% agree with Twinkie on the point.

    As for the right tail, the men I’ve known in that category are naturals. They have magnetic charisma, carry around very little stress, and don’t think too hard about what gives life meaning. They don’t fret about how they’ll find a woman to sleep with; women have a tendency to just show up while the naturals are doing whatever they wanted to do anyway.

    I speculate that such men are much more common in the 50+ category than ultra-successful PUAs with a disciplined and studied technique. PUAs seem common because of their big presence on the Internet, but most of the guys going out there and sleeping with everything that moves don’t have the desire to sit down and iron out seduction systems in writing.

    Instead, most PUAs are living a pretty sad existence. Obsessed with the nihilistic objective of bedding more women, they still go home alone most nights, and it stings all the more for their focus on that objective.

    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    As for the right tail, the men I’ve known in that category are naturals.
     
    Someone like Hugh Hefner? That might sound good when you are in your 20's, but as a middle-aged adult with wife and children, that kind of life strikes as hollow and devoid of genuine human bonding.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    Which is something marriage provides men, too, without the lagging feeling of emptiness and missed opportunities.
    , @AaronB
    What you call being a natural is simply being relaxed and comfortable with oneself and not caring. It often comes with age, as one grows into oneself, but can be acquired at any age by the right life philosophy.

    PUA is obviously the deadly enemy to being relaxed and comfortable, and creates a mentality of extreme concern about outcome and a high stress approach to life in general.

    That is why PUA has been the worst thing in recent years preventing men actually becoming successful with women and enjoying life. However, it has provided an obsession for many men to kill time and create the illusion of self improvement, and a life philosophy of sorts, even if the philosophy of a loser trying to prove himself.
  2. Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory. What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.
     
    Why is that weird? I am hardly perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but there are two things I do not regret one bit - choosing the right woman to share my life and having children with her.

    What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.
     
    True! But this is my only vice in life. I don't smoke, I drink very mildly, I don't gamble. I don't play video games or golf or watch endless TV (I watch a few shows with her and, of course, I do watch and analyze a lot of combat sports footage). Just about every activity I do is with my wife or children or a few close friends.

    So she does urge me to "stop arguing with morons on the internet," but she doesn't mind. She knows she has it good. :)
    , @szopen

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.
     
    That's what we were expected for generations. I do not think it's weird. It's just you are wired differently (monogamous impulses vs PUA-impulses seem to have at least in part genetic background)
  3. The guys who said “over 50” were probably happy because they had a sense of humour and got a good laugh out of that silly survey.

    • Replies: @Jokah Macpherson
    I said "Over 1000!" but they had to force me into that damn Procustean bed.
  4. @Mr McKenna
    Lifetime of one, though? One? That's weirdo territory. What's more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.

    Why is that weird? I am hardly perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but there are two things I do not regret one bit – choosing the right woman to share my life and having children with her.

    What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.

    True! But this is my only vice in life. I don’t smoke, I drink very mildly, I don’t gamble. I don’t play video games or golf or watch endless TV (I watch a few shows with her and, of course, I do watch and analyze a lot of combat sports footage). Just about every activity I do is with my wife or children or a few close friends.

    So she does urge me to “stop arguing with morons on the internet,” but she doesn’t mind. She knows she has it good. 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    "Lifetime number of opposite sex partners = 1" vs "Monogamy" -- simply not equivalent for most of us. I'm a firm believer in monogamy and very seldom had trouble in practice but it's definitely weird not to try out a few different women when you're young. Else how can you judge, really? Not to mention learn.

    Anyway, I was just teasing. Tell your wife that I try to follow her advice too. Besides, I know full well that it's fun to see your name in lights, no matter how obscure the venue. So congrats! Who could see it coming, right?

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Wait. Golf is a vice?

    Don't tell Sailer.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There's nothing vicious about providing thought-provoking and insightful commentary to people who are eager to receive it.
  5. @Wency
    This is a very important message. 100% agree with Twinkie on the point.

    As for the right tail, the men I've known in that category are naturals. They have magnetic charisma, carry around very little stress, and don't think too hard about what gives life meaning. They don't fret about how they'll find a woman to sleep with; women have a tendency to just show up while the naturals are doing whatever they wanted to do anyway.

    I speculate that such men are much more common in the 50+ category than ultra-successful PUAs with a disciplined and studied technique. PUAs seem common because of their big presence on the Internet, but most of the guys going out there and sleeping with everything that moves don't have the desire to sit down and iron out seduction systems in writing.

    Instead, most PUAs are living a pretty sad existence. Obsessed with the nihilistic objective of bedding more women, they still go home alone most nights, and it stings all the more for their focus on that objective.

    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    As for the right tail, the men I’ve known in that category are naturals.

    Someone like Hugh Hefner? That might sound good when you are in your 20’s, but as a middle-aged adult with wife and children, that kind of life strikes as hollow and devoid of genuine human bonding.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    Someone like Hugh Hefner?
     
    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a 'natural' at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob. More likely candidates might have been David Beckham, Derek Jeter, Cary Grant, Hemingway, Clark Gable, Chris Hemsworth.
  6. Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.

    Were nuns consulted? The younger ones I meet can be quite joyous.

    Happiness can be a habit.

    • Replies: @Nikolai Vladivostok
    Well I thought it was funny.
    , @Jokah Macpherson
    I guess the nuns are 'nones'.
    , @Bill Jones
    You can kiss a nun once or twice but you shouldn't get into the habit,
    , @EliteCommInc.
    No fair,

    Nuns are exclusively married to Christ.

  7. @Twinkie

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.
     
    Why is that weird? I am hardly perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but there are two things I do not regret one bit - choosing the right woman to share my life and having children with her.

    What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.
     
    True! But this is my only vice in life. I don't smoke, I drink very mildly, I don't gamble. I don't play video games or golf or watch endless TV (I watch a few shows with her and, of course, I do watch and analyze a lot of combat sports footage). Just about every activity I do is with my wife or children or a few close friends.

    So she does urge me to "stop arguing with morons on the internet," but she doesn't mind. She knows she has it good. :)

    “Lifetime number of opposite sex partners = 1” vs “Monogamy” — simply not equivalent for most of us. I’m a firm believer in monogamy and very seldom had trouble in practice but it’s definitely weird not to try out a few different women when you’re young. Else how can you judge, really? Not to mention learn.

    Anyway, I was just teasing. Tell your wife that I try to follow her advice too. Besides, I know full well that it’s fun to see your name in lights, no matter how obscure the venue. So congrats! Who could see it coming, right?

  8. @Twinkie

    As for the right tail, the men I’ve known in that category are naturals.
     
    Someone like Hugh Hefner? That might sound good when you are in your 20's, but as a middle-aged adult with wife and children, that kind of life strikes as hollow and devoid of genuine human bonding.

    Someone like Hugh Hefner?

    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a ‘natural’ at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob. More likely candidates might have been David Beckham, Derek Jeter, Cary Grant, Hemingway, Clark Gable, Chris Hemsworth.

    • Replies: @MPerry
    Joey Bishop once said that Frank Sinatra wanted to be Dean Martin. Frank was a bigger star, but Dean truly did not give a damn.

    Frank for all his fame and money chased women. Women chased Dean. Jerry Lewis said he started geting laid after the got famous but Dean got laid when he was sweeping the floor at a barber's shop.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I've read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn't care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    He did get laid more often than not. He got laid a whole lot. But when he was in a dry spell, it never, ever worried him.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a ‘natural’ at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob
     
    Hefner was a pure goody-goody husband when he learned of his wife's premarital infidelity. The rest of his life was revenge.

    However, I understand he was very loyal to his friends and workers. The strict drug ban at the Mansion came after his secretary was wrongly accused in a sting, and committed suicide.

    He had dated her briefly, but then they became just fast friends. That's where you wanted to be with Hefner, not his lover.
    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Yeah, I'd say I agree, Hefner always seemed like he was trying too hard. The smoking jacket, the pipe, the contrived sophistication. To be fair, what he did seem to have a talent for was graphic design, finding interesting writers and cartoonists to contribute to Playboy, and most of all, luck in sensing a trend and being the first to package pornography in an upscale presentation.
  9. To me, this is useless without the age and other correlates. A 26 year old male with a single (ex) partner will have a different view on his happiness than a 46yo who just ditched his nagging fat cow and experiences freedom for the first time since his 20’s. I think we also need to know whether these respondents are getting any currently or not. A guy in his 60’s may be content to have banged dozens of hot chicks in his youth but getting none today. Conversely, a guy in his twenties who has only drilled one may be ecstatic that anyone polishes his pimply knob. And then there’s the ever present question of truthfulness – is the slut lying and claiming ten when it’s really 100? Is the quasi-incel falsely boasting that he’s a legendary swordsman? People don’t like to admit to things that paint them in a light unfavorable to the image they wish to portray.

    More interesting to me are the comments your posts like this elicit from the peanut gallery. While the veracity of the claims are as much in doubt as the poll responses, we can make some basic assumptions about them based on the types of people who peruse and spill their guts on Unz Review.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Self-reported survey data has inherent issues, especially when it comes to very personal things that are tied up with a lot of other psychological issues respondents are contending with. That said, one thing that is nice about the GSS is that it is administered over multiple sessions (and takes several hours in total to complete), so it's not as though these are people who are asked "How many woman have you slept with in your life? And how happy are you?"

    The survey also asks about sex frequency. That's an obvious one to explore. Thanks!
  10. @Mr McKenna
    Lifetime of one, though? One? That's weirdo territory. What's more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.

    That’s what we were expected for generations. I do not think it’s weird. It’s just you are wired differently (monogamous impulses vs PUA-impulses seem to have at least in part genetic background)

  11. Somewhat off subject, but it seems to me that two of the main thrusts of feminism – to ensure women get to work themselves to death and have as much consequence-free sex as men – probably contribute far more to female unhappiness than the traditional experiences/roles of women.

    On sex, the feminists fall into two camps: those that screw a bunch of guys to show how liberated they are, but then discover they get none of the emotional fulfillment women tend to want from it but they do get the silent scorn of other females, and those who have had little sexual success and expect things are going to change for them on that score by being liberated, but it doesn’t because they are still not all that attractive to most guys.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Usury and sexual liberation. The two most successful weapons to subvert the Western Christian culture (Catholic Church).

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9T6OGPG0_Q
  12. @Mr McKenna

    Someone like Hugh Hefner?
     
    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a 'natural' at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob. More likely candidates might have been David Beckham, Derek Jeter, Cary Grant, Hemingway, Clark Gable, Chris Hemsworth.

    Joey Bishop once said that Frank Sinatra wanted to be Dean Martin. Frank was a bigger star, but Dean truly did not give a damn.

    Frank for all his fame and money chased women. Women chased Dean. Jerry Lewis said he started geting laid after the got famous but Dean got laid when he was sweeping the floor at a barber’s shop.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I’ve read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    He did get laid more often than not. He got laid a whole lot. But when he was in a dry spell, it never, ever worried him.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I’ve read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.
     
    Yep. Indifference to sex is very attractive to women.
    , @Wency
    Yeah, that's the personality I was describing exactly. Not "Hef", who constructed his whole life around getting laid.

    Though it's not enough to say "indifference to getting laid" is what gets such a man laid. It's more that he exists in that thin line where he communicates his desire without seeming even a bit desperate. If he gets brushed off, his emotional state is unaffected. He has forgotten about it within 3 seconds.

    But men who act like they don't want to get with a woman generally will not get with that woman. Even naturals usually need to pursue a little bit.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    ...he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

     

    Likewise, Tony Bennett's blurb for Alec Wilder's book on song was "My favorite way to spend an evening."
  13. Here is one possibility which came to me today: the 2+ crowd could include substantial number of both males and females which are after the divorce, while for “1”s the proportion of divorced (one partner before, not yet married again or not f* another person again) could be lower. ANy idea whether this could influence the results? As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?
     
    47% of regular church attendees report being very happy, but only 28% of non-attendees. The higher you go in partner counts, the fewer church attendees you have, and the more misery and despair you're bound to see.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-happiness/200806/happiness-and-religion-happiness-religion
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Being married, being religiously active, being of higher social status, and being socially conservative all correlate with self-reported happiness, and they all correlate with each other as well. This isn't meant to be rigorous enough to be accepted by an academic journal. I don't have time for that and I actually want people to read it!
  14. @MPerry
    Joey Bishop once said that Frank Sinatra wanted to be Dean Martin. Frank was a bigger star, but Dean truly did not give a damn.

    Frank for all his fame and money chased women. Women chased Dean. Jerry Lewis said he started geting laid after the got famous but Dean got laid when he was sweeping the floor at a barber's shop.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I've read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn't care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    He did get laid more often than not. He got laid a whole lot. But when he was in a dry spell, it never, ever worried him.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I’ve read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    Yep. Indifference to sex is very attractive to women.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yep. Indifference to sex is very attractive to women.

     

    That explains "fag hags".
  15. @szopen
    Here is one possibility which came to me today: the 2+ crowd could include substantial number of both males and females which are after the divorce, while for "1"s the proportion of divorced (one partner before, not yet married again or not f* another person again) could be lower. ANy idea whether this could influence the results? As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?

    As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?

    47% of regular church attendees report being very happy, but only 28% of non-attendees. The higher you go in partner counts, the fewer church attendees you have, and the more misery and despair you’re bound to see.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-happiness/200806/happiness-and-religion-happiness-religion

    • Replies: @szopen
    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?
  16. @Rosie

    As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?
     
    47% of regular church attendees report being very happy, but only 28% of non-attendees. The higher you go in partner counts, the fewer church attendees you have, and the more misery and despair you're bound to see.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-happiness/200806/happiness-and-religion-happiness-religion

    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Bill
    Figuring out causation here seems pretty hopeless to me. People who live conservative lifestyles say they are happier. Conservative lifestyles show up in lots of measures. It's like health and healthy lifestyle: very hard to figure out which aspect of healthy lifestyle (if any) improves health.
    , @Rosie

    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?
     
    Yes.
    , @Twinkie
    The correlations persist even after controlling for religiosity as I demonstrated in the original thread.
  17. @Reg Cæsar

    Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.
     
    Were nuns consulted? The younger ones I meet can be quite joyous.

    Happiness can be a habit.


    https://www.sistersofmary.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DOMIS-Winter-Event.jpg

    Well I thought it was funny.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    My old church in St Paul supports a vigorous mission in Vladivostok. So do the Mormons. It's the Wild West-- or East-- of Christianity.
  18. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight
    Somewhat off subject, but it seems to me that two of the main thrusts of feminism - to ensure women get to work themselves to death and have as much consequence-free sex as men - probably contribute far more to female unhappiness than the traditional experiences/roles of women.

    On sex, the feminists fall into two camps: those that screw a bunch of guys to show how liberated they are, but then discover they get none of the emotional fulfillment women tend to want from it but they do get the silent scorn of other females, and those who have had little sexual success and expect things are going to change for them on that score by being liberated, but it doesn't because they are still not all that attractive to most guys.

    Usury and sexual liberation. The two most successful weapons to subvert the Western Christian culture (Catholic Church).

  19. People are not homogeneous. A man (or a woman) predisposed to following a happier Life’s Plan is not the same as a man (or a woman) who is predisposed to be miserable no matter what.

    What produces happiness (which is a byproduct of living in certain ways?) In theory that could vary from person to person, and a large group of persons could in theory be gated into a few basic columns of behavior.

    Each and every human attribute exists on a spectrum, and each individual is born to a segment on that spectrum. This is true for intelligence, time preference, sociability, various forms of athleticism, novelty-seeking, etc. Perhaps the most obvious spectrum for people is propensity to HERD. All people feel some compulsion to “fit in,” but some people find the beliefs and attitudes surrounding them to be irresistible. I argue that people who are compulsive herders are apt to be unhappy, forever chasing a robotic rabbit around the dog track.

    In today’s world, a person with a single sex partner (their spouse) clearly herds LESS, all other things (like physical attractiveness) held equal.

    I also aver that everything we do becomes a part of us. Imagine for one moment that a man has multiple sexual liaisons prior to “settling down,” and at least one of them was with a girl who quite intentionally took her cues from pornography with the intention of imprinting on his memory an experience that will “put her face on all his subsequent orgasms.” [A trusted source told me a roommate stated this verbatim.]

    How will that man’s subsequent experiences compare, especially as his memory-experience of that “peak sexual encounter” is with a woman who never ages (unlike his very real-world wife?)

    We live in a world that constantly tries to make us restless and unhappy in order to SELL US SOMETHING. What is better, to have nothing with which to compare your experience and trust that you and your spouse are making it as good as possible, or to have a library of past experiences where in each “category” your spouse may or (more often) may not be “tops?”

    Sex ain’t rocket science. Breadth of experience doesn’t make “perfect.” The grass isn’t greener on the other side of the fence, it’s greener where YOU NURTURE IT.

    That I even had to restate this last sentence reveals how deep in a hole is our society.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "How will that man’s subsequent experiences compare, especially as his memory-experience of that “peak sexual encounter” is with a woman who never ages (unlike his very real-world wife?)"

    Isn't being 'alpha-widowed', harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have "wife goggles" in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she's birthed your children.

    Prefer not to think what she sees when she looks at me ;-(

  20. A couple of thoughts.

    1) I think the weight will be different between the sexes. That “poon-slayer” number is probably the result of the males in that group being high status achievers. Despite what the PUA guys claim, 90% of them are in the lower ranges. Rich guys with status probably make up the +50 number and they are happy because they are rich guys with status.

    2) What the distribution between the groups? If total number of males in the +50 bucket is greater than the other buckets, that probably says something. Ditto the females, but for different reasons.

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Prostitution seems like it might be an important thing as well. It's a big business, so it has a bunch of customers and a bunch of workers. The 50+ guys must contain a lot of habitual customers, and the 50+ girls must contain a lot of workers. Basically by definition, you have to have massive overrepresentation, and maybe you even have large absolute fractions in those two categories. Among the guys, in particular, it would not be surprising (to ignorant me) if most 50+ guys are habitual customers.
    , @Jokah Macpherson

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.
     
    You underestimate the GSS. But I'm too tired from work; look it up yourself.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    1) Indeed, men in the 50+ partner category are nearly 50% more likely to be "upper class" than the population of white men in general is (6% v 4%).

    2) Small in both cases, about 3% of men and fewer than 1% of women.

    3) The GSS only asks about alcohol consumption every now and then, the last time in depth was all the way back in 2004 (what I'd call the olden tymes even if it's not quite far enough back for you to refer to it that way!).
  21. @szopen
    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?

    Figuring out causation here seems pretty hopeless to me. People who live conservative lifestyles say they are happier. Conservative lifestyles show up in lots of measures. It’s like health and healthy lifestyle: very hard to figure out which aspect of healthy lifestyle (if any) improves health.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  22. And when a woman has known no other man but you, she will love you, honor you, comfort you, and make certain that you know there is always one person in this world who will make you feel at home. She will give you her all.

    My own mother was an exception. In 1958 she was a 19 year old virgin when she married my father, who was a 31 year old pharmacist in Tulsa. By 1950’s Oklahoma standards Dad made good money, though not at the same level as a successful physician, lawyer or oil company executive.

    But Mom was no prize. She was a fat, unattractive hillbilly girl from Arkansas with bad teeth. My parents told me that after Dad married Mom, he made her go to the dentist to get the fillings she needed. She and her family couldn’t have afforded the dental work otherwise.

    After my father died a few years ago and I thought about the kind of man he was – basically a good and decent sort whom I respected – I wondered if Mom really was the best he could do.

    In the early 1980’s Mom had to lose weight when she became diabetic, and she then divorced Dad because she thought he was too old for her by then, or something along those lines.

    While I can appreciate the theoretical point about marrying the virgin as your best shot at getting a wife who won’t betray you eventually, in my own family I can see that it didn’t work out that way for my father.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    It's always a crap-shoot.

    Life is best tackled in partnership, but if you pick the wrong partner (or buy a well-disguised lemon) it's really hard to throw in your hand, demand a re-deal and make out well.

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.

    I have an unproven theory: If you want a decent spouse, look very carefully (and honestly) at your prospect's parents. If you're a man sizing up a woman, look at her mother and father. If mom's a crazy bitch and/or dad looks like an empty shell, RUN, don't walk away. The same is probably true for girls sizing up a man. If you can't see the parents, you're making the most important decision of your life utterly blind.

    This isn't perfect, and by this measure my wife might have rejected me. There are no set-and-forget approaches for life, are there?

    I've been married most of my life to the same girl. Lots of good times. I am phenomenally fortunate to have found her early.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Why did he choose her? Virginity is desirable ceteris paribus but a particular virgin is not necessarily preferable to a particular woman who has multiple partners, obviously!
  23. @The Z Blog
    A couple of thoughts.

    1) I think the weight will be different between the sexes. That "poon-slayer" number is probably the result of the males in that group being high status achievers. Despite what the PUA guys claim, 90% of them are in the lower ranges. Rich guys with status probably make up the +50 number and they are happy because they are rich guys with status.

    2) What the distribution between the groups? If total number of males in the +50 bucket is greater than the other buckets, that probably says something. Ditto the females, but for different reasons.

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.

    Prostitution seems like it might be an important thing as well. It’s a big business, so it has a bunch of customers and a bunch of workers. The 50+ guys must contain a lot of habitual customers, and the 50+ girls must contain a lot of workers. Basically by definition, you have to have massive overrepresentation, and maybe you even have large absolute fractions in those two categories. Among the guys, in particular, it would not be surprising (to ignorant me) if most 50+ guys are habitual customers.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Sorry, this study largely excluded Hispanics and blacks so I doubt prostitution played much of a role in the data set.
    , @The Z Blog
    There's other data to suggest female happiness is inversely proportional to the number of sex partners. There's probably a biological element to it. Married heterosexual males consistently score higher on the happiness index.

    I think AE's chart raises some other issues that would be worth exploring. For example, thirty years ago, men probably lied more about the number of sex partners at the low end than today. On the other hand, I suspect men may lie more today on the high end.

    For females, this sort of survey would have been worthless fifty years ago, as few women would admit to more than a few sex partners. Today, there's a lot of social pressure on girls to sleep around, so they may inflate their numbers in these surveys.

    It's a good entry point to a lot of topics.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    As an aside, according to the GSS men are nearly an order-of-magnitude more likely to have paid or been paid for sex than women are (14.1% v 1.8%).
  24. @MPerry
    Joey Bishop once said that Frank Sinatra wanted to be Dean Martin. Frank was a bigger star, but Dean truly did not give a damn.

    Frank for all his fame and money chased women. Women chased Dean. Jerry Lewis said he started geting laid after the got famous but Dean got laid when he was sweeping the floor at a barber's shop.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I've read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn't care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    He did get laid more often than not. He got laid a whole lot. But when he was in a dry spell, it never, ever worried him.

    Yeah, that’s the personality I was describing exactly. Not “Hef”, who constructed his whole life around getting laid.

    Though it’s not enough to say “indifference to getting laid” is what gets such a man laid. It’s more that he exists in that thin line where he communicates his desire without seeming even a bit desperate. If he gets brushed off, his emotional state is unaffected. He has forgotten about it within 3 seconds.

    But men who act like they don’t want to get with a woman generally will not get with that woman. Even naturals usually need to pursue a little bit.

  25. @szopen
    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?

    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?

    Yes.

  26. @advancedatheist

    And when a woman has known no other man but you, she will love you, honor you, comfort you, and make certain that you know there is always one person in this world who will make you feel at home. She will give you her all.
     
    My own mother was an exception. In 1958 she was a 19 year old virgin when she married my father, who was a 31 year old pharmacist in Tulsa. By 1950's Oklahoma standards Dad made good money, though not at the same level as a successful physician, lawyer or oil company executive.

    But Mom was no prize. She was a fat, unattractive hillbilly girl from Arkansas with bad teeth. My parents told me that after Dad married Mom, he made her go to the dentist to get the fillings she needed. She and her family couldn't have afforded the dental work otherwise.

    After my father died a few years ago and I thought about the kind of man he was - basically a good and decent sort whom I respected - I wondered if Mom really was the best he could do.

    In the early 1980's Mom had to lose weight when she became diabetic, and she then divorced Dad because she thought he was too old for her by then, or something along those lines.

    While I can appreciate the theoretical point about marrying the virgin as your best shot at getting a wife who won't betray you eventually, in my own family I can see that it didn't work out that way for my father.

    It’s always a crap-shoot.

    Life is best tackled in partnership, but if you pick the wrong partner (or buy a well-disguised lemon) it’s really hard to throw in your hand, demand a re-deal and make out well.

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.

    I have an unproven theory: If you want a decent spouse, look very carefully (and honestly) at your prospect’s parents. If you’re a man sizing up a woman, look at her mother and father. If mom’s a crazy bitch and/or dad looks like an empty shell, RUN, don’t walk away. The same is probably true for girls sizing up a man. If you can’t see the parents, you’re making the most important decision of your life utterly blind.

    This isn’t perfect, and by this measure my wife might have rejected me. There are no set-and-forget approaches for life, are there?

    I’ve been married most of my life to the same girl. Lots of good times. I am phenomenally fortunate to have found her early.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.
     
    This is my experience. We were both virgins, most likely. I didn't ask, but he was 21 when we met and there were no traces of previous girlfriends. About six months after the wedding, his behavior changed. He slacked on his college studies, got drunk, smoked cigarettes and weed, ate so much he gained weight and broke his sleep patterns (watched TV through the night and slept during the day). Then there were toddler tantrums, using swear words at me, yelling at his mother and throwing things into walls. Shockingly, he smashed his guitar (he had gone to a music school and played music at home for fun) and his cellphone, then just took mine to use. The neighborhood policeman knocked on our door to ask if there was domestic violence. There probably would be if I didn't run away in time. In hindsight it looks like a description of a psychopath (On first impression, psychopaths generally appear charming, engaged, caring, friendly, logical, and reasonable, with well thought-out goals. (...) Initially, psychopaths appear reliable, devoted, and trustworthy, but, suddenly and without provocation, become unreliable, with no regard for how their actions affect the situation, regardless of its importance. https://www.thoughtco.com/characteristics-of-the-psychopathic-personality-973128).

    The parents test would fail on him - intact family, nice intelligent parents who worked hard to give their son an education and good future. And he was almost there (for a small-town Russian guy to get into a Moscow college tuition-free and bag a girl with a Moscow apartment - no small achievements) but blew it all away. I never heard about him after he returned to his home town the next year.
  27. @Bill
    Prostitution seems like it might be an important thing as well. It's a big business, so it has a bunch of customers and a bunch of workers. The 50+ guys must contain a lot of habitual customers, and the 50+ girls must contain a lot of workers. Basically by definition, you have to have massive overrepresentation, and maybe you even have large absolute fractions in those two categories. Among the guys, in particular, it would not be surprising (to ignorant me) if most 50+ guys are habitual customers.

    Sorry, this study largely excluded Hispanics and blacks so I doubt prostitution played much of a role in the data set.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    From what I can tell, most white guys who use prostitutes are:

    1)Lonely and well away from home for a sustained period of time (truckers, soldiers, sailors)

    2) Drunk doofuses who get taken advantage of (I heard a podcast recently where a guy was at a Vegas bar/club, and several prostitutes were obviously lingering around and hitting on guys. He saw this other guy, who was well-dressed but getting drunk, take off with a girl, and then he came back a half hour later complaining that the girl robbed him.

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.
  28. I read those comments regarding a virtuous woman. It’s missing one tiny aspect.

    One is more likely to obtain a virtuous woman if you operate in environments that espouse virtue.

    It is more than likely a virtuous women would associate, date and marry a less than virtuous male than the reverse —

    Virtue of course encompasses a full range of issues one of which is over looked and may be a sign of love or component of love but is a stand out – commitment, as even feelings and sentiments of love can change and shift.

    Though I am sure one might respond — commitment is a sign of love.

    ——————–

    I am going to reject the notion that celibacy is some manner state of unhappiness. And my celibacy is by choice, in my view.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    As a single male I have to walk lightly on this matter when it comes to the longevity of relationships. But I simply do not buy the contention of a singular right person. The "right person" is the person for whom you break to and who breaks to you to make the relationship work.


    Again, I am speaking only of heterosexual dynamics.
  29. @EliteCommInc.
    I read those comments regarding a virtuous woman. It's missing one tiny aspect.


    One is more likely to obtain a virtuous woman if you operate in environments that espouse virtue.


    It is more than likely a virtuous women would associate, date and marry a less than virtuous male than the reverse --

    Virtue of course encompasses a full range of issues one of which is over looked and may be a sign of love or component of love but is a stand out - commitment, as even feelings and sentiments of love can change and shift.

    Though I am sure one might respond -- commitment is a sign of love.

    --------------------

    I am going to reject the notion that celibacy is some manner state of unhappiness. And my celibacy is by choice, in my view.

    As a single male I have to walk lightly on this matter when it comes to the longevity of relationships. But I simply do not buy the contention of a singular right person. The “right person” is the person for whom you break to and who breaks to you to make the relationship work.

    Again, I am speaking only of heterosexual dynamics.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The right person is the one you're compatible with and you share something unique with--children.
  30. @Nikolai Vladivostok
    Well I thought it was funny.

    My old church in St Paul supports a vigorous mission in Vladivostok. So do the Mormons. It’s the Wild West– or East– of Christianity.

  31. @Rosie

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I’ve read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.
     
    Yep. Indifference to sex is very attractive to women.

    Yep. Indifference to sex is very attractive to women.

    That explains “fag hags”.

  32. @MPerry
    Joey Bishop once said that Frank Sinatra wanted to be Dean Martin. Frank was a bigger star, but Dean truly did not give a damn.

    Frank for all his fame and money chased women. Women chased Dean. Jerry Lewis said he started geting laid after the got famous but Dean got laid when he was sweeping the floor at a barber's shop.

    Yeah, Dean always had good loks and easy charm and that certainly helped. But everything I've read about Dean says his success with women was based in large part on the fact that he really didn't care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    He did get laid more often than not. He got laid a whole lot. But when he was in a dry spell, it never, ever worried him.

    …he really didn’t care if he got laid. If he did, great. If not, he had a good book on his night stand to read.

    Likewise, Tony Bennett’s blurb for Alec Wilder’s book on song was “My favorite way to spend an evening.”

  33. @Mr McKenna

    Someone like Hugh Hefner?
     
    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a 'natural' at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob. More likely candidates might have been David Beckham, Derek Jeter, Cary Grant, Hemingway, Clark Gable, Chris Hemsworth.

    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a ‘natural’ at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob

    Hefner was a pure goody-goody husband when he learned of his wife’s premarital infidelity. The rest of his life was revenge.

    However, I understand he was very loyal to his friends and workers. The strict drug ban at the Mansion came after his secretary was wrongly accused in a sting, and committed suicide.

    He had dated her briefly, but then they became just fast friends. That’s where you wanted to be with Hefner, not his lover.

    • Replies: @Truth

    Hefner was a pure goody-goody husband when he learned of his wife’s premarital infidelity. The rest of his life was revenge.</blockquote

    Pure fiction. He was a Freemason, crypto-Jew, Satanist from a connected bloodline. Most of the icons are.
     

     
  34. @szopen
    Are you saying this is another confounding factor, i.e. the number of partners in fact signals religiousitym, which is in fact base variable explaining the happiness level?

    The correlations persist even after controlling for religiosity as I demonstrated in the original thread.

  35. @dc.sunsets
    People are not homogeneous. A man (or a woman) predisposed to following a happier Life's Plan is not the same as a man (or a woman) who is predisposed to be miserable no matter what.

    What produces happiness (which is a byproduct of living in certain ways?) In theory that could vary from person to person, and a large group of persons could in theory be gated into a few basic columns of behavior.

    Each and every human attribute exists on a spectrum, and each individual is born to a segment on that spectrum. This is true for intelligence, time preference, sociability, various forms of athleticism, novelty-seeking, etc. Perhaps the most obvious spectrum for people is propensity to HERD. All people feel some compulsion to "fit in," but some people find the beliefs and attitudes surrounding them to be irresistible. I argue that people who are compulsive herders are apt to be unhappy, forever chasing a robotic rabbit around the dog track.

    In today's world, a person with a single sex partner (their spouse) clearly herds LESS, all other things (like physical attractiveness) held equal.

    I also aver that everything we do becomes a part of us. Imagine for one moment that a man has multiple sexual liaisons prior to "settling down," and at least one of them was with a girl who quite intentionally took her cues from pornography with the intention of imprinting on his memory an experience that will "put her face on all his subsequent orgasms." [A trusted source told me a roommate stated this verbatim.]

    How will that man's subsequent experiences compare, especially as his memory-experience of that "peak sexual encounter" is with a woman who never ages (unlike his very real-world wife?)

    We live in a world that constantly tries to make us restless and unhappy in order to SELL US SOMETHING. What is better, to have nothing with which to compare your experience and trust that you and your spouse are making it as good as possible, or to have a library of past experiences where in each "category" your spouse may or (more often) may not be "tops?"

    Sex ain't rocket science. Breadth of experience doesn't make "perfect." The grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence, it's greener where YOU NURTURE IT.

    That I even had to restate this last sentence reveals how deep in a hole is our society.

    “How will that man’s subsequent experiences compare, especially as his memory-experience of that “peak sexual encounter” is with a woman who never ages (unlike his very real-world wife?)”

    Isn’t being ‘alpha-widowed’, harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have “wife goggles” in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she’s birthed your children.

    Prefer not to think what she sees when she looks at me ;-(

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Isn’t being ‘alpha-widowed’, harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    I've had two male acquaintances tell me that "their wife is not the woman with whom they had the most passionate relationship/sex." Did this contribute to one of them being divorced? Might it contribute to the other's, if it occurs? I don't know, but having memories of "better passion" can't be healthy. Each person's memories change, and they're reviewed under "current conditions." What this means to me is that such memories are more corrosive if the marriage is in a shaky condition at that moment. All relationships cycle, and having any additional centripetal acceleration (in the form of "fond" memories) can't be a good thing when in a low zone.

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have “wife goggles” in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she’s birthed your children.

    It helps if you have her entire time line (teen years, early, middle and late adulthood AND kids raised to independence, plus grandkids) in your head. But needless to say, it takes 35 years +/- to get to that point, so consciously setting ones mindset is (in my view) worthwhile.

    People are complicated, and each is unique. We are actually strangers in our own minds for the most part, and we often have little grasp of why we think and do as we think and do. It strikes me as wise to try to limit the inputs to Who We Are to things about which we're pretty sure.

    Just my 2 cents.

  36. @Bill
    Prostitution seems like it might be an important thing as well. It's a big business, so it has a bunch of customers and a bunch of workers. The 50+ guys must contain a lot of habitual customers, and the 50+ girls must contain a lot of workers. Basically by definition, you have to have massive overrepresentation, and maybe you even have large absolute fractions in those two categories. Among the guys, in particular, it would not be surprising (to ignorant me) if most 50+ guys are habitual customers.

    There’s other data to suggest female happiness is inversely proportional to the number of sex partners. There’s probably a biological element to it. Married heterosexual males consistently score higher on the happiness index.

    I think AE’s chart raises some other issues that would be worth exploring. For example, thirty years ago, men probably lied more about the number of sex partners at the low end than today. On the other hand, I suspect men may lie more today on the high end.

    For females, this sort of survey would have been worthless fifty years ago, as few women would admit to more than a few sex partners. Today, there’s a lot of social pressure on girls to sleep around, so they may inflate their numbers in these surveys.

    It’s a good entry point to a lot of topics.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  37. I don’t know at what point in life he crossed the 50 mark, but Casanova’s waning years were rather miserable, with von Waldstein’s servants joking about and playing degrading pranks on him at the Dux castle.

  38. @Reg Cæsar

    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a ‘natural’ at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob
     
    Hefner was a pure goody-goody husband when he learned of his wife's premarital infidelity. The rest of his life was revenge.

    However, I understand he was very loyal to his friends and workers. The strict drug ban at the Mansion came after his secretary was wrongly accused in a sting, and committed suicide.

    He had dated her briefly, but then they became just fast friends. That's where you wanted to be with Hefner, not his lover.

    Hefner was a pure goody-goody husband when he learned of his wife’s premarital infidelity. The rest of his life was revenge.</blockquote

    Pure fiction. He was a Freemason, crypto-Jew, Satanist from a connected bloodline. Most of the icons are.

  39. @Twinkie

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.
     
    Why is that weird? I am hardly perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but there are two things I do not regret one bit - choosing the right woman to share my life and having children with her.

    What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.
     
    True! But this is my only vice in life. I don't smoke, I drink very mildly, I don't gamble. I don't play video games or golf or watch endless TV (I watch a few shows with her and, of course, I do watch and analyze a lot of combat sports footage). Just about every activity I do is with my wife or children or a few close friends.

    So she does urge me to "stop arguing with morons on the internet," but she doesn't mind. She knows she has it good. :)

    Wait. Golf is a vice?

    Don’t tell Sailer.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Wait. Golf is a vice?
     
    It can be when people become obsessive about it and neglect more important things (such as family). I have a cousin who is a professor of electrical engineering (yes, he is Asian, indeed). He is a super bright guy, has lots of patents and such, but when it comes to golf, he becomes like a drug-addled slobbering idiot.

    The man is completely and utterly obsessed with golf. We have a joke in the family that his wife could be carried away in a casket by the golf course and he'd wave his hand dismissively and in irritation, muttering, "just one more hole."

    The funny thing is, he's pretty terrible at it.
  40. @Reg Cæsar

    Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.
     
    Were nuns consulted? The younger ones I meet can be quite joyous.

    Happiness can be a habit.


    https://www.sistersofmary.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DOMIS-Winter-Event.jpg

    I guess the nuns are ‘nones’.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I remember going to an ethnic festival with my dad when I was a kid. We passed a flock of nuns and my dad yelled at them "Nuns get none".
  41. @The Z Blog
    A couple of thoughts.

    1) I think the weight will be different between the sexes. That "poon-slayer" number is probably the result of the males in that group being high status achievers. Despite what the PUA guys claim, 90% of them are in the lower ranges. Rich guys with status probably make up the +50 number and they are happy because they are rich guys with status.

    2) What the distribution between the groups? If total number of males in the +50 bucket is greater than the other buckets, that probably says something. Ditto the females, but for different reasons.

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.

    You underestimate the GSS. But I’m too tired from work; look it up yourself.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    In this case both with DRINKYR and INTRWGHT, there are just a handful of years with data and they don't overlap (as opposed to number of sexual partners which is asked every time). The sample sizes are too small for drinking and corpulence.
    , @Feryl
    https://denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/2018/09/drinking-over-past-year-by-generation.html

    It was last asked in 2004; at that point, Silents did the least drinking, and Boomers did the most, with Gen X-ers in between. I limited the data to white guys only.

    Unfortunately, due to the opioid epidemic I have a hunch that the only reason drinking isn't more common is because depressed Americans have turned to an even more powerful drug. Neil Howe sez that early life mortality, substance abuse etc. are strongest in Boomers and early Gen X-ers. There are of course some younger people dying in car wrecks, OD-ing, getting locked up etc., but as the cohorts born in the 50's and 60's have aged, much social pathology and poor judgement has aged along with them. He's also fond of pointing out that the post-1994 decline in crime was strongest among teens and young adults, whereas the 1970's and early 1990's crime booms were caused mostly by people under 30. Basically, the crime rate for young people fell like 60 or 70% from 1997-2007, while for older cohorts it was more like 40 or 50%.

    David Finkelhor calls it the "dissipation of the 1960's cultural revolution". He says that most indicators of behavior showed improvement in the mid-late 90's, and the biggest improvement occured with children, who as they've aged into adults in the 2000's and 2010's have been responsible for dramatic declines in violence, crime, animal cruelty, domestic violence, and so on. It's interesting, of course, that the Boomers and X-ers who were abysmally behaved as youngsters and young adults, now habitually claim that society is failing and falling apart, when so many of them failed in their own youth. Neil Howe says that the GI Generation was known for being mild-mannered and disciplined, in stark contrast to the nihilistic and reckless Lost Generation who came before them.
  42. @Toronto Russian
    The guys who said "over 50" were probably happy because they had a sense of humour and got a good laugh out of that silly survey.

    I said “Over 1000!” but they had to force me into that damn Procustean bed.

    • LOL: Toronto Russian
  43. @Wency
    This is a very important message. 100% agree with Twinkie on the point.

    As for the right tail, the men I've known in that category are naturals. They have magnetic charisma, carry around very little stress, and don't think too hard about what gives life meaning. They don't fret about how they'll find a woman to sleep with; women have a tendency to just show up while the naturals are doing whatever they wanted to do anyway.

    I speculate that such men are much more common in the 50+ category than ultra-successful PUAs with a disciplined and studied technique. PUAs seem common because of their big presence on the Internet, but most of the guys going out there and sleeping with everything that moves don't have the desire to sit down and iron out seduction systems in writing.

    Instead, most PUAs are living a pretty sad existence. Obsessed with the nihilistic objective of bedding more women, they still go home alone most nights, and it stings all the more for their focus on that objective.

    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    Which is something marriage provides men, too, without the lagging feeling of emptiness and missed opportunities.

  44. @Twinkie

    Lifetime of one, though? One? That’s weirdo territory.
     
    Why is that weird? I am hardly perfect and have made many mistakes in my life, but there are two things I do not regret one bit - choosing the right woman to share my life and having children with her.

    What’s more, Twinkie says his wife tells him to stop posting so much on unz.com.
     
    True! But this is my only vice in life. I don't smoke, I drink very mildly, I don't gamble. I don't play video games or golf or watch endless TV (I watch a few shows with her and, of course, I do watch and analyze a lot of combat sports footage). Just about every activity I do is with my wife or children or a few close friends.

    So she does urge me to "stop arguing with morons on the internet," but she doesn't mind. She knows she has it good. :)

    There’s nothing vicious about providing thought-provoking and insightful commentary to people who are eager to receive it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Again, thank you for the generous words.
  45. @Stan d Mute
    To me, this is useless without the age and other correlates. A 26 year old male with a single (ex) partner will have a different view on his happiness than a 46yo who just ditched his nagging fat cow and experiences freedom for the first time since his 20’s. I think we also need to know whether these respondents are getting any currently or not. A guy in his 60’s may be content to have banged dozens of hot chicks in his youth but getting none today. Conversely, a guy in his twenties who has only drilled one may be ecstatic that anyone polishes his pimply knob. And then there’s the ever present question of truthfulness - is the slut lying and claiming ten when it’s really 100? Is the quasi-incel falsely boasting that he’s a legendary swordsman? People don’t like to admit to things that paint them in a light unfavorable to the image they wish to portray.

    More interesting to me are the comments your posts like this elicit from the peanut gallery. While the veracity of the claims are as much in doubt as the poll responses, we can make some basic assumptions about them based on the types of people who peruse and spill their guts on Unz Review.

    Self-reported survey data has inherent issues, especially when it comes to very personal things that are tied up with a lot of other psychological issues respondents are contending with. That said, one thing that is nice about the GSS is that it is administered over multiple sessions (and takes several hours in total to complete), so it’s not as though these are people who are asked “How many woman have you slept with in your life? And how happy are you?”

    The survey also asks about sex frequency. That’s an obvious one to explore. Thanks!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The pre-1990 data about homosexuality is something I really would take with a grain of salt. People born before 1980 were really squeamish about the subject before the 90's. For centuries gay men were considered positively demonic; eventually, the public understanding the transmission of AIDS (via sex and blood infection) and the mid-90's beginning of the crime decline made people less vicious towards gays.
  46. @szopen
    Here is one possibility which came to me today: the 2+ crowd could include substantial number of both males and females which are after the divorce, while for "1"s the proportion of divorced (one partner before, not yet married again or not f* another person again) could be lower. ANy idea whether this could influence the results? As in, not so much number of partners drving happiness, but number of partners being just a signal just this particular population includes more-than-average number of people who wer ein unhappy relationships before?

    Being married, being religiously active, being of higher social status, and being socially conservative all correlate with self-reported happiness, and they all correlate with each other as well. This isn’t meant to be rigorous enough to be accepted by an academic journal. I don’t have time for that and I actually want people to read it!

  47. @The Z Blog
    A couple of thoughts.

    1) I think the weight will be different between the sexes. That "poon-slayer" number is probably the result of the males in that group being high status achievers. Despite what the PUA guys claim, 90% of them are in the lower ranges. Rich guys with status probably make up the +50 number and they are happy because they are rich guys with status.

    2) What the distribution between the groups? If total number of males in the +50 bucket is greater than the other buckets, that probably says something. Ditto the females, but for different reasons.

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.

    1) Indeed, men in the 50+ partner category are nearly 50% more likely to be “upper class” than the population of white men in general is (6% v 4%).

    2) Small in both cases, about 3% of men and fewer than 1% of women.

    3) The GSS only asks about alcohol consumption every now and then, the last time in depth was all the way back in 2004 (what I’d call the olden tymes even if it’s not quite far enough back for you to refer to it that way!).

  48. @advancedatheist

    And when a woman has known no other man but you, she will love you, honor you, comfort you, and make certain that you know there is always one person in this world who will make you feel at home. She will give you her all.
     
    My own mother was an exception. In 1958 she was a 19 year old virgin when she married my father, who was a 31 year old pharmacist in Tulsa. By 1950's Oklahoma standards Dad made good money, though not at the same level as a successful physician, lawyer or oil company executive.

    But Mom was no prize. She was a fat, unattractive hillbilly girl from Arkansas with bad teeth. My parents told me that after Dad married Mom, he made her go to the dentist to get the fillings she needed. She and her family couldn't have afforded the dental work otherwise.

    After my father died a few years ago and I thought about the kind of man he was - basically a good and decent sort whom I respected - I wondered if Mom really was the best he could do.

    In the early 1980's Mom had to lose weight when she became diabetic, and she then divorced Dad because she thought he was too old for her by then, or something along those lines.

    While I can appreciate the theoretical point about marrying the virgin as your best shot at getting a wife who won't betray you eventually, in my own family I can see that it didn't work out that way for my father.

    Why did he choose her? Virginity is desirable ceteris paribus but a particular virgin is not necessarily preferable to a particular woman who has multiple partners, obviously!

  49. @Bill
    Prostitution seems like it might be an important thing as well. It's a big business, so it has a bunch of customers and a bunch of workers. The 50+ guys must contain a lot of habitual customers, and the 50+ girls must contain a lot of workers. Basically by definition, you have to have massive overrepresentation, and maybe you even have large absolute fractions in those two categories. Among the guys, in particular, it would not be surprising (to ignorant me) if most 50+ guys are habitual customers.

    As an aside, according to the GSS men are nearly an order-of-magnitude more likely to have paid or been paid for sex than women are (14.1% v 1.8%).

  50. @EliteCommInc.
    As a single male I have to walk lightly on this matter when it comes to the longevity of relationships. But I simply do not buy the contention of a singular right person. The "right person" is the person for whom you break to and who breaks to you to make the relationship work.


    Again, I am speaking only of heterosexual dynamics.

    The right person is the one you’re compatible with and you share something unique with–children.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Stop depressing me.

    Laugh.

    By compatibility you mean . . . get along, make room for each others foibles, tolerate inconsistencies, likeability, general agreement . . .

    I was thinking mutual sacrifice. But then relationships can work with one person willing to sacrifice more than the other.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Considering that even serial killers get love mail ---


    Unless I change my income and personal income status -- compatibility is the least of the hurdles to changing my state as a single person.

    And even then, my parameters are my parameters: relational history, divorce, education, drug and alcohol history, faith and practice . . .
  51. @Jokah Macpherson

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.
     
    You underestimate the GSS. But I'm too tired from work; look it up yourself.

    In this case both with DRINKYR and INTRWGHT, there are just a handful of years with data and they don’t overlap (as opposed to number of sexual partners which is asked every time). The sample sizes are too small for drinking and corpulence.

  52. @Audacious Epigone
    The right person is the one you're compatible with and you share something unique with--children.

    Stop depressing me.

    Laugh.

    By compatibility you mean . . . get along, make room for each others foibles, tolerate inconsistencies, likeability, general agreement . . .

    I was thinking mutual sacrifice. But then relationships can work with one person willing to sacrifice more than the other.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Now that I think about it, that does look like an insulting response on my part even though I intended it to indicate general agreements--as in the woman who is right for you is the one who ends up being the mother of your children because at that point the two of you have a sacred duty to those children, the ones the two of you chose to have but who did not choose to be had by the two of you!
    , @dc.sunsets
    What's been lost is the mutuality.

    Why is "economic independence" so important for women to obtain, when in a marriage it's ALL ABOUT interdependence?

    Mutual devotion. Interdependence. This is what a marriage must have in order to be more than just cohabitation. Who can tolerate another adult (living together) when there's no broad-and-deep "glue" to enable tolerance? The universal knowledge that teens are difficult to live with is a function of how even within a family, ones proto-adult offspring become intolerable (because they are, by definition, near-adults and you lack, by definition, most of the "glue" that makes a marriage possible.)

    "'til death do us part" and a recognition of the value of commitment, I mean REAL commitment, seem to be so out of fashion that the probability of two people predisposed to this finding each other is now extremely low, I think.

    I think this is tragic.
  53. @Audacious Epigone
    The right person is the one you're compatible with and you share something unique with--children.

    Considering that even serial killers get love mail —

    Unless I change my income and personal income status — compatibility is the least of the hurdles to changing my state as a single person.

    And even then, my parameters are my parameters: relational history, divorce, education, drug and alcohol history, faith and practice . . .

  54. @Jokah Macpherson
    I guess the nuns are 'nones'.

    I remember going to an ethnic festival with my dad when I was a kid. We passed a flock of nuns and my dad yelled at them “Nuns get none”.

  55. @EliteCommInc.
    Stop depressing me.

    Laugh.

    By compatibility you mean . . . get along, make room for each others foibles, tolerate inconsistencies, likeability, general agreement . . .

    I was thinking mutual sacrifice. But then relationships can work with one person willing to sacrifice more than the other.

    Now that I think about it, that does look like an insulting response on my part even though I intended it to indicate general agreements–as in the woman who is right for you is the one who ends up being the mother of your children because at that point the two of you have a sacred duty to those children, the ones the two of you chose to have but who did not choose to be had by the two of you!

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I was not the least offended. I agree that having children demands a certain level of commitment.


    But I would add this caveat. That in today's relational environment I have often suggested that any woman who gets pregnant as the result of relations outside of marriage cannot demand the man she had relations with be responsible for her child.

    It is after all her body and her choice not to ensure protection against conception. And unless there was a previous understanding that her pregnancy would be the responsibility of both --

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Amendment:

    absolute commitment
  56. @Mr McKenna

    Someone like Hugh Hefner?
     
    I seriously doubt that anyone considers Hugh Hefner to be a 'natural' at much of anything, beyond perhaps being a slob. More likely candidates might have been David Beckham, Derek Jeter, Cary Grant, Hemingway, Clark Gable, Chris Hemsworth.

    Yeah, I’d say I agree, Hefner always seemed like he was trying too hard. The smoking jacket, the pipe, the contrived sophistication. To be fair, what he did seem to have a talent for was graphic design, finding interesting writers and cartoonists to contribute to Playboy, and most of all, luck in sensing a trend and being the first to package pornography in an upscale presentation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yeah, don't get me started on the top quality feature articles.
  57. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Wait. Golf is a vice?

    Don't tell Sailer.

    Wait. Golf is a vice?

    It can be when people become obsessive about it and neglect more important things (such as family). I have a cousin who is a professor of electrical engineering (yes, he is Asian, indeed). He is a super bright guy, has lots of patents and such, but when it comes to golf, he becomes like a drug-addled slobbering idiot.

    The man is completely and utterly obsessed with golf. We have a joke in the family that his wife could be carried away in a casket by the golf course and he’d wave his hand dismissively and in irritation, muttering, “just one more hole.”

    The funny thing is, he’s pretty terrible at it.

  58. @Audacious Epigone
    There's nothing vicious about providing thought-provoking and insightful commentary to people who are eager to receive it.

    Again, thank you for the generous words.

  59. If anyone is seriously interested in more data regarding this phenomenon, take a look at this study: http://before-i-do.org/

    Under menu, click on appendix for the methodology and predictors. And don’t forget these tables:

    http://before-i-do.org/pdf/table1.pdf

    http://before-i-do.org/pdf/table2.pdf
    (Esp. look at “Only had sex with future spouse, no others” under prior relationships)

    By the way, there wasn’t much difference between men vs. women on the predictors of marriage quality, except:

    Moderation Analyses
    Gender. Only two of the findings were moderated significantly by gender, controlling for demographic variables. Having a child or children from prior relationship was negatively associated with marital quality for women (b = -1.72), not for men (b = .055). Additionally, more sexual partners before marriage were negatively associated with marital quality for women (b = -.061), not for men (b = -.004).

    I know, shocking, right?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    Being burned out from multiple failures like the 'date scene' character in Her can't be good for mental health.

    https://youtu.be/owLSz4jqA4g

    It took me two watches to notice the split-second shot where she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he's going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys. Lol what? If you don't want to be treated like an easy lay, don't present yourself as one!

  60. They only GenX and younger white males with >50 partners are going to be heavily concentrated in major metros, which tend towards greater economic opportunity and lower “white despair” metrics — drug addiction, suicide, deindustrialization, etc.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Good point. Community type is a limiting factor on the upper end of the partner distribution. Live in a town of a couple thousand and just a couple hundred are going to be women in their fertile years with many of them in relationships, etc.
  61. @Audacious Epigone
    Now that I think about it, that does look like an insulting response on my part even though I intended it to indicate general agreements--as in the woman who is right for you is the one who ends up being the mother of your children because at that point the two of you have a sacred duty to those children, the ones the two of you chose to have but who did not choose to be had by the two of you!

    I was not the least offended. I agree that having children demands a certain level of commitment.

    But I would add this caveat. That in today’s relational environment I have often suggested that any woman who gets pregnant as the result of relations outside of marriage cannot demand the man she had relations with be responsible for her child.

    It is after all her body and her choice not to ensure protection against conception. And unless there was a previous understanding that her pregnancy would be the responsibility of both —

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    So other men have to pay for the child instead? I understand the appeal in a free society but in the world we live in now, that'd only make things worse.
    , @Rosie

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

     

    My God has it really come to this? Men playing victim for having to provide for their own damned kids!
  62. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Yeah, I'd say I agree, Hefner always seemed like he was trying too hard. The smoking jacket, the pipe, the contrived sophistication. To be fair, what he did seem to have a talent for was graphic design, finding interesting writers and cartoonists to contribute to Playboy, and most of all, luck in sensing a trend and being the first to package pornography in an upscale presentation.

    Yeah, don’t get me started on the top quality feature articles.

  63. @Reg Cæsar

    Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.
     
    Were nuns consulted? The younger ones I meet can be quite joyous.

    Happiness can be a habit.


    https://www.sistersofmary.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DOMIS-Winter-Event.jpg

    You can kiss a nun once or twice but you shouldn’t get into the habit,

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ha ha ha! LOL! Good one!
  64. @dc.sunsets
    It's always a crap-shoot.

    Life is best tackled in partnership, but if you pick the wrong partner (or buy a well-disguised lemon) it's really hard to throw in your hand, demand a re-deal and make out well.

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.

    I have an unproven theory: If you want a decent spouse, look very carefully (and honestly) at your prospect's parents. If you're a man sizing up a woman, look at her mother and father. If mom's a crazy bitch and/or dad looks like an empty shell, RUN, don't walk away. The same is probably true for girls sizing up a man. If you can't see the parents, you're making the most important decision of your life utterly blind.

    This isn't perfect, and by this measure my wife might have rejected me. There are no set-and-forget approaches for life, are there?

    I've been married most of my life to the same girl. Lots of good times. I am phenomenally fortunate to have found her early.

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.

    This is my experience. We were both virgins, most likely. I didn’t ask, but he was 21 when we met and there were no traces of previous girlfriends. About six months after the wedding, his behavior changed. He slacked on his college studies, got drunk, smoked cigarettes and weed, ate so much he gained weight and broke his sleep patterns (watched TV through the night and slept during the day). Then there were toddler tantrums, using swear words at me, yelling at his mother and throwing things into walls. Shockingly, he smashed his guitar (he had gone to a music school and played music at home for fun) and his cellphone, then just took mine to use. The neighborhood policeman knocked on our door to ask if there was domestic violence. There probably would be if I didn’t run away in time. In hindsight it looks like a description of a psychopath (On first impression, psychopaths generally appear charming, engaged, caring, friendly, logical, and reasonable, with well thought-out goals. (…) Initially, psychopaths appear reliable, devoted, and trustworthy, but, suddenly and without provocation, become unreliable, with no regard for how their actions affect the situation, regardless of its importance. https://www.thoughtco.com/characteristics-of-the-psychopathic-personality-973128).

    The parents test would fail on him – intact family, nice intelligent parents who worked hard to give their son an education and good future. And he was almost there (for a small-town Russian guy to get into a Moscow college tuition-free and bag a girl with a Moscow apartment – no small achievements) but blew it all away. I never heard about him after he returned to his home town the next year.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    The more a learn about how our cognitive processes actually work, the more certain I become that a very solid third of people are, by my definition, literally insane.

    I define sanity as the degree to which the "mental map" we use to navigate life corresponds to the actual "territory" of who we are and the reality that surrounds us.

    Insanity is thus when ones behavior, a product of cognition (which is a winner-takes-all contest between the different voices in ones head), based on all the heuristics (mental shortcuts) that make up ones "map," expresses "outside the boundaries of what is considered normal."

    Men dressing up as women and pretending they're girls used to be widely regarded as "insane." Now saying so is virtually a crime, even though the "map" by which trannies navigate is clearly, obviously mismatched to their actual reality. Taken far enough you have the Heavens Gate cult whose members' map included the notion that by killing themselves their souls could join up with a starship and be transported to some Nirvana or another.

    Fads and fashions also "make people crazy" in that most people absorb their "map" from those surrounding them. This is why people adopt the beliefs and behaviors of those with whom they associate.

    I think some people are just more susceptible to adopting/absorbing "maps" that are too estranged from reality for the individual to thrive. But humans are wonderful mimics, and people predisposed to being crazy can mimic what they realize is "normal." This is why it doesn't take all that much suspension of disbelief to accept all the Magic Negroes on TV shows. While there are few blacks in the USA with the mental horsepower to populate all the Rocket Scientist roles on the Boob Tube, blacks are among the most gifted of all mimics. You really have to watch for a long time to see if one who looks bright actually is among the relative few who are so.

  65. @YetAnotherAnon
    "How will that man’s subsequent experiences compare, especially as his memory-experience of that “peak sexual encounter” is with a woman who never ages (unlike his very real-world wife?)"

    Isn't being 'alpha-widowed', harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have "wife goggles" in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she's birthed your children.

    Prefer not to think what she sees when she looks at me ;-(

    Isn’t being ‘alpha-widowed’, harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    I’ve had two male acquaintances tell me that “their wife is not the woman with whom they had the most passionate relationship/sex.” Did this contribute to one of them being divorced? Might it contribute to the other’s, if it occurs? I don’t know, but having memories of “better passion” can’t be healthy. Each person’s memories change, and they’re reviewed under “current conditions.” What this means to me is that such memories are more corrosive if the marriage is in a shaky condition at that moment. All relationships cycle, and having any additional centripetal acceleration (in the form of “fond” memories) can’t be a good thing when in a low zone.

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have “wife goggles” in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she’s birthed your children.

    It helps if you have her entire time line (teen years, early, middle and late adulthood AND kids raised to independence, plus grandkids) in your head. But needless to say, it takes 35 years +/- to get to that point, so consciously setting ones mindset is (in my view) worthwhile.

    People are complicated, and each is unique. We are actually strangers in our own minds for the most part, and we often have little grasp of why we think and do as we think and do. It strikes me as wise to try to limit the inputs to Who We Are to things about which we’re pretty sure.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    One thing that helped accelerate my conception of the timeline is thinking back on all the memories I had interacting with my dad when I was the age my son is now. The age gap between my dad and myself is almost the same as that between me and my son. I would never do anything now that I would've been crushed had my dad done the same then. It's a powerful motivator. Once children are involved, there is no mere "cheating on your spouse"--if you cheat, it's your children you're cheating on more than anything else.
  66. @EliteCommInc.
    Stop depressing me.

    Laugh.

    By compatibility you mean . . . get along, make room for each others foibles, tolerate inconsistencies, likeability, general agreement . . .

    I was thinking mutual sacrifice. But then relationships can work with one person willing to sacrifice more than the other.

    What’s been lost is the mutuality.

    Why is “economic independence” so important for women to obtain, when in a marriage it’s ALL ABOUT interdependence?

    Mutual devotion. Interdependence. This is what a marriage must have in order to be more than just cohabitation. Who can tolerate another adult (living together) when there’s no broad-and-deep “glue” to enable tolerance? The universal knowledge that teens are difficult to live with is a function of how even within a family, ones proto-adult offspring become intolerable (because they are, by definition, near-adults and you lack, by definition, most of the “glue” that makes a marriage possible.)

    “’til death do us part” and a recognition of the value of commitment, I mean REAL commitment, seem to be so out of fashion that the probability of two people predisposed to this finding each other is now extremely low, I think.

    I think this is tragic.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I think there are some valuable observations here. but in looking at the marriage data as opposed to the divorce data, marriage remains a primary goal of most heterosexual dating relations. I think the rate of 66+ percentage points is a positive indicator.

    Marriage as an "institution" a system for establishing, and growing family to community to region, state, and then national existence remains in play.

    The planet will eventually devolve into a hostile place for people of faith. But the concept of marriage will outlast even that animosity. I think the observation of what is under stress is family and the mores that instill the value of family and family as the primary means of teaching right from wrong healthy and unhealthy, work ethic, the value of learning (education), a sense of place and translating that into a consistent national identity.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    One of the many benefits of a conventional male breadwinner/female homemaker split is that there is no inherent competition. If my wife and I both spent the same amount of time working and the same amount of time tending to the home, the person who made more would seem to be obviously contributing more. By having separate spheres, it's much either to be content knowing that each partner is equally crucial for different reasons.
  67. @Toronto Russian

    Lots of crazy people (men and women) can keep up an act long enough to fool prospective suitors. Crazy people just get crazier.
     
    This is my experience. We were both virgins, most likely. I didn't ask, but he was 21 when we met and there were no traces of previous girlfriends. About six months after the wedding, his behavior changed. He slacked on his college studies, got drunk, smoked cigarettes and weed, ate so much he gained weight and broke his sleep patterns (watched TV through the night and slept during the day). Then there were toddler tantrums, using swear words at me, yelling at his mother and throwing things into walls. Shockingly, he smashed his guitar (he had gone to a music school and played music at home for fun) and his cellphone, then just took mine to use. The neighborhood policeman knocked on our door to ask if there was domestic violence. There probably would be if I didn't run away in time. In hindsight it looks like a description of a psychopath (On first impression, psychopaths generally appear charming, engaged, caring, friendly, logical, and reasonable, with well thought-out goals. (...) Initially, psychopaths appear reliable, devoted, and trustworthy, but, suddenly and without provocation, become unreliable, with no regard for how their actions affect the situation, regardless of its importance. https://www.thoughtco.com/characteristics-of-the-psychopathic-personality-973128).

    The parents test would fail on him - intact family, nice intelligent parents who worked hard to give their son an education and good future. And he was almost there (for a small-town Russian guy to get into a Moscow college tuition-free and bag a girl with a Moscow apartment - no small achievements) but blew it all away. I never heard about him after he returned to his home town the next year.

    The more a learn about how our cognitive processes actually work, the more certain I become that a very solid third of people are, by my definition, literally insane.

    I define sanity as the degree to which the “mental map” we use to navigate life corresponds to the actual “territory” of who we are and the reality that surrounds us.

    Insanity is thus when ones behavior, a product of cognition (which is a winner-takes-all contest between the different voices in ones head), based on all the heuristics (mental shortcuts) that make up ones “map,” expresses “outside the boundaries of what is considered normal.”

    Men dressing up as women and pretending they’re girls used to be widely regarded as “insane.” Now saying so is virtually a crime, even though the “map” by which trannies navigate is clearly, obviously mismatched to their actual reality. Taken far enough you have the Heavens Gate cult whose members’ map included the notion that by killing themselves their souls could join up with a starship and be transported to some Nirvana or another.

    Fads and fashions also “make people crazy” in that most people absorb their “map” from those surrounding them. This is why people adopt the beliefs and behaviors of those with whom they associate.

    I think some people are just more susceptible to adopting/absorbing “maps” that are too estranged from reality for the individual to thrive. But humans are wonderful mimics, and people predisposed to being crazy can mimic what they realize is “normal.” This is why it doesn’t take all that much suspension of disbelief to accept all the Magic Negroes on TV shows. While there are few blacks in the USA with the mental horsepower to populate all the Rocket Scientist roles on the Boob Tube, blacks are among the most gifted of all mimics. You really have to watch for a long time to see if one who looks bright actually is among the relative few who are so.

  68. Off topic:

    If you want to see into the radicalism from Big Tech, it’s not coming from the top down

    What they fear more than anything is unionization. The censorship of the Right is an appeasement strategy, if left up to the workforce we’d be subject to “Internet ID” and banned from the mainstream.

    The demand, which they fail to flesh out, is for “prior restraint” by the platforms, enforced by law.

  69. @Wency
    This is a very important message. 100% agree with Twinkie on the point.

    As for the right tail, the men I've known in that category are naturals. They have magnetic charisma, carry around very little stress, and don't think too hard about what gives life meaning. They don't fret about how they'll find a woman to sleep with; women have a tendency to just show up while the naturals are doing whatever they wanted to do anyway.

    I speculate that such men are much more common in the 50+ category than ultra-successful PUAs with a disciplined and studied technique. PUAs seem common because of their big presence on the Internet, but most of the guys going out there and sleeping with everything that moves don't have the desire to sit down and iron out seduction systems in writing.

    Instead, most PUAs are living a pretty sad existence. Obsessed with the nihilistic objective of bedding more women, they still go home alone most nights, and it stings all the more for their focus on that objective.

    Hence, even the incels are happier: most of them are obsessed with some hobby that has nothing to do with women.

    What you call being a natural is simply being relaxed and comfortable with oneself and not caring. It often comes with age, as one grows into oneself, but can be acquired at any age by the right life philosophy.

    PUA is obviously the deadly enemy to being relaxed and comfortable, and creates a mentality of extreme concern about outcome and a high stress approach to life in general.

    That is why PUA has been the worst thing in recent years preventing men actually becoming successful with women and enjoying life. However, it has provided an obsession for many men to kill time and create the illusion of self improvement, and a life philosophy of sorts, even if the philosophy of a loser trying to prove himself.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Pushing back a little, my only window into PUA/Game is Heartiste, so that's the angle I'm coming from, but he regularly stresses that the aloof mindset and ZFG attitude is far more important than particular responses or memorizing scripts.
    , @m___
    Completely detached from this single comment of yours, so do not consider this to be a reply to it. But in general.

    Why is it that some of your comments make sense, as in defoiling, unearthing, a slightly less surface present layer of psychological mindsets. The authors here on unz.com as far as one can generalize do not. They either focus outside of the relevant, then attach to pertinence to compensate, proceed by omission, a contrast play between authors on same issues or the reverse distraction. A certain what we call "bend" is always present. This is the going rate everywhere in the media. The slight difference is the scope and minimal quality information gap here on unz.

    Most of the niche-group readers, that have no problem analising and getting nauseous of the "feeds" of conventional journalism and book pushing, do not fully comprehend this mindgame, and do it persistently. This is a measured design feature. It makes as you say "a lot of sense" from the human psychology point of view leveled at the measure of cognizance of the audience.

    But then why try to poke a little deeper, if obviously the amnesia of the surface layer defined by most authors here still is fully absorbed and accepted as genuine by the readers. Your comments on Goy and Jewish mindsets, the cultural-ethnical-religious-historical differences, are they not to naked and indecent to be shown. Should they not be reserved to the insiders. Obviously that is the cemented Jewish mindset of intellectualism of the Jewish elites, be it cognitive and real, or "fake" "homi economici". We are irritated by it.

    You obviously have the Jewish mindset of "psychology" before reason and generational goals, inclusiveness, no goal definition beyond the power status bending, and that is a compliment. It also makes for rather awkward analysis of your explanatory. Are you not concerned that be it just a slight fraction of readership grasping your infusion, it could reverberate into complicating even more the waning existence of media power as to content, and pushing even more the issue into who controls the hardware and access channels? It seems to go against the going psychological conventions as in how to steer society and how to sort the populations.

    This is to us a serious issue, and might accellerate the status quo and ad hoc power nuclei shifts into accelleration?
  70. More Boomer cringe

    What exactly is so hard with finding some token Hispanics to criticize her? They do exist, and it isn’t as if you can’t rip the token white Dems.

    It would be easier to take the Tribal Gun away from her, if our people quit giving her ammo.

  71. @dc.sunsets
    What's been lost is the mutuality.

    Why is "economic independence" so important for women to obtain, when in a marriage it's ALL ABOUT interdependence?

    Mutual devotion. Interdependence. This is what a marriage must have in order to be more than just cohabitation. Who can tolerate another adult (living together) when there's no broad-and-deep "glue" to enable tolerance? The universal knowledge that teens are difficult to live with is a function of how even within a family, ones proto-adult offspring become intolerable (because they are, by definition, near-adults and you lack, by definition, most of the "glue" that makes a marriage possible.)

    "'til death do us part" and a recognition of the value of commitment, I mean REAL commitment, seem to be so out of fashion that the probability of two people predisposed to this finding each other is now extremely low, I think.

    I think this is tragic.

    I think there are some valuable observations here. but in looking at the marriage data as opposed to the divorce data, marriage remains a primary goal of most heterosexual dating relations. I think the rate of 66+ percentage points is a positive indicator.

    Marriage as an “institution” a system for establishing, and growing family to community to region, state, and then national existence remains in play.

    The planet will eventually devolve into a hostile place for people of faith. But the concept of marriage will outlast even that animosity. I think the observation of what is under stress is family and the mores that instill the value of family and family as the primary means of teaching right from wrong healthy and unhealthy, work ethic, the value of learning (education), a sense of place and translating that into a consistent national identity.

  72. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill Jones
    You can kiss a nun once or twice but you shouldn't get into the habit,

    Ha ha ha! LOL! Good one!

  73. @Audacious Epigone
    Now that I think about it, that does look like an insulting response on my part even though I intended it to indicate general agreements--as in the woman who is right for you is the one who ends up being the mother of your children because at that point the two of you have a sacred duty to those children, the ones the two of you chose to have but who did not choose to be had by the two of you!

    Amendment:

    absolute commitment

  74. O/T

    Netherlands

    The animal rights party receives 2/3rds support from women. The nationalist parties are three-fifths and two-thirds male. Remarkably the Green party with its Trudeau doppleganger leader is only 54% female.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Very encouraging, especially the age cohort figure.
  75. @anon
    They only GenX and younger white males with >50 partners are going to be heavily concentrated in major metros, which tend towards greater economic opportunity and lower "white despair" metrics -- drug addiction, suicide, deindustrialization, etc.

    Good point. Community type is a limiting factor on the upper end of the partner distribution. Live in a town of a couple thousand and just a couple hundred are going to be women in their fertile years with many of them in relationships, etc.

  76. @EliteCommInc.
    I was not the least offended. I agree that having children demands a certain level of commitment.


    But I would add this caveat. That in today's relational environment I have often suggested that any woman who gets pregnant as the result of relations outside of marriage cannot demand the man she had relations with be responsible for her child.

    It is after all her body and her choice not to ensure protection against conception. And unless there was a previous understanding that her pregnancy would be the responsibility of both --

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

    So other men have to pay for the child instead? I understand the appeal in a free society but in the world we live in now, that’d only make things worse.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    No.

    Not at all.

    Just to be clear, if a woman has relations with a man and the purpose of said dynamic was for that moment or even future moments and there was never any intention of child bearing. Then it behooves her to make sure she prevents pregnancy.

    If the nature of male female dynamics has changed, there's no reason men should be saddled with the consequences unintentioned. If I know that we are going hiking and the you are prone to lose wind after 3 miles. Guess what, we are going two, l'est I be saddled with having to carry your pack and my own as well.

    The pretense of the uninformed, innocent (definitely not) woman must be put asunder to give birth to female empowerment and with that comes taking responsibility for her actions - her body.

    The rare occurrance of rape and rarer still resulting in conception, would be something different.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    You think a woman being informed that unless she was forced into a relational dynamic, her choice her consequences would make matters worse. I disagree. (barring the murder of children) I suspect that there would be a lot less careless relational behavior.
  77. @dc.sunsets
    Isn’t being ‘alpha-widowed’, harking back to that perfect, sexy partner, more of a female thing?

    I've had two male acquaintances tell me that "their wife is not the woman with whom they had the most passionate relationship/sex." Did this contribute to one of them being divorced? Might it contribute to the other's, if it occurs? I don't know, but having memories of "better passion" can't be healthy. Each person's memories change, and they're reviewed under "current conditions." What this means to me is that such memories are more corrosive if the marriage is in a shaky condition at that moment. All relationships cycle, and having any additional centripetal acceleration (in the form of "fond" memories) can't be a good thing when in a low zone.

    While I might recall (on rare occasions) some past girls fondly for their various qualities and abilities, I also have “wife goggles” in that I tend to see in my wife the things I liked when we first met, even though she may have changed just a tad in the intervening decades. It helps if she’s birthed your children.

    It helps if you have her entire time line (teen years, early, middle and late adulthood AND kids raised to independence, plus grandkids) in your head. But needless to say, it takes 35 years +/- to get to that point, so consciously setting ones mindset is (in my view) worthwhile.

    People are complicated, and each is unique. We are actually strangers in our own minds for the most part, and we often have little grasp of why we think and do as we think and do. It strikes me as wise to try to limit the inputs to Who We Are to things about which we're pretty sure.

    Just my 2 cents.

    One thing that helped accelerate my conception of the timeline is thinking back on all the memories I had interacting with my dad when I was the age my son is now. The age gap between my dad and myself is almost the same as that between me and my son. I would never do anything now that I would’ve been crushed had my dad done the same then. It’s a powerful motivator. Once children are involved, there is no mere “cheating on your spouse”–if you cheat, it’s your children you’re cheating on more than anything else.

  78. @dc.sunsets
    What's been lost is the mutuality.

    Why is "economic independence" so important for women to obtain, when in a marriage it's ALL ABOUT interdependence?

    Mutual devotion. Interdependence. This is what a marriage must have in order to be more than just cohabitation. Who can tolerate another adult (living together) when there's no broad-and-deep "glue" to enable tolerance? The universal knowledge that teens are difficult to live with is a function of how even within a family, ones proto-adult offspring become intolerable (because they are, by definition, near-adults and you lack, by definition, most of the "glue" that makes a marriage possible.)

    "'til death do us part" and a recognition of the value of commitment, I mean REAL commitment, seem to be so out of fashion that the probability of two people predisposed to this finding each other is now extremely low, I think.

    I think this is tragic.

    One of the many benefits of a conventional male breadwinner/female homemaker split is that there is no inherent competition. If my wife and I both spent the same amount of time working and the same amount of time tending to the home, the person who made more would seem to be obviously contributing more. By having separate spheres, it’s much either to be content knowing that each partner is equally crucial for different reasons.

  79. @AaronB
    What you call being a natural is simply being relaxed and comfortable with oneself and not caring. It often comes with age, as one grows into oneself, but can be acquired at any age by the right life philosophy.

    PUA is obviously the deadly enemy to being relaxed and comfortable, and creates a mentality of extreme concern about outcome and a high stress approach to life in general.

    That is why PUA has been the worst thing in recent years preventing men actually becoming successful with women and enjoying life. However, it has provided an obsession for many men to kill time and create the illusion of self improvement, and a life philosophy of sorts, even if the philosophy of a loser trying to prove himself.

    Pushing back a little, my only window into PUA/Game is Heartiste, so that’s the angle I’m coming from, but he regularly stresses that the aloof mindset and ZFG attitude is far more important than particular responses or memorizing scripts.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Contrived aloofness is not being natural and comfortable in your own skin. Its an effort to look impressive - its try hard, and creates performance stress.

    What I mean by not care isn't contrivid ZFG - its to do nothing to impress, not even indirectly, to be perfectly normal, to be comfortable with yourself. To simply not care enough to do things like contrived aloofness or ZGF - which isn't fun - and your joylessness will be quite apparent.
  80. @216
    O/T

    Netherlands

    https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1108766578529570818

    https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1108782242866688001

    The animal rights party receives 2/3rds support from women. The nationalist parties are three-fifths and two-thirds male. Remarkably the Green party with its Trudeau doppleganger leader is only 54% female.

    https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/jesse-klaver-justin-trudeau.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=780

    Very encouraging, especially the age cohort figure.

  81. @Audacious Epigone
    So other men have to pay for the child instead? I understand the appeal in a free society but in the world we live in now, that'd only make things worse.

    No.

    Not at all.

    Just to be clear, if a woman has relations with a man and the purpose of said dynamic was for that moment or even future moments and there was never any intention of child bearing. Then it behooves her to make sure she prevents pregnancy.

    If the nature of male female dynamics has changed, there’s no reason men should be saddled with the consequences unintentioned. If I know that we are going hiking and the you are prone to lose wind after 3 miles. Guess what, we are going two, l’est I be saddled with having to carry your pack and my own as well.

    The pretense of the uninformed, innocent (definitely not) woman must be put asunder to give birth to female empowerment and with that comes taking responsibility for her actions – her body.

    The rare occurrance of rape and rarer still resulting in conception, would be something different.

  82. @Audacious Epigone
    So other men have to pay for the child instead? I understand the appeal in a free society but in the world we live in now, that'd only make things worse.

    You think a woman being informed that unless she was forced into a relational dynamic, her choice her consequences would make matters worse. I disagree. (barring the murder of children) I suspect that there would be a lot less careless relational behavior.

    • Replies: @A.B. Prosper
    True.

    I think the best approach would be to make male custody default in all cases where there isn't abuse desertion or the like. An male can contest custody with a DNA test and except in certain situations where he knows the kids aren't his and agrees up front , this means he doesn't have to care for them

    This reduces cuckoldry by a huge margin

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can't be had , she doesn't get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.

    This would basically stop baby daddies in most cases since no one wants to spend the next 18 years on a child support beef and it would make sure women and men use protection without interfering much in personal relations

    The best effect would be a huge reduction in single parenting. This won't be policy though on account of female voters and frankly even if this could happen, the results would be as much as a 30% fertility decline. This would cause a massive freakout in the government as the TFR would hit around 1.2 overall, 1.1 for Whites which is Japan level and a growth and looting based economy wouldn't be able to tolerate that

  83. @Reg Cæsar

    Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.
     
    Were nuns consulted? The younger ones I meet can be quite joyous.

    Happiness can be a habit.


    https://www.sistersofmary.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DOMIS-Winter-Event.jpg

    No fair,

    Nuns are exclusively married to Christ.

  84. ok it took me a while to figure out what PUA meant.

    got it

    • Replies: @Truth
    Study up, Van-D. That young woman who is going to bear you a son, is not beyond your reach!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNBKuNRcdc
  85. @EliteCommInc.
    ok it took me a while to figure out what PUA meant.

    got it

    Study up, Van-D. That young woman who is going to bear you a son, is not beyond your reach!

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I have not watched this and by the looks of the images and your own references

    laughing

    Uhhh, unlikely to become part of my modus operandi
  86. @Twinkie
    If anyone is seriously interested in more data regarding this phenomenon, take a look at this study: http://before-i-do.org/

    Under menu, click on appendix for the methodology and predictors. And don't forget these tables:

    http://before-i-do.org/pdf/table1.pdf

    http://before-i-do.org/pdf/table2.pdf
    (Esp. look at "Only had sex with future spouse, no others" under prior relationships)

    By the way, there wasn't much difference between men vs. women on the predictors of marriage quality, except:

    Moderation Analyses
    Gender. Only two of the findings were moderated significantly by gender, controlling for demographic variables. Having a child or children from prior relationship was negatively associated with marital quality for women (b = -1.72), not for men (b = .055). Additionally, more sexual partners before marriage were negatively associated with marital quality for women (b = -.061), not for men (b = -.004).
     
    I know, shocking, right?

    Being burned out from multiple failures like the ‘date scene’ character in Her can’t be good for mental health.

    It took me two watches to notice the split-second shot where she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he’s going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys. Lol what? If you don’t want to be treated like an easy lay, don’t present yourself as one!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he’s going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys.
     
    In one easy step, she signaled that she is both 1) of loose morality and 2) often discarded by other men.

    Those signals are certainly going to attract a certain kind of men and repel others.
  87. @Truth
    Study up, Van-D. That young woman who is going to bear you a son, is not beyond your reach!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNBKuNRcdc

    I have not watched this and by the looks of the images and your own references

    laughing

    Uhhh, unlikely to become part of my modus operandi

  88. @EliteCommInc.
    You think a woman being informed that unless she was forced into a relational dynamic, her choice her consequences would make matters worse. I disagree. (barring the murder of children) I suspect that there would be a lot less careless relational behavior.

    True.

    I think the best approach would be to make male custody default in all cases where there isn’t abuse desertion or the like. An male can contest custody with a DNA test and except in certain situations where he knows the kids aren’t his and agrees up front , this means he doesn’t have to care for them

    This reduces cuckoldry by a huge margin

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can’t be had , she doesn’t get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.

    This would basically stop baby daddies in most cases since no one wants to spend the next 18 years on a child support beef and it would make sure women and men use protection without interfering much in personal relations

    The best effect would be a huge reduction in single parenting. This won’t be policy though on account of female voters and frankly even if this could happen, the results would be as much as a 30% fertility decline. This would cause a massive freakout in the government as the TFR would hit around 1.2 overall, 1.1 for Whites which is Japan level and a growth and looting based economy wouldn’t be able to tolerate that

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Just to wade between these lines.

    My position is more linear.

    I would like to see and end to murdering children in the womb. I think the practice is unconstitutional at best and a form of blatant genocide to the God of self worship and convenience.

    And my position with regard to relations and conception -- is premised on a woman's demand that she is an agent of her own choices. That means she can no longer blame men for the consequences of a mutually agreed upon tryst.

    , @Rosie

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can’t be had , she doesn’t get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.
     
    Au contraire. A man who impregnated a woman and then fails to propose marriage is categorically unfit to be a parent, as is a woman who is impregnated by a man and refuses to marry him.

    The AE commentariat appears to have abandoned all pretense to even-handedness. Shame.

  89. @Toronto Russian
    Being burned out from multiple failures like the 'date scene' character in Her can't be good for mental health.

    https://youtu.be/owLSz4jqA4g

    It took me two watches to notice the split-second shot where she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he's going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys. Lol what? If you don't want to be treated like an easy lay, don't present yourself as one!

    she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he’s going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys.

    In one easy step, she signaled that she is both 1) of loose morality and 2) often discarded by other men.

    Those signals are certainly going to attract a certain kind of men and repel others.

    • Replies: @Truth


    Those signals are certainly going to attract a certain kind of men and repel others.
     
    Straight and Gay.
  90. @AaronB
    What you call being a natural is simply being relaxed and comfortable with oneself and not caring. It often comes with age, as one grows into oneself, but can be acquired at any age by the right life philosophy.

    PUA is obviously the deadly enemy to being relaxed and comfortable, and creates a mentality of extreme concern about outcome and a high stress approach to life in general.

    That is why PUA has been the worst thing in recent years preventing men actually becoming successful with women and enjoying life. However, it has provided an obsession for many men to kill time and create the illusion of self improvement, and a life philosophy of sorts, even if the philosophy of a loser trying to prove himself.

    Completely detached from this single comment of yours, so do not consider this to be a reply to it. But in general.

    Why is it that some of your comments make sense, as in defoiling, unearthing, a slightly less surface present layer of psychological mindsets. The authors here on unz.com as far as one can generalize do not. They either focus outside of the relevant, then attach to pertinence to compensate, proceed by omission, a contrast play between authors on same issues or the reverse distraction. A certain what we call “bend” is always present. This is the going rate everywhere in the media. The slight difference is the scope and minimal quality information gap here on unz.

    Most of the niche-group readers, that have no problem analising and getting nauseous of the “feeds” of conventional journalism and book pushing, do not fully comprehend this mindgame, and do it persistently. This is a measured design feature. It makes as you say “a lot of sense” from the human psychology point of view leveled at the measure of cognizance of the audience.

    But then why try to poke a little deeper, if obviously the amnesia of the surface layer defined by most authors here still is fully absorbed and accepted as genuine by the readers. Your comments on Goy and Jewish mindsets, the cultural-ethnical-religious-historical differences, are they not to naked and indecent to be shown. Should they not be reserved to the insiders. Obviously that is the cemented Jewish mindset of intellectualism of the Jewish elites, be it cognitive and real, or “fake” “homi economici”. We are irritated by it.

    You obviously have the Jewish mindset of “psychology” before reason and generational goals, inclusiveness, no goal definition beyond the power status bending, and that is a compliment. It also makes for rather awkward analysis of your explanatory. Are you not concerned that be it just a slight fraction of readership grasping your infusion, it could reverberate into complicating even more the waning existence of media power as to content, and pushing even more the issue into who controls the hardware and access channels? It seems to go against the going psychological conventions as in how to steer society and how to sort the populations.

    This is to us a serious issue, and might accellerate the status quo and ad hoc power nuclei shifts into accelleration?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, a message can only reach its intended audience. As you see, most people here either completely fail to understand what I am saying or do not grasp its significance. Those who can benefit do get it.

    People are their own filters.
  91. @Twinkie

    she puts her hand into his pants before asking if he’s going to sleep with her and not call her like the other guys.
     
    In one easy step, she signaled that she is both 1) of loose morality and 2) often discarded by other men.

    Those signals are certainly going to attract a certain kind of men and repel others.

    Those signals are certainly going to attract a certain kind of men and repel others.

    Straight and Gay.

  92. @A.B. Prosper
    True.

    I think the best approach would be to make male custody default in all cases where there isn't abuse desertion or the like. An male can contest custody with a DNA test and except in certain situations where he knows the kids aren't his and agrees up front , this means he doesn't have to care for them

    This reduces cuckoldry by a huge margin

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can't be had , she doesn't get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.

    This would basically stop baby daddies in most cases since no one wants to spend the next 18 years on a child support beef and it would make sure women and men use protection without interfering much in personal relations

    The best effect would be a huge reduction in single parenting. This won't be policy though on account of female voters and frankly even if this could happen, the results would be as much as a 30% fertility decline. This would cause a massive freakout in the government as the TFR would hit around 1.2 overall, 1.1 for Whites which is Japan level and a growth and looting based economy wouldn't be able to tolerate that

    Just to wade between these lines.

    My position is more linear.

    I would like to see and end to murdering children in the womb. I think the practice is unconstitutional at best and a form of blatant genocide to the God of self worship and convenience.

    And my position with regard to relations and conception — is premised on a woman’s demand that she is an agent of her own choices. That means she can no longer blame men for the consequences of a mutually agreed upon tryst.

  93. “Incels don’t do too well”.

    The problem of course is when “real men” insist that there is this social-sexual hierarchy. Vox Day, himself a “gamma”, purposely labels himself as a “sigma” to avoid the scrutiny. But we know that this categorizing is merely subjective in nature.

    “Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better.”

    “A hole and heartbeat” logic applies here–men have difficulty curbing their rutting instinct rather than exhibit the proper discipline.

    “Riding the cock carousel isn’t associated with female happiness no matter how good the women become at it.”

    You would have to separate the “cock carousel” with other aspects of female happiness like family relationships, attainment of personal goals, and perceptions of self, for starters, in order to make that determination.

    “For men, on the other hand, the Heartisian poon slayers (over 50 partners) report being markedly happier than do the aspiring alphas who aren’t particularly proficient purveyors of Game (11-50 partners).”

    Happier at being able to get laid more, assuredly. But overall happiness in light of being a biological failure like Heartiste and his ilk? “Men” who decidedly steer clear from the joys of holy matrimony?
    There is no celebrating “game” here. The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs. They succumb to lust. When a man has known no other woman but her, he will love them, honor them, and make certain that she is always one person in this world who will make her feel at home. He will give her his all.

    I really do not know why you continue to defile yourself, AE. No punching to the right only ends up punching yourself in the face.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    To be fair to the manosphere, at certain times some of them have stated that the traditional marriage is the ideal but is no longer possible to the same extent due to societal changes. You can't have ninety percent of people married today like you did in the nineteen fifties without recreating the same conditions that led people back then to getting married at such a high rate. At its best, the manosphere analyzes these changes and tries to see how we can go back in that direction. At its worst, some writers in the manosphere seem to be encouraging men to emulate the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks. I never particularly wanted to turn myself into DeShawn from the hood with his five baby mamas so that doesn't have any appeal to me. There are still people worth marrying and who want to get married but you really have to know where to look these days. Most people had much larger social circles in the past where they could come into more contact with members of the opposite sex. Today people all live in large cities where they are surrounded by more people than formerly but actually know fewer of them.
    , @Rosie

    The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs.
     
    No question about it. TWOTAR disgraced itself by having Roosh on not too long ago, slapping Tara McCarthy, who founded the show, and all their women fans in the face.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say "a lot". Game is a tool and like all tools--save for the ring!--it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure.
  94. @Jokah Macpherson

    3) I doubt the data exists, but number of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, by the same categories would an interesting overlay. BMI would be another.
     
    You underestimate the GSS. But I'm too tired from work; look it up yourself.

    https://denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/2018/09/drinking-over-past-year-by-generation.html

    It was last asked in 2004; at that point, Silents did the least drinking, and Boomers did the most, with Gen X-ers in between. I limited the data to white guys only.

    Unfortunately, due to the opioid epidemic I have a hunch that the only reason drinking isn’t more common is because depressed Americans have turned to an even more powerful drug. Neil Howe sez that early life mortality, substance abuse etc. are strongest in Boomers and early Gen X-ers. There are of course some younger people dying in car wrecks, OD-ing, getting locked up etc., but as the cohorts born in the 50’s and 60’s have aged, much social pathology and poor judgement has aged along with them. He’s also fond of pointing out that the post-1994 decline in crime was strongest among teens and young adults, whereas the 1970’s and early 1990’s crime booms were caused mostly by people under 30. Basically, the crime rate for young people fell like 60 or 70% from 1997-2007, while for older cohorts it was more like 40 or 50%.

    David Finkelhor calls it the “dissipation of the 1960’s cultural revolution”. He says that most indicators of behavior showed improvement in the mid-late 90’s, and the biggest improvement occured with children, who as they’ve aged into adults in the 2000’s and 2010’s have been responsible for dramatic declines in violence, crime, animal cruelty, domestic violence, and so on. It’s interesting, of course, that the Boomers and X-ers who were abysmally behaved as youngsters and young adults, now habitually claim that society is failing and falling apart, when so many of them failed in their own youth. Neil Howe says that the GI Generation was known for being mild-mannered and disciplined, in stark contrast to the nihilistic and reckless Lost Generation who came before them.

  95. @Audacious Epigone
    Self-reported survey data has inherent issues, especially when it comes to very personal things that are tied up with a lot of other psychological issues respondents are contending with. That said, one thing that is nice about the GSS is that it is administered over multiple sessions (and takes several hours in total to complete), so it's not as though these are people who are asked "How many woman have you slept with in your life? And how happy are you?"

    The survey also asks about sex frequency. That's an obvious one to explore. Thanks!

    The pre-1990 data about homosexuality is something I really would take with a grain of salt. People born before 1980 were really squeamish about the subject before the 90’s. For centuries gay men were considered positively demonic; eventually, the public understanding the transmission of AIDS (via sex and blood infection) and the mid-90’s beginning of the crime decline made people less vicious towards gays.

  96. @dc.sunsets
    Sorry, this study largely excluded Hispanics and blacks so I doubt prostitution played much of a role in the data set.

    From what I can tell, most white guys who use prostitutes are:

    1)Lonely and well away from home for a sustained period of time (truckers, soldiers, sailors)

    2) Drunk doofuses who get taken advantage of (I heard a podcast recently where a guy was at a Vegas bar/club, and several prostitutes were obviously lingering around and hitting on guys. He saw this other guy, who was well-dressed but getting drunk, take off with a girl, and then he came back a half hour later complaining that the girl robbed him.

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.

    • Replies: @Truth

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS1JHKIV3jE

    I don't know Sport, it seems that American white guys are kinda... Feryl.

    "Data confirm that sex buyers are predominantly middle-aged, white, married men from across Minnesota. Men of color and women purchase sex in much lower numbers."

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/04/whos-buying-sex-married-white-men-minn-study-says/539121001/

    "More distinct characteristics, however, emerge among avid customers of prostitutes who self-identify as "hobbyists" and post on message boards that review call girls. A survey of men in this online community revealed that a substantial portion of them are married, white, earn over $120,000 per year, have graduate degrees and think about sex more (and feel less guilty about it), compared with other groups of men, including those who have been arrested for hiring prostitutes on the street."

    https://www.livescience.com/28169-men-who-use-prostitutes.html

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-trafficking-sexcrimes/in-thai-tourist-spots-a-hidden-world-of-male-sex-slavery-idUSKBN1J91GU
  97. @Feryl
    From what I can tell, most white guys who use prostitutes are:

    1)Lonely and well away from home for a sustained period of time (truckers, soldiers, sailors)

    2) Drunk doofuses who get taken advantage of (I heard a podcast recently where a guy was at a Vegas bar/club, and several prostitutes were obviously lingering around and hitting on guys. He saw this other guy, who was well-dressed but getting drunk, take off with a girl, and then he came back a half hour later complaining that the girl robbed him.

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.

    I don’t know Sport, it seems that American white guys are kinda… Feryl.

    “Data confirm that sex buyers are predominantly middle-aged, white, married men from across Minnesota. Men of color and women purchase sex in much lower numbers.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/04/whos-buying-sex-married-white-men-minn-study-says/539121001/

    “More distinct characteristics, however, emerge among avid customers of prostitutes who self-identify as “hobbyists” and post on message boards that review call girls. A survey of men in this online community revealed that a substantial portion of them are married, white, earn over $120,000 per year, have graduate degrees and think about sex more (and feel less guilty about it), compared with other groups of men, including those who have been arrested for hiring prostitutes on the street.”

    https://www.livescience.com/28169-men-who-use-prostitutes.html

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-trafficking-sexcrimes/in-thai-tourist-spots-a-hidden-world-of-male-sex-slavery-idUSKBN1J91GU

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yes, I was going to mention the "bored rich guy" thing, but of course, by default very few men make over 120,000 per year. So why state the obvious/bother to bring up a demographic of men (and the elite hookers who rely on them) that is so small?

    Minnesota? Ha! The state is over 75% white, in terms of people over the age of 18. No shit Sherlock, who's going to be the primary purchasing demographic for anything, hookers included? In addition, the state's blacks are some of the worst in the entire country; blacks here hardly have the money to buy anything, hookers included.
  98. @Truth

    Other than that, American white guys generally stay away from hookers.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS1JHKIV3jE

    I don't know Sport, it seems that American white guys are kinda... Feryl.

    "Data confirm that sex buyers are predominantly middle-aged, white, married men from across Minnesota. Men of color and women purchase sex in much lower numbers."

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/04/whos-buying-sex-married-white-men-minn-study-says/539121001/

    "More distinct characteristics, however, emerge among avid customers of prostitutes who self-identify as "hobbyists" and post on message boards that review call girls. A survey of men in this online community revealed that a substantial portion of them are married, white, earn over $120,000 per year, have graduate degrees and think about sex more (and feel less guilty about it), compared with other groups of men, including those who have been arrested for hiring prostitutes on the street."

    https://www.livescience.com/28169-men-who-use-prostitutes.html

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-trafficking-sexcrimes/in-thai-tourist-spots-a-hidden-world-of-male-sex-slavery-idUSKBN1J91GU

    Yes, I was going to mention the “bored rich guy” thing, but of course, by default very few men make over 120,000 per year. So why state the obvious/bother to bring up a demographic of men (and the elite hookers who rely on them) that is so small?

    Minnesota? Ha! The state is over 75% white, in terms of people over the age of 18. No shit Sherlock, who’s going to be the primary purchasing demographic for anything, hookers included? In addition, the state’s blacks are some of the worst in the entire country; blacks here hardly have the money to buy anything, hookers included.

  99. Actually posting on message boards devoted to prostitution? Man, we are talking one seriously niche (and perverted) demographic. Probably even smaller than the swinger circuit, where the sex is often free. But maybe you get what you pay for (or don’t pay for). I wouldn’t know, because I don’t need this “stimulation” like some degenerates evidently do.

  100. @Audacious Epigone
    Pushing back a little, my only window into PUA/Game is Heartiste, so that's the angle I'm coming from, but he regularly stresses that the aloof mindset and ZFG attitude is far more important than particular responses or memorizing scripts.

    Contrived aloofness is not being natural and comfortable in your own skin. Its an effort to look impressive – its try hard, and creates performance stress.

    What I mean by not care isn’t contrivid ZFG – its to do nothing to impress, not even indirectly, to be perfectly normal, to be comfortable with yourself. To simply not care enough to do things like contrived aloofness or ZGF – which isn’t fun – and your joylessness will be quite apparent.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing--and failing--naturally. A golf swing or guitar chord progression, for instance.
  101. @m___
    Completely detached from this single comment of yours, so do not consider this to be a reply to it. But in general.

    Why is it that some of your comments make sense, as in defoiling, unearthing, a slightly less surface present layer of psychological mindsets. The authors here on unz.com as far as one can generalize do not. They either focus outside of the relevant, then attach to pertinence to compensate, proceed by omission, a contrast play between authors on same issues or the reverse distraction. A certain what we call "bend" is always present. This is the going rate everywhere in the media. The slight difference is the scope and minimal quality information gap here on unz.

    Most of the niche-group readers, that have no problem analising and getting nauseous of the "feeds" of conventional journalism and book pushing, do not fully comprehend this mindgame, and do it persistently. This is a measured design feature. It makes as you say "a lot of sense" from the human psychology point of view leveled at the measure of cognizance of the audience.

    But then why try to poke a little deeper, if obviously the amnesia of the surface layer defined by most authors here still is fully absorbed and accepted as genuine by the readers. Your comments on Goy and Jewish mindsets, the cultural-ethnical-religious-historical differences, are they not to naked and indecent to be shown. Should they not be reserved to the insiders. Obviously that is the cemented Jewish mindset of intellectualism of the Jewish elites, be it cognitive and real, or "fake" "homi economici". We are irritated by it.

    You obviously have the Jewish mindset of "psychology" before reason and generational goals, inclusiveness, no goal definition beyond the power status bending, and that is a compliment. It also makes for rather awkward analysis of your explanatory. Are you not concerned that be it just a slight fraction of readership grasping your infusion, it could reverberate into complicating even more the waning existence of media power as to content, and pushing even more the issue into who controls the hardware and access channels? It seems to go against the going psychological conventions as in how to steer society and how to sort the populations.

    This is to us a serious issue, and might accellerate the status quo and ad hoc power nuclei shifts into accelleration?

    Well, a message can only reach its intended audience. As you see, most people here either completely fail to understand what I am saying or do not grasp its significance. Those who can benefit do get it.

    People are their own filters.

    • Replies: @iffen
    most people here either completely fail to understand what I am saying or do not grasp its significance.


    Play it again, Obi-Wan.

  102. @Corvinus
    "Incels don’t do too well".

    The problem of course is when "real men" insist that there is this social-sexual hierarchy. Vox Day, himself a "gamma", purposely labels himself as a "sigma" to avoid the scrutiny. But we know that this categorizing is merely subjective in nature.

    "Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better."

    "A hole and heartbeat" logic applies here--men have difficulty curbing their rutting instinct rather than exhibit the proper discipline.

    "Riding the cock carousel isn’t associated with female happiness no matter how good the women become at it."

    You would have to separate the "cock carousel" with other aspects of female happiness like family relationships, attainment of personal goals, and perceptions of self, for starters, in order to make that determination.

    "For men, on the other hand, the Heartisian poon slayers (over 50 partners) report being markedly happier than do the aspiring alphas who aren’t particularly proficient purveyors of Game (11-50 partners)."

    Happier at being able to get laid more, assuredly. But overall happiness in light of being a biological failure like Heartiste and his ilk? "Men" who decidedly steer clear from the joys of holy matrimony?
    There is no celebrating "game" here. The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs. They succumb to lust. When a man has known no other woman but her, he will love them, honor them, and make certain that she is always one person in this world who will make her feel at home. He will give her his all.

    I really do not know why you continue to defile yourself, AE. No punching to the right only ends up punching yourself in the face.

    To be fair to the manosphere, at certain times some of them have stated that the traditional marriage is the ideal but is no longer possible to the same extent due to societal changes. You can’t have ninety percent of people married today like you did in the nineteen fifties without recreating the same conditions that led people back then to getting married at such a high rate. At its best, the manosphere analyzes these changes and tries to see how we can go back in that direction. At its worst, some writers in the manosphere seem to be encouraging men to emulate the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks. I never particularly wanted to turn myself into DeShawn from the hood with his five baby mamas so that doesn’t have any appeal to me. There are still people worth marrying and who want to get married but you really have to know where to look these days. Most people had much larger social circles in the past where they could come into more contact with members of the opposite sex. Today people all live in large cities where they are surrounded by more people than formerly but actually know fewer of them.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "To be fair to the manosphere, at certain times some of them have stated that the traditional marriage is the ideal but is no longer possible to the same extent due to societal changes."

    I thought only minorities and females make excuses. The fact of the matter is that Roissy and Roosh are perpetual adolescents who seek fornication.

    "You can’t have ninety percent of people married today like you did in the nineteen fifties without recreating the same conditions that led people back then to getting married at such a high rate."

    Nostalgia has a funny way of distorting reality.

    "At its best, the manosphere analyzes these changes and tries to see how we can go back in that direction."

    At its worst, the manosphere twists and turns our current social conditions and justifies how they must continue to "pump and dump".

    "At its worst, some writers in the manosphere seem to be encouraging men to emulate the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks."

    Not ghetto blacks, but men regardless of race or background who lack the ability to curb their rutting instincts.

    "There are still people worth marrying and who want to get married but you really have to know where to look these days."

    It is not as hard as you make it out to be.

    "Most people had much larger social circles in the past where they could come into more contact with members of the opposite sex."

    Actually, people then and now have social circles that could have been small or large depending upon a host of factors.
  103. @Corvinus
    "Incels don’t do too well".

    The problem of course is when "real men" insist that there is this social-sexual hierarchy. Vox Day, himself a "gamma", purposely labels himself as a "sigma" to avoid the scrutiny. But we know that this categorizing is merely subjective in nature.

    "Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better."

    "A hole and heartbeat" logic applies here--men have difficulty curbing their rutting instinct rather than exhibit the proper discipline.

    "Riding the cock carousel isn’t associated with female happiness no matter how good the women become at it."

    You would have to separate the "cock carousel" with other aspects of female happiness like family relationships, attainment of personal goals, and perceptions of self, for starters, in order to make that determination.

    "For men, on the other hand, the Heartisian poon slayers (over 50 partners) report being markedly happier than do the aspiring alphas who aren’t particularly proficient purveyors of Game (11-50 partners)."

    Happier at being able to get laid more, assuredly. But overall happiness in light of being a biological failure like Heartiste and his ilk? "Men" who decidedly steer clear from the joys of holy matrimony?
    There is no celebrating "game" here. The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs. They succumb to lust. When a man has known no other woman but her, he will love them, honor them, and make certain that she is always one person in this world who will make her feel at home. He will give her his all.

    I really do not know why you continue to defile yourself, AE. No punching to the right only ends up punching yourself in the face.

    The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs.

    No question about it. TWOTAR disgraced itself by having Roosh on not too long ago, slapping Tara McCarthy, who founded the show, and all their women fans in the face.

  104. @EliteCommInc.
    I was not the least offended. I agree that having children demands a certain level of commitment.


    But I would add this caveat. That in today's relational environment I have often suggested that any woman who gets pregnant as the result of relations outside of marriage cannot demand the man she had relations with be responsible for her child.

    It is after all her body and her choice not to ensure protection against conception. And unless there was a previous understanding that her pregnancy would be the responsibility of both --

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

    My God has it really come to this? Men playing victim for having to provide for their own damned kids!

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Wrong answer and completely irrelevant response. It's actually quite the opposite. It is women who claim they are responsible for their bodies but have a very difficult time owning their behavioral choices.

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just as relevant as it once was.

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren't celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more ---

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should -- or she could simply say,

    "No."


    This has nothing to do with victimhood. It is challenging the old stand by of chivalry where as doing the right thing was to stand to post and be a man. But in an age where can murder "his" supposed child on her command. I see no reason that he be entitled to say

    "Our tryst did not and does not include me caring for your child."

    Women should be prevented from playing a triple hand at men's expense.


    Take responsibility for your "nights out" in full. Someone is playing victim, and its not men.

  105. @A.B. Prosper
    True.

    I think the best approach would be to make male custody default in all cases where there isn't abuse desertion or the like. An male can contest custody with a DNA test and except in certain situations where he knows the kids aren't his and agrees up front , this means he doesn't have to care for them

    This reduces cuckoldry by a huge margin

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can't be had , she doesn't get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.

    This would basically stop baby daddies in most cases since no one wants to spend the next 18 years on a child support beef and it would make sure women and men use protection without interfering much in personal relations

    The best effect would be a huge reduction in single parenting. This won't be policy though on account of female voters and frankly even if this could happen, the results would be as much as a 30% fertility decline. This would cause a massive freakout in the government as the TFR would hit around 1.2 overall, 1.1 for Whites which is Japan level and a growth and looting based economy wouldn't be able to tolerate that

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can’t be had , she doesn’t get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.

    Au contraire. A man who impregnated a woman and then fails to propose marriage is categorically unfit to be a parent, as is a woman who is impregnated by a man and refuses to marry him.

    The AE commentariat appears to have abandoned all pretense to even-handedness. Shame.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing.


    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice. No more shot gun weddings. And that is largely the result of women saying -- marriage is not the answer, but your money is fine.


    Now perhaps, I am wrong, but I bet Erica Jong's of this world would agree.

    Correction:

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just not as relevant as it once was.

  106. @Corvinus
    "Incels don’t do too well".

    The problem of course is when "real men" insist that there is this social-sexual hierarchy. Vox Day, himself a "gamma", purposely labels himself as a "sigma" to avoid the scrutiny. But we know that this categorizing is merely subjective in nature.

    "Celibate women, more of whom are likely to be voluntarily so (volcels?), do relatively better."

    "A hole and heartbeat" logic applies here--men have difficulty curbing their rutting instinct rather than exhibit the proper discipline.

    "Riding the cock carousel isn’t associated with female happiness no matter how good the women become at it."

    You would have to separate the "cock carousel" with other aspects of female happiness like family relationships, attainment of personal goals, and perceptions of self, for starters, in order to make that determination.

    "For men, on the other hand, the Heartisian poon slayers (over 50 partners) report being markedly happier than do the aspiring alphas who aren’t particularly proficient purveyors of Game (11-50 partners)."

    Happier at being able to get laid more, assuredly. But overall happiness in light of being a biological failure like Heartiste and his ilk? "Men" who decidedly steer clear from the joys of holy matrimony?
    There is no celebrating "game" here. The manosphere is a decided enemy of the Alt Right. Even your gal pal The Z Blog made reference that Heartiste and Roosh should be cast out as social pariahs. They succumb to lust. When a man has known no other woman but her, he will love them, honor them, and make certain that she is always one person in this world who will make her feel at home. He will give her his all.

    I really do not know why you continue to defile yourself, AE. No punching to the right only ends up punching yourself in the face.

    How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say “a lot”. Game is a tool and like all tools–save for the ring!–it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    ""How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say “a lot”."

    You mean to justify men having sex outside of marriage. The fact of the matter is that Roissy makes broad assumptions about the nature of men and women, and then justifies those assumptions with "evidence" about their behaviors which supposedly reinforces those broad assumptions.

    "Game is a tool and like all tools–save for the ring!–it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure."

    "Game" is a marketing ploy. Besides, Roosh and Roissy are decidedly NOT allies to the Alt Right cause as some people make it out to be, considering they are moral degenerates. Christians who hitch their wagon to them destroys their credibility. Roosh and Roissy despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy. Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back…and has the audacity to call the woman a slut. She is now left to believe the only way to get an “upstanding fella” is to give in and have sex with them.

    Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees. Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roosh and Roissy’s abject immoral behavior merely because they are anti-SWJ. Until they have a conversion experience and denounces their empire of sin that he created, their tools. They are our favorite uncles who are leeches, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff or get free stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way. Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from a man who packages liberalism--the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

    Besides, a closer reading suggests that the heroes of the Bible are not meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have so many Christians accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for Biblical manhood?

  107. @AaronB
    Contrived aloofness is not being natural and comfortable in your own skin. Its an effort to look impressive - its try hard, and creates performance stress.

    What I mean by not care isn't contrivid ZFG - its to do nothing to impress, not even indirectly, to be perfectly normal, to be comfortable with yourself. To simply not care enough to do things like contrived aloofness or ZGF - which isn't fun - and your joylessness will be quite apparent.

    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing–and failing–naturally. A golf swing or guitar chord progression, for instance.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing–and failing–naturally.
     
    There's a third option, and it is the only authentic one:

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-33.htm
    , @AaronB
    So when one masters faking aloofness and ZFG it will be fun? Uh, I don't think so.

    Engaging with women socially across the full range of normal human emotion is fun. Spontaneity and authenticity are fun. Expressing affection when you want to - not feigning disinterest, is fun.

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.

    PUA seeks to wrap you in a comforting cocoon of rules and socially approved attitudes. But good things in life take boldness. The reason naturals are appealing is because they dare to be themselves.

    I am not actually giving advice to most men. Being authentic is something very few people in any society will have the courage to do. It will necessarily be a small group of people. Most men will prefer the safety net of socially sanctioned fake attitudes. Hence the appeal of PUA.
  108. @Audacious Epigone
    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing--and failing--naturally. A golf swing or guitar chord progression, for instance.

    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing–and failing–naturally.

    There’s a third option, and it is the only authentic one:

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-33.htm

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I will not argue against righteousness--except for the SJW self- variety.
  109. @Audacious Epigone
    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing--and failing--naturally. A golf swing or guitar chord progression, for instance.

    So when one masters faking aloofness and ZFG it will be fun? Uh, I don’t think so.

    Engaging with women socially across the full range of normal human emotion is fun. Spontaneity and authenticity are fun. Expressing affection when you want to – not feigning disinterest, is fun.

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.

    PUA seeks to wrap you in a comforting cocoon of rules and socially approved attitudes. But good things in life take boldness. The reason naturals are appealing is because they dare to be themselves.

    I am not actually giving advice to most men. Being authentic is something very few people in any society will have the courage to do. It will necessarily be a small group of people. Most men will prefer the safety net of socially sanctioned fake attitudes. Hence the appeal of PUA.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    This is hardly my wheelhouse, but ZFG is an aspirational thing for people who are socially uncomfortable and trip all over themselves to point towards. Ultimately, it's "outcome independence" that they're after, which isn't the same thing as not caring about anything. It's about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren't guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.

    , @aloisius

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.
     
    For some people, being yourself means being quiet and withdrawn. It also means not being interested in drinking, doing drugs, loud parties etc. Some people are also clumsy, bad dancers and have no musical abbility. They also might not be good looking. For all those people, being yourself isnt going to do it, most of the time, so you cant blame them for trying out something else. Not saying that pua or something like that works, cause it mostly doesnt.
  110. @Rosie

    the male is under no obligation to provide a single cent or any many contribute to the care of the same unless he by choice consents.

     

    My God has it really come to this? Men playing victim for having to provide for their own damned kids!

    Wrong answer and completely irrelevant response. It’s actually quite the opposite. It is women who claim they are responsible for their bodies but have a very difficult time owning their behavioral choices.

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just as relevant as it once was.

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say,

    “No.”

    This has nothing to do with victimhood. It is challenging the old stand by of chivalry where as doing the right thing was to stand to post and be a man. But in an age where can murder “his” supposed child on her command. I see no reason that he be entitled to say

    “Our tryst did not and does not include me caring for your child.”

    Women should be prevented from playing a triple hand at men’s expense.

    Take responsibility for your “nights out” in full. Someone is playing victim, and its not men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say,

    “No.”
     
    As per usual, realistic indulgence for men, idealistic demands of women.
    , @Corvinus
    "Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say, “No.”"

    How about men learn how to curb their rutting instinct and refrain from getting into those situations in the first place? In this way, he is "protecting" her and thus owning his own behavioral choice.

  111. @Rosie

    In the event the woman is not married or engaged at the time of pregnancy and the male parent can’t be had , she doesn’t get custody as the law assumes a woman who has an out of wedlock birth is categorically unfit to be a mother.
     
    Au contraire. A man who impregnated a woman and then fails to propose marriage is categorically unfit to be a parent, as is a woman who is impregnated by a man and refuses to marry him.

    The AE commentariat appears to have abandoned all pretense to even-handedness. Shame.

    Laughing.

    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice. No more shot gun weddings. And that is largely the result of women saying — marriage is not the answer, but your money is fine.

    Now perhaps, I am wrong, but I bet Erica Jong’s of this world would agree.

    Correction:

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just not as relevant as it once was.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice.
     
    Shaming women is the right thing to do because we've always done it that way. Shaming men is the wrong thing to do because we don't do it that way anymore.
  112. @AaronB
    Well, a message can only reach its intended audience. As you see, most people here either completely fail to understand what I am saying or do not grasp its significance. Those who can benefit do get it.

    People are their own filters.

    most people here either completely fail to understand what I am saying or do not grasp its significance.

    Play it again, Obi-Wan.

  113. RE:

    Marriage and number of children.

    It’s the economy.

    Equalize the economic variable then it’s genetics and such.

    AK nailed it.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/

  114. @EliteCommInc.
    Wrong answer and completely irrelevant response. It's actually quite the opposite. It is women who claim they are responsible for their bodies but have a very difficult time owning their behavioral choices.

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just as relevant as it once was.

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren't celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more ---

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should -- or she could simply say,

    "No."


    This has nothing to do with victimhood. It is challenging the old stand by of chivalry where as doing the right thing was to stand to post and be a man. But in an age where can murder "his" supposed child on her command. I see no reason that he be entitled to say

    "Our tryst did not and does not include me caring for your child."

    Women should be prevented from playing a triple hand at men's expense.


    Take responsibility for your "nights out" in full. Someone is playing victim, and its not men.

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say,

    “No.”

    As per usual, realistic indulgence for men, idealistic demands of women.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Completely unresponsive. And I am very familiar with the tactic as you did previously of taking some snippet of my comment and parlaying out of context. I would prefer that you make another choice.


    You are misleading by doing so. The comments plainly indicate the standard I hold and as someone who leans towards scripture can hold no other. My arena celibacy is demanded, it is an expectation, not a guideline and I stated --- men should so engage and do so despite women's 1970's ---- and beyond conspiratorial "metooisms".

    I further stated, I don't live in that world. Plenty of women have shed all that for something less and are still demanding a male 1900's accountability ----

    There is a double standard on display and it is not coming from my a priori window. I encourage you pick up a mirror.

    ----------------------

    Any man who won't take "No" (that's an actual "no" - not the coy chase me "no") should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

  115. AE, younsaid in “Marriage is Bliss”:

    Even now, women say no more often than they say yes. I think you should address that.

    Comments are closed, so I’ll address it here.

    The law recognizes that people can be worn down by repeated importunate requests where the person doing the requesting appears unwilling to take no for an answer.

    http://illinoiscaselaw.com/right-to-remain-silent-no-means-no/

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks. That goes against all the feminist hogwash about women being equally able to negotiate high-stakes situation, etc etc as men, of course, but there is a lot of truth to it.
  116. @Mark G.
    To be fair to the manosphere, at certain times some of them have stated that the traditional marriage is the ideal but is no longer possible to the same extent due to societal changes. You can't have ninety percent of people married today like you did in the nineteen fifties without recreating the same conditions that led people back then to getting married at such a high rate. At its best, the manosphere analyzes these changes and tries to see how we can go back in that direction. At its worst, some writers in the manosphere seem to be encouraging men to emulate the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks. I never particularly wanted to turn myself into DeShawn from the hood with his five baby mamas so that doesn't have any appeal to me. There are still people worth marrying and who want to get married but you really have to know where to look these days. Most people had much larger social circles in the past where they could come into more contact with members of the opposite sex. Today people all live in large cities where they are surrounded by more people than formerly but actually know fewer of them.

    “To be fair to the manosphere, at certain times some of them have stated that the traditional marriage is the ideal but is no longer possible to the same extent due to societal changes.”

    I thought only minorities and females make excuses. The fact of the matter is that Roissy and Roosh are perpetual adolescents who seek fornication.

    “You can’t have ninety percent of people married today like you did in the nineteen fifties without recreating the same conditions that led people back then to getting married at such a high rate.”

    Nostalgia has a funny way of distorting reality.

    “At its best, the manosphere analyzes these changes and tries to see how we can go back in that direction.”

    At its worst, the manosphere twists and turns our current social conditions and justifies how they must continue to “pump and dump”.

    “At its worst, some writers in the manosphere seem to be encouraging men to emulate the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks.”

    Not ghetto blacks, but men regardless of race or background who lack the ability to curb their rutting instincts.

    “There are still people worth marrying and who want to get married but you really have to know where to look these days.”

    It is not as hard as you make it out to be.

    “Most people had much larger social circles in the past where they could come into more contact with members of the opposite sex.”

    Actually, people then and now have social circles that could have been small or large depending upon a host of factors.

  117. @Audacious Epigone
    How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say "a lot". Game is a tool and like all tools--save for the ring!--it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure.

    “”How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say “a lot”.”

    You mean to justify men having sex outside of marriage. The fact of the matter is that Roissy makes broad assumptions about the nature of men and women, and then justifies those assumptions with “evidence” about their behaviors which supposedly reinforces those broad assumptions.

    “Game is a tool and like all tools–save for the ring!–it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure.”

    “Game” is a marketing ploy. Besides, Roosh and Roissy are decidedly NOT allies to the Alt Right cause as some people make it out to be, considering they are moral degenerates. Christians who hitch their wagon to them destroys their credibility. Roosh and Roissy despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy. Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back…and has the audacity to call the woman a slut. She is now left to believe the only way to get an “upstanding fella” is to give in and have sex with them.

    Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees. Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roosh and Roissy’s abject immoral behavior merely because they are anti-SWJ. Until they have a conversion experience and denounces their empire of sin that he created, their tools. They are our favorite uncles who are leeches, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff or get free stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way. Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from a man who packages liberalism–the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

    Besides, a closer reading suggests that the heroes of the Bible are not meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have so many Christians accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for Biblical manhood?

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I would challenge how many christians don't engage what you proffer. And I would had suggest that the baited trap be unhinged from the same. Men in scripture could certainly be and were physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually tough.

    But secular toughness is not required. I am ever amazed when liberals attempt -- what would Jesus do facade and that is what you are doing by any other name - the press is the same. And I am just not sure how many christians you actually know given that or from what congregation the one's you might know come from.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    As someone who is neither of the alt right (in 2015 and 2016 I was fine with the umbrella term to refer to a host of broad beliefs/positions that grew up around what I'd been writing about for a decade prior, but now the term has become a slur, almost indistinguishable from "racist", "white supremacist", etc) or a believing Christian, I can't speak for either.

    Heartiste is like an assassin who sees that the society he operates in is crumbling to the ground because the people in it have lost their martial prowess. If he instills in that society the means to throw off the poisonous miasma that is oppressing them, assassinating a few more people in the process, where does he stand in the scheme of things? Net-net a hero, I think. And in reality, of course, what he teaches is obviously not on the same moral level as assassination.

  118. @EliteCommInc.
    Wrong answer and completely irrelevant response. It's actually quite the opposite. It is women who claim they are responsible for their bodies but have a very difficult time owning their behavioral choices.

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just as relevant as it once was.

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren't celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more ---

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should -- or she could simply say,

    "No."


    This has nothing to do with victimhood. It is challenging the old stand by of chivalry where as doing the right thing was to stand to post and be a man. But in an age where can murder "his" supposed child on her command. I see no reason that he be entitled to say

    "Our tryst did not and does not include me caring for your child."

    Women should be prevented from playing a triple hand at men's expense.


    Take responsibility for your "nights out" in full. Someone is playing victim, and its not men.

    “Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say, “No.””

    How about men learn how to curb their rutting instinct and refrain from getting into those situations in the first place? In this way, he is “protecting” her and thus owning his own behavioral choice.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing. I don't think you read my comments. Self control is warranted.

    But neither women nor men seem to prefer that course of action. Your argument has nothing to do with my standard.


    It's a choice. And those choices have been freed fromn the downward pressure of

    1. marriage expectations -- for intimate relations muchless conception.

    2. preventing conception

    3. by the willingness and legality of murdering said child in the womb. A human life begun at
    conception

    4. the removal of the value and importance of intimate relations

    5. the removal of social stigmatization.

    6. the removal of relations linked to the desire and intimate nature of a loving God

    7. the removal of the value of womanhood and women as cherished beings on the planet

    -------------------------

    The glories, mysteries, joys, woes, beauty of intimacy have been rejected by women for something more mundane --

    Take your complaint to the liberals, socialists, pagans, muslims, and democratic party -- the choir is out or service.
  119. @Corvinus
    "Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say, “No.”"

    How about men learn how to curb their rutting instinct and refrain from getting into those situations in the first place? In this way, he is "protecting" her and thus owning his own behavioral choice.

    Laughing. I don’t think you read my comments. Self control is warranted.

    But neither women nor men seem to prefer that course of action. Your argument has nothing to do with my standard.

    It’s a choice. And those choices have been freed fromn the downward pressure of

    1. marriage expectations — for intimate relations muchless conception.

    2. preventing conception

    3. by the willingness and legality of murdering said child in the womb. A human life begun at
    conception

    4. the removal of the value and importance of intimate relations

    5. the removal of social stigmatization.

    6. the removal of relations linked to the desire and intimate nature of a loving God

    7. the removal of the value of womanhood and women as cherished beings on the planet

    ————————-

    The glories, mysteries, joys, woes, beauty of intimacy have been rejected by women for something more mundane —

    Take your complaint to the liberals, socialists, pagans, muslims, and democratic party — the choir is out or service.

  120. @Corvinus
    ""How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say “a lot”."

    You mean to justify men having sex outside of marriage. The fact of the matter is that Roissy makes broad assumptions about the nature of men and women, and then justifies those assumptions with "evidence" about their behaviors which supposedly reinforces those broad assumptions.

    "Game is a tool and like all tools–save for the ring!–it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure."

    "Game" is a marketing ploy. Besides, Roosh and Roissy are decidedly NOT allies to the Alt Right cause as some people make it out to be, considering they are moral degenerates. Christians who hitch their wagon to them destroys their credibility. Roosh and Roissy despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy. Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back…and has the audacity to call the woman a slut. She is now left to believe the only way to get an “upstanding fella” is to give in and have sex with them.

    Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees. Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roosh and Roissy’s abject immoral behavior merely because they are anti-SWJ. Until they have a conversion experience and denounces their empire of sin that he created, their tools. They are our favorite uncles who are leeches, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff or get free stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way. Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from a man who packages liberalism--the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

    Besides, a closer reading suggests that the heroes of the Bible are not meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have so many Christians accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for Biblical manhood?

    I would challenge how many christians don’t engage what you proffer. And I would had suggest that the baited trap be unhinged from the same. Men in scripture could certainly be and were physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually tough.

    But secular toughness is not required. I am ever amazed when liberals attempt — what would Jesus do facade and that is what you are doing by any other name – the press is the same. And I am just not sure how many christians you actually know given that or from what congregation the one’s you might know come from.

  121. @Rosie

    Men are victims if they get trapped into a scenario they did not intend. I am celibate and would that unmarried men would be as well. However, I live in the real world. People aren’t celibate. If they enter into a dynamic for fun and pleasure and nothing more —

    the woman should demand he engage protection of she should — or she could simply say,

    “No.”
     
    As per usual, realistic indulgence for men, idealistic demands of women.

    Completely unresponsive. And I am very familiar with the tactic as you did previously of taking some snippet of my comment and parlaying out of context. I would prefer that you make another choice.

    You are misleading by doing so. The comments plainly indicate the standard I hold and as someone who leans towards scripture can hold no other. My arena celibacy is demanded, it is an expectation, not a guideline and I stated — men should so engage and do so despite women’s 1970’s —- and beyond conspiratorial “metooisms”.

    I further stated, I don’t live in that world. Plenty of women have shed all that for something less and are still demanding a male 1900’s accountability —-

    There is a double standard on display and it is not coming from my a priori window. I encourage you pick up a mirror.

    ———————-

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with
     
    Lol. Self-serving hypocrites can justify construing any no as not an actual no. Here again you refuse to hold men responsible for their actions.
    , @Rosie

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.
     
    And now you've given him a reason to kill you.
  122. It never ceases to amaze me how many modern women

    “Hear them roar”

    will dance about every possible loop to loop to avoid responsibility for their choices.

    And there it is:

    “The law recognizes that people can be worn down by repeated importunate requests where the person doing the requesting appears unwilling to take no for an answer.

    http://illinoiscaselaw.com/right-to-remain-silent-no-means-no/&#8221;

    To whit,

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    ————————————–

    The entire prescription of male female courtship part of the interplay of pursuit and evasion. Another dynamic that women have turned into a mangled mess. Hence CA. contracts for intimacy.
    ——————-

    “Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”.”

    Don’t submit.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    will dance about every possible loop to loop to avoid responsibility for their choices.
     
    Yet again for some inexplicable reason, insisting that men take their share of responsibility for their own child amounts to a refusal on the part of women to take their share of responsibility. Is this stupidity or dishonesty?
  123. I understand that the gist of the article is mostly about people to the right of “1” on the (se)X axis, but those on the left of the graph are interesting, too. My wife is an academic in a non-grievance study (and mostly apolitical) field that’s largely dominated by women. She has often talked about female colleagues – who apparently aren’t lesbians – who were never married (or the secular equivalent) due to the demands of their studies, research and careers. My wife’s impression is that many are virgins, despite the image they project of being highly educated and liberal. Some pretty lonely people, but I’m wondering if they aren’t happier (or less miserable) than if they had been married or in multiple relationships. The ones I’ve met don’t seem very Asperger’s-like, but I can’t know for sure.

    They don’t fit the profile of single lesbians because they are more or less asocial homebodies (when they aren’t being workaholics) and not really prone to conspicuous activism, though they may be involved in charities more than most people. Latent homosexuals? Possibly, but I’m guessing mostly not. They’re kind of the modern day interpretation of the spinster schoolmarm, and I actually have some degree of empathy for them. One possibility for their life path may be the over-abundance of immature men in the world – the “14 year old boy in the 40 year old body” persona that Hollywood is always trying to foist upon us (and that many men have taken to heart.)

    BTW, it seems that my wife’s younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50’s.) That’s interesting.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    There must be some percentage of women who really are asexual or close to it. The historical figure that tends to be thrown around is that ~80% of women reproduce(d). Some fraction of the remaining 20% are/were infertile, some too unattractive, and some volcels. Maybe the contemporary version of the nuns of the past--when nunneries were a significant part of the social landscape--are the female academics you're describing today. Being a nun was the contemplative way of life for asexual women of the past and being an academic is the contemplative way of life for asexual women of the present?
    , @Toronto Russian

    BTW, it seems that my wife’s younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50’s.) That’s interesting.
     
    Statistics show falling rate of childlessness among the highly educated.
    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/ST_2015-05-07_childlessness-04.png

    One can come up with many possible explanations:

    - the expanding crowd of educated women contains proportionally more normies who do normie things and fewer misfits/rebels who don't,
    - the first generation of "realized childfree" didn't pass their genes, leaving fewer "potential childfree" personalities in the next generation,
    - skilled immigration from more traditional cultures (the Chinese lady doctor will likely honor her ancestors by having a kid, if only one),
    - popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,
    - motherhood reinvented as an intellectually stimulating hobby (e.g. mommybloggers), not the bathrobe + curlers + soap opera addled brain stereotype that smart girls of yesteryear feared, etc.
  124. @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing.


    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice. No more shot gun weddings. And that is largely the result of women saying -- marriage is not the answer, but your money is fine.


    Now perhaps, I am wrong, but I bet Erica Jong's of this world would agree.

    Correction:

    The befit once grants that a man who by accident was responsible for said child is really just not as relevant as it once was.

    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice.

    Shaming women is the right thing to do because we’ve always done it that way. Shaming men is the wrong thing to do because we don’t do it that way anymore.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I cannot speak for all men on the matter of shame. But in the circles of associate with among men --- shaming male"bad" behavior is not uncommon. And I would not in the least be troubled that men who "gallivant" around be shamed for doing so.

    "Tomcatting"

    I was thinking of Meat Loaf's tune in regards to this exchange.

    Old school

    https://genius.com/Meat-loaf-paradise-by-the-dashboard-light-lyrics

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C11MzbEcHlw
  125. @Rosie

    Training to get good at something is rarely much fun initially, and it often feels quite unnatural at first. But once it is mastered, it makes the entire experience more enjoyable and allows the practitioner to be more comfortable in his element than he otherwise would be if he were flailing–and failing–naturally.
     
    There's a third option, and it is the only authentic one:

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-33.htm

    I will not argue against righteousness–except for the SJW self- variety.

  126. @EliteCommInc.
    Completely unresponsive. And I am very familiar with the tactic as you did previously of taking some snippet of my comment and parlaying out of context. I would prefer that you make another choice.


    You are misleading by doing so. The comments plainly indicate the standard I hold and as someone who leans towards scripture can hold no other. My arena celibacy is demanded, it is an expectation, not a guideline and I stated --- men should so engage and do so despite women's 1970's ---- and beyond conspiratorial "metooisms".

    I further stated, I don't live in that world. Plenty of women have shed all that for something less and are still demanding a male 1900's accountability ----

    There is a double standard on display and it is not coming from my a priori window. I encourage you pick up a mirror.

    ----------------------

    Any man who won't take "No" (that's an actual "no" - not the coy chase me "no") should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with

    Lol. Self-serving hypocrites can justify construing any no as not an actual no. Here again you refuse to hold men responsible for their actions.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Uhh, I think I called the matter rape -- hardly eschewing the question or holding a double standard.


    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.
  127. @EliteCommInc.
    It never ceases to amaze me how many modern women

    "Hear them roar"

    will dance about every possible loop to loop to avoid responsibility for their choices.


    And there it is:


    "The law recognizes that people can be worn down by repeated importunate requests where the person doing the requesting appears unwilling to take no for an answer.

    http://illinoiscaselaw.com/right-to-remain-silent-no-means-no/"


    To whit,

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    --------------------------------------

    The entire prescription of male female courtship part of the interplay of pursuit and evasion. Another dynamic that women have turned into a mangled mess. Hence CA. contracts for intimacy.
    -------------------

    "Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”."


    Don't submit.

    will dance about every possible loop to loop to avoid responsibility for their choices.

    Yet again for some inexplicable reason, insisting that men take their share of responsibility for their own child amounts to a refusal on the part of women to take their share of responsibility. Is this stupidity or dishonesty?

  128. @EliteCommInc.
    Completely unresponsive. And I am very familiar with the tactic as you did previously of taking some snippet of my comment and parlaying out of context. I would prefer that you make another choice.


    You are misleading by doing so. The comments plainly indicate the standard I hold and as someone who leans towards scripture can hold no other. My arena celibacy is demanded, it is an expectation, not a guideline and I stated --- men should so engage and do so despite women's 1970's ---- and beyond conspiratorial "metooisms".

    I further stated, I don't live in that world. Plenty of women have shed all that for something less and are still demanding a male 1900's accountability ----

    There is a double standard on display and it is not coming from my a priori window. I encourage you pick up a mirror.

    ----------------------

    Any man who won't take "No" (that's an actual "no" - not the coy chase me "no") should be met with

    1. told to exit

    2. the woman exits

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.

    And now you’ve given him a reason to kill you.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    You are full of reasons no to say "no" to taking any responsibility.

    Here's a clue, avoid being or getting in tight spots with men you don't know. No doubt the extreme rare incidents happen. And they most often occur among people who are in some manner of relationship.

    There are ways to minimize these extreme possibilities. No one can guarantee no such scenario will ever occur. But entering into a dynamic in which "fear" is self motivated before hand isn't helpful.

    Dating tips from a single guy:

    1. no drinking

    2. no drugs

    3. always let someone know who you are with and where

    4. ensure the date knows that other know in fact,

    5. they should meet said date in person

    6. discuss the nature of the date before hand

    7. avoid scenarios that elicit intimate feelings unless so desired

    8 contrary to popular opinion - dress maters

    9. avoid spaces that don't provide open and accessible escape routes for the rare --- man you so misjudge that turns out to be a killer for no intimacy

    10. take responsibility for your safe keeping regardless of the male

    11. date in groups

  129. @AaronB
    So when one masters faking aloofness and ZFG it will be fun? Uh, I don't think so.

    Engaging with women socially across the full range of normal human emotion is fun. Spontaneity and authenticity are fun. Expressing affection when you want to - not feigning disinterest, is fun.

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.

    PUA seeks to wrap you in a comforting cocoon of rules and socially approved attitudes. But good things in life take boldness. The reason naturals are appealing is because they dare to be themselves.

    I am not actually giving advice to most men. Being authentic is something very few people in any society will have the courage to do. It will necessarily be a small group of people. Most men will prefer the safety net of socially sanctioned fake attitudes. Hence the appeal of PUA.

    This is hardly my wheelhouse, but ZFG is an aspirational thing for people who are socially uncomfortable and trip all over themselves to point towards. Ultimately, it’s “outcome independence” that they’re after, which isn’t the same thing as not caring about anything. It’s about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren’t guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    It’s about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.
     
    = being authentic. The opposite of Game.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren’t guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.
     
    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.

    Society and upbringing can do that to some men, but this is already an artificial state - PUA then exacerbates the problem by reinforcing self-rejection and performance anxiety, just in an inverted way.

    It keeps society's paradigm just inverts it (don't be nice be a jerk. But don't be authentic, and try and impress somehow).

    Yes, slavishly deferring etc is no better than PUA - but why think in such dichotomies? Why go from extreme to extreme?
  130. @Rosie
    AE, younsaid in "Marriage is Bliss":

    Even now, women say no more often than they say yes. I think you should address that.
     
    Comments are closed, so I'll address it here.

    The law recognizes that people can be worn down by repeated importunate requests where the person doing the requesting appears unwilling to take no for an answer.

    http://illinoiscaselaw.com/right-to-remain-silent-no-means-no/

    Thanks. That goes against all the feminist hogwash about women being equally able to negotiate high-stakes situation, etc etc as men, of course, but there is a lot of truth to it.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    You have yet to address that women say

    "no"

    more often than yes.
  131. @Corvinus
    ""How many men has Heartiste better equipped to join the sexual fray? The question is rhetorical but suffice it to say “a lot”."

    You mean to justify men having sex outside of marriage. The fact of the matter is that Roissy makes broad assumptions about the nature of men and women, and then justifies those assumptions with "evidence" about their behaviors which supposedly reinforces those broad assumptions.

    "Game is a tool and like all tools–save for the ring!–it can be used for good, evil, or indifferent pleasure."

    "Game" is a marketing ploy. Besides, Roosh and Roissy are decidedly NOT allies to the Alt Right cause as some people make it out to be, considering they are moral degenerates. Christians who hitch their wagon to them destroys their credibility. Roosh and Roissy despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy. Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back…and has the audacity to call the woman a slut. She is now left to believe the only way to get an “upstanding fella” is to give in and have sex with them.

    Guys claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees. Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roosh and Roissy’s abject immoral behavior merely because they are anti-SWJ. Until they have a conversion experience and denounces their empire of sin that he created, their tools. They are our favorite uncles who are leeches, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff or get free stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way. Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from a man who packages liberalism--the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

    Besides, a closer reading suggests that the heroes of the Bible are not meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have so many Christians accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for Biblical manhood?

    As someone who is neither of the alt right (in 2015 and 2016 I was fine with the umbrella term to refer to a host of broad beliefs/positions that grew up around what I’d been writing about for a decade prior, but now the term has become a slur, almost indistinguishable from “racist”, “white supremacist”, etc) or a believing Christian, I can’t speak for either.

    Heartiste is like an assassin who sees that the society he operates in is crumbling to the ground because the people in it have lost their martial prowess. If he instills in that society the means to throw off the poisonous miasma that is oppressing them, assassinating a few more people in the process, where does he stand in the scheme of things? Net-net a hero, I think. And in reality, of course, what he teaches is obviously not on the same moral level as assassination.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As someone who is neither of the alt right (in 2015 and 2016 I was fine with the umbrella term to refer to a host of broad beliefs/positions that grew up around what I’d been writing about for a decade prior, but now the term has become a slur, almost indistinguishable from “racist”, “white supremacist”, etc) or a believing Christian, I can’t speak for either."

    LOL, of course you can speak for both topics. You are simply choosing not to punch to the right. It's very unbecoming of a man of your status.

    "Heartiste is like an assassin who sees that the society he operates in is crumbling to the ground because the people in it have lost their martial prowess."

    Heartiste is a degenerate who insists that men get all the trim in the world without any of the responsibility for procuring it. Your tacit support for his decided anti-Christian masculine message, as well as your silence of Z-Man's desecration of a holy man, puts you in the company of the Smollet's of the world.

    "If he instills in that society the means to throw off the poisonous miasma that is oppressing them, assassinating a few more people in the process, where does he stand in the scheme of things? Net-net a hero, I think."

    You wouldn't think of him as a hero if he was using game on your wife or sister. He's an aging lothario who is now entertaining a second career in Alt Right buffoonery.
  132. @J1234
    I understand that the gist of the article is mostly about people to the right of "1" on the (se)X axis, but those on the left of the graph are interesting, too. My wife is an academic in a non-grievance study (and mostly apolitical) field that's largely dominated by women. She has often talked about female colleagues - who apparently aren't lesbians - who were never married (or the secular equivalent) due to the demands of their studies, research and careers. My wife's impression is that many are virgins, despite the image they project of being highly educated and liberal. Some pretty lonely people, but I'm wondering if they aren't happier (or less miserable) than if they had been married or in multiple relationships. The ones I've met don't seem very Asperger's-like, but I can't know for sure.

    They don't fit the profile of single lesbians because they are more or less asocial homebodies (when they aren't being workaholics) and not really prone to conspicuous activism, though they may be involved in charities more than most people. Latent homosexuals? Possibly, but I'm guessing mostly not. They're kind of the modern day interpretation of the spinster schoolmarm, and I actually have some degree of empathy for them. One possibility for their life path may be the over-abundance of immature men in the world - the "14 year old boy in the 40 year old body" persona that Hollywood is always trying to foist upon us (and that many men have taken to heart.)

    BTW, it seems that my wife's younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50's.) That's interesting.

    There must be some percentage of women who really are asexual or close to it. The historical figure that tends to be thrown around is that ~80% of women reproduce(d). Some fraction of the remaining 20% are/were infertile, some too unattractive, and some volcels. Maybe the contemporary version of the nuns of the past–when nunneries were a significant part of the social landscape–are the female academics you’re describing today. Being a nun was the contemplative way of life for asexual women of the past and being an academic is the contemplative way of life for asexual women of the present?

  133. @AaronB
    So when one masters faking aloofness and ZFG it will be fun? Uh, I don't think so.

    Engaging with women socially across the full range of normal human emotion is fun. Spontaneity and authenticity are fun. Expressing affection when you want to - not feigning disinterest, is fun.

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.

    PUA seeks to wrap you in a comforting cocoon of rules and socially approved attitudes. But good things in life take boldness. The reason naturals are appealing is because they dare to be themselves.

    I am not actually giving advice to most men. Being authentic is something very few people in any society will have the courage to do. It will necessarily be a small group of people. Most men will prefer the safety net of socially sanctioned fake attitudes. Hence the appeal of PUA.

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.

    For some people, being yourself means being quiet and withdrawn. It also means not being interested in drinking, doing drugs, loud parties etc. Some people are also clumsy, bad dancers and have no musical abbility. They also might not be good looking. For all those people, being yourself isnt going to do it, most of the time, so you cant blame them for trying out something else. Not saying that pua or something like that works, cause it mostly doesnt.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Obviously, we are each limited by our natural qualities. However, we both have the most fun and are most appealing to others when we are relaxed, natural, and comfortable with ourselves.

    PUA exacerbates all the issues you mentioned.

    Instead of selling the fantasy that anyone can be appealing as any one else - we should teach self-acceptance, and this way everyone will be as appealing as they can be.
  134. @Audacious Epigone
    As someone who is neither of the alt right (in 2015 and 2016 I was fine with the umbrella term to refer to a host of broad beliefs/positions that grew up around what I'd been writing about for a decade prior, but now the term has become a slur, almost indistinguishable from "racist", "white supremacist", etc) or a believing Christian, I can't speak for either.

    Heartiste is like an assassin who sees that the society he operates in is crumbling to the ground because the people in it have lost their martial prowess. If he instills in that society the means to throw off the poisonous miasma that is oppressing them, assassinating a few more people in the process, where does he stand in the scheme of things? Net-net a hero, I think. And in reality, of course, what he teaches is obviously not on the same moral level as assassination.

    “As someone who is neither of the alt right (in 2015 and 2016 I was fine with the umbrella term to refer to a host of broad beliefs/positions that grew up around what I’d been writing about for a decade prior, but now the term has become a slur, almost indistinguishable from “racist”, “white supremacist”, etc) or a believing Christian, I can’t speak for either.”

    LOL, of course you can speak for both topics. You are simply choosing not to punch to the right. It’s very unbecoming of a man of your status.

    “Heartiste is like an assassin who sees that the society he operates in is crumbling to the ground because the people in it have lost their martial prowess.”

    Heartiste is a degenerate who insists that men get all the trim in the world without any of the responsibility for procuring it. Your tacit support for his decided anti-Christian masculine message, as well as your silence of Z-Man’s desecration of a holy man, puts you in the company of the Smollet’s of the world.

    “If he instills in that society the means to throw off the poisonous miasma that is oppressing them, assassinating a few more people in the process, where does he stand in the scheme of things? Net-net a hero, I think.”

    You wouldn’t think of him as a hero if he was using game on your wife or sister. He’s an aging lothario who is now entertaining a second career in Alt Right buffoonery.

  135. @Rosie

    This is old school and it is just not part of the general practice.
     
    Shaming women is the right thing to do because we've always done it that way. Shaming men is the wrong thing to do because we don't do it that way anymore.

    I cannot speak for all men on the matter of shame. But in the circles of associate with among men — shaming male”bad” behavior is not uncommon. And I would not in the least be troubled that men who “gallivant” around be shamed for doing so.

    “Tomcatting”

    I was thinking of Meat Loaf’s tune in regards to this exchange.

    Old school

    https://genius.com/Meat-loaf-paradise-by-the-dashboard-light-lyrics

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And I would not in the least be troubled that men who “gallivant” around be shamed for doing so.
     
    That has never happened, will never happen, and doesn't need to happen. What certainly does need to happen is the shaming of men who refuse to marry girls they knock up. You balk at that, apparently on the grounds that requiring men to take responsibility absolves a woman of responsibility.
  136. @Rosie

    Any man who won’t take “No” (that’s an actual “no” – not the coy chase me “no”) should be met with
     
    Lol. Self-serving hypocrites can justify construing any no as not an actual no. Here again you refuse to hold men responsible for their actions.

    Uhh, I think I called the matter rape — hardly eschewing the question or holding a double standard.

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.
     
    You just redefine rape as " Male female courtship." This is special pleading as usual. Brute physical force is not the only form of coercion recognized in the law. You keep pretending not to understand that.
  137. @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks. That goes against all the feminist hogwash about women being equally able to negotiate high-stakes situation, etc etc as men, of course, but there is a lot of truth to it.

    You have yet to address that women say

    “no”

    more often than yes.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You have yet to address that women say

    “no”

    more often than yes
     
    I did address it. It is legally as well as morally irrelevant.
  138. @EliteCommInc.
    Uhh, I think I called the matter rape -- hardly eschewing the question or holding a double standard.


    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.

    You just redefine rape as ” Male female courtship.” This is special pleading as usual. Brute physical force is not the only form of coercion recognized in the law. You keep pretending not to understand that.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.
     
    And no, you don't, by the way. You only acknowledge such alleged realities as support your narrative. You certainly do not acknowledge the realities of pressure on modern women to have sex early in a relationship to have any hope of keeping a man interested.
  139. @Rosie

    3. a reminder that coercion is rape.
     
    And now you've given him a reason to kill you.

    You are full of reasons no to say “no” to taking any responsibility.

    Here’s a clue, avoid being or getting in tight spots with men you don’t know. No doubt the extreme rare incidents happen. And they most often occur among people who are in some manner of relationship.

    There are ways to minimize these extreme possibilities. No one can guarantee no such scenario will ever occur. But entering into a dynamic in which “fear” is self motivated before hand isn’t helpful.

    Dating tips from a single guy:

    1. no drinking

    2. no drugs

    3. always let someone know who you are with and where

    4. ensure the date knows that other know in fact,

    5. they should meet said date in person

    6. discuss the nature of the date before hand

    7. avoid scenarios that elicit intimate feelings unless so desired

    8 contrary to popular opinion – dress maters

    9. avoid spaces that don’t provide open and accessible escape routes for the rare — man you so misjudge that turns out to be a killer for no intimacy

    10. take responsibility for your safe keeping regardless of the male

    11. date in groups

    • Replies: @Rosie
    I thought we were trying to avoid contrived, unnatural situations between the sexes. Why not require men to get signed, written consent for sex? That's every bit as practical. It is not possible to date without putting yourself in a man's power at some point. He can use that power to take advantage of a woman, or he can acknowledge that it creates in hima special obligation to ensure that he is not pressuring her.
  140. @EliteCommInc.
    You have yet to address that women say

    "no"

    more often than yes.

    You have yet to address that women say

    “no”

    more often than yes

    I did address it. It is legally as well as morally irrelevant.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Uhhh, That was to the previous discussion that you carried over to this one.


    Your response avoids taking responsibility to your suggestion that women can't say no. It goes directly against the claim that women are powerless in their relations with men.


    At ever churn you press, women as helpless. Most notorious is your constant reference to rape as they though that is some manner of staple dynamic.
  141. @EliteCommInc.
    You are full of reasons no to say "no" to taking any responsibility.

    Here's a clue, avoid being or getting in tight spots with men you don't know. No doubt the extreme rare incidents happen. And they most often occur among people who are in some manner of relationship.

    There are ways to minimize these extreme possibilities. No one can guarantee no such scenario will ever occur. But entering into a dynamic in which "fear" is self motivated before hand isn't helpful.

    Dating tips from a single guy:

    1. no drinking

    2. no drugs

    3. always let someone know who you are with and where

    4. ensure the date knows that other know in fact,

    5. they should meet said date in person

    6. discuss the nature of the date before hand

    7. avoid scenarios that elicit intimate feelings unless so desired

    8 contrary to popular opinion - dress maters

    9. avoid spaces that don't provide open and accessible escape routes for the rare --- man you so misjudge that turns out to be a killer for no intimacy

    10. take responsibility for your safe keeping regardless of the male

    11. date in groups

    I thought we were trying to avoid contrived, unnatural situations between the sexes. Why not require men to get signed, written consent for sex? That’s every bit as practical. It is not possible to date without putting yourself in a man’s power at some point. He can use that power to take advantage of a woman, or he can acknowledge that it creates in hima special obligation to ensure that he is not pressuring her.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing.

    Yo are not going to get me to contend against a man covering his six where women are concerned. I think the best way is to hold out for marriage, but that is an unpopular view.
  142. @Rosie

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.
     
    You just redefine rape as " Male female courtship." This is special pleading as usual. Brute physical force is not the only form of coercion recognized in the law. You keep pretending not to understand that.

    What I acknowledge is the realities of male female courtship, that is a far cry from excusing rape.

    And no, you don’t, by the way. You only acknowledge such alleged realities as support your narrative. You certainly do not acknowledge the realities of pressure on modern women to have sex early in a relationship to have any hope of keeping a man interested.

  143. @EliteCommInc.
    I cannot speak for all men on the matter of shame. But in the circles of associate with among men --- shaming male"bad" behavior is not uncommon. And I would not in the least be troubled that men who "gallivant" around be shamed for doing so.

    "Tomcatting"

    I was thinking of Meat Loaf's tune in regards to this exchange.

    Old school

    https://genius.com/Meat-loaf-paradise-by-the-dashboard-light-lyrics

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C11MzbEcHlw

    And I would not in the least be troubled that men who “gallivant” around be shamed for doing so.

    That has never happened, will never happen, and doesn’t need to happen. What certainly does need to happen is the shaming of men who refuse to marry girls they knock up. You balk at that, apparently on the grounds that requiring men to take responsibility absolves a woman of responsibility.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Hmmmm . . .,


    Many personal crimes go unreported, I suspect. I don't eschew anything. I simply reject the premise that women are pressing for marriage when they do pregnant. I think you are attempting to pivot my position into something else.

    It is about taking responsibility unless a woman has expressed this matter prior to, it's a very peculiar expectation that a man take care of you and child.

    I can tell for a fact that among Catholics and the christian men I have known such behavior is met disappointment expressed in a manner that one might call "shame". The idea there are not men who challenge this behavior because you have not experienced it or seen it . . . does not mean it does not happen. There are plenty of parents, who make no small matter their son involved in getting a women pregnant. That is not the issue I laid out.
  144. Another thing you fail to acknowledge is that premarital sexual encounters that result in pregnancy are particularly likely to have been pressed upon a reluctant woman. If a woman wanted to have sex and intended to have sex, she would have taken precautions against pregnancy. When women do not take such precautions, it’s usually because they weren’t planning on having sex.

  145. Regarding the ridiculous notion that women will not take responsibility for their actions. Rape remains dramatically under reported. Only a fraction of women who believe they have been raped go to the authorities. The reasons for this, I presume, are as follows:

    They believe they cannot prove the rape occurred and do not expect people to believe them just because.

    They believe they have contributed to this situation somehow, and are better off chalking it up to experience and moving on.

    That is taking responsibility.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20111915?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    None of the below supports your comment that women should take responsibility for their choices.
  146. @J1234
    I understand that the gist of the article is mostly about people to the right of "1" on the (se)X axis, but those on the left of the graph are interesting, too. My wife is an academic in a non-grievance study (and mostly apolitical) field that's largely dominated by women. She has often talked about female colleagues - who apparently aren't lesbians - who were never married (or the secular equivalent) due to the demands of their studies, research and careers. My wife's impression is that many are virgins, despite the image they project of being highly educated and liberal. Some pretty lonely people, but I'm wondering if they aren't happier (or less miserable) than if they had been married or in multiple relationships. The ones I've met don't seem very Asperger's-like, but I can't know for sure.

    They don't fit the profile of single lesbians because they are more or less asocial homebodies (when they aren't being workaholics) and not really prone to conspicuous activism, though they may be involved in charities more than most people. Latent homosexuals? Possibly, but I'm guessing mostly not. They're kind of the modern day interpretation of the spinster schoolmarm, and I actually have some degree of empathy for them. One possibility for their life path may be the over-abundance of immature men in the world - the "14 year old boy in the 40 year old body" persona that Hollywood is always trying to foist upon us (and that many men have taken to heart.)

    BTW, it seems that my wife's younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50's.) That's interesting.

    BTW, it seems that my wife’s younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50’s.) That’s interesting.

    Statistics show falling rate of childlessness among the highly educated.

    One can come up with many possible explanations:

    – the expanding crowd of educated women contains proportionally more normies who do normie things and fewer misfits/rebels who don’t,
    – the first generation of “realized childfree” didn’t pass their genes, leaving fewer “potential childfree” personalities in the next generation,
    – skilled immigration from more traditional cultures (the Chinese lady doctor will likely honor her ancestors by having a kid, if only one),
    – popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,
    – motherhood reinvented as an intellectually stimulating hobby (e.g. mommybloggers), not the bathrobe + curlers + soap opera addled brain stereotype that smart girls of yesteryear feared, etc.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    – popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,
     
    Yes!

    And share our nerdy passions with our new little mini-mes. What could be more delightful than that?

    http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/30800000/Twilight-Sparkle-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-30803293-500-569.png
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That's encouraging to see but it's hard to square with the decline in TFR from 1994 to 2014. How does that happen? By a corresponding decrease in the number of people having 3+ children? I don't think degree inflation alone is enough, but maybe it is since we're looking at 40 yos in 1994.
  147. @Toronto Russian

    BTW, it seems that my wife’s younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50’s.) That’s interesting.
     
    Statistics show falling rate of childlessness among the highly educated.
    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/ST_2015-05-07_childlessness-04.png

    One can come up with many possible explanations:

    - the expanding crowd of educated women contains proportionally more normies who do normie things and fewer misfits/rebels who don't,
    - the first generation of "realized childfree" didn't pass their genes, leaving fewer "potential childfree" personalities in the next generation,
    - skilled immigration from more traditional cultures (the Chinese lady doctor will likely honor her ancestors by having a kid, if only one),
    - popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,
    - motherhood reinvented as an intellectually stimulating hobby (e.g. mommybloggers), not the bathrobe + curlers + soap opera addled brain stereotype that smart girls of yesteryear feared, etc.

    – popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,

    Yes!

    And share our nerdy passions with our new little mini-mes. What could be more delightful than that?

  148. @aloisius

    But these things take courage. Being yourself has always and everywhere taken courage, and society tries to get you to conform.
     
    For some people, being yourself means being quiet and withdrawn. It also means not being interested in drinking, doing drugs, loud parties etc. Some people are also clumsy, bad dancers and have no musical abbility. They also might not be good looking. For all those people, being yourself isnt going to do it, most of the time, so you cant blame them for trying out something else. Not saying that pua or something like that works, cause it mostly doesnt.

    Obviously, we are each limited by our natural qualities. However, we both have the most fun and are most appealing to others when we are relaxed, natural, and comfortable with ourselves.

    PUA exacerbates all the issues you mentioned.

    Instead of selling the fantasy that anyone can be appealing as any one else – we should teach self-acceptance, and this way everyone will be as appealing as they can be.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If it's analogized to something like public speaking, it makes a lot more sense. Being a good public speaker ultimately means "being yourself" while speaking in front of large audiences, but for most people that is something that is unattainable without regimented practice.
  149. @Audacious Epigone
    This is hardly my wheelhouse, but ZFG is an aspirational thing for people who are socially uncomfortable and trip all over themselves to point towards. Ultimately, it's "outcome independence" that they're after, which isn't the same thing as not caring about anything. It's about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren't guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.

    It’s about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.

    = being authentic. The opposite of Game.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren’t guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.

    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.

    Society and upbringing can do that to some men, but this is already an artificial state – PUA then exacerbates the problem by reinforcing self-rejection and performance anxiety, just in an inverted way.

    It keeps society’s paradigm just inverts it (don’t be nice be a jerk. But don’t be authentic, and try and impress somehow).

    Yes, slavishly deferring etc is no better than PUA – but why think in such dichotomies? Why go from extreme to extreme?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.
     
    I have never understood this. What are they so nervous about? I have an unconfirmed suspicion that these nervous Nates don't know how to talk to women because they make a decision about whether we are worthwhile as potential dates/mates before they even get to know us. I have also noticed a kind of kiss up, kick down tendency among them. That is, they treat pretty girls essentially like goddesses, and plain girls (who may be more suitable for them), like they are worthless. The upshot is that they don't treat any women like, you know, just normal human beings with a variety of interests and personalities, to be approached as individuals you might be interested in getting to know more about.

    I know I'm being uncharitable, and I'm certainly open to other points of view, but it seems to me that this nervousness is caused by inappropriate assumptions about women that they need to examine in themselves.
  150. @AaronB

    It’s about not caring about whether or not the woman cares about what the man does.
     
    = being authentic. The opposite of Game.

    Most of the men who benefit from Game aren’t guys who were authentically being themselves around women and failing with women despite it, except to the extent that being themselves meant being nervous, stuttering wrecks who try to compensate for their awkwardness by slavishly complimenting and deferring to the women they are around.
     
    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.

    Society and upbringing can do that to some men, but this is already an artificial state - PUA then exacerbates the problem by reinforcing self-rejection and performance anxiety, just in an inverted way.

    It keeps society's paradigm just inverts it (don't be nice be a jerk. But don't be authentic, and try and impress somehow).

    Yes, slavishly deferring etc is no better than PUA - but why think in such dichotomies? Why go from extreme to extreme?

    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.

    I have never understood this. What are they so nervous about? I have an unconfirmed suspicion that these nervous Nates don’t know how to talk to women because they make a decision about whether we are worthwhile as potential dates/mates before they even get to know us. I have also noticed a kind of kiss up, kick down tendency among them. That is, they treat pretty girls essentially like goddesses, and plain girls (who may be more suitable for them), like they are worthless. The upshot is that they don’t treat any women like, you know, just normal human beings with a variety of interests and personalities, to be approached as individuals you might be interested in getting to know more about.

    I know I’m being uncharitable, and I’m certainly open to other points of view, but it seems to me that this nervousness is caused by inappropriate assumptions about women that they need to examine in themselves.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, the nervousness is a version of performance anxiety. I think its natural to want to make a good impression on someone you like, admire, or who you depend on for something. It's not essentially different than being nervous in a job interview or when seeking acceptance from cool members of the same sex.

    To be fair, it's quite common for women to be nervous around men they are very attracted to, from what I gather.

    It comes from a feeling that you wish to create a good impression but do not measure up.

    Its basic performance anxiety, nothing mysterious.

    If you were told to drive a car or got an airplane but were uncertain of your ability to, it'd be the same kind of performance anxiety, essentially.

    When it comes to social relations, the situation is more stressful because people often base their self-worth on their ability to be liked by others, especially admired people. So one can feel that's one basic value is on the line, leading to intense performance anxiety.

    The solution of course is to accept yourself and thus the possibility that you will not be liked. This isn't a tragedy. Its a normal part of life. But it requires rare independence - which is why naturals are rare.

    The sort of guy who sucks up to pretty girls and is mean to plain girls is the same kind of person who sucks up to bosses and is mean to people lower down. It's a common social type, if contemptible.

    Yes, if we raised self-respecting men with a sense of self-worth they would not see talking to women as a performance, a skill, or an ability, and as you say, would not relate to women in terms of how they prop up their self-worth, but as normal human beings who they enjoyed interacting with - or not - based on their natural human compatibility.

    So I think mens attitudes both towards themselves and women need to change - they have to accept themselves, and they have to see women not as arbiters of their value but as candidates for human relationships based on compatibility (physical as well as psychological). Free of performance anxiety, because you are not looking for social props, or to validate your self-worth, but natural friendship and intimacy with another human being, the process is fun.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value - it is a Trojan Horse. It gets past the gates by pretending to help - but spreads incredible harm.

    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self - if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value - and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    PUAS of course openly admit women are arbiters of their value and defend this philosophically and morally. This merely goes to show what sorts of people they innately are. Which is why PUAs are rarely reasoned out of their folly, because what they lack is character, not intelligence. (Although their systems are typically contradictory and incoherent enough).

    Apologies for long winded reply.
  151. @Rosie

    Men who are nervous wrecks around women suffer from performance anxiety and have not learned to relax and accept themselves.
     
    I have never understood this. What are they so nervous about? I have an unconfirmed suspicion that these nervous Nates don't know how to talk to women because they make a decision about whether we are worthwhile as potential dates/mates before they even get to know us. I have also noticed a kind of kiss up, kick down tendency among them. That is, they treat pretty girls essentially like goddesses, and plain girls (who may be more suitable for them), like they are worthless. The upshot is that they don't treat any women like, you know, just normal human beings with a variety of interests and personalities, to be approached as individuals you might be interested in getting to know more about.

    I know I'm being uncharitable, and I'm certainly open to other points of view, but it seems to me that this nervousness is caused by inappropriate assumptions about women that they need to examine in themselves.

    Well, the nervousness is a version of performance anxiety. I think its natural to want to make a good impression on someone you like, admire, or who you depend on for something. It’s not essentially different than being nervous in a job interview or when seeking acceptance from cool members of the same sex.

    To be fair, it’s quite common for women to be nervous around men they are very attracted to, from what I gather.

    It comes from a feeling that you wish to create a good impression but do not measure up.

    Its basic performance anxiety, nothing mysterious.

    If you were told to drive a car or got an airplane but were uncertain of your ability to, it’d be the same kind of performance anxiety, essentially.

    When it comes to social relations, the situation is more stressful because people often base their self-worth on their ability to be liked by others, especially admired people. So one can feel that’s one basic value is on the line, leading to intense performance anxiety.

    The solution of course is to accept yourself and thus the possibility that you will not be liked. This isn’t a tragedy. Its a normal part of life. But it requires rare independence – which is why naturals are rare.

    The sort of guy who sucks up to pretty girls and is mean to plain girls is the same kind of person who sucks up to bosses and is mean to people lower down. It’s a common social type, if contemptible.

    Yes, if we raised self-respecting men with a sense of self-worth they would not see talking to women as a performance, a skill, or an ability, and as you say, would not relate to women in terms of how they prop up their self-worth, but as normal human beings who they enjoyed interacting with – or not – based on their natural human compatibility.

    So I think mens attitudes both towards themselves and women need to change – they have to accept themselves, and they have to see women not as arbiters of their value but as candidates for human relationships based on compatibility (physical as well as psychological). Free of performance anxiety, because you are not looking for social props, or to validate your self-worth, but natural friendship and intimacy with another human being, the process is fun.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value – it is a Trojan Horse. It gets past the gates by pretending to help – but spreads incredible harm.

    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self – if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value – and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    PUAS of course openly admit women are arbiters of their value and defend this philosophically and morally. This merely goes to show what sorts of people they innately are. Which is why PUAs are rarely reasoned out of their folly, because what they lack is character, not intelligence. (Although their systems are typically contradictory and incoherent enough).

    Apologies for long winded reply.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Apologies for long winded reply.
     
    Not at all. I have always appreciated your thoughtfulness.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value...
     
    Yes! And that may be precisely the spiritual deficit I see in them, a tendency not to see the inherent worth of human beings, men or women. Women are not arbiters of men's value, nor are men arbiters of women's value.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self – if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value – and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    Playing Heartiste's advocate here, this can be inverted--men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.
  152. @Rosie

    And I would not in the least be troubled that men who “gallivant” around be shamed for doing so.
     
    That has never happened, will never happen, and doesn't need to happen. What certainly does need to happen is the shaming of men who refuse to marry girls they knock up. You balk at that, apparently on the grounds that requiring men to take responsibility absolves a woman of responsibility.

    Hmmmm . . .,

    Many personal crimes go unreported, I suspect. I don’t eschew anything. I simply reject the premise that women are pressing for marriage when they do pregnant. I think you are attempting to pivot my position into something else.

    It is about taking responsibility unless a woman has expressed this matter prior to, it’s a very peculiar expectation that a man take care of you and child.

    I can tell for a fact that among Catholics and the christian men I have known such behavior is met disappointment expressed in a manner that one might call “shame”. The idea there are not men who challenge this behavior because you have not experienced it or seen it . . . does not mean it does not happen. There are plenty of parents, who make no small matter their son involved in getting a women pregnant. That is not the issue I laid out.

  153. @Rosie
    I thought we were trying to avoid contrived, unnatural situations between the sexes. Why not require men to get signed, written consent for sex? That's every bit as practical. It is not possible to date without putting yourself in a man's power at some point. He can use that power to take advantage of a woman, or he can acknowledge that it creates in hima special obligation to ensure that he is not pressuring her.

    Laughing.

    Yo are not going to get me to contend against a man covering his six where women are concerned. I think the best way is to hold out for marriage, but that is an unpopular view.

  154. @Rosie
    Regarding the ridiculous notion that women will not take responsibility for their actions. Rape remains dramatically under reported. Only a fraction of women who believe they have been raped go to the authorities. The reasons for this, I presume, are as follows:

    They believe they cannot prove the rape occurred and do not expect people to believe them just because.

    They believe they have contributed to this situation somehow, and are better off chalking it up to experience and moving on.

    That is taking responsibility.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20111915?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    None of the below supports your comment that women should take responsibility for their choices.

  155. @Rosie

    You have yet to address that women say

    “no”

    more often than yes
     
    I did address it. It is legally as well as morally irrelevant.

    Uhhh, That was to the previous discussion that you carried over to this one.

    Your response avoids taking responsibility to your suggestion that women can’t say no. It goes directly against the claim that women are powerless in their relations with men.

    At ever churn you press, women as helpless. Most notorious is your constant reference to rape as they though that is some manner of staple dynamic.

  156. @AaronB
    Well, the nervousness is a version of performance anxiety. I think its natural to want to make a good impression on someone you like, admire, or who you depend on for something. It's not essentially different than being nervous in a job interview or when seeking acceptance from cool members of the same sex.

    To be fair, it's quite common for women to be nervous around men they are very attracted to, from what I gather.

    It comes from a feeling that you wish to create a good impression but do not measure up.

    Its basic performance anxiety, nothing mysterious.

    If you were told to drive a car or got an airplane but were uncertain of your ability to, it'd be the same kind of performance anxiety, essentially.

    When it comes to social relations, the situation is more stressful because people often base their self-worth on their ability to be liked by others, especially admired people. So one can feel that's one basic value is on the line, leading to intense performance anxiety.

    The solution of course is to accept yourself and thus the possibility that you will not be liked. This isn't a tragedy. Its a normal part of life. But it requires rare independence - which is why naturals are rare.

    The sort of guy who sucks up to pretty girls and is mean to plain girls is the same kind of person who sucks up to bosses and is mean to people lower down. It's a common social type, if contemptible.

    Yes, if we raised self-respecting men with a sense of self-worth they would not see talking to women as a performance, a skill, or an ability, and as you say, would not relate to women in terms of how they prop up their self-worth, but as normal human beings who they enjoyed interacting with - or not - based on their natural human compatibility.

    So I think mens attitudes both towards themselves and women need to change - they have to accept themselves, and they have to see women not as arbiters of their value but as candidates for human relationships based on compatibility (physical as well as psychological). Free of performance anxiety, because you are not looking for social props, or to validate your self-worth, but natural friendship and intimacy with another human being, the process is fun.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value - it is a Trojan Horse. It gets past the gates by pretending to help - but spreads incredible harm.

    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self - if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value - and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    PUAS of course openly admit women are arbiters of their value and defend this philosophically and morally. This merely goes to show what sorts of people they innately are. Which is why PUAs are rarely reasoned out of their folly, because what they lack is character, not intelligence. (Although their systems are typically contradictory and incoherent enough).

    Apologies for long winded reply.

    Apologies for long winded reply.

    Not at all. I have always appreciated your thoughtfulness.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value…

    Yes! And that may be precisely the spiritual deficit I see in them, a tendency not to see the inherent worth of human beings, men or women. Women are not arbiters of men’s value, nor are men arbiters of women’s value.

    • Agree: AaronB
  157. I would advance that men and women are in fact mutual arbiters of the values they intend to engage during the dating/courtship process and upon getting married that matter becomes more involved and intense in ownership by both husband and wife and extends to the process of child rearing.

    deciding what is and is not acceptable in values and behavior is certainly part of male female dynamics — even to what is best for the other party in relation to each other – imposing acceptable norms is part of the process.

  158. @Toronto Russian

    BTW, it seems that my wife’s younger female colleagues are less likely to be unmarried than those her age (mid to late 50’s.) That’s interesting.
     
    Statistics show falling rate of childlessness among the highly educated.
    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/ST_2015-05-07_childlessness-04.png

    One can come up with many possible explanations:

    - the expanding crowd of educated women contains proportionally more normies who do normie things and fewer misfits/rebels who don't,
    - the first generation of "realized childfree" didn't pass their genes, leaving fewer "potential childfree" personalities in the next generation,
    - skilled immigration from more traditional cultures (the Chinese lady doctor will likely honor her ancestors by having a kid, if only one),
    - popularization of nerd culture and nerd girls, who are able to marry well and take the time out to have kids,
    - motherhood reinvented as an intellectually stimulating hobby (e.g. mommybloggers), not the bathrobe + curlers + soap opera addled brain stereotype that smart girls of yesteryear feared, etc.

    That’s encouraging to see but it’s hard to square with the decline in TFR from 1994 to 2014. How does that happen? By a corresponding decrease in the number of people having 3+ children? I don’t think degree inflation alone is enough, but maybe it is since we’re looking at 40 yos in 1994.

  159. @AaronB
    Obviously, we are each limited by our natural qualities. However, we both have the most fun and are most appealing to others when we are relaxed, natural, and comfortable with ourselves.

    PUA exacerbates all the issues you mentioned.

    Instead of selling the fantasy that anyone can be appealing as any one else - we should teach self-acceptance, and this way everyone will be as appealing as they can be.

    If it’s analogized to something like public speaking, it makes a lot more sense. Being a good public speaker ultimately means “being yourself” while speaking in front of large audiences, but for most people that is something that is unattainable without regimented practice.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Of course - talking to lots of women and exposure to them is a part of becoming comfortable around them.

    Social comfort always comes from exposure to social situations over time.

    This isn't regimented practice, though.

    And the process can be assisted by adoption of a healthy philosophy - one of self acceptance, being oneself, being natural. PUA encourage a opposite attitudes - making the problem it attempts to cure worse.
  160. @AaronB
    Well, the nervousness is a version of performance anxiety. I think its natural to want to make a good impression on someone you like, admire, or who you depend on for something. It's not essentially different than being nervous in a job interview or when seeking acceptance from cool members of the same sex.

    To be fair, it's quite common for women to be nervous around men they are very attracted to, from what I gather.

    It comes from a feeling that you wish to create a good impression but do not measure up.

    Its basic performance anxiety, nothing mysterious.

    If you were told to drive a car or got an airplane but were uncertain of your ability to, it'd be the same kind of performance anxiety, essentially.

    When it comes to social relations, the situation is more stressful because people often base their self-worth on their ability to be liked by others, especially admired people. So one can feel that's one basic value is on the line, leading to intense performance anxiety.

    The solution of course is to accept yourself and thus the possibility that you will not be liked. This isn't a tragedy. Its a normal part of life. But it requires rare independence - which is why naturals are rare.

    The sort of guy who sucks up to pretty girls and is mean to plain girls is the same kind of person who sucks up to bosses and is mean to people lower down. It's a common social type, if contemptible.

    Yes, if we raised self-respecting men with a sense of self-worth they would not see talking to women as a performance, a skill, or an ability, and as you say, would not relate to women in terms of how they prop up their self-worth, but as normal human beings who they enjoyed interacting with - or not - based on their natural human compatibility.

    So I think mens attitudes both towards themselves and women need to change - they have to accept themselves, and they have to see women not as arbiters of their value but as candidates for human relationships based on compatibility (physical as well as psychological). Free of performance anxiety, because you are not looking for social props, or to validate your self-worth, but natural friendship and intimacy with another human being, the process is fun.

    One of the reasons I oppose PUA so strongly is because it perpetuates the notion that women are arbiters of mens value - it is a Trojan Horse. It gets past the gates by pretending to help - but spreads incredible harm.

    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self - if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value - and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    PUAS of course openly admit women are arbiters of their value and defend this philosophically and morally. This merely goes to show what sorts of people they innately are. Which is why PUAs are rarely reasoned out of their folly, because what they lack is character, not intelligence. (Although their systems are typically contradictory and incoherent enough).

    Apologies for long winded reply.

    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self – if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value – and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    Playing Heartiste’s advocate here, this can be inverted–men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    Playing Heartiste’s advocate here, this can be inverted–men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.
     
    Yes, most people are deficient in character and independence.

    PUA both reflects this problem and makes it worse.

    I am merely describing what is conducive to mental health and satisfying relationships with women. And also what state of mind results in being most socially appealing - authenticity.

    But as society is now constituted, practices that lead to mental health and social effectiveness are unlikely to be widely adopted, and instead ineffective/harmful practices that are deeply rooted in dysfunction will be preferred by the masses.

    Unfortunate, but I'm well aware of this.
  161. @Audacious Epigone
    But mens attitude towards women is closely related to his attitude towards his self – if he has little independent self-worth, he will see women primarily as arbiters of his value – and be unable to relate to them in a normal, healthy fashion, or appreciate them for what they are, or enjoy genuine companionship with them.

    Playing Heartiste's advocate here, this can be inverted--men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.

    Playing Heartiste’s advocate here, this can be inverted–men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.

    Yes, most people are deficient in character and independence.

    PUA both reflects this problem and makes it worse.

    I am merely describing what is conducive to mental health and satisfying relationships with women. And also what state of mind results in being most socially appealing – authenticity.

    But as society is now constituted, practices that lead to mental health and social effectiveness are unlikely to be widely adopted, and instead ineffective/harmful practices that are deeply rooted in dysfunction will be preferred by the masses.

    Unfortunate, but I’m well aware of this.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    I don't think you quite understand where the PUA types are coming from. I agree under normal conditions you should be yourself when trying to appeal to women. I have a tendency to be a protector/provider type. Normally I would look for women who like that type and ignore women who don't like that type. What happens, though, if you have a large welfare state that provides for women and then they no longer look for that type of guy? Many PUA types argue that many men are following an old script that no longer works. Society has changed, women have changed, so men need to change too. Now, I don't think their suggestion would work for me. As the old saying goes, a leopard can't change his spots. I can see, though, why they are saying what they do. As an old fashioned kind of guy, I try to be myself. I think there are still women who want guys like me but the search costs of finding those women have increased. A degenerate culture has led to larger numbers of degenerate people, both men and women. You can still find good members of the opposite sex but you have to go through more people now to find them. Some guys aren't willing to go through that extra work like I am. The PUA philosophy appeals to them because they think they can appeal to the average modern day female with various tricks and forms of psychological manipulation.
  162. @Audacious Epigone
    If it's analogized to something like public speaking, it makes a lot more sense. Being a good public speaker ultimately means "being yourself" while speaking in front of large audiences, but for most people that is something that is unattainable without regimented practice.

    Of course – talking to lots of women and exposure to them is a part of becoming comfortable around them.

    Social comfort always comes from exposure to social situations over time.

    This isn’t regimented practice, though.

    And the process can be assisted by adoption of a healthy philosophy – one of self acceptance, being oneself, being natural. PUA encourage a opposite attitudes – making the problem it attempts to cure worse.

  163. @AaronB

    Playing Heartiste’s advocate here, this can be inverted–men who have little self worth can gain a sense of self worth by being sexually successful. Not everyone is capable of intrinsic motivations or internal signals.
     
    Yes, most people are deficient in character and independence.

    PUA both reflects this problem and makes it worse.

    I am merely describing what is conducive to mental health and satisfying relationships with women. And also what state of mind results in being most socially appealing - authenticity.

    But as society is now constituted, practices that lead to mental health and social effectiveness are unlikely to be widely adopted, and instead ineffective/harmful practices that are deeply rooted in dysfunction will be preferred by the masses.

    Unfortunate, but I'm well aware of this.

    I don’t think you quite understand where the PUA types are coming from. I agree under normal conditions you should be yourself when trying to appeal to women. I have a tendency to be a protector/provider type. Normally I would look for women who like that type and ignore women who don’t like that type. What happens, though, if you have a large welfare state that provides for women and then they no longer look for that type of guy? Many PUA types argue that many men are following an old script that no longer works. Society has changed, women have changed, so men need to change too. Now, I don’t think their suggestion would work for me. As the old saying goes, a leopard can’t change his spots. I can see, though, why they are saying what they do. As an old fashioned kind of guy, I try to be myself. I think there are still women who want guys like me but the search costs of finding those women have increased. A degenerate culture has led to larger numbers of degenerate people, both men and women. You can still find good members of the opposite sex but you have to go through more people now to find them. Some guys aren’t willing to go through that extra work like I am. The PUA philosophy appeals to them because they think they can appeal to the average modern day female with various tricks and forms of psychological manipulation.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I understand their analysis. Its just wrong.

    Their diagnosis of modern women is wrong and their description of female and male psychology is wrong.

    Their psychology of humans is so wrong because it is derived entirely from two primary influences 1) technology and systems effectiveness 2) animal behavior

    Now, there is no doubt humans share traits with animals and that humans also think in terms of technology and effectiveness, but humans are also much more complex.

    For instance they will say things like every woman will try and maximize her options and coldly leave any man for a better one. This is a view derived from systems effectiveness where optimization is central, and from an extremely basic and stripped down understanding of animal behavior.

    Its nonsense.

    But I actually believe that you have missed my point.

    The most socially effective strategy is to be relaxed and natural. That is in fact how to optimize your chances with women or anyone. It is a sign of strength and maturity. Further, the key problem most men have with women is low self confidence. PUA lowers self confidence because it reaches men not to accept themselves.

    So even within the flawed framework of PUA psychology they are selling terrible and counterproductive strategies both insofar as it impacts male psychology and as it impacts social effectiveness.
  164. @Mark G.
    I don't think you quite understand where the PUA types are coming from. I agree under normal conditions you should be yourself when trying to appeal to women. I have a tendency to be a protector/provider type. Normally I would look for women who like that type and ignore women who don't like that type. What happens, though, if you have a large welfare state that provides for women and then they no longer look for that type of guy? Many PUA types argue that many men are following an old script that no longer works. Society has changed, women have changed, so men need to change too. Now, I don't think their suggestion would work for me. As the old saying goes, a leopard can't change his spots. I can see, though, why they are saying what they do. As an old fashioned kind of guy, I try to be myself. I think there are still women who want guys like me but the search costs of finding those women have increased. A degenerate culture has led to larger numbers of degenerate people, both men and women. You can still find good members of the opposite sex but you have to go through more people now to find them. Some guys aren't willing to go through that extra work like I am. The PUA philosophy appeals to them because they think they can appeal to the average modern day female with various tricks and forms of psychological manipulation.

    I understand their analysis. Its just wrong.

    Their diagnosis of modern women is wrong and their description of female and male psychology is wrong.

    Their psychology of humans is so wrong because it is derived entirely from two primary influences 1) technology and systems effectiveness 2) animal behavior

    Now, there is no doubt humans share traits with animals and that humans also think in terms of technology and effectiveness, but humans are also much more complex.

    For instance they will say things like every woman will try and maximize her options and coldly leave any man for a better one. This is a view derived from systems effectiveness where optimization is central, and from an extremely basic and stripped down understanding of animal behavior.

    Its nonsense.

    But I actually believe that you have missed my point.

    The most socially effective strategy is to be relaxed and natural. That is in fact how to optimize your chances with women or anyone. It is a sign of strength and maturity. Further, the key problem most men have with women is low self confidence. PUA lowers self confidence because it reaches men not to accept themselves.

    So even within the flawed framework of PUA psychology they are selling terrible and counterproductive strategies both insofar as it impacts male psychology and as it impacts social effectiveness.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS